A Constitutional Zion
Posted by Browan on December 1, 2008
As Mormon’s we believe that the U.S. constitution and founding of the Nation was inspired of God http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/98/5-8#5.
We also believe in continuing revelation and know that God’s wisdom for His children in the past is not unalterably bound to apply the same way today. For example, the Law of Moses VS Law of Christ, polygamy being sanctioned of the Lord and then no longer being sanctioned of the Lord.
Given our uniquely flexible Mormon perspective of God’s will, I pose the following questions to all well-intentioned builders of Zion.
Question: Is it good to specifically codify eternal principle via constitutional amendment?
If Yes: How shall we amend US and State constitutions “for a permanent and everlasting” order of welfare as revealed in D&C 78:3-7?
3 For verily I [Heavenly Father] say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an aorganization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the bstorehouse for the cpoor of my people, both in this place and in the land of dZion—
4 For a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused, to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven;
5 That you may be aequal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.
6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be aequal in obtaining heavenly things;
7 For if you will that I give unto you a place in the acelestial world, you must bprepare yourselves by cdoing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.
If No: How else should the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles magnify their calling to declare to the world the eternal principle of Marriage?
December 1, 2008 at 5:38 pm
OK. I set up the question so I will toss out one possible response I’m leaning toward.
No. The constitution should not be used to enforce moral specifics. It is a broad document meant to declare governing principles and obligations. It is specific on relationships of power and in-alienable rights of all people (regardless of faith, creed or nationality). Using the constitution to criminalize “un-moral” behaviors has not been productive.
The Church could declare the doctrine of marriage and the family most effectively by lobbying the U.S. to withdraw from the marriage business. Urge governments to call all civil marriages “unions.” This option asserts the Churches most constant and powerful position - possessing eternal authority rather than mortal authority. This option uses up less political capital, goodwill and money. It also may foster allegiance and understanding within the gay community of the Churches position.
December 1, 2008 at 9:14 pm
“The constitution should not be used to enforce moral specifics. It is a broad document meant to declare governing principles and obligations.”
Don’t tell that to the Utah Legislature. They’d die in apoplectic conniptions.
…my wife and I have long agreed with the idea of just calling all legal marriages “unions” and then letting the religious ceremony be the marriage — that way it would be up to the religion to decide who could marry in their church, and frankly, get rid of the whole “gay-marriage” issue because it would be each church’s own decision.
I’m sure the Unitarians wouldn’t mind the membership boost, either.
December 1, 2008 at 10:03 pm
“We also believe in continuing revelation and know that God’s wisdom for His children in the past is not unalterably bound to apply the same way today.”
Interesting that you start out with this statement and then start conjuring up your own ideas about how the First Presidency could have handled it better. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if we believe in continuing revelation, then why are we still debating this matter? You either choose to go along with the prophet’s counsel, or you do not.
“Question: Is it good to specifically codify eternal principle via constitutional amendment?”
Sure - if that is the will of the people who help make the laws of the country in which they live. “Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who are religious.” As we have seen from the prop. 8 fiasco, there were a whole host of members who chose not to go along with the church’s position, yet no one’s membership was revoked and no one twisted anyone’s arm. The church didn’t “force” anyone into voting a certain way. Sure they may have encouraged it, but in the end, I’m the one in the voting booth. The passing of prop. 8 merely reflects the opinion of the public, many of whom happen to be religious.
“If Yes: How shall we amend US and State constitutions “for a permanent and everlasting” order of welfare as revealed in D&C 78:3-7?”
I’m not sure I really understand the example here. Are you suggesting that if we codify the eternal principle of marriage into public policy that we must inevitably codify all other eternal principles that are of LDS origin? Obviously, there are many other religions who felt the same way on prop. 8., not just the LDS church. Just because the church felt it had an interest in the matter, does not mean that the prophet should or will try to implement all divine policies. They have been very clear about their politcal position and only intervene when they feel an issue has “significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.”
You incorrectly assume that religion should not have any place in politics, and that is simply not the case. In fact - I think it’s impossible. Religion influences people who influece public policy. While the church has voiced its position on issues like abortion, stem-cell research, etc., members still have the right to form their own opinions. The church itself will never legislate public policy.
December 2, 2008 at 2:40 am
A key point we need to clarify, to avoid going in circles on semantics, is the church’s role in politics and an individual’s role in politics. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is one of the least political churches. We do not have bishops giving talks from the pulpit about voting for this party or that. In fact the leadership of the church has been the antithesis of this. Each election cycle a statement from the “brethren” is read telling us that no church property or position can be used for political purposes.
Laura is correct that religion of the individual has a place in policy making. The argument or slippery slope is when the “Church” or the leaders, acting on behalf of the church, make political policy. The individual can act, the question is how does the church act.
Although I agree with what I know about prop 8 I am very concerned with the church playing such an active role in pushing this. Even more worrisome is the willingness of the church to work alongside other religious organizations just because they agree with us on this single point, even when those organizations refuse to see us as Christian, refuse to hire Mormons and who if they had the chance would outlaw our very church!
When the church acts so overtly to push gospel principles in this manner it causes Mormon zealots to call for all gospel principles to be law, while those opposed to our church use this to portray us as pushing for a theocracy. The line is thin and walking it often has nothing to do with the principles of the issue but more to with the power brokers and moves necessary to get laws passed.
Coming to terms with the position of the church is not the hard thing for me. The concern for where these newly implemented tactics takes us that concerns me. Regardless, I don’t see prop 8 or any other political issue changing the way I feel about the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. My mission taught me to separate the actions of the members from the true principles of the gospel.
Dale Dunkin
December 2, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Laura – it sounds like these questions hit a nerve for you and the issue of Prop 8. These questions nag at me too. That’s why I asked them.
When Bush asked us to rest our minds and hearts on his “decider” choice to occupy Iraq indefinitely, I questioned what that meant for future “decidingering” on issues of national sovereignty, unilateralism and America’s position in the world.
The questions I asked here rest on a similar desire to better understand the mind and intent of the authority I’m following. I agree that there are many aspects of society at odds with our doctrine that have (as you quoted) a “significant community and moral consequence.” So if constitutions are now worthy tools for Zion building I think it’s time we as Mormon’s carefully evaluate what that means and what should be next on the list.
Please re-read my comment, I’ve said nothing to suggest that religion have no place in politics. Quite the opposite.
What do you think Laura? If state and national constitutions are an effective and worthy place to act in building zion, how else shall we act? What about D&C 78?
December 2, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Well said Dale. Concern for where these new tactics take us (both the zealous and timid member) is what prompted the question.
December 6, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Whenever I hear people calling to outlaw gay marriage and amending the constitution to have marriage be only between a ‘man and a woman’, I grow very concerned. I remember the persecutions of yesteryear, when men were forced into hiding and families torn apart because the US government decided that polygamy would be illegal. How is this any different, other than it is not OUR church but another that will be affected?
I agree that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only provide civil union licenses. It becomes a very slippery slope when the government starts making laws on private religious issues. It was not so long ago when other religious groups were driving us out of our homes and governmental extermination orders were levels at members of our church.
December 8, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I feel like every time I tune into the blunderfest known as defense of marriage, I’m watching a car accident in slow motion . The moment the Church softened it’s stance on domestic partnership rights they stepped in front of a political mack truck.
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story/Gays-Asking-For-LDS-Help-For-Gay-Rights-In-Utah/AqML–5GPkWojl5JvcpRjQ.cspx