We love writing for this blog, and we love hearing from our readers. Keep the comments coming!

As you know, a valuable resource on this site is a list of well-written, well-researched books and articles that may provide valuable insights to the studious Latter-day Saint. This feature will forever be incomplete, as we will always be finding new resources to recommend. We hope that the lists we provide will be able to direct studious Saints to the articles and books that most interest them; for this purpose, we have included a brief synopsis of many of the books and articles in the list. However, writing these summaries requires time that we would rather spend writing articles to post on the site. Today, we invite our readers to do two things:

(1) We invite you to recommend books, articles, and resources that you have found helpful. We will review these recommendations and consider including them in the list.

(2) If there is a book or article in the list that you have read, but which does not yet have a synopsis, we invite you to write a brief synopsis which we will then include in the list.

Both of these will greatly contribute to this site.

Also, we invite our readers to review our newly updated “About” page.

Jeffrey Thayne

We live in a very different intellectual climate than those who wrote the scriptures. Our philosophy and our academic climate was inherited to us from the Greeks; even our concept of truth “originates primarily where a lot of Western intellectual culture originates—Greek philosophy and culture.”¹ The prophets who recorded divine revelations into scripture were part of a Hebrew intellectual tradition, which differs in many significant ways from the Greek philosophical tradition.

One of the ways in which the Greek thinking differs from Hebrew thinking is the way each traditions conceive of ultimate reality. James Faulconer explains,

A study of the history of philosophy quickly shows that the Greeks, the creators of Western philosophy, were concerned with what does not change. They believed that change is a defect, that whatever is ultimate must be static and immobile. What changes, including the world that we experience, is of a lessor order than what does not change. In Greek terms, what changes is less real.²

In other words, whatever is ultimate has to be unchangeable. In simple terms, in order to be truth, it has to be true everywhere, all the time. To the Greeks, therefore, anything that changes with time or location cannot be truth, nor could it be ultimate. No one has yet found a physical object that never changes; all things physical change, decay, or shift over time. Thus, the Greeks believed that the ultimate reality must be something intangible, or non-physical. Thus, mathematical abstractions are the perfect candidate for Greek truth. The equation c² = a² + b² seems to be true everywhere and everytime, regardless of the particular circumstances, and thus Pythagoras and subsequent Greek philosophers regarded it as truth, and even more real than the physical world.

In other words, all things that are dynamic, that are in motion, and that change can be accounted for by the few things that fundamentally do not change. This contrast is often called by philosophers the dichotomy of being vs. becoming. The few things that simply are govern or explain the many things that are in flux.

A perfect example of this Greek way of thinking is in the scientific discipline. Scientists observe change in the world—be it objects falling or creatures evolving—and attempt to discover the unchanging principle to account for that change. For example, they develop a law of gravity to explain why things fall (and thus all the many instances of falling objects can be explained by the one law of gravity), and the law of natural selection to explain why creatures evolve. Both these laws are considered unchanging and static. Because these principles never change, scientists assume that they are more fundamental than what does change. Dr. Gantt and Dr. Williams explain:

Ancient Greek philosophy, in its insistence on its view of reality, set the entire Western tradition, including psychology, on the course it still follow. Its (that is, psychology’s) insistence on mechanistic, causal, and even structural explanation are the heritage of the Greek metaphysical project. We have sought explanation of all things (the Many) in terms of the necessary, the unembodied, the unchanging and atemporal (the One). Although this project has taken may guises over the centuries it is still fundamentally intact. In modern psychology it is at the heart of our empiricism, positivism, mechanism, naturalism, and determinism. These explanatory constructs destroy agency—they make it impossible to account human action in agentive terms because they destroy difference.³

Another example of this way of Greek thinking is manifest in Hellenized Christianity. According to Dallin H. Oaks, in the years that followed the death of the Apostles “there came a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine in which the orthodox Christians of that day lost the fullness of truth about the nature of God.”⁴ God was seen as something intangible and unchangeable. He was turned into a kind of mathematical abstraction. Thus, we can already see that some of the Greek assumptions about ultimate truth and reality can be problematic.

In contrast, the Hebrew worldview does not contain this fundamental division of reality. The Hebrew intellectual project was not about accounting for the world in terms of abstract, unchangeable propositions, but rather it was about forming a relationship with a dynamic [living] Truth. Faulconer continues:

Though Indo-European [Greek] languages focus on the static when concerned with what ultimately is, Semitic [Hebrew] languages focus on the temporal … and dynamic. … Unlike Greek, Hebrew does not conceive of anything immaterial or unembodied, even in thought.²

In other words, the Hebrew language and the Hebrew intellectual climate saw ultimate reality very differently than the Greeks did. They didn’t see truth as something abstract, unchanging, or static. To them, ultimate reality was something dynamic or active. To them the ultimate organizer of reality wasn’t an abstract entity, but rather a living, dynamic person. I will speak more of the Hebrew worldview in later posts; for now, I would simply conclude that we should be wary of reading the scriptures with a Greek hermeneutic; that is, we must be careful about applying Greek philosophical assumptions to a sacred text that was written originally in the Hebrew language. At the very least, it confuses the message the scriptures present; at the first, it obscures our understanding of God and how we relate with Him. As I learn more about the differences between Hebrew and Greek thought, the message of the scriptures becomes much more meaningful to me; I end up adjusting many of the assumptions I’ve had about the world. Indeed, when understood appropriately, the scriptures can rupture our present Greek paradigm, and enliven our lives with a new (or old, but forgotten) philosophy of a dynamic and living reality.

1. Brent Slife and Jeffrey Reber, “Comparing the Practical Implications of Secular and Christian Truth in Psychotherapy,” Turning Freud Upside Down (Provo, UT: BYU Press).
2. James Faulconer, Scripture Study: Tools and Suggestions (Provo, UT: FARMS), pp. 135–153.
3. Richard Williams and Ed Gantt, “Pursuing Psychology as Science of the Ethical: Contributions of the Work of Emmanuel Levinas” (Brigham Young University).
4. Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign, May 1995.

Nathan Richardson

Gerald N. Lund makes an important point about how the various areas of philosophy affect each other:

Whether he recognizes it or not, every person holds to a metaphysical position, trusts in at least one system of epistemology, and holds a personal axiology or set of values and ethics. Furthermore, these three areas of our own philosophy are interrelated. Our metaphysics (our view of reality) influences our epistemology (the way we gain knowledge), and together the two determine our axiology (our values).¹

Elder Lund gives an example from Alma 30. Korihor believed that “ye cannot know of things which ye do not see” (his epistemology; v. 15). Since he’d never seen life after death, he concluded that “when a man was dead, that was the end thereof” (his metaphysics; v. 18). Since that meant there was no possibility for judgment of sins after death, he concluded that “whatsoever a man did was no crime” (his axiology; v. 17). Thus, from his assumptions about how we know things, he derives his idea of good and evil.

Elder Lund points out that what we believe is and isn’t real, as well as how we know things, greatly affects what we think is right and wrong. He advises that we should be aware of the implications of our personal philosophy, for one belief can often subtly and subconsciously affect our other beliefs. In other words, “He who picks up one end of the stick, picks up the other.”²

Renée Beckwith, in her master’s thesis, gives an example of how we unwittingly arrive at one end of a stick by picking up the other end. She reviews the psychological literature to show that, with some variations, two major theories compete for the belief and loyalty of human minds and hearts. The first theory is that of an egocentric, inherently distinct and separated self. The other is that of a relational self, an alterocentric ontology. These currents conflict with each other in their basic assumptions about the nature of reality.

Beckwith reviews how these basic assumptions affect each other in six areas: the nature of self, ways of knowing, the definition of morality, the definition of autonomy, the definition of freedom, and the intent or purpose of living. (Interestingly, her implicative chain begins with metaphysics, unlike Korihor’s, whose seems to begin with epistemology.) In other words, she shows how each of these two metaphysical worldviews entails an epistemology and an axiology. Each worldview is only one end of an entire stick of implications, so we must be careful about which stick we choose to pick up.

In a future post, I will explain the six areas she reviews, showing how, beginning with the nature of the self, each set of assumptions naturally leads to beliefs regarding the other areas. One of the main messages we can draw from this is implied by Elder Lund: whether we realize it or not, the ideas we entertain, nurture, accept, and adhere to will affect our perception of right and wrong and the way to eternal joy. Whether that perception accurately reflects revealed truth has huge ramifications on the state of our relationships, our society, and our souls.

Jeffrey Thayne

The dictionary defines theocracy as “a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.”¹ That is, a theocracy is a government that claims to have authority from God. However, our modern experience with governments led exclusively by a particular religion or which claim special divine authority has largely been negative. For example, the Taliban have been considered a theocratic government, and for this reason people often associate the term theocracy with the words tyranny and oppression. Brigham Young commented,

What does the world understand theocracy to be? A poor, rotten government of man, that would say, without the shadow of provocation or just cause, “Cut that man’s head off; put that one in the rack; arrest another, and retain them in unlawful and unjust dress while you plunder his property and pollute his wife and daughters; massacre here and there.” The Lord almighty does nothing of that kind, neither does any man who is controlled by his Spirit.²

The Gospel Doctrine lesson manual defines theocracy as a government “guided by God through revelation to a prophet.”³ This definition of theocracy is a little narrower than the one given above: a theocracy must actually be guided by God to be a true theocracy. It can’t just claim divine authority, it must have divine authority. Brigham Young, for example, said: “What do I understand by a theocratic government? One in which all laws are enacted and executed in righteousness, and whose officers possess that power which proceedeth from the Almighty.”⁴ Certainly, no tyrannical government meets this definition. Thus, as I believe that the Taliban and other modern “theocratic” governments have been tyrannical and oppressive, for that same reason I do not believe they are truly theocracies, in the sense that I will now use the term. When I use the term theocracy from this point forward, I mean only those governments with leaders who are righteous and have a clear divine commission.

Because no government presently on earth is led by divinely authorized leaders, any legitimate government on the earth must necessarily be an interim government of very limited powers; we must recognize that under these circumstances, creating utopia and solving all the world’s problems are endeavors to be undertaken by the people governed, not the government. This is because no man can authorize another to use force on his behalf to implement his particular ideal for the human race. For example, no government can rightly use force to take wealth from some and give it to others for a perceived social benefit without divine authorization (as is done in socialist or communist governments).

Ironically, even though a government personally authorized by God may rightfully do these things, no such government ever would. For example, though God has the rightful power to use force to redistribute wealth (since it all belongs to Him), He typically does not operate that way; He gains the respect and honor of His children and invites them, without compulsion, to follow His instructions. For this reason, God typically has not established a theocracy on the earth until His children were prepared and willing to be governed by it. That is, righteousness is often prerequisite to divine government.

There have been times on the earth when God has established a proper and legitimate government, with divinely authorized leaders. Bruce R. McConkie taught that the first government received authority to govern straight from God Himself:

When the Lord placed Adam, the first man of all men, and Eve, the mother of all living, upon the earth, he gave them dominion over all things, including their seed after them. He vested in them what we call civil power, by which they governed themselves and their children. …

There was no separation of church and state; all governmental powers, whether civil or religious, centered in one Supreme Head. They came from God and were administered among men by his legal administrators who were sent and duly commissioned by him. This type of government is a theocracy; it is the government of God. Under it there is no need for a civil power on the one hand and a religious arm on the other. All the affairs of government are intertwined into one with direction coming from God himself, by revelation, to those whom he commissions to represent him on earth.⁵

Thus, McConkie taught that the first government was a theocracy. The source of its governing authority is clear: divine commission from the Almighty. Joseph Fielding Smith explains:

The Father conferred upon Adam the Priesthood, and established with him and his posterity a perfect form of government. This government was a theocracy. Men holding the Priesthood ruled under direct revelation and commandment. Jesus Christ, who created the earth, was the rightful ruler. … He it was, who gave the law to Adam and to all the prophets, and while a government was established among mortals on the earth, yet it was their bounden duty to accept the rule and guidance of Jesus Christ. … Man was in all respects accountable to God, for, as we quote from the Psalmist David … : ‘The Earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein.’ It is his for he made it, and while rebellion has come and men have set up governments of their own, rejecting the divine guidance of the rightful King, yet he has never relinquished his claim and surrendered his place to the authority of mortals upon the earth.⁶

A familiar example of a true theocratic government is found in the Old Testament: God led and governed the Israelites through divine revelation to Moses, the prophet. To an outsider, it looked as though Moses led the people; but to Moses and the Israelites, God was their leader and Moses was just His authorized spokesman. In this case, the source of governing authority is perfectly clear—God directly authorized Moses to judge, lead, and command the people in all affairs both secular and spiritual. Moses subsequently authorized other judges to judge in his stead, distributing the workload among a greater number of people. Each of these judges were subservient to and authorized by Moses or his prophetic successors. Other theocratic governments found in the scriptures are the people of Enoch and also the Nephites under Kings Benjamin and Mosiah. Eugene England explains,

