Speech: "The United Order Versus Communism" by Joshua Reuben Clark Jr.
Category: Religion and Philosophy

The United Order Versus Communism
by Joshua Reuben Clark Jr.
1942 Oct

Brethren:

I have been trying for a week to relieve you of this experience, but Brother McKay, so kind, so sweet, and so merciful, has been perfectly adamant.  So I stand before you here, not to preach, but to counsel with you.

There is a great deal of misapprehension among our people regarding the United Order.

I have not been able to believe that the United Order meant what some people have thought it meant, so within the last months I have spent quite a little time reading the revelations thereon, also reading our history, and at the same time giving some consideration to a dissertation which has been written regarding the Order.

There is a growing—I fear it is growing—sentiment that communism and the United Order are virtually the same thing, communism being merely the forerunner, so to speak, of a reestablishment of the United Order.  I am informed that ex-bishops, and indeed, bishops, who belong to communistic organizations, are preaching this doctrine.  So I thought that perhaps if I said just a few words to you tonight regarding the way I interpret the revelations that are printed about this in the D&C (if there are other revelations about the Order, I do not know of them), I thought if I said something about it, it might be helpful.  I recommend that you, my brethren, read a few of the Sections of the D&C which cover this matter, beginning with Sections 42 and 51.  (See also Sections 70, 78, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92, 96, and 104.)  If you will go over these sections, I feel sure that you will find that my explanation of the United Order will be substantially accurate.

Early Deviations

I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations.  This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys.  So far as I have seen there has been preserved only one document that purports to be a legal instrument used in connection with the setting up of the United Order, and that document is without date.  It is said to have been found among the papers of Bishop Partridge.  It was a "lease-lend" document_  You may have heard that phrase before.  Under this instrument the Church leased to Titus Billings a certain amount of real estate and loaned him a certain amount of personal property.

This instrument is not in accordance with the principle laid down in the revelations touching upon the United Order.

The basic principle of all the revelations on the United Order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him.  This, I repeat, is the basic principle.  (D&C 104:14-17,54-57.)

One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations.  That revelation (D&C 51:3) affirms that every man is to be "equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs."  (See also D&C 82:17; 78:5-6.)  Obviously, this is not a case of "dead level" equality.  It is "equality" that will vary as much as the man's circumstances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary.

Consecration

In the next place, under the United Order every man was called to consecrate to the Church all of the property which he had; the real estate was to be conveyed to the Church, as I understand the revelations, by what we would call a deed in fee simple.  Thus the man's property became absolutely the property of the Church.  (D&C 42:30; 72:15.)  Then the bishop deeded back to the donor by the same kind of deed, that is, in fee simple, and also transferred to him by an equivalent instrument, so far as personal property was concerned, that amount of real and personal property, which, the two being taken together, would be required by the individual for the support of himself and his family "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs."  This the man held as his own property.  (D&C 42:32; 51:4-6; 83:3).

In other words, basic to the United Order was the private ownership of property, every man had his own property from which he might secure that which was necessary for the support of himself and his family.  There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner.  It was not contemplated that the Church should own everything or that we should become in the Church, with reference to our property and otherwise, the same kind of automaton, manikin, that communism makes out of the individual, with the State standing at the head in place of the Church.

Now, that part of a man's property which was not turned back to him, if he had more than was needed under this rule of "equality" already stated, became the common property of the Church, and that common property was used for the support of the poor of the Church.  It is spoken of in the revelations as the "residue" of property.  (D&C 42:34-36.)

Land Portions

Furthermore, it was intended, though apparently it did not work out very well, that the poor coming into Zion, and by Zion I mean, here, Missouri—the poor coming into Zion were to have given to them a "portion" of land, which land was to be either purchased from the Government (and it was planned to purchase large areas from the Government), or purchased from individuals, or received as consecrations from members of the Church.  The amount of this "portion" was to be such as would make him equal to others according to his circumstances, his family, his wants and needs.

The land which you received from the bishop by deed, whether it was part of the land which you, yourself, had deeded to the Church, or whether it came as an out-right gift from the Church as just indicated, and the personal property which you received, were all together sometimes called a "portion" (D&C 51:4-6), sometimes a "stewardship" (D&C 104:11-12), and sometimes an "inheritance."  (D&C 83:3.)

As just indicated, there were other kinds of inheritances and stewardships than land or mere personal property; for example, the Prophet and others had a stewardship given to them which consisted of the revelations and commandments (D&C 70:1-4); others had given to them a stewardship involving the printing house (D&C 104:29-30); another stewardship was a mercantile establishment.  (D&C 104:39-42.)

Surplus

I repeat that whatever a steward realized from the portion allotted to him over and above that which was necessary in order to keep his family under the standard provided, as already stated above, was turned over by the steward to the bishop, and this amount of surplus, plus the residues to which I have already referred, went into a bishop's storehouse (D&C 51:13 and citations above), and the materials of the storehouse were to be used in creating portions, as above indicated, for caring for the poor (D&C 78:3), the widows and orphans (D&C 83:6), and for the elders of the Church engaged in the ministry, who were to pay for what they received if they could, but if not, their faithful labors should answer their debt to the bishop.  (D&C 72:11 ff.)

Other Institutions

Now, as time went on and the system developed, the Lord created two other institutions besides the storehouse: one was known as the Sacred Treasury, into which was put "the avails of the sacred things in the treasury, for sacred and holy purposes."  While it is not clear, it would seem that into this treasury were to be put the surpluses which were derived from the publication of the revelations, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and other similar things, the stewardship of which had been given to Joseph and others.  (D&C 104:60-66.)  The Lord also provided for the creation of "Another Treasury," and into that other treasury went the general revenues which came to the Church, such as gifts of money and those revenues derived from the improvement of stewardships as distinguished from the residues of the original consecrations and the surpluses which came from the operation of their stewardships.  (D&C 72:11 ff.)

The foregoing is the general outline as it is gathered from the revelations of the law of the United Order which the Lord spoke of as "my law."  (D&C 44:6; 51:15.)  There are passages in the revelations which, taken from their context and without having in mind the whole system, might be considered as inconsistent with some of the things which I have set out, but all such passages fall into line if the whole program is looked at as contained in all of the revelations.

Private Ownership Fundamental

The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property.  Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own.  The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, page 28).  The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.

The Welfare Plan and the United Order

We have all said that the Welfare Plan is not the United Order and was not intended to be.  However, I should like to suggest to you that perhaps, after all, when the Welfare Plan gets thoroughly into operation—it is not so yet—we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.

In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own.  Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property.

In the next place, in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the, United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing, all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church.  After all, the United Order was primarily designed to build up a system under which there should be no abjectly poor, and this is the purpose, also, of the Welfare Plan.

In this connection it should be observed that it is clear from these earlier revelations, as well as from our history, that the Lord had very early to tell the people about the wickedness of idleness, and the wickedness of greed, because the brethren who had were not giving properly, and those who had not were evidently intending to live without work on the things which were to be received from those who had property.  (D&C 56:16-20.)

Storehouses and Projects

Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop's storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor.  We have a bishop's storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose.

As I have already indicated, the surplus properties which came to the Church under the Law of Consecration, under the United Order, became the "common property" of the Church (D&C 82:18) and were handled under the United Order for the benefit of the poor.  We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, ward land projects.  In some cases the lands are owned by the wards, in others they are leased by the wards or lent to them by private individuals.  This land is being farmed for the benefit of the poor, by the poor where you can get the poor to work it.

We have in place of the two treasuries, the "Sacred Treasury" and "Another Treasury," the general funds of the Church.

Thus you will see, brethren, that in many of its great essentials, we have, as the Welfare Plan has now developed, the broad essentials of the United Order.  Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time and in various wards to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.

Now, brethren, the Church has made tremendous advances in the Welfare Plan.  We shall have to make still greater advances.  As the Message of the First Presidency said this morning, we are being told by Government officials that we face what we used to call "hard times."  If the Welfare Plan is fully operative, we shall be able to care for every destitute Latter-day Saint wherever he may be.

The Constitution

Now, I would like to say something else, brethren, again by way of counsel I shall be accused, when I do, of talking politics, and perhaps on this point I may say I do not read anonymous letters.  When they come in I just throw them into the wastebasket.  I only read enough of the signed scurrilous letters that are sent to know that they are scurrilous, and then they follow along.  So it is useless for anyone to try to take out any personal feeling in that way.

You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread.  I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance.

I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion.  In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part.  It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes, and, as one of the brethren said today, set up so that this Church might be established, because under no other government in the world could the Church have been established as it has been established under this Government.

I think I would be sale in saying that my fellowship with you in the Church depends upon whether or not I accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed.  If I am not willing to do that, then I am not entitled to fellowship.  Anyone else who fails to accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed stands in precisely the same situation.

In the 101st Section of the D&C, which contains a revelation received by the Prophet in 1833, when the persecution in Missouri was at its highest, the Lord told the brethren that they should appeal for help.  Then He added these verses, which I want to read to you:

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the fights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

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.  (D&C 101:77-80.)

Influence in the Americas

I suppose you brethren will all know, but I will recall it to your attention, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law for all of the Americas, or Zion, as it has been defined by the Lord.

You brethren from Canada know that, your great British North America Act, in its fundamental principles, is based upon our Constitution, and you know that in the courts of Canada, the reports of our Supreme Court, and our Federal courts generally, are just as persuasive as the decisions of the courts of England, and even more so, where questions of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation are involved.

You brethren also know that from the Rio Grande down to the Horn there is no constitutional government except those that are rounded primarily upon our own Constitution.  In Mexico the revolutionary party which more than a century and a quarter ago rebelled against the king of Spain and established a republic, copied almost verbatim, and practically overnight, our Constitution, and made it their own.  Neither Mexico nor the others to the South interpret their Constitutions as we interpret ours.  They have different standards and different canons of interpretation, for their fundamental system is the civil law, while ours is the common law.  But the great essentials of that document, the Constitution of the United States, which God Himself inspired, is the law of Zion, the Americas.

The Law of Zion

So, brethren, I wish you to understand that when we begin to tamper with the Constitution we begin to tamper with the law of Zion which God Himself set up, and no one may trifle with the word of God with impunity.

Now, I am not caring today, for myself, anything at all about a political party tag.  So far as I am concerned, I want to know what the man stands for.  I want to know if he believes in the Constitution; if he believes in its free institutions; if he believes in its liberties, its freedom.  I want to know if he believes in the Bill of Rights.  I want to know if he believes in the separation of sovereign power into the three great divisions: the Legislative, the Judicial, the Executive.  I want to know if he believes in the mutual independence of these, the one from the other.  When I find out these things, then I know who it is who should receive my support, and I care not what his party tag is, because, brethren, if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution.  There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees.  You may look at the systems all over the world where the principles of our Constitution are not controlling and in force, and you will find there dictatorship, tyranny, oppression, and, in the last analysts, slavery.

Allegiance

I have said enough.  I believe you understand what I have said.  Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord.  Every federal officer takes an oath to support that Constitution so given.  The difference between us and some of those to the South of us is this: down there, their fealty runs to individuals; here, our fealty and our allegiance run to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.

God give us wisdom and enable us in these times of trouble and strife clearly to see our way, that we may be instrumental in sustaining the Constitution, in upholding our free institutions, our civil rights, our freedom of speech, of press, of religion, and of conscience.  If we shall stand together we shall save the Constitution, just as has been foreseen, and if we do not stand together, we cannot perform this great task.

God grant that we may be true, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ.  Amen.

11:00 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Speech: "Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints" by Ezra Taft Benson
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints
by Ezra Taft Benson
1972 Apr

My beloved brothers and sisters, seen and unseen—and we are all brothers and sisters, children of the same Father in the spirit—humbly and gratefully I stand before you on this anniversary date of the organization of the restored church of Jesus Christ, 142 years ago.  I love a general conference of the Church, except this particular part, and yet I rejoice in the opportunity to bear testimony to this, the greatest work in all the world.

Last fall I was invited by Baron von Blomberg, president of the United Religions Organization, to represent the Church as a guest of the king of Persia at the twenty-five hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great.  Advised by the First Presidency to accept the invitation, I left immediately following the October conference to join with representatives of twenty-seven world religions, some fifty monarchs, and other notables at this historic celebration in Iran.

King Cyrus lived more than five hundred years before Christ and figured in prophecies of the Old Testament mentioned in 2 Chronicles and the book of Ezra, and by the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel.  The Bible states how "the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia."  (2 Chr. 36:22.)  Cyrus restored certain political and social rights to the captive Hebrews, gave them permission to return to Jerusalem, and directed that Jehovah's temple should be rebuilt.

Parley P. Pratt, in describing the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that he had "the boldness, courage, temperance, perseverance and generosity of a Cyrus."  (Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt [Deseret Book Company, 1938], p. 46.)

President Wilford Woodruff said:

"Now I have thought many times that some of those ancient kings that were raised up, had in some respects more regard for the carrying out of some of these principles and laws, than even the Latter-day Saints have in our day.  I will take as an ensample Cyrus. … To trace the life of Cyrus from his birth to his death, whether he knew it or not, it looked as though he lived by inspiration in all his movements.  He began with that temperance and virtue which would sustain any Christian country or any Christian king. … Many of these principles followed him, and I have thought many of them were worthy, in many respects, the attention of men who have the Gospel of Jesus Christ."  (Journal of Discourses, vol. 22, p. 207.)

God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes.  It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.

"Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along," said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve.  "They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose.  The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time.  God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work.  The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all.  It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles.  They are our partners in a certain sense."  (Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.)

This would certainly have been true of Colonel Thomas L. Kane, a true friend of the Saints in their dire need.  It was true of General Doniphan, who, when ordered by his superior to shoot Joseph Smith, said:  "It is cold blooded murder.  I will not obey your order. … and if you execute these men, I will hold you responsible before an earthly tribunal, so help me God."  (Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church History, p. 241.)

We honor these partners because their devotion to correct principles overshadowed their devotion to popularity, party, or personalities.

We honor our founding fathers of this republic for the same reason.  God raised up these patriotic partners to perform their mission, and he called them "wise men."  (See D&C 101:80.)  The First Presidency acknowledged that wisdom when they gave us the guideline a few years ago of supporting political candidates "who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers."  (Deseret News, November 2, 1964.)  That tradition has been summarized in the book The American Tradition by Clarence Carson.

The Lord said that "the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."  (Luke 16:8.)  Our wise founders seemed to understand, better than most of us, our own scripture, which states that "it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority … they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."  (D&C 121:39.)

To help prevent this, the founders knew that our elected leaders should be bound by certain fixed principles.  Said Thomas Jefferson: "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

These wise founders, our patriotic partners, seemed to appreciate more than most of us the blessings of the boundaries that the Lord set within the Constitution, for he said, "And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."  (D&C 98:7.)

In God the founders trusted, and in his Constitution—not in the arm of flesh.  "O Lord," said Nephi, "I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever.  I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; … cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm."  (2 Ne. 4:34.)

President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., put it well when he said:

"God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be.  Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up.  So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government.  A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself.  In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs.  This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom.  It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this 'land of liberty' from other countries."  (Improvement Era, July 1940, p. 444.)

"Patriotism," said Theodore Roosevelt, "means to stand by the country.  It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. …"

"Every man," said President Roosevelt, "who parrots the cry of 'stand by the President' without adding the proviso 'so far as he serves the Republic' takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong.  No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude."  (Theodore Roosevelt, Works, vol. 21, pp. 316, 321.)  And yet as Latter-day Saints we should pray for our civic leaders and encourage them in righteousness.

"… to vote for wicked men, it would be sin," said Hyrum Smith.  (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 323.)

And the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "… let the people of the whole Union, like the inflexible Romans, whenever they find a promise made by a candidate that is not practiced as an officer, hurl the miserable sycophant from his exaltation. …"  (DHC, vol. 6, p. 207.)

Joseph and Hyrum's trust did not run to the arm of flesh, but to God and correct eternal principles.  "I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth," said the Prophet Joseph Smith.  (DHC, vol. 6, p. 56.)

The warning of President Joseph Fielding Smith is most timely:  "Now I tell you it is time the people of the United States were waking up with the understanding that if they don't save the Constitution from the dangers that threaten it, we will have a change of government."  (Conference Report, April 1950, p. 159.)

Another guideline given by the First Presidency was "to support good and conscientious candidates, of either party, who are aware of the great dangers" facing the free world.  (Deseret News, November 2, 1964.)

Fortunately we have materials to help us face these threatening dangers in the writings of President David O. McKay and other church leaders.  Some other fine sources by LDS authors attempting to awaken and inform us of our duty are: Prophets, Principles, and National Survival (Jerreld L. Newquist), Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen (H. Verlan Andersen), and The Elders of Israel and the Constitution (Jerome Horowitz).

But the greatest handbook for freedom in this fight against evil is the Book of Mormon.

This leads me to the second great civic standard for the Saints.  For in addition to our inspired Constitution, we have the scriptures.

Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the "keystone of our religion" and the "most correct" book on earth.  (DHC, vol. 6, p. 56.)  This most correct book on earth states that the downfall of two great American civilizations came as a result of secret conspiracies whose desire was to overthrow the freedom of the people.  "And they have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking," says Moroni, "and also the destruction of the people of Nephi."  (Ether 8:21.)

Now undoubtedly Moroni could have pointed out many factors that led to the destruction of the people, but notice how he singled out the secret combinations, just as the Church today could point out many threats to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God's work, but it has singled out the greatest threat as the godless conspiracy.  There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon—it is a conspiracy fact.

Then Moroni speaks to us in this day and says, "Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you"  (Ether 8:14.)

The Book of Mormon further warns that "whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold they shall be destroyed. …"  (Ether 8:22.)

This scripture should alert us to what is ahead unless we repent, because there is no question but that as people of the free world, we are increasingly upholding many of the evils of the adversary today.  By court edict godless conspirators can run for government office, teach in our schools, hold office in labor unions, work in our defense plants, serve in our merchant marines, etc.  As a nation, we are helping to underwrite many evil revolutionaries in our country.

Now we are assured that the Church will remain on the earth until the Lord comes again—but at what price?  The Saints in the early days were assured that Zion would be established in Jackson County, but look at what their unfaithfulness cost them in bloodshed and delay.

President Clark warned us that "we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we of this church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known. …"  (CR, April 1944, p. 116.)  And he stated that if the conspiracy "comes here it will probably come in its full vigor and there will be a lot of vacant places among those who guide and direct, not only this government, but also this Church of ours."  (CR, April 1952.)

Now the third great civic standard for the Saints is the inspired word of the prophets—particularly the living president, God's mouthpiece on the earth today.  Keep your eye on the captain and judge the words of all lesser authority by his inspired counsel.

The story is told how Brigham Young, driving through a community, saw a man building a house and simply told him to double the thickness of his walls.  Accepting President Young as a prophet, the man changed his plans and doubled the walls.  Shortly afterward a flood came through that town, resulting in much destruction, but this man's walls stood.  While putting the roof on his house, he was heard singing, "We thank thee, O God, for a prophet!"

Joseph Smith taught "that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."  (DHC, vol. 5, p. 265.)

Suppose a leader of the Church were to tell you that you were supporting the wrong side of a particular issue.  Some might immediately resist this leader and his counsel or ignore it, but I would suggest that you first apply the fourth great civic standard for the faithful Saints.  That standard is to live for, to get, and then to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Said Brigham Young:  "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. … Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not."  (JD, vol. 9, p. 150.)

A number of years ago, because of a statement that appeared to represent the policy of the Church, a faithful member feared he was supporting the wrong candidate for public office.  Humbly he took the matter up with the Lord.  Through the Spirit of the Lord he gained the conviction of the course he should follow, and he dropped his support of this particular candidate.

This good brother, by fervent prayer, got the answer that in time proved to be the right course.

We urge all men to read the Book of Mormon and then ask God if it is true.  And the promise is sure that they may know of its truthfulness through the Holy Ghost, "and by the power of the Holy Ghost [men] may know the truth of all things."  (Moro. 10:5.)

We need the constant guidance of that Spirit.  We live in an age of deceit.  "O my people," said Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, "they who lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths."  (2 Ne. 13:12.)  Even within the Church we have been warned that "the ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep's clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood."  (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR, April 1949, p. 163.)

The Lord holds us accountable if we are not wise and are deceived.  "For they that are wise," he said, "and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day."  (D&C 45:57.)

And so four great civic standards for the faithful Saints are, first, the Constitution ordained by God through wise men; second, the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon; third, the inspired counsel of the prophets, especially the living president, and fourth, the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

God bless us all that we may use these standards and by so doing bless ourselves, our families, our community, our nation, and the world, I humbly pray, as I bear my witness to the truth of this great latter-day work, in the name of Jesus Christ.  Amen.

11:00 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Pamphlet: The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson
Category: Religion and Philosophy

The Proper Role of Government
by Ezra Taft Benson
1968

Men in the public spotlight are constantly asked to express opinions on a myriad of government proposals and projects.  "What do you think of TVA?"  "What is your opinion of Medicare?"  "How do you feel about urban renewal?"  The list is endless.  All too often, answers to these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government in question.  Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they themselves wish to be popular—especially if they seek public office.

Government Should Be Based Upon Sound Principles

Such an approach to vital political questions of the day can only lead to public confusion and legislative chaos.  Decisions of this nature should be based upon and measured against certain basic principles regarding the proper role of government.  If principles are correct, then they can be applied to any specific proposal with confidence.

"Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference to which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization?  It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong.  Right and wrong as moral principles do not change.  They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated.  There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution."  (Albert E. Bowen, Conference Report, October 1944, p. 153.)

Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and he works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.

The Correct Role of Government

I should like to outline in clear, concise, and straight-forward terms the political principles to which I subscribe.  These are the guidelines which determine, now and in the future, my attitudes and actions toward all domestic proposals and projects of government.  These are the principles which, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the domestic affairs of the nation.

"[I] believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

"[I] believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

"[I] believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."  (D&C 134:1-2,5.)

The Most Important Function of Government

It is generally agreed that the single most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.  But what are those rights?  And what is their source?  Until these questions are answered, there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them.

Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that "rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another. . . . It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man."

The great Thomas Jefferson asked:  "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?"  (Notes on Virginia, 1781, Query XVIII.)

Starting at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know as human rights.  There are only two possible sources.  Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan or they are granted by government as part of the political plan.  Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights.  If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government.  I, for one, shall never accept that premise.  As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.  On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."  (The Law, 1850, p. 6.)

The Real Meaning of the Separation of Church and State

I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion.  But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God.  The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny.  If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations—a throwback to the feudal system of the Dark Ages.  We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . ."

Since God created man with certain inalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.  Even the nonbeliever can appreciate the logic of this relationship.

The Source of Governmental Power

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is obvious that a government is nothing more nor less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized.  It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything.  Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it.  This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads:  "We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. . . ."

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they themselves have in the first place.  Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess.  So the question boils down to this: What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form?  A hypothetical question?  Yes, indeed!  But it is a question that is vital to an understanding of the principles that underlie the proper function of government.

As James Madison, sometimes called the father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."  (The Federalist, no. 51.)

Natural Rights

In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another.  This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:

"Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.  These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.  For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality?  And what is property but an extension of our faculties?"  (The Law, p. 6.)

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three—defending themselves, their property, and their liberty—in what properly was called the lawless West.  In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff.  At this precise moment, government is born.  The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves.  The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves—nothing more.  Quoting again from Bastiat:

"If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.  Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right."

So far so good.  But now we come to the moment of truth.  Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon.  He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune.  Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse?  Obviously not.  If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question.  But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.

If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff?  No.  Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A," they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it.  They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have.  This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:  "For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another."  (Two Treatises of Civil Government, 1690, Book 2, no. 135.)

The Proper Function of Government

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.  By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude.  It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will.  Government is created by man.  No man possesses such power to delegate.  The creature cannot exceed the creator.

In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.

The Powers of a Proper Government

It also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective functions, such as:

1. The maintenance of courts where those charged with crimes may be tried and where disputes between citizens may be impartially settled.

2. The establishment of a monetary system and a standard of weights and measures so that courts may render money judgments, taxing authorities may levy taxes, and citizens may have a uniform standard to use in their business dealings.

My attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the Alabama Constitution:  "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."  (Article I, D&C 35.)

An important test I use in passing judgment upon an act of government is this:  If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so?  Since my conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellowman unless he has done something evil or unless he has failed to do something that I have a moral right to require him to do, I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government, to do this on my behalf.

I realize that when I give my consent to the adoption of a law, I specifically instruct the police—the government—to take either the life, liberty, or property of anyone who disobeys that law.  Furthermore, I tell them that if anyone resists the enforcement of the law, they are to use any means necessary—yes, even putting the law-breaker to death or putting him in jail—to overcome such resistance.  These are extreme measures but unless laws are enforced, anarchy results.

As John Locke explained many years ago:

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.  For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom.  For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he lists."  For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?  But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own."  (Two Treatises, Book 2, no. 57.)

I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program.  We should fully recognize that government is no plaything.  As George Washington warned, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force!  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!"  It is an instrument of force, and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail, or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.

The Constitution of the United States

Another standard I use in determining what law is good and what is bad is the Constitution of the United States.  I regard this inspired document as a solemn agreement between the citizens of this nation that every officer of government is under a sacred duty to obey.  As Washington stated so clearly in his immortal Farewell Address:

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.—But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.  The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presuppose the duty of every individual to obey the established government."  (September 17, 1796.)

I am especially mindful that the Constitution provides that the great majority of the legitimate activities of government are to be carried out at the state or local level.  This is the only way in which the principle of self-government can be made effective.  As James Madison said before the adoption of the Constitution, "We rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."  (The Federalist, no. 39.)  Thomas Jefferson made this interesting observation:  "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?  Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?  Let history answer this question."  (Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801.)

The Value of Local Government

It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so.  First, the community or city.  If the city cannot handle it, then the county.  Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possibly do the job should the federal government be considered.  This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group.  And so far as government is concerned, the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to correct it, to keep it solvent, and to keep our freedom.  Thomas Jefferson understood the principle very well and explained it this way:

"The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.  Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself.  It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.  What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body."  (Letter to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816.)

It is well to remember that the people of the states of this republic created the federal government.  The federal government did not create the states.

Things the Government Should Not Do

A category of government activity that today not only requires the closest scrutiny, but that also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity not within the proper sphere of government.  No one has the authority to grant such powers as welfare programs, schemes for redistributing the wealth, and activities that coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning.  There is one simple test.  Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal?  If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf.  If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient.  If I could only force the ignorant to provide for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth!  But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master.  Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn?  Who is to say "this far, but no further"?  What clear principle will stay the hand of government from reaching further and yet further into our daily lives?  We shouldn't forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland, that "though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people."  (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 8, p. 557.)  We should also remember, as Frederick Bastiat reminded us, that "nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in."  (The Law, p. 30.)

The Dividing Line Between Proper and Improper Government

As Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called benefits for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder.  It becomes a lever of unlimited power, which is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit its favorite charities—all with the other fellow's money, of course.

The Nature of Legal Plunder

Listen to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder":

When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed. . . .

"How is this legal plunder to be identified?  Quite simply.  See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.  See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. . . ."  (The Law, p. 21, 26.)

As Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust.  Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support.  Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs.  In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone suffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom.  With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states.  Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistributive function, then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism.  "It is impossible," Bastiat correctly observed, ". . . to introduce into society . . . a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder."  (The Law, p. 12.)

Government Cannot Create Wealth

Students of history know that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth.  People who work create wealth.  James R. Evans, in his inspiring book The Glorious Quest, gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:

"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for ploughed up acreage.  But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy.  Neither you nor I, nor would 99 per cent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man's doorbell, hold out a hand and say, 'Give me what you've earned even though I have not.'  We simply wouldn't do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, 'Thou shalt not steal.'  In short, we would be held accountable for our actions."

The free creative energy of this choice nation "created more than 50% of all the world's products and possessions in the short span of 160 years.  The only imperfection in the system is the imperfection in man himself."

The last paragraph in this remarkable Evans book—which I commend to all—reads:

"No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure.  He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them.  The choice is ours."  (Chicago: Charles Haelberg and Company.)

The Basic Error of Marxism

According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature.  In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary.  The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care—the same things that might be considered in a jail.  The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and, in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities.  It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly guaranteed to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed.  The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government.  They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production.  Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat.  Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed, and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.

The Real Cause of American Prosperity

Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes, and assemble more TV sets than Russians do?  They do so precisely because our government does not guarantee these things.  If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations, and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the iron curtain.  As Henry D. Thoreau explained:

"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way.  It does not keep the country free.  It does not settle the West.  It does not educate.  The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.  For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it."  (Civil Disobedience, 1849.)

In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:

"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people?  Still one thing more, fellow citizens—a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned."

A Formula for Prosperity

The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:

1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.

2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.

3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing, and eager labor.

4. This is not possible without incentive.

5. Of all forms of incentive, the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors is the most sustaining for most people.  Sometimes called the profit motive, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

6. This profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations, and taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.

7. Therefore, any attempt through governmental intervention to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.  (See G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, 1964, p. 128.)

An Example of the Consequences of Disregarding These Principles

We have before us currently a sad example of what happens to a nation which ignores these principles.  Former FBI agent Dan Smoot succinctly pointed this out as follows:

"England was killed by an idea: the idea that the weak, indolent, and profligate must be supported by the strong, industrious, and frugal—to the degree that tax consumers will have a living standard comparable to that of taxpayers; the idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering those who work to give the product of their labor to those who do not work.  The economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle—any society."  (Broadcast no. 649, January 29, 1968.)

The Power of True Liberty from Improper Governmental Interference

Nearly two hundred years ago, Adam Smith, the Englishman, who understood these principles very well, published his great book The Wealth of Nations, which contains this statement:

"The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often incumbers its operations; though the effect of these obstructions is always more or less either to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish its security."  (Book 4, chapter 5.)

But What About the Needy?

On the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent.  "What about the lame, the sick, and the destitute?" is an often-voiced question.  Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need.  Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted, in the long run, in creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in.  As Henry Grady Weaver wrote in his excellent book The Mainspring of Human Progress:

"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. . . . The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders," who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others—with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means."  (The Foundation for Economic Education, 1953, p. 313.)

The Better Way

By comparison, America traditionally has followed Jefferson's advice of relying on individual action and charity.  The result is that the United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the entire world or throughout all history.  Even during the depression of the 1930s, Americans ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.

What Is Wrong With a "Little" Socialism?

In reply to the argument that just a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right too!  History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship.  But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed.  If not, then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.

Three Reasons Americans Need Not Fall for Socialist Deceptions

Three factors may make a difference.  First, there is sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past mistakes of previous civilizations.  Second, there are modern means of rapid communication to transmit these lessons of history to a large literate population.  And third, there is a growing number of dedicated men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these concepts.  The timely joining together of these three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.

How Can Present Socialistic Trends Be Reversed?

This brings up the next question:  How is it possible to cut out the various welfare-state features of our government that have already fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic?  Isn't drastic surgery already necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the patient?  In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures are called for.  No half-way or compromise actions will suffice.  Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come.  But it must be done if the patient is to be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.

Obviously, not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval.  To try to do so would be like finding oneself at the controls of a hijacked airplane and attempting to return it by simply cutting off the engines in flight.  It must be flown back, lowered in altitude, gradually reduced in speed, and brought in for a smooth landing.  Translated into practical terms, this means that the first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are added.  The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no renewal.  The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term.  In my opinion, the bulk of the transition could be accomplished within a ten-year period and virtually completed within twenty years.  Congress would serve as the initiator of this phase-out program, and the President would act as the executive in accordance with traditional constitutional procedures.

Summary Thus Far

As I summarize what I have attempted to cover, try to visualize the structural relationship between the six vital concepts that have made America the envy of the world.  I have reference to the foundation of the divine origin of rights, limited government, and pillars of economic freedom and personal freedom, which result in abundance, followed by security and the pursuit of happiness.

America was built upon a firm foundation and created over many years from the bottom up.  Other nations, impatient to acquire equal abundance, security, and pursuit of happiness, rush headlong into that final phase of construction without building adequate foundations or supporting pillars.  Their efforts are futile.  And even in our country, there are those who think that, because we now have the good things in life, we can afford to dispense with the foundations that have made them possible.  They want to remove any recognition of God from governmental institutions.  They want to expand the scope and reach of government that will undermine and erode our economic and personal freedoms.  The abundance that is ours, the carefree existence that we have come to accept as a matter of course, can be toppled by these foolish experimenters and power seekers.  By the grace of God, and with his help, we shall fence them off from the foundations of our liberty and then begin our task of repair and construction.

As a fitting summary to this discussion, I present a declaration of principles that have recently been prepared by a few American patriots, and to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.

Fifteen Principles Which Make for Good and Proper Government

As an independent American for constitutional government I declare that:

1. I believe that no people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law.

2. I believe that God has endowed men with certain inalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression.

3. I believe that the Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by men acting under inspiration from Almighty God; that it is a solemn compact between the peoples of the states of this nation that all officers of government are under duty to obey; that the eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish.

4. I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:

a. To punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;

b. To protect the right and control of private property;

c. To wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense;

d. To compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.

5. I hold that the Constitution denies government the power to take from the individual either his life, liberty, or property except in accordance with moral law; that the same moral law which governs the actions of men when acting alone is also applicable when they act in concert with others; that no citizen or group of citizens has any right to direct their agent, the government, to perform any act that would be evil or offensive to the conscience if that citizen were performing the act himself outside the framework of government.

6. I am hereby resolved that under no circumstances shall the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights be infringed. In particular I am opposed to any attempt on the part of the federal government to deny the people their right to bear arms, to worship, and to pray when and where they choose, or to own and control private property.

7. I consider ourselves at war with international communism, which is committed to the destruction of our government, our right of property, and our freedom; that it is treason as defined by the Constitution to give aid and comfort to this implacable enemy.

8. I am unalterably opposed to socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right of private property for government to own or operate the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise, or to regiment owners in the legitimate use of private property.

9. I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his life, liberty, and property should bear his fair share of the cost of government in providing that protection; that the elementary principles of justice set forth in the Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform; and that each person's property or income be taxed at the same rate.

10. I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible into such money without loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the federal government to make it a criminal offense to use gold or silver coin as legal tender or to issue irredeemable paper money.

11. I believe that each state is sovereign in performing those functions reserved to it by the Constitution, and it is destructive of our federal system and the right of self-government guaranteed under the Constitution for the federal government to regulate or control the states in performing their functions or to engage in performing such functions itself.

12. I consider it a violation of the Constitution for the federal government to levy taxes for the support of state or local government; that no state or local government can accept funds from the federal government and remain independent in performing its functions, nor can the citizens exercise their rights of self-government under such conditions.

13. I deem it a violation of the right of private property guaranteed under the Constitution for the federal government to forcibly deprive the citizens of this nation of their property through taxation or otherwise, and make a gift thereof to foreign governments or their citizens.

14. I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.

15. I consider it a direct violation of the obligation imposed upon it by the Constitution for the federal government to dismantle or weaken our military establishment below that point required for the protection of the states against invasion, or to surrender or commit our men, arms, or money to the control of foreign or world organizations or governments.

These things I believe to be the proper role of government.  We have strayed far afield.  We must return to basic concepts and principles—to eternal verities.  There is no other way.  The storm signals are up.  They are clear and ominous.

As Americans—citizens of the greatest nation under heaven—we face difficult days.  Never since the days of the Civil War has this choice nation faced such a crisis.

In closing I wish to refer you to the words of the patriot Thomas Paine, whose writings helped so much to stir into a flaming spirit the smoldering embers of patriotism during the days of the American Revolution:

"These are the times that try men's souls.  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.  Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.  What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness only that gives everything its value.  Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."  (The American Crisis, no. 1, 1776.)

President Theodore Roosevelt warned that "the things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, and love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

I intend to keep fighting.  My personal attitude is one of resolution—not resignation.

I have faith in the American people.  I pray that we will never do anything that will jeopardize in any manner our priceless heritage.  If we live and work so as to enjoy the approbation of a Divine Providence, we cannot fail.  Without that help we cannot long endure.

All Right-Thinking Americans Should Now Take Their Stand

So I urge all Americans to put their courage to the test.  Be firm in our conviction that our cause is just.  Reaffirm our faith in all things for which true Americans have always stood.

I urge all Americans to arouse themselves and stay aroused.  We must not make any further concessions to communism at home or abroad.  We do not need to.  We should oppose communism from our position of strength, for we are not weak.

"We are not cowards," said Ted Dealey of the Dallas Morning News, "and will not wallow in the sloughs of degradation.  We do not want to be lulled to sleep any more.  We are awake and angry and intend to remain so."

There is much work to be done.  The time is short.  Let us begin—in earnest—now, and may God bless our efforts, I humbly pray.

11:00 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Article: "The Divinely Inspired Constitution" by Dallin Harris Oaks
Category: Religion and Philosophy

"The Divinely Inspired Constitution"
by Dallin Harris Oaks
1992 Feb

Not long after I began to teach law, an older professor asked me a challenging question about Latter-day Saints' belief in the United States Constitution.  Earlier in his career he had taught at the University of Utah College of Law.  There he met many Latter-day Saint law students.  "They all seemed to believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired," he said, "but none of them could ever tell me what this meant or how it affected their interpretation of the Constitution."  I took that challenge personally, and I have pondered it for many years.

I hope I will not be thought immodest if I claim a special interest in the Constitution.  As a lawyer and law professor for more than twenty years, I have studied the United States Constitution.  As legal counsel, I helped draft the bill of rights for the Illinois constitutional convention of 1970.  And for three and one-half years as a justice of the Utah Supreme Court I had the sworn duty to uphold and interpret the constitutions of the state of Utah and the United States.  My conclusions draw upon those experiences and upon a lifetime of studying the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets.  My opinions on this subject are personal and do not represent a statement in behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Creation and Ratification

The United States Constitution was the first written constitution in the world.  It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and prosperity during the changed conditions of more than two hundred years.  Frequently copied, it has become the United States' most important export.  After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution was a model for all of them.  No wonder modern revelation says that God established the U.S. Constitution and that it "should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."  (D&C 101:77.)

George Washington was perhaps the first to use the word miracle in describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.  In a 1788 letter to Lafayette, he said:

"It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well-founded objections."