The Constitution

[Maxel]

This was sparked by a post of Elphaba's that was a response to one of mine in the thread The Coming Evangelical Collapse. I thought this deserved its own thread, as Elphaba and I have been discussing this in various places, and I'd like to see others' opinions as well (and I don't want to hijack the original thread further). I'm not a political science major, and I would love to hear a faithful LDS person who is more familiar with the law weigh in on this subject (I'm looking at YOU, Just_A_Guy and LittleWyvern- and everyone else). Feel free to (dis)agree as much as you want; the only way we all learn is through sharing what we believe to be the truth.

I apologize for the slight awkwardness of turning a specific response into a thread starter; I feel Elphaba brings up some valid points and I think this gives me a good framework on which to hang what I feel to be common LDS belief about the nature of the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers themselves.

------------------------------------------------

Then you should understand how profoundly the founders believed in his Enlightement philosophies, so much so that they used his language in the founding documents, sometimes almost verbatim.

We did study Locke 'extensively' (for high school, which consisted of two to three class periods) but I wasn't terribly interested. I never claimed to retain the knowledge or be an expert: only that it was a credit to my history teacher that she taught about Locke when we discussed the Constitution. The comment was made in response to the 'Christian revisionist' movement that you mentioned.

How so? What parts of the Constitution are based on eternal principles of God’s kingdom?

As an exercise, I will read through the preamble of the Constitution and highlight true godly principles (which is another way of saying the "eternal principles of God's kingdoms).

We the People of the United States,

Speaking as a republic, not as a dictatorship (for the downsides of a dictatorship and the superiority of a democracy, see Ether 6:22-23 and the entire chapter of Mosiah 29, particularly verses 9, 16-18, and 21-32, which lays out a system of government similar to the one laid down by the Founding Fathers).

in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,

The establishment of a government for the sake of the people (D&C 134:1, Articles of Faith 1:12).

provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

The desire to defend their rights and secure liberty for them and their children (for a poignant example, see Captain Moroni's Title of Liberty in Alma 46. Pay attention to the wording of the Title of Liberty in Alma 46:12).

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

THE most obvious example that this is in line with the eternal principles of God is the fact that the Lord has revealed, through Joseph Smith, that the Constitution was set up by "hands of wise men [who God] raised up unto this very purpose" (D&C 101:80).

In fact, they would have fought against adding “God’s Kingdom” in the Constitution. They were adamant about not referencing religion at all. The document is based on a philosophy that specifically rejects Christianity.

I agree that they should not have added "God's Kingdom" in the Constitution- as America is not God's Kingdom. I fail to see, however, the philosophy it is based on specifically rejects Christianity- or any religion, that matter, as the idea of 'freedom of religion' and 'separation of church and state' springs from the idea that, at the least, all religions are created equal. No religion is specifically rejected- but none is specifically embraced, either. Could you point to an example of what you speak?

Where does the Church teach it believes Locke was influenced by God?

Nowhere specifically. However, Gordon B. Hinckley has stated that the general Enlightenments of the ages, and their attendant political and religious revolutions, were good and paved the way for the birth of America and the rebuilding of the Church (that is, it was of God).

Admittedly he points to no specific philosophy or Enlightenment movement, but I think we can safely assume that he is speaking about the Enlightenments that affected the American Revolution: this includes the British Enlightenment, of which John Locke was a part of.

[After the death of Christ, t]he first thousand years passed, and the second millennium dawned. Its earlier centuries were a continuation of the former. It was a time fraught with fear and suffering...

But this was also a season of growing enlightenment. As the years continued their relentless march, the sunlight of a new day began to break over the earth. It was the Renaissance, a magnificent flowering of art, architecture, and literature.

Reformers worked to change the church...

While this great ferment was stirring across the Christian world, political forces were also at work. Then came the American Revolutionary War, resulting in the birth of a nation whose constitution declared that government should not reach its grasping hand into matters of religion. A new day had dawned, a glorious day. Here there was no longer a state church. No one faith was favored above another.

At the Summit of the Ages, Gordon B. Hinckley, appearing in the November 1999 Ensign

The Constitution does not include any reference to ‘morals.” The founders deliberately kept religious concepts, including “morals,” out of the Constitution.

All right, we'll have to agree what "morals" are before proceeding. Perhaps a better term would have been "ethics"- what I meant was that the Constitution is only fit for a people who will uphold the general code of ethics that were espoused by the Founding Fathers, or the code of ethics which supports the Constitution itself: that would be the code of ethics as found in the true religion of Christ. Whether the Founding Fathers recognized that was what they were embracing or not does not matter, as they were inspired of God to bring forth the Constitution as it was written. Therefore, the wording and spirit of the Constitution itself is grounded on eternal Gospel principles and can be sustained only if the people of this country hold to those eternal Gospel principles.

Yes, it does, but “God” is not the Christian god. Again, the Declaration is based on Locke’s philosophies, so much so that Jefferson sometimes used Locke’s language almost verbatim.

I wouldn't expect to find the traditional theological Christian God espoused in any legal document- the traditional Christian God was used as a tool by the Catholic Church to subject nations to its unholy rule for centuries. Any breaking away from that isn't necessarily a breaking away from the true Christian God. In fact, it can be viewed as a breaking away from false tradition, moving towards finding the real Christian God.

I agree, however, that the traditional Christian God is not espoused in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution- but the real Christian God is; the only requirements to see His handiwork is to be enlightened by the Spirit of God (or we can believe the many, many quotes from various Founding Fathers that they saw the hand of Deity moving in their proceedings). Through modern revelation, we now know exactly which God they were referring to, whether they themselves realized it or not.

Just a FYI, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and cannot be used to legislate the rights it enumerates. I’m not saying this makes the DoI any less important, just that it is not binding.

No, it's not legally binding. However, it lays the foundation for the entire Revolutionary War and the subsequent nation we now live in. Dismissing it, or the concepts it espouses, does damage to our understanding of history.

The founders were demonstrably not Christian They did not follow the light of Christ because they didn‘t believe in it.

You misunderstand how I use the term. The Light of Christ- the theological concept- is in part the inner conscience that every man possesses. It was the source of the correct principles of the equality of man and sovereignty of the people that the Founding Fathers possessed. When I use the term 'Light of Christ', I am referring to a person's conscience.

For the most part, they believed in a benevolent Creator that wanted the best for them, but did not involve himself in their every day lives, although their individual beliefs varied on this issue. Nevertheless, they rejected Christianity’s supernatural events, and would be shocked at how people today try to overlay their actual efforts with a transparency of Christianity.

Can you show documentation for how the bulk of them 'rejected' Christianity's supernatural events? And then go on to prove that, if they reject the traditional Christianity of the day, that somehow equates to them rejecting the bulk of the principles of the Gospel of Christ as Mormons understand it?

If you’re saying that because God inspired the Constitution, everything they believed was inspired of God as well, I can‘t respond to that, as it cannot be proven one way or the other. What I can say is the revisionist history that they followed the light of Christ negates the actual history of the founders’ deliberate efforts to keep any reference to religion out of the Constitution.

I don't agree with the former statement, and I reject the latter as you misunderstand how I use the term 'Light of Christ'.

However, I don't see a problem with attributing the founders' efforts to the Christian God; however, if this is true, then He inspired them to reject Him.

This is a a statement that violates our understanding of the matter. God inspired them to reject the idea that the prevailing religion of the day- or any religion, for that matter- should be given unequal preference in governmental proceedings. If to do so some of the Founding Fathers had to hold the dogmatic Christianity of the day at arm's length because it was theologically and philosophically corrupted, so be it. This does not invalidate the fact that they were godly men, inspired by God in their actions.

------------------------------------------------

I think at this time, it would be best to rephrase my statement, incorporating new information and insights I have had since this exchange was started.

The Founding Fathers were inspired in the sense that they followed their inner consciences to do what is right against all odds- they were not necessarily inspired to affiliate with any specific religion of the day. They were inspired of God to know which philosophies to draw upon. They were inspired of God in their proceedings and actions. The products of their work- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc.- were products of wise men who were inspired of God.

The Constitution is a document not fully formed at its writing, yet it laid the foundation for the first truly free country: America. It was only within a country that legally practiced freedom of religion that the Church could be established. In theory, it draws its philosophies from the best minds of its time: minds that were not only advanced, but inspired of God. In practice, it draws its power from the moral integrity of the people. If the people should ever reject the principles of true religion, of the Gospel of Christ, then the inevitable fate is the misinterpretation and eventual disregard of the Constitution.

------------------------------------------------

More reading on the subject from an LDS perspective:

Wise Men Raised Up: Article appearing in the June 1976 issue of the Ensign by Frank W. Fox and LeGrand L. Baker

Our Divine Constitution: Article appearing in the November 1987 Ensign (meaning it was originally a General Conference talk) given by Ezra Taft Benson

The Constitution: A Glorious Standard: Article appearing in the September 1987 Ensign by Ezra Taft Benson.

[nimrod]

Surely God inspired them, as mentioned in the Doctrine & Covenants. (ie: wise men He raised up for this purpose). From what I gather from my reading of the founding fathers, they believed in God. They believed in the right to worship. They believe that this Nation was being established with His help. They were not too fond of the 'religions' of the day. Since we NOW KNOW that that the Church was not upon the earth, this apparent enmity we see toward organized religions is more of testament to me that they (the founders) were inspired. (ie: they knew something was wrong when they saw it....in the religions of the time) If you read WHY they were somewhat "anti" toward religion (Thomas Jefferson specifically) you will see that they had valid points. Many of those points are valid in today's sects. (PS: I DO include Jefferson as a Founder...even though many argue that he was away during most of the "putting together" of the Constitution. He was no doubt very instrumental in our beginning)

[a-train]

The founding fathers were right. All the religious priests of their day were false. False religion has been used for centuries to bring people into bondage, it is still hard at work today.

-a-train

[LittleWyvern]

Can you show documentation for how the bulk of them 'rejected' Christianity's supernatural events? And then go on to prove that, if they reject the traditional Christianity of the day, that somehow equates to them rejecting the bulk of the principles of the Gospel of Christ as Mormons understand it?

Just as a clarification, the Founders were mostly all Deists, as were most of the Enlightenment thinkers except the very early ones (such as Bach, he was Lutheran). The Deist God is sometimes termed a "clockmaker God," one who set up the original conditions and simply let the Earth go, without ever intervening. Rejection of supernatural events is a core part of the Deist doctrine, as they believed that one can understand God only through reason.

So the founders indeed rejected many parts of Christianity at the time, and as it would turn out many of the basic tenets of the LDS faith. This, however, doesn't say that the Founders weren't inspired, they probably just didn't attribute any inspiration they received to God. They probably attributed it to themselves.

In essence, there's no proof (in the academic sense) that the Founding was inspired, but the combination of just the right people, just the right events, and just the right philosophies have surrounded the Founding in an aura of legend and mystery that it has never lost.

Edited March 17, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[ninjormon]

I believe that this country was founded on correct principals for all men, though they did not include everybody at the time they wrote it. The concepts are correct when applied correctly. There is a promise that the Priesthood (Church) will always be here and guided by the right person, that same promise is not given for the government. The men at the time may have been correct for that time but that does not mean that there will always be good men with good intentions in office.

As far as diesm goes, I think that it is partialy correct, I think that the courses of the earth have to play out, just as our lives have to. Just like somepeople think "if God knows whats gonna happen from the begining why do we still have to be here" As this goes I think that the purpose of this country being founded is not the sole purpose of its existence. I believe that the country has to go through major crisis and major changes in order for its purpose to be fully realized. Including possibly joining other countries and being governed by the same constitution in order for the work of the Gospel to go foward.

[ninjormon]

Have any of you ever heard that we as LDS dont get cremated because it would make the work for Christ more difficult to resurect us? Follow me on this one, I also believe in there being one global government coming about and being governed by very evil men, I think that it would be good for this to temporarily happen because if Christ is to reign at the head of a global government wouldnt it be good for that government to already be in place?

[darrel]

I agree the that this nation and government was estblished by the hand of God. I dont recall the reference (I think it was John Adams) that as long as we have honest leaders this nation will flurish but if evil men come to power this nation will be in paril.

This follows my understanding of the constitution hanging by a thread. Our early leaders fortold this event and that the Restored Church will be the one safe place for all who seek peace from the ensuing revolution and upheval in this land.

[darrel]

I agree the that this nation and government were estblished by the hand of God. I don't recall the reference (I think it was John Adams) that as long as we have honest leaders this nation will flurish but if evil men come to power this nation will be in paril.

This follows my understanding of the constitution hanging by a thread. Our early church leaders fortold this event and that the Restored Church will be the one safe place for all who seek peace from the ensuing revolution and upheval in this land.

PRESIDENTIAL QUOTE FOR THE WEEK

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

— John Adams, October 11, 1798

Edited March 18, 2009 by darrel

[Traveler]

1. I believe that the constitution was divinely inspired and an incredible and wise document for its time. I also believe that the founders were inspired. This means that they were able to create something greater than they were. We could have improved our constitution but we have done the opposite and it has divided our country.

2. I believe there have been inspired men operate in our government since the inception of our law under the constitution – men such as Lincoln. I believe Eisenhower to be the last inspired president of the United States of America. Mostly as of late your government has become uninspired and as a result liberty has diminished liberty and replaced it with entitlement (for rich as well as poor).

3. Divine Morals must be at the foundation of law. There is a movement to mislead people into thinking that morals cannot be legislated – Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only can morals be legislated; morals are the only thing that can be legislated. We are not going to change the universal gravitational constant or pi by legislation. Without question a bad law either reflects poor morals or no morals among those that have power to legislate.

4. Religion needs to foster divine morals – When religion fails the people their morals become so confused that even families are at risk and when families are at risk society has nothing left but to turn on itself, divide into campaigns of hate and become agents of blame until they either destroy themselves or are destroyed by war fed by their hate and blame.

The Traveler

[Janice]

So the founders indeed rejected many parts of Christianity at the time...

And rightly so, as the Christianity of the time was grossly lacking many of it's vital, plain and simple truths.

... and as it would turn out many of the basic tenets of the LDS faith.

Well, this might be a stretch. Without the basic tenets of the LDS faith, the Christianity of the time wasn't worth much. We too may have been Deists.

This, however, doesn't say that the Founders weren't inspired...

Right!

... they probably just didn't attribute any inspiration they received to God...

I would not presume to know such a thing about their deeply personal thoughts or reasons for their ambitions,

They probably attributed it to themselves.

Again, I would not presume to know such a thing, but I do like to think that the extent to which they placed their own self interests in jeopardy and risked their own lives to betray the Crown and to layout the foundations for a new nation would indicate that they felt at least somewhat driven by a Higher Power.

In essence, there's no proof (in the academic sense) that the Founding was inspired

Of course you are correct.

but the combination of just the right people, just the right events, and just the right philosophies have surrounded the Founding in an aura of legend and mystery that it has never lost.

I would go far beyond "an aura of legend and mystery". In my mind there can be no doubt that the founding of this nation was an event that was planned and orchestrated by God from the time the apostasy first began. In tracing the events leading up the founding backwards, one can see the roots of it in events that occurred in Rome not long after Christ's death. Slowly, surely, over 1,800 years, the pieces fell into place that allowed for the founding of a free nation.

Then, 29 years after the Deceleration of Independence was drafted, 18 years after the Constitution was adopted, 14 years after the Bill of Rights ensured the free exercise of religion.... the very man who was to be the chief instrument in restoring the Gospel was born.

God Bless America, Land of the Free!

Janice

Edited March 18, 2009 by Janice

[LittleWyvern]

Well, this might be a stretch. Without the basic tenets of the LDS faith, the Christianity of the time wasn't worth much. We too may have been Deists.

I was referring to the fact that many of the things Deists deny are some of the core doctrines of the LDS faith, miracles being one of them.

Again, I would not presume to know such a thing, but I do like to think that the extent to which they placed their own self interests in jeopardy and risked their own lives to betray the Crown and to layout the foundations for a new nation would indicate that they felt at least somewhat driven by a Higher Power.

This was an educated guess based on what I know about Deist philosophy. The Founders were probably motivated by their God (many modern Deists still find motivation and spiritual cleansing through various forms of prayer and meditation), but since they strictly denied any forms of divine intervention, such as inspiration, they probably didn't take the true inspiration of God for what it really was.

I would go far beyond "an aura of legend and mystery". In my mind there can be no doubt that the founding of this nation was an event that was planned and orchestrated by God from the time the apostasy first began. In tracing the events leading up the founding backwards, one can see the roots of it in events that occurred in Rome not long after Christ's death. Slowly, surely, over 1,800 years, the pieces fell into place that allowed for the founding of a free nation.

Then, 29 years after the Deceleration of Independence was drafted, 18 years after the Constitution was adopted, 14 years after the Bill of Rights ensured the free exercise of religion.... the very man who was to be the chief instrument in restoring the Gospel was born.

That's the beauty of seeing the larger picture through the gospel, things look even more awe-inspiring. :)

[Moksha]

Just as a clarification, the Founders were mostly all Deists, as were most of the Enlightenment thinkers except the very early ones (such as Bach, he was Lutheran). The Deist God is sometimes termed a "clockmaker God," one who set up the original conditions and simply let the Earth go, without ever intervening. Rejection of supernatural events is a core part of the Deist doctrine, as they believed that one can understand God only through reason.

So the founders indeed rejected many parts of Christianity at the time, and as it would turn out many of the basic tenets of the LDS faith. This, however, doesn't say that the Founders weren't inspired, they probably just didn't attribute any inspiration they received to God. They probably attributed it to themselves.

In essence, there's no proof (in the academic sense) that the Founding was inspired, but the combination of just the right people, just the right events, and just the right philosophies have surrounded the Founding in an aura of legend and mystery that it has never lost.

This sounds a bit like Elphaba, injecting reason into an otherwise emotional appeal to rally around the Constitution as a religious document, regardless of whether it is in our canon or not. I cannot claim that objectivity, since I used to wrap myself in my beloved flag shirt back when - along with my bell bottoms.

:)

[LittleWyvern]

This sounds a bit like Elphaba, injecting reason into an otherwise emotional appeal to rally around the Constitution as a religious document, regardless of whether it is in our canon or not. I cannot claim that objectivity, since I used to wrap myself in my beloved flag shirt back when - along with my bell bottoms.

I apologize if I have brought the thread off topic, the original intent of my first post here was simply to answer one of Maxel's questions.

EDIT: Speaking of reason... perhaps I have a streak of Enlightenment philosophy myself as well, hehe.

[Elphaba]

Before I begin, I need to explain that I have not responded to all of your comments and/or questions. When you bring scriptures into the discussion to prove your position, the discussion ends. I could soundly refute your scriptures, but it wouldn’t matter, because you believe they are literally the word of God. Unless this can be an evidence-based discussion, rather than theology-based, my points become moot.

Therefore, I am going to respond to your comments where you haven't referenced scripture. However, I've decided to cut my response into separate posts to keep them from being so unwieldy. The first one is in response to your comment:

I never claimed to retain the knowledge or be an expert: only that it was a credit to my history teacher that she taught about Locke when we discussed the Constitution. The comment was made in response to the 'Christian revisionist' movement that you mentioned.

I can believe that as you’re not very interested in him now. I’ll try to explain his influence in the founders’ insistence to keep the government completely free from religious influence.

Before I do so, let me be clear: I am not saying Locke did not have his own religious convictions, because he did. He was a Christian, though sometimes a nominal one, and other times very devout.

When I say he, one of the unofficial founders of the Age of Enlightenment, rejected Christianity, it was state-sponsored Christianity. Locke believed forcing the people to belong to the state-mandated religion took away man’s inherent right to believe whatever he chose to believe, even though these beliefs were going to vary significant among the populations.

For example, Locke wrote the following quotes that explain my point. I have added paragraph breaks where he had none, because it is very difficult to read without them.

Things ever so indifferent in their own nature, when they are brought into the church and worship of God, are removed out of the reach of the magistrate’s jurisdiction, because in that use they have no connection at all with civil affairs.

The only business of the church is the salvation of souls: and it no ways concerns the commonwealth, or any member of it, that this or the other ceremony be there made use of. Neither the use, nor the omission of any ceremonies in those religious assemblies, does either advantage or prejudice the life, liberty, or estate of any man.

. . . .

For what hinders but a christian magistrate may have subjects that are jews? Now if we acknowledge that such an injury may not be done unto a jew, as to compel him, against his own opinion, to practise in his religion a thing that is in its nature indifferent, how can we maintain that any thing of this kind may be done to a christian?

Finally:

That state seems to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests. Civil interest I call life, liberty, health and indolence of body.

Sound familiar?

Locke is certainly not the only philosopher that influenced the founding fathers. For example, another product of the Enlightenment was Richard Price, a devout Christian:

What an eventful period is this! [The American and French revolutions.]

. . . .

And now, methinks, I see the ardor for liberty catching and spreading; a general amendment beginning in human affairs; the dominion of kings changed for the dominion of laws, and the dominion of priests giving way to the dominion of reason and conscience. (italics mine)

Finally, James Burgh is an extremely important contributor to the founders deliberate omission of religion in the Constitution. Decades before Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, Burgh originated the metaphoric alternative to the Christian Commonwealth, when he wrote that it was essential to:

. . . Build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil.

Sound familiar?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is my second response, addressing your comment:

Maxel: I fail to see, however, the philosophy it is based on specifically rejects Christianity- or any religion, that matter, as the idea of 'freedom of religion' and 'separation of church and state' springs from the idea that, at the least, all religions are created equal.

The founders never posited all religions were created equal. They said all religions were to be treated equally by the government. Those are two completely different approaches.

The philosophy does not reject Christianity; rather it promotes it by not interfering with it. The separation of church and state is what legally prevents the government from interfering in any religion, including Christianity.

In fact, as I’ve mentioned a number of times now, the founders were not irreligious; they all believed in the deist version of a Creator. Their devotion varied, sometimes quite a lot, between each of them. But my point is, they did not insist the Constitution include any reference to their religious beliefs either. Thus, we have an example of how important it was to them to keep any religious belief out of the Constitution.

I think a good way to explain it is: the government exists to see to the affairs of man, the church exists to see to the affairs of God. The Enlightenment philosophies insisted on this, thus sparking a major upheaval in traditional church/state practices.

Maxel: Could you point to an example of what you speak?

The obvious example is the Constitution itself. I’ve explained this before, but the founders had a huge fight on their hands to keep any mention of Christ or Christianity out of the document. A significant portion of the population were appalled by this exclusion, especially the omission of a religious test outlined in Article 6.

But the founders stood their ground, and were eventually able to persuade all parties it was the best way to ensure the religious liberty of American citizens. To do otherwise would have been anathema to the founders.

Another example was the Sunday Mail controversy. From the revolution through 1810, the tradition in most towns was to open the post office on Sunday, whereby the postmaster could catch up on sorting the mail and give people their mail after they left church. They did this because 1) It was the only way to ensure mail was received in the most timely manner, and 2) Sunday was often the only day people came into town.

In 1809 a Boston Presbyterian church member was also the town’s postmaster. When he insisted on continuing to open the post office on Sunday, as was his job, his church excommunicated him for not keeping the Sabbath holy. Thus began a twenty-year bitter battle over whether or not to keep post officers open on Sunday.

In 1810 a bill was introduced to legally stop the government’s practice of keeping the post office open on Sunday. This was backed by religious organizations, both the respective denominations, and its members. Over the next twenty years, they sent in over 100 petitions to Congress to pass federal legislation that would force post offices to remain closed on Sunday. Their premise was that it violated the religious belief that Sunday was the Sabbath, and therefore, no commerce should be allowed to happen.

Opponents of the proposed federal legislation, who wanted to keep the post offices open on Sunday, cited the Constitution, and its strict separation of church and state

Through the next twenty years, each proposed legislation to do close the post office on Sunday died in committee, which essentially made the bills void. In fact, an 1830 petition from Indiana said:

Any legislative interference in matters of religion [constituted] a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

. . . .

There are no doctrines or observances inculcated by the Christian religion which require the arm of the civil power either to enforce or submit them: we consider every connection between church and state at all times dangerous to civil and religious liberty. (emphasis mine)

Eventually the issue became moot, as better technologies came along to distribute the mail, which meant the need for post offices to be open on Sunday disappeared. But it is extremely telling that Congress referred to the Constitution each time a bill was introduced to force the government to close the post offices on Sunday.

In fact, Senator Richard Johnson of Kentucky wrote what was then considered to be the second Declaration of Independence, called the Report on the Subject of Mails on the Sabbath where he consistently argued that closing the post office on Sunday was utterly unconstitutional.

Johnson had his report printed and distributed to the public, persuading them to support his argument that the bills were unconstitutional. While this was a generation still committed to its constitution, religious organizations were already starting to revise history and claim the founders were devout Christians. They were not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m going to stop here, as my post answers your questions up to this point, but is so long I doubt if anyone will read it all. I just wanted to give you something to mull over for a while.

I will write another post to respond to your remaining comments/questions.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not a political science major, and I would love to hear a faithful LDS person who is more familiar with the law weigh in on this subject (I'm looking at YOU, Just_A_Guy and LittleWyvern- and everyone else).

I don't really feel qualified to weigh in on the Enlightenment ideals or their role in the formation of the Constitution, and it seems the discussion is being ably carried on by others.

I would note that

1) When we talk about the religious beliefs of "the founders", it's important to specify which "founders" we're talking about. Thomas Jefferson seems to be kind of the poster boy for Deist founders, but he was not involved in drafting the Constitution AFAIK. I recognize LittleWyvern's points above, but would be interested to see a name-by-name breakdown of the religious beliefs of those present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (as well as those involved in drafting and ratifying the Bill of Rights--see below).

2) I've always assumed (without thinking too much on the topic) that when Joseph Smith and other Church leaders referred to the Constitution as an "inspired document", they were thinking mostly of the safeguards incorporated into the Constitution by later amendments (viz the Bill of Rights) and not necessarily of the governmental structure put forward by the Constitution in its 1787 incarnation.

3) Whatever the Founders' religious beliefs were, thanks to Wilford Woodruff we know what they are now (well, several of them, anyways).

[LittleWyvern]

1) When we talk about the religious beliefs of "the founders", it's important to specify which "founders" we're talking about. Thomas Jefferson seems to be kind of the poster boy for Deist founders, but he was not involved in drafting the Constitution AFAIK. I recognize LittleWyvern's points above, but would be interested to see a name-by-name breakdown of the religious beliefs of those present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (as well as those involved in drafting and ratifying the Bill of Rights--see below).

If you're talking about the religious beliefs of the delegates, they're all over the place. This is from Wikipedia:

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists.

The source citied for this is "Frank Lambert. The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. 2003." The point I was trying to make was not that all of the delegates were Deists, but many of the core ideas of the Constitution can be traced directly to Enlightenment thinkers, who were almost all Deists.

2) I've always assumed (without thinking too much on the topic) that when Joseph Smith and other Church leaders referred to the Constitution as an "inspired document", they were thinking mostly of the safeguards incorporated into the Constitution by later amendments (viz the Bill of Rights) and not necessarily of the governmental structure put forward by the Constitution in its 1787 incarnation.

Unless there are qualifiers, I always thought document meant document, not half-of-the-document.

[Elphaba]

PRESIDENTIAL QUOTE FOR THE WEEK:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Adams was absolutely correct. What the founders shared was a view that religion should not divide people, an opinion that provided the founders with sufficient reason to exclude God-based claims from most forms of political debate.

On the other hand, their desire for a nondivisive religious climate stemmed directly from the belief that religion was an indispensable civic resource. If the American people could not maintain moral standards in their public and private dealings, they could not make a democracy work.

This is what Adams meant by his quote about a religious and moral people.

Two other Adam’s quotes:

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.

The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body."

Frankly, the founders tended to be arrogant about their deism, which embraced reason over superstition. They believed their religion had evolved beyond Christianity, but that Christianity had not evolved beyond the people.

Elphaba

[Maxel]

I thought I'd let this thread 'simmer' for a couple days before coming back to it. I appreciate everyone's responses. I'll be responding to a few different posts in different posts of my own to avoid writing one giant novella of a post.

Just as a clarification, the Founders were mostly all Deists, as were most of the Enlightenment thinkers except the very early ones (such as Bach, he was Lutheran). The Deist God is sometimes termed a "clockmaker God," one who set up the original conditions and simply let the Earth go, without ever intervening. Rejection of supernatural events is a core part of the Deist doctrine, as they believed that one can understand God only through reason.

I was kind of hoping for some sort of breakdown of the beliefs of every Constitutional delegate (EDIT: I missed your most recent citing of the exact thing I was looking for. Thank you.)I see the phrases 'most' or 'nearly all' of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and the attendant examples almost always cite Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin. I've seen a more detailed list, but it only dealt with about 14 of the 39 signatories of the Constitution and their religion- even then, about 3-4 were bona fide Christians.

So the founders indeed rejected many parts of Christianity at the time, and as it would turn out many of the basic tenets of the LDS faith.

I wouldn't equate the sundry parts of Christianity of the time of the Founder's lifetimes with the basic tenets of the LDS faith, as the most basic doctrine- the nature of God- was incorrect (the Trinity defies rational logic; the Godhead does not). Various ancillary principles were correct, but the very framework upon which they were hung was not an inspired framework- in fact, it was the result of apostasy. Now that I've read and learned more about the situation, the fact that some/most/all of the Constitution's signatories weren't Christian makes more sense than if they had all been Christian. Edited March 18, 2009 by Maxel

[Just_A_Guy]

Unless there are qualifiers, I always thought document meant document, not half-of-the-document.

I'm not sure. Does that mean that Article II, Section 2, clause ii was inspired? If so, was it inspired because it was a necessary compromise to get the South to accept the document--a sort of divine Realpolitik?

If you're talking about the religious beliefs of the delegates, they're all over the place. This is from Wikipedia:

Thanks for the quote. If I have my numbers right, of the 55 delegates, 49 were Protestants of some sort and three were Catholics. Thus, fifty-two of the fifty-five delegates were at least nominally Christians, which doesn't seem to square with the earlier assertion that "the Founders were mostly all Deists".

