Progressivism and the Founding Principles

This post is the next in a series of posts having to do with freedom in America and the things that threaten that freedom in our days. Please see the previous posts, especially the one on constitutionalism, for a brief explanation of the principles that I will be discussing in the next few posts on progressivism. Also, remember that The Lord taught that he established the Constitution of the United States based on "just and holy principles" (D&C 101:77-80) and that "whatsoever is more or less than [the Constitution], cometh of evil" (D&C 98:7). By sharing this I don't necessarily mean that people who do not agree with the constitution are in every case evil, or that the Constitution is in every word perfect; often those that promote progressive ideas are trying to do good. However, I do mean that those ideas that aim to destroy the principles on which the Constitution is based and the essential governmental framework that it establishes do come of evil, and, if we are not careful, we will someday sorrow for our lack of loyalty to that great charter. In the words of President Ezra Taft Benson "once freedom is lost, only blood--human blood--will win it back" (A Witness and a Warning, Oct 1979).

Progressivism

Shortly after the Civil War, some of the same animus towards the principles of the Constitution that drove the Confederate fight for slavery started to appear again in the form of new ideas and new criticisms against the concepts in our founding documents. These ideas coalesced into a movement known today as the Progressive Movement. It began to pick up speed in the late 1800s and had its first big successes in the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It has continued to grow steadily, though slightly changed and somewhat veiled, until the present day.

The essential core of the ideas put forward in the Progressive Movement was to "progress" or move beyond the political thinking of the Founding. They felt that we needed to do this because the Founders never envisioned the problems that we face today, and so could never have given us a government that could handle those modern challenges. For the progressives, Government's main purpose was to be a problem solver; not to secure the natural rights of citizens, as the Declaration teaches. Thus, we needed a new approach to government that could tackle present problems. In a campaign speech during his run for President in 1912, Woodrow Wilson gave a good summary of how progressives felt and thought. He said:

We are in the presence of a new organization of society. Our life has broken away from the past. The life of America is not the life that it was twenty years ago; it is not the life that it was ten years ago. We have changed our economic conditions, absolutely, from top to bottom; and, with our economic society, the organization of our life. The old political formulas do not fit the present problems; they read now like documents taken out of a forgotten age. (The New Freedom, pg 3)

For Wilson, and many other progressives, the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are from "a forgotten age," and we have to move beyond them if we hope to navigate modern societal waters.

German Historicism and Societal Evolution

The progressives had great confidence in the progress of history. Many of them were either educated in Germany themselves or by someone else educated in Germany. There they espoused the ideas of G.W.F. Hegel, German historicism, and the German theory of the State; the same ideas that produced the Germany of both World Wars and that heavily influenced the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin, and the China of Mao. For example, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, and Frederick Jackson Turner were all educated at Johns Hopkins University, a school founded specifically for the purpose of bringing German education and principles to America. They believed that history was on an ever-improving track, continuously trending towards a better future. Thus, the Founding principles would inevitably be superseded by new and better principles as humanity progresses through time.

Progressives were also very influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution, and they applied its principles, not just to biology, but to government and society as well. The following quote is again from Woodrow Wilson, and it expresses the evolutionary view of government that the progressives held:

The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist

and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.” The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against itself, as checks, and live. (What is Progress?, The New Freedom)

Thus, for the progressives, the principles of evolution dictate that we must move beyond the separation of powers, the checks and balances established by the Constitution, so that the Government can adapt to its historical environment, solve modern problems, and survive to the next phase in its onward progression. Progressives believed that, because society is a product of the historical conditions of its own age, if we create a Government that can dominate the conditions, we can control society's evolution and shape it towards a Utopian state. That objective is what determines the power that Government should have and no means should be off limits in reaching that end and eliminating the ills of society.

Progressivism and Natural Rights

If the progressives were going to accomplish their regulatory and redistributive agenda to achieve a better society, they knew that they had to erode the limitations that the Constitution placed on them. To do so, they knew that they had to dissolve the principles of the Declaration upon which the Constitution is based. Thus, the ideas of human equality, rule by consent, and natural rights founded in "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" had to be refuted.

