Do we have any historical records to answer the question: whether the Framers of the US Constitution intended that document mainly as a way to protect the status quo as it existed in 1787, or if they thought rights as something that can best be protected by allowing for cultural and social changes?

Short answer: both.

It is a mistake to believe that there is something inherently unified in the opinions of the men who signed the constitution. These men, though not culturally or ethnically diverse, had wildly differing opinions as to the best way to organize society, the things to encourage and to discourage, and the structural elements of government that would be in support of or resistant to the things they believed were beneficial or detrimental to society.

It's also important to keep in mind that the political poles were very different in 1787 than they are today, which often obfuscates the intent behind some of the issues included in the constitution - check out any argument between people today about the 2nd Amendment, for instance, and you'll see a debate that is almost entirely removed socially and culturally from the audience for which it was intended. There are people who do lip service to that issue, and bring up cherrypicked examples of framers who supported this or that modern take on the issue, but removed from their context and removed from the stakes of the debate in 1787, the words are more or less meaningless.

So we get things like Thomas Jefferson saying that every generation should negotiate its own constitution, because who can hold in thrall future generations? You also get men who deliberately frame the constitution in such a way that ignores current hot-button issues, essentially kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with. You get men calling for the abolition of the constitution, the dissolution of the union, a return to "states rights" and for a far more diffused version of power.

Those who supported the constitution supported it because they felt that it was the best way to organize power out of a chaotic assembly of men with diverse interests, powers, and desires. It was seldom perfect, but even organizing society on a model that stressed that the "masses" should be led by "elites" through a social self-selection was meant to allow anyone with enough interest, skill, and ambition to rise to a position of influence.

This is a somewhat general answer and I'm away from many of my documents, but I'll be happy to answer some follow-ups.