Edited March 18, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[LittleWyvern]

I was kind of hoping for some sort of breakdown of the beliefs of every Constitutional delegate (EDIT: I missed your most recent citing of the exact thing I was looking for. Thank you.)I see the phrases 'most' or 'nearly all' of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and the attendant examples almost always cite Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin. I've seen a more detailed list, but it only dealt with about 14 of the 39 signatories of the Constitution and their religion- even then, about 3-4 were bona fide Christians.

I make a distinction between the Founders, who I feel are the thinkers behind the main concepts and diction of the Constitution, and the delegates to the Philedelphia Convention, many of whom were sent with specific directives from their states to not allow any new theories of government that weren't proposed as amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

I wouldn't equate the sundry parts of Christianity of the time of the Founder's lifetimes with the basic tenets of the LDS faith

Perhaps my wording has been vauge. Let me reword: a lot of the basic tenets of the LDS faith are denied by Deists.

I'm not sure. Does that mean that Article II, Section 2, clause ii was inspired? If so, was it inspired because it was a necessary compromise to get the South to accept the document--a sort of divine Realpolitik?

As divinely inspired as the Constitution was, this inspiration would be worth nothing if the Constitution wasn't ratified. I'd go as far as saying the compromises in the Constitution were themselves inspired, as looking at the ratification votes in each of the states leads one to wonder how the Constitution was ever ratified. The Founders had to face reality (and the Anti-Federalists).

Thanks for the quote. If I have my numbers right, of the 55 delegates, 49 were Protestants of some sort and three were Catholics. Thus, fifty-two of the fifty-five delegates were at least nominally Christians, which doesn't seem to square with the earlier assertion that "the Founders were mostly all Deists".

See my answer to Maxel's first quote in this post.

[Just_A_Guy]

Little Wyvern

I make a distinction between the Founders, who I feel are the thinkers behind the main concepts and diction of the Constitution, and the delegates to the Philedelphia Convention, many of whom were sent with specific directives from their states to not allow any new theories of government that weren't proposed as amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

If I'm understanding you right, you seem to view the delegates to the Constitutional Convention as basically a group of above-average politicians who essentially adopted and codified the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers; therefore, we should look primarily to the Enlightenment and not to the actual drafters both when giving credit for, and when attempting to interpret, the US Constitution. Sort of an "originalism-once-removed" view. Correct?

Maxel

I was kind of hoping for some sort of breakdown of the beliefs of every Constitutional delegate (EDIT: I missed your most recent citing of the exact thing I was looking for. Thank you.)I see the phrases 'most' or 'nearly all' of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and the attendant examples almost always cite Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin. I've seen a more detailed list, but it only dealt with about 14 of the 39 signatories of the Constitution and their religion- even then, about 3-4 were bona fide Christians.

Woops! Must have cross-posted.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Maxel]

First of all- thank you for taking the time to respond, Elphaba. I appreciate your insights.

Before I begin, I need to explain that I have not responded to all of your comments and/or questions. When you bring scriptures into the discussion to prove your position, the discussion ends. I could soundly refute your scriptures, but it wouldn’t matter, because you believe they are literally the word of God. Unless this can be an evidence-based discussion, rather than theology-based, my points become moot.

The entire discussion, for me, is rooted in faith. My desire is to learn more about the factual history and then see how that squares against my faith. I would be interested in seeing you "soundly refute" the scripture I cited, as I assume you would do so with history and philosophy, which I would not mind learning about. In fact, that's the whole reason I am engaging you in this discussion.

Before I do so, let me be clear: I am not saying Locke did not have his own religious convictions, because he did. He was a Christian, though sometimes a nominal one, and other times very devout.

When I say he, one of the unofficial founders of the Age of Enlightenment, rejected Christianity, it was state-sponsored Christianity. Locke believed forcing the people to belong to the state-mandated religion took away man’s inherent right to believe whatever he chose to believe, even though these beliefs were going to vary significant among the populations.

As a Mormon, this absolutely thrills me. A rejection of the state Christianity of the day was a rejection of the unrighteous dominion wielded by an apostate church. However, that he still held to even the most basic tenets of Christianity is a sign, to me, that Locke connected philosophically with Jesus of Nazareth. Personally, I see this as a sign that Locke too was inspired of God. I also do not find it merely coincidence that some of the greatest influences on the Founding Fathers, who I believe were inspired of God, were in turn Christians and apparently inspired themselves. I marvel at the hand of Deity that I, personally, see in this example. But, I digress.

For example, Locke wrote the following quotes that explain my point. I have added paragraph breaks where he had none, because it is very difficult to read without them...

Sound familiar?

Very.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The founders never posited all religions were created equal. They said all religions were to be treated equally by the government. Those are two completely different approaches.

Good point; I could have worded that better.

The obvious example is the Constitution itself...

Another example was the Sunday Mail controversy...

Very interesting events.

Johnson had his report printed and distributed to the public, persuading them to support his argument that the bills were unconstitutional. While this was a generation still committed to its constitution, religious organizations were already starting to revise history and claim the founders were devout Christians. They were not.

I assume you neglected to mention the instances where religious organizations attempted to re-paint the founders as Christians. I don't see that happening from what you've explained here. So, I did some of my own internet research.

The first thing I found was the college textbook Unto a Good Land: A History of the American People, co-authored by professors David Edwin Harrell, Edwin S. Gaustad, John B. Boles, and others. On pages 400-404, it briefly chronicles the Sunday mail controversy and notes that Christians were on both sides of the debate. It seems that, for the most part, it was Presbyterians and Congregationalists who wanted post offices to be closed on Sundays (pp. 400-01), and they found heated opposition from non-Christians, Roman Catholics, and piestic Evangelicals such as Baptists, Methodists, and "Disciples and Church of Christ members" (p. 402). If you are implying that the mere fact some Christians attempted to impose theological beliefs on American government as an attempt to 'revise' history, then it is no less fair to say that it was largely in thanks to other Christians- following the Constitution- that history was not 'revised'. In fact Senator Johnson, the man who wrote the "Second Declaration of Independence", was a practicing Baptist (according to wikipedia). If anything, in this example we see Christians disregarding the Constitution as trying to 'revise' history, and other Christians correctly interpreting the Constitution resisting this 'revision'. I see Christians as some of the most stalwart supporters and preservers of the Constitution in this example.

I don't see the lines as being drawn between the Christians and the non-Christians. Maybe I'm missing something, however.

[LittleWyvern]

If I'm understanding you right, you seem to view the delegates to the Constitutional Convention as basically a group of above-average politicians who essentially adopted and codified the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers; therefore, we should look primarily to the Enlightenment and not to the actual drafters both when giving credit for, and when attempting to interpret, the US Constitution. Sort of an "originalism-once-removed" view. Correct?.

I still think the delegates should receive credit for the Founding. When trying to understand the development of the main ideas behind the Constitution we should look to the Enlightenment, but to understand how the idealism of the Enlightenment philosophers was translated to concrete law, we should look to the delegates. The delegates did a lot of the ugly work, but their work was mostly adapting the philosophies of the Enlightenment into the real world of politics. These adaptations were the delegates' original ideas.

[Elphaba]

The entire discussion, for me, is rooted in faith. My desire is to learn more about the factual history and then see how that squares against my faith.

I think that is fine. I just can't respond to those particular comments.

I would be interested in seeing you "soundly refute" the scripture I cited, as I assume you would do so with history and philosophy, which I would not mind learning about. In fact, that's the whole reason I am engaging you in this discussion.

I'm sorry, I worded that wrong.

I did not mean that I could refute the scriptures. I meant if I could, it would not matter, because again, you believe them to be the literal word of God. The truth is, I really know nothing about the scriptures, and wouldn't even know where to start. But I don't think that precludes me from the conversation.

As a Mormon, this absolutely thrills me. A rejection of the state Christianity of the day was a rejection of the unrighteous dominion wielded by an apostate church. However, that he still held to even the most basic tenets of Christianity is a sign, to me, that Locke connected philosophically with Jesus of Nazareth. Personally, I see this as a sign that Locke too was inspired of God. I also do not find it merely coincidence that some of the greatest influences on the Founding Fathers, who I believe were inspired of God, were in turn Christians and apparently inspired themselves. I marvel at the hand of Deity that I, personally, see in this example. But, I digress.

I can only speak to your factual information, which is accurate. I think I already mentioned Locke was a Christian; however those who had the most influence on the founders rejected the government's intrusion into the religious communities, which were usually Christian.

The founders also were also educated in, and greatly influenced by the classics, including Greek philosophers who predated Christianity.

However, it is impossible to list all of the men (no women) who the founders' considered when writing the Constitution. I believe there are websites that address that. I'll look later, because I have to go buy a dress.

I assume you neglected to mention the instances where religious organizations attempted to re-paint the founders as Christians. I don't see that happening from what you've explained here. So, I did some of my own internet research.

This is a completely different topic from what the founders intended. Currently there is a plethora of people who have revised the history to insist the founders were Christians, and thus, the Constitution is a Christian document.

I think this topic should be discussed in a different thread, because it would be too unweildly in this one. If you agree, just copy and paste your comments above into it.

Elphaba

[JohnnyRudick]

A long time ago I did a paper on the study as to the Deist nature of the founding Fathers.

I wish I had some of those writings now as they would be very helpful to me.

I today am of this opinion because of that study that they, General Washington in particular was not so much a deist and that the movement of the French Philosophers did not even have its influence until much later even though Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson made many trips to France and England to secure financing and such from brothers abroad.

France in particular.

It was Washington later learning of such influence from notably France wrote letters to the brethren warning them of this influence which later took hold through out the lodges.

I wish I could remember more particulars I only know that for now, I am content to believe that they were not so much Deists as today's writings record them so much to be.

You must get hold of a book and read it called "Proofs of a Conspiracy" by John Robison.

Maybe an Old friend may have an old torn up copy.

It will show the changes that the lodges went through during the time of the French Revolution and the founding of this nation.

This was one of the books that had the nation is such a stur over Masonry during the early 1800s.

Wish I could be of more help.

Not saying these man were all Christians.

Just that I believe they are not the hard core deists that they are today painted out to be.

I got into trouble with my writings back in my Political History Class back in the mid 70s and it wasn't easy as I was expected to vomit back every word my professors.

But I was sort of an independent sort and. . .

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 19, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
afterthought