Even among American Latter-day Saints who are not active in the Constitutionalist movement, a strong respect and even adoration of the United States' Constitution is quite common. This respect undoubtedly has its ultimate basis in the three references to the Constitution in modern revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants:
D&C 98:4–7:These are the only references to the Constitution in the scriptures used by the Church of Jesus Christ, and yet they seem to have instilled an indelible respect for that particular legal document in the collective consciousness of the Mormon people.
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
D&C 101:76–80:
76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you--
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I have up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
D&C 109:54:
Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.
So how can this Mormon tendency to revere a document establishing a government be reconciled with the concept of Mormon anarchism? I think the answer lies in a closer examination of those revelations that form the basis of the reverence. Looked at more closely, these passages reveal not the primacy of the Constitution, but the primacy of freedom — and that is where the reverence Mormons tend to feel for the Constitution should properly lie. And freedom is anything but incompatible with anarchy.
Of these three passages, the last is slightly different from the first two. It is from the prayer offered to dedicate the Kirtland Temple. That prayer was revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord, but the speaker in the passage is not the Lord but Joseph Smith. The speaker in the other two passages is the Lord himself. This difference, though, doesn't seem to affect the doctrine of the passages involved — just the way we have to read them to understand them. The doctrine about the Constitution seems consistent throughout the three passages.
The first passage contains an interesting discussion of the laws of men. The Lord says basically, "when it comes to the laws of men, follow my law." I take that to mean that the Lord expects us to more or less disregard the laws of men — that is, he expects us to keep his commandments without regard to the commandments men devise.
But then he goes on to say that the laws of men that are constitutional belong to all mankind and are justifiable before him. Now, he makes it clear what he means by the word "constitutional", too. He means law that supports the principle of freedom. Law like that, he says, is justifiable. Notice that he doesn't call it good. He just calls it justifiable. It's as though he's saying, "I'd really rather you not have laws among yourselves and were just content with my law, but if you're going to come up with laws of your own, just make sure they support your freedom and I guess I'll be able to handle that." That hardly sounds like a law worth revering.
It's also interesting to note that he says such law belongs to all mankind. I think that removes the law from the kind of contexts we normally associate with law. It can't be the kind of law that belongs solely to the legislatures who craft it. It can't belong solely to the lawyers and judges who interpret it — the precise group to whom much of our statutes and the whole federal Constitution are presumed to belong. It can't even belong to a single state whose jurisdiction is affected by it. No such law is the kind of law the Lord justifies us in befriending. The kind of law he justifies us in befriending must belong to all mankind.
What is more, any laws of men that vary at all from simply supporting the principle of freedom, and that in a manner that can be said to belong to all mankind, come of evil.
The second passage doesn't get more friendly to the Constitution that the first. Though in verse 80, the Lord says that he established the Constitution, in verse 77, he says that he merely suffered it to be established. He let it happen. That sounds more consistent with the way he spoke of it in the other revelation. And he let it happen so that every one could be free and no one would be in bondage one to another.
Now, one has to wonder why he didn't simply push for anarchy at that time if anarchy is how he wants us to live. I think there are a number of reasons why he didn't. I think the greatest reason is that there were too many people in America pushing for government at the time. There were already nascent states forming out of each of the colonies in rebellion, as well as a kind of government beginning to form among the various rebellious states in combination. And most of the colonists had grown up believing, as do most of us today, in the inevitability of states. The people would not likely have permitted anarchy.
Furthermore, there existed at the time a complex network of powerful states vying for control of any land outside of Europe that seemed ungoverned. Even if the rebellious Anglo-Americans had dissolved all forms of state control among themselves, they would not likely have remained free from the control of external state forces. Within twenty years, the various imperial powers of Europe would have laid claim to the land and all people and possessions on it.
In such circumstances, the Lord permitted a state to form in America. And he suffered the Constitution that was written to be established. But since he felt the creation of a new state was inevitable given the temperament of the American people, he wanted to make sure he could get a state as free as it could possibly be by raising up men who would be mindful of freedom and capable of devising a state that would be as supportive as any state can of that eternally vital principle. And as states go, the Constitution provides a good one. For the most part, the Constitution makes the business of statecraft very difficult. A government run according to the Constitution is severely hobbled — we usually like to call the hobbles "checks and balances", but by any name, they make a very inefficient and ineffective government. I can see why the Lord would steer us toward creating a state like that if we insisted on having a state and he were inclined to suffer it to be established. A government that can't operate can't impede our freedom.
As we know by now, of course, the Constitution has not be sufficient protection against the evils inherent in states and the creatures of states like corporations and private property. The principle of freedom that lets us each be accountable for our own sins on Judgement Day is pretty well forgotten. But the Lord never said he liked the Constitution itself — just the principle of freedom it was meant to protect. The freedom is what matters. So we needn't mourn the Constitution's shortcomings: it was only a means to an end anyway.
The third passage continues the theme of the Constitution being a means to an end. Joseph Smith prayed that the Lord would have mercy on the nations of all the earth and the rulers of this land by establishing "those principles which were so honorably and nobly defended" forever. He says that those principles were, by name, the Constitution. But having read the previous revelations, we understand the principles he's talking about. They are the principles of freedom and individual accountability, the idea that every one should be free to act for himself and plan for his own future, with no man being in bondage one to another, so that each man will be accountable for his own sins on Judgement Day. That is what Joseph Smith prayed would be established forever. The Constitution that is the embodiment of those principles, the Constitution that belongs to all mankind, is the only Constitution he prayed for. Indeed, it is the only Constitution mentioned in the scriptures. And it is the only law of men that the Lord justifies us in befriending.
Is that Constitution the Constitution for the United States of America? I think not, since that document does not belong to all mankind. Furthermore, the United States' Constitution, as good as it is, does not fully protect the principles of freedom. I think he was talking about a different kind of constitution, something perhaps more along the lines of what he says in D&C 89:10 when he says that all wholesome herbs are ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man. I think he's talking about our constitution as his children, our essential makeup and composition. And the quintessential element of our constitution is our freedom. That constitution belongs to all mankind, and all men, as a rule, naturally recognize our innate freedom. That naturally occurring rule, that law of nature so integral to our eternal constitution, is, I think, the constitutional law that the Lord accepts. Any man-made law that is more or less than that cometh of evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment