Ok, so I know I'm not really one of the main debaters on this topic but I decided I would put my opinion out there.
I've decided that the way God intends for us to use our speech generally is using uplifting and/or truthful words (I can find many scripture references to back this up). However, there are exceptions, and if the government had the power to restrict our speech, it would be too easy for that power to fall into the wrong hands. It is best for the government to not have power to restrict our words in the first place.
So, are you saying that since the freedom of speech is a God given right the government should stay out of it?
ReplyDeleteJust for clarification.
DeleteWell, basically what I mean is that God only wants us to use righteous speech, but He blessed us with the ability to say anything. Should we say something bad, natural consequence will follow. Define "God given right" and I will tell you if I think freedom of speech is one.
DeleteOkay, a God given right is a right that God has given us to further his work and spread his gospel and peace through the earth. I think I already know your answer. :)
DeleteAlso, I think that the freedom of speech is a God given right pretty much no matter how you define a God given right. If God gave us a mouth then he meant for us to use it.
DeleteWell define "right". Depending on how you define "right" my opinion would change. Is it entitlement? Is it an ability?
DeleteAbility. No one can take away your ability to Live, to speak, to gather, and on and on. A God given right is an ability.
DeleteIn that case, I would define freedom of speech as a God-given right. I do think just because it's a God-given right doesn't mean no one can take it away though. Someone could kill you, mangle your mouth, hold you captive, and so on. However, that doesn't mean they should and they still can't take away your agency.
DeleteYes, they can do those things you listed, but when someone murders someone, they lose the right to their life because they took someone elses. When someone kidnaps you, they are usually put in jail and held their like they did to the kidnapee. When it comes to the mangled mouth things get a little harder. We have the right against cruel and unusual punishment. Do you think that since they took the God given right of speech from someone else that they should lose theirs? Or should they just be put in jail? Honest question.
DeleteYes, but those don't change the fact that the other thing did happen to that other person. All I was saying is that just because it's God-given doesn't mean that no one can take it away. I've seen "unalienable right" be described as something that cannot be taken away and I can't think of many things that fit that description. The only one I can think of is agency, and even that can be infringed upon by forms of brainwashing as well as, to a certain extent blackmail, threatening, and bribing.
DeleteI think they should just be put in prison. Just because someone used cruel and unusual punishment doesn't mean the government should do it back.
That's what I thought, about the guy being put in prison. Thanks.
DeleteI believe an unalienable right to be a right that is self evident and resonates inside of us as a right that every man woman and child has, and even though they can be taken away, they shouldn't.
In my family we have a rule. One person cuts, and the other chooses. The rule means that when we want to share something, like a cupcake, one person cuts and the other chooses. If the one who cuts makes one half much larger than the other, he runs the risk of not getting that piece. Using this principle we can decide if something is a self evident right, say, the right to take someone's property. As the cutter this may sound like a good idea, but do you want the chooser to be able to take yours?
So for freedom of speech you want the right to declare what you believe to be true even if it is impolite or rude. The cutter can say rude things, but the chooser can say rude things back. Cutting it down the middle would be the equivalent of a calm debate or two people fighting. Cutting it unevenly is like someone saying "I get to say what I want and you can't talk." You know that you've crossed a line if switching from cutter to chooser leaves you with the small end of the cupcake.
Tell me if that makes any sense to you.
Freedom of Speech is only a god given when it is under the banner of Freedom of Religion. I do think that it is important in almost every scenario for the government to provide Freedom of Speech. Although God has given us a mouth, and he did mean for us to use it, he has not specified what we should use the mouth for, and I also think that the main reason we were given mouths is to spread the gospel, and serve others.
ReplyDeleteOkay, first things first, God did tell us what to do with our mouths, the main thing being to spread the gospel. However, even if we use that logic the constitution is part of the gospel, and I quote.
DeleteD&C 98:4-8 "4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
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;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free."
If we were given mouths to spread the gospel then we must also spread the Constitution which includes a bill of rights.
It is part of the gospel, it's even a huge part of the plan of salvation. That doesn't make it doctrine though. As mentioned yesterday, in the original Constitution, among other things, slavery was a right. I do agree with the majority of the Constitution, however I do not think everything in it is gospel truth. It's not close to on par with the Book of Mormon and the Bible to me.
DeleteWhy is that? The scriptures were written through inspiration of God, so was the Constitution. You might say, "Well, we don't study it like we do the scriptures." If you were to say that I would say "Then we had better fix that." If we don't study the constitution we start to lose the rights we are debating over. If we don't study the scriptures then we start to lose our testimony
DeleteI will say that the Constitution is not perfect, but neither is the Bible. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God 'as far is it is translated correctly.'"
DeleteI'm not saying to think of this as scripture, since it wasn't directly from God, but I'm saying that the constitution is linked to,if not a part of, the gospel.
DeleteYes they were both inspired by God, but our fundamental difference is that the Bible and Book of Mormon were written by prophets and apostles of God for the people of God. It was written by people who had direct revelation about how to lead the people of their church and most of them priesthood holders. The Constitution was written by choice people but it doesn't make it gospel. The other biggest difference is they were written for different purposes. The Constitution is meant to direct the country, the scriptures are meant to direct everyone who will listen. Do you see a part in the scriptures where it makes a way for people to amend the commandments? No, that is because it is direct law from God, who is unchanging. It may be added upon but never altered. The Constitution is law from the inspired government which will change, and so will the country, so there needs to be a way to change it. The gospel is also meant for everybody, not just the people of the United States. For the record, I know you probably meant the general "you", but that is a strawman argument and I personally would never try to argue that. However, although we need to study the Constitution better, is it going to be the thing that gets us and countless others into heaven? No. The reason we should study the scriptures more is because it is going to prepare us to get into heaven and to teach others.
DeleteIt is linked to it, but it definitely sounded like you were trying to portray it as scripture.
Delete*try to argue that "we don't study it like we do the scriptures"
DeleteYeah, sorry about that. Let me try and answer all your questions. Just tell me if I miss one.
DeleteFirst off, I did mean the general "You." Thanks for catching that.
Second, I don't think that the constitution will be "the thing" to get us into heaven, but I definitely think that could help people get an understanding of gospel truths simply because of all the eternal principles that are in it.
Now a question for you. What do you mean by "try to argue that 'we don't study it like we do the scriptures.'" Do you want me to argue along those lines?
I was just correcting myself. I was addressing when I said, "I personally would never try to argue that" because I realized it could have been confusing. The "that" I was referring to was when you said someone could say "Well, we don't study it like we do the scriptures."
DeleteOh, I understand. I didn't mean to make my original post sound aggressive, now I realize that I was putting words in your mouth, sorry about that.
DeleteEarlier you said that "The Constitution is meant to direct the country, the scriptures are meant to direct everyone who will listen." I disagree.
John Taylor, third president of the Church said: “When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth, and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men, and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations." This means that our form of government was made for all nations.
The principles of the Constitution are for everyone. The exact Constitution wouldn't be able to be used in other countries, but the exact format of the Government can. Different branches, checks and balances, and the different levels of Government are principles that can work in any country.
You didn't seem aggressive, sorry if I seemed like I thought you were. I'm also sorry if I ever come of aggressive.
DeleteI agree that the principles are for everybody, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the world needs to study it. It is still specific to the United States.
Some parts of the Constitution are just for us. But if other people in other nations study it they will know better how to make their country free. The whole "five slaves are equal to three whites in representation and taxes" was specific for the United states at the time. But representation is universal. What I am saying is that our form of government can be used in any nation with good results if they choose it willingly.
DeleteAnother thing, even in the USA, you can't implement the Constitution if you don't study it. Even if we don't study it religiously we should still study it vigorously.
