LETTER TO MISSIONARY #6

I know that I said at one time that you did not have to respond to every one my emails, or try to respond to every point I include in my emails, especially since my emails tend to be long and cover a lot of points, and you are on a mission and, on top of everything else mission-related that you are, at the very least, have more letters to write than just to me. But that all being said, it was really nice to get your email, from you to me.

That being said, I am increasingly convinced that the deep thinker, as he or she strives to write a complete picture of his or her thoughts at any one time, must at some point be satisfied with writing incomplete thoughts. My approach tends to be very thorough. I like to anticipate questions. And I'm not saying that this is a bad thing -- I consider a sign of respect that I consider people's words, mole them over and over in my mind, and give them what I would call 'a proper treatment' of their contribution, whether I agree with it or not.

With that in mind, consider that I have entertaining the idea of writing letters to the editor, of formally entering into the public discourse, and that letters to the editor in our local newspaper are limited to 200 words. Now -- besides my self-doubt of whether I know enough to scrimmage with the big boys, besides the internal tug-of-war in my heart of hearts between the idealistic burning in my soul that my writing will have a part to play on the political scene and yearning to jump into the ring VS the reservations of the current atmosphere of political discussion where I can be nervous as to the effect my words could have on my family, besides the idealistic struggle between acknowledging that I am a conservative voice in a very not-conservative state and will my voice matter VS I could not live with what I imagine would be an attitude of surrender and defeat and hopelessness from accepting that I effectively have no voice for change, besides the struggle of deciding what to write on since the pertinent issues in the news seem to change so quickly -- you expect me to say it in 200 words? You know me, 200 words is a warm-up for me, I might almost define the topic I'm discussing in 200 words.

Interestingly, the word-count limit been a good built-in check on my passion that is expression. Thus far, I have not actually written a letter, I don't think timing is yet right. In the meantime, I continue voraciously reading and learning.

Some of that has been back-burned due to Rigoletto. That is true. I am in the chorus, which in Rigoletto is an all-male chorus. We have two performances at the end of October (Friday evening the 25th, Sunday matinee the 27th). Mom and Dad are planning to come down to see it, which will be fun.

It has been quite the experience. Thus far in my life, I haven't had much music thrown at me that would throw off my counting, but the opening party scene offered me just that -- The orchestra laying a party tapestry of its own, with its own melody and everything, on top of which the characters and chorus have little interjections (the recitative). What's tricky is that the recordings all sound like the music stars on count 1, but the music of the scene actually starts on count 2. I had to listen to the recording with the music about 40 times before I got it right.

Apart from that, the biggest struggle has been the language. Rigoletto is in Italian, and, not surprising, we are performing it in Italian. I know I speak Spanish already, but, even though they are similar, Italian is not Spanish. This became more tricky as far as just pronouncing it because there are notes of music that combine the syllables of different words, little musical conjunctions that probably make sense of you speak Italian, which aren't necessarily the same as in Spanish. And then memorizing it -- I'm still working on that.

What's interesting with this production is that it is what they are calling "presidium opera" It's basically like when musicals nowadays are done "in concert," sort of like an oratorio -- no set, orchestra and conductor on the stage, main soloists in either full or some costume, little to no staging. In this kind of production, the choir is usually on risers; but in our production, we will have a small number of choir members participating in the limited staging -- We are calling it the "acting chorus," as opposed to the "sitting chorus," which will stay stand in their place by their chairs with their music. The acting chorus has to have the music all memorized.

It's interesting, I joined the chorus in the first place to participate in the company's Gala -- single pieces of music, most of them not memorized, no staging, way less work and stress. The added stress of memorization and extra rehearsals were precisely the reason why I did not participate in their subsequent opera, even though that opera was Carmen. It was just too much at the time. When I heard that Rigoletto was going to be a presidium opera, I figured that that would be more manageable. And yet, here I am, having volunteered to participate in the acting chorus, volunteering for the added work of memorization and additional rehearsals, because...I don't know, I just got excited, and the opportunity reminded me of how much I miss the stage, I miss performing. So we'll see how this goes.

Even more interesting. I asked a professional singer if the opera does any oratorios, like the Messiah or Elijah. She said that such works are performed more often by the Modesto Symphony and Chorus, less so by Opera Modesto. But she shared an interesting fact -- apparently, a singer can make more money per gig singing concert work than they can doing opera roles. She mentioned a gig she had in Sacramento (a 70-minute drive from Modesto), doing a concert work -- two rehearsals, two performances -- she made $1600. In contrast, for an opera role -- which is usually a month-long commitment, with music rehearsals, staging rehearsals, tech rehearsal, and maybe three performances -- she made less than $1000. That seemed kind of counter-intuitive to me, I'm not sure how the economics works; but she said that tenors always have work. So I'm considering learning more concert repertory. I already know the tenor arias from Elijah ("If With All Your Hearts," "Then, Then Shall the Righteous Shine Forth"). I figure I had better learn the tenor arias for Messiah to start. I also looked up a book of 30 some odd concert/oratorio arias for tenor, and have been listening to them. It's been really fun. And with all the singing I've been doing with the chorus, I feel like my range had expanded a little bit, so that's really exciting.

As far as staying up on election stuff. Let me know what your mission president says and if there is any way that I can help. Unless otherwise instructed, I will confine myself to sharing thoughts I have during my readings and research. But promise that if even those become too distracting from your current calling that you will inform me.

Here are some quotes for now:

"11. Another matter worthy of thought in the present connection is this: Is the fact of the great apostasy,—the virtual overthrow and destruction of the Church established by Jesus Christ,—to be regarded as an instance of failure in the Lord's plans? Is it a case of defeat in which Satan was victor over Christ? Consider the following. What mortal has yet measured the standard by which Omniscience gages success or failure? Who dares affirm that what man hails as triumph or deplores as defeat will be so accounted when tested by the principles of eternal reckoning?

