This is an update to my October, 2012 post, Obama or Romney - A Mormon's Doctrinal Choice. It is updated to reflect the current campaign for the U.S. presidency in 2016. I have retained President Obama to represent the Progressive Democrat agenda that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders will pursue if they are elected. I replace Governor Romney with the phrase “Constitutional Republican” in the expectation that the Republican nominee will be pro-Constitution.
The October 2012, Semi-annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon or LDS Church) concluded without the Church endorsing Mormon Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States. Neither Mormon Prophet Thomas S. Monson nor any other Church leader encouraged Mormons to vote for Romney in any way. For those not familiar with the Church this was in keeping with the Church's doctrine on individual liberty and choice and is applicable to the upcoming 2016 Presidential Election.
The face of Mormonism in politics today is probably best reflected in two characters - Senator Harry Reid and former Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. This also reflects a division within Mormonism on politics - Reid, liberal Democrat; Romney, conservative Republican. For the purposes of the 2016 presidential race, a Mormon's liberal Democrat choice can be represented by President Obama whom Senator Reid supports. The Church does not tell its members how to vote, and there is a strong doctrinal case to be made for that principle; however, in my view, the same doctrine supports an individual member voting against President Obama or a progressive Democrat successor.
The first 2012 Presidential debate, 3 Oct 2012, highlighted this doctrinal point. Mormons seriously considered voting for Governor Romney, not because he was a Mormon, but because he held up "God's" Constitution and President Obama did not. Mormons doctrinally accept that the US Constitution was established by God to protect His children's individual liberty. The Governor specifically referred to these documents and their principles of protecting life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and a limited Federal government. President Obama made no reference to the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution when asked about the role of government. Even following Governor Romney's direct reference to these documents and the role of government in upholding their principles, President Obama made no statement of agreement.
President Obama's views on the US Constitution may not be well known, but his expressed views are available for evaluation. He has described the Constitution as "fundamentally flawed from its founding", and advocates for income redistribution through extra-Constitutional legislative and administrative means. From a Mormon doctrine perspective, his views concerning the Constitution are not the same as God's stated view. As a faithful Mormon I believed I could not stand with God while also standing for Mr. Obama as President, or any Progressive Democrat. Let me explain.
As a Mormon immigrant to the US and as a US military officer with 35 years of active duty service, I have felt it a great privilege to serve under an oath to defend the US Constitution and I wish to do so here. I will lay out the Mormon case for individual liberty and the Constitution, and then against the President who took the constitutionally-required oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and ... to the best of (his) ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
THE "MORMON" CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE US CONSTITUTION
As a young New Zealand citizen and Mormon, I read revelations of God to the Prophet Joseph Smith (detailed below) in which God said "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land (the USA), by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose .... 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. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."
Why would God lay claim that He "established the Constitution"? Mormons know that God's greatest heritage to His children is individual liberty or "agency." That heritage was established in Heaven, before His children came to Earth. God rejected a plan from Lucifer (Satan) who "sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him" and "there was war in heaven" to preserve that sacred liberty. God knew His children would make mistakes with their liberty while on Earth but "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (Jesus Christ), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). The Savior was required because God preserved the liberty to His children. Furthermore Mormons believe that God "established the (US) Constitution" to reinstate individual liberty in the world in preparation for the Millennial return of His Son.
MY "MORMON" CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA
2016: Obama's America, a documentary movie I highly recommend, is very sympathetic to President Obama. After viewing the movie I could see how he has a genuine interest in the role of government in correcting inequality in society. Many Mormons also seek to see the poor rise and support government redistribution of wealth to achieve this goal. Equal opportunity is empowered by individual liberty as protected by the US Constitution; but equal outcomes are not guaranteed. Doctrinally, care for the poor is accomplished through voluntary contribution by individuals, not through government or even church involuntary taxation or redistribution of wealth. Mormon doctrine teaches that "every needy, naked soul ... their needs and wants" are to be taken care of by "people (who) ... should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God." Nowhere in scripture is forced care of the poor taught. Equal outcomes through forced redistribution can only be achieved through losses of individual liberty. God allows each of His children to achieve their potential through their own actions and the grace of Christ - the "righteous judge" of their "works."
In a 2001 radio interview, Illinois State Senator Obama made his views clear on the "flawed" Constitution and its obstruction to wealth redistribution (follow these links to various segments of the interview - the full interview is no longer available at WBEX.FM). He describes the Constitution as an "imperfect document ... reflect(ing) the fundamental flaw of this country that continues today." From a Mormon's perspective he did not recognize the divine perfection and establishment of that original Constitution. Slavery could not stand against it, neither unequal rights for women. The foundational principles and processes for change and review established by the Constitution, have corrected error in US society and enthroned individual liberty - as God intended.
