Can the only truth be unlawful to speak?

I was thinking about the concept of "unity" tonight, and a flood of ideas came. This concept of unity has many ideas attached to this word, but what is unity? The Lord said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27) and to "let every man esteem his brother as himself" (D&C 28:24). Today, we hear political slogans chanted and read on bumper stickers the phrase "United We Stand". The concept of "it takes a village to raise a child" has been mulled over to imply the concept that a community affects the mental cognition of the next generation, and that it is the community's responsibility to unite in rearing them (just for clarification, I disagree with the "village to raise a child" ideology). But what is unity? In trying to solidify a good definition to "unity", I had the following thoughts...

The Limits of Language

Language is an interesting thing. For any person who has learned a second language, it is of no surprise that there are entire concepts, thoughts, and ideas that exist in one language, culture, or society that do not translate or even find place into another language, culture, or society. Why is this? Without trying to make an easy concept more complicated, the simple answer is that differing cultures and societies will grow to interpret ideas, beliefs, and meanings differently than another. Words offer the means to meaning, and a word is nothing but the associated symbols, ideas, and structures that we associate and give to it. Many words lose their meaning, as a society grows and finds new meanings to fit old concepts; in this way, absolute meanings in one generation often grow to mean something entirely different in the next generation.

The Greeks

Many of the Greeks after Aristotle, in their first philosophical quest to know things for as they are, used the first steps of syllogistic logic to fulfill their quest. They used language to define, associate, and understand things for as they were. In scriptural language, they used logic to define truth. This process of inquiry had many benefits, but one particular great flaw: that because of their language, the Greeks could only ever define a substance by its attributes, and was never able to actually understand a thing for what it was intrinsically. This limit of language (to only define a thing by its attributes) reduced the knowledge of a thing to its characteristics, and by so doing the absoluteness of truth was made variable by its perceived practicality within society. In this way, the Greeks ended up losing before they ever began! The question "What is gold?" was answered: Gold is a soft substance; God is metal; Gold is shiny; Gold is rare; Gold is a solid substance; etc. Never could the Greeks ever classify gold as an intrinsic substance for what it was, but only for what it was perceived to be by its human usefulness and interpretation through its attributes. In short, language reduced the Greeks to only defining something from the outside looking in upon that substance.

What does this have to do with anything? When such abstract concepts such as love, faith, hope, or unity are presented, this understanding of the Greek influence in our current society is quite important. It was the Greeks that first divided up love into certain characteristics: eros (romantic), philia (brotherly love), and agape (the greatest characteristic of love that's not bound by perception). They could not comprehend love being something that existed as a whole, but they desperately found need to break it down into its perceivable parts. Accordingly, unity has also gone through its own transformation of being reduced to its characteristics; this concept has gone through many categorical interpretations and social understandings to mean basically whatever anyone wants it to mean.

The Hebrew Understanding:

A logic professor once told our intro deductive logic class (Phil 205) that the Old Testament was "logically empty". There are, he said, absolutely no found cases of structured logic in the entire compilation. The New Testament, however, is engorged with cases of logic and structured arguments (especially in the books outside the four-gospels) that are influenced by the Greek philosophical thought. The ancient Hebrews did not study philosophy; they did not try to understand the world around them in terms of deduction or induction; they did not create elaborate and structured arguments to prove their points... In the Old Testament, truth (knowing things as they are) is not found through logic, but by and through direct revelation from God. Whatever God said made something so, and whatever was was just that way because the Lawgiver said it was so. This difference in understanding gives light to the Lord's answer to Moses when he wanted to find out what and who God was. The Lord's response "I AM THAT I AM: and he said, This shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14) The Greeks would have had a field day with this, "You ARE what, God? You can't just say I AM! You 'AM' what? What do you DO? Who ARE you?" The Greeks would have sought to know God through His attributes, not by through his intrinsic substance and self. This answer, however, given to Moses was absolutely appropriate and in line with their understanding. Whereas the Greeks sought to know a thing from the outside looking in, the Hebrews believed in truth as revealed from God and looked at substance from the inside looking out.

Lawful vs Unlawful -- Equity and the Eternal Existence of Matter and Nature

Law is merely the thing that defines the intrinsic substance of an element for what it is (whether law is actually a thing or not is irrelevant to this thread; it is merely important to note that it is law that defines). In other words, law defines truth. There is an old Mormon ideology that gained much momentum through various LDS researchers in the mid-to-late 1900's that basically states that "God is bound by law, and he cannot go outside his law". This basic thought, however, is built on a false premise (here I go being all Greek). The concept of God being bound by law is only understandable within a Grecian philosophical paradigm; a paradigm that only perceives God through His attributes, and not through his actual intrinsic existence.

Independent Nature of Matter

Nature exists independently, as does all matter (spiritual or physical). The Creator does not control or force matter into existence, but he -- in knowing the ultimate amount of joy of each intelligence -- can lovingly call forth on matter-unorganized to obey to his words in trust and faith that his call will lead each intelligence to the greatest amount of joy possible. It is not the being of God to ever make something of that which it is not, but he uses law to perfectly define things as they are and exist independently. By being the "Lawgiver", this does not give the Creator the power to force things into compliance, but it is a key of Priesthood wherein He can with perfect and eternal clarity and knowledge define truth; in other words, He is capable of seeing the beginning from the end, and he knows how to define the actual substance for what it is and not by its attributes. This was yet another fundamental flaw of Lucifer's plan when he wanted the glory (priesthood) of God. It was Lucifer's mistake to believe that by taking upon himself the role of the "Lawgiver" he could define things as he saw fit, and force nature to bend to his arbitrary outcome; Lucifer did not understand the actual being of God or of the Lawgiver, in that this office of Priesthood did not force or make something out of nothing, but it only defined nature as it existed eternally (with that pure perception). God is not bound by a definition (law), but his being will not act outside of its existence. There is a law that can define what type of being our Father IS, but it is still just a definition...

Chain God?

As a tangent, I'll address a pet-peeve. The concept of "binding" God is often misunderstood. This idea of having "God hold up his end of the bargain" is ridiculous. The Lord's entire being ("work and glory") exists to bless his children, and it is strange indeed for man to take the assumptive role of an expecting and childish brat waiting for a parent to give him the expected candy-reward for obeying a specific command -- as if the parent would think about withholding the said treat. That kind of thinking is absurd. The Lord knows the eternal nature of matter, light, and our intelligences; He knows the path wherein each and every molecule of our being will find ultimate joy; He has given us a blue-print to become as He is (commandments), and has shown us the way wherein our own light can become as His own; He has given us the tools and every opportunity to use them to gain more light and truth (understanding things as they are) in this life (and in the life to come); and, above all, we have our agency. Our perception is misplaced in thinking we can chain God down to his word, and this entire thought denies the absolute love of our Heavenly Parent. No, to say that God is bound when we do what He says is an analogy to know the absolute natural promise and surety that the path our Creator has given us will actually and naturally lead us to ultimate joy and light... His call is to still "prove" him... I will not chain my God down to my ridiculous perception of what he owes me, but I surrender my will to his loving guidance.

