Wednesday, March 28, 2012


Opposition to the current elite-controlled establishment have been using the word "meritocracy" to describe an alternative system of government.

I don't like nepotism or the "good 'o boys system" that we see today. But what about "meritocracy?". Who decides what has or who has merit?

I am not against merit. However, I was taught that our Constitutional representative government was intended to select representatives based on virtue and not merit. Only a "return to virtue" can save our country.

Alma 50:20 "Blessed art thou and thy children; and they shall be blessed, inasmuch as they shall keep my commandments they shall prosper in the land."

Imagine if all politicians needed a bishop's endorsement (according to 1Cor 5:11) to run for office?

However, as a friend pointed out, a bigger issue is "who selects our leaders": elite vs people. The issue of who selects our leaders is more important than by what criteria they are selected: merit vs virtue. The Book of Mormon teaches that the business of government should be conducted by the voice of the people because the majority usually tend to desire that which is right.

For many, virtue is merit. However, that gets back to the subject of this post. Who decides what is of merit? If we follow the "voice of the people" the Book of Mormon promises that the greater portion tend to desire that which is right.


Anonymous said...

Uh, virtue is a merit.

David B said...

I hope so. For me it is. But that goes back to the question. Who decides what is of "merit"