Natural Law, Positivism, & Civil Disobedience: An Analysis of Counsel Given by General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Note:

This is the culmination of many, many hours of research, yet I am nearly and completely unsatisfied with it. I wrote this for the honors Philosophy 300 class (philosophical writing), and I presented it before the class last week. I hesitate to post this yet, because it is not remotely complete. First, I have a more thorough retort concerning the arguments I present against Natural Law than what I address herein. Second, many sections are inadequate and do not fully portray the idea intended. Third, I do not feel I adequately addressed how positivist law exists in Natural Law without existing as Positivism itself. Fourth, I do not fully address Kretzman's argument against positivist claims against the non-est-lex slogan. Fifth, I almost completely disagree with my conclusion. In reality, there is more than abundant evidence that illustrates whether the Church is more naturalist or positivist in its doctrine and policy -- I simply ran out of time before my deadline and I was lazy. When I get more time -- possibly in the next three years -- I will revisit it. I personally consider this a decent start in my life-long pursuit to find a logical, eternal, and spiritual understanding of the principles and philosophies of liberty.

I am open to any and all suggestions and arguments. Please comment, if you can actually make it through all of this.

-- Shiloh

Natural Law, Positivism, and Civil Disobedience: an Analysis of the Counsel Given by the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Shall we be such fools as to be governed by [the government’s] laws, which are Unconstitutional? No! -- Joseph Smith (Teachings)

Introduction

Natural law theory has endured multiple revisions. From Aristotle’s natural justice to Dworkin’s theory of principles, natural law has born the criticism and evaluation of the greatest philosophical minds. What is natural law? There is no absolute definition. One definitive thread that has endured in various forms since Aristotle is the slogan of natural law: Lex Injusta Non Est Lex (an unjust law is not a law). In his paper, Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex, Norman Kertzmann explores the historical foundation of the natural law slogan to find its author. Kertzmann finds no absolute author, but he does find a way to solve the contradiction that critics say non-est-lex presents.

The slogan of natural law finds sharp critics among legal positivists. H. L. A. Hart, a champion of positivism, uses the non-est-lex slogan to show the paradox of arguing for something that exists but does not exist. Positivism’s adherence to scripted — or codified — law rejects natural law’s claim to non-est-lex. If, in the severity of injustice, a positivist must rebel against enacted law, that individual must follow certain criteria for changing it. In positivism, even civil disobedience must follow certain rules.

The difference between naturalism and positivism makes the issue of morality difficult to evaluate, especially for religious organizations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church) has defined many of its own policies through interaction with natural and positivist laws. Many Church policies are naturalist, while others reflect positivist sentiments in exhorting its members in matters pertaining to government. While some counsel from the Church has appeared to support the non-est-lex slogan, other counsel is positivist.

This paper includes three sections: (1) natural law and positivism, (2) civil disobedience, and (3) religious requirements of non-est-lex. In this paper I will define natural law under a broad political application, and will contrast it with legal positivism. I will address how these two philosophies treat civil disobedience in regards to unjust laws. This paper presupposes a distinct definition and understanding of what is just and unjust and what is moral and immoral – although such distinctions I do not discuss in this paper. I will answer whether civil disobedience is possible in natural law, and address what conditions are required for civil disobedience in legal positivism. It is not my intent to question whether natural law is an adequate foundation for jurisprudence but to answer whether the individual has a legitimate non-est-lex claim under natural law. Furthermore, I will evaluate various arguments from the Church leaders concerning obedience to the law and possible justification for non-est-lex in regards to the Twelfth Article of Faith. Finally, I will conclude that an absolute distinction in Church doctrine between naturalism and positivism is impossible.

SECTION 1

What is Natural Law?

Natural law is a theory explaining how universal moral laws exist by nature – even if not initially perceived by human understanding. Naturalist philosophers have presented natural law differently. Most studies of natural law originate through Aristotle and Cicero; however, it was Aquinas’ arguments for natural law that were popularized and adopted by the Catholic Church. Aquinas categorized law into four types: (1) the eternal law (mind of God), (2) the divine law (the appearance of the eternal law to man), (3) the human law (man’s positive law), and (4) the natural law. Aquinas spoke of a natural moral law whereby all men are bound. This universal moral law, he argued, was perceivable through a divinely placed innate state of heightened reason. As such, Aquinas argued that man by reason could demonstrate the existence of God and of his moral code. Because of the heightened state of reason that God gave man, revelation was unnecessary to perceive this universal moral law.

Sir William Blackstone argued that natural law was the moral basis of all law – political or otherwise. Positivist law, or statutory law, existed as an extension of perceivable natural law. All statutes were to be extracted and enacted on principles of natural law. When social problems arise and there is no perceived natural law to resolve the issue, statutory law has full power to rule in the matter; however, when natural law is perceived, any violating statute dissolves as though it never existed.

What is Legal Positivism?

Legal positivism rejects natural law’s claim that there is a necessary moral basis for law, but asserts that laws are merely rules that man agrees to live by. John Austin coined the creed of positivism: “The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another” (Austin). H.L.A. Hart, an advocate of positivism, argued that laws restricting theft, violence, and deception are necessary for any legitimate social structure; furthermore, any such social structure must also have a system for recognizing and enforcing those rules. Hart argued that any legitimate social structure has primary and secondary rules. Primary rules are laws that enforce individual obligations and duties. Secondary rules clarify any ambiguous or confusing primary rules. There are three secondary rules that accomplish this: rules of recognition, rules of change, and rules of adjudication. The rules of recognition identify what primary rules are valid and give the primary rule authority and legitimacy. The rule of change allows new rules to reevaluate and take the place of old rules. The rules of adjudication define important legal concepts and give judges power to punish any violators of primary rules (Hart).