I think that the constitution is not doctrine, because no prophet, has said that it is. It is inspired, but I think that the stuff in there is just good for our particular country. In John Taylor's quote it just says something that happens, so I don't see your point, and Caden you mentioned that other country's should use our constitution to form their country. What do you consider to be some of the eternal truths found in the constitution Caden?
DeleteOkay, the Constitution isn't canonized doctrine, meaning that the prophets haven't come out directly and said that it is doctrine. I'm not trying to get you guys to believe it is on the level of the scriptures, I'm trying to say that the Constitution is a document that needs to be studied. Prophets have told us to do that.
DeleteThis is a quote from the Kirtland temple dedicatory prayer. “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever."
This one is by Ezra Taft Benson. "We must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.
Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it?" He has clearly asked us in this quote to spread the Constitution and its truth.
Now for the question of John Taylor's quote. You said that it just says something that will happen. That's kind of how prophecies work. If you don't get the context of the quote let me explain it. The "Elders of Israel" are us, the chosen generation, sharing the truths of the Constitution to all nations and inviting them to live by it as well.
What do I consider to be some of the eternal truths found in the constitution? Buckle up bud. ;) I could go into depth about this but instead I will just say a few things and let you ask about any you don't understand.
The separation of powers into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to keep powers balanced is a large one. The Senators being voted for by the state legislature and the Representatives being voted for by the people. The nation being split into states. The Federal government is there to protect the people and the State government is there to protect the people from the feds. Now this one may surprise you, The ability to amend the constitution. I believe that each of these are eternal truths and that there are many more.
Now Josh, on Wednesday you said that you don't believe in the declaration of independence, or something like that. I'd like to challenge you to read it and tell me exactly what you don't like about it. I am in the middle of doing it myself. I'd like to see your position on this document.
Concerning the quote from the dedicatory prayer I don't consider that doctrine, because it was in a prayer.
DeleteWhile it is in important for us to learn about the constitution President Benson in that quote has just asked a bunch of questions, and told us we need to study the constitution, so it is not so clear that he is telling us to spread the constitution.
I get that's how prophecies work, but I was asking why you quoted that.
So you think that some of the eternal truths found in the constitution is the way our government is structured?
Okay I will try to get that done today XD.
I put the prayer in there cause it really hit home with me.
DeleteI've learned that the best way to teach is to ask questions, prophets do it all the time. If you go through the questions he asks and answer them in your head, you're learning. It works even better then telling the person you are teaching the answer because it sticks when they come up with the answer on their own.
I quoted John Taylor because he directly says that we need to prepare ourselves to teach the Constitution because that's what we will be doing pretty soon and we need to know what we are talking about.
I definitely think that they are eternal truths are the governments structure, but there are more eternal truths that aren't how the government is structured, such as the fact that any debts we had a country before the constitution still needed to be payed off (Article VI section 1). The eternal concept of honesty just bleeds out of this one.
Okay, so you admit it's not doctrine?
DeleteWhile it may be a good way to teach my point was that it is not obvious he is telling us to spread the constitution.
Could you give me the article where you got President Taylor's quote is from? So that way I can talk about it better.
Right, so you still stand by your statement when you said
"The separation of powers into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to keep powers balanced is a large one. The Senators being voted for by the state legislature and the Representatives being voted for by the people. The nation being split into states. The Federal government is there to protect the people and the State government is there to protect the people from the feds. Now this one may surprise you, The ability to amend the constitution. I believe that each of these are eternal truths and that there are many more."
When I read that quote from Benson I can see what he means. He is prompting us to teach others about the Constitution. John Taylor backs him up perfectly and says that we need to spread the truths of the Constitution. He's really to the point on this one. He directly says that we need to learn about the Constitution and teach it to others. I got his quote from here.
Deletehttps://www.lds.org/new-era/1976/07/gods-hand-in-the-founding-of-america?lang=eng
The forth paragraph is where my quote came from, but I encourage you to read the whole thing.
Yes, I will stand by my original statement.
where is the quote that says that we need to teach it to others?
