As mentioned in the introduction, I am, by training, a law professor. I emphasize that not to impress you, but to warn you. Law professors have a reputation, somewhat deserved, of being (1) long-winded and (2) boring. One of my wife’s favorite stories is about the law professor who dreamed he was teaching his class, and when he woke up, he was. So, now you know what to expect.
Fortunately, as also mentioned in the introduction, I am a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at BYU and it is from that vantage point that I want to speak with you today. I don’t know if this makes me any less boring, but we can hope.
As outlined in a portion of its mission statement, “[The] Wheatley Institute engages students, scholars, thought leaders, and the public in research-supported work that fortifies the core institutions of the family, religion, and constitutional government.” [1] The focus is on those three institutions.
As the mission statement makes clear, the goal is not just to further abstract understanding of these three institutions, but to fortify them. In that regard, the institute is not viewpoint neutral. Its work rests on the assumption that these three institutions are good, and that they provide benefits to both individuals and society.
Critical to the nature of Wheatley’s work are the beliefs that underlie that assumption. Those beliefs are found in the first two sentences of the mission statement. In full, the mission statement reads:
As disciples of Jesus Christ, we believe that agency, accountability, charity, morality, and spiritual strength are essential for people to thrive.
As students of history and humanity, we believe such personal virtues can be transformed into civic virtue in the presence of trusted and trustworthy institutions of civil society and the rule of law.
Accordingly, Wheatley Institute engages students, scholars, thought leaders, and the public in research-supported work that fortifies the core institutions of the family, religion, and constitutional government. [2]
We could profitably spend considerable time exploring the underlying beliefs themselves, discussing what principles and virtues are essential for people to thrive and how those personal virtues are transformed into civic virtue through the three institutions at the heart of Wheatley’s work. But the main point I wish to emphasize in this setting is that we at Wheatley adhere to these underlying beliefs because we are “disciples of Jesus Christ” and “students of history and humanity.” [3] We aspire to be disciples of Christ whose scholarship fortifies the family, religion, and constitutional government.
My hope is that each of you would aspire to become disciple-scholars, dedicated to becoming both a consecrated disciple of Jesus Christ and a person with a deep understanding of the truths found in your chosen area of study. I hope my remarks today—which will focus on constitutional government— will provide you with some ideas about how to be a disciple-scholar in your area of study and also some motivation to engage in that endeavor.
Disciples of Jesus Christ pay particular attention to special witnesses of Jesus Christ, those 15 individuals who are prophets, seers, and revelators. [4] Disciple-scholars should do the same. Both the scriptures and the teachings of living prophets should be a primary source of learning for disciple-scholars regardless of the area of study.
That is the case for the Wheatley Institute. The special witnesses of Christ have revealed much about the family, religion, and even constitutional government. Indeed, as the current version of the Wheatley Institute mission statement was being developed and finalized, President Dallin H. Oaks gave addresses in three successive general conferences that discussed, (1) “Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” [5] (2) “The Need for a Church,” [6] and (3) the role of families in Heavenly Father’s plan: [7] constitutional government, religion, and the family. These three talks—as well as other related teachings of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles—provide some validation for the three-prong focus of the Wheatley Institute. More importantly, they provide guidance in each of those three areas.
I am not the first at Wheatley to address President Oaks’s April 2021 general conference talk on the Constitution. Just last year, Justin Collings, now BYU’s academic vice president and an affiliate of the Wheatley Institute, gave a wonderful devotional address at BYU-Hawaii on President Oaks’s talk. [8] I commend it to you. It is an excellent example of how a disciple-scholar builds off the teachings and witness of an Apostle to provide new insights about a topic.
Today, I would like to share some additional insights I have learned about constitutional government from a study of President Oaks’s talk. While there is some overlap with Vice President Collings’s remarks, my focus is as much on the process by which disciple-scholars discover and teach truth as on the specific points in President Oaks’s talk.
I note and emphasize first the perspective from which President Oaks proceeded in that talk. He stated that he spoke from decades of experience studying the Constitution in various roles over the years, including as a law clerk to the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, a law professor, and a justice on the Utah State Supreme Court. That is an extremely expansive background for understanding the Constitution; one which few constitutional law experts can match. That extensive experience informed, to a degree, what President Oaks taught about the Constitution.
For example, President Oaks identified and briefly described five key principles that underlie the U.S. Constitution.
- Popular sovereignty: the concept that the people are the ultimate source of governmental power.
- Federalism: “the division of delegated power between the nation and its subsidiary states.”
- Separation of powers: the distribution of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the national government.
- A Bill of Rights: early amendments to the Constitution that provide “vital guarantees of individual rights and specific limits on government authority,” and
- The Rule of Law: the concept that all persons are equal before the law so that we are governed by laws and not the arbitrary will of individuals. [9]
This succinct listing of key principles of the Constitution represents a well-refined, yet deep, distillation of constitutional principles and structures resulting from the thorough study and scholarship that President Oaks has done over several decades. [10] His summary of these five principles could be the basis of weeks of intensive study and learning. In fact, this summer, Wheatley held a week-long seminar for Latter-day Saint law students from throughout the country that focused on the five principles in President Oaks’s talk.
But President Oaks’s general conference talk was not an in-depth analysis of the secular knowledge he has gained over the decades. That was not his main intent, nor his primary perspective. After noting his decades of experience with constitutional law in secular roles, President Oaks explained the main perspective from which he was proceeding and the main object of that focus.
“Most important,” he said, “I speak from 37 years as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, responsible to study the meaning of the divinely inspired United States Constitution to the work of His restored Church.” [11] That is truly a unique perspective, which, combined with his extensive legal background, I dare say no one can match. Because he is operating from that unique perspective, President Oaks provides some insights beyond those that secular knowledge can produce, some of which are applicable to both the study of the Constitution and our development as disciples of Jesus Christ.
For example, after noting the scriptural truth that God Himself established the US Constitution through wise men He raised up for that very purpose, [12] President Oaks identified different ways in which divine inspiration operated in the development and adoption of the five key constitutional principles he discussed. He indicated that for some of the individual rights specifically protected in the Constitution, inspiration came in the form of new ideas and concepts. “There was,” President Oaks said, “divine inspiration in the original provision that there should be no religious test for public office.” [13] By contrast, President Oaks noted, the idea of “a Bill of Rights was not [a] new” [14] concept. It had its beginnings centuries before with the Magna Carta. “Here,” President Oaks observed, “the inspiration was in the practical implementation of principles pioneered in England.” [15] Thus, inspiration came both as new concepts and as new ways to implement prior practices.
For some provisions, the inspiration came in the form of a novel twist on a prior practice that more fully achieved the purpose of that practice. Speaking of the principle of separation of powers, President Oaks observed that the English had “pioneered the separation of legislative and executive authority” [16] over a century before the US Constitution was adopted. “The inspiration in the American convention,” he said, “was to delegate independent executive, legislative, and judicial powers so these three branches could exercise checks upon one another.” [17]
President Oaks’s insights not only enhance our understanding of the different forms of divine inspiration that affected the framing of the Constitution, they also highlight different ways in which God provides inspiration to guide us and the Church in our other endeavors.
For example, in our daily lives, inspiration sometimes comes in the form of new concepts. Nephi was inspired to build a ship not “after the manner which was learned by men,” but “after the manner which the Lord had shown” him. [18]
At other times, inspiration comes in implementing or reemphasizing established principles in new settings. The family proclamation applied long-established eternal principles to our current situation, as President Oaks explained in his most recent conference address. [19]
And sometimes inspiration comes in the form of a novel twist on a concept, which allows us to better achieve the full purpose of a prior practice. Application of the somewhat novel concept of ministering helps members achieve, in a higher and holier way, the full purposes of home and visiting teaching.
The teachings of apostolic disciples of Christ can therefore provide lessons that simultaneously enhance both the scholarship and the discipleship of disciple-scholars.
President Oaks’s unique apostolic perspective allowed him not just to identify ways in which inspiration operated in the establishment of the Constitution, but also to answer the very core question: “What was God’s purpose in establishing the United States Constitution?” [20]
Prior to studying President Oaks’s talk, I thought the best answer to that question was found in the insight shared by former BYU president Rex E. Lee, himself a noted constitutional scholar. [21] Citing past presidents of the Church, [22] President Lee asserted: “The Restoration itself probably could not have survived if 200 years ago [the Constitution had not been ratified]. The events of the Restoration all occurred in this country. The message that it brought back to the world was highly controversial and provocative. Even with such protections as separation of powers and federalism and the explicit religion guarantees of the First Amendment, our early survival was . . . miraculous . . . . Without those protections, we likely would not have survived at all.” [23]
Providing a legal environment where the gospel and the Church could be restored and survive would, by itself, seem to justify God’s involvement in the establishment of the Constitution.
Yet, President Oaks gave an additional answer which seems as important as that provided by President Lee. Using his apostolic perspective, President Oaks went back to first principles, not the first principles of the framers of the Constitution in the late eighteenth century, but those of the Author of the plan of salvation before the earth was formed. “We see [God’s purpose in establishing the Constitution],” President Oaks observed “in the doctrine of moral agency,” [24] one of the most fundamental elements of God’s plan. As President Oaks observed, for God’s plan to work, He gave “His children . . . the power to decide and to act. The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency,” President Oaks continued, “is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices” so that “every man [or woman] may be accountable for [their] own sins in the day of judgment.” [25]
Thus, viewed in the light of the plan of salvation, the best forms of government create a condition in which its citizens have maximum freedom to act according to their individual choices and to be accountable for those actions. Many provisions of the United States Constitution were designed to do exactly that. [26] Indeed, for many of the eighteenth-century framers, preventing tyranny that would interfere with that kind of liberty was one of the primary purposes of constitutional government. [27]
Given that fundamental purpose of the Constitution and the importance of moral agency in God’s plan, it is not surprising that the five principles of constitutionalism, which President Oaks identified as divinely inspired, all have features that enhance the freedom of citizens to use their moral agency while still living in an orderly system where people are accountable for their own choices.
The provisions in the Bill of Rights that prevent government [28] from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion are classic examples. Both allow individuals to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences: a critical freedom that is essential for the plan of salvation to operate.
Even the structural provisions that do not, on their face, address individual liberties have features that expand the scope of liberty and accountability. [29] For example, one of the benefits of the principle of federalism is that it allows states to adopt different public policy norms, thereby increasing the number of choices individuals have concerning significant issues. People who oppose particular policies in one state can search for a more compatible statewide environment, thereby giving them what Professor Michael McConnell calls “liberty through mobility.” [30]
Similarly, the concept of popular sovereignty, which gives the people a voice in governmental decisions, allows citizens who disagree with particular policies the right to engage in the political process to change the law. While there is no guarantee that such efforts will succeed, the structure of the Constitution gives people an opportunity to act, rather than being acted upon by some unresponsive, and uncontrollable, sovereign. This makes individuals more responsible and more accountable for governmental decisions. [31]
Thus, the US Constitution not only helped create a legal environment in which the gospel could be restored in the early nineteenth century, as President Lee observed, but also it helped create a condition of liberty that allowed the entire plan of salvation to operate in our present situation. That certainly would explain why God would raise up individuals who would be inspired to create that kind of constitution.
This does not mean that the US Constitution was perfect, or that every one of its provisions is inspired. Some of its original provisions were clearly flawed.[32] But President Oaks’s teaching concerning the main purpose of the Constitution provides critical guidance about how to evaluate the current status of, and proposed changes to, our government. [33]
Like the teachings of special witnesses of Christ, the research of disciple-scholars usually includes what President Boyd K. Packer called a “therefore, what?”: [34] an invitation, direction, or suggestion to do something. That is certainly the case with President Oaks’s talk. “Our belief in divine inspiration,” he said, “gives Latter-day Saints a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and principles of constitutionalism.” [35] He then gives an extensive list of things we can and should do. Let me briefly highlight just four.
The first is President Oaks’s admonition that we “learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution.” [36] We should become familiar enough with the principles President Oaks highlighted to be able to evaluate the desirability of various polices, both legislative and constitutional, which are proposed.
I highly recommend that you begin that endeavor by reading, or rereading, President Oaks’s April 2021 general conference talk. You might also profit from reviewing materials posted on the constitutional government portion of the Wheatley website, especially the readings and questions that provided the foundation for the weeklong discussion of those principles [37] in the Latter-day Saint law student seminar I mentioned earlier. [38]
Second, I emphasize President Oaks’s admonition “that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws.” [39] While it may seem that the terms civilly and peacefully are redundant, I believe they point to two related, but distinct, practices.
To act civilly requires that we develop what the framers called civic or public virtue—a willingness to sacrifice our own personal interest for the common good. [40] A system in which the people are sovereign requires that people act in this unselfish way, [41] that they are willing to give up some things, including a portion of their ego, in order to achieve greater goals. To act civilly—with civic virtue—we must, among other things, be willing to follow President Oak’s instruction that “on contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.” [42]
To act peacefully requires more than just avoiding physical or verbal violence; though, that is a necessary first step. To act peacefully, we must take seriously President Nelson’s repeated plea [43]—echoed by President Oaks in this most recent general conference [44]—that we be peacemakers. In today’s hyper-polarized and hyper-politicized environment, there are few, if any, things we could do to better uphold and defend the Constitution than to be peacemakers. Indeed, we who believe not only in a divinely inspired Constitution, but also in the divine nature and potential of every person, should be leaders in this endeavor. President Nelson boldly charged us “Brothers and sisters, we can literally change the world—one person and one interaction at a time. How? By modeling how to manage honest differences of opinion with mutual respect and dignified dialogue.” [45] “As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to be examples of how to interact with others—especially when we have differences of opinion.” [46]
Third, I emphasize President Oaks’s admonition that we “trust in the Lord and be positive about this nation’s future.” [47] In today’s polarized society it is easy to feel that a political loss at any level is an existential crisis. While elections do have consequences, the divinely inspired Constitution provides checks on excesses, as well as structures for managing differences of opinion. [48] In the long run, the Constitution cannot save us from ourselves. But it is more robust than most of us think. Like disciple-scholars in any field, those who study constitutional government in the light of gospel truths become more, not less, positive about the future.
Finally, President Oaks links the admonition that we be positive about the future with his direction that we “trust in the Lord.” [49] One reason disciple-scholars are positive about the future is that they understand they can trust the Lord, who perfectly knows the future.
In the long run, if we are to be true disciple-scholars, we must trust the Lord in all things, [50] because that is what is ultimately required of all true disciples. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell put it, while we talk of disciple-scholars “in the end all hyphenated words come off. We are finally disciples . . . of Christ.” [51] Our success in any endeavor in any field will ultimately depend on that discipleship.
I testify that Jesus Christ lives. We can, and we must, truth Him in all things. As we do so, our scholarship and discipleship will deepen and strengthen and will be of more benefit to others. May we each find and embrace that truth is my prayer in the holy name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Notes
[1] Wheatley Institute. “Who We Are,” n.d. Who We Are - BYU Wheatley Institute.
[2] “Who We Are.”
[3] “Who We Are.”
[4] See Doctrine and Covenants 107:23.
[5] See Dallin H. Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Liahona, May 2021, 105–108, Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution - President Dallin H. Oaks.
[6] See Dallin H. Oaks, “The Need for a Church,” Liahona, November 2021, 24–26, The Need for a Church - President Dallin H. Oaks.
[7] See Dallin H. Oaks, “Divine Love in the Father’s Plan,” Liahona, May 2022, 101–104, Divine Love in the Father’s Plan - President Dallin H. Oaks.
[8] See Justin Collings, “Inspired Constitutional Principles for an International Church,” BYU-Hawaii Speeches, May 30, 2023, Inspired Constitutional Principles for an International Church - BYU-Hawaii.
