In order to explain what freedom is, I’m going to tell a story: A long time ago in a galaxy far far away (perhaps) we lived as spirits with our heavenly parents. We learned and progressed, but could only progress so far in this state. Our obedience to our parents came too easy for us--the strength of our will to choose the right in the face of temptation could not be tested when we could be with our parents all the time.
So God called us together for a council, where he introduced the Plan of Salvation. But Satan had another plan, in which salvation would come automatically, which would, as it says in Moses “destroy the agency of man”. But that would not have accomplished the purpose--the reason for our earth life. Satan was a just a big liar who wanted to be popular and powerful. So those who wanted salvation without freedom had some sort of a battle with those of us who wanted salvation AND freedom.
Satan and his followers were thrown out of heaven, and we that accepted God’s plan were grateful to have our Elder brother Jesus Christ to be our Savior, so that we could come to earth, be free to make decisions, yet be able to repent of our sins and return to Heaven having learned much from this life.
So God created a wonderful world for us to live on, then he placed our first parents Adam and Eve in the Garden. There they were innocent, and had no understanding of good and evil. This was a problem--a seeming paradox. God cannot be the author of evil, but Adam and Eve had to know evil to be able to choose the good. Enter Satan--again filling his role in trying to be powerful and to make us miserable, but actually helping things move forward for us in our spiritual progression. Eve first, then Adam, recognized the necessity of transgressing one of Heavenly Father’s commands.
Adam and Eve used their God-given agency, and left-their child-like state in the Garden of Eden to go out in the world and be adults. They “began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat their bread by the sweat of their brow.” No one made sure they had food and shelter - they had to do it for themselves, and when their children came along, they provided for them and taught them all the things they needed to know as well. This was a great blessing to them.
In Eve’s words: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed (children), and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient”
THIS is the plan, Agency and Choices = Learning and Progression
But Satan was still around trying to make everyone miserable. He acted really friendly to Adam and Eve’s son Cain, and told him lots of lies. Not every friendship is good for you! Satan talked Cain into getting really angry about some things, and made him jealous of his brother Abel. Then he told him one of the biggest lies of all - that it was OK to bash his brother and take his stuff - so Cain did that. His immediate reaction is very interesting: And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands. (Moses 5:33)
So let’s pause right here and talk about freedom. What freedoms do we have? Do we have the freedom to bash other people and take their stuff?
Our first freedom is what we are born with: Life - no one has the right to kill you
Our second is: Liberty - the opportunity to do things and make choices - to pursue happiness
Our third freedom is the one that supports life and liberty: Property. If I apply my faculties (brains and brawn) to the natural resources God has given us, and I create or build something, no one else has the right to take it from me. PERIOD. If I spend my day fishing and catch one fish, it is mine. If someone bashes me and takes my fish, I am at risk of losing my life. The right to property supports the right to life.
Now, if I invent a better method of fishing, and catch 10 fish in one day, they are also mine. I may CHOOSE to give some of those fish to people who have been unable to catch one, and the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that I should do that. But it is still my decision - no person has the right to forcibly take my fish and distribute them to others. If that person wants the others to have fish, he himself should work really hard at fishing.
Freely giving of our property is ethical and moral; forcible redistribution is based on theft and is immoral. Nor is it moral for the group to get together and vote themselves some of my fish. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
While in Boston in 1843 Joseph Smith once attended two lectures on socialism given by Mr. John Finch, a socialist from England. At the end of the second one “I made a few remarks...I said I did not believe the doctrine.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 33) note: the parts in blue are what I didn't say in sacrament meeting, either because I ran out of time or decided they were less central to my message and cut them ahead of time - but all things I wanted to say....
The right to life, liberty, and property are known as negative rights - they are “freedom from…” freedom from theft, freedom from imprisonment and tyranny, freedom from murder. And there are others too: we have freedom of speech and of the press - which are the right to say and write what we wish. We have freedom of conscience and of religion - which allows us to believe in and worship as God we choose. We have (or we used to have) freedom of association - which is the right to choose who to let into our homes and businesses. And the Bill of Rights specifies that we have the right to bear arms to defend these rights. These are all “freedom from” letting others make our decisions for us and interfere with our business.
What about the right to food, housing, education and health care? These are “positive rights”: rights that parents owe to their children. These are not things that Abel owed to Cain. As an adult, Cain had the responsibility to obtain these things for himself. He had the right to employment, but not the right to demand that someone else give him employment. If he was having some trouble, he could ask nicely for help, but not demand that Abel give him food, housing, employment, etc.
What is the underlying principle here, which goes back to the Plan of Salvation: Every person born on this earth has agency, which is the freedom to do whatever you like. Where does your agency stop? When you begin to encroach on other persons or their property - to take away their God-given rights. Using force on other people is immoral unless it is in self-defense.
From the time of Cain right down through the Middle Ages, there’ve been only a few places and very short periods of time when force was the not the dominant mode of interaction between people. People were enslaved, murdered, and plundered from unless they were strong enough to resist. Think of the Lamanites and the Nephites... the natural man finds it easier to steal the work of others than to do the actual work. The efforts of great law-givers like Moses, Hamurabbi, and Solon only created small bubbles of peaceful human relations in the vast tide of violence and oppression that people have lived under since the time of Adam and Eve. Most of the time, the governments have been among the worst offenders.
I love in the movie Camelot, when King Arthur has his epiphany that, instead of using strength to bash others and take their stuff, “Might can be used for Right.” The Round Table was one (probably fictional) effort to get people to stop encroaching on the rights of others.
Frederic Bastiat (French philosopher and economist much quoted by President Benson): “(A) fatal tendency... exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, (which) explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.” (from The Law)
But the founding of America was different. God had foreordained some very special spirits to establish a new society in the Promised Land, based on a written constitution that limited the powers of government and guaranteed freedom from oppression. This country was meant to be more than a flicker of freedom, but a light of liberty to the world, and a place where the full gospel of Jesus Christ could be practiced without fear. Despite all Satan could do to bring it down, the true doctrines were revealed and the church was established in a secure place from which it could then go forth to all the world.
We are commanded many times in the scriptures to befriend the Constitution, and now is a great time to do that, since it is slipping through our fingers: being ignored, contradicted and even maligned by those who have sworn to protect it - AND by those who are charged with educating our children.
Federal Circuit Judge Richard Posner, who is perhaps the most read and most cited judge of our age, wrote a published letter to the Harvard Law school a couple of weeks ago saying, “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, do not speak to today.” He’s also said: “I’m not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution.”
In other words, we’re now abandoning rule of law--written law based upon the principles of individual rights and limited government. Judges and politicians are making up whatever laws happen to be politically correct and convenient for those in power at the moment--which basically makes us just another banana republic. Like the game of “Telephone,” legal precedents are being created at an astounding rate that are getting farther and farther from the code of laws that was originally agreed upon at the formation of this country AND was the basis for its success. The Constitution of the United States created the conditions to make possible a “5000 year leap” in the words of Cleon Skousen. The protection of property rights created an explosion in entrepreneurship which took us from the horse and wagon era that had existed for the previous 5000 years--to a man walking on the moon just 182 years after the Constitution was signed. This was no coincidence.
(from “It’s the Fourth of July. Why Am I Sad?” on Mises.org) As the institution of private property goes, so goes society. This was recognized by the great nineteenth century pastor and college president Francis Wayland. He noted in his Elements of Moral Science that
Just in proportion as the right of property is held inviolate, just in that proportion civilization advances, and the comforts and conveniences of life multiply. Hence it is, that, in free and well-ordered governments, and specially during peace, property accumulates, all the orders of society enjoy the blessings of competence, the arts flourish, science advances, and men begin to form some conception of the happiness of which the present system is capable. And, on the contrary, under despotism, when law spreads its protection over neither house, land, estate, nor life, and specially during civil wars, industry ceases, capital stagnates, the arts decline, the people starve, population diminishes, and men rapidly tend to a state of barbarism.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, “The United States Constitution was the first written constitution in the world. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and prosperity during the changed conditions of more than two hundred years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export. After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution was a model for all of them. No wonder modern revelation says that God established the U.S. Constitution and that it “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.”
Joseph Smith embraced the philosophy of freedom and equal treatment before the law:
If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a "Mormon," I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul — civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race. —Joseph Smith, 1843
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Nauvoo, that the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Episcopals, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans [Muslims], and all other religious sects and denominations whatever, shall have free toleration, and equal privileges in this city …
—Ordinance in Relation to Religious Societies, City of Nauvoo, [Illinois] headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, March 1, 1841
The Constitution specifies that we must have freedom of speech and religion, and this is under attack. There are two competing viewpoints: that religion is the CAUSE of many of the problems in the world, and that it is the CURE. The debate used to be whether you could bring religious views into the public square: prayer in schools and Christmas trees in the town square, etc. Now our religious views are under attack even when they don’t materially impact anyone else at all. We are being told that we can’t preach and practice our religion because it might hurt some people’s feelings. Foster care and adoption agencies are being shut down because of LGBT activists pushing through policies that discriminate against faithful Christians--recently in Illinois a new law closed agencies that were serving 2000 children in foster care. Individual foster parents are being targeted and denied certification just because they are Christian. Which alarms me of course for our own situation, but also I recently attended foster care training with 10 other couples, all of whom were Christian. Through the course of the discussions it became clear that most of them were signing up to do this difficult job because they felt that it was their Christian duty to care for the less fortunate. This is in spite of a campaign to recruit LGBT couples to do foster care - there are posters up for that in the libraries.
