A IS FOR ANARCHY
Before we begin let me start by saying anarchy may not mean what you think it means. We are speaking here of intellectual anarchy, the belief that government isn't essential and may even be detrimental to civilization. This is a belief one can hold while also believing that we ought to obey the law in order to stay safe. Just thought I'd make that point from the start: You can be an intellectual anarchist, a peaceful anarchist.
LDS CHILDHOOD
I can still remember being introduced for the first time to many of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' central doctrines. I remember learning about the Plan of Salvation. I was fascinated by it. It told a story of our existence that explained where we came from, why we were here, where we were going. I remember learning about God; what he was like and how he interacts with mankind. I learned so many things that shaped the way I saw the world from that moment forward.
Lets start with...
THE PLAN OF SALVATION
Before we all came to this earth we existed as spirit children of God in heaven. Our story really begins with the formation of something called the 'council in heaven.' God gathered all his children together and presented a plan: in order for us to receive physical bodies and become like God we must go to a world outside of God's presence. There we would inevitably make mistakes but God would provide a savior for our sins, thus allowing us to be raised in immortality and live forever with God, being like him. Incidentally the only being good enough to be a savior for mankind, who was not already immortal was God's eldest son, Jehovah who answered Gods request with "Thy will be done."
Sounds like a good plan. But this was not a monarchy (apparently) because other plans were allowed to be presented. One of God's brilliant children stood and presented a similar plan. He suggested that the only reason we'd need a savior at all is because we'd use our free will to sin. Why not simply put our free will on hold, let him make all our decisions and organize our society without any suffering, pain or ill-will and we could then simply skip death, go straight to immortality and live forever, every last one of us. No one will be lost and no savior would be needed. And the only catch is that everyone would have to give up his free will, no exceptions, and in order to ensure that Lucifer would need God's power.
Well, after these plans were presented - both tending to generally the same end, by the way - a war commenced. Not a war of swords and blood, but a war of words and of ideas. The two plans attracted individuals to their camps and lines were drawn. Those confident that their savior would do the job, those courageous and brave individuals sided with God in favor of his plan. The intelligent power hungry, and the unintelligent bleeding hearts, those that simply put equality over freedom as the highest ideal and best moral virtue sided with Lucifer.
This war raged on but in the end Lucifer, that son of the morning, who had tried to usurp the power of God was thoroughly discredited and cast out of heaven, we expelled him from our community. Interestingly he and his followers were not confined in prisons until they conformed, they were cast out instead. The earth was formed and beginning with Adam and Eve it was populated with all of God's children that remained in heaven.
A fascinating story. I found in incredibly insightful growing up. I milked this story for as many conclusions and implications that I could. It proved very discerning on the topics of the nature of God, the nature of a heavenly society.
Now, when I first heard about this story I wondered, "Why didn't God just say, 'bad idea Lucifer, we're going to do it my way.'" and let that be the end of it? or better yet, why was a council held at all? God should have just decreed it. but as I began to realize the nature of free will I realized why this wouldn't work. Imagine God gathering all his children together and saying, "Good news children! I'm sending you to earth to get bodies and sin! Oh, and Jesus, you're going to suffer and die for their sins, and no I'm not asking." Well then what would be the point of giving us free will on earth if we didn't have it in heaven? No, the choice to come to earth had to be our decision from the start, we had to own it, otherwise we would not be responsible to God for our sins, he would be responsible for our sins to us, for they would have originated from his decree.
I learned that a God - a perfect person - has the utmost respect for the freedom of will of everyone in society, even those that are wrongheaded. That fact can be extrapolated to what I learned next. I learned that the fundamental, central tenant of a heavenly society - a utopia - is a respect for the freedom of will of one's self and of others. God didn't say, "well they have free will so I can't be involved at all," instead he presented a plan and let us make the decision that we wanted to. He had respect for his freedom of will and ours.
One can see that respect played out again in the garden of Eden, a microcosm of the pre-existence story. Adam and Eve are placed in a paradisaical garden and before receiving moral responsibility they are presented with two options, one from God and one from Satan. But the important thing is that they made the choice. Could they have lived in the garden forever? Yes, but they chose to eat of the fruit and become morally responsible for their actions. Only after they understood pain and pleasure could they be morally responsible. Perhaps that has something to do with empathy.
RATIONAL THEOLOGY
Man’s Free Agency, the greatest indestructible gift always remains untrammeled. (John A. Widtsoe, Rational Theology)
The LDS theology has an even more unique understanding of freedom than we've discussed. Theirs is basically the only christian theology that makes an argument for freedom arising out of our very natures just as God's nature permits him to have freedom of will.
Let us juxtapose the two options: from the traditional Christian theology man is created by the decree of God where there was no man before. In other words Man's existence is entirely predicated and dictated by God as all existence and the universe also. If man is evil, its God's doing, if man is good its God's doing. In this model man's freedom apart from God does not exist. Man's choices are the choices God decides man will make. (This is classical theism, the theology the philosophers came up with after the apostasy in the beginning of the Christian church).
Compare that with the doctrines that Joseph Smith restored about man's nature. D&C 93:
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
If man is eternally existent then our freedom is our own, God is not responsible for who we are or what surroundings we find ourselves in. Far from dictator of our will, in the LDS view God is a co-creator, but not dictator of our experience, just as a loving parent ought to be. The doctrine of predestination has no place in the LDS religion, and in its place is found our own moral agency.It also follows that if we existed before the fall of Adam and Eve then inherently (in our spirits), we do not descend from corrupt or fallen parents. The doctrine that further undermines human freedom and human dignity - original sin - is undone by doctrine that we are eternally co-existent with God.
And if eternal as God, then we are boundlessly free. For in the classical theism point of view God gains his autonomy and sovereignty by being un-caused, being the first cause. If we are also un-caused, eternally existent, that same sovereignty would apply equally to us.
Being co-eternal with God leads necessarily to another central tenant of the freedom doctrine - that it serves to progress an agent of freedom down one path or another. Lucifer used his moral freedom to oppose the non-aggression principle in the most egregious way (usurping God's power and controlling every soul for all eternity) and became Satan. God uses His moral freedom to gain further light and truth to advance and has made our advancement His goal. In other words freedom of will is a prerequisite to progress. Without freedom all things stagnate.
Theologically the LDS faith is replete with doctrines supporting moral freedom for all mankind. If there was any people on the face of the planet that had an excuse to be enthusiastic about freedom and the cause of freedom it is the LDS people, for their theology is best suited to embrace it out of any Christian theology ever seriously conceived.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Lets fast forward. Now I'm not in church I'm in school and in school I learned that our courageous forefathers fought valiantly against a tyrannical government to keep the freedoms they had grown accustomed to in this the new world. They drafted a document called The Constitution that my church says was divinely inspired.
I find it interesting that God, who throughout the whole of celestial history (as we have just discussed) opposed a central controlling entity (even when he was and is most qualified for that job) would 'divinely inspire' The Constitution of a controlling body of less qualified men (ie government). So I looked into it and I found something quite interesting. This doctrine of the LDS faith comes from the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of many revelations from God in these days, not in the days of the bible. In section 101 verses 77 and 78 it states:
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.
Just as I suspected! There is nothing magic about the piece of FLIGHT FROM OPPRESSION TO FREEDOM
Fast forward once again. I live in Utah. The pioneers in the LDS community in Utah are heralded as being great benefactors to our society. They migrated across the country to escape the oppression of coercion, violence and yes, governmental power abuse and they landed here in this valley to create a new life. Beautiful story; courageous people, fighting, dying, going hungry and suffering for what they believed was right.
It seems to me that I've basically heard several versions of the same story retold again and again, throughout all of history, through the people in the bible and book of Mormon alike. I keep hearing that nobody can make your decisions for you, that you can't trade in your freedoms for security, that there is no virtue, no integrity in doing what others think is right if you disagree, and that no amount of power or popularity make evil right.
But what people preach and what they really believe I have tragically learned are often two very different things. The lds people are notorious for being conservative, republicans, but shouldn't they oppose any centralized monopoly of force? After all this insightful pre-existence doctrine, the only detailed peak into heaven and what that society looks like is uniquely LDS all throughout the christian tradition. If other christian people had that story, and the understanding of the freewill principle would they not carry the principle out to it's logical conclusion and at least comprehend correctly that any centralized body of power is evil by its very nature? Perhaps physically opposing it isn't necessary (after all that's dangerous) but shouldn't someone at lease oppose immorality intellectually?
