God and Governments

Volume Two—Chapter Nineteen GOD AND GOVERNMENTS

Throughout the history of our earth, the societies of men have instituted or otherwise become subject to myriad types of governmental rule. Societal governments (systems of civil laws, rules, and controls) have varied widely from democratic to tyrannical, stable to unstable, formal to informal, organized to disorganized, edifying to oppressive, and compassionate to cruel. How does God view earthly governments? What valid roles for civil government does he acknowledge? And what about during the eternities? Are we to be subjected to government forever? If so, what type of government or governments will they be? What roles will government play, if any, in our eternal lives?

#Governmental Types

Let us first summarize the basic governmental types with which the gospel student ought to be familiar:

1. Anarchy refers to a state or society without government or law. Anarchy has a negative connotation and implies the presence of social and political disorder due to the absence of societal (governmental) controls.

2. An autocracy is government in which one unelected governor or leader possesses unlimited power. This is the autocrat. Theoretically, the autocrat can be benevolent and dedicated to the welfare of his subjects. However, autocrat also has a decidedly negative connotation because of the high risk inherent in an autocracy. Absolute power often has a corrupting influence on the leader: “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion” (D&C 121:39). An iniquitous autocrat can result in an iniquitous society. A wicked or corrupt leader sets a negative example, and his example is likely to be followed, to a variable extent, by his subjects.

Kings and queens are examples of autocrats. King Mosiah wrote to his people, emphasizing the dangers of an autocrat:

Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just, it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage (Mosiah 29:16-18).

Other names for autocrat include monarch (usually a hereditary sovereign such as a king or emperor), emperor (a male sovereign who rules over an empire, usually a group of nations), or aristocrat (a wealthy, educated leader of high social rank who rules over an aristocracy—a group of people regarded as superior because of education, ability, or wealth). A dictator is an autocrat who rules with absolute power without the free consent of the people. The word dictatorship may refer to the people being ruled by a dictator, the office held by the dictator, the form of government in which absolute power is exercised, or the absolute power itself which is exerted over the people.

A government may be described as totalitarian when its subjects are compelled by force to do the will of the government. Other names for totalitarian governments include oligarchy, in which a small group rules, or plutocracy, which means rule by wealth or the wealthy. In both of these, the rulers rule in their own interests, especially the accumulation of wealth and privilege.

3. A theocracy is a type of autocracy, but it is ruled over by someone who is considered divine, or at least divinely inspired. During the millennial thousand years, the Savior will rule over a theocracy. Another example of a theocracy is the period when the Israelites were governed by Moses. A Nephite prophet-king such as Benjamin and Nephi are yet other examples. King Mosiah also taught:

Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you (Mosiah 29:13).

One function of a righteous leader is to serve as exemplar for his subjects. A people is inclined to follow and emulate their leader. The leader sets the tone, creates an atmosphere, and determines the attitudes that will exist among his people.

4. Tyranny is arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of political power. This is also a negative word and has come to refer to the despotic abuse of authority and to oppressive or unjust government wrought by a tyrant.

5. A democracy is government by the people themselves. Practically, there is no such thing as a pure democracy wherein the people rule directly. All democracies are really republics or parliamentary governments in which the people elect representatives (in free elections) to make and enforce laws.

6. Sometimes governments are labeled based on the prevailing economic system. In a capitalist or free-market economy, people own their own businesses and property and must buy goods and services for private use, such as health care, food, education, and housing. Such an economy is characterized by a minimum of external economic controls exerted by government. A socialist government owns many of the larger industries and provides education, health, and welfare services while allowing citizens some economic choices. In a communist country, the government owns all businesses and farms and provides its people’s healthcare, education, and welfare.

There is little question that a government leaves its imprint on the characteristics of those being governed. Citizens of a government may be lifted or oppressed by their government. Surely government is a subject of concern to God.

#Ideal Form of Earthly Government?

Among all these, does there exist an ideal form of government? Does it matter to God what type of government we live under here in mortality? If God were to select the type of government to which each of us would be subject, what would he choose? What form of government is best for our spiritual and temporal development?

Characteristics of beneficent government. Let us begin a consideration of these questions by posing two additional questions. What are the characteristics of a beneficent governmental system? What positive impact should a good government have on its subjects?

1. The ideal governmental system must seek to enable and maximize the spiritual and temporal welfare and growth of its subjects. This is a most vital goal. In an eternal context, the very purpose of the earth is to serve as a place of testing. This life is our opportunity to earn the blessing of eternal life. “For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors” (Alma 34:32). This life is also the place where we may fail to qualify for eternal life.

A few vital factors must be operative before we can grow spiritually. These include agency, abundant freedoms, a system of just laws, a competent being capable of understanding the laws, individuals who are informed of the law, and opposition/adversity.1

No individual or government can completely deny us the exercise of our agency. Remember: agency is the right or power to decide among available options. Freedom is the quality of having many options. While a government that excessively limits freedoms cannot abolish our agency, it can restrict the exercise of our agency. Spiritual growth is enhanced in a free society—among a people that have all appropriate—even abundant—freedoms of thought and choice. A government that allows these freedoms creates an environment favorable to spiritual (and secular) growth. On the other hand, a government that overly restricts freedoms restricts both spiritual and secular growth.

2. The ideal government must protect its subjects from injury or harm and keep them secure. Government must maintain order and keep its subjects from taking advantage or hurting one another. The strong must not be allowed to overpower the weak. Additionally, the interests of the weak must not be allowed to undermine or weaken the strong.

3. The ideal government must also seek to succor those of its subjects who are in need, or at least encourage all the governed to see to the wants of those in need.

4. What about the leader himself? What benefits might he provide? What advantages does a benevolent leader extend to his subjects? What specific harm might a tyrant do? An individual leader, to a variable extent, can impact the quality of a government. If he is prideful and self centered, then so will lean his policies and the laws he seeks to implement and enforce. If his priority is the welfare of his people, then his policies are likely to reflect that concern. There is a tendency for those he governs to eventually reflect his attitudes.

The ideal leader must be the embodiment of the above three characteristics of beneficent government. He personally must be dedicated to fostering a “free” society that allows every expedient freedom or liberty. This leads to the unfettered exercise of his subjects’ agency. He must possess a heartfelt regard, even love, for each of his subjects. We have previously defined charity. When a man is concerned about the temporal and spiritual welfare of another as much or more than his own, he has charity for the other. This is precisely the type of love the ideal leader must have for his subjects.

The example he sets by his personal behavior (thoughts, speech, and actions) must be a righteous, even exemplary, one. His empowerment or authority to rule must come through the respect and admiration of his subjects (including popular election), and not by fiat.

We can point to King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon as this kind of leader. He was competent, hard-working, fair, and motivated by a genuine love for his people. Consequently, he was loved, respected, emulated, and followed by his people. King Noah, on the other hand, is a good example of a tyrant. His laws were restrictive and self serving, as evidenced by his execution of the prophet Abinadi and by Alma’s having to flee for his life after he accepted Abinadi’s teachings. Noah cared mainly for his own self and pleasures and not for his subjects. He taxed his subjects heavily and used the revenue for his own purposes (see Mosiah 11:3-15). He set an evil example for his people and led many of them to do evil (Mosiah 11:2).

5. A just system of laws. Human governments and laws are entirely necessary, though inevitably imperfect. They play an important role in preserving order and providing stable contexts within which individuals can seek truth and strive to live in accordance with the dictates of conscience. The Church teaches the importance of government and law, and encourages its members to obey the laws of the land wherever they live. Anarchy and lawlessness can only lead to unproductive and destructive chaos. For people to exist together successfully there must be order based on law. Governmental leaders are accountable to God “for their acts . . . both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society” (D&C 134:1; cf. 124:49-50).

In order to be just and fair, a government’s laws should not overly restrict individual freedoms. On the other hand, laws should appropriately restrict the freedoms of a society so as to provide security and protection for its members.

We, in the Church, know well that there exists only one set of laws that, if obeyed, inevitably leads to enduring joy and happiness. These are the commandments of the gospel of Jesus Christ. God’s laws are not arbitrary rules designed to test our obedience. Nor are they merely helpful suggestions. They are guidelines by which we may achieve the ultimate happiness in this life and in the life to come. If obeyed, his laws help us enjoy the abundant life Christ promised to those who adhere to his gospel.

God knows us intimately, and he knows perfectly the potential vicissitudes of this mortal experience. His laws are designed to protect us, to uplift us, to enlighten our minds, and to enlarge our souls: “And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same” (D&C 88:34-35).

The laws of the gospel are liberating and not restricting in their impact. Mae Blanch provides us with an instructive metaphor of this principle. Speaking personally about herself, she writes:

I am a diabetic; my doctor gives me certain laws—do’s and don’ts—which I must obey to control my illness. I must avoid excessive fats and sugars in my diet and eat only moderate amounts of other foods. I must exercise regularly. I must take insulin injections twice a day and test my blood sugar three times a day. I must avoid undue exertion, get proper rest, and watch carefully for any minor infections, especially of my feet. I need to check in with my doctor on a regular basis to monitor the progress of my disease. If I follow these “commandments,” I may control my illness and receive the blessing of health. If, however, I yield to the temptation of a hot fudge sundae or a Kara chocolate truffle, or decide to stay in bed an extra hour rather than rise and jog, I do not say my doctor is punishing me when my blood sugar climbs to unacceptable levels. And if I continue to ignore his instructions and wind up in the hospital, I don’t expect to say, “I’m sorry; please forgive me,” and have my health immediately restored. My repentance must involve both ceasing to break the doctor’s “laws” and changing my attitude, not resenting the restrictions placed on my license to do as I please. . . . Thus . . . the laws . . . are given to me for my well-being and to help me achieve my goals, not to complicate my life or deny me pleasure (“Repentance: The Gift of Love” in The Book of Mormon: 3 Nephi 9-30, This Is My Gospel, 76-77).

Should an earthly government’s laws conform, in any degree, to the laws of God? Should God’s laws exist in the background of every secular government’s system of laws to add an element of absolute moral standard? Among the Book of Mormon people, the “commandments of God” were law. They were the basis of both religious and secular laws. In a world of disparate religious views and beliefs, it is not possible for a society to be placed under obligation to obey the laws of God. Prior to the Millennium, Latter-day Saints believe that the separation of church and state is essential in modern societies. Our scriptures teach that civil laws should not interfere with religious practices, nor should religious institutions be able to manipulate governments to their advantage.

A godless society holds to no absolute moral standard. If a people believe there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes in their laws. They eventually come to believe they can choose their actions. Morality becomes a relative trait which can be legislated and altered to fit the whims of the majority.

Even if a godless government is a democracy, the will of the majority then becomes supreme, and it answers to no outside standard. This type of government is based on a philosophy that may be said to be humanistic. In a humanistic society, what is pleasing, convenient, pleasurable, and comfortable for individuals is accepted as obedience to law, so long as it does no harm to others.

Even though separation of church and state is necessary, secular government had better not drift too far from the moral standard of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The prophet Moroni warned our dispensation, and his warning is generally held to be applicable to the United States of America: “Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12).

6. What about the governed themselves? Do the subjects of a government have anything to do with the quality of government? The characteristics of government are obligatorily determined, in some measure, by the attributes of the governed. If they can be depended on to seek consistently for the well being of each other; if they are reliably inclined to come to the aid of their fellows in need; and if they are inclined to work independently for their own support, then they can be allowed many freedoms. In such a society, an abundance mentality prevails. The leader need be little concerned about the safety, succor, and continued motivation of his subjects.

On the other hand, if the subjects are disposed to seek for their own success and welfare over and above that of others; sometimes do harm to one another; and are inclined to seek for and accept entitlement benefits provided by others, then laws will have to be enacted that limit the freedom of everyone. This is necessary to ensure the needed protections for those who are willing to work for their own support and for those who are genuinely vulnerable and in need.

Where is this ideal government? So where, in all of this, is the ideal earthly government? If God himself could choose, what type of government would he select for his people? Let us continue our exploration by outlining, in an overly simple way, three hypothetical earthly governmental forms and then considering the pros and cons of each.

1. Let us first consider a governmental form I will call “little government.” Keep in mind that these forms of government are hypothetical. This first type is a government with very few laws. The only laws are those necessary to provide and maintain necessary services to its citizens such as water, sanitation services, and roads. Otherwise there are no laws. Please understand that earthly laws are coercive. The citizen does not have a choice whether or not to obey them. He must obey them. They are enforced. This type of government is not far from anarchy (discussed above).

Now let us consider the pros and cons of this type of government. What are the pros?

 Abundant freedoms. Certainly such a government allows a plethora of potential freedoms.

Here is a governmental form that offers no entitlements to rescue the weak or 

incapacitated individual. Since the form of government to which a citizen is subjected tends to foster certain characteristics in that citizen, what characteristic might “little government” foster? Surely, of necessity, a good work ethic and independence.

What are the cons?

 The paucity of laws will likely result in the “law of the jungle.” This is the survival of only the strongest citizens. There is so much freedom that the strong are free to oppress the weak. The weaker citizens will not survive—they may starve or die of neglect.

2. Now let us describe a type of government I will call “big government.” This is a government replete with laws. Every circumstance or possible situation is controlled by law. These laws guarantee every citizen all he needs to survive, and every aspect of every citizen’s life is under the control of law.

What are the pros of this type of government?

 All people will survive and have their basic needs taken care of. Might it be, then, that this is the ideal form of government? What could be better than having all our needs met for us without any effort on our part?

Are there any cons?

Since, in this government, all issues are controlled by coercive law, a loss of 

freedoms—a lack of freedom of choice—is inevitable. Do the citizens still have agency? They do. They have the right and ability to choose among their available alternatives. But their freedom of choice is impaired—they have few alternatives. This limitation of freedoms may limit the exercise of their agency. Can you think of any other cons?  What about their work ethic and independence. Because of the availability of universal and comprehensive entitlements, this type of government tends to foster dependence and entitlement-seeking in its citizens.

 Do the strong in a society ever require protection from the weak? Government possesses no intrinsic financial resource whatever. When government intercedes to care for the weak, it must finance its venture by forcing those who are strong and productive to pay. Thus, a “big government” must intervene, in a potentially destructive way, in the lives of the strong.

3. The third type of hypothetical government is what I would call the “compromise government.” We won’t need to outline its characteristics, but I include it in our considerations to remind us that the only workable system of government lies somewhere between little and big government. What specific earthly government do you think God regards as the most acceptable “compromise government”?

We have abundant evidence, particularly in our latter-day scriptures that God’s favored form of earthly government is democracy or at least the republic or parliamentary form of democracy. Democracy is government by the majority of the people. The representative form of democracy found in the United States of America is surely among the types of government most favored by God. It is axiomatic that all “compromise governments,” while they are the best available, are imperfect.

Man, in general, is inclined to want to determine for himself the government to which he submits. Or, at least he has a need to participate in his own government—to have a voice in his own governance. It is true that many mortals, in the history of this earth, have been subjected to governments by force or by default. In each case, however, there has existed a potential, or even overt, smoldering spirit of resentment, whether or not those governments ruled justly. A representative form of democracy seems to assuage this need.

American Constitution. The foundational document for the government of the United States is the Constitution. We hold that the Lord “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [he] raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80). The Prophet Joseph Smith once described himself as “the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth” (HC, 6:56-57). All subsequent presidents of the Church have reaffirmed the doctrine of an inspired Constitution.

We regard the Constitution as a fundamental part of our religious beliefs. Why? Because it guarantees freedom of religion and holds people accountable to preserve the rights of every person according to “just and holy principles.” Contained in the Constitution is the proviso that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That is a guarantee to every man and woman. Therefore, members of the Church have duties as citizens to see that they use their influence “to keep church and state separated, to sustain civil power in its appropriate realm, and to stipulate in constitutions, in legislative enactments, in executive decrees, in judicial determinations, in every possible way, that men are free to worship as they will and not be subject to compulsion” (McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 684).

The essential features of the American Constitution include:

 the voice of the people expressed in electing representatives who make up a bicameral legislature (House of Representatives and Senate);

 a limit of the president’s tenure to four years and the need to be re-elected;  three branches of government to serve as a check and balance for one another. These branches include the legislative to write the laws, judicial to interpret the laws, and executive to enforce the laws.

 The president, or head of the executive branch, is the commander and chief of the armed forces of the United States.

 The separation of powers in the government consists of the division of governmental power on a horizontal plane among the three distinct branches of the federal government, and on a vertical plane between the national government and the state governments. This latter division is federalism. These safeguards, or “checks and balances,” act by allocating governmental powers among several entities and by making each of these entities independent competitors. This minimizes the likelihood that government will trample individual rights.

 The Constitution specifies limits to the powers of government. The most famous of these are contained in the first eight of the ten amendments to the Constitution that make up the Bill of Rights. Initially, these provisions applied only to the federal government, but the Fourteenth Amendment has now been held by the U.S. Supreme Court to render most of those Bill-of-Rights guarantees binding on state governments as well.

We do not believe the Constitution is perfect and complete in every detail. Part of the wisdom of the founders was to forbear from placing too many specifics in the Constitution. They also provided constitutional means for amendment of the Constitution. President Brigham Young described the Constitution as “a progressive—a gradual work” (JD, 7:13-15).

#Separation of Church and State Among the LDS

In the isolated early-Utah period in the Church we LDS did not adhere to the policy of separation of church and state. Earl on, the Church essentially consisted of a small, persecuted religious group seeking religious liberty and a place to settle, first in western New York and then in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. During much of this period, the Church relied heavily on its own organization to manage its social structure and maintain civil order. However, in the later nineteenth century and twentieth century, we espoused the doctrine of a necessary separation. While church and state must remain separated, we do encourage all our members to become involved in civic affairs and to honor and obey the laws of the land. The Lord has counseled the members of his

Church: “Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet” (D&C 58:22).

Let us consider further the reasons why a separation of church and state is necessary today:

1. In the present world, religious believers, including the saints, are subject to the imperfections of many different governments. A separation of church and state is vital to the protection of religious liberty. “We do not believe it just to mingle 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” (D&C 134:9).

Human law does not have the right “to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion” (D&C 134:4). This principle of nonintervention by the state in religious affairs is understood to proscribe not only interference with individual practice, but also interference with the autonomy of any Church pursuing as an institution its religious mission and functions. The Church believes in maintaining strict independence for itself and affiliated institutions such as church-sponsored schools and universities, and accordingly does not accept direct aid or subsidies from governmental sources because of the actual or potential regulatory interference this might produce.

2. Previously, we defended the idea that God created the earth as a place of moral testing. The test is more effective in a free society in which a wide range of conscience is allowed and respected and where opposition is regularly a part of life’s experience (2 Nephi 2:11). Even for celestially-inclined people, it is possible that a divinely connected leader who rules both in secular and in spiritual matters might offer insufficient opposition. While living in a true theocracy would be a sublime privilege, perhaps it is not appropriate for us yet.

We may well marvel over the blessed privilege of those who will live their mortal lives during the millennial thousand years. Who is it that merits such a choice blessing? Perhaps those held in premortality to live during the Millennium are those who do not require a telestial environment to be adequately tested. Obviously, the Lord did elect to have many of his children tested, however, in an environment where telestial elements are found in abundance. The nature of the test that will exist on the millennial earth will be discussed more thoroughly in a future chapter. It may well turn out to be a far more challenging test than we intuitively think.

#Government in the Book of Mormon

Let us return to the Book of Mormon as we continue to consider the Lord’s preferences in government. Initially, government in the Book of Mormon was patriarchal. The patriarch Lehi ruled his extended family group. Then, beginning with Lehi’s son Nephi, a monarchical system of kings was established. Though there were several between Nephi and Mosiah II, we only know four by name: Nephi, Mosiah I, Benjamin, and Mosiah II. After the second King Mosiah, the monarchy was dissolved, and the office of chief judge was established. Joseph Smith referred to this system as a “theodemocracy” (Times and Seasons, April 15, 1844, 5:510). The people elected the judges who rendered judgments “according to the commandments of God” (Mosiah 29:11).

The Book of Mormon has been criticized for containing “nineteenth century” concepts. The critics who level this charge believe they have identified evidence for the book’s being written by Joseph Smith or someone else in the nineteenth century. They assert it is unlikely to have been written in Old Testament times. They point to the form of government in the Book of Mormon and claim it is inappropriate for that ancient setting. Mosiah 29 contains a case in point. Book of Mormon critics have suggested that Mosiah, in this chapter, dissolved the kingship and formed a representative or republican form of government. After all, they contend, a nineteenth-century American author would certainly be expected to know something about this form of government, since the American Constitution was one of the world’s prototype blueprints for democratic government.

A close look at this new Nephite form of government, however, shows that most of the principles contained in the American Constitution are missing. In fact, Mosiah himself taught that the ideal form of government consisted of a righteous king (see Mosiah 29:13). He created a compromise form of government for protection against an unrighteous king.

Some “deficiencies” of the new Nephite government relative to the American Constitution include:

1. The people could not remove the chief judge at the polls, as he stood for election only once and subsequently enjoyed a lifelong tenure.

2. There were not three branches of government to check one another, since a single office encompassed all governmental powers. The chief judge was judge, executive, and legislator. In war time, he raised the army, armed them, and arranged provisions for them (see Alma 46:34; 60:1-9). He served interchangeably as chief judge and governor (see Alma 2:16; 50:39; 60:1; 3 Nephi 3:1). He also was a lawmaker (see Alma 2:2-7; 4:6; 51:1-7). The Book of Mormon evidences a decided indifference to the separation of powers.

3. There was no legislature in the Book of Mormon. The only “representation” was in the choice of judges, not in the selection of legislators. There was a reliance on traditional law instead of a representative legislature.

4. There was no taxation by a popular assembly.

Actually, Book of Mormon political attitudes have more of an Old Testament flavor. Biblical peoples raised up kings among themselves. In the anointing of Saul, for example, a Book of Mormon theme is exemplified directly. The people demanded of

Samuel a king, but Samuel tried to persuade them otherwise, warning them of the possible hazards (see 1 Samuel 8:1-22; 10:18-25; Deuteronomy 17:14). Earlier, the Israelites had requested Gideon to be their king, and he had refused because, he said, “the Lord will rule over you” (Judges 8:22-23). In a similar way, Alma and Mosiah warned of the dangers of a king.

#When Government and Priesthood Collide

What is the saints’ responsibility when living under a government where the civil authority of that government comes into conflict with the authority of God? While the Lord may not always require submission to evil secular authority, we do “believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12). Jesus offered a valuable guideline when he said, “Render . . . unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Luke 20:21-25). Peter added the counsel, “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Peter 2:17). Elder Bruce R. McConkie pointed out that, “Subjection to secular power does not constitute an endorsement or approval of the governmental system involved” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 687).

The object of submission to secular authority is to maintain a peaceful life so that the people may be free to live their religion. Elder James E. Talmage counseled: “It is the duty of the saints to submit themselves to the laws of their country. Nevertheless, they should use every proper method, as citizens or subjects of their several governments, to secure for themselves and for all men the boon of freedom in religious service. . . . Their protests should be offered in legal and proper order” (The Articles of Faith, 422-23).