The following three quotes are examples of the progressive's efforts to do so. The first is from Woodrow Wilson in a speech in 1911 to The Jefferson Club in Los Angeles, "honoring" Thomas Jefferson and his hand in writing the Declaration of Independence. Wilson stated, "If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface." The preface of the Declaration is the first few paragraphs that contain the statements about "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "all men are created equal," and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Wilson wants us to not repeat that part, so that we can understand the Declaration. The rest of the Declaration is the list of grievances with King George; in other words, the problems of that particular time in history.

The second quote is from John Dewey, a leading progressive and professor at Columbia University. He championed many of the ideas of G.W.F. Hegel, including historicism, moral relativism, and a denial of objective truth. In an essay he criticized earlier liberals (i.e. The Founders) and their statements of universal "self-evident" truths. He stated:

The earlier liberals lacked historic sense and interest...But disregard of history took its revenge. It blinded the eyes of liberals to the fact that their own special interpretations of liberty, individuality and intelligence were themselves historically conditioned, and were relevant only to their own time. They put forward their ideas as immutable truths good at all times and places; they had no idea of historic relativity, either in general or in its application to themselves. (The Papers of John Dewey: The Latter Works 1925-1953, Boydston)

For progressives, each age has its own truths that shape how Government should act; no truths are universal and applicable to all mankind at all times in history.

The third quote is from Frank Goodnow. Frank Goodnow was a prominent progressive at the turn of the 20th Century. He was the President of Johns Hopkins University and the first president of the American Political Science Association. In a speech given at Brown University Goodnow is contrasting the American view of liberty with the European view at the time. He teaches that, as usual, America is behind the times and that we need to catch up to European thinking. He stated:

In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action. (The American Conception of Liberty, Goodnow)

Thus, for progressives, the Government and the law endow men and women with their rights, not God, and those rights are very much alienable if Government decides that the greater good of society requires it.

Defending the Founders

Now juxtapose the views held by these prominent progressives to the views held by two other prominent Americans of their time. The first is Abraham Lincoln. In a letter giving his thoughts on Thomas Jefferson and his role in writing the Declaration, Lincoln wrote:

All honor to Jefferson - to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression. (Letter to Henry Pierce, Lincoln)

The second is from Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge was President shortly after Wilson and he often had to refute progressive ideas. If you are like me, you will remember him being portrayed in history books in school, written by progressives, as being a lousy and inconsequential President; while progressive Presidents, such as the Roosevelts and Wilson, as being great men that saved the country during crises of war and economic disaster. It is amazing what you learn when you actually read the things that they wrote and believed. Coolidge, in a speech commemorating the the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, stated:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

I will ask you to turn inward for a moment. Ask yourself the following questions, and give yourself a quiet moment to reflect. Which of the opposing views presented above, that of progressivism or that of Lincoln and Coolidge, rings more true to your heart? Which is more likely to secure and perpetuate freedom to the next generation? I invite you to act on the feelings that you have.

Progressivism Today

Since it's inception, progressivism has grown steadily in its influence in America. Many people today espouse the ideas made popular by these early progressives, both inside and outside of the Government, and in both the Democratic and Republican Party. For example, when asked by a journalist during a debate in the 2008 democratic primary if she was a "liberal," Hillary Clinton stated, "I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive." Another example of modern progressivism is found in the think-tank known as "The Center for American Progress." This large and influential organization has an entire project dedicated to preserving and perpetuating the ideas and legacy of the early progressives. These are just two of many, many examples of how progressivism is alive and stronger than ever in our society today.

Modern progressives are not as forthcoming as the earlier progressives in terms of their open opposition to the principles of the Founding. They couch their ideas behind nice sounding platitudes that only a fool or a reprobate would be opposed to; after all, who's against progress, or clean air, or affordable health care, or level playing fields. However, they don't tell you that accomplishing those objectives in the way they have in mind requires the abandonment of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If we, as a people, are not vigilant in the protection of our freedom, we will likely lose it.

When Ezra Taft Benson was the Secretary of Agriculture for President Eisenhower, he was assigned the task of meeting with Nikita Khrushchev to help the Soviets improve how they farm. This is what Ezra Taft Benson said about that encounter:

As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom, he arrogantly declared in substance, "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."

