Latter-Day Saints for Chuck Baldwin
Out of the many groups supporting the candidacy of Chuck Baldwin, one has recently started that makes up a sizable core of Constitutionalists and principled conservatives: Latter-Day Saints (Mormons).
On their website, their introduction speaks about the inportance of the US Constitution-
“...The Lord told us that He inspired the Constitution and that “it should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh”. Is our government following this charge from the Lord? Which Presidential Candidate is planning on following the Constitution? I believe there is only one candidate who actually intends to follow these inspired words of God. That candidate is Chuck Baldwin.”
The statement later concludes-
“...As Latter-day Saints, we believe the Lord when He said “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; … 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 101:77, 80)Since we believe that the Lord inspired men to establish the Constitution, we need to support candidates who actually intent to “protect and defend the Constitution” against all enemies…”
September 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
So your god ordained the 3/5ths Compromise?
September 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
As a Latter-day Saint, I want you to know that that web-page is for Latter-day saints for Baldwin. That’s not the Church’s webpage and the Church does not endorse any candidate or party. That has always been the case. I’m voting for Bob Barr personally. I have decided to support the Libertarian Party instead of the Constitution Party because I feel that the Constitution Party is a little too theocratic. While I’ll vote for them over Republicans and Democrats, I’m voting Libertarian first.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am
>> the inportance of the US Constitution-
September 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am
My apologies, I forgot about not using those greater and lesser than signs to indicate a quotation.
“the inportance of the US Constitution-” should be “importance.”
I live in Utah, am running as one of the LP candidates for the US Congress here, but am not LDS.
The above website is not the website for the LDS church, but for a group supporting Mr. Baldwin.
I’ve got to wonder, and do not know (perhaps someone else here does), what the Constitution Party, or its presidential candidate makes of the LDS church. My impression (misinformed as it might be) is that like most other traditional Christian churches, they see it as more cult than orthodox?
If so, I’d imagine most LDS would find the Libertarian Party’s commitment to a tolerance of all religions, as well as a commitment to the constitution as more in alignment with the teachings cited.
Joe
September 8th, 2008 at 1:23 am
I dunno if it can really be traced to the founding of the church, but today there is a strong libertarian minority among the Mormons, many of whom make theological arguments for liberty. A minority, but a larger minority of libertarians than the general population. The private social welfare/insurance groups that the Mormon churches establish to help each other are also a nice example of private, voluntary organizations doing something many people insist the government has to do.
But then there’s also the Republican social conservative majority, which has dictated Utah’s notorious blue laws, and the more extreme version of that- Mormons who advocate theocracy along the lines of the “Constitution” Party or even a more radical, exclusionary fundamentalist Mormon theocracy. To be fair, though, a lot of this could also be said of other churches.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:41 am
...one wonders why so many apparent numbskulls continue to refer to themselves as ‘conservative’ (dictionary definition: ‘a person who favors preserving existing institutions’...’opposed to change’...etc.)
...many of these stoooooooooooopid ‘conservative’ fucks whine CONSTANTLY about ‘the way things are..’
...yet, according to the dictionary—not your squawk-talk radio, etc. assorted goddamned fools and brainwashers—these stoooooooooopid ‘conservative’ fucks want to KEEP IT the way it is!!
...what a bunch of fucking republicrat idiots these ‘conservatives’ are!
... but have a good day!..
September 8th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.
Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.
The U.S. Constitution
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union….” The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.
Although the Constitution does not include the phrase “Separation of Church & State,” neither does it say “Freedom of religion.” However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [bold caps, mine]
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a “wall of separation between church and State.” Madison had also written that “Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.
Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I agree with Tim that the Constitution is not a religious document. However, I’m not sure if Tim’s response was meant as a rebuttle to the beliefs of some LDS that the Constitution was inspired by God. I see no reason why a secular product could not be the work of a God’s inspiration.
I agree with Bob Barr that the Founders representative a very rare collection of some of the brightest political minds in our history. Of course, not all of them saw eye to eye, but the end result was a truly unique document that had a huge positive impact on the rest of the world. The Constitution, with all of its flaw, was gigantic step towards liberty at the time.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:43 am
No right thinking Latter Day Saint should waste their vote on Chuck Baldwin.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I will admit that Sarah Palin makes a strong case for voting John McCain however ..
I am leaning strongly toward voting for Chuck Baldwin for president
And Yes I am of the LDS Faith!!
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual”
As long as you’re a Christian who doesn’t drink, gamble, do drugs, have a non-traditional family, or engage in “offensive sexual behavior”, to quote the CP platform.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I’ve got to wonder, and do not know (perhaps someone else here does), what the Constitution Party, or its presidential candidate makes of the LDS church. My impression (misinformed as it might be) is that like most other traditional Christian churches, they see it as more cult than orthodox?
= the western state affiliates of the CP, especially Utah, are made up of Mormons, me included. The CP prohibits any form of religious tests in its preamble and welcomes all to the party.
Mormons are evenly represented in the CP as well as Baptists and Catholics are. There might be theological disagreements, but CP’ers are willing to work side by side with each other to redeem the Constitution; since saving our country is more important then who has the ‘best Church.’
I won’t be voting Libertarian because, judging by the comments here, there is a strong anti-religious presence and hostility to anything right-wing.
FYI the Utah CP is running candidates for over 52 offices.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
” Andy Craig Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual”
As long as you’re a Christian who doesn’t drink, gamble, do drugs, have a non-traditional family, or engage in “offensive sexual behavior”, to quote the CP platform.”
Response : 1) Non-Christians ( NC”s ) are free to drink. No one will stop them and it is only a problem when they drink and drive. So how ( being frank here ) Mr. Idiot/Fool does that harm your ” liberty ” in any way? 2) Anyone ( NC’s included ) can gamble subject to municiple ordinances which may ban casinos etc. in a state or a local area. So how, Mr. Idiot/Fool, does this harm your liberty in any way? 3) Drugs are illegal or legal depending on various catagories. So how, Mr. Idiot/Fool, does this harm your ” liberty?” 4) Non-traditional families. English translation – homosexual ” families.” Here is the core ( real reason ) of your rants. Homosexuals are free to marry at this moment anyone of the opposite sex. Homosexuality has long been recognized as a emotional pathology by all stable cultures and societies. Homosexual marriage is simply a means to accomplish the mass indoctrination of children that homosexuality is normal via the changing of all school textbooks and instruction which the legalization of homosexual marriage would pave the way for. So how, Mr. Idiot/Fool, does banning homosexual marriage harm your ” liberty?” Harder to prostilitize children? 5) Offensive sexual behavior. So how, Mr. Idiot/Fool does stopping, or simply opposing, ” offensive sexual behavior ” harm your ” liberty?” 6) How does the CP platform opposing all of these actions harm your ” liberty?” I address you as Mr. Idiot/Fool as only the pathologically sick who desire to spread their sickness throughout our nation and especially to the children will be those who complain about having their ” liberty ” hindered by those opposing the above behaviors, especially numbers 4 & 5 above. In our time we have the pathologically sick working to poison the nation by spreading their pathology in all areas of society and culture with special emphasis upon the children. The CP can take pride that it, as a last political fortress of humanity, is the only party which openly opposes such sickness and is hence the target of those mutants who desire to drag all of humanity into the gutter.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Non-Christians ( NC”s ) are free to drink
So Christians aren’t?
Mr. Idiot/Fool
Childish insults. How Christ-like of you.
Anyone ( NC’s included ) can gamble subject to municiple ordinances which may ban casinos etc. in a state or a local area. So how, Mr. Idiot/Fool, does this harm your liberty in any way?
A law saying I can’t allow people to gamble on my property absolutely impinges on my liberty.
Drugs are illegal or legal depending on various catagories. So how, Mr. Idiot/Fool, does this harm your ” liberty?”
My body is my own, and I have the natural right as the sole person who has any legitimate control over my body to smoke, inject, inhale, or otherwise consume any substance I please. You might not approve (for the most part neither do I) but that gives you no right to use violence against me to prevent it.
Non-traditional families. English translation – homosexual ” families.”
That would be a subset. So would unmarried couples, relationships consisting of more than two people, and communal-type families.
Here is the core ( real reason ) of your rants.
Again, that “bearing false witness” (better known in post-Copper Age nomenclature as “making shit up”) rears its ugly head.
Though I do find something slightly Freudian in your obsession with homosexuality. I’ve never made a central issue out of it, and in fact it’s pretty low down on my list of priorities. I don’t even support “gay marriage” because I don’t think the government should license marriage at all (which would also solve your objections to the government endorsing something you feel is immoral). Yet you insist that sexual perversion is secretly motivating pretty much any one who disagrees with you.
Homosexuals are free to marry at this moment anyone of the opposite sex
I actually agree here. Marriage properly understood is a private contract which the state plays no role in expect perhaps enforcing the relevant terms surrounding a divorce.
Homosexuality has long been recognized as a emotional pathology by all stable cultures and societies
So was slavery.
Homosexual marriage is simply a means to accomplish the mass indoctrination of children that homosexuality is normal via the changing of all school textbooks and instruction which the legalization of homosexual marriage would pave the way for.
Right. Setting aside the conspiratorial kookery, simply get the government out of deciding textbook curriculum altogether. That way you can send your kid to Bible brainwashing camp, and I can send mine to one that’s learned something in the past 3,000 years.
So how, Mr. Idiot/Fool, does banning homosexual marriage harm your ” liberty?” Harder to prostilitize children?
Banning homosexual marriage is an attack on the liberty of people to engage in a voluntary interaction. And as for “proselytizing children” (of all people, you should know how to spell that word), the free exchange of ideas is part of a free society. Suck it up, get used to it, and mind your own children rather than everybody else’s.
So how, Mr. Idiot/Fool does stopping, or simply opposing, ” offensive sexual behavior ” harm your ” liberty?”
Uh, my liberty to do whatever I want with my body even if you think it’s “offensive”? Are you really that dense? Not that you disagree, but that you don’t even see the obvious point?
I address you as Mr. Idiot/Fool as only the pathologically sick who desire to spread their sickness throughout our nation and especially to the children will be those who complain about having their ” liberty ” hindered by those opposing the above behaviors, especially numbers 4 & 5 above
Again, your obsession with sexual perversion. Perhaps some one’s projecting. Also, again with the stunningly ironic (but not altogether unexpected) insults and baseless accusations for someone supposedly living a life based on the Gospels.
In our time we have the pathologically sick working to poison the nation by spreading their pathology in all areas of society and culture with special emphasis upon the children
They’re also using fluoride to sap our precious bodily fluids.
The CP can take pride that it, as a last political fortress of humanity, is the only party which openly opposes such sickness and is hence the target of those mutants who desire to drag all of humanity into the gutter.
If I wrote this as a parody, it would be so unbelievable no one would find it funny.
Really, “the last political fortress of humanity”? Alrighty then. Go hole up in your bunker under the Chancellery.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
To clarify- slavery wasn’t accepted as a “social pathology”, obviously. My point was that it was however widely accepted by pretty much all societies up until the 1800s, including in the Bible.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Cody,
The western state affiliates of the CP, especially Utah, are made up of Mormons, me included. The CP prohibits any form of religious tests in its preamble and welcomes all to the party.
Thanks for the insight.
52 CP candidates in Utah is impressive and suggests more support here for the CP than LP. I believe that also holds up for vote totals from two years ago.
I wonder how the alliance would hold up if the CP were actually elected? I’m thinking especially of some of (most actually of) my Baptist friends in Tennessee who, when they learned I was moving to Utah, were certain I had been “abducted by Satan and going to hell” just for deciding to live here!
Joe
September 9th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I love Utah
...Only problem with Utah…Too many Mormons….BWAHAHAHA
I’m joking…don’t anyone get yer Depends all knotted up.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:24 am
grungeman vomits: “Homosexuality has long been recognized as a emotional pathology by all stable cultures and societies.”
...too much to comment on, too little time…but i believe grungeman, and other ranting quasi-republicrat authoritarians here, have fallen victim to “the fallacy of reification,” other forms of mass brainwashing, etc.
LISTEN UP, GRUNGEMAN!!, ‘cultures’ and ‘societies’ are mere concepts and/or labels…
...and as anyone not a goddamned quasi-republicrat fool can recognize, ‘concepts’ and ‘labels’ can’t/don’t ‘recognize’ anything..certainly not ‘emotional pathologies’.. in other words, grungeman, me thinketh you speaketh much ooga booga! ;o)
and shock and awe..good job, west!... ;o)
September 9th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Hard for a Mormon to choose between any of the candidates. I will go with Barr because although I hate a libertine lifestyle I dislike evangelicals even more than libertines. Libertines do not parade in front of the LDS temple like the evangelicals do.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Cody,
A video on this site has a video from Chuck Baldwin talking about Mormons
http://mormonsforbaldwin.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/what-would-a-baldwin-administration-look-like/.
LDS4Baldwin
September 10th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Amen Jeff…Libertines are having too much fun to hate. Most of Baldwin’s sychophants are right there in SLC twice a year. Spewing hate, waving stolen G’s in the air, throwing the BoM on the ground.
Any LDS who would cast a vote for Baldwin, should question thenselves seriously.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I wonder how the alliance would hold up if the CP were actually elected?
= The Utah CP did elect a city councilman (Matthew Curry) in Lewiston last year.
In my state (Nevada), the Nevada affiliate has 3 people serving in office.