12. The history of the world abounds with instances of the temporary triumph of evil, of justice seemingly miscarried, of divine plans for the time being frustrated, of God's purposes opposed and their consummation delayed.

13. We read of the Lord's covenant with Israel? Unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob He declared that their descendants should be a people chosen for His special service among the nations. Through that lineage the Savior of mankind was to be born; in the posterity of Abraham all nations of the earth were to be blessed. Blessings beyond the heart of man to conceive, beyond the mind of man to comprehend, were promised on condition of loyal allegiance to Him who proclaimed Himself their God and their King. Moreover the Lord predicted calamity and suffering, and individual affliction and national disgrace, if Israel departed from the service of Jehovah and yielded to the enticements of their heathen neighbors who knew not God. Think you that the Lord was ignorant of the course His people would choose? Did He fail to foresee that Israel would follow the evil way, forfeiting the blessings and reaping the harvest of sorrow? Jehovah's plans failed not, though the realization of the blessings so abundantly promised has been long delayed. Equally forceful with the prediction of calamity in case of sin, was the promise of eventual restoration to favor. The dispersion of Israel already accomplished, was to be followed by the gathering of Israel now in progress.—(See the Author's "Articles of Faith," lectures 17 and 18.)

14. What would have been the world's verdict as to the success or failure of the mission of the Christ, had a vote been taken at the time of the crucifixion? Seemingly His enemies had triumphed; He who proclaimed Himself the Messiah, the Son of God, the resurrection and the life, over whom death could not prevail, had suffered the fate of malefactors, and His body was in the tomb. But the verdict of the centuries, which is the verdict of the eternities to come, acclaims that "failure" as the greatest triumph of the ages, the victory of victories.

15. Even so with the Church. For a season the powers of evil triumphed, and the spirit of apostasy ruled. But beyond the darkness of the spiritual night the glorious dawn of the restoration was seen in prophetic vision, and both the night with its horrors, and the awakening day with its splendor, were foreseen and foretold."

James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy, Ch.2, 1909

And also:
"History often appears to resemble a roulette wheel; there is truth in the old Greek idea of cycles, and round again may come the number which signifies a conservative order. One of those flaming clouds which we deny to the Deity but arrogate to our own employment may erase our present elaborate constructions so abruptly as the tocsin in the Faubourg St. Germain terminated an age equally tired of itself. Yet this roulette-wheel simile would be repugnant to [Edmund Burke] (or to John Adams), who knew history to be the unfolding of a Design. The true conservative thinks of this process, which looks like chance or fate, as rather, the providential operation of a moral law of polarity. And Burke, could he see our century, never would concede that a consumption-society, so near to suicide, is the end for which Providence has prepared man. If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to return, so that we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite."
Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, Seventh Ed., Ch.1, first printed 1953

P.S. An excerpt from my son's prayer tonight (he has a goal of being more thoughtful in his prayers):
Heavenly Father,
Thank you for this day.
Please forgive us for our mistakes today [...]
Please bless that people will stop smoking, that it will become I extinct.
I'm really worried about this, and want it to not be a problem anymore. Help it to become extinct -- like the dinosaurs.
Help us to know how they became extinct.
Some of us are really confused, there have even been fights over it.
Please show signs to the scientists that will show them how they became extinct.
Maybe they didn't have food; maybe it was the meteor.
Some of us are really confused.

LETTER TO MISSIONARY#5

In my last letter, I mentioned that Socrates was condemned to die. But the execution was not swift. There were various delays to the execution. So Socrates waited in prison for his execution. During this time, he was visited by friends and family. Several of the Dialogues recorded by Plato were of these visits, Socrates conversing while he awaited execution.

This scenario inspired me to post the question to our family via Marco Polo: What would you talk about if you knew you were going to die?

I think the question prompts a question of priority, such as 'what do you think would be the most important things to talk about with those whom you would leave behind?'

In the secular world, my mind is turned to those "Last Lectures" which became so popular.

In the scriptures, I think of Father Lehi in the Book of Mormon giving his final words to members of his family at the beginning of 2 Nephi, especially his final words to his son Jacob in chapter 2, where he outlines the most succinct discourse on man's moral agency yet revealed.

The quotes of Socrates which I include here have another purpose, to illustrate how the honest mind can stumble onto both the right and wrong conclusions on topics of higher thing. I've included some section headings in bold for hopefully easier reading.

As a hint for comprehension, you may want to read these quote out loud.

1) THE SUBJECT OF THE BODY
a) The Philosopher Rejects the Body
And now, O my judges, I desire to prove to you that the real philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to obtain the greatest good in the other world. [...] For I deem that the true votary of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood by other men; they do not perceive that he is always pursuing death and dying; and if this be so, and he has had the desire of death all his life long, why when his time comes should he repine at that which he has been always pursuing and desiring? [...] —let us discuss the matter among ourselves: Do we believe that there is such a thing as death?

To be sure, replied Simmias.

Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death?

Just so, he replied.

There is another question, which will probably throw light on our present inquiry if you and I can agree about it:—Ought the philosopher to care about the pleasures—if they are to be called pleasures—of eating and drinking?

Certainly not, answered Simmias.

And what about the pleasures of love—should he care for them?

By no means.

And will he think much of the other ways of indulging the body, for example, the acquisition of costly raiment, or sandals, or other adornments of the body? Instead of caring about them, does he not rather despise anything more than nature needs? What do you say?

I should say that the true philosopher would despise them.

Would you not say that he is entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body? He would like, as far as he can, to get away from the body and to turn to the soul.

Quite true.

In matters of this sort philosophers, above all other men, may be observed in every sort of way to dissever the soul from the communion of the body.

Very true.

Whereas, Simmias, the rest of the world are of opinion that to him who has no sense of pleasure and no part in bodily pleasure, life is not worth having; and that he who is indifferent about them is as good as dead.

That is also true.

b) The Body is a Hinderance to Progression, Purification is to be rid of the Body

What again shall we say of the actual acquirement of knowledge?—is the body, if invited to share in the enquiry, a hinderer or a helper? I mean to say, have sight and hearing any truth in them? Are they not, as the poets are always telling us, inaccurate witnesses? and yet, if even they are inaccurate and indistinct, what is to be said of the other senses?—for you will allow that they are the best of them?

Certainly, he replied.

Then when does the soul attain truth?—for in attempting to consider anything in company with the body she is obviously deceived.

True.

Then must not true existence be revealed to her in thought, if at all?

Yes.

And thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself and none of these things trouble her—neither sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure,—when she takes leave of the body, and has as little as possible to do with it, when she has no bodily sense or desire, but is aspiring after true being?

Certainly.

And in this the philosopher dishonours the body; his soul runs away from his body and desires to be alone and by herself?

That is true.

Well, but there is another thing, Simmias: Is there or is there not an absolute justice?

Assuredly there is.

And an absolute beauty and absolute good?

Of course.

But did you ever behold any of them with your eyes?

Certainly not.

Or did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense?—and I speak not of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and health, and strength, and of the essence or true nature of everything. Has the reality of them ever been perceived by you through the bodily organs? or rather, is not the nearest approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of each thing which he considers?

Certainly.

And he attains to the purest knowledge of them who goes to each with the mind alone, not introducing or intruding in the act of thought sight or any other sense together with reason, but with the very light of the mind in her own clearness searches into the very truth of each; he who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements which when they infect the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge—who, if not he, is likely to attain the knowledge of true being?

What you say has a wonderful truth in it, Socrates, replied Simmias.

And when real philosophers consider all these things, will they not be led to make a reflection which they will express in words something like the following? 'Have we not found,' they will say, 'a path of thought which seems to bring us and our argument to the conclusion, that while we are in the body, and while the soul is infected with the evils of the body, our desire will not be satisfied? and our desire is of the truth. For the body is a source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of food; and is liable also to diseases which overtake and impede us in the search after true being: it fills us full of loves, and lusts, and fears, and fancies of all kinds, and endless foolery, and in fact, as men say, takes away from us the power of thinking at all. Whence come wars, and fightings, and factions? whence but from the body and the lusts of the body? wars are occasioned by the love of money, and money has to be acquired for the sake and in the service of the body; and by reason of all these impediments we have no time to give to philosophy; and, last and worst of all, even if we are at leisure and betake ourselves to some speculation, the body is always breaking in upon us, causing turmoil and confusion in our enquiries, and so amazing us that we are prevented from seeing the truth. It has been proved to us by experience that if we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body—the soul in herself must behold things in themselves: and then we shall attain the wisdom which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers, not while we live, but after death; for if while in company with the body, the soul cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things follows—either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death. For then, and not till then, the soul will be parted from the body and exist in herself alone. In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible intercourse or communion with the body, and are not surfeited with the bodily nature, but keep ourselves pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us. And thus having got rid of the foolishness of the body we shall be pure and hold converse with the pure, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere, which is no other than the light of truth.' For the impure are not permitted to approach the pure. These are the sort of words, Simmias, which the true lovers of knowledge cannot help saying to one another, and thinking. You would agree; would you not?

Undoubtedly, Socrates.

But, O my friend, if this is true, there is great reason to hope that, going whither I go, when I have come to the end of my journey, I shall attain that which has been the pursuit of my life. And therefore I go on my way rejoicing, and not I only, but every other man who believes that his mind has been made ready and that he is in a manner purified.

Certainly, replied Simmias.

And what is purification but the separation of the soul from the body, as I was saying before; the habit of the soul gathering and collecting herself into herself from all sides out of the body; the dwelling in her own place alone, as in another life, so also in this, as far as she can;—the release of the soul from the chains of the body?

Very true, he said.

And this separation and release of the soul from the body is termed death?

To be sure, he said.

And the true philosophers, and they only, are ever seeking to release the soul. Is not the separation and release of the soul from the body their especial study?

That is true.

And, as I was saying at first, there would be a ridiculous contradiction in men studying to live as nearly as they can in a state of death, and yet repining when it comes upon them.

Clearly.

And the true philosophers, Simmias, are always occupied in the practice of dying, wherefore also to them least of all men is death terrible. Look at the matter thus:—if they have been in every way the enemies of the body, and are wanting to be alone with the soul, when this desire of theirs is granted, how inconsistent would they be if they trembled and repined, instead of rejoicing at their departure to that place where, when they arrive, they hope to gain that which in life they desired—and this was wisdom—and at the same time to be rid of the company of their enemy. Many a man has been willing to go to the world below animated by the hope of seeing there an earthly love, or wife, or son, and conversing with them. And will he who is a true lover of wisdom, and is strongly persuaded in like manner that only in the world below he can worthily enjoy her, still repine at death? Will he not depart with joy? Surely he will, O my friend, if he be a true philosopher. For he will have a firm conviction that there and there only, he can find wisdom in her purity. And if this be true, he would be very absurd, as I was saying, if he were afraid of death." (Plato, Phaedo)

Obviously, this is an example of the honest mind coming to the wrong conclusion (without revelation). In contrast, consider the following scriptures:
"And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection of the dead is the redemption of the soul." (D&C 88:15-16)
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

2) OPPOSITES: DEATH V. RETURNING TO LIFE

"Suppose we consider the question whether the souls of men after death are or are not in the world below. There comes into my mind an ancient doctrine which affirms that they go from hence into the other world, and returning hither, are born again from the dead. Now if it be true that the living come from the dead, then our souls must exist in the other world, for if not, how could they have been born again? And this would be conclusive, if there were any real evidence that the living are only born from the dead; but if this is not so, then other arguments will have to be adduced.

