Marc suggests: "If one feels the specific events of the American Revolution were inspired, one would also have to believe that the French Revolution was inspired, since it laid the groundwork for the American Revolution, and the intellectuals behind the liberalism (in the traditional sense of the term) that arose in the Age of Enlightenment, who set up the ideological structure for modern democracy, were all inspired by the French Revolution, imo. But I think that's history, not religious doctrine. IOW, I don't think it's an important distinction"
Hate to be picky Marc, but the French Revolution is generally thought to have occurred between 1789 and 1799, sometime after the American Revolution. You might recall the keys dates of 1776 and 1782 for America. I think it was the French following the American example. I may not have understood your comment however, and I have been known to be wrong about things like this. You may be looking at the roots of the French experience rather than the historical manifestation of the actual revolutionary events. And I have no problem with the idea that the French Revolution was inspired. George ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21 "John W. Redelfs" wrote: > Marc A. Schindler favored us with: > >There's an interesting matter of interpretation here. Is "while" a conditional > >term here, or is it merely setting up the other party's side of the > >covenant? And > >if one party breaks the covenant, is the other party free to break it as well? > > Obviously yes because we know from the Doctrine and Covenants that the > Founding Fathers of the United States were inspired men raised up by God to > rebel against Britain. It actually doesn't say this. See below. > How do we reconcile that fact with the Twelfth > Article of faith? This is how I make the reconciliation. Rebel against > constituted authority but only when commanded by God to do so. I know this is a common belief amongst US LDS, but I don't think it's the only one possible. The D&C does not mention the American Revolution, it says the founding fathers were inspired, but wrt the principles of the Constitution (see in particular D&C 101:80; the interpretation regarding the Revolution is the reference to having redeemed the land by blood, but that's in a separate, independent clause. Here's the whole verse: "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.." I certainly believe the US is the "cradle of the restoration" and that the *principles* of the US constitution are inspired (in other words, democratic government and protection of civil rights, but not necessarily the exact form of the US republic per se). I think that's pretty solid. What might be a cultural addition is the assumption that everything in US history is therefore inspired. I think there's been a bit of mythologization going on, which isn't unique to LDS in the US -- think of the term "manifest destiny," which alludes to a divine mission. I think the Lord uses what happens to His own ends but He has lots of options and uses whatever situation presents itself. It's not that big of a difference, actually, as I see it -- we agree in the end result, we might just differ in how it came about. After all, Canada didn't have a revolution, but that's almost certainly because Britain learned a lesson from the US situation, and allowed its other colonies to evolve independence and democracy as they were ready. I know you think we don't have the same freedoms you do, but in all fairness, I think that boils down to just one particular issue, which I'd rather not get into. Despite the differences in the outward forms, Canada (and many other countries -- most industrialized countries) have taken the principles of the US Bill of Rights and applied them in their own democratization. In fact, D&C 134:5 specifically prohibits rebellion and sedition. Whether that's unconditional or conditional depends on what you think the word "while" means. I understand from my brother, who served his mission in French Polynesia, that members of an independence movement there, a movement which advocated the use of force, were threatened with excommunication. In contrast, you can be a member of the Parti Quebecois, which is separatist, without being in danger of losing your Church membership because the PQ does not promote violence to attain its ends. If one feels the specific events of the American Revolution were inspired, one would also have to believe that the French Revolution was inspired, since it laid the groundwork for the American Revolution, and the intellectuals behind the liberalism (in the traditional sense of the term) that arose in the Age of Enlightenment, who set up the ideological structure for modern democracy, were all inspired by the French Revolution, imo. But I think that's history, not religious doctrine. IOW, I don't think it's an important distinction. Postscript: Here's the entry from the EoM on "civil rights" [warning: it briefly mentions a topic against the List Charter; I've indicated this by "[deleted]"] Civil Rights Civil rights are legal guarantees designed to protect persons from arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. Common examples are those protecting freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of assembly, the right to due process of law, the right to vote, the right to equal protection of the law, and safeguards for persons accused of crime, such as the right against self-incrimination, the right to confront one's accuser, the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and the right to a speedy trial. These and other rights are declared in the Constitution of the United States of America and in the constitutions of many other countries (see -->Constitutional Law). Civil rights are found in statutes as well as in constitutions and may provide, for example, detailed guarantees against public and private discrimination on the basis of such characteristics as race, gender, age, and religion. Civil rights issues arise when people disagree about the rights that are, or ought to be, guaranteed by law.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members have an obvious interest in securing their own rights. Beyond this, several strands of doctrine and belief-sometimes competing-shape the views of members and leaders regarding civil rights in general. The principle of free agency seems most compatible with a legal system guaranteeing wide latitude for individual choice and decision. With respect to religious liberties, agency is reinforced by individual and institutional interests in freedom from governmental restraint. In the United States of America, commitment to individual rights is further reinforced by allegiance to the personal liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, which Latter-day Saints regard as an inspired document. On the other hand, the Church teaches its members to obey properly constituted governmental authority (D&C 134:5; 98:6; A of F 12), which may lead to accommodation and submission when core religious interests are not threatened. In addition, Church teachings on moral questions sometimes predispose members, as well as the institutional Church, to take positions on political issues ([deleted], for example) that run counter to the rights claimed by others. As a result, the position of the Church and its members toward current civil rights issues is complex. A Church statement of belief regarding government, adopted in 1835, singled out "free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life" as rights essential to the peace of society (D&C 134:2; see -->Politics: Political Teachings). This 1835 statement repeatedly stressed the importance of religious freedom, and the Church and its members have sometimes found it necessary to take legal action to vindicate free exercise rights. In Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints et al. v. Amos et al. (483 U.S. 327 ), for example, the Church successfully defended its right to impose a religious test for employment in certain Church-owned establishments. The Church as an institution has avoided legal action where possible, but has been willing to defend its rights in court when necessary. Apart from its special legal interests, the Church is publicly committed to a broad range of civil rights for all. An oft-cited 1963 statement by a member of the Church First Presidency, Hugh B. Brown, called for "full civil equality for all of God's children," saying "it is a moral evil.to deny any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship" (p. 1058). In the political arena, where competing claims to civil rights are frequently debated, the Church participates indirectly by encouraging members to vote and to foster a society congenial to Christian teaching and righteous living. Occasionally, when public issues implicate important matters of doctrine and morals, the Church publishes recommended positions on disputed issues and encourages members and others to follow their counsel. Thus, the Church has urged restrictions on the sale of alcoholic beverages, opposed the legalization of gambling and lotteries, favored right-to-work legislation (no closed or union shop), advocated the defeat of the equal rights amendment (ERA), and spoken out against pornography, [deleted], and child abuse.Within the Church, individual rights play a muted role as compared with secular society. Love and duty are stressed far more than individual claims of right. Moreover, the Church is a voluntary organization whose sanctions extend only to rights of membership and participation within the group, so fewer safeguards are necessary. Thus, Church disciplinary proceedings do not provide the full set of procedural protections the accused would receive in secular courts. Although due process notices and appeal rights are given, service of process is not strictly enforced and there is no right to confront one's accuser, no jury trial, and no right to counsel. Indeed, confession of sin by the repentant sinner may be at odds with the right against self-incrimination (see -->Disciplinary Procedures). Free speech is another illustration of the contrast with secular society. Members are free to say or publish what they wish. Yet, Church etiquette and policies, obligations of confidentiality, respect for divine and holy things, and the need to avoid offending others impose restraints upon freedom of expression. Likewise, voting within the Church involves the concept of common consent, but has none of the trappings of democratic elections and in most instances amounts to ratification of leadership callings and decisions. As for gender equality and children's rights, the relationships of men, women, and children are governed by religious principles, freely adopted by members, which teach equality but emphasize differences in roles. These principles are taught as eternal patterns, not derived from prevailing attitudes toward civil rights in any secular society, past or present. Bibliography Allen, James B., and Glen M. Leonard. The Story of the Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, 1976. Brown, Hugh B. IE 66 (Dec. 1963):1058. Cowan, Richard O. The Church in the Twentieth Century. Salt Lake City, 1985 .Firmage, Edwin Brown, and Richard Collin Mangrum. Zion in the Courts: A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900. Urbana, Ill., 1988. Mangrum, R. Collin. "Mormonism, Philosophical Liberalism, and the Constitution." BYU Studies 27 (Summer 1987):119-37. McAffee, Thomas B. "Constitutional Interpretation and the American Tradition of Individual Rights." BYU Studies 27 (Summer 1987):139-69. Melville, J. Keith. "Joseph Smith, the Constitution, and Individual Liberties." BYU Studies 28 (Spring 1988):65-74. ROBERT E. RIGGS -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on" - Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: email@example.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================