Communism, socialism, Marxism, and progressivism have the same intellectual ancestry, found in Prussian/German philosophy, G.W.F Hegel, and others. If we do not hold fast to the principles of the American Founding, we will, as Coolidge and Khruschev intimate, move backward to a time "when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people." Only virtue, knowledge of the truth, and the courage to act on both will allow freedom to win the day. I pray that it will.

Constitutionalism

The purpose of this post is to try to lay out some of the core elements of the constitutional system that was set up by the Founders when our country was formed. I do so in order to be able to address some major changes in that system that have come pass in the last 100 years or so and how those changes threaten our freedom.

Just and Holy Principles

From ancient times The Lord promised that to those whom He brought to the New World it would be a land for freedom, so long as they would serve Him and keep His commandments (2 Nephi 1:5-12). The Lord later declared the He raised up "wise men" to establish the Constitution of the United States to accomplish this promise of freedom. It does so by protecting people's rights and allowing them to freely act out their moral agency to adopt doctrine and principle as they may choose, that all men and women "might be accountable for their own sins" (D&C 101:77-80). We are warned that we need to "befriend" all laws that are constitutional, because "whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil" (D&C 98:4-10).

The Lord described the Constitution as being based upon "just and holy principles" (D&C 101:77). These principles on which the Constitution is based are outlined for us in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration begins by teaching us that there is a system of laws that existed before Governments were instituted, laws that are above Governments and to which all governments and peoples will be held accountable. These are referred to as "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and when infractions of those laws occur against a people, they are justified in "[dissolving] the political bands that have connected them with another."

The Declaration goes on to list some of the "laws of Nature and of Nature's God" which King George had violated and which justified their declaring independence from Great Britain. These laws are described as "truths" which are "self-evident," implying their universality and unchanging nature. They include:

• All men and women are created equal
• They have rights which are unalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away
• Their rights are given to them by their Creator
• Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
• Securing these rights is the primary reason that Governments are instituted
• Government's power can only be just if through the consent of the governed
• If a Government becomes destructive of those rights, people have a right and duty to abolish that Government and replace it with another.

New Governments

The Declaration then states that when a new Government is formed, the people are to build it upon the foundation of those "just and holy principles" (D&C 101:77) outlined in the first few paragraphs of the Declaration and organize its powers in the way that will best protect their safety and happiness. This framing of governmental powers is what the Founders undertook to do in 1787 in writing the Constitution, having been "raised up" by God to do this (D&C 101:80). They understood that their charge was to base that Government on the self-evident truths found in "the Law of Nature and of Nature's God." They knew that popular governments had been tried many times in the past and had failed. They knew that another chance to prove that mankind was capable of self-government may not come for a long time and they had to get it right.

The Declaration goes on to name specific examples of how King George had violated "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," foreshadowing the key elements of the Constitution that would organize the Government's powers in a way that would best protect "their safety and happiness." The following section will attempt to outline those key elements and give examples from the Declaration of how King George's rule had not measured up to those standards.

Core Constitutional Elements

Representative Government

• "He (King George) has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the legislature."
• "He has dissolved Representative House repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people."
• "For imposing taxes on us without our Consent."

Separated Powers

• "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
• "He has made judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
• "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies..."

Limited Government

• "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance."
• "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands."
• "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world."

These three constitutional pillars, Representation, Separated Powers, and Limited Government, would become the bulwark by which the new Government would secure the natural rights of the people, protecting their "safety and happiness," becoming the "new Guards for their future security." The entirety of the Constitution was written to fix these three pillars permanently into the system of government of our Nation. It delineates the three co-equal branches of government, with checks to ensure that too much power does not congregate into the hands of a single individual or group of individuals. It lays out how the sovereign people are to elect their representatives to fulfill the functions of Government in "securing these rights," as the Declaration teaches to be the primary reason for Governments to exist. It clearly states that the Government is to be one of enumerated powers and that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In Summary

When the Founders set out to construct a system of government to secure the rights of the people, based on their consent, they knew that they would someday be accountable to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as all of us will be. They also understood that not even a perfect constitution, written by God directly, could govern a corrupt and immoral people or save them from the same fate as the fallen civilizations of the past. America will remain a land of Liberty, as promised by The Lord (2 Nephi 1:5-12), if we as a people remain a moral people. The Constitution was set by God's hand to protect that freedom, through the principles and structures stated above, and He warns that "whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil" (D&C 98:7). Thus, behooves us to "befriend" the Constitution, uphold it's supporters, and confront it's enemies if we hope to retain our freedom and preserve it for our posterity.

Freedom, Virtue, and the Welfare State

This post will continue to address how the loss of virtue leads to the loss of freedom, as will other posts to come.

Poverty

The loss of virtue in the people of our country has led to a large welfare state. Before I am accused of hating the poor and wanting them to suffer, please know that I am for an emergency safety net provided through government, as were the Founders. However, the modern welfare state and the safety net put in place by the Founder's have nearly nothing in common. While Jesus confirmed that poverty is a permanent part of the human condition (Mark 14:7), most people don't want to see others suffer from it. It is unwise and does nothing to better the situation to accuse others of not caring for the poor if they don't agree with the approach that you take.

Now, I say that most people don't want people to suffer from poverty, and that is true, but there are many that don't mind taking advantage of them in order to enrich themselves. They don't want to make others poor, they just want to make themselves more wealthy and more powerful, and they are willing to compromise their integrity and harm others in order to make that happen. No group or political party has a monopoly on the lust for wealth and power. As pride is a universal sin, so too are these vices. Others may feel indifferent about the situation of the poor or lack sufficient concern to take significant personal action. The loss of virtue leads to all of these.

The loss of virtue leads to poverty in many ways, both through the actions of those held captive in its chains as well as the actions of others in society that help to clasp those chains to them. Drug and alcohol abuse often leads people to be unable to maintain a job and it eats away any income they do have. The destruction of the traditional family leads to single parenthood, which significantly increases poverty. Lack of parent presence leads to increased drop-out rates in school and decreased chances of further education, both of which contribute to poverty. Loss of virtue in business owners leads some of them to take advantage of their employees, reaping greater profits at their expense. These are just a few ways that poverty is fed by the loss of virtue in the population. Though poverty is surely not always caused by a decline in virtue, in many, many cases its contribution is significant.

The Welfare State

Many large changes in our government occurred in the first part of the 20th century. These changes were in response to an increase in poverty during that time and to many people feeling that they were being oppressed by those in power. It was the loss of virtue which led to practices in the manufacturing and financial markets that gave rise to these conditions, ultimately leading to the Great Depression. The Great Recession, and many other troughs in the economic history of our country have also come in large measure through the loss of virtue.

During these early years in the 20th century the breakdown of many of the bedrock principles of American constitutional government occurred. One of those principles was the view of property rights. Since the Founding the Government had always held that people have an unalienable right to acquire and to keep property. That changed during the first half of the 1900's. The philosophy held by those in power was that people have a right to their property only if it doesn't conflict with the good of society or social justice. Thus, they were able to justify taking people's property to give to others through government programs. The loss of virtue led to this change and to people's acceptance of it.

The loss of virtue has led to the people of the country advancing the ever-growing welfare state and promoting leaders of both parties that espoused belief in it. People become very angry when anyone intimates that a significant portion of those partaking of government aid are "working the system" because they view it as a value judgement. The truth is that idleness has been a problem in the human condition for thousands of years (Prov 31:27, Eccl 10:18, Ezek 16:49, 1 Tim 5:13, D&C 42:42). It was in response to these national changes early in the 1900's toward a welfare state and the people's acceptance of it that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints instituted it's welfare program. In 1936, when the Church's welfare program was launched, President Heber J. Grant stated the following:

"Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership."

If work needed to be "re-enthroned" as a ruling principle at that time, when the welfare state was in it's infancy, how much more must it be a problem in our day. Idleness, both in many on government aid and in those politicians, bureaucrats, and business owners that grow rich off of these programs, their promotion, and their administration, is a major driver the national debt, the declining middle class, and the economic polarization that we see today. Please know that I understand that there are many people to whom aid from the government comes who legitimately need that assistance, on whom some unforeseen emergency has fallen and whose family, friends, and private charity are unable support sufficiently. These people should be supported by government until they, if at all possible, are able to get back on their feet. These kinds of situations, however, are relatively few. Also, please know that the idea of a welfare program is not in and of itself bad. I believe the LDS Church's welfare program to be divinely inspired and instituted. However, the current welfare programs of the state differ in their principles so vastly from that inspired version that they are hardly comparable. State programs often, among other problems, are compulsory in their funding, require little to no accountability, and encourage people to stay dependent on them.

The Welfare State and Freedom

How then does the welfare state threaten freedom? It does so in at least four ways. 1) It requires the erosion and eventual destruction of property rights, which are an essential component of liberty. As soon as it becomes permissible for the government to take a portion of people's property without their consent to distribute it to others, the only thing that keeps it from taking all their property is the right circumstance and the might to enforce it. 2) It changes people's standing so that when they approach the government they no longer come before it as citizens, but as dependents. 3) If left unchecked, it burdens society with massive amounts of debt, producing more takers and less producers. 4) It destroys self-respect and the initiative for personal independence, limiting the ultimate outcomes of a person's life. The loss of virtue in the lives of the people has in large measure produced the welfare state which has induced all of these things upon the nation.

Freedom, Virtue, and Religion

What is the single greatest danger to freedom in America?

If you were to ask that question to every American citizen today, you would likely get a great variety of answers. Some might say terrorism, others economic inequality, and others still the breakdown of the Constitution. Some might answer that there is no real danger to freedom in a America. What would your answer be? This is a question that I have asked myself multiple times, and I have come to an answer, an answer which I believe to be correct and of which I am thoroughly convinced. That answer is: the loss of virtue in the personal lives of the people. I use the term "virtue" in the classical sense, meaning goodness, uprightness, and morality.

Freedom is only possible under conditions where self-governing does the vast majority of the work of maintaining order, protecting rights, and solving everyday problems justly within a society. Where self-governing does not exist, the government must make vast numbers of laws, spelling out every detail of life, delineating what people are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. In such a society, the average citizen would not be able to know the laws due to their multitude and complexity. Unsustainable amounts of people, effort, time and treasure would be spent in trying to enforce those laws. Elder D. Todd Christofferson said in a General Conference address, speaking about such a society, "there could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone" (Moral Discipline, Oct 2009).

The only kind of self-governing that is capable of sustaining freedom by doing the heavy lifting of maintaining societal order is a self-governing based on virtuous principles. The Founders understood that fact and they wrote the Constitution knowing that it's survival hinged entirely upon it. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (First address to congress, 1797). The Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason in 1776, states, "That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be persevered to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." The Founders even wrote these principles into laws that were not part of core founding documents, such as in the Northwest Ordinance, which states, "Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind." These are just a few of many examples of the Founders' deep understanding that the rule of law can only exist when the vast majority of people are personally committed to virtuous principles; when people care about obeying the law not because of the punishment affixed to its transgression, but because it is right.


But what leads to a personal commitment to virtue?


Starting largely in the early 1900's the size and scope of government in the United States has expanded dramatically. There has been a continual push since that time to diminish the role of religion and increase the role of government in teaching people about society and one's relationship to it. The concept of "separation of church and state" has morphed into something very different than what Thomas Jefferson ever intended. In its name nearly all religious influence has been eradicated from public education and most other areas controlled by the government. This same extinguishing force has significantly expelled religious influence, especially the Christian religion, from college campuses nationwide. Thus, government and "Higher Learning" have both assumed the role of chief moral educator in our country, with generous help from the media. If the use of pornography, drugs, and prostitution are any measure of their success in teaching virtue, if the content of acceptable movies and music is any measure, if the conduct of the housing and financial institutions in the country is any measure, if the prevalence of cheating in school is any measure, if the disintegration of the family is any measure, I would say they've done a great job. Wouldn't you? If you compare the relative quantity of any of those things, and many, many more, from today to the first century of our country's history, it becomes plain which approach is superior.