DeleteConsidering you stand by your statement would you say it is wrong for Jesus to rule over the earth during the millennium as a king?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMosiah 29:12,13,16
Delete12Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.
13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.
16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.
Jesus is a perfect being, incapable of corruption or mistake. He is already my king.
So would you agree with me in saying that the structure of our government is not an eternal truth?
DeleteWhether or not I agree with this again depends a little on how you would define a right. Although God didn't only intend for us to use our mouths to promote our religion or religious freedom. How do YOU define a right, josh? When are circumstances the government shouldn't allow freedom of speech? You are right for the most part on what he intended for us to use our mouths for, and yes, he has specified, I can send you many scripture references if you want them.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I meant to comment this as a direct reply but things are weird on mobile.
DeleteI think there are two kinds of rights. There are natural rights, which every government should guarantee in every circumstance possible, and there are rights provided to us by the government. Religious rights are the only natural rights, and every other is provided by the government. An example of when the government shouldn't allow freedom of speech? I think it would have been better for the Nephite government to shut Korihor up given what I know about the circumstances.
DeleteI think that it would have been worse if they shut up Korihor. I can see why you think that it might have helped to shut him up, but the truth is if the government shut him up, they would be the bad guys, because they would be taking away his agency. In every government that freedom of speech has been limited or taken away, that nation has been destroyed, maybe by revolution, by war, but the pattern stays. If you take away the freedom of speech or any other God given right the government will fall and take the people with it. I can't think of a single nation that didn't fall when they took away the freedom of speech and other God given right.
DeleteI am claiming that they're not taking away his agency.
DeleteAnd while it may be true that nations that don't have freedom of speech have been destroyed Athens did have freedom of speech, and they are not an existing nation today, and I think that overall nations do much better with Freedom of Speech, but it is not a god given right. Caden if you wouldn't mind finding me a piece of doctrine that says Freedom of Speech is a right that would be great.
Quick question. Do you mean that they didn't take away his agency or that they should have shut him up and that still would not have taken away his agency?
DeleteD&C 134:2 "We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." This scripture specifically says that life and property are rights. The free exercise of conscience is the right of speech and agency. The whole chapter goes along those lines.
Here's the teachings of Elder Oaks. This one defines "Freedom of speech" directly.
"I now speak of one of the challenges that face us—the meaning and application of the vital constitutional guarantees that government authority shall make no laws or regulations “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”8 THESE RIGHTS are fundamental to our constitutional order—not just to protect citizens against repressive government action but also to foster the cherished open society that is the source of our freedom and prosperity."
I think that Athens fell because they became immoral. Every time the Nephites became wicked and immoral they were destroyed too. That's how God works.
I mean that if they shut him up they wouldn't have been talking away his agency.
Delete"We believe that no government can exist in peace..." That means it is better for a government to provide right and control of property(What is the governmens property, and what is the people's property is a whole other argument), and protection of life, because it is more peaceful that way. The Free excercise of Conscience refers to religion/morals. Not Freedom of Speech.
Here's a link to the definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscience
Elder Oaks is saying that they are vital to our government, and they are for our constitutional order. This doesn't make them a god-given right.
Sorry about those extra spaces I don't know what happened XD.
Deletehttp://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/conscience
DeleteWhy would taking away his choice on what he can do and say not be taking away his agency?
DeleteAs for the quote, it helps if you read the whole thing. This is a common misconception used in the "Elastic clause" which says, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." People call this the elastic clause because they stop at the "Forgoing powers." The rest of the clause puts in strict instruction.
Then what does?
Don't reply, just think about it.
DeleteI kinda stopped replying because I didn't want to be involved anymore, but I did want to say that if they're just shutting him up that's not taking away his agency. Agency is simply the ability to choose. I mentioned this earlier, agency is one of the only rights you cannot take away. No matter what, he can still choose his actions.
DeleteIt is taking away liberty but liberty and agency are different
DeleteWhat's the relationship between liberty and agency in your perspective?
DeleteLiberty is the ability to act without punishment from the government, and agency is the ability to act.
Delete