“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” (The Queen, in Lewis Carroll's “Through The Looking Glass.”)

I had an interesting email exchange with a friend, a fellow Latter-day Saint, a while back. I made the claim that just as one could be a religious apostate there was also such a thing as political apostasy.  Was I making a claim that was an “impossible thing?” Or is it possible to be a reprobate and apostate to political things?

My friend replied, “politics is not a religion and therefore no one can be a political apostate.” Then he made the assertion that if I believed that one could be a political apostate that I was “over-emphasizing that . . . area of [my] life.”

So I answered back stating:

When several of the Founding Fathers appeared to Wilford Woodruff in the Saint George Temple they plead with him that their Temple work be done. President Woodruff recorded their very words to him. Here is what they said, “We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it.”

So maybe it is possible, after all, to be an apostate in God’s eyes from something other than the Gospel. That is is possible to be a political apostate from the principles of the Constitution.

My friend disagreed. One’s loyalties should lie with God and not government and that you couldn’t, “serve two masters.” And that being an “apostate to government” was not the same thing as being an “apostate to God.”

So, I explained to him that when true constitutional principles are applied they are simply an attempt to preserve freedom. And that he was trying to “compartmentalize freedom and the Gospel and put them into two separate boxes.” That, in reality, “freedom and the Gospel are inseparable,” and replied further that:

The War in Heaven was a war fought over freedom. Satan sought to dethrone God, take over His Kingdom, and take away the free agency of man. For his rebellion Satan was cast out, along with his followers to Earth.

But, Satan’s war against freedom continues on this Earth. He still seeks to dethrone God and take over His Kingdom.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ on the other hand seeks the highest level of freedom for everyone. Freedom in fact, is a major theme in the scriptures. James said that the Gospel is the “perfect law of liberty“. Paul told the Corinthian Saints that “where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty” and admonished Galatian Saints to continue to “stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.” Pahoran told Moroni in an epistle that the Spirit of God was the “spirit of Freedom.” Christ himself told his believers that if they continued in his word they would know the truth and the truth would set them free. Numerous other scriptures could be cited that portray the idea that the purpose of the Gospel is to free man from captivity, liberate him, and with the proper exercise of free agency, exalt him

. . . .

[So it all boils down to the fact that] you can’t really separate the Gospel of Jesus Christ from freedom. Nor can you separate the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the instrument that God prepared to help preserve Freedom–the Constitution of the United States.

This “inseparability” of freedom and Gospel principles is why President J. Reuben Clark once stated in General Conference (Oct 42) that, “the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part. It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes.”

Further, if the Constitution and Constitutional law, was designed by God to promote, enhance and protect freedom, then men’s actions in relation to freedom can by used as a standard to judge those actions. In fact, President David O. Mckay said that freedom or free agency is a “measuring rod” to judge all the actions of men: “I refer to the fundamental principle of the gospel, free agency, references in the scriptures show that it is essential to man’s salvation and may be a measuring rod by which the actions of men, of organizations and of Nations may be judged.”

If freedom is a measuring rod to judge actions, then actions which are good or evil are determined by their effect on freedom or its constituent elements-life, liberty, property, truth and law. Those actions which are good tend to: 1. Preserve, increase and enhance a persons health, strength and vitality, or to act as a co-creator with God in lawful marriage to bring about “new” life; 2. To protect, enhance or otherwise ensure one’s own or another’s liberty; 3. To protect or increase one’s own or another’s property; 4. To increase or enhance one’s knowledge of the Truth or to act to promote knowledge in others; 5. Be based on and support true Natural and/or Revealed law. If one is going to govern society according to Natural or Divine law a sound knowledge of what is good or evil is necessary.

I would hate to serve two masters but I would certainly fear apostatizing from the political religion of this country, the U.S. Constitution, or from the principles of the proper role of government because by doing so I would ensure that I would be doing just that–serving two masters.

 Steven Montgomery is a happily married, fifty-five year old father of four (2 natural sons, 1 step-son, 1 step-daughter) and is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Steve has taught at a private secondary school, is a published journalist, and now operates (on an occasional basis) the Perfect Law of Liberty website.

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Ammon N. said:

The problem I see is that you are not defining apostacy. You are also assuming that, like religious doctrine, there is a correct political "doctrine" from which someone can apostatize. You are also equating the Constitution to the "religion" of our country. This is a huge leap, and a contradiction of your stated premise. You are dicatating to people that they have a moral obligation to value one interpretation of the Constitution over another. There is a huge difference between religion and politics. In religion we seek to learn the truth through authority. In politics, the goal is not to understand truth, but to persuade others to our view of the truth. This cannot be done by dogmatically calling people who interpret the Constitution differently than you do apostates.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 12, 2008
Votes: -1

Steven Montgomery said:

Ammon N wrote in: You are also equating the Constitution to the "religion" of our country. To which I reply: You're right. I am equating the U.S. Constitution to a "political" religion. And that's how President Ezra Taft Benson referred to it as well. For instance, President Benson, in his masterful talk, "The Constitution: A Glorious Standard (see: http://tinyurl.com/5lw9dm," he makes this wonderful statement: We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? I quote Abraham Lincoln*: “Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.” *for all you Lincoln haters, can't you acknowledge that maybe Lincoln got a few things right?

report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008
Votes: +0

Clint D said:

I can understand what Ammon N. is saying to a degree, but didn't Joseph Smith and every other prophet since him state that the constitution was inspired of God? If so then there has to be a "correct" interpretation of it. Bruce R. McConkie once said that the only way to interpret scripture is through the spirit of prophecy, the same way it was received. Wouldn't it make sense to then have a more correct interpretation of the constitution also? Read also D&C 101:77-80. Ammon N. also said In politics, the goal is not to understand truth, but to persuade others to our view of the truth. Many modern day prophets considered the constitution to be the will of God. All of Gods work is a manifestation of "truth." It can't be any other way. You are in affect saying that God didn't have any particular meaning attached to the constitution and that any interpretation you have of it isn't wrong.... Sounds a lot like a man named Korihor to me.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 03, 2008
Votes: +0

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment