The Elders of Israel
and the Constitution

Chapter 13
The Constitution and the World

      Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders have expressed repeatedly the belief not only that the United States Constitution was based upon divine principles, but that it was to spread and ultimately become a part of a world government based on similar principles. This world government, called the Kingdom of God, would govern the world during the Millennium. It would be a theocratic republic very similar in form to the government set up by the United States Constitution.(1)

      The Framers who designed the Constitution and the Americans who launched and nurtured the free republic in its early days also believed that the Constitution would spread ultimately to other nations. They felt that it established the most desirable form of government in the world, and that all countries would benefit if they would adopt it.(2)

      However, it was very clear that this exporting of America's constitutional system was not to be imposed on other countries. America's function was rather to operate her system as a sort of stewardship so that its fruits would be so apparent to the rest of the world that other countries would voluntarily copy it.(3) For example, it was Daniel Webster who declared:

We are bound to maintain public liberty, and, by example of our own system, to convince the world that order and law, [p. 130] religion and morality, the rights of conscience, the rights of persons, and the rights of property may all be preserved and secured.(4)

      There are many who believe the United Nations to be a means of extending America's constitutional system with its freedom and opportunity to the rest of the world. Since this opinion is widely held, it seems appropriate to examine it briefly.

Fundamental Characteristics of Constitutional System

      There are really only two ways by which peace and order can be maintained. One is by having a religious citizenry who will act righteously without external compulsion because of the inward religious motivations of its individual citizens. This is the method of America's constitutional system, the fundamental characteristics of which are the following:

      1. A religious citizenry.

      2. The substantial absence of government compulsion except to the extent necessary to protect life, liberty, and property.(5)

      3. A small limited government that has neither the right nor the power to direct or manage the affairs of the people except to the extent necessary to protect them in the areas mentioned above.

      It is of interest that the second and third characteristics, the substantial absence of government compulsion and the small limited government, are made possible by the first characteristic of a religious citizenry who will act righteously without being compelled or controlled. A clear awareness of these fundamental characteristics of America's constitutional system is helpful to understanding statements such as the following made by John Adams, second President of the United States: [p. 131]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.(6)

United Nations Based On Opposite Principles

      The only other method of maintaining order is by force or compulsion. This is the basic philosophy and system set up by the United Nations which contemplates the maintenance of world order by the compulsion of external force rather than by voluntary righteousness based on inward religious motivation. It is true that the United Nations really had no choice in selecting the method of external force because of its rejection of a religious foundation. But it should not be forgotten that instead of being fundamentally similar to America's constitutional system with its individual freedom, it is based on opposite principles of force and compulsion.

United Nations Cannot Provide Freedom

      As a matter of fact, because it is not based on a religiously motivated society, the United Nations cannot provide freedom. Without a religiously motivated society, increased freedom would result only in increased lawlessness and disorder which would have to be suppressed by force in order to maintain the "peace" the United Nations promises. The non-freedom nature of the United Nations is commented on by the late J. Reuben Clark, Jr., an Apostle and member of the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, and a highly respected international lawyer, in these words:

The Charter does not anywhere provide that freedom and liberty shall come to any state or to any people in the world that are not free. On the contrary it recognizes and, insofar as possible, legalizes every political dominance now existing on the earth and specifically provides for the establishment of others. [p. 132]

None of these peoples are to have, so far as the Charter provision goes, anything to say regarding their fates, the pious provisions of the Atlantic Charter and the San Francisco Charter to the contrary notwithstanding.(7)

      In Latter-day Saint theology, the United Nations concept of maintaining an acceptable standard of order by the use of force is very old. This was the method Lucifer contemplated using under which all people would be compelled to act righteously regardless of any desire they might have to act unrighteously. In commenting on why Lucifer's proposal was unacceptable, the Lord mentioned that it involved destroying the "agency" or freedom of man.(8)

      It should not be forgotten that loss of freedom is the basic defect of any system under which a particular standard of conduct is sought by the compulsion of external force rather than by inward religious motivation.

Military Action To Enforce Peace Is War

      In addition to failing to provide freedom, the principles on which the United Nations is based do not bring permanent peace. Overpowering force can compel people to act in a manner acceptable to those applying the force. But people so compelled have not changed inwardly. When the force is removed, or if they can evade the force or get control of it, the people will continue to act in their own unrighteous way. Hence forced maintenance of order is not curing the disease but only bottling up the symptoms until the pressure increases to the point where the bottle explodes. Even before that point is reached, isn't the application of military force to maintain "peace" really war? This war instead of peace nature of the United Nations is expressed by J. Reuben Clark in these words:

There seems no reason to doubt that such real approval as the Charter has among the people is based upon the belief that if the Charter is put into effect, wars will end. . . . The [p. 133] Charter will not certainly end war. Some will ask,—why not? In the first place, there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war. . . . The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace. . . . The Charter is a war document not a peace document.(9)

The One Way To Peace

      Actually the problem of finding peace is not that the way to peace is unknown. The difficulty is that the people of the world choose not to follow the one way to peace, because they don't want to change their ways. Over the centuries the way to peace has been made known repeatedly through those who speak with more than human wisdom. For example, in 1947 it was expressed by the First Presidency of the Mormon Church in these words:

Faith in God is the first essential to peace. It is folly for the United Nations now seeking ways and means to permanent peace to exclude the idea of God from their deliberations. Only through an acknowledgment of the Divine Being as Father can the sense of human brotherhood have potency. Only thus can life have purpose and humanity as a whole live in peace.

With faith in God must be associated the realization that peace springs from the individual heart. . . . Jesus taught that "a man's duties to himself and to his fellow men are indissolubly connected." His idea was to have each individual imbued with faith in God, with desires to live uprightly, and to deal justly with his fellow men; then a thousand, ten thousand, such individuals grouped together would constitute a community of worshipful, peace-loving human beings. A thousand such communities would make a nation; and a hundred such nations, a world.(10)

United States Membership In United Nations Is Unconstitutional

      Another serious problem pertaining to the United Nations becomes apparent when United States participation [p. 134] in that organization is compared with the authority granted to the federal government under the Constitution. This is the problem that, if the Constitution is read the way it was intended and written by the Framers and understood by the people who adopted it, then America's participation in the United Nations is clearly unconstitutional.

The Treaty Power In the United States Constitution

      United States acceptance of the United Nations Charter was under the treaty power found in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution in which various powers of the President are listed. The treaty power provision reads as follows:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

      The question of constitutionality of acceptance of the United Nations Charter under the treaty power hinges on whether the United Nations Charter constitutes a treaty in the sense intended by that provision.

The Federalist

      The treaty power is discussed in The Federalist in Numbers 64 written by John Jay, and 75 written by Alexander Hamilton. It is there clearly indicated that the term "treaty" is used in the Constitution to refer to a bargain or contract between two independent sovereign nations pertaining to subjects that are customarily and traditionally considered to be treaties.

      The concept that under the treaty power the President and two-thirds of the Senators present could surrender American independence was completely inconsistent with the limited extent of the authority the Framers felt should be given to the federal government. How out of harmony with constitutional principles such a concept is becomes even clearer when one considers two particular facts. One is that the colonists had only recently fought a bloody and [p. 135] terrible war to gain their independence. The other is their great suspicion and distrust of public officials.(11) In fact, as is pointed out in Chapter 2 of this work, one of their principal objects in designing the Constitution was to protect the people from improper action of government officials. Guided by these thoughts they surely would not have empowered the President and two-thirds of the Senators present to bargain away American independence without the consent of the people.

James Madison

      James Madison, who has been referred to as the principal architect of the Constitution, had this to say with respect to the treaty power:

I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.(12)

Thomas Jefferson

      The extent of the treaty power was commented on by Thomas Jefferson in these words:

By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty. . . . It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. And also to except those subjects of legislation in which it gave a participation to the House of Representatives.(13)

J. Reuben Clark

      The unconstitutionality of United States' acceptance of the United Nations under the treaty power has been well summarized by J. Reuben Clark in these words: [p. 136]

It has been said we cannot have a world-state without a surrender of some of our sovereignty. This is probably true. But if and when we come to the surrender of that sovereignty, it must be done by an amendment to our Constitution authorizing it, the amendment to be made in the form and manner that we the sovereign people have prescribed in the Constitution itself. Let us not surrender our sovereignty by illegal usurpations by our treaty-making agents. I am speaking of voluntary surrender of sovereignty. . . .

It cannot be too often repeated that any suggestion of any doctrine such as this at the time of the Convention, would not only have broken up the Constitutional Convention itself (it would have been treated with . . . scorn . . .) but would, having in mind the then temper of the people, also have made the formation of the United States of America under the Constitution an impossibility. . . .

The whole of the discussions in the Constitutional Convention itself, in the State Conventions considering the adoption of the Constitution, and in "The Federalist," all join in what seems a unanimous voice that the treaty-making power was to extend to the normal incidents of the intercourse and relationship of sovereign nations, and no further.(14)

Test Framers' Inspiration By Subsequent Events

      Having ascertained that the United Nations is based on opposite principles to those of the American constitutional system, and that American participation in the United Nations is unconstitutional, it is appropriate briefly to look more closely at that organization to test by subsequent events the reality of the Framers' inspiration.

Important Problem of Who Will Control The United Nations

      In addition to the inability of the United Nations to preserve either freedom or permanent peace because of the principles on which it is based, there is another most serious problem pertaining to that organization. That is the problem of who will control it. The importance of this problem lies in the prospect that if the contemplated arrangements [p. 137] both in the United Nations and in the American government are carried out, the United States will surrender voluntarily its ability to defend itself and will look to the United Nations forces for protection.

      That this prospect is real is evident from a statement entitled "Freedom from War, The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," issued by the State Department of the United States in 1961. The point of view repeatedly expressed in that statement is that world disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, provided there are adequate safeguards of the security of the disarmed nations. According to that United States statement, the principal safeguard of the security of the disarmed nations would be the United Nations Peace Force, which would then constitute the only real war making power left in the world. The disarmed nations would retain only sufficient military power to maintain internal order. For example, that published statement declares:

States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U. N. Peace Force.

The U. N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.

The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U. N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.(15)

      While it may be argued that the above quoted statements refer to a goal that would occur only after the successful operation of prior disarmament stages, it should not be forgotten that the steps one takes from day to day are [p. 138] determined to a large extent by one's goals. Furthermore, there appears to be substantial evidence that America may already be disarming more rapidly than reasonable caution would justify.(16)

      Additional reasons for concern as to who will control the United Nations were expressed by J. Reuben Clark in these words:

Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.(17)

The Secretariat

      In seeking an answer to the question of who will control the United Nations there is evidence that, as with most large organizations, the real control of the United Nations is in a relatively small inner group rather than the various voting delegates who usually don't have the information necessary to exercise intelligent independent control. In this connection Conor O'Brien wrote of his feelings when he was transferred from his position as a delegate from Ireland to the staff of the Secretariat in these words:

Neither the General Assembly nor the Security Council had the full materials necessary for an adequately informed discussion and adequately motivated decisions. . . . The only people who had these materials were the . . . inner circle of the Secretariat . . . the Secretariat—rather than the half paralyzed Security Council or the amorphous General Assembly—was the reality of the United Nations . . . the Secretariat played its card remarkably close to its chest. . . . What I was actually most conscious of was . . . pleasure at now being . . . [p. 139] "on the inside" of this major international operation, combined with a sense of deflation, on realizing how very much "on the outside" one had been as an ordinary delegate in the corridors of the Assembly and at the Advisory Committee.(18)

      Realizing that it is the Secretariat that controls the United Nations, the following extract from the presentment of a Federal Grand Jury in New York raises serious questions as to how unbiased the actions of the United Nations are likely to be.

