THE CONSTITUTION AND BEYOND or HOW AM I GOING TO VOTE?
Karlyn Hiatt Lewis
31 October 2010

The Constitution IN TODAY’S POLITICAL DEBATES, we hear a lot of banging on the ‘Constitutional Drum.’ “That’s unconstitutional!” or “We need to return to the origins of the Constitution!” Of course, implicit in these statements is the claim that “they” know what the Founding Fathers really intended whereas everyone else is just interpreting it willy-nilly or worse, progressively. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers aren’t here to take sides. Even if they were, they had a pretty hard time agreeing amongst themselves back in their day, so it’s unclear if they would help or hinder. Beyond this there’s the definition of “Founding Fathers.” Are we talking about those who signed the document, those who helped write it, those who influenced its tenets, those who fought for the independence that made it possible, or all of the above? Regardless of who’s a Founding Father or what one’s stance is on the Constitution, it really boils down to a political interpretation. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that our Founding Fathers were inspired by God to create a framework for our nation that would establish a state conducive to the restoration of the gospel. We join George Washington in declaring the process of writing and ratification of the United States Constitution to be a miracle. The LDS Church’s First Presidency has counseled its members to study the Constitution. “[We] should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. [We] should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.”1 We should also understand the purpose of a constitution. President J. Reuben Clark declared, “The Constitution was framed in order to protect minorities. That is the purpose of written constitutions.”2 What we do not believe is that the US Constitution is perfect. Elder Dallin H. Oaks:      Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same      standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. ... President      J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,” also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the      Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the      changing needs of an advancing world.” That was also the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He faulted the Constitution for not being      “broad enough to cover the whole ground.”3 The idea that “We believe [the Constitution] must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world,” is anathema to many ‘Constitutional Drummers’ who call for a rollback of the Constitution to the end of the 18th century. So what do we need to know in order to continue “form[ing] a more perfect union?” The Founding Fathers were inspired, the Constitution is great. But we also need to consult a better source as we consider who and what deserves our vote: the scriptures. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we have a wealth of information and guidance contained in our scriptures about what makes good and bad leaders or societies.

Leaders PRESIDENT EZRA TAFT BENSON once stated:      The Prophet Joseph Smith declared that “the Book of Mormon [is] the most correct book of any book on earth, and the keystone of our      religion.” He said that “a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461.)      The Book of Mormon was written for our day. Mormon, who compiled it, saw us in vision and was directed to put into the book those      things God felt we would especially need in our time. We therefore should know the Book of Mormon better than any other book. Not only      should we know what history and faith-promoting stories it contains, but we should understand its teachings. If we really do our homework      and approach the Book of Mormon doctrinally, we can expose the errors and find the truths to combat many of the current false theories      and philosophies of men.4 The Book of Mormon presents us with two prominent leaders who were pretty much polar opposites: King Noah and King Benjamin. King Noah “placed his heart upon his riches.” His only goal was to accumulate riches for himself and his cronies. These were not noblesse oblige aristocrats; they were lazy and idolatrous, they spent their time “in riotous living,” and used lying, flattering words to deceive the people. To pay the taxes that funded his extremely lavish lifestyle, King Noah’s people had to “labor exceedingly.” (see Mosiah 11) King Benjamin on the other hand, “labored with [his] own hands that [he] might serve [his people], and that [they] should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon [his people] which was grievous to be borne ...” He did not seek “gold nor silver nor any manner of riches” from his subjects. (Mosiah 2:12, 14) In fact, he saw himself as a servant to his people, and emphasized their commonality by asking, “are we not all beggars?” (Mosiah 4:19) He further taught them that in order to “walk guiltless before God” they “should impart of [their] substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.” (Mosiah 4:26) For King Noah, it was all about money--money for him regardless of its effect on others. King Benjamin viewed himself as no different and no better than his people. He saw the welfare of others as the most important concern they should have.

