After a considerable hiatus, I break the silence to make a post that is both lengthy and easy for me...because I already produced it about a month ago. Someone asked that I do so. This is unscripted and only edited in two minor points. Were I to do it over again, no doubt I would tighten some propositions and clarify some loose ends.
From a thread at http://www.facebook.com/cboyack/posts/149834545064984, posing the question, “Are Latter-day Saints justified by God in participating in forms of civil disobedience? If so, under what circumstances?”
Copied directly from D&C 134:11: "We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded."
As President Monson has stated, "When the time for decision arrives, the time for preparation is past." While even CIVIL disobedience is not a course to lightly enter into, and we always want to proceed with as much precedent and direction as possible from the church, history and futurity both clearly establish "times of exigency" (which is more to say collapse of ethical protection than application of private situational ethics). (I often contend that while we should be so mentally prepared, such times are not upon us at present.)
The last half of the quoted verse is not the only portion providing for such, for we also perceive that laws must exist which WILL "protect the same." There is longstanding scriptural allowance for self- and family-defense to the point of shedding of blood, as--obviously--standing pat and pacific when so threatened will not leave one future opportunity of application for redress.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer, you’re right: most of human history has been a seemingly endless struggle against tyrants. (I’ve written at length about such scriptural features as the depiction of the evils of a bad government, with 1 Samuel 8; see Ether 6:22-23; compare Mosiah 11, leading to Mosiah’s repudiation of the monarchical system in chapter 29.) Section 134 is rife with reiteration of what sorts of laws God holds governments accountable to establish, in order to retain our own exact obedience. (“Divine mandate” governmental theory went out the window, rightly, centuries ago; social contract is far closer to the divine practice.) By the way, verse 5 actually reads for your statement as to insurrection: “sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly.”
My commentary has largely been in the context of present American politics and what may still be salvaged as a divinely inspired system of government. The problem outlined by most early Church leaders was the corrupt administrators of our constitutional government. In this respect, there is much midlevel legislation and perceived legislation still in flux, with plenty of wriggle room for vocal dissent. (Rabble-rousers might jump more immediately to stronger forms, when, as a lazy and apathetic, yet angry, people, we have hardly begun to express our disapproval by conventional routes.) For instance, I often attempt to point out to people that there are more public forum rights for religious expression on the books than we are often led to believe by those around us. The optimal form of dissent would be to find (D&C 98:10) ways to uphold good, honest, wise men in office, and send the rest packing.
What I can’t ever abide in interpretations COUNTER to the possibility of disapproval leading through stages of dissent to open disobedience, is the stance assumed by some—which is well opposed in Connor’s 12th A of F link above--that subjection to “the powers that be” means we would automatically incur God’s disapproval if we ever stepped out of line with any mandate from earthly government. (People unable to draw such lines offer delightful fodder for totalitarian regimes, and often end up assisting them in their deeds.) I've laughingly pointed out that many Latter-day Saints have, in their theological confusion, sought to undermine the basis for our own Revolution (or any revolution throughout all time against oppressive and/or bloodthirsty rulers), which was nonetheless approved by God.
It is naive for some to assume that obedience to God cannot require sacrifice from some other sector, that there will never be a day of irreconcilable parting between God and mammon. Still, I always put forward my own hesitance to declare the day of reckoning over matters, frighteningly eroded though our principled country may have become. Later on today, I’ll have access to President Benson’s actual teachings and counsel, but it’s sufficient at the moment to report Elder Oaks’ disbelief (http://lds.org/ensign/1994/10/our-strengths-can-become-our-downfall?lang=eng) that people could use him to justify tax evasion.
“When the wicked rule the people mourn” (D&C 98:9, an echo of Proverbs 29:2). This causes nearly daily tension between obedience to God and that to man. While we must honestly evaluate the extent to which we can turn the other cheek and bear patiently under suffering, particularly while attempting every legal recourse, and at which point it becomes unacceptable to do so any longer, there should be no question as to who claims the greater allegiance. I borrow from Acts 5:27-29, 40-42 (actually spoken by a corrupt, yet subservient and cringing, puppet government of another): “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. . . . And when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My prior honesty could get me in trouble, because I do believe in the theoretical/eventual possibility of disobedience (which must, to be proper, if effected, begin as civilly as permissible). When someone adversarily asked the wrong question about polygamy, “Can a Latter-day Saint be a true member of the Church and in good standing, who flatly denies the divinity and authenticity of the revelation on plural marriage?,” Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency replied coolly, “No one can be counted a true Latter-day Saint who flatly denies the divinity of a revelation accepted as divine by the Church.” (It’s not like we were just off our rocker for a few years, or conducted a failed social experiment. Any thinking Christian should realize it will have to exist in heaven if loved ones in unusual circumstances are to have just opportunity to be together, though plenty of questions remain as to the scope.) The important feature here would be type and timing of “obedience.” (I cite your minds forward to the 7th and 8th paragraphs.)
One will search in vain among President Benson’s words for counsel encouraging rebellion. In this instance, perusal for common justifications of tax evasion yields nothing more than some remarks about certain uses of our taxes being for unconstitutional purposes. He didn’t seem to think this incursion on the sacred constituted a right to revolt. Even prophets deserve the right to subtly vent their spleen, without unstable individuals inferring an improper course of action therefrom (such as with Mountain Meadows). To use a lame example, I seem to recall that in the movie Christmas Vacation, Cousin Eddie went all out and kidnaped Clark’s boss based off some complaints. Speak of inappropriate application of resources! I concur with John’s earlier statement about the use of extremes to justify (means of approach to) minor issues.
Truth be told, we are surrounded by unconstitutionalities. While this is a sobering call to action, President Benson only seemed to advocate greater participation in due processes, not intervention or secession. (One of his common phrases was to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.) My above link to Elder Oaks’ commentary on this very thing talks about those who use a few words to “support their political agenda or other personal purposes,” “ignor[ing] the contrary implications of other prophetic words, or even the clear example of the prophet’s own actions.” In President Benson’s own words, “The expression ‘follow the Brethren’ has a broader meaning than some would apply to it. It means not only to agree with the counsel given to the Church by the Brethren, but also to follow their example in appearance and deportment.” It appears to me, from their words and works, that the injunction to befriend constitutional law does not contain an automatic adjunct to defy unconstitutional law. Were it so, President Benson would have spent his final years in prison, leading out by example.
Joseph Smith was no stranger to the courts, but he was always hauled there on charges not of his own doing. Regarding such vexatious suits, Brigham reported, “I know for myself that Joseph Smith was the subject of forty-eight law-suits, and the most of them I witnessed with my own eyes; but not one action could ever be made to bear against him. No law or constitutional right did he ever violate. He was innocent and virtuous; he kept the law of his country, and lived above it; out of forty-eight law suits, (and I was with him in the most of them), not one charge could be substantiated against him. He was pure, just, and holy, as to the keeping of the law.” (Hedges and Holzapfel recently upped the number to “more than two hundred legal cases.”) In the final conclusion, his foes, who often acknowledged to one Saint or another that they knew he was guilty of nothing under the laws of the country, determined to reach him by ball and powder where the law couldn’t touch him.
In the same Conference address as he used the quotation given by Steven, President McKay was speaking mainly in the context of American liberties for “an ideal society” in a world such as East German communism. He spoke of standing for inalienable rights, not grumbling over inconveniences. After alluding to property rights as being subject to “consent of the people,” he made the curious statement that “the right of property consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all acquisitions, without control or diminution save by the laws of the land.” It was definitely no fiery call to arms. In the October 1967 Conference, President McKay quoted directly and at length from a diatribe specifically against ongoing “civil disobedience” in the land, wrapping up with a request that we remember to be “united as a country,” rather than inducing “contention and confusion.”
It’s well for us to take note of which liberties are being abridged, that we may press for repeal via acceptable methods, but it’s important to remember that we are more effective when assertively responsible than when simply standing on rights. The church’s default position is clearly that of obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law (with no obvious qualification inserted). Elder Quentin L. Cook said of our society, “Individual rights are demanded, but duties, responsibilities, and obligations are neglected.” The right to bear arms, for example, doesn’t confer a necessity to stockpile them. It is certainly hoped that there will be intelligent consideration of ethical usage thereof. The right exists to meet potential needs, not to create them. Indeed, America is still wonderful precisely because I couldn’t possibly have the time to select more than a few of the paths afforded me by my rights.