[9] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[10] For a sense of President Oaks’s secular scholarship on constitutional issues see Dallin H. Oaks, “Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure,” The University of Chicago Law Review 37, no. 4 (1970): 665–757, Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure - Dallin H. Oaks.; Dallin H. Oaks, “Rights and Responsibilities,” Mercer Law Review, 1984, Rights and Responsibilities by Justice Dallin H. Oaks*; Dallin H. Oaks, “Habeas Corpus in the States: 1776-1865,” University of Chicago Law Review 32, no. 2 (1965), Habeas Corpus in the States: 1776-1865; Dallin H. Oaks, “Legal History in the High Court—Habeas Corpus,” Michigan Law Review 64, no. 3 (1962): 451–72, Legal History in the High Court--Habeas Corpus - Dallin H. Oaks.
[11] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[12] See Doctrine and Covenants 101:77–80.
[13] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[14] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[15] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[16] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[17] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[18] 1 Nephi 18:2.
[19] “Recent examples of reemphases have also been needed because of current circumstances faced by Latter-day Saints or the Church. These include the proclamation on the family, issued by President Gordon B. Hinckley a generation ago.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Following Christ,” Liahona, November 2024, Following Christ - President Dallin H. Oaks.)
[20] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[21] President Lee was one of the few people who could match President Oaks’s professional and academic experience in constitutional law. Like President Oaks, President Lee also served as a law clerk to a Supreme Court justice and, for many years, was a law professor specializing in constitutional law. While he was not a state supreme court justice like President Oaks, President Lee was the solicitor general of the United States— the principal officer representing the federal government at the U.S. Supreme Court, where he argued 59 cases in front of the justices of that court.
[22] “President Wilford Woodruff observed that the United States was the only place on earth where the Lord could have established his church and kingdom. And in more recent times, President David O. McKay in the dedicatory prayer for the Los Angeles Temple expressed gratitude for the Constitution and for the fact that it made the Restoration possible.” (Rex E. Lee, “The Constitution and the Restoration,” BYU Speeches, January 15, 1991,The Constitution and the Restoration - Rex E. Lee.) President Ezra Taft Benson similarly observed: “Only in this foreordained land, under its God-inspired Constitution and resulting environment of freedom, was it possible to have established the restored church.” Ezra Taft Benson, “Our Divine Constitution,” Ensign, November 1987, 4–7, Our Divine Constitution - President Ezra Taft Benson.
[23] Rex E. Lee, “The Constitution and the Restoration,” BYU Speeches, January 15, 1991, The Constitution and the Restoration -- Rex E. Lee.; President Oaks agreed with President Lee at a general level noting, “Without a Bill of Rights, America could not have served as the host nation for the Restoration of the gospel.” Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[24] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[25] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[26] Among the stated purposes of the Constitution was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” (U.S. Constitution, Preamble.)
[27] “It is commonplace to observe that the framers, in designing the Constitution, were strongly motivated by a fear of tyranny, particularly a majority tyranny that would likely develop in a democratic system.” (Terri Peretti, “A Normative Appraisal of Social Scientific Knowledge Regarding Judicial Independence,” 2003, A Normative Appraisal of Social Scientific Knowledge Regarding Judicial Independence.) Speaking of the framers, Marci Hamilton has observed, “There was broad consensus on the end to be avoided—tyranny from any social center of power. The Framers typically focused on the choice of the best means to avoid tyranny.” (Marci A. Hamilton, “Power, the Establishment Clause and Vouchers,” Connecticut Law Review 31, no. 807 (1999): 824–28.)
[28] In its original form, these First Amendment provisions applied only to the national government, being limitations on “Congress.” Following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, these provisions came to be limitations on state governments as well.
[29] As Justin Collings noted, “the structural constitutional protections . . . popular sovereignty, the separation of powers, and federalism—do at least as much to protect human freedom as do declarations of human rights. . . . If you wish to preserve and promote human agency—including religious freedom—you will need to pay close attention to constitutional structures.” (Collings, “Inspired Constitutional Principles for an International Church.”)
