A Matter of Will

In the course of this nation’s history, matters of extreme danger to the republic have been handled by a number of remarkable men. They have summoned the personal character and ability to overcome major threats to our society. For the first one hundred seventy-five years of our existence they have, with the willing acquiescence of the citizens, called upon God and the youth of our country to achieve victorious ends over our enemies. In no case did these individuals have universal support to pursue actions to defeat those who sought to deprive us of our liberties.

A quick review of the historical press accounts of the various periods of conflict reveal detractors of those in charge. Given the power of protection offered by the first amendment to the Constitution, opponents of our leaders were quite vocal in their complaints. They were free to criticize, carp and complain at will, the pursuit of war time objectives and purposes. Even during the pre-constitutional period during the critical formation of the nation during the late eighteenth century, there were harsh divisions within the people over the wisdom of separation from the crown. Some of these objections stemmed from a highly principled stance. Others were the result of rampaging self interest.

The interesting thing to me is that in these struggles the larger body of the “people”, the rank and file citizens appeared to have been sympathetic to the needs of the republic. They seemed to be immune to the hue and cry of the protesting factions and devoted their loyalties to the leadership and were willing to make personal sacrifices to promote the cause of liberty. From the earliest days, men have been willing to devote, “their lives, their treasure, and their sacred honor,” in defense of liberty. Well past the initial formation of the country, people have expressed their backing of the government in many positive ways in the face of danger. Their backing of the war time re-election of five presidents (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Nixon) stands as one piece of evidence of the people's support. They also seem to have a far better understanding of those who actually face the enemy. These good citizens also appear to have the ability to recognize the difference between good and evil without equivocation.

Is it possible that there are lessons to be learned from this “popular support” portion of other societies and groups? The laws of the church require the approval of a conference of Saints to validate presumed messages from God to the people. This wisdom, while not unusual for the Almighty, is absolutely necessary for the progress of His people in the pursuit of His work. If we, as Saints, do not have the confidence to give our mutual assent then how can we carry on the work? Who then is entitled to voice his opinion of the validity of the work in progress? Is it only the elders? Is it the whole body, including every member in good standing? Is it those who have successfully made it past the “gate keepers” in the solemn assemblies in Independence? Are the representatives of large groups of missionary converts in Africa, Central America and other far flung fields equal in voice to those locally?

It seems, at the moment, that there are far too many questions and not enough answers. We can reason our way through to a solution or/and seek the Lord’s wisdom for an answer. It is reasonable to expect dissension with so many people involved. It is also not reasonable to assume that the best answers come from the most popular or articulate of our leaders. It is, however, essential that the Saints discuss these matters civilly, with a strong measure of Christian charity, and in the clear light of day. This will obviously require some sacrifice on the part of everyone involved. By now, we should all realize that part of being a Latter Day Saint of any stripe involves defense of beliefs. The adversary we face is not going to waste his time throwing up roadblocks to some watered down, feel good excuse for a faith. He will, instead, provide every blockage to cause disunity, back biting and disharmony among those who threaten him and his evil purposes.

If only we could have inspirational leadership, supportable by the people and resistant to the critical influences from outsiders, which the nation enjoyed in the first 175 years of our existence. One could say the same of the church in a shorter time. The historical observation leads one to believe that about the same time, forces worked in parallel to turn up the assaults on both. The Viet Nam Era marked the turning point for the nation and also the church. It was then that elements, previously unknown to both, commenced on their irritating path to destroy our national society and our venerable church. Fortunately, both bodies have a hard cadre of believers who refuse to accept the false doctrines which are so destructive. The sixties heralded what the adversary had crafted to be the beginning of the end of both bodies; but it need not be so.

Regarding the government of the nation, I stand, as do many others, staunchly opposed to those who make a mockery of our constitution, offer appeasement to murdering dictators, and bring discredit upon those who defend our liberties. In our church, I stand with those who believe in Jesus Christ, who respect our history, honor God’s laws, understand our doctrine and are willing to face the adversary and say: “No! Not on my watch will you do this!” It requires each member to rise from his comfy pew and demand the “meat” of the scripture and teachings and not the thin gruel of “go along to get along.”

My position is clear. I want my country back. I want my church back. I want to associate with people who feel the same way and work to the best of their ability (no matter how slight or how much) to achieve that end. It’s a matter of will.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon