<slapping forehead> You're right. Sorry -- I just got my history mixed up. I guess I must have been thinking of French intellectual influence that preceded the revolution (ie de Tocqueville, not to mention Lafayette's military assistance).
George Cobabe wrote: > 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 /// > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > -- 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 /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^^=============================================================== 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 ==^^===============================================================