Society OBVIOUSLY, THE PERFECT SOCIETY is Zion. When Zion is mentioned in the scriptures, it doesn't say anything about individual liberty, free market economy, or limited federal government. Instead we read, "there were no poor among them," (4 Ne. 1: 3, Moses 7: 18) and "they had all things common." (Acts 2: 44, Acts 4: 32, 3 Ne. 26: 19, 4 Ne. 1: 3) In addition, the Doctrine & Covenants continually cautions against inequality within a society. Some examples are:      "... it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." (D&C 49:20)      (in discussing proportions of money and properties) "And let every man deal honestly, and be alike among this people, and receive alike,       that ye may be one, even as I have commanded you." (D&C 51: 9)      "... in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall       be withheld." (D&C 70:14)      "For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;" (D&C 78:6)      "... you are to be equal ... every man according to his wants and his needs ..." (D&C 82:17) I fear that many in today’s drum corps would read these scriptures and shout a chorus of “socialism!” (Or maybe “fascism,” since the two seem to be conflated in this particular opus.) Yet if we esteem our scriptures more highly than our Constitution or popular political discourse, it’s pretty hard to ignore the societal pattern that they advance.

IF WE TAKE THESE PASSAGES at face value as the road to eliminating societal inequality, what are the first steps? Let’s begin with how much should the poor receive? Minimum wage, poverty wage, a living wage? No, say the scriptures, they should receive "according to their wants." Now, I have heard discussions as to whether “wants” in this context means the poor’s desires or their needs. Personally, I think that the question itself implies a certain selfishness. What does it really matter as long as I have enough “food and raiment?” If I’m content with that (see 1 Tim. 6: 8), there is no need to be caught up in a semantics game that’s actually focused on what-are-you-going-to-do-with-MY-money?? Two scriptures that refer to these “wants” are:      (the bishop should search) "... after the poor to administer to their wants ..." (D&C 84:112)      "... that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants." (D&C 42:33, italics added) Then how do we go about acquiring the funds to lift the poor?      “... by humbling the rich and proud." (D&C 84:112)      "... the poor shall be exalted in that the rich are made low." (D&C 104:16)

THIS IS REDISTRIBUTION of wealth, and I don’t see any “free-will” constraints to the concept as outlined in the Doctrine & Covenants. In fact, the verb choice in “humbling the rich and proud,” not only gives the sense of being contrary to the will of those people but also kind of a kick in their self-esteem. The entire verse from D&C 84:112 reads:       And the bishop, Newel K. Whitney, also should travel round about and among all the churches, searching after the poor to administer to       their wants by humbling the rich and the proud. The Book of Mormon contains a great passage outlining the difference between being “compelled to be humble” and truly humbling oneself (see Alma 32:12-16). Bishop Whitney was charged with the task of compelling the rich and proud to be humble (give until it hurts?) so that he could give to the poor and “amply” satisfy their wants. I don’t know whether he traveled around requesting or demanding or a little of both, but I think it’s clear that he had the imprimatur to demand if needed. Richard E. Johnson, formerly a professor of Sociology at Brigham Young University, makes the case that socioeconomic strife may well be the “unprecedented evil” that plagues the last days rather than what we consider the “traditional sins” of crime, violence, sexual immorality, drug abuse, and violence. He states:       It seems to me that the most powerful and consistent scriptural warning given to those who live in the “last days” (as found particularly in       the Book of Mormon) center around a single set of interwoven evils—the evils of materialism, consumerism, worldly vanity, and       socioeconomic inequality. These traits and conditions are unequivocally condemned throughout the Book of Mormon. Moreover, they are       generally described as the root from which the more commonly viewed “sins” take nourishment and as the ultimate cause of both       personal and social destruction. In short, the prevalence of selfish striving for the “lifestyles of the rich and famous” (by both those who       succeed and those who fail), and the consequent inequality that results, appear to be the most appropriate as criteria for assessing a       society’s moral climate.5 This is certainly supported by what students of the Book of Mormon know as the “Pride Cycle”-- the societal course from righteousness & prosperity to pride & wickedness to destruction & suffering to humility & repentance then back around to the beginning. We get so outraged over the problems we feel surround us today--sexual immorality, crime, governmental malfeasance, a decaying educational system, illegal immigration and so on. But nobody’s talking about poverty. We no longer seem to feel shame that each day, as a nation, we allow 1 in 7 of our citizens--many of them children--to live in poverty.6 Our government defines poverty as “lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.”7 And each night we sleep soundly. We do exactly that which King Benjamin cautioned us not to do: we shake our heads, assume that these people have brought their predicament upon themselves, and stay our hands. (see Mosiah 4:17) We also have allowed our government to stay our collective hands through policies that exalt commerce while undermining the economic stability--and therefore the general stability--of families.