Positivism establishes legal legitimacy of government. Laws are rules that gain legitimacy through social recognition and obedience, through ability to change to social pressures, and through courts that interpret and render codified law. In Hart’s view, inalienable rights in natural law are, at best, ambiguous and, at worst, obsolete. Rights are granted by the government through the legal system, not through some individual claim to a higher moral authority. Because government’s legitimacy rests on society’s acceptance of scripted law, individual rights, in a sense, are at the whim of social approval.

Natural Law v. Positivism: Problems

Problems with Natural Law

There are several arguments against natural law. In fact, many legal philosophers completely dismiss natural law. In acknowledging the unpopularity of natural law theory, Ronald Dworkin, a natural law theorist, observes that “one label. . . is particularly dreaded: no one wants to be called a natural lawyer. [Natural law] seems metaphysical or at least vaguely religious. In any case it seems plainly wrong” (Dworkin 175). In this paper I present the two of the most common objections to natural law, and offer possible solutions. The first objection concerns its universality. Gary North illustrated the universality problem that natural law faces:

Natural law theorists have yet to come up with a solution to this inconvenient fact: reason, meaning the never-proven, always sought-for "right reason" of natural law theory, has not led masses of people to adopt the same system of philosophy, ethics, or religion. Yet the theory rests on the assumption -- never proven -- that rational people can agree on these issues sufficiently to enable society to function both ethically and predictably, meaning rationally (North).

While natural law has yet to give a universal solution to any particular problem, the universality argument is empty. The universality problem hinges on the assumption that all universal facts or truths are apparent or that they are already known and can be demonstrated. This is ridiculous. Because the mind of man has not created the tools necessary to demonstrate the universality a particular moral law, it does not follow that a universal moral law does not exist.

Natural law’s second major objection is its ambiguity. The moral centrist will blame the immorality of society for natural law’s inability to adequately define a universal moral ethic; however, this reeks of pompous self-appreciation and moral superiority. Natural law’s perceived ambiguity may stem from the universality objection. If nothing is physically or demonstrably universal, then universal moral law can be defined any way an individual or society sees fit. This argument may be the most convincing against natural law, especially in arguing against natural law within the political spectrum. Hart is right concerning ambiguous laws: The law, to be law, necessarily communicates what is required (Hart 92). Ambiguity is the death of any law – universal or otherwise.

In answer to natural law’s perceived ambiguity, I offer no solutions. I propose, however, that until the universality of natural law can be shown, that natural law as an acting force remain as a standard for individual morality – a type of categorical imperative.

Problems with Positivism

Dworkin offers a famous critique of legal positivism in his response to H.L.A Hart’s paper, The Concept of Law. In Taking Rights Seriously, Dworkin lists three points of positivism that he claims are its primary tenants: (1) Laws are rules of the community that are legitimized by their pedigree, and not by their [moral] content; (2) Each law, when ambiguous, non-existent, or seemingly not applicable to a specific case, is given to the ruling discretion of the judge; and (3) that each individual is legally obligated in a way that requires the individual to act or be acted upon by society (“Taking”).

The first of these points addresses the necessary mechanism needed to establish legitimacy in government. While Dworkin believed a social moral principle was the best legitimate foundation for law, Hart’s positivist view establishes legitimacy in law and government through a previously chosen and socially accepted legal system. Laws are rules that gain legitimacy through social recognition and obedience, through ability to change to social pressures, and through courts that can render and interpret primary rules when needed.

Dworkin’s second criticism of positivism attacks the positivist law itself. Even the finest and most intricately designed laws can be interpreted in various ways. Relying solely on scripted law is fool-hardy, especially when the foundation of government has rejected any moral compass to guide the ship-of-state through times when the law is ambiguous. Positivists offer no real solution to this critique except to lambast natural law for the same inherent problem of ambiguity.

The concluding argument against positivism rests in the individual’s legal obligation to society at large. Legal positivism requires the individual to follow certain rules and adopt certain behaviors within society. While the natural law can exist when it is not perceived, positivist law must be codified and publically known. Positivism requires absolute obedience to codified law. The moment society fails to recognize scripted laws, government loses legitimacy. This is why strict obedience to the law is so necessary within positivism, even if the laws are unjust. Furthermore, positivism defines what is socially acceptable but rejects any fundamental principle or moral behind the law. Dworkin argued for a principle behind legal actions, while Hart argued for a rule that reflected the social acceptance of the people; ironically, the result and public manifestations of these two competing philosophies are nearly identical.

SECTION 2

What is Civil Disobedience?

Is there a moral obligation to obey every law, or are we only required to obey some laws? There are many cases for civil disobedience, but to understand these we have to define what civil disobedience is. John Rawls defines civil disobedience as “a public nonviolent, and conscientious act contrary to law usually done with the intent to bring about a change in policies or laws to the government” (Rawls 250). Civil disobedience requires conscious action to change public policy or law. We will first speak of civil disobedience within legal positivism, and then see if civil disobedience is compatible with non-est-lex.

Legal Positivism

Positivism requires absolute submission to scripted law. Unlike natural law, positivism does not concern itself with what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, just or unjust, but only with what society will accept or not accept. This is not to say that society is necessarily amoral, but that the basis of scripted law is a reflection of what is socially acceptable. However, primary and secondary rules occasionally fail to provide just laws. In these rare cases, civil disobedience is justified; however, there are necessary steps to follow and objectives to achieve.