#Responsibility of the Governed

King Mosiah counseled and warned his people:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land (Mosiah 29:26-27).

The Lord’s criterion for setting the stage for the destruction of a people is clearly set forth. Having a “free” form of government, which allows the voice of the people to have their say, is a privilege that must be continually earned by the people. They do so by exercising personal responsibility. Constant vigilance must be maintained in order to preserve this freedom. When the majority of a people come to choose iniquity, then that people will be destroyed. Such a nation is said to have “ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:9; 9:20). In this circumstance, societal destruction is the inevitable and just consequence. This warning is pertinent to all who read the Book of Mormon. It has special relevance to those people who inhabit the “mighty nation among the Gentiles,” the United States of America (1 Nephi 22:7).

How would you assess the direction the United States of America is taking today? Can the voice of the people always be depended upon to decide issues in righteousness? Do we base our system of laws on the commandments of God? There are some who feel the political future of the United States is gloomy, judging by the directions we are now following.

#The Downside of Abundant Freedom

While the Lord prefers that his children, here in this mortal test, live in a land where they are accorded many freedoms, there is a downside to such a land. Every man is responsible for his own sins. In a land of liberty, the people are at greater eternal risk. They are free to make personal choices, but then they must individually answer for those choices. There is no absolute leader who compels them to do this or that and thus spares them that responsibility.

In his article “Government by the Voice of the People,” Byron R. Merrill observed:

The history of civilization is a continual balancing act between anarchy (freedom taken to its extreme) and tyranny (order taken to its extreme), with the pendulum swinging back and forth at different times. Freedom by law to act out one’s choices requires enormous self-restraint, for without self-discipline freedom is so readily abused that external controls must be employed to maintain order and prevent chaos (The Book of Mormon: Mosiah, Salvation Only Through Christ, 118).

Brother Merrill quotes the Irish political theorist Edmund Burke:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters” (The Works of Edmund Burke, 4:51-52).

#Post Resurrection Governments?

Will governments be necessary among men following the resurrection? Might it be that men will all be self-governing, and that any form of government will be superfluous? We are obviously taught little or nothing about this subject in scripture, but, we may speculate.

It is likely governments will be necessary. Let us consider the question of what you think God regards as the perfect form or forms of government for the eternities. Let me first ask you: Do you think God would favor a system of few coercive regulations or laws? Or do you think he would have his people for eternity coerced in all aspect of their lives? He obviously would favor the former.

Now, let me ask you another question. What characteristics do you think make the ideal or perfect citizen? In order to answer this, let me encourage you to go back to the pros and cons of “little government.”

The characteristics of a perfect citizen are:

 Charity. Why? If all citizens were charitable, the weaker among them would automatically be cared for by all the others. All the needs of the incapacitated and less capable would be met.

 Independence and good work ethic. The work ethic of an individual must be able to survive any number and type of divine blessings and privileges he receives. Why will we need a strong work ethic? Presumably, there will be much work to be done in the eternities.

So, what form of government will govern those in the degrees of glory for all eternity? Is it likely that the form of government will be identical in all three degrees of glory?

The ideal type of government depends on the characteristics of the people being governed. Will the celestials have fewer coercive laws? Yes. Why? Because they are celestial beings and have the characteristics of celestial beings. We know that charity is a vital characteristic of the celestial being. But what about independence and work ethic? Are these necessary characteristics of the celestial individual? Are these required to qualify one for celestial glory? The answer is clearly, yes.

It seems likely that the form of government those in the celestial glory will be subject to for all eternity is similar to “little government.” Each person will govern themselves according to the eternal law. God is the standard of this eternal law, and the celestial inhabitants of this celestial glory are like God. They will have abundant freedoms—more than those in any other degree of glory. They won’t need coercive laws.

