This devotional address was delivered on 16 September 1986 in the Marriott Center and is a condensed version of President  Benson’s publication of the same title, The Constitution-A Heavenly Banner (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1986).

On the seventeenth day of September 1987, we, commemorate the two-hundredth birthday of the Constitutional Convention, which gave birth to the document that Gladstone said is “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man” (William Ewart Gladstone: Life and Public Services, ed. Thomas W. Handford [Chicago: The Dominion Co., 1899], p. 323).

I heartily endorse this assessment, and today I would like to pay honor–honor to the document itself, honor to the men who framed it, and honor to the God who inspired it and made possible its coming forth.

SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES

To understand the significance of the Constitution, we must first understand some basic, eternal principles. These principles have their beginning in the premortal councils of heaven.

The Principle of Agency

The first basic principle is agency. The central issue in the premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed him stood for the former proposition-freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter-coercion and force. The war that began in heaven over this issue is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer’s primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.

Look back in retrospect on almost six thousand years of human history! Freedom’s moments have been infrequent and exceptional. We must appreciate that we live in one of history’s most exceptional moments-in a nation and a time of unprecedented freedom. Freedom as we know it has been experienced by perhaps less than one percent of the human family.

The Proper Role of Government

The second basic principle concerns the function and proper role of government. These are the principles that, 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….

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

[I] believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments. [D&C 134:1–2, 5]

In other words, the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.

The Source of Human Rights

The third important principle pertains to the source of basic human rights.  Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. 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. 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.

People Are Superior to Governments

The fourth basic principle we must understand is that people are superior to the governments they form. Since God created people with certain inalienable rights, and they, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that the people are superior to the creature they created.

Governments Should Have Limited Powers

The fifth and final principle that is basic to our understanding of the Constitution is that governments should have only limited powers. The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess.  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 money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another’s wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either.  The creature cannot exceed the creator.

THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS COMING FORTH

With these basic principles firmly in mind, let us now turn to a discussion of the inspired document we call the Constitution. My purpose is not to recite the events that led to the American Revolution – we are all familiar with these. But I would say this: History is not an accident. Events are foreknown to God. His superintending influence is behind the actions of his righteous children. Long before America was even discovered, the Lord was moving and shaping events that would lead to the coming forth of the remarkable form of government established by the Constitution. America had to be free and independent to fulfill this destiny. I commend to you as excellent reading on this subject Elder Mark E. Petersen’s book The Great Prologue (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1975). As expressed so eloquently by John Adams before the signing of the Declaration,  “There’s a Divinity which shapes our ends” (quoted in The Works of Daniel Webster, vol. 1 (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), p. 133). Though mortal eyes and minds cannot fathom the end from the beginning, God does.

GOD RAISED UP WISE MEN TO CREATE THE CONSTITUTION

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Savior declared, “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80). These were not ordinary men, but men chosen and held in reserve by the Lord for this very purpose.

Shortly after President Kimball became President of the Church, he assigned me to go into the vault of the St. George Temple and check the early records. As I did so, I realized the fulfillment of a dream I had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to the St. George Temple. I saw with my own eyes the records of the work that was done for the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington. Think of it, the Founding Fathers of this nation, those great men, appeared within those sacred walls and had their vicarious work done for them. President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words:

Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, “You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.”  These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights….

I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men. [Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946), pp. 160-61]

These noble spirits came there with divine permission-evidence that this work of salvation goes forward on both sides of the veil.

At a later conference, in April 1898, after he became President of the Church, President Woodruff declared that “those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits … [and] were inspired of the Lord” (CR, April 1898, p. 89). We honor those men today. We are the grateful beneficiaries of their noble work.

THE LORD APPROVED THE CONSTITUTION

But we honor more than those who brought forth the Constitution.  We honor the Lord who revealed it. God himself has borne witness to the fact that he is pleased with the final product of the work of these great patriots.

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith on August 6, 1833, the Savior admonished: “l, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6).

In the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer, given on March 27, 1836, the Lord directed the Prophet Joseph to say: “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever” (D&C 109:54).

A few years later, Joseph Smith, while unjustly incarcerated in a cold and depressing cell of Liberty Jail at Clay County, Missouri, frequently bore his testimony of the document’s divinity: “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner” (HC 3:304).

How this document accomplished all of this merits our further consideration.

THE DOCUMENT ITSELF

The Constitution consists of seven separate articles. The first three establish the three branches of our government the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The fourth article describes matters pertaining to states, most significantly the guarantee of a republican form of government to every state of the Union. Article 5 defines the amendment procedure of the document, a deliberately difficult process that should be clearly understood by every citizen. Article 6 covers several miscellaneous items, including a definition of the supreme law of the land, namely, the Constitution itself. Article 7, the last, explains how the Constitution is to be ratified. After ratification of the document, ten amendments were added and designated as our Bill of Rights.

Now to look at some of the major provisions of the document itself. Many principles could be examined, but I mention five as being crucial to the preservation of our freedom. If we understand the workability of these, we have taken the first step in defending our freedoms.

MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENT

The major provisions of the Constitution are as follows.

Sovereignty of the People

First: Sovereignty lies in the people themselves. Every governmental system has a sovereign, one or several who possess all the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. That sovereign may be an individual, a group, or the people themselves. The Founding Fathers believed in common law, which holds that true sovereignty rests with the people. Believing this to be in accord with truth, they inserted this imperative in the Declaration of Independence: “To secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Separation of Powers

Second: To safeguard these rights, the Founding Fathers provided for the separation of powers among the three branches of government-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each was to be independent of the other, yet each was to work in a unified relationship.  As the great constitutionalist President J. Reuben Clark noted:

It is [the] union of independence and dependence of these branches-legislative, executive and judicial – and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document…. It was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle. [Church News, November 29, 1952, p. 12]

The use of checks and balances was deliberately designed, first, to make it difficult for a minority of the people to control the government, and, second, to place restraint on the government itself.

Limited Powers of Government

Third: The powers the people granted to the three branches of government were specifically limited. The Founding Fathers well understood human nature and its tendency to exercise unrighteous dominion when given authority. A constitution was therefore designed to limit government to certain enumerated functions, beyond which was tyranny.

The Principle of Representation

Fourth: Our constitutional government is based on the principle of representation. The principle of representation means that we have delegated to an elected official the power to represent us. The Constitution provides for both direct representation and indirect representation. Both forms of representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy. The intent was to protect the individual’s and the minority’s rights to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labors-property. These rights were not to be subject to majority vote.

A Moral and Righteous People

Fifth: The Constitution was designed to work with only a moral and righteous people. “Our constitution,” said John Adams (first vice-president and second president of the United States), “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (John R. Howe, Jr., The Changing Political Thought of John Adams, Princeton University Press, 1966, p. 185).

THE CRISIS OF OUR CONSTITUTION

This, then, is the ingenious and inspired document created by these good and wise men for the benefit and blessing of future generations. It is now two hundred years since the Constitution was written. Have we been wise beneficiaries of the gift entrusted to us? Have we valued and protected the principles laid down by this great document?

At this bicentennial celebration we must, with sadness, say that we have not been wise in keeping the trust of our Founding Fathers. For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at every major clause of our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions.

The Prophecy of Joseph Smith

We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said:

Even this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction. [In Howard and Martha Coray Notebook, July 19, 1840, quoted by Andrew F. Eliat and Lyndon W. Cook, comps. and eds., TheWords of Joseph Smith (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980), p. 416]

The Need to Prepare

Will we be prepared? Will we be among those who will “bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction”? If we desire to be numbered among those who will, here are some things we must do:

1. We must be righteous and moral. We must live the gospel principles-all of them. We have no right to expect a higher degree of morality from those who represent us than what we ourselves are. To live a higher law means we will not seek to receive what we have not earned by our own labor. It means we will remember that government owes us nothing. It means we will keep the laws of the land. It means we will look to God as our Lawgiver and the source of our liberty.

2. We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? The Church will not tell us how to do this, but we are admonished to do it. I quote Abraham Lincoln:

Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation. [Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. John G. Nicolay and John Hay, vol. I (New York: Francis D. Tandy Co., 1905), p. 43]

3. We must become involved in civic affairs. As citizens of this republic, we cannot do our duty and be idle spectators. It is vital that we follow this counsel from the Lord: “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 98:10). Note the qualities that the Lord demands in those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest. We must be concerted in our desires and efforts to see men and women represent us who possess all three of these qualities.

4. We must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, and our advice. We must be wisely informed and let others know how we feel. We must take part in local precinct meetings and select delegates who will truly represent our feelings.

I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church – men and women who will subscribe to and abide by the principles of the Constitution.

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES OUR LOYALTY AND SUPPORT

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed his stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that the God of heaven sent some of his choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and he has sent other choice spirits-even you who hear my words this day-to preserve it.

We, the blessed beneficiaries, face difficult days in this beloved land, “a land which is choice above all other lands” (Ether 2:10). It may also cost us blood before we are through. It is my conviction, however, that when the Lord comes, the Stars and Stripes will be floating on the breeze over this people. May it be so, and may God give us the faith and the courage exhibited by those patriots who pledged their lives and fortunes that we might be free, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.

. . . Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue?”

President George Washington,
Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

In the “Virginia Bill of Rights,” drafted by George Mason and adopted by the Virginia Convention on June 12, 1776, there appears this statement in Article 15:
No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. (Documents of American History, [Henry S. Commager, Editor], 1: 104)

“The paramount need today,” recently wrote David Lawrence, “is for the United States to clear the air by emphasizing fundamental principles. Until there are acts that implement those principles–not just words–diplomacy will accomplish nothing and the world will remain continually on the brink of war.” (U.S. News and World Report, January 27, 1964)

It has been truly said that:
We cannot clean up the mess in Washington, balance the budget, reduce taxes, check creeping Socialism, tell what is muscle or fat in our sprawling rearmament programs, purge subversives from our State Department, unless we come to grips with our foreign policy, upon which all other policies depend. (Senator Robert A. Taft, quoted by Phyllis Schlafly, A Choice Not An Echo, p. 26)

Ever since World War I, when we sent American boys to Europe supposedly to “make the world safe for democracy,” our leaders in Washington have been acting as though the American people elected them to office for the primary purpose of leading the entire planet toward international peace, prosperity and one-world government. At times, these men appear to be more concerned with something called world opinion or with their image as world leaders than they are with securing the best possible advantage for us, that they are not “nationalistic” in their views, that they are willing to sacrifice narrow American interests for the greater good of the world community. Patriotism and America-first have become vulgar concepts within the chambers of our State Department. It is no wonder that the strength and prestige of the United States has slipped so low everywhere in the world.

In this connection, it is well to remember that on June 25, 1787, during the formulation of the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention, Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, made the famous speech in which he asserted:
We mistake the object of our Government, if we hope or wish that it is to make us respectable abroad. Conquest or superiority among other powers is not or ought not ever to be the object of republican systems. If they are sufficiently active & energetic to rescue us from contempt & preserve our domestic happiness & security, it is all we can expect from them, – it is more than almost any other Government ensures to its citizens. (The Records of the Federal Convention [Max Farrand, Editor], 1: 402)

In his book, A Foreign Policy for Americans, the late Senator Robert A. Taft correctly reasoned that:
No one can think intelligently on the many complicated problems of American foreign policy unless he decides first what he considers the real purpose and object of that policy. . . There has been no consistent purpose in our foreign policy for a good many years past. . . Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States. (p. 11)

There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He’s our executive; he’s on our payroll, in necessary; he’s supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington:
I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. — George Washington (1732-1799) Letter to James Monroe (25 Aug. 1796)

The preservation of America’s political, economic and military independence–the three cornerstones of sovereignty–is the sum and total prerogative of our government in dealing with the affairs of the world. Beyond that point, any humanitarian or charitable activities are the responsibility of individual citizens voluntarily without coercion of others to participate.

The proper function of government must be limited to a defensive role–the defense of individual citizens against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude at the hands of either domestic or foreign criminals. But to protect our people from bodily harm at the hands of foreign aggressors, we must maintain a military force which is not only capable of crushing an invasion, but of striking a sufficiently powerful counterblow as to make in unattractive for would-be conquerors to try their luck with us.

As President Washington explained in his Fifth Annual Address to both Houses of Congress:
There is a rank due to the United States among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure the peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. (December 3, 1793; Writings 12:352)

He had earlier, in his First Annual Address, strongly warned that:
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined. (January 8, 1790; Writings 11:456)

To protect our people from international theft, we must enter into agreements with other nations to abide by certain rules regarding trade, exchange of currency, enforcement of contracts, patent rights, etc. To protect our people against involuntary servitude or the loss of personal freedom on the international level, we must be willing to use our military might to help even one of our citizens no matter where he might be kidnapped or enslaved.

For those of you who have never heard or do not remember it, the story of Ion Perdicaris instructs us what an American President can and should do to protect the lives of its citizens. It seems that in the early years of the century, a North African bandit named Raisuli kidnapped Perdicaris, a naturalized American of Greek extraction.

Teddy Roosevelt was our President at that time, and he knew just what to do. He did not “negotiate.” And he did not send any “urgent requests.” He simply ordered one of our gunboats to stand offshore, and sent the local sultan the following telegram: “Perdicaris alive, or Raisuli dead.” They say Raisuli didn’t waste any time getting a healthy Perdicaris down to the dock. (Review of the News, February 7, 1968, pp. 20-21)

Certainly we must avoid becoming entangled in a web of international treaties whose terms and clauses might reach inside our own borders and restrict our freedoms here at home.(2)

This is the defensive role of government expressed in international terms. Interestingly enough, these three aspects of national defense also translate directly into the three aspects of national sovereignty: military, economic and political.

Applying this philosophy to the sphere of foreign policy, one is able almost instantly to determine the correct answer to so many international questions that, otherwise, seem hopelessly complex. If the preservation and strengthening of our military, economic and political independence is the only legitimate objective of foreign policy decisions, then, at last, those decisions can be directed by a brilliant beacon of light that unerringly guides our ship of state past the treacherous reefs of international intrigue and into a calm open sea.

Should we disarm? And does it really make any difference whether we disarm unilaterally or collaterally? Either course of action would surrender our military independence. Should we pool our economic resources or our monetary system with those of other nations to create some kind of regional common market? It would constitute the surrender of our economic independence. Should we enter into treaties such as the U.N. Covenants which would obligate our citizens to conform their social behavior, their educational practices to rules and regulations set down by international agencies? Such treaty obligations amount to the voluntary and piece-meal surrender of our political independence. The answer to all such questions is a resounding “no,” for the simple reason that the only way America can survive in this basically hostile and topsy-turvy world is to remain militarily, economically and politically strong and independent.

We must put off our rose-colored glasses, quit repeating those soothing but entirely false statements about world unity and brotherhood, and look to the world as it is, not as we would like it to become. Such an objective, and perhaps painful, survey leads to but one conclusion. We would be committing national suicide to surrender any of our independence, and chain ourselves to other nations in such a sick and turbulent world. President George Washington, in his immortal Farewell Address, explained our true policy in this regard:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world…Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. (September 17, 1796; Writings 13: 316-318; P.P.N.S., p. 547)

President Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, while discussing what he deemed to be “the essential principles of our government,”(3) explained that as far as our relations with foreign nations are concerned this means:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none. . . (March 4, 1801; Works 8:4)

The world is smaller, you say? True, it is, but if one finds himself locked in a house with maniacs, thieves and murderers–even a small house–he does not increase his chances of survival by entering into alliances with his potential attackers and becoming dependent upon them for protection to the point where he is unable to defend himself. Perhaps the analogy between nations and maniacs is a little strong for some to accept. But if we put aside our squeamishness over strong language, and look hard at the real world in which we live, the analogy is quite sound in all but the rarest exceptions.

Already, I can hear the chorus chanting “Isolationism, isolationism, he’s turning back the clock to isolationism.” How many use that word without having the slightest idea of what it really means! The so-called isolationism of the United States in past decades is a pure myth. What isolationism? Long before the current trend of revoking our Declaration of Independence under the guise of international cooperation, American influence and trade was felt in every region of the globe. Individuals and private groups spread knowledge, business, prosperity, religion, good will and, above all, respect throughout every foreign continent. It was not necessary then for America to give up her independence to have contact and influence with other countries. It is not necessary now. Yet, many Americans have been led to believe that our country is so strong that it can defend, feed and subsidize half the world, while at the same time believing that we are so weak and “inter-dependent” that we cannot survive without pooling our resources and sovereignty with those we subsidize. If wanting no part of this kind of “logic” is isolationism, then it is time we brought it back into vogue.

Senator Robert A. Taft clearly explained our traditional foreign policy:
Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand. (A Foreign Policy for Americans, p. 12)

“But that is nationalism,” chants the chorus. “And nationalism fosters jealousy, suspicion and hatred of other countries which in turn leads to war.”(4) How many times has this utter nonsense been repeated without challenge as though it were some kind of empirical and self-evident truth! What kind of logic assumes that loving one’s country means jealousy, suspicion and hatred of all others? Why can’t we be proud of America as an independent nation and also have a feeling of brotherhood and respect for other peoples around the world? As a matter of fact, haven’t Americans done just that for the past 200 years? What people have poured out more treasure to other lands, opened their doors to more immigrants, and sent more missionaries, teachers and doctors than we? Are we now to believe that love of our own country will suddenly cause us to hate the peoples of other lands?

It was the late Herbert Hoover who pointed out the social poison in the current derision of American nationalism:
We must realize the vitality of the great spiritual force which we call nationalism. The fuzzy-minded intellectuals have sought to brand nationalism as a sin against mankind. They seem to think that infamy is attached to the word “nationalist.” But that force cannot be obscured by denunciation of it as greed or selfishness–as it sometimes is. The spirit of nationalism springs from the deepest of human emotions. It rises from the yearning of men to be free of foreign domination, to govern themselves. It springs from a thousand rills of race, of history, of sacrifice and pride in national achievement. (Quoted by Eugene W. Castle, Billions, Blunders and Baloney, p. 259)

In order for a man to be a good neighbor within his own community, he had better first love his own family before he tries to save the neighborhood. If he doesn’t love his own, why should we believe he would love others? Theodore Roosevelt firmly believed that “it is only the man who ardently loves his country first who in actual practice can help any other country at all.” (P.P.N.S., p. 196)

Many well-intentioned people are now convinced that we are living in a period of history which makes it both possible and necessary to abandon our national sovereignty, to merge our nation militarily, economically, and politically with other nations, and to form, at last a world government which, supposedly, would put an end to war. We are told that this is merely doing between nations what we did so successfully with our thirteen colonies. This plea for world federalism is based on the idea that the mere act of joining separate political units together into a larger federal entity will somehow prevent those units from waging war with each other. The success of our own federal system is most often cited as proof that this theory is valid. But such an evaluation is a shallow one.

First of all, the American Civil War, one of the most bloody in all history, illustrates that the mere federation of governments, even those culturally similar, as in America, does not automatically prevent war between them. Secondly, we find that true peace quite easily exists between nations which are not federated. As a matter of fact, members of the British Commonwealth of Nations seemed to get along far more peacefully after the political bonds between them had been relaxed. In other words, true peace has absolutely nothing to do with whether separate political units are joined together–except, perhaps, that such a union may create a common military defense sufficiently impressive to deter an aggressive attack. But that is peace between the union and outside powers; it has little effect on peace between the units, themselves, which is the substance of the argument for world government.

Peace is the natural result of relationships between groups and cultures which are mutually satisfactory to both sides. These relationships are found with equal ease within or across federal lines. As a matter of fact, they are the relationships that promote peaceful conditions within the community and think for a moment; if you were marooned on an island with two other people, what relationships between you would be mutually satisfactory enough to prevent you from resorting to violence in your relationship? Or, to put it the other way around, what would cause you to break the peace and raise your hand against your partners?

Obviously, if one or both of the partners attempted to seize your food and shelter, you would fight. Their reaction to similar efforts on your part would be the same. If they attempted to take away your freedom, to dictate how you would conduct your affairs, or tell you what moral and ethical standards you must follow, likewise, you would fight. And if they constantly ridiculed your attire, your manners and your speech, in time you might be sparked into a brawl. The best way to keep the peace on that island is for each one to mind his own business, to respect each other’s right to be different (even to act in a way that seems foolish or improper, if he wishes), and to have compassion for each other’s troubles and hardships–but not to force each other to do something!And, to make sure that the others hold to their end of the bargain, each should keep physically strong enough to make any violation of this code unprofitable.(5)

Now, suppose these three got together and decided to form a political union, to “federate” as it were. Would this really change anything? Suppose they declared themselves to be the United Persons, and wrote a charter, and held daily meetings and passed resolutions. What then? These superficial ceremonies might be fun for awhile, but the minute two of them out-voted the other, and started “legally” to take his food and shelter, limit his freedom or force him to accept an unwanted standard of moral conduct, they would be right back where they all began. Federation or no federation, they would fight.

Is it really different between nations? Not at all. The same simple code of conduct applies in all human relationships, large or small. Regardless of the size, be it international or three men on an island, the basic unit is still the human personality. Ignore this fact, and any plan is doomed to failure.(6)

It might be worthwhile at this point to mention that Washington’s policy ofneutrality and non-interferencewas adhered to by those who followed him. For instance, President John Adams, in his Inaugural Address, resolved “to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world.” He later said, in a special message to Congress:
It is my sincere desire, and in this I presume I concur with you and with our constituents, to preserve peace and friendship with all nations. . .

To which the Senate, presided over by Thomas Jefferson, replied:
Peace and harmony with all nations is our sincere wish; but such being the lot of humanity that nations will not always reciprocate peaceable dispositions, it is our firm belief that effectual measures of defense will tend to inspire that national self-respect and confidence at home which is the unfailing source of respectability abroad, to check aggression and prevent war. (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, The American Tradition, p. 210)

When the thirteen colonies formed our Federal Union, they had two very important factors in their favor, neither of which are present in the world at large today. First, the colonists themselves were all of a similar cultural background. They enjoyed similar legal systems, they spoke the same language, and they shared similar religious beliefs. They had much in common. The second advantage, and the most important of the two, was that they formed their union under a constitution which was designed to prevent any of them, or a majority of them, from forcefully intervening in the affairs of the others. The original federal government was authorized to provide mutual defense, run a post office, and that was about all. As previously mentioned, however, even though we had these powerful forces working in our favor, full scale war did break out at one tragic point in our history.

The peace that followed, of course, was no peace at all, but was only the smoldering resentment and hatred that follows in the wake of any armed conflict. Fortunately, the common ties between North and South, the cultural similarities and the common heritage, have proved through the intervening years to over-balance the differences. And with the gradual passing away of the generation that carried the battle scars, the Union has healed.

Among the nations of the world today, there are precious few common bonds that could help overcome the clash of cross-purposes that inevitably must arise between groups with such divergent ethnic, linguistic, legal, religious, cultural, and political environments. To add fuel to the fire, the concept woven into all of the present-day proposals for world government (The U.N. foremost among these) is one of unlimited governmental power to impose by force a monolithic set of values and conduct on all groups and individuals whether they like it or not. Far from insuring peace, such conditions can only enhance the chances of war.(7)

In this connection it is interesting to point out that the late J. Reuben Clark, who was recently described as “probably the greatest authority on [the Constitution] during the past fifty years” (American Opinion, April 1966, p. 113), in 1945–the year the United Nations charter was adopted–made this prediction in his devastating and prophetic “cursory analysis” of the United Nations Charter:
There seems no reason to doubt that such real approval as the Charter has among the people is based upon the belief that if the Charter is put into effect, wars will end. . . The Charter will not certainly end war. Some will ask – why not? In the first place, there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war. . . It is true the Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace. . . The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.

Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we will have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting. (Unpublished Manuscript; quoted in P.P.N.S., p. 458)

Everyone is for peace and against war–particularly the horrors of nuclear war. And what are the horrors of war? Why, death, destruction and human suffering, of course! But, wait a minute. Since the big “peace” began at the end of World War II, isn’t it a fact that, behind the iron and bamboo curtains, there has been more death, destruction and human suffering than in most of the big wars of history combined? Yes, it is a fact–a horrible fact–which Martin Dies, the former long-time Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, described in these words:
In Russia, a minimum of 25,000,000 people have been starved to death and murdered in 45 years. In Red China, the figure is probably at least 35,000,000 in a short 12 years. These ruthless, inhuman atrocities have been investigated, documented and reported in print, by numerous committees of the Congress. Yet only a relative handful of Americans know where to look for the facts, or even know the reports exist; and still fewer have read them. (The Martin Dies Story, p. 20)

A consideration of these facts means that we have to redefine our terms when we talk about “peace.” There are two kinds of peace. If we define peace as merely the absence of war, then we could be talking about the peace that reigns in a communist slave labor camp. The wretched souls in prison there are not at war, but do you think they would call it peace?

The only real peace–the one most of us think about when we use the term–is a peace with freedom. A Nation that is not willing, if necessary, to face the rigors of war to defend its real peace-in-freedom is doomed to lose both its freedom and its peace! These are the hard facts of life. We may not like them, but until we live in a far better world than exists today, we must face up to them squarely and courageously.(8)

In a discussion of war and its effects these wise words of James Madison should always be remembered:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .(April 20, 1795; Works 4:491-2; P.P.N.S., p. 468)

Shortly after this, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison issued another warning which should never be forgotten:
The management of foreign relations appears to be the most susceptible of abuse, of all the trusts committed to a Government, because they can be concealed or disclosed, or disclosed in such parts & at such times as will best suit particular views; and because the body of the people are less capable of judging & are more under the influence of prejudices, on that branch of their affairs, than of any other. Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.(May 13, 1798; Works 2:140-1; P.P.N.S., p. 431)

Until all nations follow the concept of limited government, it is unlikely that universal peace will ever be realized on this planet. Unlimited, power-grasping governments will always resort to force if they think they can get away with it.(9) But there can be peace for America. As long as our leaders faithfully discharge their duty to preserve and strengthen the military, economic and political independence of our Republic, the world’s petty despots will leave us alone. What more could we ask of U.S. foreign policy?

From these primary policy pronouncements some general principles emerge. They can be reduced to a few heads and stated as imperatives in the following manner:
The United States should:

Establish and maintain a position of independence with regard to other countries
Avoid political connection, involvement or intervention in the affairs of other countries
Make no permanent or entangling alliances
Treat all nations impartially, neither granting nor accepting special privileges from any
Promote commerce with all free peoples and countries
Cooperate with other countries to develop civilized rules of intercourse
Act always in accordance with the “laws of Nations”
Remedy all just claims of injury to other nations and require just treatment from other nations, standing ready, if necessary to punish offenders
Maintain a defensive force of sufficient magnitude to deter aggressors.(10) (See The American Tradition, p. 212)

For the first hundred years and more of the existence of the Republic, Americans developed and maintained a tradition that was in keeping with the above principles. We can say with confidence that the United States established a tradition of foreign relations in keeping with the principles laid down by the founding fathers. In the words of Senator Taft:
I do not believe it a selfish goal for us to insist that the over-riding purpose of all American foreign policy should be the maintenance of the liberty and the peace of the people of the United States, so that they may achieve that intellectual and material improvement which is their genius and in which they can do an even greater service to mankind than we can by billions of material assistance–and more than we can ever do by war. (A Foreign Policy For Americans, p. 14)

It seems fitting in conclusion to refer you again to the inspired words of the wise father of our country. He said:
My ardent desire is, and my aim has been. . . to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves, and not for others. This, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home. (October 9, 1795; Writings 13:119)

Endnotes

1. Address delivered on June 21, 1968, at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho.

2. “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, my fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican Government.–But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.” (President George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796; Writings 13:315)

3. “About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people–a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are not provided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety. (Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801; also known as the Creed of our Political Faith; Works 8:4-5)

4. Credit is given to G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, for some of the thoughts expressed in this chapter.

5. “It takes a combination of three factors to protect our national interests under all conditions and to maintain peace on our terms. The three factors are: credible military superiority along the entire spectrum of modern warfare; courageous and decisive diplomacy; and the active support of the American people.” (General Thomas S. Power, Design for Survival, p. 6)

6. “Those who have written on civil government lay it down as a first principle, and all historians demonstrate the same, that whoever would found a state and make proper laws for the government of it must presume that all men are bad by nature: that they will not fail to show that natural depravity of heart whenever they have a fair opportunity. . . constant experience shows us that every man vested with power is apt to abuse it. He pushes on till he comes to something that limits him.” (Machiavelli, 1469-1527; quoted by John Adams, Works 4:408)

7. “Power and law are not synonymous. In truth they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God’s Law from which all Equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God’s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man’s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.” (Cicero, quoted in A Pillar of Iron, p. ix)

8. It is our duty. . . to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.” (Thomas Jefferson, to James Lewis, May 9, 1798; Works 4:241)

9. “There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.” (Demosthenes, 384-322 B.C.; Familiar Quotations, p. 277)

10. “Deterrence is more than bombs and missiles and tanks and armies. Deterrence is a sound economy and prosperous industry. Deterrence is scientific progress and good schools. Deterrence is effective civil defense and the maintenance of law and order. Deterrence is the practice of religion and respect for the rights and convictions of others. Deterrence is a high standard of morals and wholesome family life. Deterrence is honesty in public office and freedom of the press. Deterrence is all these things and many more, for only a nation that is healthy and strong in every respect has the power and will to deter the forces from within and without that threaten its survival.” (General Thomas S. Power, Design for Survival, p. 242)

It was a most impressive sight yesterday at the Church Administration Building. All day long the people came, in a steady and solemn procession past the bier of their beloved friend and prophet. They were quiet, they were reverent, and they were touched in their hearts. They were both young and elderly, with all ages in between. There was something somber and at the same time beautiful about it. Thoughts ran deep but words were few. Beyond those who came were the countless thousands across the world who wished they might have been able to come, not to speak but in silence to communicate their love and their sorrow.

This service today is a continuation of that expression. The invocation by Brother Haight, the music by this wonderful choir, the messages of Elder Packer and Elder Monson have touched us all. The concluding remarks by President Hunter will touch us for great good, and the benediction by Elder Scott will conclude what will be a memorable hour, both sacred and beautiful, in tribute to our leader, associate, and prophet. I pray now for the direction of the Holy Spirit that I may say that which will be in total harmony with the spirit of these services thus far.

The choir numbers were selected by the family. The beautiful hymn which we have just heard was a favorite with President Benson.

My mind goes back thirty years to 1964 when he was presiding in Frankfurt, Germany, with responsibility for the work in Europe. I at the same time had a similar responsibility for the work in Asia. I had been on a long journey, meeting with missionaries and Saints in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippine Islands, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, and India. I was en route home by way of Europe. Sister Hinckley was with me. President Benson met us at the airport in Frankfurt and took us to their home for the night. Sister Benson and their daughter, Beth, had prepared a wonderful meal, the first home-cooked food we had eaten in weeks. After that he said, “Now let’s gather around the piano and sing.” The first song was “Love at Home.” It was the Benson theme song. We sang it on that occasion. They sang it in scores of circumstances. As Brother Monson indicated, their star performance was on the Ed Murrow Show originating in Washington some years earlier. That program, as he indicated, was carried across the nation and brought forth an unprecedented volume of complimentary mail.

There was love in the Benson home. These two manly sons and four beautiful daughters are the beneficiaries of an inheritance of family strength, loyalty, and affection. Theirs has been an example to the entire Church.

That family life is but an extension of the family life into which Ezra Taft Benson was born and in which he was nurtured and grew. As has been noted, he was a farm boy, literally and truly, an overall-clad, sunburned boy who at a very early age came to know the law of the harvest: “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). He came to know in those lean days that without hard work, nothing grows but weeds. There must be labor, incessant and constant, if there is to be a harvest. And so there was plowing in the fall and plowing in the spring—the sweaty work of walking in a furrow all day long behind a team of strong horses. In those days a hand plow was used, and it was necessary to hold constantly the handles that twisted and shook as the sharp plow point cut the earth and neatly rolled it over. After a day of that, a boy was exhausted and slept well. But morning came very soon.

The field needed the harrow, again horse-drawn, to break the clods and prepare a seed bed. Planting was an arduous, back-breaking task. And then there was irrigation. The Benson farm was in dry country, redeemed by the magic of irrigation. The water had to be watched, not only during the day but all through the night. There were no electric flashlights or propane lanterns. There were only kerosene lanterns which cast a feeble and sickly yellow glow. It was imperative that the water get to the end of the row. That was a lesson never to be forgotten.

I can see in my mind’s eye the little boy, shovel on his shoulder, walking the ditches and the fields to bring life-growing moisture to the parched soil.

Soon came the time to cut hay, acres and acres of it. The team was hitched to the mower, the boy climbed up into the old steel seat, and the sickle bar flew back and forth, cutting a five-foot swath as the team walked forward. With flies and mosquitos, with dust and scorching heat, it was hard work. The hay then had to be raked, then pitched with a hand fork into cocks to dry. Timing was important. When it reached the right stage it was pitched onto a hayrack, a wagon with a big, flat bed. At the stack yard, a horse-driven derrick lifted it from the wagon to form a huge stack of hay. There was no baling in those days, nor were there mechanical loaders. There were only pitchforks and muscles.

President Benson never forgot that season of his life. In our council meetings, when we would be involved in discussion of a great variety of projects and matters, and someone would suggest another, he would say, “We already have more hay down than we can handle. Let’s leave that for a while.”

I have had a little experience as a farm boy, and I marvel that at the age of fourteen he, as the eldest child, took responsibility for that immense farm and the variety of crops which it produced while his father served a mission for two years. Small wonder that his frame grew large and his body strong. Those of us who knew him in his later life frequently commented on the size of his wrists. Robust health, the foundation for which was laid in his boyhood, was one of the great blessings of his life. Until the last few years, he was a man of tremendous energy.