The truth is that virtue is best taught on a wide scale through religion, and, in particular, religion pursued through the traditional family. Belief in a loving God that is actively involved in people's lives, that gives commandments which give form to virtuous living, and to whom every individual will one day give account does far more to create virtue in people's lives than any government program or college ethics course ever could. If indeed just government's primary role is to secure the freedom of its citizens, as the Declaration of Independence states, then it should be promoting religion at every opportunity, short of establishing a state religion. Those that care about maintaining freedom ought to seek the advance of religion and religious influence in society at large because it is the only thing that can produce a virtuous people capable of sustaining the rule of law.

Human Agency and the Revolution

One of the basic doctrines shared by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that our birth into this world did not mark the beginning of our existence, but merely an advent into the next phase in an ongoing plan. We existed before our birth as spirit sons and daughters of Eternal Parents, living in their presence and being tutored at their holy side (The Family: A Proclamation to the World; paragraph 2-3). At some point in that previous spiritual life, God presented a plan to us that would enable us to gain a physical body and progress in our character and knowledge to become like Him, that we might share in the Eternal happiness and peace that He enjoys. A few things would be needed for that transformation to occur. Among those things were: the institution and perpetuation of the family, obtaining a physical body, gaining experience through a stint of mortal time, a Savior to provide a means of liberation from sin and death, and time enough to acquire the godly attributes that constitute the framework of an Eternal Life. One key element that would be absolutely indispensable in this transformation process would be the ability to freely manage our own lives and to choose for ourselves to integrate Christ-like attributes into our character.

Freedom to act as we see fit has always been inseparably connected to the purposes of God in bringing to pass our Immortality and Eternal Life (Mos 1:39). In fact it was of such monumental import that God was willing to cast out Satan and his followers for seeking to take that freedom away. In so doing, God lost one third of His children, who were tragically wooed away into exile by Satan's promises to make a perfect society where no one would be lost. In this, the mortal phase of God's plan, Satan continues the exact same campaign that he waged in the pre-mortal world. He seeks our misery and will never stop seeking it until we are as miserable as he. He does so by doing two main things 1) enticing us to go against the laws of  God and 2) stripping us of the freedom to act out our own will.

History is filled with a continual stream of civilizations which were given an initial measure of freedom, they chose to abandon righteous principles, and were then subjugated by a King or some other form of overpowering government. Many of these governments simply conquered with brute force. While others have flattered people into support by promising an end to all of the societal woes from which they suffered, woes largely brought on by their choice to abandon virtue. Soon enough, these kinds of governments start imprisoning and killing those that don't willingly submit or those that science or religion or whim deem to be inferior, justifying their actions in the name of the good of society. In the 20th century alone, 169 million people were killed by governments claiming to be on the errand of a better tomorrow, more than four times the number of people killed in all the wars of that century combined. These governments slowly convince the people that they will deliver society from its hardships, if given the opportunity. They convince the people that they needn't worry about trusting them with vast amounts of power because they are benevolent, smart, and have the people's interest in mind.

Regardless of how these governments come to power, the pattern for the people is nearly always the same: freedom, wickedness, subjugation.

I an attempt to flee such oppressive government, the Pilgrims left Europe to come to America. Once there, they established colonies and grew in prosperity. A few centuries passed and the ever-reaching hands of insatiable government hung over the colonials once again. When King George III had proven determined to rule the colonists unjustly, they felt their only recourse was revolution. At this crucial time, God saw fit to call the world back to the core principles of government that allow personal freedom to flourish, enabling His work of transforming souls to advance unfettered by despotism. This was done through a group of men, whom God "raised up" for this purpose (D&C 101:80) and whose collective political genius surpassed any seen before or since. These men, through inspiration, created a new kind of government based on old principles, Eternal principles. These principles were boldly proclaimed to the world in the Declaration of Independence, whose signers pledged everything they had to ensure their establishment as the foundation of a new nation. Once independence had been achieved through blood and Providence, these inspired men constructed a constitution that wove the moral implications of the principles in the Declaration (D&C 101:77) throughout the fabric of a new and unique republic.