As for polygamy, while it’s true that plural marriages continued to be contracted after laws were passed, such laws were shockingly biased attempts to be retroactively punitive against men who sorrowed to be disenfranchised and refused to break up their families. This was no garden variety offense—if you will forgive the pun, still working in our overall discussion. Many in later years (i.e., post-Manifesto) ought to have been tried for their membership, for the disparity between law of God and law of man was once again removed. President Joseph F. Smith had to boldly remind members in Conference that, as the one who held the keys on this earth, he forbade any new plural marriages from being entered into, whatever skulking individuals might be performing.
On such matters as these, speaking of revelation adapted to circumstances, let’s consider Joseph Smith’s teaching: “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” By that token, it seems that of preeminent value for this matter, or any other, under consideration would be having God’s word at the moment. President Packer has remarked several times that there are fundamental beliefs built into who we are as Latter-day Saints, such that on many issues of the day we shouldn’t even have to ask what the Church’s position is. (He gives us credit for being attuned to the Spirit, the mind of Christ which brings unity in doctrine and principle. Once upon a time, I gaped at a young woman’s demands that I demonstrate from Church teachings that it is of first preference, and I wasn’t claiming by command or irremediable decree, that mothers be able to stay at home with their children—and, on another occasion, that she should tithe on a gift given her from a relative by check—simply thinking to myself, “Where is it NOT taught?”) Might it be that we are groping to find a doctrine for civil disobedience because there ISN’T one? An absence of any defined impetus is suggestive of the fact that something has not been commanded, and bringing fragments to bear is little more than wresting scripture. “Civil” disobedience, attractive at first sight, is in actuality striving to put a palatable adjective on an unsavory concept.
Latter-day Saints, as represented to us by our leaders over the years, have a well-deserved and needful reputation for being among the most law-abiding citizens that our country could possibly call upon. I’m not sure how far I could trust individuals who think to improve the law by flouting it, to protest, as it were, the direction a valiant steed is traveling by shooting it. It is also something like hammering away at a dam’s foundation in efforts to irrigate a field. That will introduce enough trouble to cause us to forget our original concern! If we want to tap into the vast, dormant American polity, we should stir the surface or open up designated channels. Extreme examples? It is also extreme to leap to disobedient action where so many other options are still available. President McKay taught that we, individually, each one of us, the people, make up “the vote” in America.
Civil disobedience, if nothing else, isn’t viable because it is too volatile. Here I shall rest my case on some of President Faust’s remarks in 1995 (in both THE SPIRIT OF AMERICA, 130-131 and IN THE STRENGTH OF THE LORD, 276): “Civil disobedience has become fashionable for a few with strongly held political agendas. Even when causes are meritorious, if civil disobedience were to be practiced by everyone with a cause our democracy would unravel and be destroyed. Civil disobedience is an abuse of political process in a democracy. . . . When we disagree with a law, rather than resort to civil disobedience or violence we are obliged to exercise our right to seek to repeal or change by peaceful and lawful means. There is a growing mistrust and distrust for all forms of government and authority. We claim the right to do what we want, but we are often slow to face up to our duty as citizens in a free land. Many of the rising generation have paid little price beyond that of paying taxes for the blessings we enjoy in this country.”
That would be my caveat: there must first be ample breakdown in all authority that our government ceases to exist as such, closer to D&C 134:6's “anarchy and terror.” One’s back must be to the wall, with no escape or possible way to maintain one’s character, with evil pervading all levels and commissioned with essentially every act. In my humble opinion, to override the peaceable default position, it must first become a crime to remain obedient to appointed authority. Disobedience shouldn’t just be a good way to make a point, but become a moral imperative “in the course of human events.” We are still so much closer to the democratic (republican, by whatever name to describe the unique) end of the model than the tyrannical that speaking of revolt as a mode of organizing a grassroots awakening to constitutional principle is like Elder Maxwell’s quip, “pulling up the daisies to see how the roots are doing!” We might be seeing “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” but it is as yet nothing comparable to former circumstances. King George had been unresponsive—aside from increasing pressure—to all attempts at rectifying the situation as it became increasingly “intolerable.” It is important to note that Rosa Parks actually had predecessors who successfully proved to the Supreme Court’s satisfaction that there were problems with the constitutionality of various state laws.
