 Author
|
Topic: Question for Mormons (Read 33346 times)
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
They left the U.S. and settled in Mexican territory because of the treatment they received in the U.S.:— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah#Mormon_settlementOne correction I do see, however: They fled the U.S. due to abuse at the hands of other private citizens; the conflict with the U.S. Government began after the U.S. conquered the territory in the Mexican–American war. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
I find it odd that the federal government would be involved in marriage contracts... was that due to the fact the region was a territory, instead of a State? Or just self-empassionment by the elected members?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
Probably the latter, although government insistence on being able to control and restrict people’s consensual personal relationships is nothing new. If you go back far enough, it’s the very reason for being for much of government.
And yes, I would assume that the reason they actually had the legal power to do so was Utah’s territory status, although it’s not like the federal government lacking legal powers to do something actually serves as any sort of hindrance, then or now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Keyser Soce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Sorry, but my understanding is that marriage is a State jurisdiction... though a few 'conservatives' would like to change that.
J, I think you'll find in what we refer to as primitive cultures... 'government' was created to handle non-consensual interactions.
Only the concept of consensual has changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
J, I think you'll find in what we refer to as primitive cultures... 'government' was created to handle non-consensual interactions.
Only the concept of consensual has changed.
They’ve always liked restricting people’s consensual relationships, be it laws against certain sexual practices ( e.g., bigamy, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, …), economic practices ( e.g., usury, selling of certain products without permission, making money without giving the State a share), or a myriad of other things. The State was not created to handle non-consensual interactions; the State was created when the first primitive figured out he could force another to do work for him. And I find it hard to believe that any of the above examples (with the exception of homosexuality—from the 1800s until the 1960s it was considered a mental illness that deprived a person of the right to consent) could ever have been defined as non-consensual. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Government existed long before that...
It was invented when the first primitive realized that they could 'force' their will by might. The alliance of a group of individuals to overcome this individual might creates government. As its power grows it becomes preemptive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
Government existed long before that...
It was invented when the first primitive realized that they could 'force' their will by might. The alliance of a group of individuals to overcome this individual might creates government. As its power grows it becomes preemptive.
You’re always going to try to push this idea that the government really does exist to defend people against aggression, aren’t you? Some States try to make this a part of their justification for existence, true. But some don’t. What all States do have in common, though, is the organized use of violence to force their will on their subjects (be that for the subjects’ “own good” or otherwise). As for my original post, from what I’ve read, the earliest historical records of people engaging in violence against one another coincides with the invention of agriculture, and slavery (the use of the weak, by the strong, to engage in agriculture). If that be true, then “when the first primitive figured out he could force another to do work for him” is synonymous with “when the first primitive realized that they could ‘force’ their will by might.” But that’s only a minor point. Defensive alliances came about, of course, but the origin of the State is the first aggression, not the first defense. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Government existed long before that...
It was invented when the first primitive realized that they could 'force' their will by might. The alliance of a group of individuals to overcome this individual might creates government. As its power grows it becomes preemptive.
You’re always going to try to push this idea that the government really does exist to defend people against aggression, aren’t you? Some States try to make this a part of their justification for existence, true. But some don’t. What all States do have in common, though, is the organized use of violence to force their will on their subjects (be that for the subjects’ “own good” or otherwise). As for my original post, from what I’ve read, the earliest historical records of people engaging in violence against one another coincides with the invention of agriculture, and slavery (the use of the weak, by the strong, to engage in agriculture). If that be true, then “when the first primitive figured out he could force another to do work for him” is synonymous with “when the first primitive realized that they could ‘force’ their will by might.” But that’s only a minor point. Defensive alliances came about, of course, but the origin of the State is the first aggression, not the first defense. No, that is why government is created... Its created to overcome the 'bully', then once the it does it becomes the 'bully'. The first primitive using force against another would be the one that took a stick and clubbed another for something they wanted. Defensive alliances are the State. The original thirteen States created the United States as a defensive alliance. Obviously we're way beyond that purpose at this time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
No, that is why government is created...
Its created to overcome the 'bully', then once the it does it becomes the 'bully'.
The first primitive using force against another would be the one that took a stick and clubbed another for something they wanted.
Defensive alliances are the State. The original thirteen States created the United States as a defensive alliance. Obviously we're way beyond that purpose at this time.
I don’t dispute that governments can arise as defensive alliances against aggression, and that such can soon turn into forms of aggression themselves. But alliances set up purely for the purposes of aggression are most likely the origins of the State. Then again, it’s my belief that aggression is, in many cases, just a perverse form of self-defense: That is, some people get it into their heads that in order to protect and defend themselves, they can preëmptively attack others. Knock all opponents down ahead of time, just to be safe. Aggression isn’t a legitimate form of self-defense of course, but those who engage in it probably believe that it is. So perhaps there’s no difference. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ward Griffiths
|
Government is a side effect of the agricultural revolution. Hunter-gatherers had little to none. When people settled down to farm, they'd attract bands of other former hunter-gatherers who'd steal all their stuff. (A farmer can't run away). Eventually, a band of thieves showed up who said "We'll only steal half your stuff, and all you have to do is anything we want you to, and in return we'll "defend" you from the rest of the thieves". Government and taxes, right there. Religion showed up to sanctify the situation a week or so later.
Church and state have long been intertwined, and in Colorado City especially. I if I'd grown up a Mormon girl, I hope I'd have the sense to pack heat and blow away any "leader" telling me who to marry. But religious conditioning starts even earlier than the public school government conditioning. (If I still had them, I could swear on a stack of a dozen bibles I received for perfect Sunday school attendance before my eighth birthday).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
-- Ward Griffiths wdg3rd@comcast.netMen will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. (Denis Diderot) |
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Sorry, but the Inuit have government. The only difference between hunter-gatherers and farmers would be the size of the group.
Government evolved from the strongest being the leader to a bloodline, where the leader's heir automatically took over (Monarchy). The evolution from monarchy to present is pretty well documented.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
Sorry, but the Inuit have government. The only difference between hunter-gatherers and farmers would be the size of the group.
Government evolved from the strongest being the leader to a bloodline, where the leader's heir automatically took over (Monarchy). The evolution from monarchy to present is pretty well documented.
Well, that might be where the defensive half comes in: Those societies not developing an aggression-based government perhaps believed they had to do so themselves, lest they fall victim to the ones who had developed such a government. It’s not the only response to being surrounded by authoritarian societies, but it’s the easiest. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
akemt
|
Some good quotes...I'm going back to the original topic. D&C 98: 4-9/10: 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.
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;
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 idneed; and the 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.We aren't required to live by laws that are unconstitutional. Other than that, the government has the guns.  Mormon's aren't a lost cause. Many of them are stuck in social norms and don't even see the extent of it, but if they believe their religion and start studying what our prophets have said regarding freedom and government, they must join the cause for liberty or forsake it all, really. You can't believe in Prophets and not believe what they say. For the mormon's out there, I suggest the book "Prophets, Principles, and National Survival." Out of print but attainable on ebay/Amazon. All quotes from first presidency members and they are clear as day about it all. What's the "told who to marry" comment about? Somehow growing up in the church I missed that part. LOL We're told to marry within the religion, but that is true for many religions. And it is our choice to follow or not, like everything else. We also fled due to extermination orders, but that was the specific state, not federal. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelWDean
|
Glen Beck's a Mormon, and he's one of the few libertarians on mainstream media.
Mormons make good neighbors. Mormons have morals and won't rob ya.
MWD
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