Very true, replied Cebes.

Then let us consider the whole question, not in relation to man only, but in relation to animals generally, and to plants, and to everything of which there is generation, and the proof will be easier. Are not all things which have opposites generated out of their opposites? I mean such things as good and evil, just and unjust—and there are innumerable other opposites which are generated out of opposites. And I want to show that in all opposites there is of necessity a similar alternation; I mean to say, for example, that anything which becomes greater must become greater after being less.

True.

And that which becomes less must have been once greater and then have become less.

Yes.

And the weaker is generated from the stronger, and the swifter from the slower.

Very true.

And the worse is from the better, and the more just is from the more unjust.

Of course.

And is this true of all opposites? and are we convinced that all of them are generated out of opposites?

Yes.

And in this universal opposition of all things, are there not also two intermediate processes which are ever going on, from one to the other opposite, and back again; where there is a greater and a less there is also an intermediate process of increase and diminution, and that which grows is said to wax, and that which decays to wane?

Yes, he said.

And there are many other processes, such as division and composition, cooling and heating, which equally involve a passage into and out of one another. And this necessarily holds of all opposites, even though not always expressed in words—they are really generated out of one another, and there is a passing or process from one to the other of them?

Very true, he replied.

Well, and is there not an opposite of life, as sleep is the opposite of waking?

True, he said.

And what is it?

Death, he answered.

And these, if they are opposites, are generated the one from the other, and have there their two intermediate processes also?

Of course.

Now, said Socrates, I will analyze one of the two pairs of opposites which I have mentioned to you, and also its intermediate processes, and you shall analyze the other to me. One of them I term sleep, the other waking. The state of sleep is opposed to the state of waking, and out of sleeping waking is generated, and out of waking, sleeping; and the process of generation is in the one case falling asleep, and in the other waking up. Do you agree?

I entirely agree.

Then, suppose that you analyze life and death to me in the same manner. Is not death opposed to life?

Yes.

And they are generated one from the other?

Yes.

What is generated from the living?

The dead.

And what from the dead?

I can only say in answer—the living.

Then the living, whether things or persons, Cebes, are generated from the dead?

That is clear, he replied.

Then the inference is that our souls exist in the world below?

That is true.

And one of the two processes or generations is visible—for surely the act of dying is visible?

Surely, he said.

What then is to be the result? Shall we exclude the opposite process? And shall we suppose nature to walk on one leg only? Must we not rather assign to death some corresponding process of generation?

Certainly, he replied.

And what is that process?

Return to life.

And return to life, if there be such a thing, is the birth of the dead into the world of the living?

Quite true.

Then here is a new way by which we arrive at the conclusion that the living come from the dead, just as the dead come from the living; and this, if true, affords a most certain proof that the souls of the dead exist in some place out of which they come again.

Yes, Socrates, he said; the conclusion seems to flow necessarily out of our previous admissions.

And that these admissions were not unfair, Cebes, he said, may be shown, I think, as follows: If generation were in a straight line only, and there were no compensation or circle in nature, no turn or return of elements into their opposites, then you know that all things would at last have the same form and pass into the same state, and there would be no more generation of them.

What do you mean? he said.

A simple thing enough, which I will illustrate by the case of sleep, he replied. You know that if there were no alternation of sleeping and waking, the tale of the sleeping Endymion would in the end have no meaning, because all other things would be asleep, too, and he would not be distinguishable from the rest. Or if there were composition only, and no division of substances, then the chaos of Anaxagoras would come again. And in like manner, my dear Cebes, if all things which partook of life were to die, and after they were dead remained in the form of death, and did not come to life again, all would at last die, and nothing would be alive—what other result could there be? For if the living spring from any other things, and they too die, must not all things at last be swallowed up in death? (But compare Republic.)

There is no escape, Socrates, said Cebes; and to me your argument seems to be absolutely true.

Yes, he said, Cebes, it is and must be so, in my opinion; and we have not been deluded in making these admissions; but I am confident that there truly is such a thing as living again, and that the living spring from the dead, and that the souls of the dead are in existence, and that the good souls have a better portion than the evil." (Plato, Phaedo)

While I wouldn't say that Socrates is necessarily right in every aspect, his thought process here made me think of 2 Nephi 2:
"11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

EXTRA: I just thought the following quote as cool when reading through the lens of the restored Gospel, particularly a reference from ancient Greece about "mysteries" (religious ceremonies performed in temples) thought to have consequences in the life to come. 