Using D&C 58:20-22, President Lee warned in October 1972 about some even affecting “weak and unwary among Church members,” “who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities. Others have tried to marshal civilians, without police authority, and to arm themselves to battle against possible dangers, little realizing that in so doing they themselves become the ones who, by obstructing the constituted authority, would become subject to arrest and imprisonment.”
So I would caution against “strain[ing] at a gnat, and swallow[ing] a camel” (Matthew 23:24, JST; see also James 2:10, as these verses have a delightful use of the concept of “law). This is the very passage which President Kimball used to denounce false applications of “budding apostates” between what they can supposedly glean from dead prophets and set against “present programs,” advancing to the point where they challenge the direction of Church leaders. Also from President Benson: “We sometimes look among our numbers to find one to whom we can point who agrees with us, so we can have company to justify our apostasy. We rationalize by saying that someday the Church doctrine will catch up with our way of thinking.” It’s a bizarre theological premise to think it laudable simply to do things of our own will which don’t actually “bring to pass much righteousness,” and which, though operating in a realm where nothing has been commanded, make havoc of that which already has been.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m very frustrated by current trends in the American political process. I think many of our elected officials forget both that they were elected and even in which nation they stand as representatives. If anyone has a tempestuous temperament, it’s me, yet I remain mindful of George Q. Cannon’s counsel that “it is not an evidence of true courage to be willing to rush into a fight. Sometimes the bravest of people shrink from any such action as this; when the time comes to fight, however, they are the bravest, and the slowest to yield.” (As Joseph warned, troublesome times will be sad enough when they come that we need not wish their hastening.) Still, I delight in pondering another of Penrose’s statements: “Back in London we had an old veteran of the army who was a member of the Church; he was ordained a priest, and used to go out and preach on the street. One Sunday he was preaching and a man came up and slapped him in the face. ‘Now,’ he cried, ‘if you are a Christian, turn the other cheek.’ So he turned it, but exclaimed, extending his clenched fist, ‘Hit again and down you go.’”
The light of Christ (human conscience) bears witness when fundamental laws universal to humanity are broken. Police beatings would be one such example. By contrast, mounds of pointless paperwork or spiraling costs seem trivial. By the way, Connor, Huebener is one of my heroes. My mother as much as told me after we watched a documentary on him that she would expect no less from how she raised me, after I expressed my admiration for his clear conscience in writing a final letter to his own mother. I have taken issue with the mentality which led many church members to become Nazi collaborators. Just as I did with Valkyrie’s characters’ recollection of the righteous few possibly saving entire cities, I took comfort from the Winter 2010 BYU Magazine’s refreshing article about German Saints who resisted as they were able, with one woman declaring, “I did enough things in contradiction to Hitler’s instructions that they should have shot me fifty times.” Speaking once of the Holocaust with a coworker of no inconsiderable moral ambivalence, I could get nothing more committal than his allegation that “no one knows how we might have acted.” I wanted to cry out, “Come on, man! At least say you HOPE you would have done something.” I’m certain that I would have had a short life expectancy in the Third Reich, as I could never stand by silently.
I’ve been known to use two groups of ancestors as examples of appropriate responses to political pressures, in different climates. Both found sanctuary in America and would marvel at what we consider oppressive by today’s standards. The first (http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=561), driven from Catholic Salzburg in 1731 for their beliefs, were given one and only one option: convert, or remain as they were but dispossessed of all property and forced into exile. Their Lutheran tenets—slightly simpering, I confess—about near-total submission to ruling powers had their origin in Luther’s disgustedly trying to rein in excesses (like the French Revolution in nature) from a reactionary peasant revolt. Yet even Luther wrote, “We recognize the authority, but we must rebuke our Pilates in their crime and self-confidence.” Many of the early Protestant leaders struck upon a great deal of truth in trying the virtue of the word before that of the sword, allowing speech to precede act, and charitable, positive act to precede outright rebellion.
My threefold forebear, Charles Lapierre (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Charles-Lapierre/123161644402212?v=info), and his father-in-law’s family (link within the preceding), were thorns in the side of the king of France, in a deservedly active state of rebellion. One must recall that their right of assembly was entirely revoked. Indeed, troops often fired on them when located, leaving dozens or hundreds at a time wounded and dying. Their right to bear arms was nonexistent, for the king knew innately that those times permitted the use of arms against him. One cannot say too much about the peril in which they and their families lived. But among the worst of all grievances, in that time or any other, was the proscription/prescription of religious belief. Brousson, a compatriot, wrote many times in many ways to the king, right up to the time of his execution, begging him to alter his laws in restoration of human liberties, also remonstrating that the Savior had asked His followers to assemble but the king of France disallowed it.
While I derive much that is positive from my forebears, I also learn from their mistakes. Being of entirely Confederate composition, let me just say there was an extraordinary lack of wisdom in their “nation” asserting its technical rights so assiduously in the face of other concerns. I bear some sympathy for their waiting until after losing yet another election, with little promise of having the ear of national leaders. They should serve as a haunting reminder that no sizeable political bloc can be entirely alienated. (No matter what paltry arguments to the contrary have been adduced, I feel that Joseph Smith gave the correct solution to the slavery problem, via completely calm, legal means.) States’ rights are fading as a relevant issue in our collective memory because of substantial federal encroachment.
There may presently be isolated and passing instances requiring a bold stance which is incidentally “disobedient,” primarily in a cultural setting, but I know of no prolonged requirement for it in the America of today. Inalienable rights must be at stake, not merely annoyed or even threatened. Thankfully, Jesus’ example was fairly direct in not overthrowing authority until His second coming, so that Pilate could find no fault in Him while false religious zeal despised His refusal to seize political power. (It’s wholly beyond my ability to describe here how the kingdom of God is filling the whole earth with constitutional principles, supported but not dominated by our church’s direction. Elder Oaks and others have shown how prevalent is adoption, at least in part, of our form of government.) Jesus was very clear on the payment of taxes. Regarding that incident, Muggeridge has stated, “The cleverness of that reply was of course that it didn't specify exactly how much was due to Caesar and how much to God. He left us to work that out, and it's possible, as I have discovered in the course of my long life, to whittle down what's due to Caesar in favour of what’s due to God.” At any rate, there’s no warrant for deliberately fomenting conflict where none exists and all purposes may still be served. I’ve already explained some of my belief with regard to true times of exigency, when time and circumstances would likely permit neither recourse to the law nor consultation with church authority.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried to anticipate some of the continuing objections posted after my comments. A careful reading will show a surprising amount of ground was covered. I don’t lack courage or moral conviction, or probable agreement with much of the disheartenment; I differ in conviction as to proposed methods. I’m just pleading that we channel all this energy for social change into constructive measures.
Without so much as commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the civil rights movement, it emerges that the Church has clearly enough demonstrated that strategy is not presently for us. (Many acts committed during the course of that movement would never stand approved.) I concede the possibility that’s because we have not dwelt in equivalent circumstances. We demean the valid past grievances of African-Americans in equating petty causes to theirs. It’s fatuous to make every matter of our daily lives a religious article to die for, when there are enough of a genuine stamp that might present the opportunity. May we have an awareness of general authority iteration that, though true martyrdom always involves a voluntary phase, it isn’t appropriately arrived at by choosing to go out of our way to take up a cross. I would challenge others to consider Will’s conditions, in conjunction, and be quite certain of their commitment. He also started to put his finger on the underlying motives for us. We may encourage the wrong sort of inspiration if embarking on revolt simply because we want it badly. Even that which might otherwise be noble or commendable sours when done at the wrong time (or over the wrong issue).
Examples continue to abound where freedom of religion or of speech were tangibly and permanently abrogated, reasonable answers to the posed question as to whether Latter-day Saints are EVER justified (in disobedience, “civil” or otherwise). I continue to stand on an insistence that criteria for living in “times of exigency” have not been met. Even so, one example given here, wherein Daniel was apprehended for praying when decree had been made against such worship, has a seeming counterexample (Mosiah 24:11-12), where those who prayed in their hearts instead were still found faith-filled and worthy of communication with the Lord and deliverance from bondage. Whether the difference was one of individual as opposed to disruptive group disobedience where the lines still hadn’t been broken with heaven, that Daniel was simply in a position to at least believe he could do so discreetly, a more immediate threat of guaranteed death where service to God could still be given without incurring it, or something else I haven’t considered, I don’t know, I’m just putting this on the table. Seeing as one of my Facebook likes is “Dare to be a Daniel” (closest thing to “Dare to be a Mormon”), I suppose my preferred reaction in that situation is apparent. President Kimball said, “Was there any question what he should do? He could save his life by abandoning his prayers to the Living God. What was he to do? A man of integrity could not fail. Daniel was the soul of integrity.” We do find that the entrapment of Daniel’s situation was set on account of his being so virtuous that only “concerning the law of his God” could they ever hope to find occasion against him. Similarly, the edict was made under a proposition so unalterable that the king himself regretted it. Right there, we see there was no avenue for repeal or redress, whereas perhaps those subjugated by Amulon felt no perjury in less preferred, but full, obedience to the law of God while giving basic adherence to something that might stand a chance of being altered. God provided the way of escape.
President Lee taught that what “comes from the authority of the Church” may “take patience and faith,” and “it may contradict your political views,” and so forth. Apostasy in premature pushes for resistance is but one step removed from criticizing our Church leaders, in that it pretends to praise their evident lack of lent support to one’s cause of choice, while persisting therein. Elder Cook has also taught, “Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the ‘meat’ the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the ‘milk.’ Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught. . . . We are looking beyond the mark when we elevate any one principle, no matter how worthwhile it may be, to a prominence that lessens our commitment to other equally important principles or when we take a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren.” To put an end to a specious belief in a sort of convenient “doublespeak” among the Brethren, as well as to lessen the severity of Steven’s suggested civil disobedience time frame for polygamy (40 years), I turn to the First Presidency’s “Address to the World,” adopted in the April 1907 Conference:
“Deceit and fraud in the perpetuation of any religion must end in failure. A system of religion, ethics, or philosophy, to attract and hold the attention of men, must be sincere in doctrine and honest in propaganda. That the Church employs deceptive methods; that she has one doctrine for the Priesthood and another for the people; that she teaches one set of principles to her members in Zion, and another to the world, is not true. Enlightened investigation is the very means through which the Church hopes to promote belief in her principles, and extend the beneficent influence of her institutions. . . .
“If patriotism and loyalty are qualities manifested in times of peace, by just, temperate, benevolent, industrious and virtuous living; in times of trial, by patience, resistance only by lawful means to real or fancied wrongs, and by final submission to the laws of the land, though involving distress and sorrow; and in time of war, by willingness to fight the battle of the nation,—then, unquestionably, are the ‘Mormon’ people patriotic and loyal.
“The only conduct seemingly inconsistent with our professions as loyal citizens, is that involved in our attitude during the controversies that have arisen respecting plural marriage. This practice was introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at Nauvoo, Illinois. The practice was continued in Utah, and published to the world as a doctrine of the Church in 1852. In the face of these facts, Brigham Young, whose position in the matter was well known, was twice appointed with the consent of the Senate, first by President Fillmore, and afterwards by President Pierce, to be the governor of this territory. It was not until 1862 that Congress enacted a law forbidding plural marriage. This law the Latter-day Saints conscientiously disregarded, in their observance of a principle sanctioned by their religion. Moreover, they believed the enactment to be violative of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Notwithstanding this attitude and conduct on the part of our people, no decision of the Supreme Court upon this question was secured until 1878, more than thirty years after the settlement of Utah; nor were determined efforts made to enforce the law until a further period of five or six years had elapsed. Surely this toleration, under which the practice of plural marriage became established, binds the United States and its people, if indeed they are not bound by considerations of mercy and wisdom, to the exercise of patience and charity in dealing with this question.”
