SOVEREIGNTY: The Lord, The State, and Parents

---

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king; he will save us."

Isaiah 33:22

---

---

For all intents and purposes, parents are the governing power within a home to their children. Parents represent the state, the children represent the citizens. Parents establish rules, and enforce their violation. This type of government is obviously not a representative form of government. Children do not elect their parents. As they grow older, some families hold council to determine policy, but the ultimate legislative authority resides with the unelected parents. When laws are violated, parents are both the executive and judicial power.

John and Jane, parents in the Jones family make a rule that none of their children may be out after 10:00 pm (Legislative authority). Joe, the 16 year old young man sneaks out of the house one night and does not come home until 2 a.m. The parents discover Joe attempting to re-enter the home in clear violation of the established rule (Judicial authority). They immediately ground Joe, and take away several privileges he once had (Judicial authority). As the weeks pass, John and Jane ensure that Joe does not violate his sentence (Executive authority).

The universal struggle for parents is finding balance in their governance. Some parents might try the "less government" approach bordering on democracy or anarchy. Not wanting to offend their children, they have given them complete leeway in their actions. The kids can stay up as late as they want, watch whatever movies they want, play video games as late as they want, and basically do whatever they want. Most people would agree that such children would not grow up to be very productive or disciplined citizens. The fruits of such laissez-faire governance to the child might be lawlessness of the child’s soul or rebellion. On the other hand, some parents might try the tyrannical approach. The rules of the family are enforced through coercion or physical threats. Many activities the child desires to engage in are denied without explanation or debate or reason. The fruits of such domination will either be submission of the child’s soul or rebellion.

Parents are a sovereign power within the home. There are however, many commandments given by the Lord to aid parents in the rearing of children. Perhaps the most important of these commandments are the ones that establish a higher authority than parental authority. Children recognize the sovereign power of parental authority. Parents are physically stronger, and can enforce law. Parents are however imperfect and will make mistakes in their governance. This is where the Lord comes in. The Lord does not make mistakes in his governance, but his immediate power and authority is not as apparent to the child as parental sovereignty. The absolute sovereignty of the Lord can only be taught to a child through parental example. When parents make obeisance to a higher and perfect authority, the children see and recognize this. They see a parent, whom they know to have an immediate and powerful temporal authority, submit to an unseen and apparently lacking temporal authority. This higher power is not immediately seen or comprehended.

When the parent passes on a rule from the Lord, and the child knows the rule comes not from the parent, but from the guidance of the Lord, it will often be easier to accept. The sovereignty of the parent is recognized by the child, because the child knows the parent is submissive to guidance of the Lord. This is why family prayer and family scripture study are critical to the development of children. The immediate temporal authority of the parent is recognized, because that authority is submissive to the highest and perfect authority. The only way the fifth commandment can work is if children know who the Lord is. Man does not submit to authorities which he believes have no power. He cannot submit to authorities which in his mind do not exist.

Every seven years, the Lord commanded all people in Israel, believer and non believer, to gather together and have the Torah read to them. The Torah of course contains the Abrahamic Covenant, the Commandments, and the Law of Israel. The Lord in essence commanded everyone to hear the 'constitution' or law of the land.

"At the end of every seven years... thou shalt read this law before all Israel... . Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land ..."

Deuteronomy 21:10-13

The Law contained the boundaries placed upon man and upon the state. This commandment ensured that the children of the new generation would be familiar with those boundaries or restraints. It cemented in the minds of children (and all others) that the Lord is the supreme authority. Once the children of Israel began to neglect commandments such as these, they forgot the boundaries and restraints. They forgot the Lord, and the god of the state is always ready to take his place.

Parents who fail to recognize the higher authority, will rear children who fear man, not God. Children, who grow into adults fearing man and not God, will find themselves governed by man and not by God. Man fearing children will revere the state (or man). Man fearing children will either believe they are a law unto themselves or they will submit to whoever has a monopoly of brute force. They learned such from their man fearing parents.

God fearing children will grow into adults who submit to God and respect the state. The respect of the state will last only as long as the state submits to a higher authority. God fearing man will not tolerate state infringement upon the sovereignty of the Lord. God fearing man will follow the edicts of the state as the state defers to the sovereignty of the Lord. Once the state begins to infringe, it will seek to destroy its enemies and God fearing man will find himself an enemy of the state. Paul gave warning of such: "for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12. The greatest enemy of tyrannical government is the people's adherence to the God of Abraham.

The only way state authority can be restrained is by a moral and God fearing people. The most efficient way a moral and God fearing people can be created is by parental authority that submits to a higher power. Once this chain of creation is broken, it can only be restored by the teaching of the Gospel. Once parents of a society begin to neglect God in their family, with their fellow man, and in their civic duties, the god of the state will rise and supplant the authority of the Lord. The state will become the god of the people. Its temporal authority is immediately apparent and powerfully exercised. The Lord’s authority, by divine design, will not be fully exercised or implemented until the millennium and the Day of Judgment.

In recent years I have heard many people wonder why the Brethren do no speak about the Constitution or oppressive government as often as in the past. I believe it is because such a discussion would be fruitless unless parents first teach their children to fear the Lord. Children must be taught where their rights come from. They must be taught they are stewards of the Lord's property, not owners. They must be taught that if they do not love their fellow man as themselves, they will forfeit their temporal and eternal inheritance. Failure to teach these and other principles will ultimately result in tyranny for themselves or their posterity. The natural result of parents teaching their children to fear the Lord, is to not fear man. The natural result of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ is societies which fear the Lord and not man. Such actions will limit the power of the state. Man will not tolerate slavery or tyranny from the state when he knows he is created in the image of God and is ultimately subject to his authority.

“And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me. And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee?”

Moses 1:12-13

The declaration of independence acknowledges God as the supreme authority, grantor, and enforcer of inalienable rights. The Constitution was designed to chain man's ability to infringe upon the absolute sovereignty of God. These restraining chains are only as strong as the obeisance man gives to God. God has place boundaries upon man; if those boundaries are crossed man will be governed by man and not by the Law or in other words the Lawgiver. For the state to operate properly and remain constrained, the highest sovereign must be recognized. No government, philosophy or political system can survive in sustained peace without holding as inviolate the absolute sovereignty of the God of Abraham.

RON PAUL PREDICTED 9/11

My brother-in-law created this brilliant and poignant video. It is self explanatory.

BREAKING DOWN HEALTH CARE COSTS

On ABC's 20/20, John Stossel brillitantly discusses the reasons for increased health care costs. It is so simple, and so logical, it is maddening how this concept is never even considered. This is basic economics, but most people are ignorant to such important things.

Thanks to my brother-in-law for sending me this video.

IN gOD WE TRUST

In my endeavor to become a better person, I turn to the Word of God. Understanding the definition and meaning of words used within the scriptures is fundamental to achieving my goal. The third of the ten commandments dictates that one should not take the Lord's name in vain (Exodus 20:7). It is His property after all. While trying to comprehend this passage of scripture, I looked up the definition of the word 'vain'. The 1828 edition of Webster's dictionary defines the word 'vain' as: empty, worthless; having no substance, value or importance. My first thought upon reading this was: "That perfectly describes a federal reserve note."

In fact these words could very well be the most perfect definition of a federal reserve note! The word 'vain' and 'federal reserve note' are then practically synonymous. Both denote worthlessness, and lacking substance or intrinsic value. Then I came to my next thought.

Printing, "In God We Trust" on a federal reserve note could very well be a textbook example of taking the Lord's name in vain! The ramifications of this concept are incredibly damaging to those who advocate placing the sacred name of the Lord upon fake currency.

The merits of placing references to deity on currency is another debate. What should not be debatable to any of the three Abrahamic religions, is placing the name of God on something that is worthless, has no value, represents debt, usury, and facilitates war. The only type of currency that the phrase "In God We Trust" could be placed upon without taking the Holy name of the Lord in vain, is gold or silver coinage. After all, God indeed himself created these materials of intrinsic value, a feat the anointed Fed chairman can only feign doing in spite of his lofty seat in the marble temple in DC.

If you still support leaving "In God We Trust" on a federal reserve note, despite this explanation, then it is my responsibility to give warning that you are in violation of the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Your god is the state, it is not the God of Abraham.

Regrettably, our society at large has placed its trust in a god. The actual phrase on the currency is technically correct. The people of our nation as a whole worship the financial system governed by the Federal Reserve. The people of the United States of America have placed their trust in the 'god' of the Federal Reserve. The God of Abraham is not represented on federal reserve notes, to suggest otherwise is blasphemy to the fullest extent of the word.

The God of Abraham gave warning to what would happen if another god was worshiped. As you read the following verses from Leviticus, does this not describe our current economic situation?

And your strength shall be spent in vain [as inflation destroys your wealth], for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits... I will also send wild beasts among you [bureaucrats, revenuers & regulators], which shall rob you of your children [as they debt finance their wars of empire], and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate [as the bustling market is regulated out of existence].

Leviticus 26:20, 22

These my friends, are the fruits of worshiping the god of the state and his son the Federal Reserve! Economic prosperity comes through placing trust in the currency God has made (silver and gold). Economic doom comes from placing trust in currency man has made (federal reserve notes).

Unalienable Rights, Freedom of Association, and Morality Laws

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

~D&C 134:3

Thus according to scripture, peace can only be achieved in a society, when the following rights of individuals are universally upheld and protected.

1. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right to freedom of conscience.
2. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right and control of property.
3. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right to life.

For simplicity, I will refer to these rights in the remainder of this article as rules 1, 2, and 3. Rule 1 is freedom of conscience. Conscience is the individuals internal judgment of right and wrong.¹

In order to achieve peace in society, the freedom to exercise the personal judgment of right or wrong must not be violated. Thus all individuals have the inalienable right to do any action which does not infringe upon the inalienable rights of others. This includes freedom of association.

To best explain the purpose and concept behind this article, the following law from the Virginia Statutory Code will be used as the primary example (this example can be easily replaced with numerous other situations):

Lewd and Lacivious Cohabitation 18.2-345, which states:

"If any persons, not married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or, whether married or not, be guilty of open and gross lewdness and lasciviousness, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; and upon a repetition of the offense, and conviction thereof, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

At first glance, this law appears to be in violation of rule 1. If an unmarried man and woman living together believe that cohabitation is not wrong (rule 1), then this law will violate rule 1. They are prohibited in their associations with one another. This law also appears to be in violation of rule 2. A woman owns the property she lives on. If her boyfriend decides to move in with her for economic and personal reasons, then this law would violate her right to control her own property. Any attempt by the local government to impose a fine on this couple, would be an initiatory aggression. The exception to the violation of both of these laws however, is when they were passed, and who agreed upon their creation.

Suppose ten people move to an isolated area to form a new city. As they set forth establishing rules and laws of interaction (i.e. making a contract), they all feel a law should be made against cohabitation. Under their right to freedom of association, they all agree on a law prohibiting cohabitation within their city limits and set forth penalties for violation of that law. The blue circle surrounding the ten people is a representation of their inalienable right to freedom of association. Since all parties agree upon the law there is no aggression, and their right to associate with like minded people is preserved. Under this scenario, none of the three rules has been broken.

A few years pass and Jack decides to buy a piece of property within the city. He was aware of the cohabitation law before he bought the property. By voluntarily moving within the city limits, he has freely entered the jurisdiction of the laws which govern it. Later, Jack's girlfriend Bertha decides to move in permanently. They are now in violation of the cities cohabitation law. They have initiated aggression and are in violation of the laws established by the will of the people who created them. They have violated the other ten city members right to freedom of association or freedom of conscience. Any action taken by the city to enforce the law would be retaliatory aggression, and would be justified.

Under the right to freedom of conscience however, Jack and Bertha have the inalienable right to advocate their position. Jack and Bertha initiate a campaign to change the hearts and minds of the townsfolk to abolish the cohabitation law. Jack persuades five of the other town members to his position, and they now have a majority of seven (10 original members plus Jack and Bertha). The town votes in favor of abolishing the law and Jack and Bertha can now live as they please. Whether morally right or not, this principle is backed by scripture:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

~ Mosiah 29:26-27

If Jack and Bertha are ever prohibited from advocating their position or from voting, such aggression would be initiatory against them. It would also be a violation of their right to freedom of conscience. Furthermore, only laws against behavior can be passed. If a law was created that granted the authority to arrest people who simply believed in cohabitation, such a law would be a violation of inalienable rights. This principle is also backed by scripture:

Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds...For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

~ Alma 30:7,11

Now that the law against cohabitation has been abolished, the only way it can ever be reinstated is if all people agree. By the time the next election roles around, one member of the city has been advocating to the other members the downfalls of cohabitation in their city. The town holds a vote, but the majority are now if favor or reinstating the law against cohabitation! This action would now be a violation of Jack and Bertha's right to freedom of conscience. This is the introduction of a new law which violates freedom of conscience and property because they do not agree to in nor abide by its standard. This is a case of the majority infringing upon the rights of the minority.²

If Jack and Bertha decided to get married and vote along with the others to reinstate the law, there would not be any rights violation. They have the right to freely associate and create a society they would like to live in. If all members of a society agree (freedom of conscience) to enact laws regarding adultery, illegal drugs, polygamy, incestuous relationships, marriage, etc. then there is no violation of inalienable rights. Such a society has created a contract with one another (freedom of association) to live in a world according to the ideals they believe will bring the greatest happiness.

The strict punishments of the Law of Moses for example, would not be a violation of inalienable rights (i.e. the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath). In Deuteronomy 29, the congregation of Israel covenanted with the Lord to abide by the requirements of the Law Moses, or God's laws. They exercised their right to freely associate and abide by laws they best felt would secure their happiness. If a non-Israelite person moved into the jurisdiction of Mosaic Law, they would be obliged to adhere to that law, or they would be guilty of initiatory aggression against the law and those whom had chosen to freely associate according to that law.

The principle of unanimous consent to uphold morality laws is the only way morality laws can be created. Once lost by the voice of the people, they cannot be restored unless there is once again unanimous consent.³ If all people do not agree to a law that punishes a certain type of behavior, those who participate in said behavior will ultimately have their property taken through enforcement of the law. Such action would violate the freedom of conscience.

Footnotes

¹ Webster 1828 Definition: Internal or self-knowledge, or judgment of right and wrong; or the faculty, power or principle within us, which decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and instantly approves or condemns them. Merriam Webster defines conscience as: (1) the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.

² The actions taken by the Church, and the people of California regarding Proposition 8 are not an example of initiatory aggression but of retaliatory and just aggression. The initial definition of marriage that existed in California was created and upheld during the states formation. When a group of judges overturned the definition of marriage to include relationships of the same gender, it was initiatory aggression and unjust. It was a violation of the people's initial established right to freedom of association. The only just way this law can be changed is by a vote of the people or their representatives. The people of California justly retaliated against judges who had no jurisdiction to interfere with the right to freedom of association.

³ For examples of unanimous consent in the scriptures regarding the institution of new laws see Deuteronomy 29, 2 Kings 23, Mosiah 5:1-5, Mosiah 29:37-38. The principle of unanimous consent is also present in voting in the Church. President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the First Presidency) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine,
coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented
to the Church and sustained:

"I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church." George Q.Cannon, "Comments," Millennial Star 42/46 (15 November 1880): 724. (10 October 1880, General Conference)