2016 ELECTION FINAL THOUGHTS

Final thoughts on the 2016 Presidential election from a conservative standpoint.

I believe Donald Trump is the best choice for President this year as Hillary Clinton cannot be allowed anywhere near the oval office, or have her hand in anything that has to do with the Supreme Court.  It is universally agreed by conservatives that Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt, dishonest, and dangerous politicians our Country has ever seen.  The fact that she could even be the Democrats nominee shows how far the morals and ethics in our Country have fallen.

 Donald Trump, while not a poster child of virtue himself, has stated he will appoint conservative justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia who truly understand our Heavenly inspired Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees.  He has also adopted a very conservative platform.

There are many reasons to not like Mr. Trump.  However, I would submit to you that most (not all) of his sins are in the past, and from a Christian perspective this must take this into consideration.

Due to Mr. Trumps faults, many individuals are looking for an alternative vote which is easily understandable.  Sadly however, the statistical probabilities of anything coming from this are non-existent.  It has been tried before by Perot, Anderson, and earlier in the form of the Bull Moose party.  I personally wish we had a viable third party to choose from, however my wishes do not drive the realities of our elections.

The reason for this tome is not to banter about the qualities (or lack thereof) of each candidate, but to show how important the Supreme Court is.  And as stated and alluded to above, with Hillary or a third party there is zero chance the Supreme Court will remain Constitutional in its thinking and judgements.

This is important because it is generational.  If the Court goes liberal in 2017, it will most likely stay that way for the next 24 years or longer given the age and disposition of the judges.  In other words, if one decides to elect a candidate that cannot positively affect the Court, this decision will affect our children’s future.  Following are some examples of what I mean:

 

·         In 1962 Engal v. Vitale, prayer in public school became unconstitutional. What happened?  It had been OK for 200+ years prior to this dating back to before our Country founded.

·         In 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp, Bible reading in school was determined to be unconstitutional.  What happened?

·         In 1980 Stone v. Graham, the 10 Commandment could no longer be posted in school.  Again, what happened?

·         In 1970 State Board of Educ. v. Board of Educ. of Netcong voluntary prayer and bible reading was no longer allowed.  What happened?  Over 200 years of stare decisis, or the legal doctrine of precedent was abandoned.

·         In 1984 Wallace v. Jaffree, a minute of silence in lieu of prayer was no longer acceptable.  What happened?

 

I could go on and on, but these are enough.  Our Constitution is slowly being stripped from the original intent and wording of our founding fathers.  As a nation, we are slowly turning away from the God inspired precepts our Country was founded on.

On Thursday June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin stood, and addressed prayer at the Constitutional Convention.  In his aged voice he proclaimed, “I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men.”

This kind of thinking by Statesmen such as Benjamin Franklin gave rise to our Country, and departing from it will be our downfall.

So in conclusion, all of the candidates have positive ideas to add to the discussion.  Conversely, all have negatives.  But in the long run, and for this election cycle, saving the Supreme Court, and by extension, the Constitution seems to me the paramount issue.  And only one candidate has a chance of doing this.  Donald Trump.

"HOW WILL IT BE WHEN NONE MORE SAITH 'I SAW'?"

I entitled my last post, "A Christian Religion?"  It is a comparison of differing interpretations of Biblical scripture.  In my last sentence I noted prophets existed anciently, and alluded to the fact that it would be nice if they existed today to clear up some of the many conflicting passages contained in the Bible.

This article is a summary of one written by Hugh Nibley, with the same title.  Although some syntax will be mine, I take no credit for any of the material presented other than the last few paragraphs.  This material can be found in a book called, "The World And The Prophets," first published in 1954.

As an effort to understand the mood of the Church after the passing of the Apostles, the poet Browning wrote, "A Death in the Desert."  He describes the passing of John, the last of the witnesses.  This passing left the Christians with an overpowering sense of loss - without a real prophet they are no better than other men;... without an eyewitness, there could be no final certainty.

The first few lines of the poem read:

Still, when they scatter, there is left on earth
No one alive who knew (consider this!)
-Saw with his eyes and handled with his hands
That which was from the first, the Word of Life.
How will it be when none more saith "I saw"?

Speaking of heavenly things, Justin Martyr wrote to the Greeks;

"Neither by nature nor by any human skill, is it possible for men to know such high and holy things; but only by a gift that descends from above upon holy men from time to time."  "Such is the nature of the prophetic gift."  Notice that man cannot claim this gift,  but it is given only by God when it pleases Him.

Some 150 years after Christ, the early Christians felt that without this gift of direct revelation from heaven,... they would be no better than the heathen- well meaning, but bankrupt.  Justin went on to show how this gift passed from the Jews to the Christians, and was the boast and glory of the Church.

Some eighty years later, Origen used the same argument, however by this time there were now only "traces" of the gift remaining.  For Origen, the possession of prophets and wonders is what proved a divine church.

But must the church always have living prophets in its midst?  The answer is clear enough in these few passages.  The true church must and will always have living prophets.  But that is unwelcome news to the world!

A dead prophet the world dearly desires and warmly cherishes; he is a priceless tradition, a spiritual heritage, a beautiful memory.  But woe to a living prophet!  He shall be greeted with stones and catcalls even by pious people.  Remember, the men who put the Apostles to death thought they were doing God a favor!  (Luke 11:47-48)  We adorn the tombs of the prophets, but would kill them if they were alive!

John the Baptist paved the way for Christ.  Few believed or followed him.  Jesus Christ came to redeem men and save their souls.  Few believed or followed him.

Many people believe that had they lived in the time of Christ, they would have followed Him, but  how would they know who he was?  If he came today, or sent a prophet, how would we respond?  Matthew refers to this in 13:55.  Remember, He was to His contemporaries just the carpenter's son!

Neither man nor God has really changed much in the past two millennia.  Jesus said he would come again.  If He remains true to form, He will send a prophet to pave the way as he did in the meridian of time.  How many will believe?  How many will recognize a prophet?  Has this already happened?

In the spring of 1820, Joseph Smith claimed God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.  As with John, Jesus Christ, and the Apostles, Joseph Smith was vilified, persecuted, and murdered for his beliefs.  Was he a false prophet?  Was he a true prophet?  Given the enormity of his claim, it is probably worth taking a serious look!