The Divine System of Government

A friend recently made a comment in church that, fifteen years ago, probably wouldn't have given me pause. He said something like this: if we could get people in our government who actually obeyed the principles of the Constitution, we would see that it is a perfect, godly system of government. If this seems laughable to you, it may help to know that most Mormons believe God had a hand in organizing the United States of America - specifically in establishing the Constitution, and with good reason. In section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenants (a Mormon book of scripture), the Lord says this:

"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles...

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

And earlier, in section 95:

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;"

It's pretty hard to ignore, and it seems clear that this constitutes at the very least a statement of acceptance and intent that the Constitution should exist. But from these statements, some Mormons have extrapolated the idea my friend expressed. Namely, that the government spelled out in the Constitution is divine, perfected government.

I don't know about that.

First of all, let's look at the word "justify," which is used a couple of times here as the action the Lord is taking in these verses. He's justifying the church members in a particular position toward the Constitution. That word is used elsewhere in the scriptures, in complex ways. Some examples:

• When the Lord speaks about the many wives and concubines of Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others. (D&C 132:59-62)
• In reference to Lot's unwillingness to offer his virgin daughters to the depraved men of Sodom (saying the Lord would not justify it). (Genesis 19:14) 
• Saying the faith of "heathens" would cause the Lord to justify them in spite of their heathenness. (Galatians 3:8)
• To describe the acceptance of the righteous in the sight of God. (Mosiah 14:11, among many similar references)

There are a lot of others, but the common thread is that the concept of justification involves one of two things. The Lord forgives or overlooks something imperfect or sinful in order to achieve his purpose of the salvation of souls, or he gives permission for something that isn't ordinarily allowed. 

The use of the word "justify" indicates the quoted verses are not the unqualified endorsement of the Constitution some claim them to be. In fact, back in Section 101 the Lord explicitly says that he "suffered" the Constitution to be established, specifically "for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."

The thing is, at the time this revelation was received (1833), and certainly at the time the Constitution was written, it didn't protect all flesh. This was still 32 years before the ratification of the 13th amendment, which freed the slaves, and even longer before the amendments granting voting rights to blacks and women, just to name a few examples. 

Then there's the issue of "just and holy principles." A lot of people forget that income tax (hated by many conservatives, including some Mormons) is written into the Constitution via the 16th amendment. Does that make it a holy tax? And what about the full reversal when it comes to alcohol? Prohibition was a constitutional amendment, as was the law that undid it. Which of those changes is more just and holy? Of course there's also the 3/5 clause, which only counts 3/5 of non-white persons as part of a state's population for purposes of determining representation. That was in the original document, and it's still there, though it hasn't been in force since the 15th amendment was added.

My point isn't that the Constitution is bad. It is a remarkable document, the story of the creation of which is nothing short of miraculous. I believe it was inspired, and that the men who wrote it were indeed wise and, especially by the standards of their time, of pure intent. My point is that it's not perfect. The Lord was clearly playing the long game in helping to set up that document, knowing that it could, and would, be changed as people's understanding of truth grew. He never claims otherwise. Neither did Joseph Smith, through whom the above quoted revelations were received. Speaking of the Constitution, he said:

“Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. … Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.”

Joseph saw no reason to defend the Constitution as scripture, and to the best of my knowledge, neither has any of the prophets or apostles since. In fact, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a former judge and one of the great advocates of the Constitution among LDS General Authorities, goes to considerable lengths to make it clear that the document does not hold scriptural status in an extensive essay on the subject. 

"Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,”  also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.”

Then why did God say He established it? Well, He also established the Law of Moses, and the ordinances of blood sacrifice. Those are divinely appointed laws with an expiration date, designed to serve a hardhearted people who needed something to keep them in line. To take a more charitable view, they were preliminary systems designed to prepare people for a higher law that was to come. God has not tried to hide His method of using an imperfect or lesser system to prepare people for a more excellent way. A survey of Christ's ministry and the teachings of the early Apostles reveals that they spent a significant amount of time trying to convince or prepare people to stop practicing the old ways and accept a new covenant with new ordinances, laws, and priorities. The same occurred during Christ's ministry among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. 

Speaking of that book, Mormons love to point out how King Mosiah rejected the monarchical system after his sons refused the throne and established a democracy ruled by a system of judges. Was he inspired to do so? Without doubt. His arguments for it, based on "just and holy principles," are a study for the ages. Frankly, under any other system his people would probably have been destroyed much sooner, but after a few hundred years, how was that government working out for the Nephites? 

Not so well. Corruption and weakness in the government were exploited by people of ill intent until the system devolved into what appears to have been two military states bent on each other's destruction. These are not exactly the fruits of a divine system.

But, my friend would object, doesn't this only prove the system was corrupted? The original claim was that we wouldn't see our government's perfection and divinity until we purge it of corruption. On the surface that seems like a self-defeating argument, because a system that requires uncorrupted participants to demonstrate its perfection is likely to be redundant. If good laws outline the behavior all the people would engage in anyway, how do they improve anything? And yet, as I hope to explain by the end of this, my friend may not be as far off base as I originally thought.

So what does divine government look like? Is it really a version of our much-vaunted democracy, or some celestial mirror of the US Constitution?