The republic born out of the "just and holy principles" (D&C 101:77) re-enthroned in the founding era quickly, within 100 years, became the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth, and the people of the United States enjoyed a measure of freedom that drew admiration, hatred, and immigrants from nations across the globe. Due to the conditions of freedom and prosperity set up through the Constitution, the Lord was able to restore His gospel in its fullness to mankind and His church for its dissemination across the earth, advancing the cause of Eternal Life for its final push before the Millennium. In the wake of the American Revolution, many countries across the earth sought to establish constitutions of their own, modeled after government established by the Founders. In this way the Constitution truly was established by God "for the rights and protection of all flesh" (D&C 101:77), and it set up a much broader foundation of liberty worldwide in which human agency could flourish more fully and into which the Lord could send the truths of His gospel.

As the years have passed since America's inception, however, Satan has continued to fight to take away human happiness and destroy God's plan through the same means he always has, 1) enticing people to abandon God's laws and 2) stripping them of their freedom to act out their own will. He has succeeded on both fronts in significant and sweeping ways. In each case his progress has come through small steps, often barely noticed, but whose aggregate has set this country on a course very different from its founding.

As Benjamin Franklin was exiting the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was asked what kind of government the Convention had decided on. He replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." I hope to share with you over the next few posts some of my thoughts about how the foundations of that republic have been and are in great danger and what the only means are by which there is any hope of keeping it.

The "true and living church"

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that they belong to the only true church on the earth. That is a bold position to take, and one for which they often take a lot of criticism. They are viewed as being presumptuous and as thinking themselves superior to others. Certainly we hope and try not to be self righteous, though we are not always successful in that endeavor (the author included). We are wisely counseled by our leaders to look for all the good in other religions and churches and to praise them for that. We are counseled to stand together with the people of those religions to fight for good causes based on common ground. We seek to respect the beliefs of others, despite the differences between us, and we are not always perfect at that either.

However, at the end of the day we still affirm that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30). Sometimes members of the Church, understandably, are not quite comfortable making that affirmation in public and to their friends and neighbors. Sometimes they aren't quite sure if it is true, or they don't want to offend anyone. But coming to possess a strong personal witness that it, in fact, is the only true church is crucial to our continuing on the path to exaltation, for which purpose the Church is designed. Returning to the verse sited earlier, the way to know that the Church really is the "only true church" is through the very thing that makes it "living."

The sciptural accounts of the creation teach that God created Adam and Eve's bodies, then "breathed into [them]" their spirits. It was only when the body was animated by the spirit that they became "living souls" (Gen 2:7). Likewise, the thing that makes "the body of Christ" (Eph 4:12), or the Church, "living" is that it is built upon the "rock" of revelation through the Holy Spirit (Matt 16:15-19). Both revelation through the Spirit to apostles and prophets to lead the Church and personal revelation to each member are indespensible to the "living" nature of the Church.

Ongoing revelation to the leaders of the Church to guide it through the troubles of the day has been a hallmark of Christ's church in every dispensation. But just as vital is the role of personal revelation to the members of the Church. The pattern is, God speaks to prophets and apostles to reveal to them both the doctrines of the gospel and the daily direction needed to guide the Church as it passes through the challenges of each specific time. Then the members are entitled to get personal confirmation of the truths and direction given to the prophets by the Spirit through the very same channels of revelation; in fact, we are encouraged to do this. This is not a Church of blind obedience, but rather of clear and confident obedience through revelation. We each have the responsibility to learn for ourselves whether or not the people that lead the Church in our time really are chosen and called by God and if the things they say and the course they take really represent the "mind of the Lord" (D&C 68:4). God does not promise that we will immediately understand the doctrines He reveals nor the reasons He directs the Church in a certain path (Isaiah 55:9-13), but He does promise to confirm to each individual that He is indeed at the helm and that the prophets' words are truly His  (Mormon 9:25-27).

Thus, it is by revelation through the Holy Spirit that the "true church" of Christ becomes "living." It speaks by the Spirit, sees by the Spirit, moves by the Spirit, and its members are infused with the life blood of testimony by the Spirit.