Commonwealth and the Latter Day Saints

by Brandon Burrup

Introduction:
How much are religious beliefs and political beliefs interlinked? Philosophers throughout the ages have suggested many ideas about how man should govern himself and how governments should rule over men; however, none of these philosophers have been able to come up with a system that is without flaw. One such philosopher is Thomas Hobbes who wrote extensively on these topics in his book Leviathan. In the second part of this book, entitled Commonwealth, Hobbes defines a system of government in which a group of men make a covenant with each other to submit their wills to a sovereign ruler who acts as a figure of their collective will. When compared with the Latter Day Saint (LDS) church’s beliefs, there are similarities to Hobbes and there are differences. This essay will attempt to compare LDS views of government to those found in Hobbes’ writings by discussing first the differences, next the similarities, and the evidence of Hobbes’ theories in LDS scripture.

Differences:
The first thing one must understand when discussing government and the LDS people is that religion and politics are two different things, whereas Hobbes appears to refer to them synonymously. Hobbes’ definition of a commonwealth is:

“…when a multitude of men do agree, and covenant, every one with every one, that to whatsoever man, or assembly of men, shall be given by the major part the right to present the person of them all, that is to say, to be their representative; every one, as well he that voted for it as he that voted against it, shall authorize all the actions and judgements of that man, or assembly of men, in the same manner as if they were his own, to the end to live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men.” (Hobbes, Ch 18 para 1)

This is very different from the way the U.S government is run and the way the LDS believe it should be. Hobbes’ definition seems to allow for a way into a commonwealth but no way out other than death.

He also demonstrates that he believes that a sovereign receives the authority of God to rule over those in the commonwealth. This is shown in his statement that a sovereign becomes a “mortal god, under that immortal God” and also in what he says about men who try to break the covenant they enter into under commonwealth under the argument that they have a higher covenant with God. In that regard he states:

“And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their sovereign a new covenant, made, not with men but with God, this also is unjust: for there is no covenant with God but by mediation of somebody that representeth God's person, which none doth but God's lieutenant who hath the sovereignty under God.” (Hobbes, Ch 18 para 3)

This shows that he is of the opinion that one receives divine authority through popular consent.

Compare these ideas to what the LDS scriptures and the Articles of Faith state about civil government. The twelfth article of faith states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (Articles of Faith 1.12) This does not appear to be completely contradictory to Hobbes’ views, but if we look a little deeper we can see a distinct difference. In Doctrine and Covenants section 134, Joseph Smith clearly outlines the church’s perspective on what a temporal government should do. Outlined in the section heading are the following points: governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship, all men should uphold their governments and owe respect and deference to the law, religious societies should not exercise civil powers, and men are justified in defending themselves and their property (D&C 134). These show that the LDS church believes in supporting and sustaining civil government but at the same time reserve the right to preserve personal property. This implies that we should support leaders but not fully submit to them.

Verse 9 of this section shows how the LDS perspective of the authority of civil government is different from Hobbes’. It reads:

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (D&C 134.9)

This shows clearly that the LDS do not believe that religion should be a part of civil government. This includes the act of covenanting to uphold a leader and also the idea that by so covenanting we are bestowing not just our will but the will of God as well to that leader. In respect to divine authority the LDS belief is best summarized through the fifth article of faith which says that men only receive divine authority by the laying on of hands by those who are already in authority (Articles of Faith 1.5).

There is also evidence that the LDS do not agree with Hobbes’ idea of having a sole leader over the people. In Mosiah chapter 29, King Mosiah explains to his subjects the reason why it is not fit for a king to rule over the people. He tells them that if it were possible to always have just men rule over them, then it would be good to have a king, but because kings are not always righteous it is better to be ruled by the voice of the people. Hobbes has the right idea when he says that it is necessary that a sovereign be just and truly represent the will of the people, but the problem with this idea is, as Mosiah says, that the sovereign is not always just. If the sovereign is not just then the people are stuck with him according to Hobbes, because they have made a covenant to uphold him. We see that Hobbes and Mosiah follow a similar thought process, but come to different conclusions.

Similarities:
There are some LDS beliefs that are similar to Hobbes’ in the way the LDS church is governed and the relationship church members have with God and with their leaders. In short it would appear that Hobbes’ ideas of civil government are best applied to the way the LDS church is run.

Hobbes outlines the importance of covenants in speaking about the rights of a sovereign. He says that by joining together under a covenant, it is the right of the sovereign to punish them if they should break their part of the covenant and try to leave. This same idea is seen in the church. Once one goes through the covenants and ordinances to become a member, if they then leave the church and are unfaithful to those covenants, their punishment will be far greater than it would have been had they not entered into the covenant in the first place. (Hobbes, Ch 18 para 4)

Another idea of Hobbes’ that seems to reflect LDS doctrine is the nature of man. Hobbes lists our natural passions as “partiality, pride, revenge, and the like.” Hobbes believes that the natural man will serve himself and no one else. In the Book of Mormon, the natural man is described as an enemy to God. Hobbes says that the only way to put off natural tendencies is for us to covenant into a commonwealth under a sovereign power. Mosiah urges us to put off the natural man by making a covenant to submit our will to God. (Mosiah 3.19) This underlines the main difference between Hobbes’ ideas and LDS doctrine. The LDS believe in Hobbes’ theories as applied to their relationship with divine authority and God, but they do not apply it to civil government as Hobbes does.

Hobbes’ Theories in the Book of Mormon:
The Book of Mormon has many examples of ideas that come up in Hobbes’ writings. It is interesting to see how these philosophies were a part of the culture and political ideology of many groups in the Book of Mormon and are even important doctrines of the ancient church.

One example is in Alma chapter 54. The king of the Lamanites speaks to Moroni who is a captain of the Nephites, and tells him that Moroni’s fathers robbed his fathers of their right to the government and for this reason they are at war. (Alma 54.17-18) This shows the importance that the Lamanites gave to the rights of sovereignty just as Hobbes explores in his writings. Hobbes says that the sovereignty has the right to wage war against any who would try to take its power. (Hobbes, Ch 18 para 4) The Lamanites use this idea to justify their own war.

Later on in 3 Nephi, we see how the disintegration of government leads back to a state that Hobbes describes before the commonwealth. Notice the similarity between the following passages—

Passage 1: “And in all places, where men have lived by small families, to rob and spoil one another has been a trade, and so far from being reputed against the law of nature that the greater spoils they gained, the greater was their honour; and men observed no other laws therein but the laws of honour; that is, to abstain from cruelty, leaving to men their lives and instruments of husbandry. And as small families did then; so now do cities and kingdoms, which are but greater families (for their own security), enlarge their dominions upon all pretences of danger, and fear of invasion, or assistance that may be given to invaders; endeavour as much as they can to subdue or weaken their neighbours by open force, and secret arts, for want of other caution, justly; and are remembered for it in after ages with honour.” (Hobbes, Ch 17 para 1)

Passage 2: “And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land.
And it came to pass in the thirty and first year that they were divided into tribes, every man according to his family, kindred and friends; nevertheless they had come to an agreement that they would not go to war one with another; but they were not united as to their laws, and their manner of government, for they were established according to the minds of those who were their chiefs and their leaders. But they did establish very strict laws that one tribe should not trespass against another, insomuch that in some degree they had peace in the land...” (3 Nephi 7.14)

The similarity is uncanny. In Hobbes statement he describes how, without a commonwealth, men work as families or groups to protect themselves and the passage in 3 Nephi shows how this actually occurred in Nephite history.

Conclusion:
Hobbes and Mosiah are an interesting pair to compare. Both agree that the natural man is self serving and fights against good principles. Both understand that the only way to overcome these natural tendencies is to enter into a covenant with a sovereign ruler. Both also can see the benefits of having just rulers over people who serve them according to the laws of God. Both believe in the importance of honoring covenants. The difference between Hobbes and Mosiah is that Mosiah’s beliefs in these regards are applied toward man’s relationship with God and not a civil leader. In this sense the LDS church is quite different from Hobbes while agreeing with his underlying principles as applied to religion.

for further reference:
LDS Scriptures
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

How Rousseau's Ideas from Emile can be applied in my life.