MY FAMILY DOES what we can to help out others. But I also want my tax dollars to be used to help others. In fact, the welfare of others is the highest priority “moral value” that I consider in determining my vote. When I vote, I want candidates (and laws) that will support families and work towards eliminating poverty. Policies that support families and the poor include, but are not limited to:      wage structures that assure that those who work full-time will not live in poverty      tax law structure that places the greatest burden on those who have the most and closes tax loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid       paying their fair share      consumer protections that include not only product safety but re-regulation of credit (mortgages, credit cards, payday loans, etc that are       designed to entrap)      affordable, universal healthcare that will prevent illness from ruining families financially      education reform that values and recruits the best and brightest teachers      governmental spending on items that have demonstrated ability to promote economic growth (e.g., infrastructure projects, unemployment       benefits, food stamps) instead of those which do not (e.g., corporate tax cuts, tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating capital gains taxes)      changes in aid to the poor that would 1) allow workers to transition back into jobs without losing their benefits until their employment       supplies a commensurate amount and 2) allow mothers with pre-school children to stay at home if they desire

CONSERVATIVES DECRY such objectives as “liberal”--evidently a horrible epithet these days. But when I read the scriptures I keep being pointed back towards liberal attitudes and ideas. God, who gives to “all men liberally,” (James 1:5); Christ’s ministry to the poor and the needy, the sick and afflicted, and eventually giving his life in atonement for others. I’m taught that I should beware of pride and its socioeconomic consequences, that I should be content with “food and raiment,” serve others, succor those who stand in need of succor, impart of my substance to the poor. No where do I find in the scriptures any passage that says promoting the welfare of others can only be accomplished as individuals or as religious groups and should never be attempted by a government. No where do I find in the scriptures the idea that having all things--or even some things--common is socialism and therefore bad. No where in the scriptures do I read that a “free market” is God’s true economy. We also hear Conservatives bemoan that, “We are no longer a Christian nation,” as they call for a return to the “Judeo-Christian ethic” upon which this nation was founded. My response is:      1) “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same       privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”8 This means that we should respect other faiths and their adherents--even if       they happen to be Muslim.      2) Those of us who are Christian would do well to remember that there are no greater commandments than these: to love God and to love       our neighbors as ourselves. (Mark 12:30-31) For me this means that my top political concern should be the welfare of my neighbors.

ON THE UBIQUITOUS Facebook website, each individual can choose to list their “political views.” For mine I have used Alma 1:30:       And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or       that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old       and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to       those who stood in need. Most of us truly are in “prosperous circumstances” and ought to be “liberal to all.” The beauty of our Constitution is that it can “grow and develop” and allow us to form a more perfect union where we choose leaders whose priority is the welfare of the people, and who will work with us towards a goal of having “no poor among us.”

NOTES 1. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, February 1992, p68. 2. J. Reuben Clark: Selected Papers on Religion, Education, and Youth, ed. David H. Yarn, Jr., Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University       Press, 1984, p. 165. 3. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, February 1992, p68. 4. President Ezra Taft Benson, “First Presidency Message: Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations,” Ensign, December 1988, p2. 5. Richard E. Johnson, “Socioeconomic Inequality: the Haves and the Have-nots,” BYU Today, September 1990 6. Erik Eckholm, “Recession Raises Poverty Rate to a 15-Year High,” The New York Times online, September 16, 2010,       http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17poverty.html?_r=2 7. Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on       poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are       considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter       and clothing needed to preserve health. 8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Articles of Faith,” History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535—541.

BACK TO LIBRARY

HOMEGRAPHICSLIBRARYWEB DESIGNPHOTO EDITING