[30] Michael W. McConnell, “Federalism: Evaluating the Founders’ Design” (Reviewing Federalism: The Founders’ Design by Raoul Berger),” Chicago Unbound, 1987, Federalism: Evaluating the Founders' Design (reviewing Federalism: The Founders' Design by Raoul Berger) - Michael W. McConnell.
[31] Features of the other two principles—the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers—also contribute to an environment of liberty and accountability. For a good explanation of how the Rule of Law can promote moral agency and accountability, see Noel B. Reynolds, “The Doctrine of An Inspired Constitution,” BYU Studies Quarterly, 1976. As for separation of powers, James Madison famously noted that “the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” and, quoting Montesquieu, that “when the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body . . . there can be no liberty.” (James Madison, Federalist No. 47, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Penguin Classics, 1961), 301.)
[32] The provisions that prohibited the abolition of slavery for a time, US Constitution Article I Section 9 and Article V, provide an obvious example, as does the original constitution’s failure to include Blacks, women, and Native Americans as part of the sovereign people.
[33] Likewise, the fact that these features are found in the US Constitution does not mean that it is the only governmental system under which the plan of salvation can operate. But, again, an understanding of the divinely inspired purpose and principles of the constitution provides a guide for those seeking to create or improve that kind of liberty-enhancing environment.
[34] President Jeffrey R. Holland noted that President Packer would often ask, “therefore what” at the end of a presentation or exhortation. (“Therefore, What?,” Teaching Seminary Preservice Readings: Religion 370, 471, and 475, Therefore, What? - Elder Jeffrey R. Holland.)
[35] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[36] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[37] I note that in his April 2021 general conference talk, President Oaks asserted his belief that “the United States Constitution contains at least five divinely inspired principles.” He also observed that “these five are similar but not identical to those suggested in J. Reuben Clark Jr., Stand Fast by Our Constitution (1973), 7; Ezra Taft Benson, “Our Divine Constitution,” Ensign, Nov. 1987, 4–7; and Ezra Taft Benson, “The Constitution—A Glorious Standard,” Ensign, Sept. 1987, 6–11.” (Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Footnote 4.) In addition, he cited Noel B. Reynolds, “The Doctrine of an Inspired Constitution,” in By the Hands of Wise Men, 1–28.
[38] “U.S. Constitution Self-Study Materials,” Wheatley Institute, n.d., U.S. Constitution Self-Study Materials.
[39] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[40] As President Oaks explained in one of his scholarly articles: “The citizens who founded this nation understood the relationship between self-government and citizen responsibilities. Their writings are replete with references to public or civic virtue—meaning the willingness of individual citizens to sacrifice their private interests for the well-being of the nation. The founders obviously considered this virtue a prerequisite to the maintenance of freedom and self-government.” (Oaks, “Rights and Responsibilities.”)
[41] As historian Gordon S. Wood observed, “In a monarchy each man's desire to do what was right in his own eyes could be restrained by fear or force. In a republic, however, each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole. This willingness of the individual to sacrifice his private interests for the good of the community—such patriotism or love of country—the eighteenth century termed ‘public virtue.’” (Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, University of North Carolina Press, 1998, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787.)
[42] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[43] Russell M. Nelson, “Peacemakers Needed,” Liahona, May 2023, 98, Peacemakers Needed - President Russell M. Nelson.
[44] Dallin H. Oaks, “Following Christ,” Liahona, November 2024, Following Christ - President Dallin H. Oaks.
[45] Nelson, “Peacemakers Needed.”
[46] Nelson, “Peacemakers Needed.”
[47] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[48] In his book American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified our Nation and Could Again, Yuval Levin powerfully demonstrates how the Constitution was designed to facilitate constructive disagreement, which through the constitutional system produces better and more durable policy decisions. (Yuval Levin, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again (Hachette UK, 2024).)
[49] Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
[50] See Proverbs 3:5–6.
[51] Neal A. Maxwell, “Disciple Scholars,” n.d., Disciple–Scholars - Neal A. Maxwell.