There has been no king in this country. Do you know that Washington was upon several occasions requested, almost demanded, to assume the role of king, for that was the form of government which was best known to those who established this one. He persistently declined, and the makers of our Constitution saw the wisdom of his action. They recognized too that kings and the so-called divine right of kings, were not compatible with the great spirit of liberty and democracy which was to underlie the structure of our government. Does it not seem somewhat significant that in the Israelitish form of government, for a period of four hundred and seventy years, there were no kings to rule in Israel, in spite of the repeated demands of the people for a king, that they might be like other nations. They were told that God was their king, and, that no king should rule them so long as they subscribed to the great principles of truth and righteousness which the Lord had laid down for them to follow.

Source: Elder Stephen L. Richards
General Conference, October 1923

Topics: Government, Forms of; Kings

How the Principles of this Government can Endure.

Now, brethren and sisters, I state these points of comparison and draw your attention to these things for this purpose—we all love this country, we love America, we want the principles of government which we espouse to endure. I ask this question: Will these principles of government endure? Is the Constitution safe for the future, and for the generations to come?

I answer the question in this way, that the Constitution and the sacred principles which it unfolds in the form of government will endure if the people of America will subscribe to and defend and uphold the fundamental principles of religious righteousness upon which it is built, and not otherwise. Righteousness, in its last analysis, is a religious term. God is the author of righteousness The framers of laws have, to a large extent, recognized that doctrine. The gospel is the compilation, the aggregation of all principles of righteousness, and into the form of government which we uphold and support there has been woven the principles of individual and community righteousness which are underlain by truth which eminates from God himself. You can’t have a good government without good people, and goodness is a religious term. Much as many of our philosophers would contend that it is to be defined in terms only of ethics, and of social convention and understanding, I maintain that all true morality is supported b and finds its basis in religion, and we cannot hope in this country of ours to sustain the great Constitution—and you know that that is a matter of much concern now—unless we adopt into our lives those principles of civic righteousness and of morality and of truth which underlie it. I wish that could be said to the whole people. I am just as thoroughly convinced that there is a dependence upon our Father in heaven for the carrying forward of the great principles of government, which we espouse in this nation, as I am that our own work depends upon his providence and his protection and his guidance.

Source: Elder Stephen L. Richards
General Conference, October 1923

Topics: Morality

Indeed I regard these great principles of government as a part of the blessed gospel that God has given to his children, and so we must sustain them. To us is committed the obligation and the opportunity of maintaining these great principles of righteousness in their undiluted truth and beauty. We must conserve them, we must preserve them for the generations to come. America must not fall from the standards of truth and righteousness that underlie the structure of her government.

Source: Elder Stephen L. Richards
General Conference, October 1923

Topics: US Constitution, Defend

Brethren and sisters, let me say in closing that we have it of record, that the prophet Joseph Smith said the time would come when, through secret organizations taking the law into their own hands, not being governed by law or by due process of law, but becoming a law unto themselves, when, by those disintegrating activities, the Constitution of the United States would be so torn and rent asunder, and life and property and peace and security would he held of so little value, that the Constitution would, as it were, hang by a thread. But he never said, so far as I have heard, that that thread would be cut. I believe, with Elder Richards, that this Constitution will be preserved, but it will be preserved very largely in consequence of what the Lord has revealed and what this people, through listening to the Lord and being obedient, will help to bring about, to stabilize and give permanency and effect to the Constitution itself. That also is our mission. That also is what we are here for. I glory in it. I praise God with all my heart and soul that I am a member of it.

Source: Elder Charles W. Nibley
General Conference, October 1923

Topics: US Constitution, Threats to

Let me say, gentlemen, that if we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall live always in the fear of God, and shall respect his commandments, if we and they shall maintain just, moral sentiments and such righteous convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life, we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes at our country; but if we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions at morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.

Source: Daniel Webster
from his very last public address, made before the
Historical Society of New York, in 1852,

Topics: Christianity; Morality; Principles

In reading recently the Constitution of the United States, I thought of the eloquent words of James Russell Lowell when he was at the court of France. Guizot, the French statesman, said to him: “How long will the Government of the United States endure?” And the reply of James Russell Lowell was: “Just so long as the ideals of the founders of this government endure.” This incident has been told in the remarkable letters of the great statesman Guizot, and it is something for us to remember.

Source: Elder Levi Edgar Young
General Conference, October 1923

Topics: Principles; US Constitution, Threats to

Conflict the Result of Ignorance of Law

I have frequently, in view of recent events, asked myself this question: Have we, modern people, who live in the most enlightened and progressive period of the world’s history, with the experience of the past to guide us, and knowledge of the future, as it has been outlined by the prophets who have lived before, overcome this needless, unjustifiable, erroneous conception of the proper relationship which exists, or should exist, between the church and the state? Do we properly differentiate between our obligation of obedience to civil law, in the administration of temporal affairs, and our obligation to the church, which represents divine law, given for the purpose of preparing men for future glory and exaltation in the kingdom of heaven? Where conflict exists between the two, it is clearly the result of either ignorance, or wilful misinterpretation of both civil and ecclesiastical law.

Source: President Anthony W. Ivins
General Conference, April 1923

Topics: Freedom, Religious

The Latter-day Saints believe that the coming of Columbus to this continent was part of the divine plan by which this land, which had been held in reserve, might become a place of refuge, and asylum for the oppressed and down-trodden of all nations, that freedom of worship, and exercise of conscience, in righteousness, might be enjoyed by all people. We believe that the Lord inspired the framers of our government to give us our legislative, executive and administrative system of government, by which our laws are enacted and enforced. This system, having been given of the Lord, it is not strange that the administration of our civil affairs corresponds so nearly with the organization of the Church, and still differs so greatly in the one essential feature.

Contrast Between Civil And Religious Laws

Our civil laws are enacted by Congress, that body being governed, in framing the law, by the Constitution of our country; by our state legislatures under authority of congress, and our precincts and municipalities under authority granted by the state legislatures. The officers who administer these laws are chosen by the voice of the people. The laws enacted by our precincts and municipalities, and the power of the lesser judges and officers who enforce them are limited in regard to both territorial jurisdiction, and power to inflict punishment. Legislative laws have jurisdiction over all of the people of the state, while congressional laws must be obeyed in all parts of the republic.

Decisions rendered by precinct, municipal or district judges are subject to review, on appeal, and may be carried to the supreme court, whose decision is final. To each of these courts authority is given to enforce its decrees by compulsory means. We may protest, it may be contrary to our idea of right and justice, we may say that we will not submit, but it is all in vain, the civil law compels submission. It may impose heavy fines, and if we refuse to pay, take our property by force to satisfy its judgment. It may incarcerate us in prison, for life if the offense justifies, or even deprive us of life itself.

In contrast to this, the laws which govern the Church are given us by the Lord our God. He is the author of them, he is our lawgiver. He has revealed to us the order of Church government and designated the officers who are to administer its affairs. The ward organizations, with their limited administrative powers, the stakes with their enlarged jurisdiction, and finally the presiding authorities, who have jurisdiction over all of the affairs of the Church, have all been given us by the Lord.

Source: President Anthony W. Ivins
General Conference, April 1923

Topics: Government, Vertical Separation; Law; Rights

The Civil Law Compulsory, The Church Law Voluntary

The purpose of this review, brief and very imperfect as it is, is to call your attention to the fact that the civil law is given for the protection and control of our temporal affairs, while the Priesthood is conferred upon us for the control and development of the Church: that the former differs from the latter in that one is compulsory, the other entirely voluntary. To the civil law all men must submit, regardless of race, creed or condition, while to the priesthood man may submit or not, as he may choose.

When arraigned before Pilate one of the charges brought against the Redeemer was that he was guilty of sedition, in that he had declared himself to be a king. Yes he answered, but my kingdom is not of this world. It was not a menace to the kingdom of Herod, or the empire of Rome. His was the kingdom of heaven, and had nothing to do with the kingdoms of this world, except that he taught his followers to be obedient to them, but the people, failing to distinguish between the temporal and spiritual could not comprehend.

Source: President Anthony W. Ivins
General Conference, April 1923

Topics: Government, Vertical Separation; Law

•  ⟨⟨ 
•  ⟨ 
•   |  
•  ⟩ 
•  ⟩⟩