Throughout the years of his mature life, when he walked with presidents and kings, he never lost the touch of his boyhood farm days. He never lost his capacity for work. He never lost the will to rise at dawn and work into the night. But there was more than a tremendous habit of work that came out of that boyhood home. There was a certain strength that comes from the soil. There was a constant reminder of the dictum given Adam and Eve when they were driven from the garden: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground” (Gen. 3:19). A spirit of self-reliance was built into those who worked the soil. There were no government farm programs then, no subsidies of any kind. The vagaries of the seasons had to be accepted. Killing frosts, unseasonal storms, wind, and drought were all accepted as the risks of life against which there was no available insurance. Storage against a day of want was a necessity, else there would be hunger. The one constant resource against the risks of life was prayer, prayer to our eternal, loving Father, the Almighty God of the universe.

There was much of prayer in that little home in Whitney, Idaho. There was family prayer, night and morning, in which thanks was expressed for life with its challenges and opportunities, and in which pleas were made for strength to do the work of the day. Those in need were remembered, and when the family arose from their knees, the mother, who was the ward Relief Society president, would have the buggy loaded to share food with those in need, her eldest son as her driver. Those lessons were never lost. Brother Benson, who later served as president of the Boise Idaho Stake, was a pioneer in the great welfare program of the Church. An overwhelming sense of responsibility for the needy that he carried throughout his life found its roots in his boyhood home, in the prayers of his family, and in the good and generous deeds of his mother gladly performed without fanfare or notice.

Brother Monson has spoken of the tremendous work he did when, as a member of the Council of the Twelve, he was sent to Europe to bring succor to our people who were hungry and destitute at the end of the war. The hand that reached out to those impoverished people was the same hand which many years earlier had helped his mother in assisting the distressed of the little ward in which he grew up.

I was at the Swiss Temple in 1955 when it was dedicated by President David O. McKay. Brother Benson was there. President Harold Gregory of the Berlin Mission was able to bring a company of Saints to the temple on that occasion. I will never forget what I witnessed. When they saw Brother Benson, they ran to him and they embraced one another, with tears rolling down their cheeks and tears rolling down his cheeks. Ten years earlier he had come almost as an angel from heaven with food when they were hungry and with hope when they were desperate.

I am confident that it was out of what he saw of the bitter fruit of dictatorship that he developed his strong feelings, almost hatred, for communism and socialism. That distaste grew through the years as he witnessed the heavy-handed oppression and suffering of the peoples of eastern Europe under what he repeatedly described as godless communism.

These experiences further strengthened his love for the land of his birth. He had grown up in big sky country, where there was a spirit of freedom and independence. He had grown up in the tradition of his forebears, who spoke reverently of those who were raised up by the Almighty to establish this nation and who had pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to the cause of liberty. He never got over his boyhood love for freedom. Rather it grew within him, nurtured by what he saw of oppression in other lands and by what he observed firsthand of a growing dominance of government in this land over the lives of the people.

The Wall Street Journal in its issue of last Tuesday, May 31, 1994, carried together notice of the deaths of “Ezra Taft Benson, 94, president of the Mormon church since 1985, … in Salt Lake City” and “Erich Honecker, 81, East German leader who built the Berlin Wall, in Santiago, Chile.”

I cannot imagine two men so different in the causes they espoused, in what they did for mankind, and in the philosophies by which they guided their lives.

Erich Honecker was the iron-fisted communist ruler of East Germany, the feared and despised builder of the Berlin Wall, the practitioner of the godless dogma of oppression and slavery to the state. He died a refugee from his native land. He was able to leave his country and thus escape prosecution and possible execution because of the serious condition of his health.

On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson was the fearless and outspoken enemy of communism, a man who with eloquence and conviction preached the cause of human freedom, one who loved and worshipped the Prince of Peace, the Redeemer of mankind. He died in the love of people across the world, a man respected and reverenced, a man for whose well-being millions constantly prayed.

Although he became a citizen of the world, feeling a kinship with good people wherever he went, President Benson’s love for America never dimmed. In the first world war he enlisted in the army and was subsequently honorably discharged. His crowning patriotic service was his response to a call from the president of the United States to serve as secretary of agriculture. He served the entire eight years of President Eisenhower’s presidency.

He was constantly within the glare of the spotlight of public scrutiny. He was absolutely fearless in speaking out against what he regarded as oppressive programs that shackled the farmer and did injury to him while masquerading as his protector and benefactor. His picture appeared on the covers of the leading national news magazines. Editorialists and commentators denounced him. But without fear or favor, without political or personal consideration, he spoke his mind and won the plaudits of millions across this nation. Even those who disagreed with his policies were forced to respect his logic, his wisdom, and his convictions. They came to know that he knew whereof he spoke. He had once been a dirt-digging, hands-on, sweating farmer. He spoke out of that experience. But he spoke also with the skill and refinement of an educated mind, with the skill of a trained debater, and out of a conviction deep and intense that came of a love for freedom to live one’s own life and direct one’s own affairs.

In those difficult and strenuous times, again prayer was his refuge and his strength. He believed that the principle he espoused involved the same principle that was contested in the war in heaven, the great and basic and underlying principle of the agency of man.

But with all that he did, with all the honors accorded him at home and abroad, with his pleasure in mingling with people wherever he went, his greatest interest and his truest love, beyond his own family, was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its people, and its interests throughout the world.

He treasured above all other calls and responsibilities the holy Apostleship, a call extended when he was forty-four years of age by President Heber J. Grant. He knew the meaning of that call. He recognized the responsibilities inherent in it. With the energy of his boyhood farm experiences, he labored at it. He traveled across the world teaching righteousness, building faith, bearing witness in unequivocal terms of the reality of God, our Eternal Father; of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer; of the restoration of the gospel in this dispensation through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith; of the Book of Mormon as another witness for Jesus Christ; of the restoration of the priesthood with all its keys and authority; and of the truth and divinity of the church which carries the Lord’s name, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For more than thirty-two years I sat in councils with him—in the Council of the Twelve Apostles and in the Council of the First Presidency. I have been the beneficiary of his kindness and deferential manner. I have been blessed by his wisdom. I have seen the spirit of prophecy rest upon him. I have knelt with him and heard him pray.

His prayers were always interesting. Almost without exception, they consisted for the most part of expressions of thanks. He asked for very little. He expressed gratitude for very much.

He thanked the Lord for life, for family, for the gospel, for faith, for sunlight and rain, the bounties of nature, and the freedom-loving instincts of man. He thanked the Lord for friends and associates. He expressed love for the Savior and gratitude for His atoning sacrifice. He thanked the Lord for the opportunity to serve the people.

Service was of his nature. His life became a fulfillment of the declaration of the Master: “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matt. 10:39).

Like the Master whom he served, he “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). At the height of his career he was a powerful speaker. An excellent student of the gospel, he spoke with a powerful conviction and a great sense of mission. The sermons he delivered from this pulpit dealt with a great variety of subjects. He covered the whole broad gamut of the gospel. No one could question his love for his Redeemer. He bore strong and convincing testimony of a certain knowledge that the Son of God gave His life for the sins of mankind and that through His atoning sacrifice all may be raised from the dead.