For an all-too-short period of time—until the end of the reign of his son, Mosiah II—there is a great “golden age,” a time when the ancient ideal is realized of uniting power and righteousness in a single leader to form a theocracy, that perfect but difficult and extremely rare form of government we have seen under Enoch, Abraham, Moses, and in modern times for a while under Brigham Young.⁷

Most Latter-day Saints will agree that this form of government—a theocracy with clearly authorized spokesmen of God governing the people—is the ideal form of government. King Mosiah, in the Book of Mormon, said, “Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.” (Mosiah 29:12) Thus, when skilled men in direct communication with God lead and govern the people, the results are a near perfect government. As King Mosiah said to his people,

If it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, … I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. (Mosiah 29:13)

(Although King Mosiah and King Benjamin referred to themselves as kings, I believe that their government was more theocratic than monarchical.) Speaking of the government in the time of Enoch, McConkie taught,

When Enoch preached among the wicked, made converts, and built his City of Holiness, that original Zion operated so perfectly upon theocratic principles that the Lord of heaven himself came and dwelt with his people. So perfect was the system and so righteous were the people that they received instruction from the Lord in person as well as from his duly constituted servants on earth. What better system of government could there be? Providentially it is one that will differ only in size and complexity from the government that shall prevail over all the earth when the Lord reigns during the Millennial era.⁵

Thus, not only have there been divinely authorized governments in the past, we can expect to see one again in the future. Any legitimate government will recognize that it is only an interim government; J.R.R. Tolkien represented this in his Lord of the Rings trilogy: stewards kept the throne at Minas Tirith, looking forward to the day when the true heir to the throne, Aragorn, would return and take his rightful place as King of Gondor. However, the corrupt steward named Denethor did not wish to relinquish his position to the rightful heir, and eventually lost his life. Presently, the world’s governments claim God-like authority over their people, using force to establish what some believe is a better state of society; they do not recognize that their rightful powers are inherently limited until the day when the King of kings and the Lord of lords, the Savior Jesus Christ, will return and “reign personally upon the earth” (AoF 10); at that day, only leaders recognized by Him will have any claim of authority on the people.

Nathan Richardson

In a previous post, “‘Self-evident’ Premises of Science,” I cited six premises listed in the opening essay of the BYU physical science textbook. The authors explain, “All reasoning must rest upon assumptions, and the scientific method … assumes basic philosophical ideals as a foundation. … There are some assumptions that are so logical and basic that we present them here as six “self-evident truths.”¹ I questioned each assumption as defined in the text and gave my reasons for doing so with three of them: non-contradiction, existence, and causality. I will now address the other three:

Position symmetry. The laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe.
Time symmetry. The laws of nature have remained the same through time. They are the same now as they were in the distant past, and they will be the same in the future.
Simplicity (Occam’s Razor). If alternative explanations of any phenomenon are available, where each are logical and explain the phenomenon equally well, then the simplest explanation shall be chosen.¹

Simplicity. Also called the principle of Parsimony, Occam’s razor is stated in various ways, sometimes saying that, all else being equal, “Simpler explanations are more likely to be true than complex ones.”¹ Simply stated, there is no way of knowing that is true. When exploring unknown regions of the physical universe, a person does not know what law governs the phenomena he is studying. So how can she assume anything about the final explanation, when she hasn’t reached it yet? Simplicity seems to me more like a practical premise that is often true, than a self-evident premise that is always true. It may be very useful for expediting scientific inquiry, but I would never let it prevent me from considering possibilities just because a simpler explanation that was available also explained all the data. As Jeff explained in “Odd Realities and Moral Imperatives,” reality is often something we could never have guessed.

Position symmetry. With the exception of divine revelation, the only way I can think of that a person could claim to know whether the laws of nature are not different at different locations would be to experience those laws functioning at every point in the universe. In other words, God himself would have to tell you this, or you’d have to have some god-like capabilities to test it. Position symmetry seems a likely possibility to me, but I have no way of showing that it’s true or not. Maybe the laws of nature are different at different locations. Maybe certain parts of the universe “govern all those which belong to the same order” by different natural laws (Abr. 3:3, 9). I hesitate to cut myself off from the full range of possibilities, especially when we have studied such a small fraction of the universe.

Time symmetry. It seems to me that the scriptures contradict the way people usually interpret time symmetry. Heavenly Father has said he is consistent in his attributes, such as wisdom, power, justice, and mercy. But how can we say, “The laws of the universe do not change with time,” given what we know about the fall of Adam?¹ Excepting the fall, “all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created,” which sounds to me like many fundamental changes occurred (2 Ne. 2:22). We have no idea what all was entailed in the fall. Many prophets have made statements that the fall affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire planet. Death entered the world, and none of us knows what changes may have happened at a biological, chemical, or physical scale. So how can I be sure that carbon-14 has always had a regular decay rate, or a steadily-changing decay rate? There is no way I can ever demonstrate that. I can see why geologists assume it; it gives regularity and organization to their observations. But I would once again call it a pragmatic premise, not a self-evident one.

As I said before, some of these premises seem true in many ways, but I hesitate to call them all “self-evident” truths. And because of that, I can’t help but mentally qualify every conclusion based on them. I can see someone replying, “Well yes, of course we are aware of exceptions that the restored gospel brings up, but these statements are mostly true, in most situations.” To me, it seems short-sighted to use something as a premise when we acknowledge exceptions. When we know of exceptions, it is not a strong premise, and treating it as such is an unwarranted self-limitation. At best, we cut ourselves off from many possibilities when understanding the world around us. At worst, we abandon revealed truths in favor of speculation, merely because the speculations have been repeated for so long by so many.

1. Physical Science Foundations, 2nd ed., BYU College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences.

Jeffrey Thayne

We have established in previous posts that governments need authority from God to govern. In the absence of a divinely appointed ruler, the only legitimate governments are those that are set up by the people with limited powers. All other governments claim authority that they do not actually have. As Joseph Fielding Smith explained:

We have already stated that man has no authority, except that which is delegated to him. … Therefore, any rule or dominion over the earth, which is not given by the Lord, is surreptitiously obtained and never will be sanctioned by him.¹

A government system where kings have complete rule over the secular affairs of the people, but who are also not God’s prophets, is called a monarchy. In ancient Israel, many of the Israelites wanted a leader who could be their king, and at the same time not be their prophet. They wanted a division of religious and secular affairs in their kingdom. The Lord saw this desire as reprehensible, and attributed it to a rebellion in their hearts against His chosen servants. However, he granted the people their request and asked his servant Samuel to anoint Saul to be a king over the people. This is vitally important; as we said earlier, no man has authority to govern unless he is given that authority by God. Saul was not given his authority to govern by the voice of the people, nor by virtue of his title; his authority to govern came from his anointment to that office, delivered by God’s representative, Samuel the prophet.

The idea that a king has been given authority to govern by God or God’s spokesman has been transmitted through the centuries and is called “the divine right of kings.” Many monarchical governments have claimed divine authority to govern their subjects. According to Wikipedia,

The ‘Divine Right of Kings’ is a general term used for the ideas surrounding the authority and legitimacy of a monarch. The doctrine broadly holds that a monarch derives his or her right to rule from the will of God, and not from any temporal authority, including the will of his subjects, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. Chosen by God, a monarch is accountable only to him, and need answer only before God for his actions.²

In principle, this concept is not inherently misguided; however, Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies:

I am aware that kings and queens are anointed, and set apart by their different ministers, according to the different forms and creeds of the several countries over which they reign. There are two things necessary, however, to make their authority legal, and to authorize them to act as God’s representatives on the earth. The first is, that they should be called of God; and the second, that the persons by whom they are anointed are duly authorized to anoint them. First, then, it may be necessary to observe, that, if kings and queens are of God’s selection, and are his representatives, they must themselves be appointed by him; for if not so, how can they be considered his representatives? The prophet Hosea complains, that “they have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.”³

When a ruler exercises the powers and privileges of a king, but is not duly authorized by God to that office, he is an apostate ruler. This does not necessarily mean he is a bad person, or that his heart is rebellious against God; I use the term apostasy in this setting to refer to any circumstance that is contrary to God’s established order. We do not know of any monarchical government in recent times that has a genuine claim to divine authority, just as there was no divinely authorized church during the centuries prior to Joseph Smith. The claims of the Restoration do not need to be understood as an insult to other churches, and in the same way, my claims about the divine authority of present monarchical governments does not need to be understood as a condemnation of them.

What is the challenge with a divinely authorized monarchical government? Men, even divinely appointed men, do not always follow the instructions God gives them. They sometimes exercise their authority unrighteously and thereby lose it. As the Lord said, recorded by Joseph Smith, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” (D&C 121:39) When they do this, they lose their divine authority, and begin to govern under pretended authority. This is called apostasy. The Lord continued,

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121:34–37)

We see this kind of apostasy in many instances of scripture; for example, King Saul, who was anointed by Samuel, rebelled against God and subsequently lost his right to the throne. Also, King Noah apostatized and replaced government officials and also religious priests with wicked men. It was King Mosiah’s fear of apostasy that led him to disband the theocratic government of his day. He said:

Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage. (Mosiah 29:16–18 )

The scriptures are replete with examples of kings who rebelled against God, usurped the throne, or in other ways ruled without proper authority. Many kings have claimed divine commission when they did not have it. Today, I do not believe any government on the earth has the moral authority to do everything that they do. Even our own government (a constitutional republic with limited and delegated powers), although based upon true principles, regularly steps outside of its proper bounds. It frequently does things that we as people cannot authorize it to do, for we have not been given that authority.

There have been governments in the past that have exercised their authority properly; I will talk about them in my next post. For now, we await the return of the King of kings and Lord of lords to return to the earth and complete the Restoration of God’s proper order to the earth. Part of this Restoration will be the establishment of a proper government.

1. Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man (Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1936), p. 71.
2. Wikipedia, “<a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings”Divine right of kings,” accessed 17 Jun. 2008.
3. Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, p. 71–72.

Nathan Richardson

In the opening essay of the BYU physical science textbook, the authors included a section on some of the basic premises upon which the reasoning portion of the scientific method rests. They explain, “All reasoning must rest upon assumptions, and the scientific method … assumes basic philosophical ideals as a foundation. … There are some assumptions that are so logical and basic that we present them here as six “self-evident truths.”¹

When I first read this essay as a college freshman, I got kind of excited, wondering what those fundamental truths might be upon which the rest of my text was based. I was a little disappointed when I read some of them.

1. Existence. There exists a physical world separate and distinct from our minds that is comprehensible through our senses. We expect in addition that it is governed by certain generalities called the “laws of nature.”
2. Causality. Events—effects—in the physical universe have natural causes. Causes precede effects and can be explained rationally in terms of the laws of nature.
3. Position symmetry. The laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe.
4. Time symmetry. The laws of nature have remained the same through time. They are the same now as they were in the distant past, and they will be the same in the future.
5. Noncontradiction. Of two contradictory propositions, both cannot be true.
6. Simplicity (Occam’s Razor). If alternative explanations of any phenomenon are available, where each are logical and explain the phenomenon equally well, then the simplest explanation shall be chosen.¹

While I can see why these assumptions can be useful in simplifying and expediting the scientific process, and while I agree that they are probably true in many ways, I have reservations about calling them all “self-evident” truths. And because of that, I find myself qualifying every conclusion based on them. They may have pragmatic value for solving everyday problems, such as in medicine and engineering, but when they are used to draw problematic conclusions, I find myself reaching for a grain of salt. I will examine each premise and its claim to “self-evident truth.”

Noncontradiction. I didn’t have any major problems with number five. Of course, that’s with the caveat that many times two true statements appear to be in conflict, but that is usually due to either limited knowledge or the ambiguities of spoken language. Note, for example, that the rhetorical definition of “paradox” is often “an apparent contradiction” due to dual meanings, not necessarily a genuine conceptual contradiction.

Existence. I would accept the first sentence in number one with a qualification. The physical world is largely comprehensible through our senses, but I would be presumptuous to think my senses (or technological instrumentation) could detect all of the physical world. Who knows what aspects of the physical world may never be detectable through senses or mechanical instrumentation? Especially in light of the doctrine that “all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes” (D&C 131:7). Likewise, who knows what aspects of the physical world may never be “comprehensible” to our finite minds? I would be sad if the universe were mundane enough that none of it was outside our current mortal ability to comprehend.

The second sentence may need qualifying, too. The universe may be “governed by certain generalities called the ‘laws of nature,’” but I wouldn’t say that they are the only things that govern the universe, nor that they are the highest governing factor that trumps all others.

Causality. Number two depends completely upon the definition of the word “natural.” It’s obvious that events have to have causal links from other events; I think that’s one thing Bruce R. McConkie and meant when he said that agency requires laws in order to exist: laws binding an effect to its cause. But assuming “natural” here means mechanistic and without the involvement of divine will and intervention, then it would preclude any involvement at all by Heavenly Father on earth. Tell me, what would be the “natural” cause of the First Vision? Or of a spirit entering a body during gestation? Or of a sudden storm that happens to save Zion’s Camp from destruction?

Saying that all effects in the universe have “natural” causes not only precludes divine will; it also precludes human will. When a man and woman selflessly serve their children, is that merely the unavoidable outcome of several initial environmental conditions? Are they inert puppets, maximizing the odds of passing on their genes because those genes demand it, or do they genuinely choose altruism? The gospel makes clear that every person is free to choose, and that means “natural causes” cannot explain all, or even most, of what we see happen every day.

I am not trying to prove each of these points wrong; I am trying to show that some are wrong and that others have not been proven right. In fact, they may be unproveable. Of course, that is the nature of a premise—it is a starting point from which further conclusions flow. So we should be very cautious about what we accept as a premise, as well as any conclusions drawn from them when they remain unexamined. In my next post, I will examine the other three “self-evident” premises.

1. Physical Science Foundations, 2nd ed., BYU College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences.

Jeffrey Thayne

In my previous two posts (”John Locke and Primal Authority” and “Government by the People“), I have claimed that God is the origin of all legitimate political power. A person may be appointed by God to rule on the earth, or in the absence of such ruler we can delegate to a designated person the limited authorities God has distributed to us equally. Although these individually-given powers are limited, they are enough to maintain a peaceful (if not perfect) society, if they are delegated properly to virtuous leaders. The important thing to remember is that each of these two systems place ultimate sovereignty in a Supreme Being; all legitimate governments must ultimately be able to trace their authority to Him.

Some historical traditions deny the existence of any Supreme Being, and thus look elsewhere than God for the fountain of political authority. One philosophy holds that a group of people can collectively claim political sovereignty. Political scientist Donald Lutz explains, “To speak of popular sovereignty is to place ultimate authority in the people.”¹ From this perspective, a group of people as a collective entity may claim the same sovereign powers once thought to be reserved for God’s divinely chosen servants.

A pure democracy is a system in which the majority voice of the people is given political sovereignty. Everybody contributes, but in the end it is the largest portion of the people that have the final say. Because sovereignty ultimately rests in the majority voice of the people, in a pure democracy there are no inherent moral limits to the power and authority of the majority voice of the people. For example, in a pure democracy, although I do not have the authority to take my neighbor’s property without his consent, if I get enough people to agree with me, then I could; that is because, in this philosophy, ultimate sovereignty rests in the majority voice of the people. My roommate once quipped that in a pure democracy, if 51% of the people wanted to gouge out the eyes of the other 49%, they could²; and despite all protestations that such an act is morally wrong, it must be remembered that sovereignty rests in the majority voice, and thus the majority voice is the measure of right and wrong. Or, as Protagoras said (who I quoted in the first post in this series), “man is the measure of all things.” There is no appeal, because the majority voice is sovereign. All appeals to moral or divine law are appeals to a higher authority than man, and thus such appeals are not legitimate in the democratic philosophy.

Let’s consider an example that shows how the philosophy of popular sovereignty differs from a system in which a Supreme Being is considered the source of all political power. The ultimate authority to govern does not reside in the people, but in the God who gave the people certain privileges to act. It is because we as a people are not the ultimate authority and because we are not sovereign that we as a people and our representative government are necessarily limited in its legitimate powers. As an individual, I do not have the authority or right to take property from my neighbor without his consent (except in self-defense or enforcement of criminal law); in a system that places sovereignty in a Supreme Being, only He can authorize that action. Therefore, in that system, I could also never authorize my agent—the government—to perform that act for me. The powers of government are inherently limited.

Here is where things get subtle: what if the group of people in our hypothetical democracy collectively decided, by majority voice, that there are certain rights that shall not be infringed, despite what future assemblies may vote? Well, a pure democracy could certainly put limits on itself, and the collective voice of the people could grant certain rights. However, because sovereignty rests in the people, these self-limitations are just that: self-limitations, and can therefore be changed by the people. This very subtle difference makes it vitally important that we recognize the source of political sovereignty as God Himself. Ezra Taft Benson explains:

Let us … consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”³

Thus we see that the philosophical foundations of democracy and popular sovereignty differ from a system in which God is the ultimate sovereign (where any government leader not directly ordained by God or His representative must be inherently limited in his or her power). Of course, our nation contains elements of democracy; our representatives are chosen democratically and are our agents in the government. Consent of the people is therefore a very important feature of our nation’s government and its founding principles. There is nothing wrong with this, and is in fact required for a legitimate representative government; the essential difference, I believe, between legitimate government and democracy is where it places ultimate sovereignty.

Notes
1. Donald Lutz, Popular Consent and Popular Control: Whig Political Theory in the Early State Constitutions (Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1980), p. 38.
2. Dustin Steinacker, personal conversation.
3. Ezra Taft Benson, “The Proper Role of Government,” accessed 1 Jul. 2008, http://www.ldshea.org/pages/left_sidebar/Const%20proper_role_of_government.htm.

Jeffrey Thayne

In my post “John Locke and Primal Authority,” I quoted Joseph Fielding Smith and John Locke, who both claimed that no person on the earth has any authority to rule over other people except that which is given them by God. In this post, I would like to explain how a representative government, such as the United States of America, can claim legitimate authority to govern.

John Locke believed that no person on the earth can claim authority from God to rule with monarchical power. He also believed that each person has certain rights, privileges which he or she can exercise absent any divinely appointed ruler. Locke’s writings resist compression or summary, and his ideas contain many nuances and subtleties; however, I will present what I believe to be the basic concept of his writings, even if my presentation does him injustice.

Basically, he believed that each person has a right to defend his or her life from attack or assault, preserve his or her property from theft or trespass, and use force to do so. He or she may punish those who trespass against his or her life and property in such a way as to deter future offenses from them or others. He or she may demand reparation for trespasses and secure that reparation through force. These are just a few of the rights John Locke believes that all mankind possesses equally, independent of any civil authority. Nobody, said Locke, has a right to trespass against another person’s life or property, except in inflicting punishment or seeking reparation for a trespass against them.¹

For these reasons, Locke believed that certain powers of government are, in a sense, embedded in the people; that is, in the exercise of their God-given rights, a group of people can set up a limited form of government. The power to form a militia to defend a city or nation and the power to employ police to punish crime and enforce criminal law, for example, are powers that the people possess, independent of any divinely appointed ruler. They can also hire people to perform these tasks on their behalf. Ezra Taft Benson explains:

It is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: “WE THE PEOPLE… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form?²

Benson also explains that this type of government is necessarily limited:

There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.²

Thus, according to Benson, a government can claim legitimate authority to govern if, and only if, those who participate in the government do not exceed the powers the people themselves already possess. Those powers are given to each person by God upon their entrance into this world. Thus, I believe that a limited representative government can claim its authority from God, via the people. Benson’s claim that “the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything” reflects Joseph Fielding Smith’s claim that no man can rule without divine authority.

This framework, however, invites us to reconsider some of our assumptions about our government. It is sometimes believed that the government has power to do anything, as long as the majority voice of the people authorizes it (except those actions specifically forbidden by the Bill of Rights). This idea is commonly called democracy. In a future post, I will discuss the nature of democracy, and how its fundamental assumptions differ a little from those laid out by Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson.

Nathan Richardson is, at this time, on an adventure fighting dragons and orcs in an effort to save the world. While we wish him luck on his week-long leave of absence, this means we won’t be hearing from him for a few days. However, I would like to invite our readers to peruse our new “FAQ” and also our newly updated “About” pages. These two pages are designed to clarify the mission and scope of this blog. We’d be interested in feedback!

Also, I will be publishing another exciting post on Wednesday, so visit then to read more about the origins and limits of government authority! For those who do not enjoy reading about political philosophy, next week Nathan should be back with an excellent post on the assumptions of the natural sciences. Also, my series on political philosophy should be complete within another week or two, after which I will discuss other subjects.