Latter-day Lincoln: A Mormon Defense of Our 16th President

 
Please leave a comment if you read this article.  It has had MANY page views but no comments and I am wondering if real people are reading it.  Please let me know if this is being read by actual people.  Also, an update is forthcoming.  I have been conducting more research in Church archives and will report on it soon.

While I often strive to produce scholarship that is purely academic without any religious undertones, as I am currently doing with my work analyzing the tension between libertarians and Abraham Lincoln, I am at my core a full fledged, dedicated, and committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As such, my thoughts, motivations, and actions are driven by my faith.  Although I often produce work which does not overtly state or indicate my religious beliefs, those beliefs nonetheless influence my work--both in the approach I take in my research as I try to be honest, open, and fair, as well as in the final result that hopefully presents my conclusions and views with respect, dignity, and objectivity.

During my time researching Abraham Lincoln these past few months, I have taken some time to engage in a religious study of the man even though that research will not be utilized in my final academic paper.  Over the course of my studies, I have focused on the words of living prophets and any time they have referenced Lincoln.  During my life alone, there have been nearly 200 references to Abraham Lincoln by Church leaders and in Church publications.  Despite an enormous amount of references, I have only found positive things concerning Abraham Lincoln's life, accomplishments, and mission.  Of particular interest were any references from Ezra Taft Benson, the most politically astute prophet of our dispensation.  In addition to President Benson, three other prophets have spoken out substantially concerning political and Constitutional issues.  Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay were also very vocal in their support of our Constitution and Republican form of government.  As such, they all had some very pointed things to say concerning Abraham Lincoln as well.

Before addressing the references made by President Benson, however, I will briefly present some of the teachings from other Latter-day prophets in regard to our nation's 16th president.  Beginning with President McKay, he expressed a sentiment that is reiterated by other prophets in grouping Lincoln with the inspired and elite class of men who were the Founders of this nation.  Expressing this sentiment, McKay stated "We should be grateful for our Founding Fathers, for Washington and Lincoln, and for our boys and other great men who have fought and died for our freedom" (Source: Man May Know for Himself 387-88).  President McKay was not the first prophet to speak of Lincoln in such glowing terms.

George Albert Smith, McKay's predecessor, declared that Abraham Lincoln "gave his life because of his desire for the perpetuation of the liberty that was guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States."  This single statement seems a direct contradiction to the views many Latter-day Saints subscribe to which have been perpetuated by modern libertarian thinkers who advocate that Lincoln was a tyrant who ignored the Constitution.  President Smith further described Lincoln's dedication to the Constitution by stating that "when the duty was placed upon him to battle for the liberties of mankind, he dedicated his life to this purpose, and in due time, our Father in heaven accepted his offering, and his name is emblazoned upon the pages of history as a great and noble man who dared to do right, and his praises will be sung and his virtues extolled throughout all time" (emphasis added, "Lincoln and This Land," 77).  Despite serving as a prophet for only a brief time, George Albert Smith was an ardent patriot and vocal supporter of the Constitution.  For a collection of his many teachings in regards to the inspired document, our need to defend it, and the attacks it will face, see http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/latter-day-prophets-and-united-states-constitution/8-george-albert-smith.  Unfortunately, President Smith would seem to differ in sentiment with several modern Latter-day Saints in his assessment that praises would be sung to Lincoln and his "virtues extolled throughout all time."  There are many today who subscribe to the revisionist interpretations of Lincoln's legacy and character, interpretations put forth by progressives, libertarians, and liberals alike.

It is not surprising that Lincoln was regarded so highly and referenced so frequently during the administrations of those two prophets, as well as Heber J. Grant.  These three men served as President of the Church for more than half of the entire 20th century--a century where agency, freedom, and liberty came under attack like no other time in history.  From 1918 to 1970, when Presidents Grant, Smith, and McKay led the Church, the world endured two World Wars, the rise of fascist, socialist, and communist governments, the aggression of those governments in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and a destruction of freedom and liberty for millions upon millions of civilians throughout the world.  Even at home, in the land of promise and the divinely inspired country of America, we were warned about the intrusion of these pervasive influences that could erode our liberties enshrined in our country's founding documents.  President Grant declared FDR's policies as nothing more than "neo-socialism" and lamented the Saints support of the U.S. President despite his efforts to warn them of extremist tendencies. President Grant had himself been a Democrat until the rise of FDR, at which point he was driven from the party.

During his time as President, as he saw the greatest and most rapid rise of these elements opposed to individual liberty and agency--even within his own government and country--President Grant offered one of the most direct defenses of Abraham Lincoln which, again, stands in direct opposition to the rapidly rising discontent in the modern world concerning our 16th President.  In the words of President Grant:

 "Every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father. . . ...We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union" (”Lincoln and Law” 73, 127). 

Again, there cannot be any doubt from this statement that Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant bent on the destruction of rights while turning his back on the Constitution (Ironically, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, which is the clarion piece of evidence used by libertarians in proving Lincoln's disdain for the Constitution and his tyrannical nature, is a right itself granted by the Constitution in time of war or crisis.  Although there can be debate about his performing this action that is given to congress, not the President, by the Constitution, is beside the point--in essence, this is an administrative debate, not one of the destruction of rights.  Whether done by Congress or the President, there is nonetheless granted by the Constitution itself the ability to suspend habeus corpus.  Ironically, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention themselves couldn't agree on whether this right should remain with the Congress or President, and only settled when they didn't care to debate it any further).

These three men all spoke out clearly, consistently, and repeatedly about the Constitution's prominence and the threats it would face.  These three men also all spoke out in defense of Abraham Lincoln as a man raised up by God to defend that Constitution and save the United States of America.  Following the period of time when these three men served, which ended with President McKay's death in 1970, Abraham Lincoln has continued to feature prominently in the teachings and remarks of the leaders of the Church.  There have been 56 references to Abraham Lincoln in General Conference alone since 1971.  During that same span, he has been referenced 173 times in Church magazines and 6 times in official Church manuals.  Of these 235 references, none are critical of the man, his mission, or accomplishments.  Perhaps the most glowing reference to Lincoln during this time was an address given during General Conference in October 1976.  Elder Mark E. Peterson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and, like President Benson, one of the most politically astute Church leaders of our time, devoted an entire sermon to the inspired life of Abraham Lincoln.  Entitled "The Savor of Men," Elder Peterson's talk opened with a succinct summation of what he would address.  His purpose was declared immediately as he opened with the words, 

"I would like to talk with you about Abraham Lincoln, man of God.  President Lincoln was one of the great men of all time, and the reason for his greatness was his willingness to acknowledge and obey the Lord.  He believed in God; he lived near to God; he prayed most earnestly and knew for a fact that he was guided by divine inspiration in his important work."

Although Elder Peterson was learned in the history of our nation and in political matters, he was simply a student of the man who is arguably the most politically astute, aware, and inspired man to ever serve in the leadership of the Church--Ezra Taft Benson.  President Benson was given a blessing early in his Church service by David O. McKay, who was then serving as President of the Church.  This blessing bestowed upon Ezra Taft Benson the ability to be perceptive of threats to the Constitution and a deep commitment to the founding principles of the United States of America, principles enshrined by our Founders, principles of individual liberty and agency.  Throughout President Benson's vociferous writings of warning to members of the Church, he never spoke critically of Abraham Lincoln nor held him up as an example of one who weakened the Constitution.  On the contrary, President Benson positively referenced Abraham Lincoln in such landmark speeches as "The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner", "Righteousness Exalteth a Nation," and "Americans are Destroying America."

In the first of these addresses, "The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner," President Benson spoke in his capacity as Prophet while addressing the students of BYU in a devotional on 16 September 1986.  President Benson's entire address was dedicated to the Constitution, and he outlined several principles clarifying its divine origins, the threats it will face in our day, and our responsibility to defend and uphold its principles.  Perhaps in the most glancing blow to libertarians who vilify Lincoln as one who deplored rather than defended the Constitution, President Benson stated the exact opposite.  In his remarks, President Benson actually enlisted Lincoln as a member of his team comprised of those who defend and support the Constitution.  In his second point of his address, President Benson implored us to "learn the Constitution and abide by its precepts."  He even asks us, as Latter-day Saints, if we "are aware of its principles?  Could we defend it?  Can we recognize when a law is unconstitutionally sound?"  He then clarifies that "The Church will not tell us how to do this, but we are admonished to do it."  And who does he immediately quote, immediately after asking these questions,  in order to help us know how to do this--how to defend the Constitution--Abraham Lincoln.  President Benson then quoted the following words of Lincoln, "Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation."

Elsewhere in his teachings, President Benson heralded the example of Abraham Lincoln as a man who was dependent on the Lord, and as one who belonged in the same class as George Washington in this shared trait.  From his chapter Righteousness Exalteth a Nation from his book "God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties," President Benson echoed the sentiments of President McKay that Lincoln belonged in the same group as the Founders by linking him to Washington as a man of God:

"I recalled the terrible winter at Valley Forge and Washington on his knees in the snow, praying for divine aid. I thought of the words of Abraham Lincoln during another time of crisis as he said humbly: 'I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.'  Washington acknowledged God’s direction and stated, 'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.' (Farewell address.)  Lincoln knew that God rules in the affairs of men and nations. He solemnly declared: “God rules this world. It is the duty of nations as well as men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow . . . and to recognize the sublime truth that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord” (p. 399).

In the last defense of Abraham Lincoln that I will offer from President Benson, the topic of America being destroyed by Americans is the topic which Ezra Taft Benson was discussing.  These remarks come from a General Conference address he delivered in April 1968 when he was serving as an apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve.  It seems that, of all places to implicate Lincoln as an anti-Founder who did more to destroy their work rather than support it, this would be the talk where that would happen.  Elder Benson was not speaking of foreign influences, but rather of the cancer that would grow from within.  Yet he still enlists Lincoln as a supporter of his argument rather than an example of that which he was warning us from.  The following are excerpts from that talk:

"If American freedom is lost, if America is destroyed, if our blood-bought freedom is surrendered, it will be because of Americans. What’s more, it will probably not be only the work of subversive and criminal Americans.  The Benedict Arnolds will not be the only ones to forfeit our freedom.

'At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected?' asked Abraham Lincoln, and he answered, 'If it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad.  If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher; as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.' (Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1837.)

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers–normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free – Americans who have been lulled away into a false security."

President Benson again clarifies that there have been and will continue to be dire and immediate threats to our Constitution, but he also clarifies that none was posed by our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln.  On the contrary, it is clear from President Benson's writings that Abraham Lincoln was a man who not only relied on the Lord, but on whom the Lord relied as well.  He was a man of God, who did right according to the times and circumstances in which he lived.  These sentiments have been reiterated by dozens of other Church leaders and prophets over the past 100 years.  Abraham Lincoln lived during the greatest crisis this nation has ever faced.  He led this nation at a time when no one could who didn't fully and wholeheartedly rely on the divine arm of Providence.  It is no surprise that heated debate continues to surround his legacy today, as it does for anyone who stands up for what is right, proclaims what is unpopular, and acts in harmony with a divine will that is right despite what worldly opinion may claim.

And so I close as I began, with the words of President David O. McKay concerning this great land of liberty and the role Lincoln played in preserving it:

"To live in a land in which each individual has the right to life and liberty is a glorious privilege.  If any man in this country prefers a government ruled by a dictator, he should go where the dictator rules; but here in the United States of America the people believe in a government as Abraham Lincoln declared, 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'"(General Conference, April 1940, CR p. 118).

**UPDATE**  After writing my first draft of “Latter-day Lincoln,” I discovered an online archive of all General Conference addresses since 1851, thus enabling me to search for Lincoln references prior to the year 1971.  Not surprisingly, I discovered that Abraham Lincoln has been the most referenced, discussed, and quoted individual in General Conference who was not, during their lifetime, a member of the Church.  There have been 490 references to or quotations from Abraham Lincoln in General Conference since 1860.  Lincoln has been referenced more than any other Founding Father, including George Washington.  In fact, if you combine ALL references to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, you actually arrive at the total number of references to one man--Abraham Lincoln.  On 6 occasions, Washington and Lincoln are mentioned as a pair, a pair which on all occasions was heralded as an example of righteousness and faithful devotion to the Almighty. (See end of article for exact reference numbers of various phrases and individuals)

Of the contemporary references to Lincoln during the 1860s, none are critical, though all are passing references and offer little either way in terms of commentary on the man himself.  For the next several decades, Lincoln references are few and far between.  In the 1920s, however, Lincoln references skyrocketed and he remained very much a part of General Conference through the 1970s.  While I cannot prove this definitively, I would postulate that there is some connection between this dramatic spike in Lincoln references and the rise of Progressivism during the same time period, a period during which Lincoln’s legacy was being hijacked by Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and other Progressive leaders.  This was also a period where the Constitution came under attack more than any other time in history save the Civil War, and a period of time during which dictators and tyrants around the world rose to positions of power on a scale never before seen in the history of the world.  Freedoms were being destroyed for millions of God’s children throughout the world, and philosophies directly opposed to those of the Gospel were being promulgated on a large scale; philosophies such as socialism, communism, and fascism.  During the decades where those philosophies were strongest and freedom was under the most vehement attacks, Lincoln references in General Conference were greater than any other time in history.  I do not feel that this was a coincidence, and I do not feel that a man NOT called and raised up of God would be referred to so frequently by men who are also called and raised up by God.  Lincoln was not a member during his lifetime, though the Church felt so strongly about his righteousness before the Lord that they performed all his vicarious ordinances on the 100th anniversary of his birth, and sealed him to his wife as well as to the sweetheart of his youth, Anne Rutledge, who died young and forced Lincoln into a long period of despondency.

A few of the interesting references to Lincoln follow.  The first mention that Lincoln was a man of God, raised up by God, and acted in harmony with God’s will, was made by apostle Hyrum W. Smith in 1905.  In 1930, apostle Richard Lyman talked about the current trend to disregard the Constitution and actually addressed people who also ridiculed Lincoln.  Elder Lyman believed that to attack the Constitution was equal to attacking Lincoln, and pined about why he felt both were under attack by progressives and other emerging political ideologies.  Shortly after Elder Lyman’s remarks, in 1934, J. Reuben Clark spoke as a member of the First Presidency.  In his remarks, President Clark elaborated on the character of Abraham Lincoln and expressed his belief that the only person alive at that time who possessed so noble and honest a character was Heber J. Grant, who was then serving as President of the Church.  It would be Heber J. Grant himself who, only 6 years later, would write:  "Every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father. . . ...We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union” (Improvement Era, February 1940).  

In regards to the quote from President Grant, I wanted to see the actual source.  I have read it many times, and while I did not doubt the cited reference, I wanted to see the original statement for myself.  The Church provided me with a copy of the article President Grant wrote for the “Improvement Era” in February 1940.  The article, titled “Lincoln and Law,” was not penned as an opinion or editorial by President Grant, but was written as a declaration by the prophet with his title attached as President of the Church.  The majority of the article is actually quoted scripture, taken primarily from Doctrine and Covenants.  The article was actually written much as a “First Presidency Message” would be in our modern day “Ensign.”  It was an official statement from the President of the Church, presented to the entire body of the Church via an established channel of communication to all members of the Church.

I have also encountered several articles written by Latter-day Saints who, just like me, have endeavored to present a LDS perspective on Abraham Lincoln.  Sadly, I have read some that demonize and vilify our 16th President.  The most vehement oddly ignore the words of Church leaders and are littered with quotations from ultra-libertarian scholars and other historians who have sought to vilify Lincoln.  If they wish to bring religion into the debate about Lincoln, than they need to do just that--bring religion into it.  You cannot claim to present a LDS perspective on Abraham Lincoln and ignore the massive amount of teachings from several Church leaders which directly and succinctly discuss Lincoln.  Further, one author included some remarks from Brigham Young’s diaries and personal writings that were critical of Lincoln and attempted to elevate Brigham’s private ruminations to the status of revealed truth, an exercise of futility, to be sure.  Additionally, Brigham’s opinion of Lincoln actually changed and it became one of mutual respect.  This LDS author’s article is also, sadly, filled with outright lies.  Perhaps the most apparent is his claim that Lincoln intentionally appointed anti-Mormon governors to the Utah territory.  The truth of Lincoln’s appointments, is the polar opposite of that claim.  Lincoln actually removed an anti-Mormon territorial governor, at the request of the Mormons themselves, and replaced him with a governor of more respect and one who shared Lincoln’s view towards Mormons to simply “leave them alone” and let them be.

There will be more updates to this article, I am sure, and I will post them as they are written.  Please leave a comment if you read this so that I am aware of whether this is being read by real people are being viewed by automated programs.  Also, see below for the list of General Conference references and the specific number of times each phrase in quotations has been mentioned in General Conference since 1851.

General Conference References:
“Lincoln” - 512 (22 were non-Abraham Lincoln references; 490 were referencing Abraham Lincoln the man)
“President Lincoln” - 30
“President Washington” - 2
“Abraham Lincoln” - 230
“George Washington” - 133
“Benjamin Franklin” - 62
“Thomas Jefferson” - 43
“John Adams” - 23
“Founding Fathers” - 85
“Washington and Lincoln” - 6

Beware of "What You're Not Taught in Schools"

As a history teacher in a private school, I will be the first to issue a warning to parents that what is taught in public schools is politically manipulated and constantly changing to be more in tune with today's political bias.  Recognizing this fact, I am often sharing stories and facts that are not taught in the majority of public schools.  It is quite easy to compare history books of various generations to illustrate the changing nature of how history is viewed and taught to the masses.  It is skewed by the political opinions prevalent in the hearts and minds of the editors of the day, which often reflect a majority agreement from the general citizens of each county, state, and the country.  Religious motivation and influence has been all but expunged from the history of the Revolution.  Founding Fathers are no longer held in high esteem, rather they are viewed as naive but hopeful idealists whose sins often garner more attention than their accomplishments.  The very term "Founding Fathers" is no longer used in public curriculum, as it has been deemed too religious and too sexist, so the more appropriate and secular term "Founding Figures" has been inserted in its place.  In sum, I view the treatment of history in public education as utterly appalling.  It does not represent an avenue to the truth, nor teach the skills to pursue that endeavor.  Rather, it has become a tool to "retune" our vision of the past to simply harmonize it with the political ideologies of today.  My views of this are so strong that I use language to match my passion, and to put it bluntly, I believe history has been raped by political correctness and people's modern day motives of enforcing social justice on the history books.  I use this language because I believe history has been violated and used by people who seek only to satisfy their own interpretation of history without any regard for the truth.  History is often used, selfishly, to satisfy someone's appetite of pride at bolstering their own perceptions of history to build their ego, vanity, and desire to be right.

Now, having plainly stated my position, I wish to issue a warning for the very position I just espoused--you must also be leery of the slogan "what you're not taught in schools."  While many truths that should be taught in schools are not, many falsehoods that are not taught in schools are not taught there for a good reason, because they are representative of distorted history, inaccuracies, or outright falsehoods.  Every year, books are released that somehow utilize the slogan "what you're not taught in schools" as a tagline, promotional point, or even part of the title.  Some of these books strive to sift through the distortions of the present to arrive at a truthful presentation of the contemporary facts concerning certain individuals or events.  Others, however, commit the same sin as "the establishment," but simply in the other direction.  They try to fight against the political correctness invading our history curriculum by presenting an equally filtered and distorted version of events in the extreme.  Often, the authors of these books hold their own political views as their standard against which history is measured rather than the goal of understanding these events from a contemporary perspective and in light of contemporary circumstances without the filter of hindsight or through the lens of modern political ideologies.

Recently, I have read several books that are proud of the fact that they present material not taught in schools.  They seem to relish the idea, as if the fact that they utilize material not found in public education somehow bestows those facts with an automatic degree of validity, importance, and truth.  Frankly, many of the ideas are not taught in schools for good reason--and those same reasons lead me to state that they shouldn't be taught period!  Some of them are written to appeal to extreme convictions held by solid minority groups in the country.  While their arguments are full of emotionally charged applause lines, they are often conspicuously lacking in facts.  When facts are presented, they are used to support claims so wild, bold, and far fetched that no reasonable individual could actually support their claims.  One such claim, that is practically comical in its near absurdity, declared that every individual who died as a result of military conflict in the 20th century should have inscribed on their headstone that "I was killed by the United States of America."  The claim was that due to America's foreign policy, she alone bore responsibility for every death that occurred during both World War's, including the holocaust, and every other political conflict of the 20th century.  Such a claim is ludicrous and quite egotistical.  Is America the only sovereign nation whose actions actually influence the other countries in the world?  And is every other government really just sitting around, waiting for America to do something so that they can respond to it?  Is everything that every other government does directly influenced and controlled by the actions of the United States of America?  I think not.

Another recent example came from a similar book which made wildly absurd claims.  In virtually every chapter of the book, it used the phrase repeatedly that "this IS what you're being taught in schools."  Virtually every page was full of declarations that this IS what is being taught generally.  Oddly, despite my many years teaching history AND taking history courses, I had actually never come across the wild ideas that this author was boldly declaring "this is what is being taught in our schools today."  Despite his extravagant claims, I found none of them to be grounded in reality.  I couldn't help but laugh whenever I encountered another idea that the author held up as an example of the lies being perpetuated in schools...because I had never encountered them! Now I'm not trying to be egotistical myself and declare I am familiar with every history curriculum in our country, but this individual DID claim that he was debunking myths that ARE generally taught, pervasively, in all districts and states in the country.  As a curriculum developer of history curriculum, I am sure I would have at least encountered one or two of his claims as I sifted through many different curriculum's from across the country.

So, while the history curriculum is indeed being changed, warped, and distorted to serve people's present day political agendas, don't buy into every "what's not taught in schools" argument simply because it may cater to your own personal beliefs.  Always analyze the author's claims compared to all available evidence, and NOT merely the evidence they provide.  That is all too convenient, is it not?  I'm sure that their evidences have been carefully selected to strengthen their argument.  Seek your own verification from other sources, and even check out their own sources in the end notes.  If they use primary source quotes, go to the actual quote and read the longer and entire version.  What statements did they leave out?  Surprisingly, many of these books don't even HAVE footnotes or endnotes.  Those authors, in my view, have just dug their own grave.  Trust, but verify.  I trust authors to be honest, but not when I can't verify what they've said.  Seek truth, but do so from many sources.  More often than not, the truth will manifest itself only after a well rounded, extended study of many sources, sought with the right attitude and a desire to seek truth with an open mind.

Obama's Christianity

This past week, while discussing his budget which includes hiking the tax rate for those making over $250,000, President Obama invoked the words of Christ as spoken in the New Testament.  The implication?  That Christ would not only support taking more money from the wealthy, but that He was actually promoting it.  This issue itself is worthy of a detailed discussion which should not easily be forgotten or dismissed.  But beyond this specific issue, I wish to draw attention to some equally disturbing public events where President Obama made other direct references to our Creator, this time, by removing Him from a discussion of rights.

The comments recently where the President actually invoked the words of Christ were given on February 2 and are as follows:

"For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that, for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’ he added, referencing verse 48 of chapter 12 in the Gospel of Luke. “To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute,”

So when it comes to raising taxes, Christ is on board.  But where President Obama feels divnity shouldn't be meddling is in actually granting us our most basic rights as indicated by our nation's most important and founding document, the Declaration of Independence.  As most Americans know, the Declaration boldy declares and establishes that we have certain unalienable rights which we have been endowed with by our Creator--meaning, they existed before any government, and government's merely protect them, not provide them.  The actual wording of the Declaration is as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now read the following two quotations from our President, merely weeks apart, where he referenced and quoted the previous statement.  On September 15th, speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, President Obama removed :

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong."

Shortly after, the same omission was made, which is important because it indicates the first episode wasn't an accident (and even if it was, can our own President really not accurately quote one of the most well known and important sentence from our most important founding document?)  On October 18, 2010, President Obama said the following to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:

As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Now in fairness there have been other Presidents, even Republicans, who have occasionally referred to this statement and done so in similarly general terms while omitting various phrases and words.  None, however, did this consistently, and the other statements were given within a context where it was not being implied that a direct quotation from the Declaration was being referenced.  Other words were omitted to indicate a paraphrase or general reference was being invoked, not a direct quotation.

So when it comes to the teachings of Christianity in President Obama's White House, the Creator is not the source of rights, but His Son promoted the idea of greater taxes for those with more money.  That the President can invoke Jesus Christ as a supporter of his political agenda yet deny His Father the credit of actually granting us our most basic human rights is aggregious, disturbing, and appalling.

Libertarian's & Lincoln...Why the Tension?

Those who know me are aware that I thoroughly enjoy talking about and mixing two subjects--history and politics.  In my view, they're really the same...but according to people with more letters after their name than me, it has been determined that politics and history are different.  Yet, they both influence the other.  History is the foundation of politics, and the control of history is the control of politics in our day.  At family gatherings or other social functions I often steer the conversation to one of these two topics...it's not intentional, it just happens...it's in my nature.  Being in Utah County, I often find my conversations littered with libertarian and conservative sentiments.  No one wishes to be bogged down with the overbearing political baggage of actually claiming allegiance to the Republican party (and for good reason).  Instead, we distinguish ourselves along more ideological titles and lines.  Often, these distinctions include drawing a line between those who are supportive of freedom and limited government, and those who advocate a welfare state where government influence is welcome in large aspects of our life because it is for the greater good.  Libertarian or liberal, the size of the government's role is often at the heart of this debate.  As such, each side is prepared with the historical evidence which bolsters their position.  One political weapon common to virtually every base of competing political ideologies today is the legacy of our nation's 16th President, Abraham Lincoln.  I must also add to this mix the most pervasive of all political ideologies of the past century, progressivism.  Oddly, progressives also lay claim to the Lincoln legacy.  Progressives assert that they are carrying on his legacy, that they have inherited his mantle of ensuring equality for all by providing for all.  Interestingly, it seems that as progressives have distorted Lincoln's legacy to fit their agenda, libertarian's have equally bought into this distortion of Abraham Lincoln and are playing right into the idea that he did, indeed, begin to usher in the era of big government.  Forget the fact that the government remained relatively small and limited for 50 years after his death, and not until the likes of Wilson and Roosevelt did it actually multiply in size by hundreds of thousands of people and tens of thousands of pages of civic regulation.

It should be apparent by now that I am an ardent supporter of President Lincoln.  In my view, he is in the same class as the Founders, not the opposite.  He shared their views on limited government that acknowledged the inherent freedom of the individual, and that that freedom was not granted by government, but merely protected by it.  It may not be as apparent, however, that I actually subscribe to many libertarian views on limited government espoused by the same people who sometimes vilify Lincoln, or at the least view him with some degree of suspicion.  I mingle with the same individuals who recognize President Benson's inspired views on the Constitution and our political situation, not with those who write him off as simply a politically driven prophet who had a penchant for spouting personal opinion as prophecy.  I also believe, however, the words of another prophet who, in my opinion, was the second most political prophet--Heber J. Grant.  As prophet during the most progressive era in our nation's history, he considered his greatest challenge as prophet protecting the Saints from the pervasive political ideology that was polluting the pure and simple foundations that were at the root of this country's founding.  He was a Democrat driven out of the party by what he called "FDR's neo-socialism."  President Grant publicly penned editorials in Church publications that encouraged members to be aware of certain ideals when they voted.  His editorials were not broad and general, they were not couched in language trying to appear neutral--President Grant encouraged members, simply, to avoid FDR and his New Deal policies.  In sum, he was also a politically astute prophet who was keen on the pervasive nature of progressivism and it's role in the erosion of natural law and the idea that our rights come from God and not government.  Yet President Grant spoke clearly, plainly, and without equivocation on the views that Latter-day Saints should take when considering our nation's 16th President.  According to President Grant, "Every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father."  That statement is quite clear and requires no further explanation, yet President Grant proceeded to strengthen that belief even further by continuing "We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union."

President Benson himself spoke favorably of Lincoln and never offered any criticism of his Presidency.  Indeed, most Latter-day Saint criticism of our 16th President often comes from members whose opinions I value and whose political principles often harmonize with my own, but not always.  Where they see Lincoln as a statist, I see him as a servant of God who carried out a divine will.  Where they claim he expanded the size of federal government, I respectfully differ.  In preserving the Union he restored it, he didn't multiply it.  Yes, some constitutional amendments resulted which, it could be argued are "Exhibit A" that President Lincoln expanded constitutional authority and, in essence, expanded the scope of the federal government.  Of the 3 Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th), only one was passed and ratified while Lincoln was alive--the 13th.  It is the shortest and most straightforward and was simply an enumeration of the Emancipation Proclamation, which was now legally placed under the protection of the Constitution.  This amendment actually serves to strengthen the freedoms promised individuals in our founding documents.  The 14 and 15 amendments, unfortunately, have been used by activist judges to truly expand federal power.  The fact that judges after Lincoln's time have distorted the meaning of constitutional amendment's to promote a progressive agenda cannot be laid at the feet of Lincoln himself.

Further evidence often cited by libertarian's is Lincoln's first political speech.  Most recently, it was cited in a book that I highly recommend ("Latter-day Liberty"), though it's interpretation and postulated meaning of the following quote is one of the few questionable arguments made.  According to the book, Lincoln stated in a speech, his first of a political nature, that "My policies are short and sweet.  I am in favor of a national bank; I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff.  These are my sentiments and political principles."  Fairly straightforward, you may say, and even more to the fact--they seem pretty pointed in their promotion of big government.  Adding further to the prominent position that people place on these comments are that they were given in his first political speech, meaning they were somehow the unchanging base upon which everything else in his life was built.  They were the first, so they must be the most important.  Right?  I say, not so fast.  First, the actual quote itself is suspect--I have never found a primary source that can confirm its veracity and every time I find the quotation referenced, it is to a secondary source.  Here's a link to Lincoln's writings, the complete collection, and you can check for yourself: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/  The very book that recently referenced that quote cited a secondary source, a magazine article written in 1916, nearly a hundred years after the supposed speech. As a matter of fact, every source I have found with that quote cites either another secondary source or no source at all.  Further, none of its references contain a specific date for the speech, only general references to a year and possible month.  Conflicting locations are also cited with each reference to this quote.  The first verified speech we have from Abraham Lincoln in regards to politics was given in Sangamo County on 09 March 1832.  A complete reading of that speech reveals that the quote in question does not come from that speech at all (the complete speech can be found here: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1832.htm.

My ideas concerning Lincoln have consumed most of my research for several months now.  The paper I am preparing keeps growing in size.  I am going to try to keep it at a more readable length, say 20-25 pages, though I may produce a longer version of 50 pages or more.  While I will evaluate several pieces of evidence in my paper, it seems that libertarian criticism of Lincoln hinges on 2 main questions--did the South have a legal right to secede and was slavery or economics the cause of the Civil War.  Each of those two questions alone account for approximately 200 pages of material I have studied over the past 2 months.  I can't promise when my paper will be done.  I am researching this in most of my free time, and am loving it.  It is enlightening and illuminating research, and I feel that I am gaining a better ability to sift through distortions of the truth, bias, and even public opinion to arrive at a better understanding of the truth.  Of course, it is merely the truth as I see and interpret it--it doesn't mean I'm right!  It is simply my interpretation of the evidence I am studying, and my analysis of the quality of research which has been conducted by others.  I will tell you right now, Thomas J. DiLorenzo--the leader of the modern crusade attacking Lincoln--is not someone whose work I would value as well researched, objective, and fair. His books The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked are full of shoddy research, blatantly misconstrued quotes, and a presentation of evidence which supports his theory while completely ignoring other, even more pertinent evidence, which weakens his position. 

So, until my paper is finished, begin asking yourself what you really think about Lincoln.  What type of a President was he?  What type of a man was he?  Did the South have a legal right to secede?

Randomizer Vol. I

A few thoughts that have been stirring about in my head recently...

• Why do Mormon Democrats disregard 80% or more of what President Benson said whenever it regarded politics?  Yes, he wrote some books expressing personal views, yet he spoke on plenty of occasions in his official capacity as a prophet and apostle concerning Constitutional issues.  How can one disregard addresses given in General Conference, at BYU devotionals, or other forums where the audience was the Church in general and the remarks prepared under the mantle of his divine calling?  Do these people realize he was actually given a blessing, by a prophet, to be given the gift of Constitutional and political perception that would be necessary for our time?  President David O. McKay, in his role as prophet, gave President Benson this blessing, and not as a personal blessing, but with a specific and divinely appointed purpose.  I'm not saying that everything he said is right or true, but not everything he said can be brushed aside either.
• Progressivism, the Constitution, and the Book of Mormon.  This one is quite simple, really.  Progressives generally believe in a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution, if they still believe it at all.  Social justice and other factors have changed society so much that we just can't interpret it literally anymore, 250 years of progress has simply removed us from that time and ushered in a new era of progressive politics.  So if I am to apply the same logic to the Book of Mormon or Bible, why even read them at all?  We're 2000 years, not a mere 200, from the days that those words were written.  Yet we still read the words as they were written then, not as they are reinterpreted today.  We still value the meaning, intent, and emotions of the original authors; we don't supplant them with the ideas of those that have come long after.  If I want to understand the Book of Moroni, I can't do it by reading all the commentary on Moroni while ignoring his own words.  Likewise, if we want to understand the Constitution, we must read more from the writings of those who actually wrote it, not those who interpreted it decades or centuries after the fact.  In so doing, we can find that most debates of today have already been settled by the framers of our Constitution themselves, and often in ways that directly conflict with what has been deemed the socially mandated interpretation forced upon us by social justice.  General Welfare an open ended clause to do anything that seems good?  Wrong.  And so on...
• Can't we agree that Democrat vs. Republican isn't armageddon?  It isn't good vs. evil, or right vs. wrong.  It's one parties' views versus another's.  It's a divide with good and bad people on both sides.  And let's agree that, frankly, most people on both sides generally want the same thing--a better America, a prosperous people, and so on, we just disagree on HOW to accomplish that.  I'm sick of liberal rhetoric being flung at me that I'm somehow callous to the plight of the poor because I generally support Republicans, all of whom are apparently rich, privileged white guys.  Or the rhetoric that Republicans are somehow opposed to helping those in need because they want to reign in entitlement spending.  Come on, people.  Really?  I'm not a fan of social security so I must not care about the elderly?  You mean if the government doesn't do it, no one will?  You mean....people don't actually care enough about people to step in and help?  Did you know that before there was government sponsored unemployment insurance, many communities in the 19th century actually created their own community form of unemployment assistance?  On a completely voluntary basis, yet still with the participation of virtually the whole community, people voluntarily contributed their money so that it could be donated to fellow townspeople who had to miss work or lost their job altogether.  Government can help people, yes, but people can help people, too, and it doesn't have to be the exclusive right of one over the other.  There can be a balance, but it must be in supportive harmony, not a domineering cacophony of overwhelming proportions that our current entitlements have become.
• Vanilla ice cream.  Pure.  Simple. And always waiting for me in my grandma's freezer as a boy, as I was the "Plain Jane" grandson who didn't like all the crunches, stripes, chunks, and other flavorful additions that all other ice cream's had. 
• What's with George Lucas' hair?  It's like he has a God complex or something.  How could anyone in their right mind actually style their hair in some wafting Old Testament fashion when it is as white and silky as that?  Then again, I've seen most of George Lucas' recent work, and can confirm that he is not in his right mind.

I'M BACK! New posts coming soon!

After 15 months, I'm finally going to hop back into the blogging saddle. An apt analogy, as this forum has most likely withered during the dearth of the past year with no fresh posts or comments. Perhaps I will now find myself a lone cowboy, riding by myself across the desert of this now dry blog. Yet ride I will, and hopefully encounter a few souls along the way who may enjoy an occasional read on this blog. If you do wander this way on occasion, please leave a comment or two letting me know that there is indeed some life in the desert of my posts. Do not feel, however, any obligation to read or comment on this blog. I compose these posts primarily to hone my research and writing skills, and now that I am several years removed from college, I do not want these abilities to wither as this blog has. Using this forum as a tool, I hope to continue to develop skills that will not only benefit myself, but hopefully others as well as I strive to conduct meaningful research concerning pertinent issues, and offer a commentary--sometimes objective, sometimes quite subjective--that sparks a flame of curiosity in one of you who read this blog. If this spark inspires you to seek out knowledge or aides in broadening your understanding of an issue, then I will have served a worthy purpose.

While I cannot promise complete objectivity (who can?), I do promise an open mind, my best efforts at unbiased research, and to never knowingly distort or ignore facts to serve my point of view. I welcome all your comments, and ask only for respect, civility, and your best efforts at truth as well. I know at times one of us may share facts later disproved, or repeat research that may, unbeknownst to us, be faulty. In such cases, humility is all we can offer and move on. Stubbornness is no friend to truth, and no catalyst for a respectful understanding of opposing viewpoints.

Now what posts will soon be here. I am currently working on an article entitled "The Deconstruction of the Myth of the Reagan Myth." During the past 4 months, I have sifted through several books and articles concerning the legacy of Ronald Reagan. A small but growing voice is giving rise to the idea of the "Myth of Ronald Reagan." There is truth to some of their claims, to be sure. On the other side, there are those to whom Reagan was an infallible God who graciously descended from his throne to grace us with his perfection (the eerie parallels to our current Messianic President already ooze through). I am seeking to balance the argument and point out flaws on both sides. Hopefully, a clearer understanding of our 40th President and his accomplishments will emerge. Another point this article will illustrate is the politics of history, and how current events shape people's understanding of the past and, in too many but always extreme cases, how present day selectivists will sift through historical fact and only acknowledge that which is pertinent to their particular partisan position.

Thank you, one and all....perhaps only one.....who have taken a few minutes of your time to visit this forum. I invite you to share comments or even suggestions for topics you wish to address. Please enhance the quality of this forum with your thoughts, feelings, and knowledge. It will not only aide in establishing a quality and inspiring dialogue, but help this forum expand beyond a mere parroting of ideas that float around in my head.