Unlawful?

Occasionally in the scriptures we read that something cannot be written or spoken because it is "unlawful". What does this mean? Shortly explained, it means that there are some ideas, concepts, and experiences that our failed language or natural state of existence cannot define. The law, based on our spoken language, cannot define the experience -- it is impossible to communicate in such a crude mode of communication an experience of the spirit. Only those of a spiritual nature can comprehend, understand, and be in communication with that which is of a spiritual realm. There are things that exist in a spiritual realm (actual matter); otherwise, of what substance do we determine our spirit is actually made up of? Many of the early brethren talked extensively on the subject of spiritual matter. Parley P. Pratt, in his work entitle Keys to Theology, spoke of spiritual matter. But what is this spiritual matter? And can we even know what it is -- based on the corruption of our language?

Equity

There is a concept in Hebrew language wherein our current idea and use of the word "equity" comes from. It is the Hebrew word "qav" which is actually the Hebrew name for what we call a "plum-bob". A plum-bob was used -- and still is in some less advanced places -- to find a perfect vertical line. A weight was attached to a string, and the top of the string was held on the desired location (such as a door-frame) and the weight at the bottom would show a perfect line up and down. It was an ancient vertical level. The qav denoted "uprightness" and "straightness" in all things, and it was the basis of thought for what keeps man's actions in check.

It is the spirit of man that controls his thoughts and from where all desire (or lack thereof) comes from. Descartes thought the spirit was actually physically connected to the brain; however, baring this resolution, we have been taught that "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he". The "heart" is an ancient symbol for the spirit of man, and was used to link the disposition of man's spirit in connection with his physical actions. When the heart was hardened, the spirit was dead (it had no life); but when it was softened, the spirit of man was alive and well. "As a man thinketh in his spirit, so is he" is yet another way of clarifying the scripture.

In the New Testament the following phrases are read: "Faith is the substance..." (Heb 11:1); "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16); and "if ye had the faith as a grain of a mustard seed" (Matt 17:20). It is argued in academics whether these are figurative or actual statements. Is God made up of a substance called "love"? Is faith an actual "substance"? Joseph Smith translated Heb 11:1 to read the "Faith is the assurance...", but also noted that while a substance, faith's outward and manifest characteristics is assurance. And was Christ stating that if all the element/substance of faith that make up one's spirit would equal the size of a mustard seed that miraculous things would happen? This we know, however, that such spiritual characteristics of love, faith, and hope (as well as anything that can be defined as a being verb: be patient (patience), be wise (wisdom), be loving (love), etc.) constituted what was known as the qav -- or our modern English translation of equity. Equity (or, in other words, the spiritual elements of love, faith, hope, etc.) is the source of our desires; a spirit in possession of these spiritual elements will attract their own (love to love, faith to faith, etc), and will become the source of the desire towards the outward actions associated with each element of spirit.

The absence of equity constitutes a lack of physical desire to do "good" things. In Latin, the absence of a thing is characterized by placing the prefix "in" in front of the word. For instance, the absence of equality, is inequality. The absence of equity, was written as inequity, until around the 12-century when the (e)quity was conjugated to an (i)quity, and we now have the word "Iniquity". Iniquity, therefore, literally means the absence of spiritual equity, and the absolute loss of desire to perform any good works; all things are done selfishly, and the heart has become hardened. Iniquity, we find through patterns in the scriptures, is the source wherein language becomes corrupted; it is the lack of desire to find actual and eternal joy, to substitute for it the false promises and securities of the carnal man.

What Does This Have To Do With Law?

Law defines truth, and truth (things are they are) is the study of equity. Just as gold exists independent of our definitions of its attributes, so do the elements of the spirit (love, faith, hope, meekness, humility, etc.). The problem becomes this: How do we define (by law) the characteristics of the spirit (equity) in our Earthly realm of corrupt and fallen language? I can imagine Socrates pondering over this question for years, just repeating to himself "Love is... Love is... Love is..." without ever figuring out exactly what love really is (ironically, his question "Love is...?" was his answer... Love just is). This is the very thing the Greeks hated the most! They could not find out what something is, so they had to start explaining what it does. Herein we now have the fundamental understanding for why we have the different kinds of love! And in this very situation we have come back full circle! The Hebrews understood that "Love just is..." (just as they understood that God just was; after all, it was the Lord himself who said "I AM" without telling us exactly what that was, except for saying that He was spirit and we could know who He was through the spirit.) and that there are certain things that cannot be defined by mortal tongue (things that are unlawful); however, the Greeks had to fight on figuring out how to define love within our mortal sphere, and this is how we ended up with the various types and categorization of "love" (eros, philia, and agape, etc).

What is Unity?

The world defines unity by its characteristics, and there are many applications wherein the world can pigeon-hole the concept of unity. As I stated, empty political slogans spoken of in bland-political discourse and as seen on nationalistic bumper stickers, the concept of "United We Stand" is a true statement, but carries a slew of sophist ideologies and false philosophies. I was raised on the principle that "One with God is a majority", and on this principle I have learned that true equitable unity can only be found by adhering to the principles and precepts of Christ. To be "united" under false ideologies is nothing short of falling under the banner of Lucifer's pre-mortal and mistaken plan of trying to coerce an outcome that was not naturally sound. We must be united under the banner of righteousness and freedom; however, even the terms of "righteousness" and "freedom" have been distorted to mean so many various ideas, that there is no true or sound appeal to language anymore.

Can the only truth that can be said now be considered unlawful to speak? Has our language become so corrupted that to find absolute truth, our relationship with God must be such that we are revealed truth through that mode and means by which -- in our current situation and society -- has become unlawful to speak of? As a prophet communicates the ideas of God through a language which has become so distorted and convoluted as to render any appeal to language moot, the only appeal to truth appears to be through that medium of the Spirit of God which will testify to the spirit (our heart, our equitable selves, etc.) those things that are unlawful (impossible to define) to say. Surely the Lord's prophets continue to speak for the Lord, but for whom? Those who have ears to hear, let them hear; those who have eyes to see, let them see... but how? Through the communication of the spirit that is impossible nowadays to define to the public... Of a principle, has truth become unlawful in our society?

Perhaps we have not yet reached this point. But this certainly gives an interesting foundation to understanding why a Lord's mouthpiece has often been shut for the lack of belief of the people -- an event we are told will happen before the coming of the Lord again to this earth. I am reminded of a recent quote I found by Ezra Taft Benson:

"Now, part of the reason why we do not have sufficient priesthood bearers to save the Constitution, let alone to shake the powers of hell (Alma 48:17), because, I fear, unlike Moroni, our souls do not joy in keeping our country free, and we are not firm in the faith of Christ, nor have we sworn with an oath to defend our rights."

Where are those who understand the principles of the Spirit and Liberty that are taught within medium that is unlawful to speak?

Our Judeo-Christian Nation

Well said...

Freedom and the Book of Mormon

"Now part of the reason why we do not have sufficient priesthood bearers to save the Constitution, let alone to shake the powers of hell, because, I fear, unlike Moroni, our souls do not joy in keeping our country free, and we are not firm in the faith of Christ, nor have we sworn with an oath to defend our rights." (Ezra Taft Benson)

BYU Freedom Society Correspondence pt3

Shiloh,

... I believe that your paradigm is sound. Thank you for your insights. I hope you know that I am a sincere seeker of the truth. I almost hesitate to ask another question... though I appreciate every word, and every word is valuable in answering my question.

Another question(s) then?

What in natural law reveals to us that we are justified in removing from liberty him who does not respect the supposed natural law rights of another (while remembering that those natural law rights are determined by a constitutional republic interpreting the natural law as imperfectly as an individual might)? Does this involve the social contract idea, which you mentioned in the first letter, that it might be consistent with natural law that 'the people' can contract out some responsibilities to a government? If so, where do we find that the natural law condones such contracts?

Can it not be argued that the 'natural law' demands that we coerce nobody, bad or good, for it appears to us that God himself does not do such?

Further, if Christ says to judge not, to resist not evil, to turn the other cheek, and reminds us that God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the just and unjust, and commands us to be perfect as He is perfect, and if the Book of Mormon shows that defense and force are necessary at times, perhaps especially against a secret combination (which could be interpreted to be socialistic anything), how have you found to draw the line between when to allow our enemies their liberty and when not to (all the time remembering that we are not perfect judges of right or wrong or the heats of men)? I ask this with many theories floating around in my head, and with the sincere desire to simply know what is right so that I may not offend God in my attempts at valiance, and without great expectations, however, as I have said, I see that you have thought these things out very well, and I thought I might try my luck.

Thanks again,

Jared

P.S. You have my permission to keep and use our correspondence and use it for any purpose you might deem proper (then your writing perhaps can benefit more people than myself).



Jared,

Please don't hesitate to ask as many questions as you like. With your permission, I have sent this email to a few people who I think would be edified by our conversation (for those others reading, you may want to start at the bottom of this email and work your way up). I understand those times when ideas are racing around and it's hard to connect the dots. I believe that those who really seek the truth as a life endeavor will eventually experience what Joseph Smith said was a "war of words and tumult of opinions". Indeed, this is the very thing we've been talking about: what do words mean, and what is the correct idea to those words?

Words and Their Power

It has been said that words offer the means to meaning. Sadly, today, even the reading of the Founder's words leave people more confused than before, or -- even worse -- the new convoluted terms/words send them down the path of supporting ideas that will enslave them. As Goethe said: "None are more helplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free".

There has been a revision to the meaning of words today. The problem is that when the meaning behind a word has changed to include more than its original intent (or something completely and altogether different), what word takes the place of the old idea? The restoration of the correct ideas behind the words given through historical text and ancient scripture is a blessing that we are heir to through the restored gospel.

The Foundation of Natural Law

The application of natural law appears to have many limits, and many people get hung up on certain details when studying natural law wherein they dismiss the entire principle. They do this, not because of a flaw in natural law or its natural force/power upon man, but because the definitions that they use conflict with natural law. We must not confuse the application of natural law for its foundation.

Outside the scope of a Creator, natural law is nearly as arbitrary as Socialist-Democratic law that only follows the whims of the people's customs, norms, beliefs, and traditions. In defining the foundation of natural law, allow me the use of an example from the Book of Mormon.

Social Contract Theory

Before I talk about the Book of Mormon, allow me to address a quick detail in your last email. The social contract theory is anything but absolutely understood. Which social contract theory do we adhere to? Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau? I personally accept Proudhon’s version before Rousseau. No one really cares to qualify their absolute foundation of the Social Contract, and I have yet to hear anyone (including myself) that doesn't cross at least three or four contradicting philosophies and ideas when speaking of such things. Lysander Spooner gives excellent arguments against the Social Contract that I actually find very interesting.

Constitutional Republic Built on Natural Law Within the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is a masterpiece of political theory and government. Within the Book of Mormon, we see the proper role of government and the deterioration of government through the inability of the people to govern themselves. While I believe the idea true, it has been falsely attributed to James Madison to have said:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

This is what the Book of Mormon teaches. King Mosiah turned over to the people the accountability of self-government. There is a discourse that can be written concerning the paradigm of self-government under a monarchy, but suffice it to say that the people were accountable that if they were to "commit sins and iniquities they shall be answered upon their own heads" (Mosiah 29:30), "that the burden should come upon all people, that every man might bear his part" (Mosiah 29:34).

As we stated before, a Constitutional Republic is based on law first wherein the majority must check and admonish itself before giving any type of ruling over the minority. This is what is type of government the Nephites were given. As King Mosiah told the people:

"Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord" (Mosiah 29:25). (emphasis added)

The voice of the people just check themselves against he laws given them by their fathers. What law had been given by the fathers as given by the hand of the Lord? We now see that the voice of the people must admonish themselves according to correct laws that had been given by the Lord, and that judgment within certain parameters is ordained of God while upon the earth (I also refer you to Doctrine and Covenants Section 134). Mosiah further elaborated:

"And now if ye have judges, and they do not judge you according to the law which has been given..." (Mosiah 29:28)

What is this law that the judges must judge by? It is the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". The people, however, in wickedness and ignorance will redefine the proper role of government as given by the Lord: "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). In warning the Nephite people against this ignorance and temptation for the majority to ignore the natural and correct laws that God had given the people through "their fathers" (prophets), King Mosiah stated:

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law - to do your business by the voice of the people.
"And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
"...I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land." (Mosiah 29:26-27, 32)

Who Decides the Application of Natural Law, and what are Statutes?

One of the most confusing differentiations when speaking of natural law is to understand statutes. Natural law exists outside the will of the majority. For example, the entire population of the United States could unanimously vote to reject the natural law of gravity, but gravity -- in spite of man's law (definition) -- will still exist. Man cannot make law; if man could make law, then the majority's rejection of gravity would send us all spinning into space! What man may do, however, is define gravity (defining natural law), and then admonish each other in specific application to that new understand of law. God told Moses that he is a respecter of life (the natural law), and Moses admonished the people with a specific application to God's law: Thou Shall Not Kill. When man admonishes each other according to natural law, he must find application to that law; this particular application to God's law is called a statute.

This confusion between laws and statutes is often what leads people into convoluted theories pertaining to coercion, force, and obedience to the laws of the land. Natural law exists regardless of man's acknowledgment of its existence or consequence, but how man admonishes each other according to that which is eternal is called statute.

By what power do we know of a surety that we have defined natural law for what it is (not what we want it to be), and to establish admonish each other with statutes that are justified before the Lord? The answer is, the people have to be righteous and know their God, and only then will they know natural law. What is the blessing of the people in doing this? What is the consequence of the people in forgetting this?

Consequence of Remembering

In the Book of Mormon it states:

"Now it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy; therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge." (3 Ne 3:19).

