A good friend of mine pointed me to a PDF booklet written by Mark Hudson, a candidate for US Congress District 1 here in Utah.

The PDF is entitled, “The Weighty Matters of the Law: A Plea for the Latter-Day Saints to Awaken.” The booklet was written by Hudson as part of a local church assignment, and while many of the principles in the booklet are sound, I’ve struggled with parts of it. Some, because of the delivery mechanism, and others because I point-blank disagree.

Do or Die

He starts off with some good points about the signs of the times. Prophets have been warning and calling us to prepare for hundreds of years, and its about time we started to listen. Then Hudson begins to reiterate his points about being prepared, but to me, the delivery is a little too… scare tactic?

In this warning a Prophet is clearly saying that in the event of a famine in the land, which has been prophesied to occur here in America as well as world-wide, that many Saints including some of their leaders would be “wiped out” because of their disobedience to the Lord’s commandment of obtaining a year’s supply of food…

Now if the Saints and many of their leaders could be wiped out because of their disobedience to a plain, temporal (and spiritual) commandment to store a one year’s supply of food, does it follow that there may be other areas where the Saints are potentially failing and/or being deceived?
Hudson, pg 5-6

I just don’t think telling people they could get “wiped out” is ever very productive. People live in enough fear these days, and I don’t think threatening them with death is really going to soften people’s hearts or strenghten their resolve to work on their food storage.

The Fight for Free Agency

I think he makes some good points in the following sections about the importance of being politically active and fighting for freedom. One thing I think that people miss is that the government of the United States of America is set up for liberty and freedom, and that doesn’t always equate to virtuous action.

One section heading that originally troubled me was “You Cannot Separate Politics from Religion.” I think the separation between church and state is very inspired and allows “all men the same privilege” of worshipping according to their own conscience. Mr. Hudson’s words in this section support that point, and I agree: the devil and conspiring men will count on good people to make political assumptions: that everyone else will vote, that mostly good men will come to power, and that politics are well enough off to run themselves.

I was glad to find out that the lack of separation Mr. Hudson was talking about was that of the fundamental principle of free agency taught in our doctrine. Our government was founded on principles of equality and agency, and it is our duty to enforce those virtues (and not virtue itself).

Huh?

After the good stuff, Mr. Hudson makes some really odd references and tries to teach about conspiracies. I’ve always wondered exactly how you are supposed to prepare and find things that are, by their definition, things that most people don’t know of. Seems like it really goes without saying that we should keep our ears and eyes ready for bad things that are happening, and do something about them when we find out about them.

I think talk about conspiracies might bring about more intellectual intrigue about fluff than it does ready us for the designs of wicked men and their secret plans, but that might just be me.

Then he goes on about the Gold Standard, which is absolutely silly.

Republican President Richard Nixon finally outlawed gold as the official backing of our money during the early seventies. This was a direct attack on our property rights.
Pg. 14

Huh? There isn’t enough gold on the planet to back our national economy, so I’m not sure what the reasoning is here. Not sure what the Gold Standard has to do with conspiracies either, but I don’t think it was a secret decision, and I also don’t think it was a bad idea either…

The Less Proper Understanding

This was my main beef with this booklet: that we should fight for the inclusion of gospel principles in government. Sounds okay, right? I personally don’t think so.

I was finally disappointed to see that Mr. Hudson thinks that we should force our morals on others by using the government. What about free agency? What about the constitution? Hudson quotes a “very good friend of Ezra Taft Benson” in order to build his point:

A person’s political philosophy is an extension of his moral beliefs because he cannot determine whether he favors or opposes a law without consulting his moral standards…A person’s political philosophy not only reflects his moral convictions, but it also represents his most intense feelings regarding good and evil…When a person so firmly convinced of the correctness of his political code that he is willing to impose it on all others members of society [through his votes] with death, imprisonment, and fine [using Government force] he has expressed those convictions in the strongest possible manner.
H. Verlan Anderson as cited on Pg. 18

I hope Verlan went on to say “… and that’s not always a good thing. Take Hitler, for example…” The main problem I have with legislating the gospel is the same that the Pilgrims had. Unless God himself happens to be the one drafting the resolutions, you can’t really expect the outcome to be fair. America was founded on principles of equality and fairness, and trying to force others “with death, imprisonment, and fine” to do the will of God isn’t going to help anyone. Why?

1. Acts done without real intent profiteth us nothing. Nothing.
2. Wasn’t it Satan’s idea to legislate righteousness and enforce it? What did God think about that?
3. Once you’ve created a law that dictates worship, you open the doors for strong political powers that are not of our faith to indoctrinate the public sector.

Sure I don’t mind the Ten Commandments on the wall of the courtroom, but I sure don’t want the judge, clerk and prosecuting attourney to speak in tongues before I present my defense case. Fair is fair, so I don’t mind removing the stone tablets from a public building. Atheists use courtrooms too. In some sense, the principles of religion are intertwined with civic responsibility and legislation, but I think those principles are those of equality and justice, not virtue itself.

Laws are meant to provide a level playing field, not enforce (of itself) goodness upon its citizens. Laws in the Book of Mormon were crafted in a similar manner:

For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.
Alma 30:11

If people are behaving in a way that damages the rights or property of others, it is punished. Otherwise, the law maintains “equal grounds,” even for Korihors out there. Doctrine and Covenants 134 sheds some additional light on how government and religious beliefs should interact:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

We do not believe it just to amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

Doctrine & Covenants 134:4,7,9, emphasis mine

Conclusion

I think that strong minded Latter-Day Saints should fight for just and holy principles. I think that the nations of the Earth that did not follow the commandments of God harvested the destruction they had sown with centuries of wickedness.

I do however, think that the freedom of religious belief, and the protection of the agency of man—the standard of equality and justice we enjoy—is paramount when dealing with our civic duties. If we cannot protect the right of religious belief and fair religious practices, then we will never be able to make a difference in this world. We might be able to legislate some true principles in order to get men in this nation to behave virtuously, but when we begin to proscribe the opinions of men, we break the inspired safety barriers placed there by the wise founding fathers of this nation.

Wouldn’t it work better, in every possible way, to “legislate morality” or these “weightier matters of the law” on the fleshy tables of the heart? It isn’t the the quill of the President of the United States that can write on that medium: only by by “persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.”

Sure, we need to fight for the right—but such a battle is to be waged by loving teaching rather than by policed legislation.

---

This entry was posted on Monday, October 23rd, 2006 at 9:48 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.