Hi, RAZD.
RAZD writes:
This is not much different what Faith's always claiming and other evangelical Christian's. So who's right?
None of them, I think. The US Constitution was an imperfect, though forward-thinking, document that allowed future generations to build this nation into something great (though still imperfect). Mythologizing it or trying to superimpose a divine will onto it is unjustifiable, in my opinion.
If we had to choose one though, I'm sticking with Mormonism, because I've yet to overcome the social conditioning that has instilled a pro-Mormon bias in me.
The LDS Church argues that the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights paved the way for the Restoration of the Lord's True Church (which arguably couldn't have happened under other socio-political systems of the time). So, Mormonism is rather intimately linked with the Constitution in that regard. I suppose Faith would likely argue the same thing about her brand of Christianity: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were necessary steps on the road to the emergence of the True Way.
It would be rather more difficult for the Catholics or Lutherans (to name a few) to make the same claim.
RAZD writes:
Like Jar's god\God\GOD distinction? I would take from this that they would put (Mormon) "Scripture
TM" ahead of (constitution) "scripture" when there is a conflict, hence insurrection?
Yeah, I borrowed Jar's terminology a little there.
And, you'd probably get a lot of Mormon objections that claim that there are no conflicts between the Scriptures and the Constitution, because they both c8me from the same source.
Mormonism might have a somewhat better claim to this than other churches, simply because the people in the Book of Mormon are very (suspiciously?) American-like in their championing of freedom and human rights (such as the Captain Moroni mentioned in the news article you linked to); while the Bible is... somewhat less clear in its support of democratic principles.
-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.