He spoke of the beauty of the gospel plan under which all who walk in obedience to its principles may attain eternal life and exaltation. On many occasions he voiced, with great emotion, his hope and prayer that among his own posterity there would be no vacant chairs on the other side.

As has been indicated, the Book of Mormon was his love. He read it. He quoted it in his teachings. His voice rang out in eloquent warning of the fate that could overtake this nation unless the people of the land walk in righteousness and serve the God of the Land, who is Jesus Christ. As holder of the keys of the priesthood, restored in this dispensation, he blessed the people he loved. He honored the sacred office to which he had been called.

As might well be expected, his body began to fail with age. He could not walk as he once walked. He could not speak as he once spoke. There was a gradual decline, but he was still the chosen prophet of the Lord for so long as he lived. Last Saturday evening when I returned from a Church assignment in the East, I went up to his apartment. His family had left for the night. His able secretary and his nurse were there. They withdrew from the room, and I was there alone with the President. It was evident that he was dying. I stood beside him and watched him and thought. I thought of his kindness to me. I thought of his love for his family and for the people of this church throughout the world. My mind ran over a series of events of the era of his presidency. I felt a surge of gratitude for his life and his service. I knew he could not last long.

He died quietly last Monday afternoon, Memorial Day.

He has gone to meet his beloved companion, Flora. He has gone to meet his friends and associates in the work of the Lord. He has gone to meet his faithful forebears. He has gone to give an accountability of his stewardship to his Master and Lord.

Had he been speaking during those last hours, I think he might have spoken these final words of Enos in the Book of Mormon:

“And I soon go to the place of my rest, which is with my Redeemer; for I know that in him I shall rest. And I rejoice in the day when my mortal shall put on immortality, and shall stand before him; then shall I see his face with pleasure, and he will say unto me: Come unto me, ye blessed, there is a place prepared for you in the mansions of my Father” (Enos 1:27).

From all of us across this broad world who have been the beneficiaries of his kindness, his service, and his life, we say thank you and good-bye, dear friend, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

No nation ever created a position of power quite like that of the “President of the United States.” In fact, the power connected with this office has grown enormously. At the outset of the Washington terms in the Presidency, there were approximately 350 civilians employed by the existing administrative offices. Today the number of civilian employees stands at 2.5 million and more than three million men and women serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. Relatively few of these are employed in the District of Columbia. Approximately 10 percent of the civilian employees and a much smaller percentage of the military personnel are found within the immediate vicinity of Washington, D.C. The others are spread throughout the 50 states, American territories overseas, and in foreign countries. 1

How the Thinking of the Founding Fathers Changed

If the Constitution had been written in 1776 instead of 1787, the office of President would have been little more than that of a clerk saddled with the responsibility of routinely carrying out the will of Congress. The founders were suspicious of”Executives.” In fact, nearly all of the new States originally wrote their State constitutions with very weak powers granted to their governors. They were suffering from a backlash growing out of their bitter experience with the arbitrary, autocratic and highhanded policies of George III. Pennsylvania went further than any of the States by having no governor at all. She arranged to run her affairs with an executive committee of the legislature.

Ten years later, however, most of the leaders on both the State and national level had come to the conclusion that public affairs cannot be administered efficiently by legislative committees or weak executives. Sufficient power and responsibility must be lodged in one person to get the job done. Deciding just how that special person should be selected and precisely what powers should be delegated to him, created a furor of debate in the Constitutional Convention. It occupied more time than any other subject. Some even doubted that the presidential powers should be entrusted to one man.

How Many Presidents Should We Have?

At this point in time it may seem rather ridiculous to wonder how many Presidents we should have in charge of the Executive Branch of the government. The answer seems so obvious. But it was not so obvious in 1787. James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed that there should be a single, strong President operating within a carefully defined framework of limited authority. However, Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia, was most insistent that there should be three Presidents: one to represent New England, one to represent New York and the middle States, and one to represent the South. Hamilton, along with many others, thought this was totally unrealistic. He felt that the experience of the young country had already demonstrated the need for a leader who could handle the country’s offices with “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” He also agreed with James Wilson of Pennsylvania that “plurality tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility.”

It was finally decided that a single President would be chosen with strong powers but restricted to tightly limited, well-defined areas.

How Long Should the President Serve?

Hamilton felt that once a good man had been chosen he should be allowed to serve during “good behavior” or for life. Wilson felt this would never do and recommended three years as the President’s term of office with authorization to run for re-election if he desired. George Mason of Virginia favored a single term of seven years without allowing the President to succeed himself. He felt this was important so that the President would not waste his time as the chief executive campaigning for another election.

One of the reasons a number of delegates favored a long term for the President was because they expected Washington to occupy this high office and they wanted him to serve as long as possible. However, after extensive debate it was finally concluded that the term should be for only four years and the President should be restricted to only one term of office. The convention noted that Washington voted against the single term, however, and it was assumed that he felt it would take longer than four years to get the new government into operation. Consequently, when the Constitution was written in its final form, no reference was made to the number of terms a President could serve. In practice, two terms were as long as any President served prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt who died in office during his fourth term. His own party immediately initiated an amendment to the Constitution limiting all future Presidents to two terms.

How Should the President Be Selected?

Even today people are still arguing over the best way to elect a President. At the Constitutional Convention every possible angle was explored. Some thought he should be selected by the House of Representatives. Others preferred the Senate. When it was pointed out that if either of these bodies appointed the President it would violate the principle of “separation of powers,” the suggestion was made that the governors of the various States should make the selection. This, too, met with objections.

It is interesting to note that very few of the delegates were in favor of a popular election of the President. Hamilton felt that if the masses of the people were required to elect the President, the whole fiasco would end in a “tumult and disorder.” Nevertheless, they wanted a system which gave proportional representation to the people in choosing the President. They had confidence in the people electing local and State representatives but thought it would be impossible for all of the people to know all of the Presidential candidates sufficiently well to make an intelligent choice.

It was therefore decided to have the States elect representatives or “electors” in whom they had confidence, and these could then investigate the candidates and make the final selection. This body of representatives has become know as the “electoral college.”

The Electoral College Had Two Weaknesses

Originally, the Constitution provided that each elector would have two votes, thereby indicating his first and second choice for President. It further provided that the candidate who had a majority of the votes would be President and the man with the next highest number of votes would be the Vice-President. In practice, this resulted in a President being teamed up with a Vice-President who might have views opposite to his own.

In fact, as soon as the party system developed, it resulted in the electors from the majority party all voting for the same two men and this created a tie which threw the election into the House of Representatives where the same majority party would continue having a tie. In 1800 the tie was between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr and the House had to ballot 35 times before the tie was finally broken. This problem was remedied by passing the Twelfth Amendment which allows each party to designate one person for President and another for Vice-President.

The Second Weakness

A second weakness in the electoral system was the concept of “winner takes all.” This means that whoever gets a majority of the electors in a particular State can claim all of the electoral votes for that State. In practice this has occasionally allowed a President to win the popular vote but lose because he had only a minority of the electoral votes. Eventually there will probably be an amendment which allows a candidate to claim the same proportion of electors as the percentage of votes won in the popular balloting vote. There would still be difficulties in close races, however, since an electoral vote representing approximately 300,000 people might be given to a Candidate who barely won over his opponent in that State.

It should be pointed out that an elector is free to vote for anyone he wishes but in practice he nearly always votes for his party’s candidates. Since 1789, only six electoral votes out of the more than 17,000 which have been cast, were independent votes.

Many people have wanted to do away with the electoral college altogether and simply choose the President on the basis of the popular vote. It seems, however, that the majority feel more comfortable with the indirect method even though it still has the one weakness mentioned above. When the electoral college issue had been tested in Congress on several occasions, it was found that although a majority was willing to do away with the electoral college, it was in no way possible to get a majority to agree on what system would be acceptable in its place.

What Powers Should Be Given The Presidency?

Now we come to the most difficult question of all. Just how much power should the President have? The specific powers granted to him were rather limited. He was authorized:

1. To be the commander-in-chief of the armed services.

2. To require reports from the principal officer of the Executive departments of government.

3. To have authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.

4. To make treaties with foreign nations providing two-thirds of the Senate concurred.

5. To appoint ambassadors, judges and the principal officers of government providing they are approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

6. To report to the Congress the state of the Union and recommend to the Congress specific legislation which needs to be passed.

7. To call the Congress into special session when emergency action is needed.

8. To adjourn the Congress when the two Houses cannot agree on the time of adjournment between themselves.

9. To receive ambassadors and public ministers from foreign nations.

10. To see that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.

11. To assign commissions to all officers of the United States armed services.

The loophole in the “powers of the President” is found in item number ten, which requires the President to make certain that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. This means that any act of Congress which is signed into law must be implemented with the necessary administrative machinery and a budgetary request submitted to finance it. This has resulted in the President becoming far more powerful in his executive capacity than was ever contemplated by the founding fathers. At the same time it has allowed the Congress, when dominated by a party different than the President, to take credit for all kinds of wonderful programs which are supposed to be popular with the people and then blame the President for the massive “bureaucracy” and the excessive budgetary requirements needed to carry on such programs.

How the President Became the Power-Center of the Whole World

It would be interesting to know how the American founding fathers would have reacted if someone in the Constitutional Convention had been able to disclose the fact that within 200 years the President and the Executive Branch of the United States government would have become the power-center of the whole world. Much of this has been the result of America’s economic capacity.

It was clearly demonstrated during World War II that she could speed up her free-enterprise system of industrial capacity and out-produce the rest of the world in both food and armaments. This pushed her into a dominant position at the close of the war and made the United States the peace-keeper of the world whether she liked it or not. It was inevitable that the role of President would attract a whole new dimension of power as these historical changes unfolded.

Dangerous Trends

However, dangerous precedents were soon established which gave the President maneuvering space far beyond the boundaries established by the Constitution. For the first time the President of the United State began having summit conferences with other heads of States. Formal, commitments were made at the conference or through subsequent diplomatic exchanges which took the form of “executive agreements” rather than “treaties.” Therefore they were never submitted to the Senate for discussion or approval. In 1974 there were only 13 “treaties” but there were 230 “executive agreements.” Usually the public has no way of discovering precisely what commitments have been made with these foreign countries. Nor can the Senate find out in many instances.

Another dangerous precedent has been assigning American troops to engage in hostilities without Congressional action. This has happened many times even before Korea and Vietnam.

A recent development which would have shocked the founders has been the use of American prestige to force weaker nations to accept the views of a President and his Secretary of State as to how the problems of another country should be resolved when the President and his Secretary of State have no legal or Constitutional basis for interfering. Take, for example, the current intervention of the U.S. Secretary of State in compelling a minority government of Europeans in Rhodesia to turn over its authority to a majority of natives who are completely unprepared to provide a responsible administration of the nation’s affairs. This was not only an unconstitutional exercise of executive power, but an extremely dangerous gamble as borne out by the fact that when a similar European minority government was forced out of power in Angola, the new government representing the native majority immediately set about slaughtering 10,000 fellow natives.

Political authorities have pointed out that the same tragedy may occur in Rhodesia as it evolves toward a one-man tyranny just as other African countries have done when political power has been turned over prematurely to unprepared native majorities. But even if the outcome were more promising, the fact remains that the Constitution never delegated to the United States President the authority of imposing a majority form of government on the whole world. Were that the case, what must be said about Russia, China, Cuba, and a host of other nations which are not only ruled by minorities but by brutal dictatorships?

Congressional Reaction

Gradually Congress has become aware that its checks-and-balance powers have needed to be reasserted. In 1972 the Case Act was passed, which required the President to submit all international agreements to Congress “for its information.”

Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973, requiring the Chief Executive to consult with Congress “in every possible instance” before committing armed forces to hostilities. If forces are ordered into action in an emergency, the matter has to be reported to Congress in 48 hours and all hostilities must cease within 60 days unless Congress has approved it.

In 1974 Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impounding Control Act which gave the Congress tighter control over expenditures and prohibits the President from impounding funds which Congress has appropriated for specific purposes which the President is not carrying out.

Increased Powers of the President In Domestic Matters

Equally dangerous precedents have been established on the home front which Congress must eventually consider. As if it were not enough for the President to be Chief of State, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services, Chief Executive Administrator of the whole federal government, Chief legislation writer, Chief diplomat, and Chief of his own party, the Congress has added a host of other responsibilities which relegates to the scrap heap many of the most fundamental concepts of the original Constitution.

Today the President is responsible for maintaining full employment for the work force of the entire nation, the task of providing for a high level of agricultural prosperity, of developing a national housing program, of supervising the exclusive distribution of atomic energy resources, of having the overwhelming responsibility of taking care of the health and social security of the aged and indigent, of settling major labor-management disputes, of rapidly taking over the States’ original jurisdiction covering insurance, unemployment, welfare, safety, environment, education, and a growing number of police powers.

That such a task is impossible and unworkable is becoming more evident with each passing day. The growing articulation of vigorous protests against overregulation, excessive red-tape, and over-taxation is inevitably going to compel the Congress to take remedial action. There is an impelling need to return to the simpler and more efficient devices of the original American life-style where most of these problems were handled far more effectively and economically by the private sector. Those problems deserving governmental intervention could also be handled more effectively if they were kept within the control of the people at the local level rather than dumping the whole gargantuan load on Washington.

All human experience demonstrates through thousands of experiments that the over-centralization of power in government stifles productivity, inhibits initiative, and debases the unalienable human rights of man. The power of the President and the Executive Branch of government is being utilized for this purpose and it is producing a deep credibility gap between Washington and the people. It is time to take an inventory of these serious aberrations in our political structure and square our shoulders to the necessity of shoring up our Constitutional foundations before they crumble beyond repair.