Through revelations granted to the Prophet Joseph and his predecessors, we learn some profound things about our relationship to God and our ultimate des­tiny. We learn that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, progressed “from grace to grace, until he received a fulness”¹ and that we may follow in that same path. He said, “For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.”² In explaining the natural conclusion of this pattern, Joseph Smith said:

Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods your­selves, and to be kings and priests to God, . . . by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.³

Joseph Smith also referred to God’s use of law in this process:

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another.⁴

I cite one more teaching from the Prophet that adds the remaining element to this equation—agency:

All persons are entitled to their agency, for God has so ordained it. He has constituted mankind moral agents, and given them power to choose good or evil; to seek after that which is good, by pursuing the pathway of holiness in this life, which brings peace of mind, and joy in the Holy Ghost here, and a fulness of joy and happiness at His right hand hereafter; or to pursue an evil course, going on in sin and rebellion against God, thereby bringing condemna­tion to their souls in this world, and an eternal loss in the world to come.⁵

All of this declares that we have a potential made possible by God beyond anything we can fully comprehend or appreciate at present. And we recognize, of course, that none of us will achieve the ultimate end, the status of eternal life with God our Father, in a matter of days or years or with­out substantial help. We require the help of one another and an incalculable measure of divine grace originating in Christ and administered through the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, our own choices will always be critical to what we become. And the capacity and power to choose are, as Joseph Smith declared, dependent on laws instituted by or under the authority of God.

Such laws link particular actions to fixed outcomes. If a given choice did not always and invari­ably yield the same result, we could not in the end control outcomes, and the power to choose would be meaningless. And even with law, if we are not free to act, either to follow or reject it, we likewise could not use law to progress from grace to grace. I believe that Satan’s proposals in the premortal world attacked both of these principles. He wanted to be vested with a power of compul­sion over the souls of men and with the honor or power of God:

And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.⁶

Had Satan been granted power to dictate our choices, we would have become nothing more than his puppets, eternally dependent upon him. It is my personal opinion that in demanding “Give me thine honor,” Satan was also coveting God’s power to establish the law, and that it was his intention to use that power arbitrarily—to apply, revoke, and change laws in an arbitrary fashion that would destroy our power to act indepen­dently and to choose our destiny. For whatever reason, Satan was excep­tionally persuasive in lobbying for his approach. Happily, his plan was rejected, although echoes continue to reverberate in the world around us.

The deities of ancient Greek and Roman mythology were often arbitrary beings. While they were supposed to possess remarkable powers, they were ruled by their passions. As they fought and jockeyed for position among themselves, or simply vented feelings of lust, anger, or frustration, mere mortals were sometimes caught in the cross fire. We can be grateful, to say the least, that the true and living God is nothing like the imaginary Zeus or Jupiter.

The scripture states, “There are many kingdoms. . . . And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.”⁷ Apparently, laws with their con­ditions and bounds may vary in different kingdoms or spheres—as, for example, the laws of the several kingdoms that prevail in our postmortal life. The Lord says that His celestial kingdom is populated by those who are “sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ,”⁸ and that those who cannot abide this celestial law must inherit a lesser kingdom whose law they are able and willing to follow.⁹ While differing laws may apply in different parts of God’s creation, the laws that do apply do not themselves vary. Such beings and creations as are subject to them can rely on them to achieve their divine potential. We are told that those who are governed by law are preserved, perfected, and sanctified by the same.¹⁰

Under the umbrella of divine law and order applicable to the “kingdom” that is our present mor­tal world, God delegates to us, His children, the opportunity and responsibility to establish laws and legal systems to govern human relations and conduct. Let me quote from section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

We 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.

We 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.¹¹

These standards—(1) that laws are to be made and administered for “the good and safety of soci­ety” and (2) that they must secure to each individual the rights of life, property, and conscience—bespeak a legal environment in which man may progress toward his divine destiny, to become what God has ordained he may become. They establish the stability, order, and means whereby each individual may exercise moral agency. They produce a setting wherein each person, if he or she so desires, can “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him”¹² and all that that entails.

In the infant days of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Lord expressed in a revelation to Joseph Smith the wisdom and benefit of organizing the Church and its work “according to the laws of man; That your enemies may not have power over you; that you may be preserved in all things; that you may be enabled to keep my laws.”¹³ I read this to mean that, as a general principle, submission to the laws of man will offer very real protections, providing in effect a safe haven within which we can act to obey and serve God.

In his book The Clash of Orthodoxies, Robert P. George has an interesting chapter titled “What Is Law?” He examines the debates among legal thinkers and philosophers in the English-speaking world over the last century, beginning with Oliver Wendell Holmes, about the origins and nature of law. He cites, for example, the group whose legal realist movement flourished to some extent in the 1930s and 1940s. These scholars debunked the idea of legal objectivity; to be realistic, they main­tained, we “should abandon the idea that law pre-exists and is available to guide legal decisions.”¹⁴ They argued that judges’ reasoning and citation of laws as the basis of their decisions are in reality “mere legal rationalization of decisions reached on other grounds.”¹⁵

George reviews other theories such as “legal positivism,” which in some versions holds to “the idea that law ought not to embody or enforce moral judgments.”¹⁶ Other proponents, however, acknowledge that the content of legal rules reflects “nothing so much as the moral judgments pre­vailing in any society regarding the subject matters regulated by law.”¹⁷ For George himself, “legal rules and principles function as practical reasons for citizens, as well as judges and other officials, because the citizens appreciate their moral value.”¹⁸ He subscribes to the proposition lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is not law), by which he means, if I understand him correctly, that it is essential for the laws and legal systems created by man to have a basis in natural law or morality.¹⁹

In his 1993 encyclical letter titled “Veritatis Splendor,” Pope John Paul II expressed the relevant Catholic doctrine in these words:

Only by obedience to universal moral norms does man find full confirmation of his personal uniqueness and the possibility of authentic moral growth. . . . These norms in fact represent the unshakable foundation and solid guar­antee of a just and peaceful human coexistence, and hence of genuine democracy, which can come into being and develop only on the basis of the equality of all its members, who possess common rights and duties. When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal.²⁰

Latter-day Saints would necessarily be included among those who believe in preexisting and uni­versal natural law—or, as we might express it, law rooted in the preexisting justice and order of God. I firmly agree that insofar as humanly possible, man’s laws and legal systems should be tied to God’s laws and should reflect the same ultimate purpose: to foster our becoming all that we can become here and hereafter. People instinctively appreciate the value of law that has valid moral underpin­nings because it is in their nature as spiritual beings and children of God—the ultimate moral Being. The light of Christ that we sometimes call conscience lights every person who comes into this world.²¹

Some of you may be thinking, “This is all very grand, but where, for example, does tax law fit in?” I would answer that it probably does not, since tax codes are the work of the devil, right? But in all seriousness, even the very mundane can have a role if it is supportive of—or at least not inconsistent with—overarching divine principles and purpose. The Uniform Commercial Code, for example, would seem to have little if any contribution to make in helping us achieve our divine potential, but even something so unethereal can have value as part of a larger legal structure that supports fundamental fairness, mini­mizes strife, rewards honest labor, preserves stable families, and, ultimately, enshrines moral agency.

Returning again to the Doctrine and Covenants:

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.²²

Here, more specifically, we come to many of you in the profession of law. You live in societies where the system of “civil officers and magistrates” includes judges and lawyers who occupy a vital role in administering the law “in equity and justice.” You whose first loyalty is to God can press in a variety of ways for laws and systems that track the divine model or that at least do not undermine it. Let me be clear that I am not speaking of any endeavor to impose upon society by some sort of fiat what we see as the appropriate application of divinely revealed principles. We cannot, and we make no attempt to do so. I am speaking of advocacy and persuasion. At the same time, it will not do to pretend that an individual or group may not participate in the debates and processes that shape our laws simply because their arguments are based on moral norms or because their moral vision is not shared by all citizens. Essentially all legislation is based on moral judgments—religious, secular, or otherwise, and all parties to the ongoing contest seek to have their ethical and moral concerns heard. In the end we are governed by those that prevail in the public mind. It is not an imposition of religion for religionists to take part in the discussion, and there is no justice in one side with deeply held values seeking to silence another because it espouses different deeply held values.

Consider the example of William Wilberforce and others of his time who sought to conform the laws of Great Britain to a higher moral standard of equity and justice. Wilberforce is rightly remembered and revered for his central role in the abolition of the slave trade that was then domi­nated by British ships. For some 18 years, beginning in 1789, he labored as a member of Parliament to end this evil commerce and lay the groundwork for the abolition of slavery altogether:

Wilberforce’s involvement in the abolition movement was motivated by a desire to put his Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life. . . . [He] sensed a call from God, writing in a journal entry in 1787 that “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values].”²³

Initially, Wilberforce’s bills in the House of Commons were easily defeated. Then, just as momentum began to build, the French Revolution and slave revolts in the West Indies caused a shift back to caution and delay. During the protracted campaign, “Wilberforce’s commitment never wavered, despite frustration and hostility. He was supported in his work by fellow members of the so-called Clapham Sect. . . . Holding evangelical Christian con­victions, and consequently dubbed ‘the Saints,’ the group lived in large adjoining houses in Clapham.”²⁴ Finally, in 1807, Wilberforce’s Abolition Bill passed the House of Lords and was pre­sented to the House of Commons. “As tributes were made to Wilberforce, whose face streamed with tears, the bill was carried by 283 votes to 16.”²⁵

It is significant to recognize that while Wilberforce, as a member of Parliament, took the lead­ing role in official circles, the active and devoted efforts of many others with no political portfo­lio were essential to success in the campaign to end the slave trade. The collaboration of Thomas Clarkson, a fellow graduate of Wilberforce at St. John’s Cambridge, was especially important. Also critical was the part played by members of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, a group made up primarily of like-minded British Quakers and Anglicans that included Clarkson and that Wilberforce joined in 1791.

The society was highly successful in raising public awareness and support, and local chapters sprang up throughout Great Britain. Clarkson travelled the country researching and collecting firsthand testimony and sta­tistics, while the committee promoted the campaign, pioneering techniques such as lobbying, writing pamphlets, holding public meetings, gaining press attention, organizing boycotts and even using a campaign logo: an image of a kneeling slave above the motto “Am I Not a Man and a Brother?” designed by the renowned pottery-maker Josiah Wedgwood. The committee also sought to influence slave-trading nations such as France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Holland and the United States, corresponding with anti-slavery activists in other countries and organ­ising the translation of English-language books and pamphlets. These included books by former slaves Ottobah Cugoano and Olaudah Equiano, who had published influential works on slavery and the slave trade in 1787 and 1789, respectively. They and other free blacks, collectively known as “Sons of Africa,” spoke at debating societies and wrote spirited letters to newspapers, periodicals and prominent figures, as well as public letters of support to campaign allies. . . . The campaign proved to be the world’s first grassroots human rights campaign, in which men and women from different social classes and backgrounds volunteered to end the injustices suffered by others.²⁶

William Wilberforce and his allies provide an encouraging example of success after much labor and against daunting opposition. Not every effort, however, will succeed—at least not ini­tially. Consider a more recent example in the arena of things that bear on marriage and families and the rearing of children. The “no-fault” divorce laws that have been adopted in the United States and elsewhere were warned against decades ago by President David O. McKay and others. The disastrous consequences visited on the institution of mar­riage since then are clearly evident, with children being the primary victims—some of whom, given their suffering, are now reluctant to marry and rear families themselves. But whatever the setbacks in our striving to sustain family or other moral imperatives among our fellowman, surely we must, as Paul declared, fight the good fight.²⁷ Mohammed is reported to have said, “Who[so]ever sees a wrong and is able to put it right with his hand, let him do so; if he can’t, then with his tongue; if he can’t, then in his heart, and that is the bare minimum of faith.”²⁸

Of all the moral imperatives we seek to embrace and defend in our legal systems, in my opin­ion it is individual agency and accountability that must always be preeminent, because agency is so basic to realizing our God-given potential. On the one hand, we should uphold those legal and political concepts that protect legitimate individual action, and, on the other, we should oppose those theories and schemes that exert unjust dominion or diminish predictability and consistency in the operation of law. True, there is some degree of compulsion in any law, but generally it is the kind designed to preserve space and opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Other pro­posals, however, look to compel our acceptance or tolerance of actions that offend the moral con­science. A potential example would be the case of a doctor being forced to participate in an abortion against his or her conscientious objection on pain of forfeiting the right to practice medicine.

All man-made legal systems are imperfect and include elements of injustice. Still, you can strive to make the legal system within which you live and work come as close as possible to the perfectly just “legal system” of God. You can take as your guide not only the wisdom of similarly minded men and women from the past but also the teachings of the scriptures, prophets, and the Holy Spirit. In this, as in other matters, you are invited to study out in your own mind concepts regarding the stan­dards, direction, and even the specifics of what the law should be, how the legal system should be structured, and how it should operate and then to ask God if it be right.²⁹ Surely you are entitled in your role and sphere to revelation on things that bear so directly on not only the present estate of man but also his ultimate future.

God finds His glory, as Joseph Smith said, in providing laws by which other beings can come to enjoy the same perfections and glory He possesses.³⁰ Our view and motivations should be the same. Rather than seeing law as an instrument of domination, it is our mission to use it as an enabling power to help men and women achieve greater independence and ultimate potential. We do so by acting to have our earthly governmental and legal systems mirror as closely as possible the divine order.

After all I have said in praise of law and all the effort I have enjoined you to make in sustaining and defending a moral order, we must in the end acknowledge that we cannot achieve ultimate jus­tice apart from Jesus Christ. To establish and preserve the law is a great good, but the greatest good we can do in helping others become what they can become will be to lead them to the Savior. Only His Atonement has the power to overcome all weakness and imperfection and to make right all injustice. Only He can convert offense and injury into blessings; only He can bring life again to a life unjustly cut short; only He can return a perfect body for one diseased or malformed; only He can reinstate beloved associations lost and make them permanent; only He can make right the suffering entailed upon the innocent by ignorance and oppression; only He can erase the impact of sin on one who is wronged; only He can remove the stain and effect of sin in the sinner; only He can eliminate sor­row and wipe away all tears;³¹ only He can provide immortality; only His grace can compensate for our inadequacy and justify us before that law that enables us to become joint heirs of eternal life with Him. Of the glorious reality of the living Christ, I bear my witness.

notes

1. D&C 93:13.
2. D&C 93:20.
3. History of the Church, 6:306.
4. History of the Church, 6:312.
5. History of the Church, 4:45.
6. Moses 4:1.
7. D&C 88:37–38.
8. D&C 88:21.
9. See D&C 88:21–24.
10. See D&C 88:34.
11. D&C 134:1–2.
12. Moroni 10:32.
13. D&C 44:4–5.
14. Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies (Wilmington, Delaware: isi Books, 2001), 219.
15. Clash, 219.
16. Clash, 222.
17. Clash, 223.
18. Clash, 226.
19. See Clash, 227–28.
20. Pope John Paul II, “Veritatis Splendor,” 6 August 1993, 91; emphasis in original.
21. See D&C 84:45–46; 88:7–14; 92:2.
22. D&C 134:3.
23. Wikipedia, William Wilberforce, 31 January 2011, 8:23 p.m.
24. Wikipedia.
25. Wikipedia.
26. Wikipedia.
27. See 2 Timothy 4:7.
28. Qanta A. Ahmed, “Fulfilling Our Duty as Muslim-Americans,” Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2011, A11.
29. See D&C 9:8.
30. See Moses 1:39.
31. See Isaiah 25:8.

In the world there are more than three and a half billion people. They are divided into groups, each under the domination of systems whereby they become subject to the supreme power of the land in which they live. In some countries this supreme power is vested in one person, the sovereign. Other countries have republican forms of government in which sovereignty resides in the people, and the supreme power is usually expressed by the legislative body. Regardless of whether sovereignty is administered by an individual or by the people, citizens become subject to that supreme power. They have the rights and privileges afforded them under the law, and they have the duty to comply with the provisions of the law. This is essential for the good of society, for the protection of life and liberty, and for the promotion and preservation of the happiness of man.

Law must be sustained

In a republic, the government has the sovereign right as well as the duty to protect the rights of the individual and to settle civil disputes or disorders by peaceful means. Citizens do not have the right to take the law into their own hands or exercise physical force. The sovereign laws of the state must be sustained, and persons living under those laws must obey them for the good of the whole. In this regard The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes a strong position. One of the fundamental tenets of its faith is clearly stated in these words: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (Article of Faith 12.)

Those in the world who have a belief in God live under the unusual circumstances of a dual sovereignty. In addition to being subject to the supreme power of the state, they have a fealty to God and a solemn duty to keep the commandments given by him. This idea of divine kingship and a sovereignty runs through all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament.

The kingdom of God

In describing the commencement of the ministry of Jesus, Mark uses these words: “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

“And saying, the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:14–15.) Throughout his entire ministry, one of the main subjects of the teachings of the Master was “the kingdom of God is at hand.” Some scholars interpret the words “is at hand” as describing something to take place in the near future. It is their contention that the kingdom was not established on earth until the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out upon the multitude. They label this event as the beginning of the Christian Church. The facts, however, give basis for a different conclusion. There is ample evidence that the kingdom of God was established in the days of Adam, the first man, and has continued to the present day. The peoples of the earth, from the beginning, have had a duty to God as their king.

Dual sovereignty

Is it repugnant to the theory of sovereignty for a person or group of persons to owe fealty to two separate monarchs?-to have an allegiance to two separate and distinct sovereign powers? At first blush dual sovereignty would seem inconsistent, yet this has been the situation throughout man’s earthly existence. Such circumstances give rise to this query: If a conflict should arise with respect to allegiance, which should take precedence? A review of the history of mankind answers the further question as to whether or not there is a real conflict.

Bearing on this very point, an interesting occurrence took place during the ministry of the Master. It is recorded in three separate books of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and concerns a controversy over a tax assessment. Judea was under Roman mandate, and the authority of the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish council, had been curtailed under the Roman rule. The council was charged with the levy of taxes, but it did not have the power to decree capital punishment. This power was vested in the Roman procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate. Because the Sanhedrin was without authority as to capital punishment, those who were conspiring against Jesus conceived a plot to entrap him to give an answer that would constitute grounds to deliver him to Pilate on a charge of treason, a capital crime.

Question of allegiance

A tax had been levied on all persons living under Roman rule. This was probably the Roman capitation tax, or a poll tax as we would know it. The tax was not large, but a question of principle was involved. The Jews considered themselves as living under a theocracy, with Jehovah as king. They refused to recognize the Roman mandate. The question involved, therefore, was this: Can a Jew in good conscience pay the tax to the Romans, or must he fight for independence on the ground that God alone is the King of Israel? It became a question of allegiance to sovereignty.

The Pharisees who conceived the plan were anxious to take Jesus by surprise, so they stayed in the background and sent some of their young disciples and some Herodians to carry out the plot. The Herodians were not a religious sect but a political party. They were the followers of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, and supporters of the Roman domination. The Pharisees, of course, were resisting the Roman occupation of Judea. The design of these schemers seems to be that they would give the impression that a dispute had arisen between the young Pharisee scholars and the Herodians and they were coming to the Master for his opinion, to settle their differences.

Answer to Pharisees’ question

They approached Jesus respectfully and courteously and said to him, “Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.” Matt. 22:16.) It would appear that these honeyed words were spoken to disarm his suspicions, so he would give them his confidential opinion for their guidance in a moral issue. Then followed the carefully worded question: “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” The question was maliciously framed so as to require an answer of “yes” or “no, either of which would give them the basis to destroy him. If he had said, “Yes, pay the tax,” he would have been called a traitor. It would have driven a wedge between him and his followers end created rebellion. If his answer had been, “No, it is not lawful to pay the tax,” they would have delivered him into the hands of Rome on the charge of treason

His adversaries intended that Jesus would be gored on whichever horn of dilemma he might choose. The interesting thing about his answer is that he did not evade the question, but he answered it clearly and positively without being caught on either horn. He said, “Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money,; And they brought unto him a penny. (Matt 22:18–19.) What is referred to as a penny was no doubt the current Roman denarius with the image of Tiberius or possibly Augustus. He wanted to point out to them the image of Caesar and the inscription that gave his name and titles. There was a common maxim that the one who causes his image and titles to be stamped on the coin is the owner of the coin and acknowledged as the sovereign. “And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. . . .” (Matt. 22:20–21.) They had acknowledged that the coin belonged to the Roman Emperor, and it being the current coin for the payment of tax, it showed the country to be uner the rule of Rome. “. . . Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matt. 22:21.) In other words, “Don’t be unjust: give to Caesar the things that are his; and at the same time don’t be impious: give to God the things that belong to God.”

Jurisdiction defined

The wisdom of this answer defines the limitations of dual sovereigns and defines the jurisdiction of the two empires of heaven and earth. The image of monarchs stamped on coins denotes that temporal things belong to the temporal sovereign. The image of God stamped on the heart and soul of a man denotes that all its facilities and powers belong to God and should be employed in his service.

The lesson taught by the Master is so clear that elaboration is not necessary, nor will I labor the point. The test to be applied in weighing allegiance to sovereignty, where dual sovereigns are involved, is a matter of wisdom. I submit that there is no real conflict which creates a serious question as to allegiance.

In the present day of unrest, the question might appropriately be asked, what do we owe to Caesar? To the country in which we live? We owe allegiance, respect, and honor. Laws enacted to promote the welfare of the whole and suppress evil doing are to be strictly obeyed. We must pay tribute to sustain the government in the necessary expense incurred in the protection of life, liberty, property, and in promoting the welfare of all persons.

Church belief on governments and laws

In the year 1835, 133 years ago, a declaration of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding governments and laws was drafted and adopted by unanimous vote. It is incorporated as Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church. Although more than a century has passed, no changes or modifications have been made, and the statement stands as applicable today as the day it was written. If you will permit me to do so, I would like to recall a portion of this statement.

“We 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.

“We 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.

“We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

“We 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 134:1–5.)

Allegiance to sovereignty

The statement continues, but I will not read further. These words point up the solemn obligation of government and the solemn obligation of those who owe allegiance. This is a day when civil disobedience seems to be prevalent and even advocated from some pulpits, but the position of this Church and its teachings is clear.

I know that God lives, that he is the supreme power of heaven and earth. I bear witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Savior of all mankind. My knowledge of these truths moves me to allegiance to divine sovereignty, also to sustain the law of the land. There is no conflict between that which is owed to Caesar and the obligation to God. May the God of heaven give inspiration and guidance to those leaders in the world who formulate the policies of earthly sovereignty, and also to those of us who are governed by those powers. May righteousness be placed in proper perspective for the good of every man. The statement of the Master should be our guide: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matt. 6:33.) The honest search for righteousness and submission to the sovereignty of God answers the problems of Caesar. May the Lord bless us is my humble prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

“Be Subject to the Powers that Be.”

In a revelation given to the Church, August 1, 1831, the Lord said: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.” It has been the doctrine and practice of the covenant people of God in all ages to be subject to the worldly “powers that be,” and to sustain and uphold them in all just and proper government.

When the Jews came to Jesus, tempting him, and trying to trip him in some manner so that they could find an accusation against him, they said: “What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” He answered them, “Shew me the tribute money, And they brought unto him a penny. And he said unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

In the dispensation of the Meridian of Time, Peter instructed the saints as follows:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:13–15)

The same commandment is required of us in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, as we see from the above quotation given to the Church in 1831. The Church has accepted as a law unto the Church, binding on all the members, the Articles of Faith. These articles have been included with the Standard Works of the Church, as a standard in doctrine and practice. The Twelfth Article reads as follows:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

This requirement applies to the Saints in every nation upon the earth as they are at this time constituted. The members of the Church in the British Empire are under the strict injunction to be loyal to that government and its laws. The same injunction is strictly required of the members of the Church in Germany, Italy, France, Scandinavia, Japan and wherever they reside upon the face of the earth. Moreover, when members of the Church travel from one nation to another, they must by all means respect the laws and customs of the several nations which they may visit and as long as they sojourn within their dominions. This rule is imperative and will be so as long as governments of men exist and prevail upon the face of the earth.

“According to the Laws of Man.”

In February, 1831, the Lord commanded that his servants, the Elders, go out among the people preaching the Gospel, and as many as were converted through their teachings were to be organized, “according to the laws of man.” This, of course, had reference to the political organization of the people, not their spiritual organization. A few months later, in May, 1831, the Lord again instructed the saints in relation to their inheritances: “And thus all things shall be made sure, according to the laws of the land.” When the saints began to assemble on the land of Zion (Missouri) the Lord counseled them not to think they were at liberty contrary to the established law to take possession of land in that place, simply because he had proclaimed it as the land of their inheritance. On this point the revelation states:

Behold, the land of Zion – I, the Lord, hold it in mine own hands; Nevertheless, I, the Lord, render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. Wherefore, I the Lord will that you should purchase the lands, that you may have advantage of the world, that you may have claim on the world, that they may not be stirred up unto anger. For Satan putteth it into their hearts to anger against you, and to the shedding of blood. Wherefore, the land of Zion shall not be obtained but by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none inheritance for you. And if by purchase, behold you are blessed; And if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance. (D&C 63:25–31)

A Declaration of Belief.

At a conference of the Church held in Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835, the Doctrine and Covenants was presented to the assembled conference for their acceptance or rejection. After the brethren there assembled had carefully and studiously considered the matter, the revelations which had been previously selected by the Prophet Joseph Smith were accepted as the word of the Lord by the unanimous vote of the conference, and were ordered printed. On the occasion of this conference, Joseph Smith the Prophet and his second counselor, Frederick G. Williams, were not present. They were on a brief mission to the saints in Michigan, and because of this were not familiar with all the proceedings of this conference. After the conference had accepted the revelations, an article on marriage, which had been written by Oliver Cowdery, was read by Elder William W. Phelps, and was ordered printed in the book with the revelations.

When this action had been taken, Oliver Cowdery arose and read another article, also written by himself, on “Governments and Laws in General.” This article the conference also ordered printed in the book of Doctrine and Covenants. Unfortunately, a great many people, because these articles appeared in the Doctrine and Covenants, readily concluded that they had come through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and hence were to be received on a par with the other parts of the book of revelations. Because of this misinformation articles have been published from time to time declaring that these words on Government and Laws have come to us with the force of revelation having been from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. This article and the one on “Marriage” were not considered as revelations by the conference, but were published as an expression of belief of the members of the Church at that time.

The article on Governments and Laws has appeared in each edition of the Doctrine and Covenants since 1835, and has been accepted, as the preamble of the article states, as a declaration of belief of the Latter-day Saints. It is as follows and is known as Section 134, of the Doctrine and Covenants:

Of Governments and Laws in General

That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present at the close of this volume our opinion concerning the same.

We 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.

We 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.

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We believe that all men re 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.

We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their society, and withdrawn from them their fellowship.

We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor to baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

God Overrules the Destiny of Nations and of Individuals.

It should not be understood that because Oliver Cowdery declared, and the Church has approved, the statement in this article that “We believe that governments are instituted of God for the benefit of man,” that therefore God has been the author of every government upon the earth. He is the author of government, for government prevails throughout the universe, but some of the despotic governments have been far from governments established or instituted by the hand of God. In the beginning, as previously stated, government was instituted for the benefit of man, but man in his rebellious nature turned from that government given by the Almighty to organizations of his own. It is a fact, however, that the Lord does overrule all nations. Kings and potentates may plot and plan and league together, but the Lord sets the bounds of their habitations and their authority and says: “This far, and no farther, shalt thou go.” The history of nations as it is recorded, reveals clearly and positively, the fact that the hand of the Lord has been the ruling hand among all kingdoms. The destiny of nations as well as the destinies of individuals is in his hands. Kings, presidents, despots and dictators will rule until the Lord declares it is enough and then their kingdoms and authorities shall cease upon the earth.

The Higher Powers.

Paul is quoted in the Bible as having said to the Roman Saints: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” The Lord corrected this translation through the Prophet Joseph Smith so that it reads:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power in the church but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves punishment.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.

He who is subject to the higher powers, which are the powers of God and his authorized servants, will also obey the laws and be subject to the government of man. For thus we are commanded until he comes whose right it is to rule.

I offer you a warm greeting on this cold January day. Two years ago, in January, President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke to the leaders of the Church around the world, both men and women. Commenting on current conditions, he said:

No one need tell you that we are living in a very difficult season in the history of the world. . . .

. . . I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. At that season, Abraham bargained with the Lord to save these cities for the sake of the righteous. Notwithstanding his pleas, things were so bad that Jehovah decreed their destruction. They and their wicked inhabitants were annihilated. We see similar conditions today. They prevail all across the world. I think our Father must weep as He looks down upon His wayward sons and daughters.

In the Church we are working very hard to stem the tide of this evil. But it is an uphill battle, and we sometimes wonder whether we are making any headway. But we are succeeding in a substantial way. We see so many of our youth who are faithful and true and who look to us for encouragement and direction.¹

It was you President Hinckley thought of when he looked for signs that we might be succeeding as a Church in stemming the tide of evil. If, as he said, you look to us for encouragement and direction, I want to offer you some of each. I would like to talk to you about moral agency and offer some counsel about how you use your agency.

In years past, we generally used the term free agency. That is not incorrect, but more recently we have taken note that free agency does not appear as an expression in the scriptures. They talk of our being “free to choose” and “free to act” for ourselves² and of our obligation to do many things of our own “free will.”³ But the word agency appears either by itself or, in Doctrine and Covenants, section 101, verse 78, with the modifier moral: “That every man may act in doctrine and principle . . . 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” (emphasis added). When we use the term moral agency, then, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.

The Elements of Moral Agency

What, then, are the elements of moral agency? To me there are three.

First, there must be alternatives to choose among. Lehi described it as opposites, or “opposition.”⁴ He spoke of righteousness and its opposite, wickedness; holiness versus misery; good versus bad.⁵ Without opposites, Lehi said, “All things must needs be a compound in one; . . . no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.”⁶

He further explained that for these opposites or alternatives to exist, there must be law. Law provides us the options. It is by the operation of laws that things happen. By using or obeying a law, one can bring about a particular result—and by disobedience, the opposite result. Without law there could be no God, for He would be powerless to cause anything to happen.⁷ Neither He nor we would be able to predict or choose a particular outcome by a given action. Our existence and the creation around us are convincing evidence that God, the Creator, exists and that our mortal world consists of “both things to act and things to be acted upon,”⁸—or, in other words, choices.

Second, for us to have agency, we must not only have alternatives but we must also know that they exist and what they are. If we are unaware of the choices available, the existence of those choices is meaningless to us. Lehi called this being “enticed by the one or the other.”⁹ He recalled the situation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden presented with a choice, “even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.”¹⁰ Adam and Eve’s choice, of course, brought about the Fall, which brought with it a knowledge of good and evil, opening to their understanding a multitude of new choices. Had they remained in Eden, “they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.”¹¹ But with the Fall, both they and we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding to be enticed by good and evil—we attain a state of accountability and can recognize the alternatives before us.

The beauty of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that it pours knowledge into our souls and shows things in their true light. With that enhanced perspective, we can discern more clearly the choices before us and their consequences. We can, therefore, make more intelligent use of our agency. Too many fall into unanticipated traps and unhappiness because they either lack or ignore the gospel light. They are unaware of their options or are confused about the outcomes of their choices. Ignorance effectively limits their agency.

Third, after the existence of choices and a knowledge of choices, is the next element of agency: the freedom to make choices.¹² This freedom to act for ourselves in choosing among the alternatives that the law establishes is often referred to in the scriptures as agency itself. For this freedom we are indebted to God. It is His gift to us.¹³

The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency.¹⁴

King Benjamin reminded us that in addition to giving us the freedom to choose, God makes it possible for us to use the gift because He “is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another.”¹⁵

Let us pause and note that freedom of choice is the freedom to obey or disobey existing laws—not the freedom to alter their consequences. Law, as mentioned earlier, exists as a foundational element of moral agency with fixed outcomes that do not vary according to our opinions or preferences. Elder Dallin H. Oaks observed in a devotional talk here that “we are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences.”¹⁶

Satan’s Attack on Agency

We recognize the gift of agency as a central aspect of the plan of salvation proposed by the Father in the great premortal council, and that “there was war in heaven”¹⁷ to defend and preserve it. The Lord revealed this to Moses:

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.¹⁸

Satan has not ceased his effort “to destroy the agency of man.” He promotes conduct and choices that limit a person’s freedom to choose by replacing the influence of the Holy Spirit with his own domination.¹⁹ Yielding to his temptations leads to a narrower and narrower range of choices until none remain and to addictions that leave one powerless to resist. While Satan cannot actually destroy law and truth, he accomplishes the same result in the lives of those who heed him by convincing them that whatever they think is right is right and that there is no ultimate truth—every man is his own god, and there is no sin.

Of course Satan’s ongoing opposition is a useful and even necessary part of moral agency. The scripture states:

It must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet.²⁰

Remember, though, that we retain the right and power of independent action.²¹ God does not intend that we yield to temptation. Like Jesus, we can gain all we need in the way of a mortal experience without yielding.