As Elder Christofferson said in a talk 2 weeks ago, “Some advocates demean as ‘discrimination’ the long-standing right of religious organizations and schools to have faith-based standards in employment and admissions. Others resort to politically correct name-calling rather than talking about difficult topics in a spirit of mutual respect. Hurtful labels like ‘bigot’ or ‘hater’ are all too common. There are concerted efforts to shame and intimidate believers who have traditional moral values and to suppress religious viewpoints and practices regarding marriage, family, gender, and sexuality. Worst of all, government sometimes joins in these efforts.”
Elder Bednar said, “The tyranny of tolerance suggests that we have to be accepting of someone else's point of view, but that they don't have to have any tolerance for our point of view. So, tolerance goes both ways. The fact that we take a position and respectfully and thoughtfully articulate that position is not a judgement, it is just standing for what we believe to be true.”
So if you can be sued for refusing to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a same-sex wedding, or allowing same-sex couples in the married student dormitory of a private university, or if you lose your employment for posting something on Facebook that someone views as intolerant, that has a chilling effect on free speech and religion... and that’s exactly the effect it is SUPPOSED to have. Because if you silence the person whose views you oppose you have won the argument. You may not have changed THEIR mind, but what about their children? If all that the next generation hears from the media, from teachers and textbooks at school, and from their social group are arguments in favor of limiting free speech and religion, they will believe that free speech and religion are bad things. That the Proclamation on the Family, and the scriptures, and every issue of the Ensign contains hate speech and should be burned.
In the words of Adolf Hitler, “When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’”
So we MUST teach freedomship in our families! The views and attitudes of the next generation are currently being formed, and we MUST have a voice in that--because the voices of the great and spacious building are calling to them, mocking traditional values. I am encouraged by Elder Kim Clark’s recent address about the church expanding both secular and religious education offerings worldwide from high school through college. He stated, “Instruction will be delivered online and in local gathering activities at Institutes and chapels.” Personally, I think there will come a time when private education will be the only responsible parenting option. As adults we’re fairly secure in our beliefs, but youth are more susceptible to peer pressure and sophistry.
But before we throw in the towel and go live on a remote island, we should talk about restoring freedom in our society.
Elder Quentin Cook asks, “How can you help bring about this restoration of morality in our day and help preserve religious freedom? First, be a righteous example. You must not be in camouflage as to who you are and what you believe.”
The second important piece to restoring freedom is that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar: Church spokesman Michael Otterson said, "I believe in a church that believes in human dignity, in treating people with respect even when we disagree -- in fact, especially when we disagree."
So we have to speak up, and we have to do it in a respectful way, always putting ourselves in the other person’s shoes. But several of the articles that I read in preparation for this talk were lamenting the weakness of the arguments for traditional marriage that have been put forward in legal cases regarding these issues. So here are a few talking points that we can use when having this conversation with people who disagree with us, taken from some of the best minds out there:
Talking point #1 (Elder Oaks): It’s about what is best for the children - they are the future. Numerous studies have shown that children do best when raised in a home with both of the people whom they share DNA with, and marriage strengthens that home, making it less likely that it will fall apart. When you change the definition of marriage from “a monogamous relationship in which the couple has a legal obligation to support one another and is biologically able to procreate” you are harming the next generation by weakening marriage. (parenthetically, we all know that in some cases, ending an incompatible marriage relationship is the healthiest thing for all involved...but we still teach and support the ideal)
Talking point #2: Jesus Christ taught that we should treat others the way we want to be treated: with KINDNESS. In supporting the natural family I am not in any way saying that I hate anyone who does not. In a free society, I can believe what I want to believe, and you can believe what you want to believe--we each have the right to freedom of conscience.
Talking point #3: You and I both seem to have closely-held beliefs regarding this subject. I would be happy to hear your viewpoint, will respect it, and would expect the same treatment from you. Name-calling gets us nowhere.
Talking point #4: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
To wrap up, this is not a battle that is going to go away. Satan doesn’t want us to have freedom, especially the freedom to worship as we choose. Just on Thursday the church’s top lawyer, Elder Lance Wickman, conceded that we must prioritize our religious freedoms; that if we try to defend them all, we will lose. Which basically feels like waving the white flag, but that’s where we’re at.
This shouldn’t be a surprise. In Ephesians it states: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
And in 2 Nephi: Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
It’s going to get ugly, but the final outcome is known - God is on our side.