Paul Roderick Gregory in his Forbes article, Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution, does an excellent job of summarizing Senator Obama's views expressed in that 2001 interview:
QUOTE (with Senator Obama's statements in quotations):
First: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”
Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments. Obama views the absence of positive economic liberties that the government must supply as a flaw in the Constitution that must be corrected as part of a liberal political agenda.
Third, Obama concludes that we cannot use the courts to break free of the limited-government constraints of the Founders. The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”
Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”
In sum, Obama views the Constitution as a flawed document from which we must “break free.” We need, instead, a “living” Constitution that refocuses from “negative rights” to requiring income redistribution from the Haves to provide “positive economic rights” to the Have Nots.
END QUOTE
Heather Higgins also does a good job of describing Senator Obama's interview in her US News and World Report article, Barack Obama's Poor Understanding of the Constitution, The Founding Fathers were correct in the way they set up the Constitution.
Then Senator Obama's arguments for wealth redistribution were a fundamental infringement on individual liberty. He is correct that the Constitution does not support redistribution of wealth - therefore he seeks extra-constitutional means to enact his plans. The Obamacare redistribution of health care through the government is an example of this approach. In order to achieve equal outcomes it restricts religious freedom. Multiple Catholic lawsuits against the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) are "to protect the conscience rights of health care providers and institutions that do not want to participate in abortion or assisted suicide ...." The Mormon church is clearly in support of Catholics and these concerns as shown in their official website statements on religious freedom.
To a Mormon, arguments of equal outcomes is similar to the argument of Lucifer in Heaven. His equal outcome to "redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost" could only be accomplished by "destroy(ing) the agency (liberty) of man, which ... the Lord God, had given him ...." Likewise, President Obama acts to change the Constitution which God "suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins (actions) in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another" - not the slave in bondage to the rich as in days past, or the rich in taxing bondage to the poor as our President intends.
To put it in Paul Roderic Gregory's words:
QUOTE:
The Obama administration has given us a taste of an overbearing majority’s “schemes of oppression” (to use Madison’s words) not decided “according to rules of justice and the rights of the minor party:” the blackmailing of Chrysler bondholders, the transfer of property from creditors and shareholders to organized labor in the GM bailout, the attempted destruction of whole industries, such as coal, through regulation rather than legislation, transfers of income from lenders to borrowers under forced loan renegotiations, and the use of unelected and unapproved economic czars to redistribute income and wealth by executive fiat.
END QUOTE
Add to these the redistribution of Obamacare, the individual mandate of which could only pass Supreme Court scrutiny under the governments power to "tax;" the failure to have the Justice Department defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Court; and the failure to uphold immigration laws.
As Americans we have a great blessing and responsibility to exercise our vote. "I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil."
I see President Obama's actions and the Progressive Democrat agenda with respect to the Constitution as "evil" in that they do not support God's Constitution of individual liberty. I balance that statement with the observation that by Mormon doctrine we also know that President Obama is one of the valiant sons of God that upheld the principle of maintaining individual liberty in Heaven - had he not, he would not be upon the Earth with a physical body, with the opportunity to exercise his liberty and learn for himself that "wickedness never was happiness."
May God bless the President of the United States, and may we uphold the Constitution of individual liberty that the current President opposes buy electing a Constitutional Republican in 2016.
The following quotes on the US Constitution are accepted by Mormons as scripture from God:
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.
The Equal Outcome Argument and Preservation of Liberty in Heaven:
1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Care for the Poor:
27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.
28 And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.
29 And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God; and they did walk uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants.
14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
As always, I enjoy reading and commenting, however if you find my dissenting opinions obnoxious then I will discontinue.
ReplyDeleteI will first agree that we should definitely elect a President who will uphold his or her oath to uphold the Constitution. As a Mormon, I also believe that the Constitution was inspired. Furthermore, I believe in continuing revelation and inspiration to address present day problems for all parts of life, including concerning the role of government and the constitution. I don't see the words 'constitutional' and 'unconstitutional' and synonymous with 'good' and 'evil' - there could easily be a constitutional evil, and an unconstitutional good. And of course new amendments and interpretations of the constitution happen throughout our history - some which are good, and others not so good - but that doesn't mean that the Constitution was not originally inspired.
Consider this example from the Book of Mormon. King Benjamin and Mosiah established many inspired and effective laws in their time, including the abolishing of kings.
Throughout the following decades, the Chief Judges Alma (Alma 1), Nephihah (Alma 4), Helaman (Helaman 3), and Lachoneus (3 Nephi 6), each faced unique economic challenges, and formed new laws "according to equity and justice". These new laws further established the original vision of Mosiah, and did not take away from the inspiration, but added to it.
To continue using the Book of Mormon allegory, I think there are a lot of lessons we can learn from the scripture in modelling laws after "equity and justice" today.
First of all, there is a precedent of government, social, and secular care for the poor in the Book of Mormon during times of emergency, contrary to your claim there are none. For example, Limhi who, in Mosiah 21, establishes a tax and a welfare system to care for the widows of his small nation. This is an example of a "safety net", or a program to care for the poor in emergencies, but probably not designed as a permanent economic distribution. "Safety net" government care for the poor are programs which are supported by compassionate conservatives and progressives alike, and have a long history in our country.
Another example is 3 Nephi 3, when Lachoneus has his people gather all their resources together in one land to share for seven years, in order to defeat the Gadianton Robbers and their plundering of resources. Under our Constitution, our government would not have the power to do anything like Lachoneus did, and that is for the best as that is way too much economic power for a government to have. And yet, if an emergency like the Nephite's faced were to come up in America I hope that we could come up with righteous economic solutions without being limited by the Constitution.
Another interesting example is that the Nephites freely gave lands to new people, as in Alma 27 and 3 Nephi 6. This allowed the new people to work and provide for their families, without being burdened with debt to by their means of production. I think the Nephites, after the disastrous stories of King Noah and the Lamanite king after him who lived lavishly off the taxes and debt of the people, learned that being burdened with debt is evil. We could learn a thing or two from this story and pass laws to make things easier for students and business owners.
To be sure, in that last example (at least with Alma 27) the chief judge asked his people what should be done, and didn't "force" anything on them. But none of these examples are "forced care for the poor", and nor does that exist in our society, because the people in the Book of Mormon and today have the ability to vote to change policy, alter laws, and elect new leaders. That is one way to give our resources of our own free will and desires, by voicing our consent.
More important than direct care for the poor was the Nephite government's indirect care for the poor through laws which promoted "equity and justice". As I stated before, throughout the decades chief judges were faced with unique economic problems and created new laws to address them. The Book of Mormon does not provide many details about these laws, as the record follows the prophets after Alma, and not closely the actions of chief judges, but there are some clues which I think are helpful.
DeleteAlma and his successors each faced incredible wealth inequality in Alma 1 and 4, Helaman 3-4 and 6-7, and 3 Nephi 6. They passed laws to punish the persecution of the poor, lying, theft (stealing), plundering (stealing through violence), robbing (indirect stealing), and other iniquities. They caused that civil servants should be compensated only for their time and work, and not through other means, and their justice system was equal to rich and poor alike (that is until the Gadianton Robbers took control of the government).
They also passed laws against the forces which orchestrated the inequality. Laws were established to limit the priestcrafts and iniquities of the Order of Nehors, which sought to become wealthy by deceiving the people. Although the laws respected the beliefs of others, it punished the practice of those beliefs if such practices were deemed as iniquity, lies, and robbing.
The government hunted down dissenters from the Nephites, who had dissented in order to freely practice their priestcrafts and iniquities, without the regulations of Nephite laws. This includes the Amlicites, Amalekites (who were destroyed before the Nephite government could react), the Zoramites, Amalikiahites, and King-men, who were all throughout the book of Alma. Ultimately, the wars fought in Alma were because the government failed to fully hunt each of these law-breakers down, and they returned to the Nephites to destroy the law and put themselves as the economic power of the land.
The government acted against the Gadianton Robbers in the book of Helaman, who sought to become wealthy through robbing (obviously), murdering, changing laws, and placing their own secret members as leaders in the land. When the government failed to hunt the Gadianton Robbers down, they took over the government, immediately began persecuting the poor, and convinced even the righteous populace to partake in their spoils from robbing the poor (Helaman 6).
In 3 Nephi we have already discussed how Lachoneus dealt with the Gadianton Robbers. Unfortunately, in 3 Nephi 6, a disparity between the wealthy and poor, educated and not educated, becomes very serious, and it destroys the church of God. The Gadianton Robbers are then able to take over, and to destroy the "regulations of the government", or the very laws which had established justice and equity in the land (3 Nephi 7:6).