This jury must . . . advise the court that startling evidence has disclosed infiltration into the U N of an overwhelmingly large group of disloyal U. S. citizens, many of whom are closely associated with the international Communist movement. . . . Their positions . . . were ones of trust and responsibility in the United Nations Secretariat and in its specialized agencies.(19)

      The findings of the New York Grand Jury were confirmed by the findings of other investigating bodies. Senator James O. Eastland had this to say regarding the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee's investigation of Activities of the United States Citizens Employed by the United Nations:

I must say that I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the United Nations among the American employees there the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered.(20)

      The controlling influence in the United Nations by communism is significantly shown by the failure of the United Nations to take determined action in behalf of one invaded member country and the armed intervention by the United Nations in another. [p. 140]


      It will be recalled that in October 1956 the Hungarian people revolted against the communist government that had gained control of the country. The revolution was successful and the Hungarian people were free for a short while until the country was invaded the following month by overwhelming Russian military forces. Many Hungarians were killed by the Russian invaders or sent to Russia as prisoners, and a new communist puppet government was imposed on the Hungarians by Russian military force.(21)

      There was no firm insistence on the part of the United Nations that the Russian military forces cease their invasion of Hungary, or that the free Hungarian government be reinstated.(22) A small team of investigators was sent to Europe by the United Nations to interview refugees and document what had happened.(23)

      Public indignation over the Russian invasion of Hungary gradually subsided and after several years "the problem of Hungary" was dropped from the United Nations agenda.(24)


      An opposite situation took place in the Congo. Belgium granted independence to the Congo on June 30, 1960. With the aid of communist arms, ammunition, supplies, "diplomats," and money, Patrice Lumumba gained control of the country.(25) Disorder and terrorism spread throughout the Congo.(26)

      The province of Katanga seceded and set up a separate anti-communist government under the leadership of Moise Tshombe, a college graduate, a devout Christian, a staunch anti-communist and an advocate of the American limited [p. 141] government free enterprise system.(27) Order was quickly restored throughout most of Katanga. The situation was described by Philippa Schuyler, an American newswoman on the scene in these words:

Elisabethville, a bastion of anti-Communism in a sea of Congo leftist terror, was calm and functioning smoothly.(28)

      The situation in the Congo was remarkably opposite to that of Hungary. In Hungary the people had risen up and gained their freedom from their communist rulers, and the United Nations then tolerated the invasion of the country by the Russian communists and the destruction of its freedom. In the Congo, on the other hand, the country had been taken over by a communist supported government and the people of Katanga broke away from the chaos and bloodshed and set up their own free orderly government.

      The United Nations action was opposite in the two instances. Although the United Nations tolerated the Russian invasion of Hungary to destroy freedom and to replace it with communism, there is abundant evidence that it did not tolerate the Katangan secession from communism to gain freedom.(29)

      While charges that the United Nations used its military forces and political influence to destroy freedom and orderly government in Katanga and promote communism throughout the Congo have been denied by the Secretary General and other United Nations officials, there are many responsible eye witness reports contradicting the official United Nations account of its activities in the Congo.(30)

The Civilian Doctors of Elisabethville

      For example, the forty-six civilian doctors of Elisabethville, the capital of Katanga, sent out a series of telegrams [p. 142] to various world leaders trying to alert the world to the murders and the terrorism they declared were being perpetrated by the United Nations forces in Katanga. In 1962, in a further attempt to alert world opinion, those civilian doctors published a pamphlet they called "46 Angry Men." With details and photographs they documented murders and other atrocities committed on civilians in Katanga by the United Nations forces. That pamphlet also contains the text of the telegrams they had sent from Katanga. The following statements are made in a preliminary note to the text of the telegrams. The doctors typically referred to the United Nations and the United Nations Peace Keeping Forces as U. N. O. or United Nations Organization.

The World must be alerted . . . one must shout, denounce and shake opinion without respite, and thus prevent the U. N. O. from continuing its inexcusable massacres. . . .

What could we do against an Organization having the most powerful means of broadcasting false news, lies, denials. . . .

We believe in U. N. O. but in a U. N. O. . . . whose . . . aim is . . . to preserve peace and not to bring disorder where order reigns, misery where prosperity reigns, death where life continues. . . .