In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls outlines positivism’s requirements for civil disobedience. First, civil disobedience is consciousness of the act. Second, civil disobedience must be political. This is accomplished in three ways: justification, audience, and goal. The individual justifies his actions of for civil disobedience through changing society’s attitude toward an unjust law. Furthermore, this is only accomplished if the act of civil disobedience has a public audience. No justifiable civil disobedience is performed in secret. Finally, in awakening the moral sense of the people, the individual must remain strictly non-violent (Rawls).

Natural Law

Naturalism follows a different course than positivism. Whereas civil disobedience is possible in positivism, it has no place in natural law. The slogan of natural law, lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is not a law), is a source of debate between positivists and naturalists. Three of positivism’s greatest defenders – Austin, Benthem, and Hart – ridiculed the non-est-lex slogan for the contradiction of saying something exists that does not: “For an unjust law is obviously a law – it is simply an unjust one” (Russell 435).

Norman Kretzmann, a naturalist, defended the non-est-lex slogan against positivist naysayers. Kretzmann showed both evaluative and non-evaluative inclusion conditions. This means that an

“unjust law may be a law in a merely technical sense, in virtue of meeting certain –non-evaluative inclusion conditions that are required for its promulgation as a law, but it may still fail to be a genuine instance of a law if it fails to meet certain evaluative inclusion conditions that are required of any genuine law” (Russell 436-7).

To a naturalist, ‘civil disobedience’ does not exist. The instant a statute fails to include all necessary metaphysical conditions of justice, the unjust law ceases to exist. There is no ‘disobedience’ to an unjust law, because an unjust law is not a law. Furthermore, it is nonsensical to a naturalist to see an individual act in ‘compliance’ with a law that does not exist, especially when that individual acts in violation of his own justice.

The positivist finds necessity in making his civil disobedience public, but the naturalist has no such prerogative. While the positivist seeks to correct a form of injustice, the naturalist – in perceiving no unjust law – can only see the ignorance of an individual who will work against his own justice by following a law that does not exist.

Positivism holds an intrinsically pessimistic view of society. Positivism presupposes that law is built on the assumption that society’s natural state is chaos. Codified law is the adhesive that binds a social structure together. However, natural law is inherently optimistic in its view of society, and builds on the assumption that society’s natural state is order – not chaos. While positivism looks on the non-est-lex slogan as the ultimate tool of social destruction by allowing the individual and masses to become a ‘law unto themelves,’ the naturalist appeals to non-est-lex as the building block of order and justice by creating a free-market of law and justice.

Allowing non-est-lex within society will not prove society’s destruction; neither will it result in anarchy like the positivists say. Opponents to non-est-lex claim that it creates an arbitrary standard where every individual has the ability of doing whatever they please, but this is not so. Natural law is a universal code and standard. The Declaration of Independence promoted three inherent naturalist rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under natural law, any violation of inherent rights is punished accordingly. There is no freedom in natural law to perform an unjust act. Only through injustice does a man become a law unto himself, and in his moment of injustice he loses his protection of the natural law.

SECTION 3

The Twelfth Article of Faith

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

The Twelfth Article of Faith is a Church standard regarding the members’ obligation to be subject to the laws of the country they reside in and to submit to their leaders. Many interpret this Article of Faith to mean absolute compliance to all laws enacted within a political mechanism, while others have used this article to justify a higher principle of justice and morality.

Questions arise concerning whether the Twelfth Article of Faith gives any room for a non-est-lex philosophy or for civil disobedience. If the Twelfth Article of Faith offers room for these, how so and what are their limits?

Positivist Interpretation

The positivist’s claim on the Twelfth Article of Faith calls for absolute obedience to all laws enacted by the political leadership. Disobedience to enacted laws is a strict violation of this Article. Unjust laws are legally repealed by the legislature. Unjust laws are not merely dismissed by an individual who disagrees with the enacted law. This interpretation is justified in light of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 58:21-2: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be. . .” This appears to contradict the naturalists’ slogan that an unjust law is not law at all. Positivists believe that members of the Church are commanded to obey the laws enacted their by government (laws of the land), and that in obeying the law of the land (even an unjust law) they will not break the laws of God – or a higher moral law.

An analogy used by positivists to interpret D&C 58: 21-2 is that of a soldier who obeys an order to kill in a time of war. Leaders of the Church have declared that soldiers are not morally accountable for following orders to kill their enemies in a time of war, but that the accountability of an unjust command falls on the leader(s) who gave the order. As President Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do” (Hinckley 80). Positivists argue that the citizen – like the active soldier – has immunity for following an unjust order (law) legislated by his government. The individual’s accountability is to obey the scripted law, and it is the legislator accountability to enact just laws. The important thing is for the citizen to be honest and obedient to all established laws – good and bad – until the time comes when an unjust law can be changed legitimately through the political mechanism of government. At this time, the citizen becomes responsible for acting in such a way as to change the unjust law. Until then, the individual is justified in obeying an unjust law. In this strict obedience to the law, even an unjust law, the positivist finds himself obedient to the Twelfth Article of Faith and the laws of God.

Naturalist Interpretation

Natural law has a different view of the Twelfth Article of Faith. To the naturalist, D&C 58:21-2 is qualified in D&C 134:5: “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected. . .” (emphasis added). While the naturalist recognizes the need to obey the law of the land and to be subject to the powers that be, he still recognizes that sedition and rebellion have their place when a government no longer protects the inherent and inalienable rights of the people. Furthermore, the naturalist must qualify and differentiate between a just and an unjust law. The naturalist member is concerned with differentiating between the two forms of law that represent just and unjust laws in D&C 98: the law of the land and the law of man.