The Central Role of Jesus Christ

We have reviewed the elements of moral agency and its divine origins, but we must always remember that agency would have no meaning without the vital contribution of Jesus Christ. His central role began with His support of the Father’s plan and His willingness to become the essential Savior under that plan. The plan required a setting for its implementation, and Jesus was instrumental in the creation of this planet for that purpose. Most important, while the Fall of Adam was a critical element of the plan, the Fall would also have frustrated the plan if certain of its consequences were not mitigated by the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It was necessary in God’s plan for our future happiness and glory that we become morally free and responsible. For that to happen, we needed an experience apart from Him where our own choices would determine our destiny. The Fall of Adam provided the spiritual death needed to separate us from God and place us in this mortal condition as well as the physical death needed to provide an end to the mortal experience. As Alma put it:

And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.²²

Without more, however, these deaths would have defeated the plan after having made it possible. Death had to be permitted, but it also had to be overcome or we could not return to the presence of God. Jacob, the brother of Nephi, explained it this way:

For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfill the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection. . . .

. . . For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself. . . .

O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.²³

Thus, if our separation from God and our physical death were permanent, moral agency would mean nothing. Yes, we would be free to make choices, but what would be the point? The end result would always be the same no matter what our actions: death with no hope of resurrection and no hope of heaven. Good or bad as we might choose to be, we would all end up, in Jacob’s words, “devils, angels to a devil.”

With resurrection through Jesus Christ, the Fall can achieve its essential purpose without becoming a permanent death sentence. “The grave must deliver up its captive bodies,” “hell must deliver up its captive spirits,” and “the paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous” so that “the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh, save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect.”²⁴

But there was one more thing that Christ needed to accomplish so that moral agency could have a positive potential. Just as death would doom us and render our agency meaningless but for the redemption of Christ, even so, without His grace, our bad choices or sins would leave us forever lost. There would be no way of fully recovering from our mistakes, and, being unclean, we could never live again in the presence of the “Man of Holiness.”²⁵

We cannot look to the law to save us when we have broken the law.²⁶ We need a Savior, a Mediator who can overcome the effects of our sins and errors so that they are not necessarily fatal. It is because of the Atonement of Christ that we can recover from bad choices and be justified under the law as if we had not sinned.

Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

Behold he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit.²⁷

Professor C. Terry Warner stated:

Human agency was purchased with the price of Christ’s suffering. This means that to those who blame God for allowing human suffering, Latter-day Saints can respond that suffering is less important than the gift of agency, upon which everything else depends, and that none of us has paid a greater price for this gift than Christ.²⁸

The Savior’s Exemplary Use of Moral Agency

The Savior’s use of moral agency during His lifetime is an instructive example for us. At one point in His teaching He revealed the principle that guided His choices: “He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.”²⁹ I believe that much of the Lord’s power is attributable to the fact that He never wavered in that determination. He had a clear, consistent direction. Whatever the Father desired, Jesus chose to do.

John reported the following response to Jesus’ statement that He did always those things that please the Father:

As he spake these words, many believed on him.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.³⁰

So, being Jesus’ obedient disciple—just as He is the Father’s obedient disciple—leads to truth and freedom. Then He added, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”³¹

To the secular world it seems a paradox that greater submission to God yields greater freedom. They look at things through Korihor’s lens, which is that obedience to God’s laws and ordinances is “bondage.”³² So how do obedience and truth make us free? You can easily think of some practical ways in which truth gives us the ability to do things we otherwise could not do or to avoid disasters we might otherwise suffer.

I was interested to read recently of a young British girl who learned in school about the characteristics of water along a shoreline that signal the approach of a tsunami. Two weeks later, on vacation with her family in Thailand, she observed those phenomena and insistently warned her parents and the people around her. They escaped to higher ground just in time when the December 26, 2004, tsunami hit south Asia. More than a hundred people owe their lives to that girl’s knowledge of certain truths of the natural world.³³

But the Lord’s statement that the truth will make us free has broader significance. “Truth,” He tells us, “is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.”³⁴ Possession of this knowledge of things past, present, and future is a critical element of God’s glory: “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.”³⁵ Does anyone doubt that, as a consequence of possessing all light and truth, God possesses ultimate freedom to be and to do?

Likewise, as our understanding of gospel doctrine and principles grows, our agency expands. First, we have more choices and can achieve more and receive greater blessings because we have more laws that we can obey. Think of a ladder—each new law or commandment we learn is like one more step on the ladder that enables us to climb higher. Second, with added understanding we can make more intelligent choices because we see more clearly not only the alternatives but their potential outcomes. As Professor Daniel H. Ludlow once expressed it, the extent of our agency “is in direct proportion to the number and kind of laws we know and keep.”³⁶

The Lord promises that if, in the exercise of our agency, we follow His example and do always those things that please Him and the Father, then we will come to know and understand all things:

And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.³⁷

That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.³⁸

He that keepeth [God’s] commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.³⁹

And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.⁴⁰

These are magnificent promises: to be filled with light and truth, to comprehend all things, to be glorified in truth and know all things, and to come even unto the Father. I have no doubt regarding the literal fulfillment of these promises in those who exercise their agency to choose obedience, but, along with you, I recognize that they are not realized in a day. There is much of keeping commandments—much of practice, if you will—much of experience required before we will enjoy a fulness. We should, however, be encouraged by what John said of the Savior:

And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness.⁴¹

So we might presume to follow in His footsteps and receive grace for grace and truth for truth until we also receive a fulness.

Testing as Part of the Essential Experience

A consistent effort will educate and refine our desires so that in time, just as with Jesus, our desires will become aligned with the Father’s. But we should expect to be tested. The gift of agency is intended to give us experience. We “taste the bitter, that [we] may know to prize the good.”⁴² And Jesus, “though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”⁴³

We learn how to hold on the right way through adversity. Joseph Smith was told to expect some severe opposition despite making good choices. Said the Lord, “Know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.”⁴⁴ We are in a mortal experience because we cannot become as God without that experience. We must prove to Him and to ourselves that we can consistently make the right choices and then stick to those choices, come what may.

Some think that they should be spared from any adversity if they keep God’s commandments, but it is “in the furnace of affliction”⁴⁵ that we are chosen.This is the battle we expected when we “shouted for joy”⁴⁶ at the prospect of this time on earth. I believe the challenge of learning to make and hold onto correct choices in the face of opposition appealed to us when God presented His plan, and we should approach that challenge now without fear, knowing that we can do it and that He will sustain us. Certainly the alternative would not appeal to us. As Elder James E. Talmage observed:

But for the opportunity thus given, the spirits of God’s offspring would have remained forever in a state of innocent childhood, sinless through no effort of their own; negatively saved, not from sin, but from the opportunity of meeting sin; incapable of winning the honors of victory because prevented from taking part in the conflict.⁴⁷

The Lord’s promise is not to spare us the conflict but to preserve and console us in our afflictions and to consecrate them for our gain.⁴⁸

Elder Donald L. Hallstrom of the Seventy offered a present-day example in an article in the January 2006 Ensign, where he recounted the experiences of Brother Toshio Kawada and his wife Miyuki:

Like all of us, Toshio Kawada of the Obihiro Ward, Sapporo Japan Stake, has had to make crucial choices when faced with life’s difficulties. He joined the Church in 1972, and he and his wife, Miyuki, were sealed in the Laie Hawaii Temple in 1978. They have two sons. . . .

More than 20 years ago, when his family was still very young, Brother Kawada was working for his father as a dairy farmer. Tragically, one day the large barn where they kept their milk cows and all their equipment burned down. Financially devastated, his father went to the farmers’ union for a loan but was turned down. Subsequently, his father and older brother filed for bankruptcy. Although not legally responsible, Brother Kawada felt obligated to help pay back all the debts.

As Brother Kawada was pondering a solution to his problem, he decided to plant carrots. He had grown potatoes, but he did not know how to grow carrots. He planted the seeds and prayed earnestly for his carrots to grow.

All this time, Brother Kawada faithfully served in the Church, kept the Sabbath day holy, and paid his tithing. When he and his family dressed in their best clothes and went to their Sunday meetings, many neighbors scoffed at them. It was difficult to lose one day a week in their fields, especially at harvesttime. It was not always easy for them to pay their tithing, but they offered it to the Lord obediently and cheerfully.

Fall came and Brother Kawada’s carrots turned out to be unusually sweet and large, with an exceptionally rich color. He had an abundant harvest and went to the farmers’ union for help, but they refused to sell his carrots through their distribution system. He fasted and prayed and felt inspired to try to find a produce distributor in Tokyo—something that is very difficult to do without introductions or connections.