"U. N. O. communique" has become synonymous with deliberate lies.(31)

      In their telegrams, these civilian doctors on the scene actually demanded that the Secretary General and other United Nations officials be arrested and tried as war criminals. Apparently feeling that in view of the seriousness of their charges and the denials issuing from the United Nations, the recipients of their telegrams might not believe them, the doctors repeatedly pleaded for an independent [p. 143] impartial investigation of United Nations actions in Katanga. For example, a telegram sent to President Kennedy and many other world leaders reads in part as follows:

On our honour as physicians we declare as lies the denials of U. N. O. Secretariat General—stop—insist upon inquiry here by high magistrates and presidents of medical orders of all civilized nations—stop—only means of convincing the world of inconceivable actions of U. N. O.(32)

      There is much other information confirming the charges made by these civilian doctors on the scene that the reports issued by the United Nations on its activities in the Congo were far from accurate.(33)

Joseph Z. Kornfeder

      A former Communist Party member, Joseph Z. Kornfeder who worked at the Moscow headquarters of the world Communist Party nearly three years and was acquainted with most of the top communist leaders, and was himself a leading Communist Party worker(34) has made this comment about the United Nations.

From the point of view of its master designers . . . the U N was, and is, not a failure. They and the Kremlin master minds behind them never intended the U N as a peace-keeping organization. What they had in mind was a fancy and colossal Trojan horse. . . . And in that they succeeded, even beyond their expectations. . . . Its internal set up, Communist designed, is . . . aimed to serve the purpose of Communist penetration of the West. It is ingenious and deceptive.(35)

United States Acceptance of the United Nations

      The foregoing brief review of the United Nations indicating that it is based on principles opposite to those of [p. 144] the Constitution, that American membership in the United Nations is unconstitutional, and that the United Nations is to a large extent controlled by the communists and used to further their purposes raises the question of how the American people and their Senate were induced to support American participation in that organization.

      Following World War I the question of American membership in the League of Nations was widely debated throughout the United States. President Wilson tried to secure public support for the League, but after hearing both sides, the people did not accept it, and the Senate rejected it.

      After World War II a new world organization was proposed. Although this new organization was called the United Nations, it was similar to the old League of Nations, but the nomenclature was carefully changed.(36) Those who wished to secure American acceptance of the United Nations were careful not to follow the same route that had resulted in American rejection of the League of Nations.

      What was it that caused American rejection of the League of Nations? It was free and open debate—the opportunity to examine carefully and thoughtfully what was being offered before deciding whether to accept it. Based on experience gained in that unsuccessful attempt, it was decided that there were two major requirements that had to be met to secure acceptance of the United Nations.

      1. A massive propaganda effort must be launched both to condition the American people to believe in the desirability of American participation in the United Nations, and to discredit and ridicule those who might oppose such participation. This great propaganda effort would make possible the second requirement which was as follows:

      2. Extensive debate must not take place. Acceptance must be obtained rapidly before the people or the senators had a chance to consider carefully the details of what they were being asked to buy. [p. 145]

      Bryton Barron, who was Chief of the Treaty Staff of the United States State Department at the time of America's acceptance of the United Nations, has summarized events leading up to that event in these words:

In the early forties the American public was subjected to a selling job unparalleled in all history. . . . To those of us who had thrilled to the great debate over the League of Nations in 1919, the pressures which choked off healthy discussion in 1945 were indeed lamentable.(37)

      A major aspect of the great propaganda effort to secure American acceptance of the United Nations was to discredit America's traditional foreign policy. This was done by repeatedly and plausibly arguing that times have changed and that a new foreign policy must be adopted consistent with modern means of transportation and communication, and with modern weapons of war. Since these arguments are still widely and energetically used, it is appropriate to examine them briefly.

America's Traditional Foreign Policy

      The foreign policy deemed by the Framers to be most appropriate for the United States was expressed by George Washington in these words:

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.(38)

      A careful analysis of Washington's comments will reveal that distance or isolation was not the reason for advocating an independent foreign policy. This was only a circumstance making it easier to follow such a policy. The real reason for the independent foreign policy advocated by the Framers and followed by America for so many years was that this nation was based on different principles than other nations and could not permanently tie its policies to theirs except to America's disadvantage. [p. 146]

      This nation was established on a religious foundation with the sovereign power of the government vested in the people and not in a ruler or ruling group. In other nations the people were not the masters but were subservient to a ruler or ruling group. This was a natural condition for other nations because they did not have the religious base on which a free society could be built.

      However, the result of the principles on which other nations have been based has been constant conflicts and wars arising out of the ambition, rivalry, and even caprice of the various rulers. Such conflicts and wars have rarely been for the benefit of the people but generally have been to promote some ambition or objective of a particular ruler or ruling group or to substitute one ruler or ruling group for another.

      The basic principles of other nations and the natural results of those principles have not changed to any extent in the last two hundred years that would indicate that our foreign policy of avoiding permanent alliances should be abandoned.

Modern Developments Confirm Wisdom of Traditional Foreign Policy

      As a matter of fact, there has been one change that makes it more vital than ever that America pursue an independent foreign policy. This change is the growth of the communist criminal conspiracy bent upon destroying freedom in all nations, including the United States.

      In the past it was possible to make treaties with other nations with a reasonable expectation that those nations would at least make a sincere attempt to fulfill their treaty obligations. But when one deals with communists, he must realize that he is dealing with international gangsters, criminal conspirators, murderers, thieves and liars. Since communists do not feel themselves bound by their treaty obligations, there is no basis on which to make an agreement with them. [p. 147]

      In support of this point of view that there is no basis for making treaties with communists is the following statement by Bryton Barron, former Chief of the Treaty Staff of the State Department of the United States:

It is my overwhelming conviction from a study of the secret files of countless U.S.-USSR negotiations that it folly—utter, dangerous folly—to trust any agreement, understanding, "consensus"—call it what you will—made with Communists. It is basic red doctrine that agreements are . . . made to be broken when it suits their purpose. They are determined to bury us. For our leaders to talk about "relaxing tensions" is silly because the "tensions" are stages in the aggressive policy which is Communist ideology.(39)

      Furthermore, it hardly seems reasonable to combine forces in a peace keeping organization with the very criminals who are disturbing the peace. Doing so benefits only the criminals by letting them participate in the discussions of what actions should be taken against them, and by giving them a measure of control over those actions.

      If a peaceful person and a criminal are separated by distance, their isolation is some protection for the peaceful person. But if they are close together, their nearness doesn't mean that they must join forces, but only that the peaceful person must be more vigilant and more prepared than ever in order to protect himself against the criminal. This is the situation in the world today in which the hard facts of reality do not bear out the oft repeated hopeful statements that communism is mellowing.

Apparent Changes In Communist Goals

      Of interest with respect to the claim that communist objectives are changing is the following quotation on the subject of the dialectical nature of communist progress.

The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable [p. 148] portion of the time. . . . If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving, we will obviously be deceived.

The Communist method of advance may be likened to the hammering of a nail. . . . A person seeing the reverse movement of the hammer as an isolated act in time and not understanding the process of which this was a part, might find it difficult to believe that this hammer was driving in the nail. When he sees the backward swing as a portion of the complete process, he realizes that the withdrawal is as important as the downward thrust to the realization of the objective.

For those not trained in dialectical thinking, it is very difficult to understand that the Communists have a fixed and changeless goal, but that their method of approach reverses itself all the time. The tendency is to judge where they are going by the direction in which they are moving.(40)

      If the communists had attempted to maintain a constant advance, they would long ago have been stopped. But, by using this dialectic method of advancing, they have kept those who might oppose them in a state of indecision as to whether or not the communists really have reformed.

Prophetic Warning of Awful Danger From Secret Combinations

      Actually the spread of communism with its death, misery, slavery and terror has been accomplished largely by trickery and deceit. Through the secret nature of this conspiracy or combination, it has managed to infiltrate and immobilize its victims.

      Such secret combinations have been in the world from time to time from the beginning. In abridging the Book of Ether, Moroni comments on them in these words:

And now I, Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations, for it hath been made known unto me that [p. 149] they are had among all people, and they are had among the Lamanites.

And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations . . . until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed. . . .(41)

      With great earnestness Moroni then proceeds to warn the people to whom the Book of Mormon shall come of the great danger facing them.

Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you. . . .

Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you. . . .

For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies. . . .(42)

Management of Foreign Affairs A Great Danger To Freedom

      The Framers were well aware of the reality of secret combinations and conspiracies and particularly were concerned about them as a grave danger to freedom. They felt that foreign affairs especially lent themselves to being secretly manipulated for the purpose of destroying freedom. They were much concerned that those in charge of the government could use foreign dangers they might themselves have arranged as a means of inducing the people to give them powers the people would not otherwise have granted. This point of view was expressed by James Madison in these words:

The management of foreign relations appears to be the most susceptible of abuse of all the trusts committed to a Government, because they can be concealed or disclosed, or [p. 150] disclosed in such parts and at such times as will best suit particular views; and because the body of the people are less capable of judging, and are more under the influence of prejudices, on that branch of their affairs, than of any other. Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.(43)

      Madison's concern that government officials might be less than accurate in the information they give to the people concerning foreign affairs is borne out by the following statement made by Bryton Barron, former Chief of the Treaty Staff in the State Department of the United States:

Through many years of service in our government, with long access to records of what actually happened on numerous eventful occasions, I am constantly reminded that our officials can not be blindly trusted to safeguard the national interest. Deceit, trickery, misrepresentation are ugly words, yet time and again in the last quarter century men in high places have been guilty of these practices as a cover up and/or to achieve fantastic, fateful ends.(44)

Acceptance of UN as Means of Permanent Peace Is Inconsistent With Gospel

      As indicated thus far in this discussion, serious questions are raised when the U N is examined in the light of the political philosophy of the Framers. However, when the U N is compared with the doctrines of the gospel, further questions are raised because it then becomes apparent that acceptance of the United Nations as a means of permanent peace is inconsistent with two basic gospel doctrines.

      In the first place such acceptance is inconsistent with the oft repeated prophesies that the future of the world is not a future of peace but a future of wars to be poured out in increasing measure until the state of the world as [p. 151] now known will be destroyed. This doctrine is evidenced by many prophesies. One that sets the time as following the Civil War declares:

Then war shall be poured out upon all nations. . . .

And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn . . . until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations.(45)

      This doctrine has been expressed repeatedly by Church leaders. One such expression, which clearly indicates the very situation in which this country finds itself, is found in a talk given by George Q. Cannon in which he said:

It is worse than useless for men to cry "peace, peace," when there is no peace or to flatter themselves that the terrible issue of war can be avoided. . . . War in their midst is inevitable unless they take the course pointed out by the Lord which, however, they seem determined not to take. They are to be wasted away by war. . . .

Elaborate and beautiful theories may be constructed, but they will crumble into atoms . . . and leave those who adopt them in a worse predicament than they were in before.(46)

      The second basic doctrine inconsistent with the concept of pursuing peace through the United Nations is the doctrine that the only way to peace is the gospel rather than by force through world organizations.

      This point of view was well expressed by President McKay in the statement quoted earlier in this section. Another expression of this same concept is found in the following statement by J. Reuben Clark:

Men may . . . set up world organizations, they may gather together great armies, they may spend the wealth of the world, they may slaughter by millions our young sons, but these will not bring rest and peace. . . .

If men would have peace, they must . . . keep the commandments of God; they must love the Lord . . . and their neighbors as themselves. [p. 152]

Permanent peace comes only by this road. Force will never bring it. Force only silences the cannon's roar while men gird for the next onslaught.(47)

      The comments in this chapter concerning the United Nations are not intended as a complete analysis of the real nature of that organization. Rather, what is intended is to make clear that the United Nations really is not similar to the American constitutional system, and that support of the United Nations does not represent helping to export American constitutional principles to other nations.

      A secondary objective of the comments on the United Nations in this work is to indicate that there is another side to it than the widely publicized favorable information. It is then up to intelligent readers who cherish freedom to study the facts carefully on both sides of this vital issue and to make their decision based on the facts. They should then seek to influence others with detailed information rather than with slogans, generalities, or hopes.(48) [p. 153]

Previous pageNext Page

Contact us