In Rousseau’s Emile, a number of points of instruction are given as to how to raise and educate a child in order for him to develop into the man that he should be. Many of his ideas were contrary to what was typically taught in his period. The people were “always looking for the man in the child without considering what he is before he becomes a man.” I have seen some of these philosophies used in my own education and growth from a child into a man and others I have seen neglected. Three points in particular are the idea that we are taught by three masters and only when these teachings coincide can we live in harmony, the idea that children should be allowed to solve problems themselves without the answer being given to them, and the idea that children should be taught to enjoy life now and that their years of gaity should not be taken away from them.

The first idea is that we are taught by three masters: nature, man, and things. Nature teaches us through our own body and faculties. Man teaches us through other people and education. Things teaches us through our observations of our surroundings. Rousseau says that if the lessons we learn from these masters conflict, then we will not be in harmony with ourselves. If instead they all work together to point us in the same direction, then our lives will be consistent. Drawing from my own life experiences, I have had times when these three have contradicted each other and times when then have agreed. One particular lesson is when I learned how to ride a bicycle. There was a hill in my neighborhood known as “chicken hill”. Early in my childhood I went with some of the big kids riding their two wheelers to ride down this hill. I had not yet learned to ride a bicycle so I brought my three-wheeled plastic Big Wheel. I saw the other kids going down and decided that if they could do it then I could too. I ended up toppling over and scraping myself badly. Because of this experience, I didn’t learn to ride a bicycle for a number of years after most kids my age. Nature had taught me that riding a bicycle like the big kids results in pain and suffering, but man and things were telling me that riding a bicycle was liberating and fun. I was in conflict over my desire to ride and my fear of pain. Eventually I learned how to ride a bicycle, and one of the first things I did was go down that hill again without crashing.

Rousseau also comes back often to the point that children should be allowed to figure things out for themselves. Parents and teachers should give them guidance when the questions of ‘why’ start coming rather than just giving the answer. I do not know if my mother is a student of Rousseau or if she just couldn’t think of anything to say to my own ideas on nature as a child, but she employed this practice very well. I think I was mostly afraid to ask ‘why’ questions because I didn’t want to bother my mother, so instead I learned to think about these questions myself and come up with answers. I would present my answer to her, and based on her reaction I could usually tell if I was right or wrong. For example, when faced with the question of why the sky was blue, I compared my notes to personal experience and told my mom that the sky was blue because God loved his blue crayon the best. My mother would roll her eyes and smile, or in some way or another let me know that I was wrong. I would then go back to work tweaking my theories until I figured out something that fit. This helped me develop problem-solving skills early on and helped me to learn how to figure out and understand how things work on my own.

Finally, I love Rousseau’s comments about allowing kids to be kids while they still can. He says that we so often try to urge them to grow up so fast and be adults that “the age of gaity is spent in tears, punishment, threats, and slavery.” That is too often exactly the way that many people would describe their childhood. Even if they are exaggerating, it is sad that so many feel that their days of happiness were stolen from them so that they could be “prepared for some far off happiness that [they] may never enjoy.” Too often in life we focus on working now to be happy later instead of being happy now in the work we are doing. This is a lesson that I have learned only recently. As a child I constantly looked toward adolescence and in adolescence toward adulthood as the time when I would finally be free from constant demands of others and be able to enjoy life. I have now learned that the demands and responsibilities only increase as one gets older and the trick to obtaining happiness is not to prepare to receive it but to find it in one’s present state of being.

I think Rousseau’s ideas on raising children are very well advised. I feel that the areas of my life in which my education has followed the guidelines set forth in these readings have been the ones that I have excelled at and have ultimately helped me learn to deal with life as an adult. Our public education system seems to have taken a lot of this into account in the way our grade system works and the subject matter that is taught in school. Unfortunately there still seem to be a lot of lessons that are not taken into account or that somehow fall through the cracks, but I believe that we will learn from our mistakes in these regards. If the study of Rousseau is not currently required in becoming an educator, then it ought to be.