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. . .

And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. . .

And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God. (D&C 98:4-7, 10-1)

The naturalist further recognizes that the law of the land is conditional and based on the constitutionality of law that promotes the rights and privileges of all mankind. Anything more or less than that which promotes the rights and privileges of all mankind is the law of man and is evil. It is within the law of man that the naturalist finds unjust law. Furthermore, the command given by God, the ultimate principle giver, is to forsake all evil – even the law of man! This reading of D&C 98 is in line with Aquinas’ first principle of natural law: good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided (Aquinas q94, a2, p. 47). The naturalist, in this sense, is obligated to avoid all evil – even if it is scripted law – if the enacted law violates the rights and privileges of all mankind. President Joseph F. Smith clarified this concept when he said,

“It seems to me that this makes this matter so clear that it is not possible for any man who professes to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make any mistake, or to be in doubt as to the course he should pursue under the command of God in relation to the observance of the laws of the land. [God] will hold [lawmakers] responsible if they will pass unconstitutional measures and frame unjust and proscriptive laws. . . If lawmakers have a mind to violate their oath, break their covenants and their faith with the people, and depart from the provisions of the constitution, where is the law, human or divine, which binds me, as an individual, to outwardly and openly proclaim my acceptance of their acts?” (Gospel 406)

Both the naturalist and positivist believe that lawmakers are accountable for passing unjust and proscriptive laws; however, these competing theories vary in regards to the level of accountability ascribed to the individual when confronted with an unjust law. The positivist must maintain strict adherence to the law (leaving sole accountability to the lawmaker for passing unjust legislation, until the time comes when the individual may affect legislative change), but the naturalist takes upon himself a portion of accountability in how he responds to an unjust law. The naturalist will remain subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and he will obey, honor, and sustain the law by only adhering to just laws that promote the freedom and liberty of all people. This appears to be in line with President John Taylor’s interpretation of D&C 98: 4-6.

“Taking this nation as an example, all laws that are proper and correct, and all obligations entered into which are not violative of the Constitution should be kept inviolate. But if they are violative of the Constitution, then the compact between the rulers and the ruled is broken and the obligation ceases to be binding. Just as a person agreeing to purchase anything and to pay a certain amount for it, if he receives the article bargained for, and does not pay its price, he violates his contract; but if he dos not receive the article he is not required to pay for it” (Taylor).

This reading of President John Taylor carries the natural law slogan: an unjust law is not a law. If a codified law violates the purpose of the Constitution, then there is no obligation to obey – the obligation ceases to be binding. However, President Taylor, in keeping true with natural law principles, gives that all laws that do maintain the rights and privileges of all mankind must be followed. This reading is consistent throughout every passage of the Doctrine and Covenants presented in this paper.

Conclusion

The natural law and positivist philosophies may never come to terms. The philosophical battle concerning the direction of government and the legitimacy of law may never achieve a resolution. Natural law and positivism are polarized, and each rejects the other’s premise. The bi-conditional relationship of the individual to society is hotly contested. Does the individual have the ability to protest? While positivism gives stipulations for civil disobedience, natural law rejects the law outright as though it does not exist. Civil disobedience is impossible in natural law, because there is no disobedience to a law that does not exist.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains political neutrality; however, the membership of the Church is often polarized. Whether the Church leadership intentionally presents doctrine in a naturalist or positivist way, the membership is quick to interpret it as such. The same latter-day scriptures and prophetic counsel are interpreted in two different ways. Therefore, it is indeterminable whether Church doctrine absolutely supports one theory or another.

Works Cited

Aquinas, Saint Thomas. On law, morality, and politics. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988. Print.

Dworkin, Ronald. "Natural Law Revisited." University of Florida Law Review 34 (1982): 165-88. Print.

---. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1977. Print.

Gospel Doctrine Sermons & Writings of Joseph F. Smith. New York: Deseret Books, 1999. Print.

Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Print.

Hinckley, Gordon B. "War and Peace." Ensign May 2003: 78-81. Print.

Rawls, John,. Theory of Justice. S. l. b Harvard University Press c 09/1999: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1999. Print.

North, Gary. "History: European -- Natural Law Theory." Gary North -- Specific Answers. 2007. Web. 13 Nov. 2009. .

Russell, J.S. "Trial by Slogan: Natural Law and Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex." Law and Philosophy 4th ser. 19.July (2000): 433-49. Print.

Taylor, John. Journal of Discourse. Vol. 26. 1884: 350. Print.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. American Fork: Covenant, 2002. Print.

“Have You Forgotten?” How Iconography and Nationalism May Have Blinded Us.

Written: November 11, 2008

Do you remember 9-11-2001? I do. I was glued to the television, and absolutely nothing could shake me from watching those horrific scenes. My country and my countrymen were under attack! I attended all the rallies, candle vigils, and flag waving groups that I knew of. I didn't know what to do, but I was doing all that I knew how to do -- and so was everyone else around me.

Everywhere we looked we saw new slogans, new signs, and new flags waving. We beamed with pride for the goodness of America! The nationalism was remarkable! We were a unified country rallied against a common foe. We were fixated on the television -- every possible second -- to find new information. We knew exactly who had attacked us and exactly what we were going to do about it; in fact, the news reported on who attacked us within the second hour of the first tower being hit! That's American journalism for you -- quick on the spot with every substantial fact necessary to make completely accurate and specific conclusions. Even the left-wing celebrities booed unpatriotic dissenters who called for more information from the Bush Administration before we rushed into war! Bush's approval ratings were through the roof as he led our country forward in response to the most tragic attack of our lifetime.

This heightened nationalism lasted over 18 months! We didn't need to question a thing, because we knew exactly what was going on. Government transparency was at an all time high. We knew the secret inner-workings of every major political institution and what they were going to do. We knew who attacked us, why they attacked us, and what we were going to do about it. We knew why we were preparing for war, who we were going to attack, and how we were going get the job done. We knew it all!

Talk of dropping the debris from the fallen towers from US Military Cargo planes on Afghanistan was heavily purported and met with national pride! Take THAT you fundamentalist-Islamo-fascists! You pissed off the wrong country! "Don't **** with the US of A"!

Those damn-slobbery French bastards were cowards for not standing with us, and we knew they only stood against us! We cursed the name of anything "French". "Freedom" toast, "Freedom" fries, "Freedom" dressing, and "Freedom" bread -- we purged anything "French" out of our culture! We even put a bill before Congress to officially change the name of anything "French" to "freedom" in the United States! Take that you unpatriotic French scum! May the Taliban and Al-Qaeda kill you all in your sleep!

When a few unpatriotic "Ameri-can'ts" questioned the war, we associated them with those who "denied the holocaust" and who "allowed Hitler to take over Europe". Of course Iraq attacked us! In fact, Saddam was pointing weapons of mass destruction at Israel and was going to sell these same weapons to others to use them against US. He had purged the Kurds and was laying waste to their people through torture and ethnic cleansing -- this was enough for us to know exactly what he was not only capable of doing, but what he was planning on doing. We never argued with the people dissenting (after all, it's ridiculous to argue with someone who obviously had dementia), but we argued at and around them. We just needed to show society how unpatriotic these people were for dissenting and the public would do the rest. How could anyone possibly question our legitimate claim to go after those people who attacked us?! Cowards all!! If they couldn't watch the television and arrive at the same conclusion we had, they're idiots anyway.

Then, something happened. We all started learning something different than what we thought we knew. The 'Mission' wasn't 'accomplished'. While the majority of 'conservative' mainstream media outlets continued to lambaste any 'unpatriotic' dissensions to the war, the exuberant nationalism and iconoclasm that existed for years subsided. Many Americans were left wondering, "What was that?" What had America just endured? What was that emotion that guided America's actions through what was now so obviously a blunder?

Iconography is a real thing. Fostering nationalism (the personal view of associating oneself with one's country) is a real problem that nations and states deal with in garnering support for political purposes. What is the definition of iconography? Simply stated, it is the promotion of nationalistic images.

The following activities are prefabricated nationalistic icons that are openly used to garner national support:

• Resurrecting or fabricating a glorious pre-colonial history (used during the mid-1900's as the world came out of the age of colonialism and entered neo-colonialism).
• Initiating a new educational system in which new national values are stressed.
• Building the nation's military into a highly visible national symbol, and promoting the branches of the military as the most honored positions of any citizenry.
  
• Instituting a national information service to carry the government's message through every possible medium to the people of the country and abroad (most often accomplished through political parties -- especially used in two-party systems).
• Developing national sectional organizations.

The most recognized forms of iconoclast are:

• Flags
• National anthems
• Heroic slogans
• The replacement of foreign names with domestic names
• Media (Any venue that will carry a nationalistic message)

Patriotism is necessary for a state to progress and continue moving forward. However, we should question whether all types of patriotism are equal. We puff out our chests with the iconoclasm "Proud to be an American," but do Latter-day Saints question whether the Nephites used the same type of slogan? We are told, after all, that it was pride that proved the Nephite downfall. Of course, there are two uses of the word pride, right? One denotes a wholesome view of self-worth, and the other denotes a selfish and centric individual who is haughty and lacking humility, right? This almost seems convincing, until we read the words of the prophets.

President Benson said this of pride:

Pride is a very misunderstood sin, and many are sinning in ignorance. (See Mosiah 3:11; 3 Ne. 6:18.) In the scriptures there is no such thing as righteous pride—it is always considered a sin. Therefore, no matter how the world uses the term, we must understand how God uses the term so we can understand the language of holy writ and profit thereby (See 2 Ne. 4:15; Mosiah 1:3–7; Alma 5:61).

Most of us think of pride as self-centeredness, conceit, boastfulness, arrogance, or haughtiness. All of these are elements of the sin, but the heart, or core, is still missing.

The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means "hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition." It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us.

Pride is essentially competitive in nature. We pit our will against God's. When we direct our pride toward God, it is in the spirit of "my will and not thine be done." As Paul said, they "seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."

Our will in competition to God's will allows desires, appetites, and passions to go unbridled. (President Ezra Taft Benson)

What is that spirit within us that creates "enmity" between us and God? Once we have it, how do we identify it? Can we be guilty of the same type of pride as the Nephites in putting so much weight in icons and symbols of nationalistic pride? Did the Nephites chant, "And I'm proud to be a Nephite, where at least I know I'm free -- and I won't forget, the men who died, who gave that right to me"? Was this their battle call when Moroni reported, "And now, because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength..."? (Mormon 3:9) How many times does the Lord tell us that he is the one that makes us free? (D&C 98:8) When we boast of our own strength, saying that we have – as men – made ourselves free, will the Lord long preserve us who grasp at such a nationalistic pride? In the Book of Mormon, this boasting of strength is usually accomplished through military power -- a national and iconic symbol

Our flag is arguably the ultimate symbol of our country, but what does it stand for? Surely, it will stand for different things for different people. We might ask ourselves, however, whether wicked men have used national icons for wicked purposes to garner our support for their propaganda? We championed and heralded our heading off to war -- we thought the only way to meet the act of violence was with more violence. We didn't question anything, because the media told us exactly what to believe and think. We didn't bother asking if what we were doing was in line with true and correct principles (which preemptive wars are not (D&C 98:22-37; 3 Nephi 3:18-21; Mormon 4:4))?

And so it often seems to be with people, having such a firm grasp on things of the world—that which is telestial—that no amount of urging and no degree of emergency can persuade them to let go in favor of that which is celestial. Satan gets them in his grip easily. If we insist on spending all our time and resources building up for ourselves a worldly kingdom, that is exactly what we will inherit.

In spite of our delight in regarding ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we align ourselves against the enemy instead of aligning ourselves with the kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you;

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44–45).We forget that if we are righteous, the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7) —or he will fight our battles for us (D&C 98:37)to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matt. 26:53.)

We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha's life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, "Fear not; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them" (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, "And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha" (2 Kgs. 6:17). (President Spencer W. Kimball)

Exactly who do we place our trust in?

National symbols and icons are appropriate, so long as they represent a righteous cause (e.g. Capt. Moroni's Title of Liberty); otherwise, we become as the people of Mormon who rely on our own strength and deny the power of the Lord. Iconography is a powerful tool, and it will be used on the American people again (Obama himself has already established himself as an icon). Internationally, our flag stands for imperialism and neocolonialism. Personally, I don't want to be associated to that symbol. I love my country and am willing to sacrifice everything I have for it, but I have to question how my flag and my country is associated to those ideas.

"Know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war, and delight no more in the shedding of blood, and take them not again, save it be that God shall command you. Know ye that ye must come to the knowledge of your fathers, and repent of all your sins and iniquities, and believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God... This is written for the intent that ye may believe... and if ye believe this ye will know concerning your fathers, and also the marvelous works which were wrought by the power of God among them" (Mormon 7:4-5, 9).

How jealous are we of our liberty and freedom? How quick are we to see the counterfeit from the substantive? Let us be sensitive to the Spirit of God that will always tell us that it is the Lord that has sacrificed all and that HE ALONE makes us free.

Truly, our "fathers" were righteous men. They were men who the Lord had raised up for the very purpose that they fulfilled (D&C 101:80). We are not fighting the same cause they fought for! We have not remembered our fathers and their beliefs, their testimonies, their experiences, their persecutions and struggles, their hopes and dreams, their philosophies, or even the remembrance that they constantly called upon the name of God for their support!

"And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, you that belong to this church, have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? Yea, and have you sufficiently retained in remembrance his mercy and long suffering towards them? And moreover, have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell?

"Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God. Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word; yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them.

"And not I ask of you, my brethren, were they destroyed? Behold, I say unto you, Nay, they were not.

"And again I ask, were the bands of death broken, and the chains of hell which encircled them about, were they loosed? I say unto you, yea, they were loosed, and their souls did expand, and they did sing redeeming love. And I say unto you that they were saved" (Alma 5:6-9).

Glenn Beck is NOT a Libertarian (He's a Neocon)

I haven't smiled this much in a very long time. It was about time someone called Beck out on a youtube video.

Bravo!

The political Messiah is falling. What will save him?

With Obama's approval ratings dropping, should the American people start questioning which catastrophic event will help bolster the citizen's support? 9/11 sure helped Dubya (up to 90% approval in Oct of 2001), what will save this presidential Savior?

Obamacare is Dead: Romney is Our New Savior?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/romney.health.care/index.html

Forgive me for this surge of unprofessional emotionalism to say bluntly: This absolutely disgusts me in ways I find unfathomable and humanly impossible.


For the last several years I have touched occasionally on the subject of Romneycare and its evolution from a Massachusetts' law to national implementation. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was the brainchild behind one of the most liberty and freedom destroying pieces of legislation ever enacted: Mandatory Health Insurance. As this CNN article states, Romney's plan mandates that "people in the state are required to buy private insurance, and the poor get subsidies". Seriously? This is the conservative answer to socialism? Coercion and more justified socialism? The "socialist" system already subsidized the poor -- all Romney's plan effectively does is mandate and coerce those who can afford insurance to get it. Simply adding a little fascism to the mix does not kill socialism. His justification behind this: We do not consider it bad to mandate auto insurance, why should we feel unjustified in legally requiring everyone to have health insurance? Mr. Romney, I am not a car! I can choose not to drive, and therefore I can choose not to have auto insurance. I cannot, however, choose not to live! How is this possible in the land of the free? How is it that the state can make my very existence and life illegal unless I come into compliance with the laws of man (D&C 98:7)? How is this freedom? How is this liberty? This is disgusting!

It didn't take much to forecast the following before it happened...

So, here came the Holy Messiah "Obama". He came with a message of a "one-payer" health system that would start as a "public-option". In other words, the government would create its own health-care branch for people to buy as they would their own corporate and private insurance company -- or so he said. For the last two months, the media has blitzed the message of "socialism" and "fascism" everywhere! The media has reported on irate town-hall meetings where masses of Americans turned out to demonstrate and exercise their "American-ness" upon their elected Representatives. Finally, it appears all of this exercising has been worthwhile: Obamacare is quite nearly finished. Talks of completely dropping the public-option and starting over have already begun, as the White House gives a half-rate performance to fight for a seemingly lost cause.

