Year:1788
Scriptures:
Doctrine
and Covenants 101:80
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.
“Historians
are generally agreed that never before had there been such an
assembly of men gathered to determine the kind of government to which
they would give their allegiance. Thomas Jefferson exclaimed
that the framers of the Constitution were ‘demigods,’ and other
eminent writers have concurred with J. Reuben Clark's assessment that
there has never been a ‘group that . . . challenged the supremacy
of this group.’ (Conference
Report, April 1957, p. 47)
“How
does one account for such an assembly of talent at one time and one
place in history? Generally it is treated as a fortuitous, chance
circumstance when an opportune moment in history brought forth such
talent.
“A
more perceptive, reasonable, and equitable explanation that accounts
for such extraordinary talents and abilities among men was offered by
the Prophet Joseph Smith. On the basis of revelation, he declared the
unique truth that all men and women lived before their mortal birth
and that exceptional abilities were the result of faithfulness and
effort in one's premortal life. Such an explanation is reasonable and
just because it postulates that all people had something to do with
developing their talents and abilities before they were born, rather
than that God discriminately favored a few of His children with
talents while depriving others of the same.
“The
doctrine of man's premortality provides us with some expansive
insights. Based on the Christian principle of the Fatherhood of God,
fundamentally the doctrine is: all mortal beings are the spirit
offspring of God and premortally dwelt in His presence as His spirit
children. Because each received his or her spirit existence from Him,
God is the literal Father of all mankind.
“In
premortal life, spirits had agency and progressed in knowledge and
intelligence in proportion to the obedience that they gave to the
eternal laws of God. Not all spirits made the same effort or gave the
same degree of obedience to eternal law. Accordingly, spirits
developed different talents and aptitudes—intellectual, musical,
artistic, and spiritual (Bruce
R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book Company, 1985), p. 34).
The Lord revealed to Abraham this principle: ‘These two facts do
exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than
the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am
the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all (Abraham
3:19).’ Here we have at
least three degrees of intelligences or spirits: one is more
intelligent than another—a third is more intelligent than the other
two. There were, in other words, gradations in intelligence.
Differences among persons born into mortality are based on their
premortal initiative and obedience, accounting for individuality and
exceptional and extraordinary talents. In Latter-day Saint theology,
there never was, there is not now, nor will there ever be equality of
intelligence.
“In
the account revealed to Joseph Smith, Abraham was shown the premortal
spirit children of God, whom he described as ‘the intelligences
that were organized before the world was.’ He saw ‘many of the
noble and great ones.’ Standing among these valiant spirits, God
saw that ‘they were good.’ Abraham was ‘one of them’ and was
‘chosen before [he] wast born (Abraham
3:22-23).’
“Prophets
of God, considered as the ‘noble and great,’ came to earth to
accomplish assignments given by God in premortal councils. ‘Every
man,’ said Joseph Smith, ‘who has a calling to minister to the
inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the
Grand Council of heaven before the world was (Joseph
Smith, Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected
and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book
Co., 1976
365).’
Other male and female spirits, also noble, are given assignments to further
the progress of mankind. Significantly, Wilford Woodruff declared the
founders of the American
Republic to be ‘the best spirits the God of heaven could find on
the face of the earth. They were
choice spirits (Conference
Report, April 1898, p. 89 ).’
“The
doctrine of our premortal life increases our reverence for God's
omniscience. Only an omniscient God could direct the timing and
placement of His children on this earth. Only God can providentially
determine to what nation His children will be sent. Timing and
placement are crucial to the accomplishment of His divine purposes.
Thus, the assignment of select sons and daughters to come to earth at
particular places and at a particular historical moment is neither
haphazard nor accidental. Both Moses and the Apostle Paul implied
this truth in their writings, (See,
for example, Acts 17:22-26 and Deut. 32:7-9. For commentary on these
passages that reflects Church theology, see Joseph Fielding Smith,
The Way to Perfection (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1956), pp.
46-48) but
it took latter-day revelation to clarify our understanding of it.
“With
the perspective that we had a premortal life, we can see that it was
not an accident of history that such an assembly of talent appeared
on the scene at one time and in one nation. They came to earth by
assignment from God; this assignment, according to their words to
Wilford Woodruff, was to ‘lay a foundation’ of a new government
that would provide freedom to all. That freedom was a necessary
precursor for a later restoration of the gospel. That is why the
founders of the American republic are rightfully respected in Church
theology as necessary forerunners to the great latter-day work of
establishing the kingdom of God on earth before the Savior comes
again….
“Historians
have not been oblivious to the intellectual and religious influences
that gave rise to the unique American political system embodied in
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The fundamental
doctrine of government through the rule of law rather than government
through the rule of a sovereign was not a unique idea of the Founding
Fathers. Previous political thinkers had enunciated this idea
centuries before, but their ideas were not fully developed until the
framers of the Constitution collaborated to debate the kind of
government under which they would live. Happily, the framers were
familiar with history, common law, and philosophy. They may have
traveled in horse-drawn carriages, but they ‘carried under their
hats... a political wisdom garnered from the ages (J.
Reuben
Clark, Jr., Stand
Fast by Our Constitution [Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973]
16).’
“That
political wisdom included belief in four fundamental principles:
First, a belief in the natural rights
of man; second, that people cannot be taxed without their consent;
third, that the best way to preserve
liberty is to separate and limit the powers of government; and
fourth, that the powers of self government could be delegated to
representatives of their own choosing.
“As
British subjects, the framers brought to the Constitutional
Convention the British common law
precedent of rights and liberties. These rights and liberties had
been secured by centuries of struggle
wherein the Britons won concessions from kings who held to the
Justinian Code that ‘the prince
stood above the law.'
That view represented the European continental conception of
government, that he who rules holds all power, rights, and authority.
“The
first political concession that limited a monarch's power was made on
June 12, 1215, when King John was compelled to sign the Magna Charta.
The Great Charter established two principles that form the basis for
English constitutional law. First, there are certain laws that even
the king is compelled to obey; and second, if the monarch
(government) refuses to obey these laws, the nation has the
legitimate right to overthrow the government. This historic right was
later invoked by the colonists in the Declaration of Independence
when they stated that the king of England had so infringed upon the
rights of his subjects that he was ‘no longer fitted to be the
ruler of a free people.’
“In
the seventeenth century, Parliament presented to Charles I a Petition
of Rights. The petition was a reassertion of the provisions of the
Magna Charta, demanding that the king agree to what was already the
law of the land. The king was unwilling to acknowledge these
provisions, so Parliament demanded his formal consent. Charles I
resisted. But because he needed money to operate his government, and
because Parliament refused to vote him money until he agreed to their
petition, he reluctantly signed the petition on June 7, 1628. He
thereafter dissolved Parliament and refused to grant the rights to
which he had agreed. For that, he was subsequently carried to the
scaffold and beheaded.
“The
monarchy was not restored until 1660, when Charles II agreed to the
provisions of the Magna Charta and the Petition of Rights. However,
his brother, James II, who succeeded him, reasserted the right of
absolute monarchy. In the Revolution of 1688, James was forced to
abdicate, and parliamentary rule was established once and for all
among the British people.
“In
1689, Parliament established a constitutional landmark—the Bill of
Rights. The Bill of Rights provided in written form specific rights
of the people that are fundamental to British constitutional law.
Excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment were declared
illegal. Only Parliament could levy taxes. The bill also gave
citizens the rights to bear arms. The king could not suspend laws or
create courts outside of established law.
“England's
revolution was between the monarch and Parliament. Out of this
struggle emerged the by-product—liberty for British citizens. So
profound was the impact of the revolution upon the Puritan settlers
in America that they instituted the same principles in their colonial
government—principles that had been won by centuries of struggle.
That struggle, however, established in the minds of the British
subjects the idea of government by law rather than government by a
sovereign. A century later this would find expression in the
Constitution and the first eight amendments to the Constitution.
“John
Locke's ideas formed the basis for both the English and the American
revolutions. His Two Treatises of
Government was not published until
two years after the English Revolution, but the manuscript had been
in existence for twenty years, so his ideas were well known.
According to Locke, all people have certain natural rights, which
consist of life, liberty, and property. In order to protect these
rights, people form a government by social contract. Government, he
reasoned, has certain powers to govern so long as it rules fairly and
equitably in preserving the rights of the people. Should government
break the contract by arbitrarily removing these unalienable rights,
those governed are relieved of their contract. They then had the
absolute right to rebel and to establish a new government.
“Other
key ideas of Locke—sovereignty of the people, government resting on
the consent of the governed; the legislature as the supreme power but
its power delegated by the people, who may withdraw it; and the
executive as the agent of the legislature—provided the fundamental
philosophy for
the colonists.
“Another
idea that found expression in the American system was the belief that
liberty could be preserved by limiting government. Baron de
Montesquieu conceived that the best way to achieve this was by
separating the powers of government into three departments:
executive, legislative, and judicial. The doctrine of separation of
powers is a cardinal feature of the U. S. Constitution.
“There
were also undeniable Christian influences on the founders that
sponsored their ideas about civil liberties as expressed in the Bill
of Rights. Moreover, the entire American legal tradition (judicial
review of government acts, presumption of innocence of the accused,
compensation to those negligently injured, equal protection of the
right of a person to have a court determine reason for his or her
detention) is based on biblical justification.
“But
a written constitution was not conceived only from the ideas of these
preceding philosophers and events. For 169 years, the colonists
experimented with varying forms of government under British rule. In
some instances, they had substantial autonomy of rule. Through
experience with charters, colonial legislatures, and later state
constitutions, they learned the value of self-government as a means
to secure their liberty. But even though some local autonomy had been
granted to the colonists, Parliament still insisted on regulating
colonial commerce through navigation acts and through levying taxes….
“Resistance
to taxation by the colonists rested on the historical British
constitution that it was unlawful to tax without the consent of
citizens through lawfully appointed representatives. The colonists,
of course, had no representation in Parliament, so they denied that
Parliament had the right to tax them. When the British imposed the
dreaded Stamp Act and enforced it by the innovation of admiralty
courts, the colonists reacted violently. The most notable firebrand
of the revolution, Patrick Henry, denounced the act as illegal. The
act was subsequently repealed, but the British government insisted on
the supremacy of Parliament to maintain its right to tax and to
regulate commerce. This disagreement reached a crisis with the Boston
Tea Party and resistance to other acts regarded by the colonists as
unlawful. They took their first steps toward union by sending
representatives to the First Continental Congress in 1774. The
delegates made a list of grievances and asserted their right to live
as British subjects. Britain refused to redress their grievances.
Hostilities then broke out in Massachusetts when local farmers
attacked British troops at Lexington and Concord. The British
declared Massachusetts in a state of rebellion.
“When
the Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775, some members of
Congress still hoped for reconciliation. Again Congress petitioned
England. King George dismissed their petition with contempt and
pronounced them rebels. Finding that they could not have the rights
of English citizens, the colonists rebelled, and the revolution
commenced.
“Momentous
events in history are the result of colliding influences: the
personalities in a drama, an issue or a crisis, and a timing that
synchronizes these influences into a historically significant event.
“We
can hardly imagine a greater confluence of forces—an issue that had
crescendoed for centuries, a king who desired to preserve the view
that he who has power has the right to dictate, and the colonists who
were willing to sacrifice their lives to be independent from
oppression. Had it not been for the collision of these opposing
philosophies and personalities the American Revolution might never
have occurred. Brigham Young intimated as much when he said: ‘The
king of Great Britain . . . might... have been led to... aggressive
acts, for aught we know, to bring to pass the purposes of God in thus
establishing a new government upon a principle of greater freedom, a
basis of self government allowing the free exercise of religious
worship (Journal
of Discourses, 26
vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886]
2:170).’
“That
the American Revolution was foreknown by God and foreordained to
happen is evident from some remarkable prophecies from the Book of
Mormon, which were recorded some twenty three hundred
years before the revolution transpired….
“The
galaxy of incomparable leaders that came on the scene at one time and
in one place to provide the world with an ensign of liberty was
divinely directed. God held these men in reserve to come forth at a
precise moment in history to declare independence for a nation that
was foreordained to be a sanctuary of freedom. They were not
insurrectionists. Their revolution was an appeal to higher law that
entitled them to revolt against any government that broke its
contract to preserve their unalienable rights. It was done in
recognition of natural rights and the established precedent of
British common law. Once the revolution was accomplished, these
leaders demonstrated their virtue by establishing a new government
that ensured to all citizens their God-given rights .” (William
O. Nelson, The Charter of Liberty: The Inspired Origin and Prophetic
Destiny of the
Constitution [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987] 24)
Divinity
of the Constitution
President
Ezra Taft Benson has made numerous comments about the divinity of the
Constitution. “About two hundred years ago some inspired men walked
this land. Not perfect men, but men raised up by the Perfect Man to
perform a great work. Foreordained were they to lay the foundation of
this republic. Blessed by the Almighty in their struggle for liberty
and independence, the power of heaven rested on these founders as
they drafted that great document for governing men-the Constitution
of the United States. Like the Ten Commandments, the truths on which
the Constitution were based were timeless; and also as with the
Decalogue-the hand of the Lord was in it. They filled their mission
well. From them we were endowed with a legacy of liberty-a
constitutional republic.” (Ezra
Taft Benson,
The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt
Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988]
595)
“The
Constitution of this land, with which we should all be familiar, is
the only constitution in the world
bearing the stamp of approval of the Lord Jesus Christ (D&C
101:76-80).” (Be
True to God, Country, and Self, Young Adult Fireside, Logan, Utah, 11
February 1979)
“During
the Constitutional Convention of 1787-which in four months drew up
the basic laws of our land-the Congress at one time was about to
adjourn in utter confusion. The attempt to establish a lasting union
had apparently failed. At this crucial moment, eighty-one-year-old
Benjamin Franklin arose, and is reported to have said, ‘In the
beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of
danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our
prayers, sir, were heard and they were generously answered…. I have
lived a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I
see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. If a
sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible
that an empire can rise without His aid?’ Then Franklin proposed
that the Congress seek divine aid, and they should begin each session
with a petition to the Almighty.” (Ezra
Taft Benson,
The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt
Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988]
597)
“The
Constitution was designed to work only with a moral and righteous
people. ‘Our Constitution,’ said John Adams (first vice-president
and second president of the United States), ‘was made only for a
moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government
of any other.’
“In
recognizing God as the source of their rights, the Founding Fathers
declared Him to be the ultimate authority for their basis of law.
This led them to the conviction that people do not make law but
merely acknowledge preexisting law, giving it specific application.
The Constitution was conceived to be such an expression of higher
law. And when their work was done, James Madison wrote: ‘It is
impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a
finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and
signally extended to our relief in the critical stage of the
revolution’ (The Federalist, no. 37).“ (Ezra
Taft Benson,
The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt
Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988]
597)
“We
must return to a spirit of humility, faith in God, and the basic
concepts upon which this great Christian nation has been established
under the direction of Divine Providence. We must return a
realization of the source of our strength. Then will we realize the
truth of what President George Albert Smith said: ‘The Constitution
of the United States of America is just as much from my Heavenly
Father as the Ten Commandments’ (CR April 1948, p. 182).” (
Joseph
Fielding Smith, Doctrines
of Salvation, 3
vols. edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,
1954-1956] 3
75)
“The
Federal Convention convened in the State House (Independence Hall) in
Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of
Confederation. Because the delegations from only two states were at
first present, the members adjourned from day to day until a quorum
of seven states was obtained on May 25. Through discussion and debate
it became clear by mid-June that, rather than amend the existing
Articles, the Convention would draft an entirely new frame of
government. All through the summer, in closed sessions, the delegates
debated, and redrafted the articles of the new Constitution. Among
the chief points at issue were how much power to allow the central
government, how many representatives in Congress to allow each state,
and how these representatives should be elected--directly by the
people or by the state legislators. The work of many minds, the
Constitution stands as a model of cooperative statesmanship and the
art of compromise.”
(Joseph
Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7
Vols. 2:271)
The
Constitution was adopted by a convention of the States on September
17, 1787, and was subsequently ratified by the several States, on the
following dates: Delaware, December 7, 1787; Pennsylvania,
December 12, 1787; New Jersey, December 18, 1787; Georgia, January 2,
1788; Connecticut,
January 9, 1788; Massachusetts, February 6, 1788; Maryland, April 28,
1788; South Carolina,
May 23, 1788; New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. Ratification was
completed on June 21, 1788.