A government that does little to restrict their freedoms will work well. There will be no abuse of the considerable freedoms they are allowed. Each individual will contribute meaningfully to their eternal society and cause it to thrive forever. Each will forever be subject to the eternal gospel law. Each will grow spiritually forever in this ideal environment.

We must, however, always remember that God’s ways are higher than our ways, and we will always look to him for counsel, and for each celestial being that counsel will be “law.” The celestial government will be a theocracy with the Father and the Son at the head. The inhabitants of the celestial heaven will require little in the way of government.

What about the other degrees of glory? It is likely they will require more government with more coercive laws to protect the rights of both the strong and the weak. In addition, perhaps in the lowest kingdom, there may exist some not enduringly dedicated to Jesus Christ and the Father. These might see leadership as unjustly imposed and the laws as arbitrary and non-binding. Perhaps even a form of democracy—majority rules—might be necessary in the least of the kingdoms of glory. The celestial government described above is operable only when all of its subjects willingly acknowledge Jesus Christ, or his designated representative, as Lord and Master and readily acquiesce to his leadership. They must also understand and accept the fundamental purposes behind his laws. These qualifications have been met by only a small minority of people at any one time of the earth’s history.

We might expect those in the terrestrial kingdom to live subject to a system of government somewhere between those of the celestial and telestial kingdoms. Presumably, it will allow greater freedoms, and hence greater growth, than is possible in the telestial realm.

The relative loss of freedoms in the lower kingdoms of glory will doubtless be an impediment to continued spiritual growth and will apparently even result in permanent limits to the amount of spiritual growth possible in that setting.

#Conclusion

As we become willing to impose the eternally-correct restrictions on our own freedoms, and as we conform our will to the Lord’s will, we are allowed to partake of expanding spiritual freedoms, choices, and opportunities through the atonement of Jesus Christ (2 Nephi 2:26; 9:10; 10:23; Moses 3:17; John 8:31-32, 36). Because of the Savior’s atonement and grace, we may participate in the processes of justification and sanctification.2 As we do so, we move inexorably toward our exaltation. We come to enjoy greater and greater freedoms until the “perfect day” when we become perfectly free.

If we resist temptation, overcome the natural man, and use our agency wisely over a period of time, we may come to earn the ultimate freedom available to any being in this second estate. What is this ultimate freedom? It is to be standing just outside the celestial gate and to possess an invitation from the Lord to enter. It is the freedom to be able to decide whether or not to accept that invitation, to enter that celestial gate, to walk to our glory and exaltation, and abide there with him forever.

God, of course, has all freedoms. Any choice that is possible to possess is

available to him. There are, of course, choices that are not possible to possess.

There exists in the universe a tragic and ultimate loss of freedom. If one exercises his agency inappropriately by making a succession of wrong choices, he chooses the way of the evil one. He becomes subject to destruction, the chains of hell, and eventually the ultimate captivity (Alma 12:9-11). And what are “the chains of hell”? Consider the ultimate destiny of Satan himself. Eventually, he will lose all freedoms. He will have no options open to him. In addition, he will be placed in a situation where his agency will not function—a place where there is no spiritual light, no law, no opportunity to grow spiritually, and no opportunity to earn freedoms. The law will be taken from him because his compulsion to do evil has overwhelmed his ability to do good. This is “outer darkness” indeed.

If we choose the Lord’s way, he gives us more latitude and more freedom. If we choose Satan, he tightens the noose until we are in his grasp—or, more accurately in the same desperate “grasp” that characterizes his own situation. Brigham Young taught, “The difference between the righteous and the sinner, eternal life or death, happiness or misery, is this, to those who are exalted there are no bounds or limits to their privileges” (Discourses of Brigham Young, 63). Now, that is freedom indeed!

Fur further discussion of the pre-requisites for spiritual growth, see “Vital Preconditions for Spiritual Growth” in volume 1, chapter 13, Agency and Freedom.

2 For further discussion of these two principles, see volume 1, chapter 17, Justification and Sanctification.

3 For a discussion of those freedoms not available even to God, see volume 1, chapter 14, The Power of God.