Enter Mitt Romney.

With the "Holy One" now dropping in favor points among his sheeple, it wasn't hard to know that Romney was a step around the corner. Romney is already the media's GOP angel and one of the most -- if not the most -- quoted "conservative" leaders in writing op-ed pieces meant for the President. I'm sure the president is grateful and could not have gotten on without Mitt's counsel; however, considering the Massachusetts' law has not yet proven itself successful, but is actually showing severe signs of decay, I do a see a little hypocrisy in the pot calling the kettle black here (no pun intended). Proven conservative organizations, such as the Cato Institute, have written concerning the folly of Romneycare for its obvious tax on the Middle-class.

Romneycare was a national plan from the beginning. The fact that the GOP was crystal clear that Romneycare in Massachusetts was meant as the national "conservative answer" to the liberal-socialist mess makes me ill. The fact that the GOP used Massachusetts' citizens as its guinea pig makes me sick. That being said, the national-level implementation will not completely replicate the Massachusetts' plan -- it is actually more intrusive. As Romney's team stated during his run for president: "'He would have greater powers in the White House' than he did as Govenor".

The promotion for Romneycare went something like this: Since socialism forces everyone to take care of one person, then it is more just to force the individual to provide for himself. Americans typically hate socialism because it represents lost freedom and coercion. Ironically, the conservative movement today believes that coercion and lost freedom is better than socialism.

If I remember correctly, America was founded by men who suffered if they refused to work, and communities that would rally around them willingly if they were physically incapable of doing so. Those who founded our country -- early settlers and American founders -- didn't have the luxury of unemployment, social security, medicare, medicaid, or the other thousand socialist programs instituted by our government that are now considered "rights". They worked, or they went without. In a natural state of existence -- that is, in a state of liberty and freedom -- what coercion does a man need to govern himself and retain his own accountability? It is wholly unnecessary! Man, if left alone, is naturally required to take responsibility for himself. It does not take the tyrannical arm of government to force him -- this is merely despotic usurpation under a democratic oligarchy.

The sudden shift in political tides was planned from the beginning. For Obamacare to phase out so perfectly and quickly as Romney enters so smoothly with his plan that fits into every little crack and nuance of Obama's purported plan is beyond coincidence. For as bad as Obamacare is to this nation -- and make no mistake that it would be excessively destructive -- Romneycare is just as heinous to American freedom, liberty, and prosperity.

I, as Jefferson, tremble for my country when I reflect on the justice of God, and that his justice cannot sleep forever. To coerce and destroy liberty on God's promised land will have very quick and harsh consequences (2 Ne 1:9-11). Even worse, the eternal consequences of supporting such liberty and freedom destroying ideologies, we have already been told, will have many seeking for mercy in a day when mercy has passed them by; indeed, the day of mercy will pass by many (Mormon 2:15).

Man is to live according to the principles of freedom, accountability, responsibility, and self-government; however, it is an ignorant man that lives in fear of these principles by believing they only exist in the vacuum of force and coercion.

May we all stand up for principle against what the world will argue is "practical".

May we all care only what the Lord thinks, and turn over to him our own selfish understandings in humility and supplication.

May we all be wise to fight freedom and liberty destroying legislation, and that we can all determine and distinguish the face of a Saint from an enemy to the Children of God.

Surely, as his own actions have proven, Romney is no friend to liberty.

Freedom of Speech: Not So "Unalienable" After All...

When you have to ask the government permission to act in your "unalienable right", there is something wrong.

Ensign July 2009: A Quiet Sifting

My wife is a remarkable woman. She wrote this this morning, and I'm posting it here for you all. I fully support the principles she expresses herein.

*********************

Amidst many words of counsel in the July 2009 issue of the Ensign, came the message, in an insert called Surviving Unemployment, that members should "File for unemployment and other available government benefits". How can the church produce and distribute something so blatantly contrary to gospel principle and so offensive to the plan of agency, when the prophets have spoken specifically against this reliance on the arm of flesh? There is more to be said in that one phrase of the Ensign about the state of affairs in these latter-days than we realize. Let me explain.

Exodus 32:
1 And when the people saw that Moses ^adelayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us ^bgods, which shall ^cgo before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we ^dwot not what is become of him.

2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the ^agolden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.

4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a ^amolten calf: and they said, ^bThese be thy ^cgods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the Lord.

6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought ^apeace offerings; and the ^bpeople sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

7 ¶ And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have ^acorrupted themselves:

8 They have ^aturned aside ^bquickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a ^cmolten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a ^astiffnecked people:

10 Now therefore let me alone, that my ^awrath may wax hot against them, and that I may ^bconsume them: and I will make of thee a great ^cnation.

11 And Moses ^abesought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

12 Wherefore should the ^aEgyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, ^band ^crepent of this evil against thy people.

13 Remember ^aAbraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou ^bswarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will ^cmultiply your ^dseed as the stars of heaven, and all this ^eland that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

14 And the Lord said unto Moses, If they will repent of the evil which they have done, I will spare them, and turn away my fierce wrath; but, behold, thou shalt execute judgment upon all that will not repent of this evil this day. Therefore, see thou do this thing that I have commanded thee, or I will execute all that which I had thought to do unto my people.(JST)

15 ¶ And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two ^atables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

16 And the ^atables were the work of God, and the ^bwriting was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

17 And when ^aJoshua heard the noise of the people as they ^bshouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that ^ashout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

19 ¶ And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he ^asaw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ ^banger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and ^cbrake them beneath the mount.