Brother Kawada was blessed to find a large distributor in Tokyo. Since then he has been very successful and has repaid all his father’s debts. He currently has a large agricultural operation with many employees, and he is teaching young farmers how to effectively organize their businesses.

Even in exceptionally trying circumstances, Brother Kawada chose to be true to the promises he made in his baptismal, priesthood, and temple covenants.⁴⁹

Let me read you some of Brother Kawada’s own words from his testimony:

Sometimes we worked until midnight on Saturday to keep from breaking the Sabbath. We went to church the next day, often without much sleep. Once we came home from church, and a cow had gotten caught in the pasture fence and died. There were times when we had millions of yen worth of damage to our cut hay because it had lain in the rain on the Sabbath. We knew accidents didn’t happen because it was Sunday. If you worry about that kind of thing, you would never be able to keep the Sabbath. Accidents can happen anytime. . . .

We planted carrots with great success. Finally we were getting some kind of order in our lives. With carrots, it didn’t matter if it rained or we took every Sunday off. We could make our own decisions. We could serve more easily in any calling we were called to.

In our business, we use a lot of part-time help. When we are really busy, our employees suggest that we work Sundays. I tell them that we just don’t work on Sundays. When our workers know that, they work hard and rarely take days off. On Sundays the younger workers spend the day with their children, and the older workers visit with their grandchildren.⁵⁰

I like that.

Exercising agency in a setting that sometimes includes opposition and hardship is what makes life more than a simple multiple-choice test. God is interested in what you are becoming as a result of your choices. He is not satisfied if your exercise of moral agency is simply a robotic effort at keeping some rules. Your Savior wants you to become something, not just do some things.⁵¹ He is endeavoring to make you independently strong—more able to act for yourself than perhaps those of any prior generation. You must be able to be righteous, even when He withdraws His Spirit, or, as Brigham Young said, even “in the dark.”⁵²

Using your agency to choose His will, and not slackening even when the going gets hard, will not make you God’s puppet; it will make you like Him. God gave you agency and Jesus showed you how to use it so that eventually you could learn what They know, do what They do, and be what They are.

Remember that with His gift to you of moral agency, your Heavenly Father has graciously provided help in exercising that agency in a way that will yield precious, positive fruit in your life here and hereafter. Among other resources, you have the scriptures that contain the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, mentors and parents who love you, the voice of prophets and apostles living among you, the covenants and ordinances of the priesthood and the temple, the gift of the Holy Ghost, prayer, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Draw upon these resources constantly to guide your choices, to do always those things that please God.

With President Hinckley, I express my confidence in you. I thank God for you. I thank God for the gift of moral agency. I thank Him for the gift of His Son, whose life and sacrifice animate that moral agency. I testify that Jesus Christ has redeemed us from the Fall, that He lives, and that through Him we “are free to choose liberty and eternal life.”⁵³ In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Notes

1. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Standing Strong and Immovable,” Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting: The Priesthood and the Auxiliaries of the Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary, 10 January 2004 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 20.

2. See, for example, 2 Nephi 2:27, 10:23; Helaman 14:30.

3. See D&C 58:27.

4. 2 Nephi 2:11.

5. See 2 Nephi 2:11–13.

6. 2 Nephi 2:11.

7. See 2 Nephi 2:13.

8. 2 Nephi 2:14.

9. 2 Nephi 2:16.

10. 2 Nephi 2:15.

11. 2 Nephi 2:23.

12. See 2 Nephi 10:23.

13. See Moses 4:3.

14. Moses 7:32.

15. Mosiah 2:21.

16. Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters” (9 February 1999), BYU 1998–99 Speeches (Provo: BYU, 1999), 148.

17. Revelation 12:7.

18. Moses 4:3–4.

19. See D&C 29:40, 93:38–39.

20. D&C 29:39.

21. “If man is to be rewarded for righteousness and punished for evil, then common justice demands that he be given the power of independent action. . . . If he were coerced to do right at all times, or were helplessly enticed to commit sin, he would merit neither a blessing for the first nor punishment for the second” (David O. McKay, “Free Agency—A Divine Gift,” Improvement Era, May 1950, 366).

22. Alma 42:7.

23. 2 Nephi 9:6, 8–10.

24. 2 Nephi 9:12, 13.

25. Moses 6:57; see also 3 Nephi 27:19.

26. See 2 Nephi 2:5.

27. 2 Nephi 2:6–7; see also Alma 42:22–24.

28. C. Terry Warner, in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 5 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), s.v. “agency,” 1:27.

29. John 8:29; see also 3 Nephi 11:11.

30. John 8:30–32.

31. John 8:36.

32. Alma 30:24, 27.

33. See “Girl Honored for Saving Lives with Pre-Tsunami Warning,” Deseret Morning News, 27 December 2005, A2.

34. D&C 93:24.

35. D&C 93:36.

36. Daniel H. Ludlow, “Moral Free Agency” (2 July 1974), Speeches of the Year, 1974 (Provo: BYU Press, 1975), 182.

37. D&C 88:67.

38. D&C 50:24.

39. D&C 93:28.

40. D&C 84:46–47; emphasis added.

41. D&C 93:12–13.

42. Moses 6:55.

43. Hebrews 5:8.

44. D&C 122:7.

45. Isaiah 48:10; 1 Nephi 20:10.

46. Job 38:7.

47. James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 12th ed. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1924), 70.

48. See 2 Nephi 2:2, 4:19–26; Jacob 3:1.

49. Donald L. Hallstrom, “Using Agency Wisely,” Ensign, January 2006, 9–10.

50. Toshio Kawada, in Hallstrom, “Using Agency,” 11.

51. “The Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become” (Dallin H. Oaks, “The Challenge to Become,” Ensign, November 2000, 32; emphasis in original).

52. Brigham Young’s Office Journal, 28 January 1857, Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; cited in James E. Faust, “The Light in Their Eyes,” Ensign, November 2005, 22.

53. 2 Nephi 2:27.

The Lord has said that “there is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

“And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” (D&C 130:20–21.)

It would seem from this declaration that there is no permanent progress made in any field or in any place except it be through obedience to the governing law. We know this is true in the heavens, because the Lord has said:

“… that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

“That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin [sin being the breaking of the law], and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. …

“For … judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

“And … he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;

“And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.” (D&C 88:34–35, 40, 42–43).

This scripture tells us that all things in God’s economy, even those which to us seem inanimate, obey the laws by which they are governed.

“… the earth [for example] abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law.” (D&C 88:25.)

“Therefore, … it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;

“That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; …

“And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ [which is his gospel—the perfect law of liberty], must inherit another kingdom, …

“For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

“And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.

“And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory. …” (D&C 88:19–24.)

How blessed are Latter-day Saints to be assured by the revealed word of God that there will be no capriciousness in the world to come; that the rule of law is irrevocable; that every soul will be rewarded according to the law he has obeyed; that all divine law is as immutable as the law of gravity; that it is the same yesterday, today, and forever; that judgment will be mercifully administered, but that it will be administered pursuant to law, and that it will not rob justice. Not only are Latter-day Saints blessed by having this knowledge concerning “the rule of law”; they are twice blessed by having both a knowledge and an understanding of the laws by which they are to be judged.

In light of our knowledge of “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25), how shortsighted, how foolish, how tragic it would be if we were to fail to obey that law.

“The law of Christ” is all-inclusive. It concerns not only rules that shall govern beyond the grave, but also the law of nature here and now—local, national, and international.

Latter-day Saints should strictly obey the laws of the government in which they live. By our own declaration of faith we are committed to do so, for we declare to the world that “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (A of F 1:12.)

This we do in harmony with the Lord’s command:

“Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

“Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.” (D&C 58:21–22.)

“Civil authority is of divine origin. It may be more or less adapted to the needs of man; more or less just and benevolent, but, even at its worst, it is better than anarchy. Revolutionary movements that aim at the abolition of government itself are contrary to the law of God. …” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Deseret Book Co., 1954], p. 339.)

When the “rule of law” breaks down in a family, a community, a state, or a nation, chaos reigns.

The kingdoms of heaven are to be free from chaos, because no one will be in any one of them who does not by his own free will obey the laws thereof.

A Latter-day Saint should strictly obey every law of God, including the constitutional laws of the land in which he lives, and do it with a good and honest heart.

In this day of declining morals and increasing disrespect for law, we can all profitably review and check our own performance against the Ten Commandments, which are basic laws of God not only, but also constitute the foundations of Judeo-Christian secular law.

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

“Thou shalt not kill.

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.

“Thou shalt not steal.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” (Ex. 20:3–4, 7–8, 11–17.)