In this particular story in 3rd Nephi, the terrorist organization known as the Gadianton Robbers had established themselves in the desert and mountains. They had, for some time, come down from out of the mountains and caused great conflict, murder, and robberies amongst the Nephite people, and had become a severe affliction to them. In their desire for wanting to rid themselves from these Gandianton Robbers, the people came together under their Chief Captain, Gidgiddoni, to preemptively go up to the robbers and kill them in their own lands. Yet Gidgiddoni responds:

"The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands." (3rd Nephi 3:21)

It took the spirit of prophecy and of revelation to adhere to natural law and obedience to the knowledge of things as they existed. Gidgiddoni knew the workings of nature, because he knew the workings of God. He knew what the consequences would be should his people break this natural law. Furthermore, in this same example of preemption, the Lord has further revealed to us in these Latter-days the same principle that Gidgiddoni guided the Nephite people upon in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 98. If you so desire, I will let you read that on your own and will not include that whole Section here. But suffice it to say that in Section 98 the Lord's ordained order has never advocated preemption, but the natural law -- as established by Nature's God -- has been revealed to us in plainness today.

Consequences of Forgetting

The Book of Mormon also gives us the example of the people in forgetting that natural law can only be understood by the humble and penitent.

"And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left to their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands.
"Yeah, they began to remember the prophecies of Alma, and the words of Mosiah; and they saw that they had been a stiffnecked people, and that they had set at naught the commandments of God;
"And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted, and that they had become a wicked people, insomuch that they were wicked even like unto the Lamanites." (Heleman 4:13, 21-22)

What is the Mental Transition from Remembrance to Forgetting the Source and Implication of Natural Law?

How does a people who once adhered to and perceived natural law (through revelation and prophecy) reject it? Here again, the Book of Mormon provides a perfect illustration.

"For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction for the laws had become corrupted..
"Yea, and this was not all; they were a stiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction." (Heleman 5:2-3)

Herein is the transition: While the people are righteous, they will know and adhere to natural law; however, when the people are wicked, they cannot perceive natural law and they are influenced by the adversary who seeks to use coercion unjustly upon man to fulfill his original pre-earthly plan of utopia.

End

I hope this helped make more sense and connected a few dots. Liberty cannot be taken away except by God himself (and he gave himself as the ultimate sacrifice to ensure our liberty and agency); any perception of lost liberty can be more accurately explained in a paradigm where liberty is inalienable.

Please feel free to answer back with any further questions, or to ask me again a question I may have been ambiguous in answering. Thank you for the correspondence.

For further study, may I suggest some books/articles you probably have already heard about and read that I find are excellent primers for this topic of study:

(1) The Law, by Fredric Bastiat (there are a few ideas that I argue against, however, this is an excellent primer).

(2) Many are Called, But Few Are Chosen, by H. Verlan Anderson (out of date book, often found on Amazon or Ebay; also found in the BYU Library. Excellent book written by a later member of the Quorum of the Seventy that establishes the legitimacy of government coercion in limited areas.)

(3) The Ancient Law of Liberty, by Hugh Nibley (available through google search)

(4) Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, by Gerald Newquist (endorsed by President McKay in General Conference)

(5) The Proper Role of Government, by Ezra Taft Benson (available through google search)


Sincerely,

--
Shiloh Logan

BYU Freedom Society Correspondence pt2

Shiloh,

Thank you. You exceeded my expectations. I may not understand the delicacies of the interactions between self-government, Old Norse, and inalienable rights. May I ask a question to focus in on my confusion? Would you agree that the 'inalienable' right, although 'inalienable' in theory, because of Old Norse, in all practicality, in fact is alienable under law. The use of the terms 'rights' confuses me inasmuch as our theory pretends to inalienable rights but will restrict the inalienable right to what it deems is right (not wrong), which, to my mind, reduces it to the level of a mere law that is not to be broken. What is a right's value if it is subordinate to a law of right and wrong? What is its practical benefit to society? We have a right to free speech, as long as it is tolerable. We have a right to carry arms, as long as it meets with the demands of politicians, we have a right to live our religions, as long as it meets with social norms. My point is that, in the end, I have a right to keep the law, not a right to violate it - this hardly seems reassuring to me when it is men who decide where the line is drawn, the line where a right ends and begins - in practice.

I suppose the answer is that there would be utter chaos unless the law intervened on the 'misuse' of our rights. But who determines what a 'misuse' is? To me, it appears, in the end, that we are taken back to square one with a government that is not a protector, but a dictator of what is right and wrong. What is the use of 'rights' if we treat them the way we do?

Further, if my rights, in practice, end when I violate a law, then who of all of us really have any rights, for are we not all violators? I suppose this question points to Christ, and the parable of the certain king, and the unjust servant - but what does our temporal law do to fill this gap?

Thank you,

Jared



Jared,

Within our current political structure, I believe you're absolutely correct. What you are witnessing is the transition from what our Founders called a "Constitutional Republic" to what they feared most -- a "Democracy". In explaining this, allow me a few words to build a foundation.

Original Foundation of Law

Law, in its basic and generic sense within the parameters of nature, is defined: The entity or power that defines things as they are. The question that immediately arises is this: How are things? and Who is going to be the authority to define them?

When I throw a ball in the air and watch it fall to the Earth I ask myself, "what is that motion?". The law responds by saying, "That is gravity". This is overly simplistic; however, the point is that law defines how things are. We, as creatures of reason and thought, therefore have the ability of observing occurrences in nature and defining law. John Adams made an important distinction when he noted that man does not make law -- only God makes law -- but man, because of his divine ability of thought and logic, can define and interpret the motion of natural law as established by the Creator. God, as the Lawgiver/Creator, has set nature in motion, and we -- as his Children, having been given the divine spark of reason and logic -- work out our own salvation to find out what that order is.

But who defines the way things are for the rest of us? This is where things often become confusing. I interpret things differently than another man (we each adhere to a different law; or, in other words, we adhere to a different definition of the way things are), and who is to say that my definition is right or wrong? From a religious standpoint, this is what is known as the doctrine of repentance. The LDS Bible Dictionary defines repentance as the changing of the heart and mind to be in line with God's own heart and mind; or, in other words, repentance is the process whereby we define our law (interpret how things are) according to how God has decreed things are. Is it any wonder that Alma, when holding both the highest political position in the land and also the highest religious position in the land, decided to give up his political seat to preach repentance to the people suffering from gross inequality, irreligion, and persecution one from another? Government is a poor master when governing the hearts of man, and it is best left to the physical relationships of each sovereign after the infringement of life, liberty, or property has been violated.

How is Law Interpreted Today?

Today, law is no longer seen as the definition of how things exist naturally, but it is considered a list of rules and regulations fabricated by man wherein the masses are controlled into compliance. This revisionism of terms is at the heart of the transition from a Constitutional Republic towards Democracy.

This is a sad occurrence. Before the separation of America from Great Britain, the Founders looked for a foundation in law wherein they could make a legitimate claim for separation from the then considered "divinely called Monarch of England". When it appears that God himself has called the Monarch you are fighting against, what legitimate claim do you make to declare yourself free and independent? The Founders, as inspired men of God, knew the foundation of law wherein they must adhere: to "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". They appealed to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as their foundation of law. The Founders knew they could not make law, but they were capable of applying the laws of nature wherein they knew that God had made them free. Sadly, we no longer adhere to a concept of natural law as dictated by Nature's God; today, the majority may pass at will and take God's place as the Lawgiver to pass any legislation whatsoever they want.

