What does it mean to say that the US constitution is inspired?

[askandanswer]

This line, by UT starscoper in the thread about physician assisted suicide prompted me to search for some musings I wrote for myself about the US constitution a year or so ago.

"LDS theology pretty much holds that the the form of government we enjoy here in the U.S. is inspired, of course."

I’ve often seen this statement, or ones like it, made in many other places and posts, but I’m wondering how carefully people have thought through what it might actually mean when we say that the US constitution was inspired. For example, I am fully confident that the Book of Revelations, as given by God to John, was inspired. I am not as confident that the Book of Revelations, as contained in the Bible, is a complete and accurate representation of the inspiration that God gave. It would seem that in some cases, there is at least a prima facie reason to believe that the written document containing, or based on, or resulting from, or related to, (whichever is the case) the inspiration that was received is a not a complete, truthful, accurate, faultless record of the inspiration that was received. Anyway, here are the musings I wrote to myself a while ago.I'm interested to hear what you think about this.

 

1. It is not clear how specific was the inspiration/revelation that led to the creation of the US constitution. The inspiration might have been something as general as a prompting that the constitution should allow men the means to protect themselves. Or it might have been something like the process by which the revelations that make up the Doctrine and Covenants were received – almost like direct word for word dictation from the Lord to the Prophet to the page. Or it could have been nothing more than a vague prompting to follow the ideas expressed by John Stuart Mill, Burke, Locke, and others.

 

2. Perhaps the end/written product is not an accurate reflection of the revelation that was given. We know that the Book of Mormon, referred to by Joseph Smith as the most correct book on earth, was translated by inspiration, but the finished, written product contained hundreds, maybe even thousands of errors that were not corrected for more than 150 years. Notwithstanding this multitude or errors, dozens, perhaps hundreds of prophets and apostles during that time continued to testify as to its truthfulness and divine origins. It may be that something similar happened with the writing of the US constitution. The inspiration was correct but perhaps there were errors in how it was expressed. This might have occurred because, as far as we know, the receivers of the revelation were not well experienced in receiving revelation. None of them held the Priesthood, and perhaps none of them had received a revelation before. This inexperience increases the possibilities or errors occurring.

 

3. The framers of the US constitution may have received revelation and inspiration as they worked on writing the constitution but they might have chosen to ignore, or not follow the revelation, or “interpret” the inspiration they received. When the Lord was engaged in setting up His spiritual kingdom on earth – the church – we know that there were at least two occasions when Joseph Smith ignored or did not follow the revelation he received: once when he tried to get the gold plates prematurely, despite being warned by Moroni not to do this, and later, when he gave 116 pages of translated manuscript to Martin Harris. Some also speculate that Joseph Smith declined for some years to act on the revelation allowing plural marriage. If a Priesthood-holding prophet with prior experience of receiving revelation can still ignore or not follow revelation, it is more likely that men who are not prophets and have no prior experience with revelation, might choose to ignore or disregard revelation that they do not agree with.

 

4. Just as the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth took many men many years, the establishment of the United States of America, and the writing of the US constitution took many men some time. Many of those men may have been good, righteous men capable of receiving revelation at the beginning of the process, just as Sidney Rigdon and James Strang were in the beginning days of the church. In their early days, these good men may have been inspired and contributed much of value to the processes they were involved in. However, just as Rigdon and Strang and others left the church and later worked against it, by the time it came to actually writing the final draft of the constitution, some of these previously good men might not have been as good as they once were. As happened with the establishment of the church, men who were once good and instrumental in the process might later have become bad and added their own damaging ideas. At one point there words were inspired, at another point they were not. The end result is that they may have diluted or distorted the final writing up of the US constitution because at the time of final writing, they were no longer the good men they once were. This could lead to a situation where some parts of the constitution may have been the added interpolation of men in the same way as blacks were prohibited from holding the Priesthood – a practice seemingly not inspired or doctrinal and something that may have seemed wrong but which the Lord allowed to continue.

What do you think?