Strict obedience to these laws in the spirit of the first and great commandment—“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And the second [which] is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:37, 39)—will help one to obey the law of the land and the celestial law of heaven as it applies to mortality.

When the Prophet Joseph Smith outlined the Articles of Faith, he set forth in clear, unmistakable terms the foundations of our worship and of our relationships with one another. In view of the troubled times which the nations of the earth are experiencing at present, it is well for us as members of the Lord’s kingdom to understand clearly our responsibilities and obligations respecting governments and laws as declared in the Twelfth Article of Faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

In it is a declaration requiring obedience, loyalty to, and respect for duly constituted laws and the officials administering those laws. In justifying such loyal compliance, however, the Lord also promulgated certain safeguards and conditions which must be observed if freedom and liberty are to be preserved and enjoyed. These are emphasized primarily in the 98th and 134th sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. How I wish these fundamental concepts were emblazoned on the hearts of all our people!

It seems to me there are two thoughts with regard to governments and laws which might profitably be considered at this time. One relates to the people who administer the laws and the other to the laws themselves. Concerning our public officials, the Lord has counseled: “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:9–10.)

These admonitions, in my humble judgment, are just as binding upon the Latter-day Saints as are the law of tithing, the Word of Wisdom, and baptism. We should seek out honest men and wise men to hold political office in our respective governments. This is the will of the Lord as spoken by revelation.

Many people have had cause for serious reflection of late as they have observed the rise and fall of once glorious and powerful nations. Why, they ask, have nations which have contributed so richly to the fields of literature, music, and the arts and sciences permitted selfish, ambitious men to rise to great power as has been evidenced in several European nations? One of the important reasons, as I have observed it firsthand, is the fact that the citizens generally failed to carry out the admonition which the Lord has given the Latter-day Saints: to seek out their good and wise men to serve as their leaders in political capacities. Men without faith in eternal principles were permitted to rise to power.

We must not think it cannot happen here. We must be eternally vigilant as Latter-day Saints and inspire in the lives of our children a love for eternal principles and a desire to seek out honorable men—the best possible—to stand at the head of our political governments, local, state, and federal. Only in this way can we safeguard the liberties which have been vouchsafed to us as our inalienable rights. Unless we do so, we may very easily lose them because of our indifference, because of our failure to exercise our franchise, because we permit men who are unworthy to rise to positions of political power.

Not only should we seek humble, worthy, courageous leadership; but we should also measure all proposals having to do with our national or local welfare by four standards:

First, is the proposal, the policy, or the idea being promoted right as measured by the gospel of Jesus Christ? I assure you it is much easier for one to measure a proposed policy by the gospel of Jesus Christ if he has accepted the gospel and is living it.

Second, is it right as measured by the Lord’s standard of constitutional government, wherein he says: “And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me”? (D&C 98:5.) Whether we live under a divinely inspired constitution, as in the United States, or under some other form of government, the Lord’s standard is a safe guide.

Third, we might well ask, is it right as measured by the counsel of the living oracles of God? It is my conviction that these living oracles are not only authorized, but are also obligated to give counsel to this people on any subject that is vital to the welfare of this people and to the up-building of the kingdom of God. So that measure should be applied.

Fourth, what will be the effect upon the morale and the character of the people if this or that policy is adopted? After all, as a church, we are interested in building men and women and in building character, because character is the one thing we make in this world and take with us into the next. It must never be sacrificed for expediency.

May we do our duty as citizens and as members of the Church to see to it that the right kind of people are elected to public office, so that the rich blessings that we now enjoy and that have been promised to us may be realized in all the days to come. May we likewise use wisdom and care as we evaluate various proposals and programs, so men everywhere may come to know the joy of living under wise laws honorably administered by men and women intent upon preserving and strengthening man’s free agency and ennobling his character.

Government Should Be Based Upon Sound Principles

Such an approach to vital political questions of the day can only lead to publications 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, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, P. 21-22)

Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and 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 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, which 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.”

The Most Important Function Of Government

It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those right? 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.” (P.P.N.S., p. 134)

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?” (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)

Starting at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are 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, 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 unalienable 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.” (P.P.N. S., p.519)

Since God created man with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer 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 or 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 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 which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

Of course, 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 and 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 attach 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.” (The Law, p. 6)

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 of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)

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.” (Art. 1, Sec. 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 fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he has failed to do something which I have a moral right to require of 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 lawbreaker 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 of Civil Government, II, 57: P>P>N>S., p.101)

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!” (The Red Carpet, p.142) 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 deterring 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 which 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 presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” (P.P.N.S., p. 542)

I am especially mindful that the Constitution provides that the great bulk 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.” (Federalist, No.39; P.P.N.S., p. 128) 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.” (Works 8:3; P.P.N.S., p. 128)

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 possible 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 keep it solvent and to keep our freedom. Thomas Jefferson understood this 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.” (Works 6:543; P.P.N.S., p. 125)

It is well to remember that 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 which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which 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 re-distributing the wealth, and activities which 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 provided 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 farther?” What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther 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.” (P.P.N.S., p.345) We should also remember, as Frederic 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; P.P.N.S., p. 350)

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 LAW, 1850, reprinted by the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson, N.Y.)

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 the 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; P.P.N.S., p. 377)

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 redistribute 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 plowed 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 percent 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.” (Charles Hallberg and Co., 116 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60610)

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 David 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 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 GO 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.” (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)

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.” (Works 8:3)

A Formula For Prosperity

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

Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is not possible without incentive.

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.

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

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 on his broadcast number 649, dated January 29, 1968, 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.”

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 encumbers its operations; though the effect of these obstructions is always more or less either to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish its security.” (Vol. 2, Book 4, Chapt. 5, p. 126)

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-voice 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 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 BE 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.” (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., 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 1930′s, 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 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 American 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. Secondly, there are modern means of rapid communications to transmit these lessons of history to a large literate population. And thirdly, 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 which 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; the 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 which 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 which will undermine and erode our economic and personal freedoms. The abundance which is ours, the carefree existence which 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 conclusion to this discussion, I present a declaration of principles which 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 unalienable 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 which 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) Punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;(b) Protect the right and control of private property;
   (c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation’s defense;(d) 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 which 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 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 unalterable 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 circulation 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 use 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 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 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 ore world organizations of 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 – 100 years ago – 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 POLITICAL WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, p.55.)

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.

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.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the Mormon Church – 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.”

“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.”

“that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people…”

“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…” (D&C 134:1–3, 5.)

No people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law. God has endowed, men with certain inalienable rights, and no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these. The function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and anything more or less than this is usurpation and oppression.

Breakdown of law and order

The Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by courageous men acting under inspiration from the Almighty. It is a solemn contract between the peoples of the states of this nation that all officers of government are under duty to obey. The eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish. It is the responsibility of government to punish crime and provide for the administration of justice and to protect the right and control of property.

But today these basic principles and concepts are being flaunted, disregarded, and challenged, even by men in high places. Through the exercise of political expediency, the government is condoning the breakdown of law and order.

Law enforcement in America is at the point of crisis. A recent Life Line broadcast warned that “in Chicago, 64 men quit the police force in one month. Baltimore has 360 police vacancies. Washington, D.C., is 230 men short of its authorized complement. And cities all over the country are desperately seeking recruits.

“Police aren’t striking; they’re quitting, and it is understandable. They’re being demoralized by the hostile attitudes of the politically minded Supreme Court. They’re being demoralized by a weird penal system which frees hardened criminals almost as fast as they’re arrested. . . . Policemen are demoralized by slanted news reporting, distorted facts which show police activities from the criminal’s side And they’re being demoralized by an avalanche of new laws, which are making it even harder to convict the guilty.

“San Diego Police Chief Wesley B. Sharp warns that: ‘If there isn’t a change, the increase in crime will lead to anarchy and criminals will control the nation.’” (Life Line Freedom Talk No. 53, February 22, 1968.)

Qualification for civil liberty

Edmund Burke, the great English statesman, explained that “men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity, in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke Vol. 4, pp. 51-52.)

Greatest threat

I do not believe the greatest threat to our future is from bombs or guided missiles. I do not think our civilization will die that way. I think it will die when we no longer care, when the spiritual forces that make us wish to be right and noble die in the hearts of men, when we disregard the importance of law and order.

If American freedom is lost, if America is destroyed, if our blood-bought freedom is surrendered, it will be because of Americans. What’s more, it will probably not be only the work of subversive and criminal Americans. The Benedict Arnolds will not be the only ones to forfeit our freedom.