What Is a Constitutional Republic?

A Constitutional Republic, like I mentioned in my previous email, is a government that is created by the people -- as independent sovereigns -- wherein they adhere to a codex of laws before a majority's consensus. What is this codex of laws? It was the Laws of Nature that we just addressed. Society may work according to the majority vote, but when the majority must check itself against the Laws of Nature -- that is, laws that exist outside the scope, power, and regulating parameters of the majority -- the minority is therefore protected from the onslaught and persecution of the majority.

What is a Democracy?

Democracy does not adhere to an outside codex of laws, such as the Laws of Nature. The majority decides what is law, and how it is applied to the minority. There are no inalienable rights in a majority, because it is the majority that granted rights in the first place, and what can be granted can be taken away. A Democracy is a majoritism, and it has no other foundation or code for legitimacy other than the majority's consensus.

When applied to society, Democracy is synonymous with Socialism. When the workers of a corporation (majority) rise up against the owners of the corporation (minority) to take control of the corporation in the "name of the people" -- do we not call this Socialism? When there is no other claim for legitimacy of government other than there mere majority's consent, this is Socialism. In order to clarify such a distinction, we call this Social-Democracy (Socialist-Democracy).

Within this paradigm, everything you've addressed in your email is absolutely correct: Rights are merely a fabrication, and really only exist in the abstract consciousness of the people. Law is not a constant of nature, but is continuously changed according to social-norms. Law is nothing other than the imposed rules of the majority wherein they decide how best to control, manipulate, and coerce the rest of the people. All "rights" are therefore considered alienable/alterable and we end up with an influx of confusion and political turmoil.

Inalienable and Alienable? How Was the Transition Made?

The crux of this problem lies merely at the door of perception and semantics. After all, perception is the determining factor of law, right? Law is that which defines how things are, and our differing perceptions will vary what laws we adhere to and accept. This is tricky, because people -- at times -- will become so fixated on a particular issue that they will basically deny the existence of gravity to make sure their theory of the world is correct. They deny the obvious existence of natural law (natural consequence) to force their own perceived reality (forced outcome).

The same event can be seen in two different perceptions. When I see a man incarcerated for violent misconduct, I do not see a man who has lost any freedom or liberty. I see a man who stepped outside his natural law rights to violate the natural law rights of another; as such, this man, by the definition of natural law, is no longer capable of self-conduct and government and must be placed in a location of like-acting individuals (jail) until he may regain self-government. This same event, however, can be seen in different eyes. When rights are alienable, the masses take control over the individual (as a God-type figure), and punish him for breaking their social norm (whatever that may be). This man's "rights" are then taken away (by virtue of the masses that allowed him to even have any rights to begin with), and he remains without any rights until the masses decide that he may have them again (if any at all).

While the same consequence/outcome has been achieved, the perception of what has happened is completely different. Is this perception and difference important? Indeed it is! This is the very point wherein the transition from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist-Democracy has been made! This is a subtle difference, and for one making the mental transition from a Democratic mindset to that of a Republic mindset there is often a lot of fear. Fear -- and the forced sense of security that immediately follows fear -- is the antithesis of freedom; in fear, the masses reject natural law for physical control. It appears that people find more perceived safety when they can control their neighbor than in allowing freedom to exist.

Conclusion

Law, within the parameters of nature, only define natural and inalienable rights -- they do not compete with them. When laws appear to compete with natural and inalienable rights, you know the transition is being made from freedom to coercion -- from our Constitutional Republic to a forced Socialist-Democracy.

We do not have the right to violate another sovereign individual's life, liberty, or property; however, when we do and step outside the limits of natural law to infringe upon our neighbor, then the natural law defines that such a person be dealt with in order to not do such a thing again.

It is important to always maintain the thought of inalienable liberty, freedom, and property. Why? Because it will always allow for freedom. Historically, Republics have lasted between 500 - 800 years, whereas Democracies have never stood longer than 200. The Founders hated Democracy with a divine passion that does not exist in our body politic today. George Washington, the man who would not be king, was noted to have wanted to be subject to a tyrannical monarch than to a Democracy. We were given a Republic (the only guarantee in the entire U.S. Constitution -- Article IV Section 4), and we must fight to make it so. The only guarantee of being safe in our inalienable liberty is within the protection of a Republic.

Hopefully this helped clarify a few issues. Please let me know if this helped.

Sincerely,

--
Shiloh Logan

BYU Freedom Society Correspondence pt1

Dear Shiloh Logan,

I read of your club on the internet, and went to visit your website. I am currently struggling with identifying the justifications for coercion by government. I thought the below remarks were interesting. I hope they may add further light to my understanding. I would like to ask you to, if you can, tell me of its authoritative source, and if its source is 'a student', then, what prompted him to come to the conclusions made, particularly the one underlined below, and to expound on exactly what is meant. For example, from where does the government get its authority to use coercion, and, how does one determine if one is 'incapable of self-government'? Please add any other thoughts you may have.

“When speaking of liberty and freedom, the natural course is to speak of government. Government is the only authority in the world that can legally use the power of coercion to fulfill its duties upon society. In acknowledging the inherent and inalienable ability of choice, good government's focus rests on maintaining the outward expression of these abilities and only uses the power of coercion towards those who are incapable of self-government. This principle, however, has not always been maintained nor regarded among those who have led governments.”

Thank you for your help.

Jared

Jared,

Thank you for contacting me. Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you. Hopefully I can answer a few questions. Even better, perhaps I can elicit a few more questions.

What is government, and are inalienable rights alienable?

Legitimate Constitutional government is nothing but a collection of individuals chosen to perform a specific enumerated duty. Each of us are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. These rights cannot -- at any time -- be alienated from us; however, the physical movement and application of these inalienable rights may be physically curtailed (jail). As Sam Adams stated:

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

Individual Sovereignty and Equality of Man

Our Constitutional government was established upon the philosophy that each individual was a sovereign of his own property or personal "kingdom" (as it were). There are obvious perceived discrepancies that are initially presented to this idea (such as the accepted use of slavery during the foundation of our country, and the lack of "woman's rights"), but these concerns and arguments are easily resolved -- although I will not argue that here. Suffice it to say that each individual is "created equally" and that is how the Founder's intended it: Equality exists at birth, as per the inalienable rights given by the Creator.

Individual Sovereignty Within Society

Since each individual is created equal with certain inalienable rights (such as Life, Liberty, and Property), then each sovereign individual has the power and freedom to constitute his own personal relationship with others and to create society. Each individual that realizes the benefits of society may also join the fellowship of other individuals. Because each individual is equal with each other (as per rights given by a Creator, and not assumed or given by a majority's consensus), no majority may assume a power that the individuals alone do not possess. Society may choose to do their business by a majority's consensus and permit, but never can the majority (collection of individuals equal with all men) violate the rights of the minority (collection of individuals equal with all men) in the process.

Simplified Use of Coercion

The concept wherein coercion can be legitimately used (especially in United States history), is most easily explained by the Old Norse tradition of law.

The Old Norse believed that law was a basic liquid or floating substance that existed in the space between all things. The law -- as they reasoned -- prohibited one individual from violating the rights of their equal. Whenever an individual violated the rights of their neighbor, then their own cloak and protection of the law around their own person disappeared; in other words, they had stepped outside the protective bounds of the law. This is where the term outlaw came from: as the individual violated the rights of another, his cloak and protection of the law disappeared. After a person had lost the protecting cloak of the law and become an outlaw, it was legitimate for any person to abuse, prohibit, coerce, and curtail his actions -- even unto death itself.

America's Fundamental use of Coercion, and Self-Government

Our American institution is based and built upon self-government; for the individual to be a religious and moral person. Government is nothing but a collection of individuals, and to find the morality in government you need look no further than those who occupy office. Freedom is not measured by the amount of perceived "moral" laws in society, but by the ability of man to govern his own self through individual morality. When man understands correct principles, he will govern himself. Morality cannot be enforced upon the individual; virtue cannot be coerced. Self-government is not something that can be itself coerced. Individually, I have no power to coerce another man into self-government; however, should that individual violate the rights of another, then I have the ability of restraining this person because his actions are outside the bounds of natural law.

Can I force my neighbor to be accountable? No. But I shouldn't have to pay for his blunders either. There are natural consequences to actions, and current political theory and philosophy often seeks to force a different outcome than what nature offers in consequence.

Until my neighbor infringes upon the inalienable liberty of another individual, his action of non-self-governance cannot be addressed by society. Legitimate Constitutional government (a group of individuals with specifically enumerated duties) can only take action when personal equity has been lost through negligence or willful intent by a person lacking self-government encroaching on the inalienable liberties of another. This is the only time when the majority (collection of individuals) may ever legitimately coerce the individual: when the cloak of law has been breached and a person has been found incapable of self-government by violating the rights of another. Otherwise, each individual is an individual sovereign having equal rights individually as the masses possess collectively.

It must be understood, however, that unlike the Old Norse traditions, the American institution -- while coercing the individual who has infringed upon the rights of another -- does not stipulate that the individual ever loses their own rights. We must remember that all rights are inalienable, we are simply restricted in our ability of expressing these inalienable rights when we have gone outside the bounds of law to infringe upon another's inalienable rights.

End

I apologize for the length of this email. Hopefully this helped to clarify what was written by the Freedom Society. Please contact me with any further questions.

Sincerely,

--
Shiloh Logan

On Republics, Democracy, Prop 8, Civil Unions, and Social History

I am not a law student (as many people ask me), but I study Philosophy, Global Studies (Human Geography), Logic, and Political Science at Brigham Young University. I do, however, plan on going to law school when I'm done with my undergraduate work. Before I get into this post, I want to stipulate my support for the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Prop 8. I want to make sure this is clear, as I explain the course of government, the proper role of government, and the Church's function, it is common for people to misunderstand me before I reach my conclusion. I do, however, also want to make it extremely clear that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Prop 8 supporters have absolutely no foundation politically, philosophically, religiously, or mentally to support such legislation with arguments that amount to nothing more than the fallacies of a slippery slope, appeal to emotion, strawman arguments, and false dichotomies.

Freedom works; it's an eternal principle. Philosophers, politicians, religionists, and everyone in between, however, have argued what "freedom" actually means. Freedom to what? Freedom from what? Can we be wicked and be free? If not, why? Why did our founders say that only a righteous society can be a free society? Why did John Adams state that our Constitution was made only for a religious and a moral people? Does this give weight to legislating morality? Evidence, prophetic utterance, and pure reason alone dictates that you cannot legislate freedom into existence; freedom is a natural state of existence, and it will grow if left alone. Control and regulation, however, will always end (and has always ended) in tyranny and the basic need to coerce morality within a social construct. This is simply the way history has continually repeated itself -- within academic historical record and scripture.

What does this mean for us? Marriage is a religious institution that government has no legitimate authority to regulate, mandate, or legislate; if government legitimately has power to regulate marriage, then it has power to regulate baptism, the sacrament, and any religious ordinance and rite. If I legislate God's "morality" or "religious practices" -- how am I any different from the tyranny of the apostate Church and governments that our founders bled and died to fight off? I believe absolutely in Ezra Taft Benson's The Proper Role of Government, and I cannot find anyplace, any creed, or any doctrine that gives me (as an individual) the right, duty, or de jure ability to dictate to my neighbor, through coercion, what he can and cannot do -- so long as their actions have not violated my life, liberty, or property.

Marriage has not always been licensed by government. A license, in fact, is against the principle of a Constitutional Republic. A license is legally defined as: A privilege granted from an authority to a subordinate wherein the subordinate had no right to act in something without first being given permission from the authority. We say that government has power to license, but I ask: Who gives government power to license? The only two answers, says Thomas Paine (in Rights of Man: Of Constitutions), is either from the people individually, or through tyranny and usurpation. The principle is established: I cannot delegate to my representative a right, privilege, or duty that I do not myself possess; therefore, government may not legitimately act in my stead in any duty, power, or privilege that I cannot delegate to it. For government to act in a duty, right, or privilege that I cannot legitimately delegate to it is absolute tyranny and usurpation. This is the foundational principle of government and our Republic. If I cannot personally walk next door and tell my neighbor that he cannot drive his car without first adhering to my personal stipulation/code of driving, then I cannot delegate this ability for my government to do this in my stead; if I cannot personally walk next door and tell my neighbor that he cannot go into business without first adhering to my personal stipulation/code, then I cannot delegate this ability for my government to do this in my stead; if I cannot personally walk next door and tell my neighbor that he can or cannot be married -- or tell him who he can and cannot be married to -- without my permission, then I cannot delegate this duty to my government to act in my stead. Any such action taken by my government to act in my stead in such a matter that I cannot personally delegate for it to act is usurpation and tyranny.

Marriage, as stated, was not always licensed. In fact, it was largely due to the income tax that marriage licensing was brought out of obscurity. I have always found it interesting that the ideology of socialism and communism -- that the prophets have said for so long will eventually destroy the social construct of the family -- would harm the family is such a round-about way; for us to be dealing with a societal problems such as we are facing with homosexuality and and the right/rite of marriage to have begun largely upon the false philosophy of a communist ideology as income tax is quite an intriguing study. Interestingly enough, before marriage was licensed, every Church acted within their inalienable right/rite and would marry (performance of a rite) a wide variety of we consider today as "uncommon marriages". We know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acted in their inalienable liberty and rite to practice polygamy; furthermore, there were churches through the 1800's that actually did "marry" homosexuals. What happened to these homosexual marriages? What were the consequences upon society? Absolutely nothing. Free-market forces were at work, and the townsfolk who disagreed with their pastor for doing this stopped coming to his church; the pastor was then financially forced to leave the town (his reputation going with him, usually never found work being a pastor again); the "married couple" went their way... interestingly enough, there were no "laws" that enabled them to receive any socialist benefits for being married, so there was no threat of these couples adopting, getting tax benefits, or any other "benefit" that we associate to being married; the society/public didn't think twice about the marriages and went about their day as if nothing happened; and the Lord, above all, has his prerogative to accept these "marriages" or not -- after all, marriage is a religious institution, and isn't it ultimately God's choice? So, at the end of the day, when freedom was allowed within the social construct, absolutely nothing came from these experiences, and they've all but been lost to the time.

Today, however, is very different. We have come so far down the road of socialism that simply allowing people their freedom will have some hazardous consequences. Because the government began to license marriage and give government benefits for it (infringed on the freedom of religion), this added an entirely new paradigm to what would have otherwise been a non-issue. A Democracy, the antithesis of a Republic, simply operates on a majority vote; in other words, Democracy operates under the premise of majoritism: Government authority/legitimacy is established by no other criteria than merely a majority's acceptance and vote. Our founders hated Democracy; in fact, to date, I have never found a single source wherein they specifically spoke kindly of it; furthermore, George Washington was adamant that he would rather a tyrannical monarchy be established first before a Democracy. So what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? A Republic is based on laws first, before it looks to any other sources for legitimacy. In the case of the American Republic, the "law" that was established for government was "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" (as stipulated within the Declaration of Independence). There are no "unalienable rights" in a Democracy, because Democracy stipulates that the only rights the individual has are what the majority will vote the individual to have; if the majority can vote to give people rights, license, or privilege, then it can certainly vote to take them away -- the rendering the concept of "unalienable rights" moot. Our Republic, however, stipulates that there are certain "unalienable rights" (rights given by our Creator, not by a majority), that cannot be taken away from us, regardless what the majority says. Indeed, it has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin to have said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, freedom (speaking of a Republic) is a well armed lamb contesting the vote". This means that in a Democracy, the lamb has no rights because it has been outvoted; however, in a Republic, the lamb's individual and inalienable rights cannot be violated because of the majority's system -- there are intrinsic individual rights that exist outside the majority's decisions. This principle is of the utmost importance in seeing the political sophistry and the debacle of the mess we find ourselves in California with Prop 8. Indeed, socialism is the ultimate manifestation of Democracy -- socialism is merely Social-Democracy: when the majority of citizens (workers) can vote themselves the businesses, corporations, and profits of the minority (owners) and confiscate wealth (due to the system of legitimacy and authority by majority only) by merely being in the majority -- do we not call this socialism? Indeed, we can see the absolute manifestation of socialism within nearly every field of our government under this premise.

I cannot tell my neighbor who he can and cannot marry. Although our government was built on natural laws -- and homosexuality is argued to be against natural law -- we also must reason that government was not given the authority to rule in all matters of natural law. If it were given this power, then government could legislate anything under the auspice of morality. History has proven that such power given to government -- knowing that man has a disposition to use unrighteous dominion whenever he gets a little power as he supposes -- ends in tyranny (much like the Spanish Inquisition). Government's role in acting in matters of Natural Law were restricted to the premise of "Life, Liberty, and Property". If my life, liberty, or property are not being directly violated by someone else, I have no ability of going to my government to enact legislation in a particular issue. My practicing homosexual neighbor has not violated my life, liberty, or property, nor has he, if the local parish down the street arbitrarily says they're "married". I cannot, therefore, in a Constitutional Republic vote to regulate religion, license his actions, or censure him. Such would be tyranny and usurpation.

This, however, does not end the story. Our society has not operated under the principles of a Republic for over a hundred years. We have licensed ourselves out of freedom; we have allowed government to act in matters it has no authority; and we have become a people who participates in and accepts a majoritism society that no longer wishes to operate on principles of freedom, but of necessary compelled compliance by the majority's consensus; in other words, we have become a Socialist-Democracy. Under this paradigm, what are we to do now? Government overstepped its bounds over one hundred years ago by issuing marriage licenses and doling out "marriage rights" (There is absolutely no legitimate authority, philosophy, or power to stipulate the government giving any rights whatsoever within a Constitutional Republic! The government cannot give rights or grant privilege. Such sophistry violates the basic meaning of a Constitution and a Republic. It is the people that give government duties through specific enumeration (Constitution)! The government is the servant of the people, and it cannot legitimately become the master! The people receive their rights from their Creator and, in turn, delegate certain duties to government to act in their stead). We would not be in the situation we're now in with homosexuals wanting to get the socialist marriage benefits associated to marriage if we had remained a free people from the beginning. Civil Unions were created when certain atheists didn't want to have a religious service, but merely wanted to get the tax benefits that were given to "couples". The fact that Civil Unions exist is a testament to everything thus stipulated! Civil Unions are a manufactured state relationship given so that people who are not religious can be given benefits without the religious implications of including "God" within the union.

Those familiar with American History will recollect and know that many of the founders were leery of writing a Bill of Rights to be included with the Constitution. They were worried because they feared the enumeration of rights and the societal thought that would follow; they were worried that if they started listing rights, then the people and government would begin to think that the people had no rights unless the government listed them. They stated that the people have ALL rights, powers, and privileges and that the government (per the 9th and 10th Amendments) could only act in the construct of duties specifically granted to them in the Constitution (as allowed by natural law dealing with life, liberty, and property). I cannot stress it more, however, that the government could not be given the power to act in matters that were outside the scope of life, liberty, or property, or that violated the inalienable rights of the individual (how can a group of individuals having equal inalienable rights somehow magically fabricate communal rights together that they don't have individually? What is the magic number of individuals wherein the majority of individuals can communally overthrow the rights of the individual/minority?). How can the government grant or restrict (through license, rule, regulation, or legislation, etc.) religious actions when no such actions violate life, liberty, or property within a Republic? The answer is simple: they can't. Again, the LDS Church history dealing with polygamy and the words of the prophets clearly shows this.

So what of the Church today? There seems to be conflicting principles. On one side, the Church has always told us to support, defend, and carry away Constitutional principles; the Constitution (as per Article IV Section 4) clearly states that the Constitution "guarantees" (the only guarantee in the entire Constitution) a "Republican form of Government". After establishing what a Republican form of government is, there appears to be a conflict with what the General Authorities and First Presidency of the Church have enlisted the Church membership to support. So, herein lies the conflict: How can the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve tell its members to support a proposition that is against a Constitutional Republic, while, historically, having told us to only support those things which are Constitutional? Well, we are faced with two choices: (1) The First Presidency no longer abides by true and correct principles, or (2) our Republic -- as defined in the Constitution -- no longer exists, and we've become a Socialist-Democracy. Having the strong and un-doubting testimony that the First Presidency and members of the Twelve and other General Authorities constituted are still prophets, seers, and revelators, I must then reason that we no longer live under a Constitutional Republic. Therefore, because we are no longer a Republic (that is, we no longer operate under the principles of a Constitutional Republic), and because the only guarantee of the Constitution is that we are to be a Republic -- I must assume that we know longer have a Constitution and that -- as Ezra Taft Benson stated in 1977 -- the freedoms that were vouchsafe by the Constitution are no longer vouchsafe, and only bloodshed (through another Revolutionary War?) will bring them back (or until our Savior returns). When the majority can vote to define religion; when the majority can vote to define, regulate, legislate, and rule in matters outside the scope of Natural Law, as pertaining to life, liberty, or property; when the majority has no limits, and can vote, rule, and regulate whatever it wants to -- we no longer live under a Constitutional Republic, but are living in a Socialist-Democracy. Whereas you cannot legitimately regulate, legislate, or vote on a religious act or institution within a Constitutional Republic, you can most assuredly do so within a Socialist-Democracy. Why? Because Socialist-Democracies only stipulate that you need a majority vote to validate, authorize, or legitimize any issue whatsoever -- there is no safety for the minority, except for what the majority grants them. Inalienable rights therefore become alienable.