The Order of Nehors, the many dissenters, and the Gadianton Robbers were the greatest threat to the Nephite people because their actions created great wealth inequities, and wealth inequality, and the pride it created, was the reason the Nephites stumbled as a society in ever circumstance. By passing laws limiting these secret combinations, as well as general iniquity, they indirectly created periods of time without serious wealth inequality.
There are many lessons which can be derived from these stories, and many ways we can model modern laws to limit modern iniquities, persecutions, and robbing of the poor, but it is a little difficult to have a full discussion about these here.
DeleteI will just say, that in the Nephite case, individual charity and religious care for the poor had the best chance to flourish in the context of direct and indirect care for the poor. Their laws, when in full effect, were designed to limit inequality by making redistribution from the poor to the rich illegal. Our laws today should recognize the importance of charity, faith, and other non-profit organizations, protect these institutions, and put serious limits on the ability of modern day corporations and other modern day secret combinations to lie, deceive, steal, and rob.
Do progressive candidates have a monopoly on such laws? No. Under President Obama we have seen wealth inequality skyrocket, while the very people who caused the great recession by robbing the people have gotten away without punishment, and twice the wealth and power of before.
Do I think that a conservative would establish laws based on those dirty words "justice and equity", and do anything to regulate and limit the free market as the Nephites clearly did. No. I am open to being pleasantly surprised, but the recent debates have not gotten my hopes up.
As for the Constitution, as an avid reader of the Book of Mormon I see it as a living document which should be used to address justice and equity.
I'm sorry Colby - I was very slow to see your comments.
DeleteThe US Constitution is God’s standard for governance outside of the Kingdom of God. This is clear from the Lord’s own declarations quoted above from the Doctrine and Covenants. He did not point us to the Book of Mormon's system of Kings and Judges, but to the US Constitution. The Book of Mormon examples of secular governance consist of Kings (some good, some corrupt), then Judges elected by the people. This single branch governmental system was easily corrupted as the Book of Mormon shows. I reject an appeal to the Book of Mormon for equity and justice - the Lord raised His standard to the World - the US Constitution, and “as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” I will therefore make my arguments based in the US Constitution.
I see now that we come from completely different worlds. I understand that you would base your arguments on the US Constitution, whereas in my blog and in my mind I would base my arguments on the Book of Mormon. My comments above were not meant to attack the Constitution, but to challenge your assertion that nowhere in scripture is forced care for the poor taught. If your goal is to only use the Constitution, and not scripture, to create a foundation for your arguments then I would recommend that you remove that comment.
DeleteI am curious if you could expound on your thoughts concerning the Constitution more. I read the above passages in the D&C and see that the Constitution a) preserves rights, privileges, freedom from bondage, and moral agency, while encouraging accountability; b) that laws which are more or less than constitutional are evil; and c) that the members of the church are "justified in befriending" the Constitution. I read this and can sense that the Constitution is very inspired, but I am missing where you get that it trumps the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Certainly not every aspect of the Book of Mormon is applicable to today (I don't think that we should execute conscientious objectors, for one thing), but it was written for our day.
For example, Mormon and Moroni chose which elements of their history to share in the record having specifically seen our day. In Ether 8 Moroni writes about rights and freedoms being challenged in our day by secret combinations established to gain power and money. He says:
"22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed...
"25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people..."
So secret combinations are the biggest threat to freedom in our day. Using the historical details provided by Mormon and Moroni from their time, we know that secret combinations:
- Seek money and power through any means
- Use money, deceit, and murder to infiltrate and take over governments
- Persecute the poor
- Fight to dismantle government laws and regulations that punish their iniquities
- Use their money to avoid being punished for their crimes
- When in power, they are able to convince even the righteous populace that their iniquities are not crimes, and to join in their robbing and murdering
Considering these details, I am most worried about money in politics, wealth inequality, an unregulated economy, conditions and policies that make things harder for the poor, etc. I am less worried about whether progressive policies like a progressive tax, or the ACA, are constitutional - especially considering that both have been deemed constitutional by the highest authority of the constitution in the land. And I still have this priority even though I know that our government is more stable than the Nephite one-branch government.
This is just one lesson one can derive from the Book of Mormon. Do you really think that such details from prophets of God who saw our day could not be a "standard to the world"? I am having a hard time understanding how a law that we are simply "justified in befriending" - one that can change by a congressional measure, or be reinterpreted by judges - would ever rank higher than scripture written for our day.