I think most latter-day saints would agree that we won't really get to see it firsthand until after the second coming of Christ. At that time, Christ will supposedly establish a political, as well as a spiritual system of governance. And what what shape will it take? Here's a statement from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, one of the church's twelve Apostles:

"We have a responsibility to prepare the Church of the Lamb of God to receive the Lamb of God—in person, in triumphant glory, in His millennial role as Lord of lords and King of kings."

The title "King of kings" is a familiar one, used often to describe the Savior, and here Elder Holland identifies that title as specifically associated with the role Christ will play after his second coming. Does this mean the millennial government of Christ will be a monarchy? Isn't that basically what we rejected in favor of our current government?  Does acknowledging Christ as King mean admitting that monarchy is the perfect form of government?

Here's the Book of Mormon, weighing in:

"But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.
Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king." (Mosiah 23:7-8)

So a monarchy is only a good idea if you can insure the goodness of the monarch. Actually, isn't that the same argument I made about democracy? If the people running it are perfect, the system is perfect. That Christ would be the perfect monarch is probably unnecessary to say: if this discussion is relevant to your concept of reality at all, that much is given.

But there's one important difference.

To have a perfect democracy, you'd need universal perfection. A government of, by, and for the people is self-serving, as all citizens fall under the category "the people." For the system to be perfect, all the participating people would have to be as well. So even if Christ were to take the role of President (let's not say any more about the idea of "President Christ"), everyone else still has to be perfect and the system itself becomes unnecessary. In fact, any non-monarchical government consisting of imperfect believers led by a perfected, omniscient, omnipotent God makes little sense.

Of course, a divine monarchy might still have officers, stewards, etc., but they would be following the guidance of the perfect King, not their own policies or those of any party's agenda. They could be imperfect and the system would still have purpose. Such a system, taken together with the LDS belief that we are literal children of God, destined to become the kind of being He is, seems unavoidably designed to be temporary. If the government is organized to bring people to godlike perfection, then the achievement of that goal necessitates a change in organization. Once again, it follows the pattern of using one system to bring the people of the world to a state of preparation for something more, upon which their need for the first thing would expire. The scriptures themselves agree that this promised Kingdom of Christ will conclude when the correct conditions are met.

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (1 Cor. 15:25)

Verse 28 of the same chapter expands on what comes after that conclusion:

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

In other words, when the purpose of Christ's reign (to subdue all enemies) has been accomplished, He will essentially abdicate to the Father, becoming Himself a subject in the same kingdom.

As a side note, the specific enemy mentioned in that chapter is death, which we are told will be the last to be defeated. Presumably this refers to the work of resurrection and temple ordinances. Whether this enemy consists of physical death alone, or both physical and spiritual death isn't stated, but I personally favor the interpretation that it's both, for reasons that I don't need to go into here.

What I'm getting at is that even Christ's Kingdom isn't our final form of government. The full purpose of God's work - his very glory, as he says -  is to help us, as children of God, to mature into the fully divine beings we are intended to be. To bring to pass our immortality and eternal life, and make us heirs, with Christ, of all that He has. So at some point, Christ must surrender and report on His stewardship, presenting us (hopefully) to the Father as acceptable for the next step in our exaltation: receiving our inheritance alongside the being who has until that point been our king.

And then, what? Once we've been perfected through Christ and made ready in all things to become like God, what will our social structure be? It's possible D&C 130:2 gives us some insight.

"And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy."

This verse refers specifically to the Savior's appearance at the Second Coming, but hopefully we've established by now that there is a pattern to these things. Speaking of patterns: here are the words of Christ about a time identified only as "after those days."

"I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." (Hebrews 8:10-11)

Other verses from this chapter place the above selection in the context of the establishment of "a new covenant," to replace the old after it "vanish[es] away." Again we see this pattern of replacing the preparatory old with the greater, godlier new. Of a gospel that promises eternal progression, no other pattern meets the requirements. I believe the above quoted verses may constitute one of the clearest statements we have of the ultimate conditions God is going for, at least as far as they have been revealed.

Under this system, we need no government but God himself. We need no teacher but God himself. The fullness of the law is written in our hearts and minds so that we become ultimately self-governing, with no artificial structure necessary, and truth, pure and unadulterated, flows freely between us and its source.

In a stroke of blessed predictability, this has been tried in a limited way before, when Joseph Smith served for a time as mayor and chief justice of Nauvoo Illinois. Under his supervision the city became large and prosperous. When asked how he governed such a large group of people with what was described as "perfect order," he famously replied that he did not govern them. "I teach them correct principles," he said, "and they govern themselves."

What better form of government is there? Isn't this the very thing my friend wanted when he insisted that if you could get rid of the badness of people in our current government, you'd find that it was a pure and perfect system? His mistake was putting the credit in the wrong place. It's not the perfection of the system that matters. There's little difficulty in finding admissions from prophets that no system of government used on earth is perfect. What we want is personal commitment to living by true and godly principles. This in itself removes almost all need for the type of government we currently know, enabling us to live in perfect harmony under most any system. The following scripture applies to people living everywhere, not just under the US Constitution:

"Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land." (D&C 58:21)

What need remains after we achieve that lofty goal is a consequence of living as mortals in a fallen world. We must have laws that protect and provide for the maintenance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - guided always by our commitment to integrity in living according to just and holy principles. The Constitution is intended for such a purpose, and while it may not be perfect, my friend is close to right. If we could manage to elect people of pure intent, our system would be sufficient to its end.

And yet, all earthly things must eventually fail. As good as the Constitution is, we should look forward to something better in the future.