So the question is this: Do homosexuals have a right/rite to be married? The answer is quite simple: it is not for the people or their government to decide. Is it for one neighbor to decide whether another is worthy of the sacrament? Baptism? Is it up to one neighbor to decide whether or not another fits the criteria for what society deems is appropriate for baptism? In other words, do we feel it justifiable for society to regulate, mandate, license, and create a minimum and appropriate criteria for Church baptism? It is a common fallacy to believe that we can legitimately "legislate morality". It is true that all good laws are moral, but they are not chosen for their "morality"; good laws are established because of their relationship to the clause of "life, liberty, and property" (The fallacy is supposing that if all A's -> B, then all B's -> A; this simply isn't true). If government could regulate morality, then the can of worms is open for government to become our new master of religion; this is one of the very things the founders specifically rejected, because it has happened to every country that allowed government to regulate morality and establish tyranny. Our country was to be a religious and moral people, not because we would legislate people into righteousness, but because we would be the society wherein freedom would be allowed to exist; when freedom exists, like we have shown, "problems" of homosexuality that have arisen have vanished just as quickly. However, for this to work, the society itself must be "righteous". A wicked society feels they must legislate righteousness and safety. This is nothing less than the proper plan of Lucifer before this world was created. You cannot coerce virtue; you cannot legislate morality (the prophets have clearly spoken on this issue). As D&C 134 states, government must keep alive the "sacred freedom of conscience". To allow conscience means that you allow man to also chose that which is not moral; government can only legitimately become involved when such freedom of conscience leads the individual to infringe upon another's inalienable right (the violation of life, liberty, or property).

Here is where things get sticky (as far as politics go). Current politicians in California (mostly liberal, but with unintentional support from the right) have sought to have a Socialist-Democracy -- this is not a new concept. They have fought to destroy the safeguards of a Republic and to institute a government where majoritism without restraint is the only legitimate factor. They have been very successful! So successful, in fact, that the religious right fights against them using their very own tactics! You can't be much more successful than this. The religious-right, however, gets confused when using these tactics, when the liberal-left reverts back to pulling out that last vestige of a Constitutional Republic to defend its positions: Judicial Review.

How can the Supreme Court of California rule on the matter of Constitutionality of Prop 8, when the people have clearly spoken by majority vote? This is actually a safeguard of a Republic. Consider if California were to vote against the freedom of speech and the majority supported the suppression of free speech, or of the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Wouldn't the minority wish for a safeguard for their inalienable rights? Absolutely! What if the majority voted to accept abortion? We would want the California Supreme Court to say, "The voice of the people wishes something that violates the life, liberty, and property of the unborn; as such, the voice of the people is against Natural Law and cannot be found Constitutional" In this way, the liberal-left is having their cake and eating it to; they are fighting for a Socialist-Democracy until they lose -- at this point, they revert back to the safeguards of the system that they've considered to be inequitable, unequal, and unjust to find equity, equality, and justice -- it really is quite hypocritical. Nonetheless, although it is hypocritical, it is very much a blessing that we have that safeguard.

The ugly problem again raises its head: Do homosexuals have a right/rite to be married? Realistically, this is a bad question, because it is built on false premises: Marriage is an inalienable right through the basic reason and construct that the freedom to worship in our own specified manner is the people's inalienable right; however, because it is a religious rite, the church itself decides who receives marriage. If the people were free and government hadn't interfered in marriage to begin with, this wouldn't be a problem (as history has already proven); however, since government has usurped its bounds, this has become a giant problem. I do believe that it is against the life, liberty, and personal property (property as defined by Locke as an extension of one's essence) of a child to be given (adopted) to homosexual partners (whether married or under civil unions) -- but my explanation for this is longer than this post and I will refrain from listing that here. Because government has overstepped its bounds into religion -- and because the government has rejected the foundations of a Constitutional Republic -- homosexuals being given the legal authority of marriage is a very dangerous social problem. I cannot stress it more, however, that this problem an intrinsic and natural problem, but is man made fabrication that was created from government usurpation into the rite of marriage. If left alone, freedom would have solved this issue before it ever became a problem; but because of man's tampering disposition to believe that safety and security are found in his ability to regulate, legislate, and coerce his fellowman in the first place (licensing and regulating marriage), this has become a huge and nearly uncontrollable problem.

In our current system of government (Socialist-Democracy) Prop 8 is not only legitimate, but it is absolutely necessary! Because of how marriage has been redefined and regulated, it is a very dangerous social problem if homosexuals gain legal legitimacy of marriage. Should homosexuality become a common place in our society, there is a very real slippery slope (I accept the reference to the fallacy, but we can see evidence of what happens when countries have "legally" accepted homosexuality). This is why I absolutely support Prop 8 and how I support the First Presidency whole-heartedly in their prophetic utterance to support such legislation. I do so, however, realizing that our society no longer operates under the protection of the Constitution. While we may maintain the mechanistic nature of a Constitutional Republic (we vote on "laws" and sometimes follow procedures according to the Constitution...), we do not adhere to the principles and foundation behind what created that great, magnificent, and divine charter.

Lastly, as per the Utah Governor: Civil Unions are state institutions, and cannot discriminate. In actuality, Civil Unions, because there is no moral decision behind them due to their legal construct, should allow all forms of partnerships. I realize this is a very dangerous statement, and I shudder to think of it ever happening because I realize the social, legal, and moral fall-out of what it means should this happen. This, however, should hopefully raise a red flag concerning the nature of Civil Unions, what they are, how they are used, and what it means that they even exist. The fact that Civil Unions exist should make us think twice about how we view marriage and government's actions within the religious rite of marriage. The Church's stance on Civil Unions is in accordance with the true nature of what such Unions are, and they have publicly accepted them. Governor Huntsman perhaps is less a hypocrite than I have previously thought. The state can legislate Civil Unions to include homosexual unions (although I do not like what it means to my society), but I will not be hypocritical to say that we should deny these socialist creations to minority groups; we will either be a free people, or we must suffer the consequences of our social sins and the unrighteousness of the people in accepting socialist sophistry. We cannot have our cake and eat it to. We must either fight to be a free and independent people or accept our chains and servitude. To be hypocritical is worse than being wrong; Christ -- during his life -- loved the sinner, but it is clear he despised (if Christ had such an emotion) the hypocrite. I, like Thomas Jefferson, tremble for my country when I think that my God is just, and that is justice cannot long be stayed upon this country.