"Yet the exchange of one fear or pleasure or pain for another fear or pleasure or pain, and of the greater for the less, as if they were coins, is not the exchange of virtue. O my blessed Simmias, is there not one true coin for which all things ought to be exchanged?—and that is wisdom; and only in exchange for this, and in company with this, is anything truly bought or sold, whether courage or temperance or justice. And is not all true virtue the companion of wisdom, no matter what fears or pleasures or other similar goods or evils may or may not attend her? But the virtue which is made up of these goods, when they are severed from wisdom and exchanged with one another, is a shadow of virtue only, nor is there any freedom or health or truth in her; but in the true exchange there is a purging away of all these things, and temperance, and justice, and courage, and wisdom herself are the purgation of them. The founders of the mysteries would appear to have had a real meaning, and were not talking nonsense when they intimated in a figure long ago that he who passes unsanctified and uninitiated into the world below will lie in a slough, but that he who arrives there after initiation and purification will dwell with the gods. For 'many,' as they say in the mysteries, 'are the thyrsus-bearers, but few are the mystics,'—meaning, as I interpret the words, 'the true philosophers.' In the number of whom, during my whole life, I have been seeking, according to my ability, to find a place;—whether I have sought in a right way or not, and whether I have succeeded or not, I shall truly know in a little while, if God will, when I myself arrive in the other world—such is my belief. And therefore I maintain that I am right, Simmias and Cebes, in not grieving or repining at parting from you and my masters in this world, for I believe that I shall equally find good masters and friends in another world. But most men do not believe this saying; if then I succeed in convincing you by my defence better than I did the Athenian judges, it will be well." (Plato, Phaedo)

Hope you have a good week.

LETTER TO A MISSIONARY#4

In this letter, I wanted to share a part of my reading with you. I'm including extended quotes, as is my preference -- you know how much I prefer reading and sharing the primary sources rather than summarizing them, and while I must restrict myself to summarizing in regular conversation, the written medium I think allows me greater liberty to share primary-source material less so constrained. In this way, I challenge people's mental faculties to "stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity," as Joseph Smith wrote from Liberty Jail (History of the Church, 3:295–96; from a letter from Joseph Smith and others to Edward Partridge and the Church, Mar. 20, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri).

That quote makes me think of a recent Facebook discussion I had regarding the following Tweet which one of our relatives had reposted:

Ed: Where should we eat? I say pizza.
Ann: Pizza!
Ty: Pizza!
Liz: This old shoe!
Ed: Ugh, guess we have to eat this old shoe again.
Ann: Why??
Ty: Liz is from WY. Her vote is worth 3.6x more than ours.
[End Scene}
This has been the Electoral College.

Without getting into details, I challenged this Tweet as an inaccurate description, or even definition, of Electoral College. It was recommended to me to "Don't think so much into it."

The part of my response which I think applicable to my current message was as follows "[The Electoral College] is a deeper and more subtle subject than [the author of this Tweet] gives it credit for, and light thinking will not be sufficient to wrap the mind around its principles, much less lend itself to formulate productive critiques, let alone 'better' principles. I do not think that it is unreasonable to properly understand the mechanism of and the reason for the institution you wish to criticize -- settling for [this Tweet's] infantile explanation of the Electoral College process (which would not be acceptable in an 8th Grade U.S. History course), and then the advice to not think so much about it, is what I don't understand."

In this sense, I find a parallel between learning about the Church (its doctrine, its policies, its history from dispensation to dispensation, its leaders, etc) and learning about our American heritage (i.e., the political and cultural principles and institutions of the United States) and our more broad Western heritage (i.e., those principles and heritage leading up to the Founding). The acknowledgement of deep things in both the spiritual and secular planes, the interconnectedness of the two, that deep things are necessary to understand, that it will take work to condition the mind to handle thinking about deep things, and that the necessity of the mind to practice pondering these deep things. Thinking on these things in reference to the above quote by Brother Joseph, I wonder whether one's capacity for deep thought isn't part of the idea behind when the Lord says “For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory;" as in one's power for thinking being part of what degree of God's glory a person can endure, after the question of worthiness.

From the secular side, I have been struck with the sheer volume of honest thinking that has already occurred in the history of the Western world -- thinking which has been preserved through the Ages, thinking which we can read today. As members of the restored Church, possessors of the fullness of the Gospel, we rightly revere the Bible, in spite of not always being translated correctly (Article of Faith 8), and missing what Nephi described as "plain and precious truths" (1 Nephi 13:20-26). And yet, the preservation of the Bible is a miracle in and of itself. It is one of the many subtlties of history, a lesson in the restraint from judgment based on light understanding -- it is without a doubt that the Catholic and Orthordox Churches are the apostate remnants of that popularly-called "original" Church restored at the time of Jesus Christ, and yet it cannot be denied that it was because of people (many of them members of either these churches or the branched Protestant churches) doing their best to follow God with the light and truth they had that nevertheless set the stage for the Restoration, including the compilation and preservation of the Bible.

And I can't help but feel that the Lord's hand was in the preservation of not just strictly theological knowledge, but also other branches of thinking through the ages; not that all of that thinking was correct, but knowing what is wrong helps us clarify what is right.

And I think that this story of Socrates is illustrative of this point. You probably know that Socrates was a very influential Greek philosopher in his day. He didn't write anything down, all of our records of him are from what his student Plato wrote down, mostly in the form of Dialogues. I want to share three extended quotes with you. As background, you need to know that Socrates was condemned to die by the city of Athens for teaching the people to be "atheist" (that was, to believe in gods not endorsed by the city-state) and for "corrupting the youth." The first extended passage I wanted to share is from the Apology of Socrates, which is Socrates' speech to defend himself before the Athenian tribunal.

"I dare say, Athenians, that some one among you will reply, 'Yes, Socrates, but what is the origin of these accusations which are brought against you; there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All these rumours and this talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us, then, what is the cause of them, for we should be sorry to judge hastily of you.' Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavour to explain to you the reason why I am called wise and have such an evil fame. Please to attend then. And although some of you may think that I am joking, I declare that I will tell you the entire truth. Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply, wisdom such as may perhaps be attained by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise; whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom which I may fail to describe, because I have it not myself; and he who says that I have, speaks falsely, and is taking away my character. And here, O men of Athens, I must beg you not to interrupt me, even if I seem to say something extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit; that witness shall be the God of Delphi—he will tell you about my wisdom, if I have any, and of what sort it is. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the recent exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether—as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt—he asked the oracle to tell him whether anyone was wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself; but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of what I am saying.

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of his riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What then can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After long consideration, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, 'Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.' Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him—his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is,—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretensions to wisdom, and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.

Then I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me,—the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear!—for I must tell you the truth—the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that others less esteemed were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the 'Herculean' labours, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. After the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be instantly detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them—thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to confess the truth, but I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. Then I knew that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. The poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians.

At last I went to the artisans. I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets;—because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom; and therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and to the oracle that I was better off as I was.

This inquisition has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name by way of illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world, obedient to the god, and search and make enquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and my occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god." (Plato, Apology [of Socrates])

You'll notice that Socrates basically sights revelation (a communication from heaven), as he understand it, as the source of his life's work, which was the pursuit of knowledge through questioning people. He is trying to obey his Deity, we would say God. But it was because of his obedience to that direction that he gained many enemies, because the men he questioned were frequently embarrassed, their pride hurt. He was basically put to death for following that revelation, by being accused of "corruption" and "atheism," trumped-up charges.

While of course, not a prophet, I cannot help but be reminded of the lives of many prophets when contemplating the persecution, trial, and unjust death of Socrates.

I will stop here, but include the other two extended quotes in other letters.

Untitled#1

I have been carrying this thought in my head for some time. I think that it is time to write it down and make it more permanent. I mentioned in my initial posts that I would not hesitate to cite my religious faith in my writings, so I hope that my next few thoughts will not catch my readers off guard. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And I have decided that there are at least two books that I need to write. I list them as follows in no particular order:

The first book will be a historical review of political and theological thought of my Church. This book was inspired by a number of things. On the one hand, when the spark for political thought was first flinted in my heart, I was touched by the centrality of choice at the root of most political discussion, and the warmth that I felt was a recognition of the parallel we find in that moral agency is central to the Grand Design of God. The philosophy of natural law, both physical and moral, as well as the reverence for the divine worth of the individual, captivated my imagination, and caused my heart to burn. I felt a drive, both to learn more and to some day enter the public discourse to share the glories of that tender plant of freedom that I had newly learned to value. 

Another inspiration was the growing discovery that history is complicated, and the route that we traveled is not a straight one. Edmund Burke felt that history was the unscrolling of the Grand Design. We would all like to think that we are on the right side of history, in the sense that our version of history is the correct one, often times ceasing our research once we find the answer that supports our political philosophy. We do not often dig deep enough to find the contemporary opposition arguments on the same topic. As a people, and perhaps a culture, I think we take for granted the amount of thinking that has already been done in the past three to four thousand years. There seem to be few of today's questions that have not been previously addressed somewhere. 

Another inspiration was the Founding Fathers' Library, which I am still trying to read.

Branching off the idea that history complicated, another inspiration has been the political history of the Church and the Church's involvement in State and National affairs. In my research, I have read lots of facts that I do not have an explanation for -- I know that Pres. Ezra Taft Benson was vehemently conservative politically, and did not shy away from the topic at the pulpit. I know also that Pres. Benson was very active in the John Birch Society, which was considered too extreme for conservatives like Bill Buckley to include in his coalition. I know that the Church holds a stance of neutrality during elections. I know also that there was one presidential election where the president of the Church encouraged the Saints to vote one way, in 1936, when President Heber J. Grant counseled the Saints to vote against Roosevelt for his second term -- the state of Utah voted for FDR in that election. I know that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff is typically listed as one of the causes of the Great Depression, and that the Smoot of the Smoot-Hawley was Reed Smoot, Apostle of the Church. I know that there is a Priesthood Instruction Manuel from the 1930s that supports wealth redistribution schemes, and that the Self-Reliance courses today encourage individual responsibility and thrift. A relative provided a list of quotes, mostly by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses, under the title "Brigham or Bernie," implying that Church doctrine has always been progressive in nature. These are difficult questions, ones for which I do not have an answer, and from which I have not yet drawn conclusion. And this is not a comprehensive list. As I said, history is complicated.

My point is that I do not want to shy away from these topics. I refuse to believe that people who disagree with me are my de facto enemies. I would like to believe that we are all trying the best we can to make sense of this world and what happens in it, that we should be less quick to judge, be more patient with one another, and not be afraid to tackle the intellectually and morally relevant contentions between differing philosophies. I have felt that as I learn, that I should write, and that perhaps they may be of some good to my fellow man and to future generations. I have never before felt such an awareness of future generations, and my role as link between the previous generation before and the generations after, and how much influence can be had by writing it down. I feel constrained to figure out a system for myself of learning the history, the ideas, the theories, the doctrines, the policies, and then writing down my thoughts as I go. Perhaps the most important thing about this post is that I seem to be giving myself permission to be a little less formal with my blog posts, so that hopefully I can make more frequent postings. More quotes from my audiobook, which I do so faithfully on my Facebook page. 

The second book is my full review of the musical Hamilton. I will call the book, Hamilton: The Founding of the Diverse America. It is an intellectual battle that should be fought.

As I have said in another place, I have left many people perplexed by expressing that I find a certain spiritual fulfillment in the study of politics. 

QUOTE THOUGHT #2

Dr. Richard Price gave a sermon in 1789, later published as A Discourse on the Love of Our Country.

In his Reflection on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke described the sermon as "a very extraordinary miscellaneous sermon, in which there are some good moral and religious sentiments, and not ill expressed, mixed up with a sort of porridge of various political opinions and reflections: but the Revolution in France is the grand ingredient in the caldron." 

At one point in his sermon, Dr. Price says ""Those who dislike that mode of worship which is prescribed by public authority ought, if they can find no worship out of the Church which they approve, to set up a separate worship for themselves; and by doing this, and giving an example of a rational and manly worship, men of weight from their rank and literature may do the greatest service to society and the world." (pg. 18)

To this, Burke observed:

"It is somewhat remarkable that this reverend divine should be so earnest for setting up new churches, and so perfectly indifferent concerning the doctrine which may be taught in them. His zeal is of a curious character. It is not for the propagation of his own opinions, but of any opinions. It is not for the diffusion of truth, but for the spreading of contradiction. Let the noble teachers but dissent, it is no matter from whom or from what. This great point once secured, it is taken for granted their religion will be rational and manly. I doubt whether religion would reap all the benefits which the calculating divine computes from this "great company of great preachers." It would certainly be a valuable addition of nondescripts to the ample collection of known classes, genera, and species, which at present beautify the hortus siccus of Dissent. A sermon from a noble duke, or a noble marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold, would certainly increase and diversify the amusements of this town, which begins to grow satiated with the uniform round of its vapid dissipations. I should only stipulate that these new Mess-Johns in robes and coronets should keep some sort of bounds in the democratic and levelling principles which are expected from their titled pulpits. The new evangelists will, I dare say, disappoint the hopes that are conceived of them. They will not become, literally as well as figuratively, polemic divines,—nor be disposed so to drill their congregations, that they may, as in former blessed times, preach their doctrines to regiments of dragoons and corps of infantry and artillery. Such arrangements, however favorable to the cause of compulsory freedom, civil and religious, may not be equally conducive to the national tranquillity."

While they are clearly speaking about religion, I am nevertheless caught by the possible parallel between Price's call and appraisal of apparently any worship is good worship and helpful to the society, and the modern phrases "dissent is patriotic" or "protest is patriotic." It seems to me that the critique could be similar, that "it is taken for granted their [protest] will be rational and manly." 

Freedom of speech is good, but dissent and protest do not imbue patriotism. Not all speech, all reforms, or all causes are patriotic, and unpatriotic causes are not made patriotic be being the topic of a protest. Being able to express oneself is good, but it does not follow that everything is equally good, either moral, or equally prudent for the community at the time. It is true that Government ought not to control speech, but this does put additional responsibility on the heads of the individuals to use exercise that responsibility prudently.  

QUOTE THOUGHTS#1

"Those who cultivate the memory of our Revolution, and those who are attached to the Constitution of this kingdom, will take good care how they are involved with persons who, under the pretext of zeal towards the Revolution and Constitution, too frequently wander from their true principles, and are ready on every occasion to depart from the firm, but cautious and deliberate, spirit which produced the one and which presides in the other." (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790)

I understand that when Mr. Burke speaks of the "Revolution" and the "Constitution" in this quote, he is speaking about the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the English Constituion. And yet, without editing the quote, beyond admittedly removing it from its context, I cannot help but feel that it could used just as well by me to advise my fellow citizens regarding the American Revolution and the Constitution of the United States. 

LETTER TO A MISSIONARY#1, 7/7/2019

Dear ---,

I wanted to share an experience I had on 4th of July this year. 

First, the setting: We ourselves did not buy fireworks to light off ourselves, for two reasons: 1) they are expensive, and 2) we still don't quite trust our kids at close proximity to fireworks. Besides that, Child1 was up at Gram-E Fun Days, Child2 feel asleep as 7:30p after a holiday of hard playing, and Child3 is too young to understand. So, Wife and I shared a Martinelli outside on our front swing, getting glimpses of near-by fireworks, both ground-based and aerial, lighting off. I was carrying Child3, whose head was turning every which way trying to see what was making the popping sounds. For the record, I had gone in to try and wake up Child2 for fireworks (because he had been asking about fireworks for the last week, and we didn't want him to miss them if we would help): he opened his eyes, even sat up, but then laid back down and went to sleep, and didn't wake up again until mid-morning next day. 

Anyway, so I'm still thinking about the meaning of the experience, so bear with me. I hope I can explain it properly. I was standing with Child3, watching the fireworks, during which the lyrics "And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air" came to mind. Then I thought, whereas these 'rockets' and 'bombs' are actually fireworks, that the rockets and bombs would have been provided by cannonfire at the battle where these word were written (Fort McHenry, 1814). At that point, the words of Isaiah came to mind: "swords into plow-shares" (Isaiah 2:3-4; 2 Nephi 12:3-4)  -- the fireworks are in a sense reenacting the artillery of that battle, but this time in celebration and peace. I realize that fireworks are not exclusively an American invention or tradition, and the Fourth of July was not the first holiday for which fireworks were used (as far as I know); but this thought nevertheless stood out to me. I'll continue to ponder it, but would of course welcome your insight. 

In addition, at a time when the people of the United States struggle to identify common ground between the factions, I realized that the fireworks may be one of those traditions that we could look to in order to help bridge the gaps. I acknowledge that this may seem a shallow contribution to a purported solution to such a deep problem. May I answer that by sharing an experience from my mission: Looking back, there was a stretch right around my one-year mark where I was depressed and my self-esteem was very low. It was a struggle to go out and work. I knew that something had to change. During the Mother's Day phone call, Mom told me two things -- 1) discouragement is not a gift of the Spirit, and 2) when you struggle moving forward, it is important to look back where you've been to see how far the Lord has brought you. I remember taking two or three days' worth of personal study sessions dedicated to making a list of ten things I liked about myself. And, in my opinion, those first reasons I came up with were shallow but undeniable. For example, I like that I like music so much. I'm not embarrassed to use the words "shallow" or "simple" to describe those first items on my list. They nevertheless were the first steps towards healing from the low and forging a new sense of self-worth. Perhaps we could say that civility in the United States, the mood of her people, is low. And something so simple as fireworks may seem trivial, but it could also be tapping into a tradition, an established stitching in the design of the social fabric, where people can come together and have positive experiences together. Like the song, "Breakfast at Tiffany's," "and I said, 'well that's one thing we've got.'" Finding these things in common will be important for the future. 

"[...]The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. [...]"

(John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776)

I have since been burdened with a question: How do we make the Spirit of the 4th of July last all year long, in the tradition of the desire to devise how we might make the Spirit of Christmas last all year round, or the Spirit of Remembrance during Easter time? I have no definitive answer, although I did find that the Declaration of Independence on audiobook is only ten to eleven minutes, and the Constitution under an hour including amendments. Perhaps a more frequent reading of them would help us to remember them better. I am not sure what your mission rules are, but you might ask whether some limited study of these documents would be appropriate, since the documents have historically been praised by the Church as 'inspired documents.' Just as the Book of Mormon is not greater than the Bible but it nevertheless has particular relevance to the Restoration and to the member's testimony of the reality of Joseph Smith's calling and the truthfulness of the restored Gospel, the United States is not greater than other nations in the sense that being in the United States improves chances of salvation (of in this sense, God without a doubt is no respecter of persons), but there is no doubt that the United States holds a special heritage as the location furnishing the circumstances necessary to allow the Restoration to both take place and take root. 

I hope that you will absorb your surroundings -- the people of Arizona, those of the Native American reservations, the immigrants, their history, their culture, their values, their concerns. Knowing the people helps you know how to teach the Gospel.

"History is the record of Providence at work[...]--mysterious though God's ways often are for us." -- Russell Kirk, summarizing the belief of Edmund Burke, Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered, Ch.2

I love you lots. Think as deep as possible, use as few words as possible, but as many as necessary, as the Spirit whispers. Be careful in the heat.

Me


P.S. I also wanted to share the following story, told during the US Bicentennial. The first paragraph is an introduction I wrote when I posted this story on my Facebook:

We draw close again to the 4th of July, which will be the 243rd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, originally signed in 1776. While readers will note that this quote is about the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, not the Declaration, I think it is nevertheless just the sort of quote to kindle healthy patriotism in the heart's stove of gratitude, yet also provoke the quiet introspection that is sweet to the reasoning mind. The quote is lengthier, but worth I hope. Enjoy!

"That product [of the Convention of 1787] did not contain that portion of the Constitution that most lawyers have occasion to invoke with any frequency, the Bill of Rights, that was added, as you know, [in 1789] on the proposal of the First Congress as the first ten amendments. Although the understanding that something like that sort would be added was almost a condition of ratification by several of the States. Nonetheless, it is paradoxical, is it not, that what was an afterthought should have before the most celebrated feature of the Constitution. Because in the commemorations of the Bicentennial that have been going on and that will continue for a few more years, the specific provisions of the Constitution that are normally given the most extensive if not indeed the exclusive praise are not the bicamerality of the Legislature, or the separate election of the President, or the presidential veto power, or life tenure for judges, or the brief two-year term for members of the House, or the six-year term for the members of the Senate, or any of the other expertly crafted provisions that pertain to the structure, that is to say the constitution, of the government; but rather, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and so forth, provisions of the subsequently adopted Bill of Rights -- so completely does that portion of the document attract the affection and devotion of the people. But the fact is that if the virtue of the Constitution is to be assessed on the virtue of that feature, one must admit that the Constitution of the United States fares rather badly.

Take, for example, protections against governmental intrusion upon privacy. The United States Bill of Rights contains no more explicit protection than the following: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Compare that with the much more explicit and extensive guarantees of a modern constitution, which reads: "Citizens...are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator. Citizens...are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it. The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law."

Or consider freedom of religion. Our first amendment says no more than the following, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]"

Compare that the prominent modern constitution, which reads: "Citizens ... are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited."

Or freedom of speech and assembly, as to which the United States Constitution says only "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Compare that poultry guarantee with the modern constitution I have been describing, which says: "[Citizens] ... are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations[.] [Citizens] ... have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests[.] Persecution for criticism [of state bodies and public organisations] is prohibited. Persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account."

You will see the point that I have been driving towards, in fact I suspect you may have guessed it, when I tell you that the 'modern constitution' I have been describing is that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I would not trade our old Constitution for that in a million years. And if I had to pick a country other than my own in which I thought my individual rights would be most secure, I might well select England or Australia, both of which are among the significant holdouts in the universal movement toward Bills of Rights, they have none. The reason, of course, is that a Bill of Rights only has value if the other part of the Constitution, the part that really constitutes the organs of government, establishes a structure that is likely to preserve against the ineradicable human lust of power the liberties the Bill of Rights expresses. If the people value those liberties, the proper constitutional structure will likely result in their preservation even in the absence of a Bill of Rights, which is what Madison argued at the Convention. And where that structure does not exist, the mere recitation of the liberties will certainly not preserve them.

So while it is entirely appropriate for us Americans in this Bicentennial of our Founding as a nation to celebrate and decorate our wonderful Bill of Rights, we should realize that it represents the fruits, and not the root, of our Constitutional Tree. The rights that it expresses ... are the reasons that the other provisions exist. It is those other provisions, however, those hum-drum provisions, the structural mechanistic portions of the Constitution, that in James Madison's words, "pit ambition against ambition and make it impossible for any element of government to obtain unchecked power." It is those hum-drum provisions that convert the Bill of Rights from a paper assurance to a living guarantee." 

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, "Reflections on the Constitution," held as part of the 200th Anniversary Celebration of the Constitution, delivered at American University on November 20, 1988, lecture sponsored by the Kennedy Political Union, broadcasted as part of C-SPAN series, America & The Courts