[Guest]

I'm aware of the folklore connected with this topic. I personally haven't imagined that "inspired" means revealed as in Joseph Smith's first vision. I'm comfortable believing that God has inspired many men and women through the centuries and that civilization's evolution (or devolution if you will) at various times is proportional to the attention societies give to the light and knowledge they possess. I think that over the years the LDS Church has pretty much given credit (for being inspired) to many figures even when those individuals might not have been in position where they would have reciprocated directly toward the LDS Church per se. I like to think it has to do with the fact that we are all here on Earth feeling our way forward sometimes blindly and sometimes seeing as through a glass darkly with periodic glimpses according to our abilities.

[Guest]

First, here are the scriptures.

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 101:77

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;

Doctrine and Covenants 101:80

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.

Doctrine and Covenants 109:54

54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

D&C 98:5-6
 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land

This is not just folklore.  It is scripture.  The Lord established the Constitution of this land.  Many of the so-called problems that come up are in the application rather than the substance of the Constitution.  We should expect the Constitution to be established forever.  I would only dissent to some wording that may or may not be attributed to our change in language.  But I would say it is as accurate as the differences between the accounts in the four gospels.

People tend to want to decrease the importance of the Constitution saying "well, the inspired portion is about letting democracy work."  No, you don't need a constitution for that.  The details of the mechanisms, the checks and balances, the representation, the rights, duties, power, etc. of the people, the states, the federal government in each of their branches are also detailed out in a very important way.

All of the important things that have gone wrong with government have started with our ancestors forgetting the details and simply focusing on democracy.

Quote

The constitution of the United States is a glorious standard. It is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun. We say that God is true; that the constitution of the United States is true; that the Bible is true; that the Book of Mormon is true; that the Book of Covenants is true; that Christ is true; that the ministering angels sent forth from God are true, and that we know that we have an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, whose builder and maker is God.

 Teachings of Joseph Smith, pp. 147-148

I know of no plainer way that he could have said "The Constitution of the United States as originally set forth with the Bill of Rights is scripture.  And we ought to take it as such."  He even went on to say that any elected official who fails in his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment because it is treason to fail in that oath.

Quote

...we honor more than those who brought forth the Constitution. We honor the Lord who revealed it. God Himself has borne witness to the fact that He is pleased with the final product of the work of these great patriots.

...

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that the God of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has sent other choice spirits—even you who read my words—to preserve it. 

 Ezra Taft Benson, “The Miraculous Constitution,” Friend, Sep 1987, inside front cover.

In spite of all this, we must also admit that, just as the Law of Moses has dated items that were acceptable "for their time", there are also items in the Consitution that were acceptable for their time, but are no longer acceptable.

Quote

Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. As President J. Reuben Clark said, we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention achieved the required balance between popular sovereignty and stability through a power of amendment that was ultimately available but deliberately slow. Only in this way could the government have the certainty of stability, the protection of minority rights, and the potential of change, all at the same time. 

Dallin H. Oaks, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, Feb 1992, 68. 

But that is what amendments are for.  If we do say we believe it to be revealed/scripture, we must also believe in the approved method of changing it.  In canonized scripture, the method of change is through his appointed servants the prophets.  In earthly government, the approved method is through the amendment process outlined in Article V.

It is far too easy to interpret away anything we choose.

[Blackmarch]

On 10/25/2016 at 11:53 AM, askandanswer said:

This line, by UT starscoper in the thread about physician assisted suicide prompted me to search for some musings I wrote for myself about the US constitution a year or so ago.

 

"LDS theology pretty much holds that the the form of government we enjoy here in the U.S. is inspired, of course."

 

I’ve often seen this statement, or ones like it, made in many other places and posts, but I’m wondering how carefully people have thought through what it might actually mean when we say that the US constitution was inspired. For example, I am fully confident that the Book of Revelations, as given by God to John, was inspired. I am not as confident that the Book of Revelations, as contained in the Bible, is a complete and accurate representation of the inspiration that God gave. It would seem that in some cases, there is at least a prima facie reason to believe that the written document containing, or based on, or resulting from, or related to, (whichever is the case) the inspiration that was received is a not a complete, truthful, accurate, faultless record of the inspiration that was received. Anyway, here are the musings I wrote to myself a while ago.I'm interested to hear what you think about this.

 

 

1. It is not clear how specific was the inspiration/revelation that led to the creation of the US constitution. The inspiration might have been something as general as a prompting that the constitution should allow men the means to protect themselves. Or it might have been something like the process by which the revelations that make up the Doctrine and Covenants were received – almost like direct word for word dictation from the Lord to the Prophet to the page. Or it could have been nothing more than a vague prompting to follow the ideas expressed by John Stuart Mill, Burke, Locke, and others.

 

 

 

2. Perhaps the end/written product is not an accurate reflection of the revelation that was given. We know that the Book of Mormon, referred to by Joseph Smith as the most correct book on earth, was translated by inspiration, but the finished, written product contained hundreds, maybe even thousands of errors that were not corrected for more than 150 years. Notwithstanding this multitude or errors, dozens, perhaps hundreds of prophets and apostles during that time continued to testify as to its truthfulness and divine origins. It may be that something similar happened with the writing of the US constitution. The inspiration was correct but perhaps there were errors in how it was expressed. This might have occurred because, as far as we know, the receivers of the revelation were not well experienced in receiving revelation. None of them held the Priesthood, and perhaps none of them had received a revelation before. This inexperience increases the possibilities or errors occurring.

 

 

 

3. The framers of the US constitution may have received revelation and inspiration as they worked on writing the constitution but they might have chosen to ignore, or not follow the revelation, or “interpret” the inspiration they received. When the Lord was engaged in setting up His spiritual kingdom on earth – the church – we know that there were at least two occasions when Joseph Smith ignored or did not follow the revelation he received: once when he tried to get the gold plates prematurely, despite being warned by Moroni not to do this, and later, when he gave 116 pages of translated manuscript to Martin Harris. Some also speculate that Joseph Smith declined for some years to act on the revelation allowing plural marriage. If a Priesthood-holding prophet with prior experience of receiving revelation can still ignore or not follow revelation, it is more likely that men who are not prophets and have no prior experience with revelation, might choose to ignore or disregard revelation that they do not agree with.

 

 

 

4. Just as the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth took many men many years, the establishment of the United States of America, and the writing of the US constitution took many men some time. Many of those men may have been good, righteous men capable of receiving revelation at the beginning of the process, just as Sidney Rigdon and James Strang were in the beginning days of the church. In their early days, these good men may have been inspired and contributed much of value to the processes they were involved in. However, just as Rigdon and Strang and others left the church and later worked against it, by the time it came to actually writing the final draft of the constitution, some of these previously good men might not have been as good as they once were. As happened with the establishment of the church, men who were once good and instrumental in the process might later have become bad and added their own damaging ideas. At one point there words were inspired, at another point they were not. The end result is that they may have diluted or distorted the final writing up of the US constitution because at the time of final writing, they were no longer the good men they once were. This could lead to a situation where some parts of the constitution may have been the added interpolation of men in the same way as blacks were prohibited from holding the Priesthood – a practice seemingly not inspired or doctrinal and something that may have seemed wrong but which the Lord allowed to continue.

 

What do you think?

inspired as in the Spirit of God was striving hard to get the founders to create something that would be of benefit to mankind. Considering all the miracles that took place around many of the founders I'd say that is a fairly decent conclusion.

[askandanswer]

On 10/26/2016 at 11:57 PM, Carborendum said:

First, here are the scriptures.

This is not just folklore.  It is scripture.  The Lord established the Constitution of this land.  Many of the so-called problems that come up are in the application rather than the substance of the Constitution.  We should expect the Constitution to be established forever.  I would only dissent to some wording that may or may not be attributed to our change in language.  But I would say it is as accurate as the differences between the accounts in the four gospels.

People tend to want to decrease the importance of the Constitution saying "well, the inspired portion is about letting democracy work."  No, you don't need a constitution for that.  The details of the mechanisms, the checks and balances, the representation, the rights, duties, power, etc. of the people, the states, the federal government in each of their branches are also detailed out in a very important way.

All of the important things that have gone wrong with government have started with our ancestors forgetting the details and simply focusing on democracy.

I know of no plainer way that he could have said "The Constitution of the United States as originally set forth with the Bill of Rights is scripture.  And we ought to take it as such."  He even went on to say that any elected official who fails in his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment because it is treason to fail in that oath.

In spite of all this, we must also admit that, just as the Law of Moses has dated items that were acceptable "for their time", there are also items in the Consitution that were acceptable for their time, but are no longer acceptable.

But that is what amendments are for.  If we do say we believe it to be revealed/scripture, we must also believe in the approved method of changing it.  In canonized scripture, the method of change is through his appointed servants the prophets.  In earthly government, the approved method is through the amendment process outlined in Article V.

It is far too easy to interpret away anything we choose.

I certainly agree that the US constitution was inspired, I have no doubts about that question. My question is more to do with how well the end product reflects the inspiration that was given. Inspiration comes in many different ways and in widely varying degrees of detail and specificity. I’m not sure if any of us really know how detailed or specific was the inspiration that led to the US constitution. Additionally, as evidenced by hundreds or even thousands of corrections that were made to the Book of Mormon more than 150 years after it was first published, even the most inspired written products might not always correctly convey the original inspiration. And as indicated by Elder Oaks, its hard to see how any document that was a result of compromise amongst many men of varying opinions and beliefs can be said to be a true reflection of divine inspiration. It almost sounds like perhaps someone was inspired about a certain Article and then presented the idea to the rest of the writers, and they then argued and discussed and compromised about what to do with the idea. President Benson likened the constitution to scripture, but we all know what has happened to the Bible over the last thousand or so years, and how poorly it now reflects the prophetic teachings it purports to record.

[james12]

The constitution is not perfect, much less infallible. Some changes have been made over time which are necessary. One example that comes to mind is the Three-Fifths clause which says: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Does anyone feel that it was wise to count slaves as three-fifths of a person? 

So what part(s) are inspired? Elder Marion G. Romney commented on this in a talk. He quoted part of D&C 98. Note his personal comments on this section:

Quote

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency]; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil" (D&C 98:4-10).

These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that "according to just and holy principles," the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that, "as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free. (General Conference April 1966)

In so much as the constitution preserves freedom it is an inspired document. In preserving our freedom the constitution sets out important principles regarding separation of powers between different segments of the federal government, and also between the federal government and the states. However, over time the constitution and it's principles of freedom have been twisted until I think it is indeed fair to say that these principles, as defined by the founding generation, hang by a thread. The constitution is regularly disregarded by our leaders and we the people do not hold them accountable. How I wish that we had maintained the freedom that was once ours as given in this great document. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 11/6/2016 at 10:05 AM, james12 said:

The constitution is not perfect, much less infallible. Some changes have been made over time which are necessary. One example that comes to mind is the Three-Fifths clause which says: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Does anyone feel that it was wise to count slaves as three-fifths of a person?

(Raises hand, hesitantly.)

I think there's a difference between policies that are wrong-headed from the start, versus policies that outlive their usefulness at some future date.  The 3/5 compromise, to me, is a good example of the latter.  As an abstract and absolute statement on the value of human life--obviously it was horrendously flawed.  But without it, abolition may have never happened at all.  It would have been a relatively easy thing for Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia to form their own slaveholding federation quite independently of the "United States" in 1787.  As a means to the end of binding the slave colonies to the free colonies and create an environment where abolition would be socially and politically possible at some future date--the 3/5 compromise worked.

[yjacket]

We give a lot of homage to the Constitution, unfortunately the type of government it set up died a long, long time ago. The Constitution set up a stronger Central government to tie the individual nations of the colonies together under a common framework. 

The original design of the Constitution was to be more in the model of a European Union of sorts rather than a single all powerful nation. It's why so many of the great men of the Revolution ended up being governors and state reps.  Congressmen and the President was in many respects seen as mostly do-nothing. It provided for the common defense (so each individual nation didn't have to fund it's own defense) and a framework so states would not war with each other.  

The Federal Government was seen as a framework to resolve differences among the individual nations rather than reach down into the states and dictate policy to individuals. It's why originally the Bill of Rights was seen as only applying to the Federal Government, not to states.

The form of government that was inspired by God died many moons ago.  It died when states lost their status as mini-nations, when states lost the ability to appoint Senators, it died more when the size of the House of Representatives became static.

The vast majority of our current problems would be eliminated if the House were allowed to grow in proportion to the population. GW's size was 30k population per Rep.

Sorry, the Constitution died a long time ago-we don't have a Republic now, we have an Empire and an "elected" King.

I just look forward to the day when Christ comes and sets up His Kingdom, 'cuz the US has had it's day in the sun, it was weighed and found wanting.

Edited November 7, 2016 by yjacket

[Vort]

On 11/6/2016 at 9:05 AM, james12 said:

The constitution is not perfect, much less infallible. Some changes have been made over time which are necessary. One example that comes to mind is the Three-Fifths clause which says: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Does anyone feel that it was wise to count slaves as three-fifths of a person?

james12, as much as I admire your posts, your implication here is dangerously false. It is simply, utterly, completely, 100% wrong.

Let's divide the early American settlers into two broad camps: Those who supported slavery and those who opposed it. Which of these two groups supported the idea of counting slaves as FULL people?

If you said those who opposed slavery, you are wrong.

And which of these two groups wanted to count slaves as ZERO people?

If you said those who supported slavery, you are wrong.

All of the people who we look back on today with admiration as having "enlightened" views on slavery WERE THE ONES WHO OPPOSED COUNTING SLAVES AS FULL PEOPLE.

The reason, of course, is politics. The southern (slave) states wanted their slave population counted toward their total representation in the House. Those who opposed slavery said, in effect, "You can't eat your cake and have it, too. You can't support the institution of slavery and yet turn around and count them as citizens for purposes of representation."  The infamous "Great Compromise" of counting each "Negro slave" as 3/5 of a person was a grudging concession by the North to allow the union to form.

Please, people, don't use the "three-fifths" clause in the Constitution as some sort of proof that our Founding Fathers thought of black people as being worth only three-fifths of a white person. This is utterly false.

[Just_A_Guy]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

james12, as much as I admire your posts, your implication here is dangerously false. It is simply, utterly, completely, 100% wrong.

Let's divide the early American settlers into two broad camps: Those who supported slavery and those who opposed it. Which of these two groups supported the idea of counting slaves as FULL people?

If you said those who opposed slavery, you are wrong.

And which of these two groups wanted to count slaves as ZERO people?

If you said those who supported slavery, you are wrong.

All of the people who we look back on today with admiration as having "enlightened" views on slavery WERE THE ONES WHO OPPOSED COUNTING SLAVES AS FULL PEOPLE.

The reason, of course, is politics. The southern (slave) states wanted their slave population counted toward their total representation in the House. Those who opposed slavery said, in effect, "You can't eat your cake and have it, too. You can't support the institution of slavery and yet turn around and count them as citizens for purposes of representation."  The infamous "Great Compromise" of counting each "Negro slave" as 3/5 of a person was a grudging concession by the North to allow the union to form.

Please, people, don't use the "three-fifths" clause in the Constitution as some sort of proof that our Founding Fathers thought of black people as being worth only three-fifths of a white person. This is utterly false.

Well, that was (the bigger) part of it; but the other part was taxation.  As I understand it, the Constitution envisioned a scenario where the federal government wouldn't tax the people directly; it would just levy a per capita tax against each state government based on that state's population.  So the southern states, while wanting slaves to count as a full person for purposes of representation, also wanted slaves to count as little as possible for purposes of calculating a state's federal tax burden.  And it was the opposite for the free states--they were happy to goose the south's "population" for purposes of tax collection, but not so fond of seeing the southern congressional delegations inflated.  Hence, the 3/5 fraction that (temporarily) settled both controversies.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[james12]

JAG/Vort, For some reason the quote function is not working but let me address this issue about the 3/5 compromise. Certainly it is understandable how the 3/5 clause was added to the constitution and it indeed may represent the best compromise that could be achieved under the circumstances. But the constitution certainly does label a slaves as counting for 3/5 of a person. Of course no one specifically believe a slave was only 3/5 part of a whole person. But neither can we deny what the constitution says. 

At any rate, my response was in regards to askandanswers question wherein he said:

Quote

I certainly agree that the US constitution was inspired, I have no doubts about that question. My question is more to do with how well the end product reflects the inspiration that was given. Inspiration comes in many different ways and in widely varying degrees of detail and specificity. ...And as indicated by Elder Oaks, its hard to see how any document that was a result of compromise amongst many men of varying opinions and beliefs can be said to be a true reflection of divine inspiration. It almost sounds like perhaps someone was inspired about a certain Article and then presented the idea to the rest of the writers, and they then argued and discussed and compromised about what to do with the idea.

 The 3/5 clause is at best a compromise, not direct revelation. It does not represent what the Lord wished, for certainly he would that all men should be free.  

We must be careful about believing the constitution as approved by the states, was flawless. There were multiple problems: the manner of selecting the VP, judicial power extended to federal "inferior courts", and imprecise wording such as found in the general welfare clause to name a few.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, james12 said:

JAG/Vort, For some reason the quote function is not working but let me address this issue about the 3/5 compromise. Certainly it is understandable how the 3/5 clause was added to the constitution and it indeed may represent the best compromise that could be achieved under the circumstances. But the constitution certainly does label a slaves as counting for 3/5 of a person. Of course no one specifically believe a slave was only 3/5 part of a whole person. But neither can we deny what the constitution says. 

At any rate, my response was in regards to askandanswers question wherein he said:

 The 3/5 clause is at best a compromise, not direct revelation. It does not represent what the Lord wished, for certainly he would that all men should be free.  

I agree with your overall point vis a vis the constitution's inspired nature not making it an infallible document; but I'm unconvinced  by the above-stated point.

 We know, from a bona fide revelation, that "what the Lord wished" was for the Saints to gather to, and build Zion in, Jackson County; where at some point a New Jerusalem will be built.  But over the next three decades the Church gathers in a number of non-Jackson-County venues:  Far West, then Nauvoo, then Salt Lake; and finally they're told not to gather at all.  Were these subsequent instructions "uninspired", "non-revelatory" compromises with a fallen world?

[Guest]

11 hours ago, james12 said:

 The 3/5 clause is at best a compromise, not direct revelation. It does not represent what the Lord wished, for certainly he would that all men should be free.  

We must be careful about believing the constitution as approved by the states, was flawless. There were multiple problems: the manner of selecting the VP, judicial power extended to federal "inferior courts", and imprecise wording such as found in the general welfare clause to name a few.

Similar things could be said about the Law of Moses.  Yet it was certainly inspired.

[james12]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree with your overall point vis a vis the constitution's inspired nature not making it an infallible document; but I'm unconvinced  by the above-stated point.

 We know, from a bona fide revelation, that "what the Lord wished" was for the Saints to gather to, and build Zion in, Jackson County; where at some point a New Jerusalem will be built.  But over the next three decades the Church gathers in a number of non-Jackson-County venues:  Far West, then Nauvoo, then Salt Lake; and finally they're told not to gather at all.  Were these subsequent instructions "uninspired", "non-revelatory" compromises with a fallen world?

I would say these subsequent instructions were revelatory compromises with a fallen world. Yes, I could raise most of the constitution to that level as long as people recognize the many compromises in the document and not believe they were the final will of the Lord. They should also understand that the framers were people and as such the document contains some unclear wording and sometimes does not well define certain rights. The bill of rights should be evidence enough of that. 

I love the constitution and one of my deepest wishes is that our leaders would follow it. But I also believe it is important for people to understand this document. What was done well and parts that can be made better. When people start to believe a document is holy they can then start to think it is untouchable. We cannot make that mistake.

[CV75]

On 10/25/2016 at 1:53 PM, askandanswer said:

What do you think?

In D&C 98:5, the Lord says the constitution of the USA is “justifiable before me”, or is shown to be right or reasonable before Him. This at the very least suggests it was inspired by the Light of Christ (D&C 88:11), but so are many other worthwhile things (D&C 58:27-28).

In D&C 101:77, He says He “suffered [it] to be established,” (verse 77), which might raise some eyebrows,  but in verse 80 He clarifies that He, “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.” That He established it through wise men whom He raised up suggests that more than the Light of Christ was involved, but as with the “man among the gentiles” (1 Nephi 13:12) who came to this same land to usher in this phase of things, the Spirit of God.

I think that redemption mentioned in 101:80 would allow for any curse on the land left by the abuses of the inhabitants (both the remnant of Israel and Gentile) up to that point in time to be removed, in my opinion, for the establishment of the earthly kingdom (the Restoration), but that any problems that arise after that time are in line with the warnings in the Book of Mormon about the inhabitants of the land rejecting the Restoration.

So I think the Constitution was inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost to the extent a man can be inspired without the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost. The inspired forms of government described in the Book of Mormon were of course set up by High Priest-Kings who had this advantage. But only the righteousness of the governed can make either form of government work.