Turn the other cheek? In my ward people professed a God given knowledge that we should bomb Iraq, incidentally when the politicians were pounding the drums of war. Most the LDS folk I know are at best apathetic to the millions of souls in prison for nonviolent violations of legislation. Those who aren't apathetic are outspokenly in favor of the drug war, which is not a war on drugs but on largely nonviolent people who may our may not have a mental illness called drug addiction. Why not throw bulimic cheerleaders in prison while we are at it? We are against bulimia aren't we? Bulimia kills thousands of kids a year, doesn't it?
The compassion that the LDS people profess to have for their fellow man may express itself in their communities, it might come out in their families but there is a deficiency in what might be called their mental ability to carry doctrine and principle to their logical conclusions. And it is most likely that deficiency that causes the LDS people to miss the mark so egregiously in their understanding of freedom and what it looks like when applied to a society. This is precisely why they have become a hindrance to the cause of freedom in these; what they believe to be the last days for Satan's rule of this world. What ever happened to the old Mormon creed to mind your own business and allow others to attend to theirs?
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE
Lets go even further down the theological rabbit hole and examine the central tenant of any Christian religion; Jesus Christ, his nature and role in the salvation of mankind.
You may be saying to yourself, "but the scriptures talk about God being king, that Christ will come to earth to rule and reign for a thousand years." Yes, they do.
I would ask you to think about what that means to you. How do you interpret that scripture? Would you site that as proof that having a government isn't evil despite the parallels between Satan's plan and the very constitution and function of government?
When Satan was in the garden of Eden he made his plan known, what does he say? What is his plan? If the answer to that doesn't convince you that government, any government, it's evil by the very constitution of the principles that embody it (by it's very nature) then simply answer this question; without freedom could Jesus Christ have accomplished his goal of saving mankind? Second Nephi Chapter 2 says:
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves...
Christ came not to simply redeem men from the fall but to give them the choice to be redeemed. His guiding principle is freedom. The cause He first espouses is the cause of freedom, only after that can He begin to espouse the cause of saving mens' souls from hell. Believe in freedom above all other things for Christ's sake.Besides if Christ will be king what kind if things do you imagine He will concern Himself with? Will there be prisons in God's kingdom? What about gulags? Will He wage war with other nations? Maybe he would to ensure his nations oil interests, because that's okay. Will He insist on being in charge of the money? How much extra cash will he print off to bail out banks and the like? Will He levy a tax on His subjects? Perhaps not a tax, but maybe a "mandatory tithe" would be acceptable. Will He legislate our activity? Perhaps Sunday church will be His first mandate. Will He regulate our industry and patrol our boarders? What exactly will He do as our physical king that He can't do as our spiritual king without violating our freewill? Think about it, "What Would Jesus Do" might hold some words of wisdom in this thought experiment. We may be able to glean some pearls of great price by applying His perfect respect for human freedom to His role as governor.
Let me remind you that Jesus Christ was the only perfect human being to ever walk the earth, the only one with the ability not to abuse ultimate power and therefore, the only entity perfectly capable of being a king. If that Jesus Christ - the same perfect God - would not do the things government does to us today, then why do we allow imperfect humans to rule over us? Let me go a step further, Jesus Christ does, in fact, already have that power and position as king according to all Christians. One need only to ask, "how does Jesus use that power today?" to know what He would do as king in the future while residing on the earth. Well if anything he merely persuades men to come unto him, and do the things they've seen him do.
To my mind He would never violate the non-aggression principle and He would always and forever respect everyone's property rights. That rules out taxes. And without taxes you can't pay armies or welfare or the police. Perhaps He'll take donations. Come to think of it, what functions of government does that not rule out? Any government that Christ would be the head of would be so vastly different from what we call government today that were we to live in that society we would easily and instantly recognize that any form of monopolized coercive power over man (like our government) is founded on the same principles that Lucifer espouses and is therefore an abomination in the sight of God.
One prevailing opinion in the LDS communities I grew up in sounds something like this, "compared to other governments, we have it pretty good, why rock the boat?" to this I would make the point that we all opposed any coercive power on matter of principle before. Why not hold to those principles today? Think back to the story of the pre-existence. What if apathy towards coercive power was excused back then? What if I had said, "well I'll sign up for Lucifer's plan because even though he's taking my freedom of will, at least I think he's going to use that freedom for good." Would I have made it to earth? According to LDS doctrine, no. It is a matter of principle and what government does is irrelevant when evaluating it's nature. it is a coercive entity of monopolized power regardless of how it uses that power. Even if one approves of what the government does with tax dollars they must still recognize that they didn't have the choice not to pay. A mugger might buy you flowers but he's still stolen your money. The flowers are just a bit of luck.