I stress that we cannot afford to resort to stripping prophetic utterance out of context, for personal gain. The Joseph F. Smith quote which Steven used unwittingly omits its proper source, leading one to believe it is joined to remarks from the April 1917 Conference (a decade after the above excerpt). In fact, the source text is contained in the Journal of Discourses, and arose during the April 1882 Conference, at the very height of the days of polygamic persecution. One of the dangers inherent to using the Journal thus has been too broad an interpretation/application of features applicable only while the practice of polygamy was permissible, and many references to constitutionality flew directly at this issue. If someone wishes to seriously establish a sure foundation of doctrine on such a matter as this, they will need to produce equally fervent sentiments from outside of that time period, with obvious pertinence to present-day societal quagmires. In assessing whether it’s acceptable for Latter-day Saints to engage in the practice, one would need to see a legitimate quotation emphasizing that civil disobedience is a great idea. It would have to offset a mounting body of evidence in opposition. (I have sought to show the reader foundational reasons why defense of polygamy was a far more drastic “right” than nearly all forms of protest issued today. President Smith spoke strongly in that vein, in the same April 1917 Conference: “I want to tell you just once more, and would tell it before all the world if I could, that I believe with all my heart, that if any man ought to be damned in this world, it is the man that will abandon the mother of his children. We do not do it, we will not do it, the Lord Almighty helping us not to do it.”)
I’m quite accepting of former-day statements where they can be shown to harmonize with latter-day preaching and practice. But one must be persuasive, and perceptive, and bring all the light, truth, and evidence to bear that is possible within human reason. I’ll continue to utilize Joseph F. Smith’s ministry, to expand a consistent view. Now, if we turn the page in Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith, to 408, we find this sentiment from April 1912, long post-Manifesto, speaking of the Constitution and American liberties: “We cannot go back upon such principles as these. We may go back upon those who fail to execute the law as they should. We may be dissatisfied with the decision of judges and may desire to have them removed out of their places. But the law provides ways and means for all these things to be done under the constitution of our country, and it is better for us to abide the evils that we have than to fly to greater evils that we know not what the results will be.”
Elder Talmage bound it more tightly than I have often considered, in ARTICLES OF FAITH, 422-424. As he wasn’t even a member of the First Presidency, I’m not suggesting all ramifications of his text are terribly binding, or more than informative, in nature, but what he says certainly joins a growing motif of uniform opposition to civil disobedience in our writ. I promise that I have not knowingly overlooked unfavorable quotations; I simply haven’t recalled or encountered them. I’m not on here to “please” myself or others, only to make a solid start at getting to the bottom of the truth.
From Elder Talmage, after referring to the passage about “befriending” constitutional law: “A question has many times been asked of the Church and of its individual members, to this effect: In the case of a conflict between the requirements made by the revealed word of God, and those imposed by the secular law, which of these authorities would the members of the Church be bound to obey? In answer, the words of Christ may be applied—it is the duty of the people to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. . . . In this day of comparative enlightenment and freedom there is small cause for expecting any direct interference with the rights of private worship and individual devotion; in all civilized nations the people are accorded the right to pray, and this right is assured by what may be properly called a common law of humankind. . . . Pending the overruling by Providence in favor of religious liberty, it is the duty of saints to submit themselves to the laws of their country. Nevertheless, they should use every proper method, as citizens or subjects of their several governments, to secure for themselves and for all men the boon of freedom in religious service. It is not required of them to suffer without protest imposition by lawless persecutors, or through the operation of unjust laws; but their protests should be offered in legal and proper order. The saints have practically demonstrated their acceptance of the doctrine that it is better to suffer evil than to do wrong by purely human opposition to unjust authority. And if by thus submitting themselves to the laws of the land, in the event of such laws being unjust and subversive of human freedom, the people be prevented from doing the work appointed them of God, they are not to be held accountable for the failure to act under the higher law. The word of the Lord has defined the position and duty of the people in such a contingency: [D&C 124:49, 50.]”
Next to nothing is truly “commanded” in life, per se, so in arriving at decisions we must evaluate all available counsel from God, study it out in our mind and heart, and try not to counsel Him. Plainly put, Church leadership would look with a very scrutinizing, steady eye, thinking long and hard, before putting anyone in a position of trust who had deliberately built a criminal record. If I have a “wait and see” attitude on civil disobedience, it is because we have years more of decline before I feel we’d see an alteration in affairs requiring such drastic measures. Are we making our lives of maximum benefit to humanity? Are we ever blinded to our true potential in a rage to dismantle a hated structure? To deluge society with acts which, as President Faust illustrated, would overwhelm our nation if everyone adopted such a form of dissent, is an attitude of entitlement. What’s to stop anyone and everyone from splintering the Constitution to tiny threads by pursuing their own desires in like manner? I think it detracts from the intended message, prattling, “I reject democratic discourse. I’m not budging until things are done my way.” We ought to be steadfast and immovable in good works and righteousness, and when others push upon us, not in a willful, bristling, obstructive way. I’m sorry, but in reviewing the lessons of history, I find that, even where rather immoral and at times downright wicked, our leadership so far have been no more than wannabe tyrants. Talk to me again in ten years and that might be a different story.
President Packer’s noted a growing tendency to elevate individual rights over the benefit of the community. Robert Bork wrote, “The unqualified language of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, reflected in the continual expansion of individual rights by the judiciary, feed our national obsession about ‘rights.’ That obsession, as Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon has pointed out, impoverishes cultural, political, and judicial discourse. There is no more sterile form of ‘argument’ than the bald assertion of rights.” I’ve similarly observed many times, in theological disagreement, that the buzzword “agency” tends to be among the last feeble cries of an otherwise lost dissertation. There’s a powerful appeal to appealing to the powerful doctrine. Yes, we know you can do as you please. We want to know why you passionately believe your rights should be so employed, and why this should sway us toward the same end.
The Spirit as an overruler of other considerations may be a highly valid card to play, but it’s as poor a persuasive argument—in standalone capacity—as it is a good rule for life (where the immature, inexperienced, and deluded don’t mistake its impressions, for we know what Joseph Smith said about the danger of those who only think they’re acting under its influence). It is especially deficient in hypothetical theorization. What I want to know is whether members are getting genuine promptings of such fierceness to set themselves against established, settled procedure in our church’s interaction with this, the best of all human governments. If so, they’re receiving more than I am, in a field beyond what has been taught. Of course Heavenly Father could command anything, yet there’s an eagerness for authorization of a predetermined course here which gives me serious pause.
1 Nephi 10:20 IS highly applicable! I once had occasion to summarize it thus: “A common misconception has it that we may push the line and the Holy Ghost will warn us before we’ve gone too far. An official definition of sin is to act contrary to one’s knowledge. Therefore, as Latter-day Saints, how can we expect ministrations of the Spirit if we consciously enter a questionable situation? Instead, truth be told, reception of the Holy Ghost and heeding its warnings will remove all desire to ever go near there. If we allow carnal considerations to override our indoctrination in correct principles, there will likely not be confirmation from the Spirit of any sort.” If an unexpected suggestion is required, the Spirit will offer it to the mind opened and prepared by obedience. Much more recently, I wrote, “We must not rush headlong down our own paths. Sometimes we are prone to such reliance on the advance warning system of the Holy Ghost that we act as though we are daring Heavenly Father to stop us. . . . Do we realize that . . . God’s respect for our agency is so great that we become our own judges and condemners? As ‘subjects to follow after [our] own will,’ we are enticed on one hand by the devil and on the other by the Spirit. To which side will we list, or yield? It is the Holy Ghost’s office to bear record of truth, not to enforce it. Ironically, while it is the Holy Ghost which gives us authority to utter the will of heaven, we ‘must exercise [our] agency to authorize the Spirit to teach [us].’” (Extensive documentary endnotes available upon request.)
No comments:
Post a Comment