20 And he took the ^acalf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and ^bstrawed it upon the ^cwater, and made the children of Israel drink of it.

21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?

22 And Aaron said, Let not the ^aanger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are ^bset on ^cmischief.

23 For they said unto me, ^aMake us ^bgods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

24 And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.

25 ¶ And when Moses saw that the people were ^anaked; (for Aaron had made them ^bnaked unto their shame among their enemies:)

26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and ^aslay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

29 For Moses had said, ^aConsecrate yourselves to day to the Lord, even every man upon his ^bson, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a ^cblessing this day.

30 ¶ And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have ^asinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord; ^bperadventure I shall make an ^catonement for your sin.

31 And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them ^agods of gold.

32 Yet now, if thou wilt ^aforgive their sin—; and if not, ^bblot me, I pray thee, out of thy ^cbook which thou hast ^dwritten.

33 And the Lord said unto Moses, ^aWhosoever hath ^bsinned against me, him will I ^cblot out of my ^dbook.

34 Therefore now go, ^alead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine ^bAngel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them.

35 And the Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

We must start with a few things that we know. We know that Moses is a type of Christ. We know the tablets he brought down are the higher law or gospel of Christ. We know that Aaron was the High Priest and chief officiator in the Aaronic priesthood, which pertains to all things temporal. We know that Aaron was the spokesperson for Moses. Joshua is an Israelite military leader, close to Moses, and the one who took over at Moses passing to lead the Children of Israel through battle into their promised land. Egypt represents slavery, and the world's denial of agency. The idol, particularly a golden calf, is a direct representation of a god of salvation and protection.

Now, let me recap the story in Exodus. Moses goes to talk to the Lord, where he receives the highest gospel law. The people went to Aaron and asked that they would make them gods because they did not know what had happened to Moses, the man who had delivered them from the Egyptians, why he had not yet returned. Aaron acquiesced and built an idol for the people to worship in Moses' absence. The people worshiped this idol, ate, drank, and were merry. The Lord told Moses to go down and see the people corrupting themselves with this false god. The Lord says he will destroy the people for their wickedness. Moses asks the Lord to stay His hand, that the Egyptians might not suspect folly and that the Lord may fulfill His promises regarding their posterity. The Lord tells Moses to go down execute judgment upon all those who will not repent. Joshua informs Moses as he returns that the people are becoming riotous, seeking for war. Moses, upon seeing the people's corruption, denies them the higher law by breaking the tablets. Moses destroys the idol. Moses asks Aaron what could have happened that Aaron would help them sin in this way. Aaron tells him that the people asked for the idol. Moses stood in front of the people and asked all those who are on the Lord's side to come unto him. Those who chose to stand with the Lord were told to slay some of the most wicked, of which their were 3000. Moses tells the people to dedicate themselves to the Lord and His law, from which blessings will follow. Moses goes to atone for the sins of the people. The Lord tells him that He will blot out the names of those who have sinned. The Lord commands Moses to continue in their journey, and He plagued the people because of the idol Aaron had made at their desire.

Here are a few more things we know. The Ensign is in many capacities the spokespiece for the church. In its role as describing techniques to overcome physical hardships, as in losing one's job, it is describing actions that fall within the scope of the Aaronic priesthood. In light of this, and the other things I've mentioned that we know, let me point out a few things from my recap.

The people do not understand where Christ is. They do not understand why He has not come back, or do not care what His is doing. They no longer want His higher law. Their hearts are far from His law and the blessings associated. Because they feel His absence, the absence of the One who has saved them, they ask the "church" to provide for them temporally, something that will make them feel more secure about their current position. The church not only allows such idolatry, but gives them a specific idol that represents Christ in His ability to save and protect, because the people asked. The church was not acting outside of its office, it was merely doing what the people wanted, which it has always done throughout our scriptures. Christ calls those who are on His side away from those who are not. The people are plagued because of their desires for this false god to provide for them and protect them. They have forgotten the Lord, their God. They have turned from Him to rely on the arm of flesh. The church, through the Ensign, has given them what they want. Those who are on the Lord's side know who they are, they know what to follow because they follow the Lord, and He has taught them better. This unconstitutional form of government which we now have, the great destroyer of true freedom, has been allowed, even sought for, by those who have even proclaimed to take upon them the name of the Lord. This is a false god they worship. A fleshy arm to which they look to heal, protect, and provide.

That one seemingly benign phrase in the July 2009 Ensign is a great sifter. It has separated those who lean upon the arm of flesh from those who trust the Lord. It has separated those who trade their agency for temporal security from those who follow and live the higher ancient law of liberty. It has separated those asleep from those awake. It has separated those who deny through their actions the divinity of the Constitution from those who live by its just and holy principles. It has been prophesied that there will come a time when those who are awakened to a sense of their awful situation will arise and live by the truth they have not only received, but have accepted. They will do so in spite of worldly ways and false security. These, and only these, will be free. Moses did not go down and explain the truth to the people and THEN ask who would be found on the Lord's side. He simply asked and took those who were awakened and ready to go. There is a time for learning, a time for repentance, and a time for judgment. There is a time to respond to prophetic command, and a time to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. We have stoned the prophets. We have worshiped false gods. We have been caught in our pride and faithlessness. We have been quietly sifted. Let those with an ear to hear understand. Who is on the Lord's side?