“At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected?” asked Abraham Lincoln, and he answered, “If it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher; as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.” (Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1837.)

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers–normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free – Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.

Erosion of national morality

Great nations are never conquered from outside unless they are rotten inside. Our greatest national problem today is erosion, not the erosion of the soil, but erosion of the national morality – erosion of traditional enforcement of law and order.

Theodore Roosevelt said:

“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.” (Quoted in The Red Carpet, p. 315.)

In this blessed land we have exalted security, comfort, and ease above freedom. If we dwelled at length on the many things that are disturbing in the life of America today, we might well become discouraged. I mention only a few of the reported startling evidences of our national illness, our moral erosion.

There is a decline of U.S. morals and moral fiber, a turning to pleasure and away from hard work and high standards of the past.

There is a growing worry in our universities over cheating in examinations.

Nationwide juvenile delinquencies show an eight-fold increase since 1950.

There is a 500-million dollar smut industry in this country causing youngsters to wrestle with standards of value.

America is the biggest market for narcotics.

Although we consider ourselves a people who believe in law and order, we have seen much evidence of the passion of the mob.

Riots have occurred in 137 different cities and towns in 33 months, resulting in 120 deaths, including 12 police officers slain; 3,623 other persons injured; 28,932 arrested; and hundreds of millions of dollars property damage.

Crime in the United States is up 88 percent in seven years, rising nearly nine times faster than population, up 16 percent per year, according to the FBI. Crime costs some $20 billion a year, and less than 21 percent of reported crimes result in arrests and less than one-third of those in convictions.

In the midst of a cold war and preparation for a possible shooting war of survival, we have faced 651 strikes at missile bases in six years.

The United States government has racked up a shameful record of 31 treasury deficits in the past 35 years.

The sky-rocketing cost of the welfare state increased in 8 years from 6.9 billion to 20.3 billion dollars in 1961 and stood at 87 billion 578 million in 1966.

There are over 7,700,000 people on relief in federal, state, and local programs.

During the past 33 years our budget has increased 20 times over, and our national debt has increased from $16 billion to an admitted $324 billion; adding accrued liabilities payable in the future, our real indebtedness exceeds $1 trillion, or an average indebtedness of $5,200 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

Our present federal debt is equal to a first mortgage of $10,000 on all owned homes in the country and is reported to exceed the combined debt of all countries of the world. Annual interest on the soaring national debt is over $15 billion – only defense and welfare are higher.

American currencies are weaker than those of Germany and Japan, who were defeated in World War II.

Inflation has struck a serious blow to the value of the American dollar.

We continue to move in the direction of more federal intervention, more concentration of power, more spending, more taxing, more paternalism, more state-ism.

The present shocking situation was summed up succinctly by J. Edgar Hoover in the April 1967 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin in these words:

“Morality, integrity, law and order and other cherished principles of our great heritage are battling for survival in many communities today. They are under constant attack from degrading and corrupting influences which, if not halted, will sweep away every vestige of decency and order remaining in our society.”

Responsibility for chaos

A recent issue of the well-known and highly respected Babson’s Washington Forecast Letter carried a four-page special supplement, which concluded as follows:

“Who are we to indict for sparking this chaos in America? Are the prime defendants the Stokely Carmichaels, the H. Rap Browns, the hippies, the draftcard burners, the peaceniks, the juvenile delinquents, the rabble-rousers, the Commies who have gained respectability as honest dissenters? Certainly, most of these could be brought before the bar of justice to answer charges of law violations and they should be.

“However, there is a stronger, truer bill of indictment which may be drawn against those who have invited the bloody blackmail of America by permitting, even encouraging, mounting civil disobedience.

And then the article names of men of national prominence and continues:

“These men of power, prestige, and great influence in the political structure of America have permitted the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ to be expanded to include subversion, intimidation, sedition, and incitement to riot; they have condoned the distortion of ‘academic freedom’ to encompass the adulteration of young minds with Communist doctrine and the disintegration of a well-disciplined educational system; they have allowed ‘freedom of assembly’ to mushroom into disruption of peaceful activity, mob rule, riot, and insurrection.

“Unless those in authority in the United States can be influenced to abandon the suicidal course on which they have embarked–or unless they can be replaced by men who will–we cannot hope to restore in our nation the kind of domestic peace and order which has made our many generations proud to be Americans . . . living in a land of freedom, security, opportunity, and justice under law.

“The crisis we now face is the most serious, the most dangerous, in the history of our country. Each of us must diligently employ our influence and our effort – in speech, letters, and at the ballot box – to help set straight the way.”

Gradual encroachments

The facts are clear. Our problem centers in Washington, D.C. And this applies to the administration of both political parties. In the words of James Madison, Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (Elliot’s Debates, Vol. 3, p. 87.)

If America is to withstand these influences and trends, there must be a renewal of the spirit of our forefathers, an appreciation of the American way of life, a strengthening of muscle and sinew and the character of the nation. America needs guts as well as guns. National character is the core of national defense.

Appreciation for American system

Could many of our ills today have resulted from our failure to train a strong citizenry from the only source we have–the boys and girls of each community? Have they grown up to believe in politics without principle, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without effort, wealth without work, business without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice?

In recent months a nationwide survey of high school and college students has been conducted. The U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce reveals that 41 percent believe that freedom of the press should be canceled; 53 percent believe in government ownership of banks, railroads, and steel companies; 62 percent said that the government bad the responsibility to provide jobs; 62 percent thought a worker should not produce all that he can; 61 percent rejected the profit incentive as necessary to the survival of free enterprise; 84 percent denied that patriotism is vital and plays an important part in our lives. (Bookmaker News, Vol. 10, Nov. 1, 1965.)

Letters that come to my desk from worried parents deeply concerned by what is being taught to their children in the schools are shocking, to say the least.

We can never survive unless our young people understand and appreciate our American system, which has given more of the good things of life than any other system in the world–unless they have a dedication that exceeds the dedication of the enemy. Character must become important in this country again. The old essentials of honesty, self-respect, loyalty, and support for law and order must be taught the younger generation.

Right to be uncommon

I appeal to people everywhere, young and old, to heed these words of Dean Alfange:

“I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me – not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the bend fit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say ‘This, with God’s help, I have done.’ All this is what it means to be an American”

Those of us conscious of the seriousness of the situation must act, and act now. It has been said that it takes something spectacular to get folks excited, like a burning house. Nobody notices one that is simply decaying. But in America today we not only have decaying but burning before our very eyes. How much we need hearts today who will respond to the inspiring words of the poet, John Greenleaf Whittier:

“Where’s the manly spirit
Of the true-hearted and the unshackled gone?
Sons of old freemen, do we inherit their name alone?
“Is the old Pilgrim spirit quenched within us?
Stoops the proud manhood of our souls so low,
That Mammon’s lure or Party’s wile can win us to silence now?
“Now, when our land to ruin’s brink is verging,
In God’s name let us speak while there is time;
Now, when the padlocks for our lips are forging,
Silence is crime.”

Heritage threatened

Our priceless heritage is threatened today as never before in our lifetime: from without by the forces of Godless Communism, and at home by our complacency and by the insidious forces of the Socialist-Communist conspiracy, with the help of those who would abandon the ancient landmarks set by our fathers and take us down the road to destruction. It was Alexander Hamilton who warned that “nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves.” (Alexander Hamilton and the Founding of the Nation, p. 462.)

Serious and concerned citizens everywhere are asking, “Can we cope with these threatening realities?” Yes, we can; if we would allow the local police to do their job, they could handle the rioting and looting. Yes, we can, if we have the courage and wisdom to return to basic concepts, to recall the spirit of the founding fathers and accept wholeheartedly these words of Thomas Paine, whose writings helped so much to stir people to action during the days of the American Revolution when he said:

“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 Political Words of Thomas Paine, p. 55.)

The way of safety

As American citizens who love freedom, we must return to a respect for national morality – respect for law and order. There is no other way of safety for us and our posterity. The hour is late; the time is short. We must begin now, in earnest, and invite God’s blessings on our efforts.

The United States should be a bastion of real freedom. We should not support the world’s greatest evil, the Godless, Socialist-Communist conspiracy that seeks to destroy all we hold dear as a great Christian nation and to promote insidiously the breakdown of law and order and the erosion of our morality.

With God’s help we must return to those basic concepts, those eternal verities, the rule of law and order upon which this nation was established. With an aroused citizenry and the help of Almighty God it can be accomplished. God grant it may be so, I humbly pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.