My plea is not for LDS people to convert to become anarchists, I'm trying to persuade them to truly embrace the principles they already profess to believe. Namely freedom for all of Gods children, while being tolerant of their choices. A return to a true and visceral belief in non-aggression, (including vicarious aggression via the state) would be a massive step in the right direction. Church leaders aren't helping when they preach the principle without preaching about how these principles are actualized or what they look like in real life. Actual real life application of principle is not spoken of by the leaders of the church for fear of offending, therefore we get supplicating platitudes of "pray for your government leaders" and nothing more. And who does not benefit from this arrangement? The membership of the church as evidenced by the fact that the membership of the church is incapable of making the awesome logical leap from "thou shalt not kill" to "thou shalt not wage war." Perhaps a people like that needs leaders to speak very plainly to them, that they may understand.
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS WORDS ON GOVERNMENT
And yes in the doctrine and covenants there is a discussion about governments, it says governments were instituted by God for the good of mankind. Either this verse is correct or the temple ceremony is correct, for they are in direct opposition to each other. Don't know what to tell you, just calling it like it is.
It also says we believe in being subject to kings and government but most LDS people don't believe that kings are that great. So they are capable in discerning the difference between the belief in avoiding death by complying with the will of kings and the belief that tyrants are morally correct. Two very different beliefs indeed! Perhaps the LDS people could be equally discerning when the word king is replaced with government as well. They are essentially and in all practicality the same, morally corrupt and founded upon evil principles and motives.
Don't we decry evils of power and the evil lust for power? But I suppose entrusting a small minority of people with the power to legislate and control our lives by threat of fee, tax and death is necessary right?
I am amazed at how hostile and opposed the LDS people are towards the mere idea, the mere conception of applying their most foundation moral principle of freedom from tyranny at the heart of their lives and throughout all society. It is almost as if they worship this government as an idol.
JOSEPH SMITH
"I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." That's the kind of government Joseph Smith practiced. On February 7th 1844 he gave a speech railing on evils that the government was creating at the time. He begins by opposing two evils that the state exacerbates both in direct opposition to the cause of freedom: slavery and immoral laws. Judge for your self whether or not Joseph Smith would be against the drug war today. Allow me to quote,
"...some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours; and hundreds of our kindred for an infraction, or supposed infraction, of some over wise statute, have to be incarcerated in dungeon glooms..."
Later on in the same speech he gave a view of government's future.
"No honest man can doubt for a moment, but the glory of American Liberty, is on the wane, and that calamity and confusion will sooner or later destroy the peace of the people. Speculators will urge a national bank as a savior of credit and comfort. A hireling pseudo priesthood will plausibly push abolition doctrines and doings, and “human rights,” into Congress and into every other place, where conquest smells of fame, or opposition swells to popularity. — Democracy, Whiggery, and Cliquery, will attract their elements and foment divisions among the people, to accomplish fancied schemes and accumulate power..."
And what would Joseph Smith say "the four main pillars of prosperity" are? "Agriculture, manufactures, navigation, and commerce." He understands correctly that prosperity is a byproduct of commerce, a byproduct of the free market.
Even in 1844 when government was incredibly small compared with today Joseph Smith wanted it smaller.
"Frustrate the designs of wicked men. Reduce Congress at least one half. Two Senators from a state and two members to a million of population, will do more business than the army that now occupy the halls of the National Legislature. Pay them two dollars and their board per diem; except Sundays, that is more than the farmer gets, and he lives honestly. Curtail the offices of government in pay, number and power..."
Smith's vision of ensuring that the good is done by all people looks eerily close to a vision of how the free market and civilized society might handle criminals and disputes.
Petition your state legislatures to pardon every convict in their several penitentiaries, blessing them as they go, and saying to them, in the name of the Lord, go thy way and sin no more. Advise your legislators when they make laws for larceny, burglary or any felony, to make the penalty applicable to work upon roads, public works, or any place where the culprit can be taught more wisdom and more virtue; and become more enlightened. Rigor and seclusion will never do as much to reform the propensities of man, as reason and friendship. Murder only can claim confinement or death. Let the penitentiaries be turned into seminaries of learning, where intelligence, like the angels of heaven, would banish such fragments of barbarism. Imprisonment for debt is a meaner practice than the savage tolerates with all his ferocity. “Amor vincit amnia.” Love conquers all.
Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for “an hour of virtuous liberty on earth, is worth a whole eternity of bondage!” Abolish the practice in the army and navy of trying men by court martial for desertion; if a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor. Make HONOR the standard with all men..."
It is true that Joseph Smith believed that the free market could only flourish "when the people are secure and their rights properly respected." The anarchist's argument is that the free market can provide the services to make that environment come to pass better than a monopoly of power can. Were Joseph alive today, perhaps he would agree.I was going to go into the king follett sermon but I think we've dealt enough with the theology of freedom above.
AND WHY DOES THIS PERSIST?
What I'm about to say is by no means doctoral or definitive its just my personal experience. I can remember being a teenager and being taught by a man in our ward about government. He related it to the family. He talked about how things worked in his house. At the beginning of the lesson he gave one example of how he deals with his children. He said if his sons 'didn't go to church that was their choice, but they would have to suffer the consequences.' To me that sounded fair. I imagined those consequences being a lack of sensitivity to spiritual things, perhaps the consequences would be some kind of slippery slope that would leave them in a very sad place decades after they left home. I didn't know what kind of consequences they might suffer but his statement seemed perfectly fair and fine.
Only those weren't the consequences Brother Griffith had in mind. Oh no, he wouldn't let it get to that he would intervene, but how? With heartfelt curiosity as to why his sons didn't want to go to church? With words of concern around the dinner table in an effort to persuade his sons to do what he thought was right? No, that's not was Brother Griffith had in mind at all.
If his sons didn't go to church they couldn't go out, they had to do many more chores, they were grounded, they were punished. And for what? For an act of violence, or a threat? Why were they punished? To extract a behavior from them that Brother Griffith was pleased by. Those 'consequences' he spoke of were unnatural, they were artificial. They did not leave a good taste in my mouth. I was deeply concerned by this. Brother Griffith was openly admitting to something I had seen but never wanted to acknowledge, that he ran his household as a tyrant, a benevolent tyrant but a tyrant still.
And what was Brother Griffith's justification running his house in this manner? It was his house. His food, his money. And somehow his property rights had experienced some kind of scope creep that caused him to believe that everything and everyone within it was his to control. Besides when his sons have families of their own they can run their houses anyway they please. Sounds like a power-trip-ponzi-scheme to me. If my parents can do it to me I can do it to my kids. By the same token, if this is how I run my house can I really get mad when I and my property are considered the property of the government? I am living on the United State's land...I guess they own me just like I own my kids.
I have no ill will toward Brother Griffith, he is a good guy and he does love his family very much. Nevertheless his view on the virtue of tyranny was quite unnerving to me, it was my first realization that the understanding I had of "freedom of will" was not in line with some other people, even superiors and teachers; even people that ought to know better. That was scary - was I wrong or was brother Griffith, the Bishop and everyone else? Regardless of if they had an accurate grasp on the principle of freedom or not I didn't want to live in their world and I didn't want to be like them. As a consequence I've always remembered the lesson.
At the end of it he said we "ought to decide what we think about government as a principle because pretty soon we'll be head of households ourselves and these principles are important to discern before hand." Though it was disturbing that he had actually given it some thought and could rationalize tyranny so easily I took his advice to think on it myself.
So why does this kind of totalitarian thinking persist in a church that opposes it on principle, by its theology, by its history and by its morality? Perhaps it is in our human nature to lust for power and excuse others that do the same. Perhaps it is easier to normalize the tyrannical environment of our nations, our ideologies and the families we grew up in (and thus repeat it) rather than reform our actions and the way we think. Perhaps the doctrine contradicts itself and each individual lives by their own principles, justifying themselves with carefully picked scripture. The bottom line is that I honestly don't have an explanation other than like the children of Israel being lead out of Egypt by Moses they simply refuse to come up to the mount of reason, speak with God and learn the truth for themselves.
If you're Mormon you believe that the war that had begun in heaven isn't over. God still works and fights for your soul and mine. Satan still tries to take our free agency away. That war in heaven, the war of words, of opinions and of ideas still rages on. On the one hand are people using the art of logic and truth to help persuade others to understand, accept to live according to true principles. On the other hand there are those that use the art of propaganda and abuse to lull people into a state of complacency or misguided collusion with evil doers opposed to true principles. If you're LDS please embrace the heritage you've been given of a true understanding of and justified enthusiasm for freedom. Commit to the non-aggression principle and live.
