God’s Will and Man’s Law

The following lost LDS Classic, God’s Will and Man’s Law, is an article I came across recently in my readings of older church writings. Though the author for the article is unknown, the editor of the Deseret News during this era was David O. Calder. Whether he wrote it is uncertain, but it certainly was something that he, as editor, would have had to approve for print and which, given the willingness of church leaders and members to go into hiding from federal agents or even to go to prison for refusing to give up the practice of polygamy even though it was illegal, seems to accurately represent the era’s accepted ideas about the limits of government authority and the supremacy of God’s law. It certainly accords with the teachings of President John Taylor on the same issue from but a few years before. The article itself is in response to an article published by the Herald, which was the official newspaper of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, now know as the Community of Christ (referred to as Josephites in the article), that asserted the supremacy of government laws in dictating the actions that citizens were to take.

While you can see some of the early animosity between the Latter-day Saints and the Reorganized in the way that they felt the need to lecture the Saints about the duties of a good citizen and in the way this article just lambasts their arguments and refers to Reorganized leader Joseph Smith III as the “degenerate son” of the Prophet Joseph Smith, that isn’t what makes this article interesting. What makes it interesting is the way in which it clearly lays out the limits on our obedience to the laws of man and the supremacy of God’s law. Further, it offers fuller, more correct interpretations of scriptures such as D&C 98: 4-6 which are often today used to justify our expected obedience to the State but which, properly understood, command that first and above all, we be loyal to God and His commandments no matter what the orders of the government may be. I have included a few standout quotes below, along with some pictures, but suggest you read the whole article for yourself. You can right click the image of the article at the end of this page and open it in a new tab. There you will be able to easily make it large enough to read.

Excerpts from God’s Will and Man’s Law

Congress has passed several laws which have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court but according to the editor of the Josephite Herald all those laws because they were passed by Congress, right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional were the “supreme law of the land,” and he wants to impose such stuff as that upon the people of Utah as the inspired teachings of his venerated father. Suppose Congress should pass a law forbidding circumcision declaring there was no religion in it but that it was a “relic of barbarism.” Would that be the supreme law of the land? Suppose that body were to pass a law forbidding the dipping of people in cold water under the name of baptism, declaring that it was nothing but a custom injurious to the system especially of invalids and feeble persons. Would that be the supreme law of the land?

But let us go a step farther. Suppose the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal of some Hebrew in one case and Josephite or Baptist in the other case should decide that the law was constitutional, arguing as in the polygamy case, that while Congress must not interfere in matters of faith it has the right to legislate against actions, and may prescribe regulations to protect individuals and society against injurious customs. Would Mr. Smith [meaning Joseph Smith III] acquiesce and say, “no more baptisms for the Josephites, for if we ‘refuse submission’ we are ‘the lawbreakers?’” And does he think that the Lord would be pleased because people obeyed man rather than God? If he cannot see the application, we are sorry for his mental blindness.

I think the real importance of this paragraph is the comparison between then and now about how the author expected his readers to answer. Obviously the author expected his audience to reject the idea that anything Congress passed could be considered the “supreme law of the land,” along with the idea that Congress had any authority to regulate religious customs it determined were injurious to those taking part in them. I fear today that the answer from most people to the author’s question would be a resounding, “YES!” Today there are plenty of people who label circumcision a “barbaric practice” that should be illegal and religious beliefs be damned. There is wide support for the government regulation of religion, church services, and actual worship practices in relation to Covid-19, even among the Saints, despite such orders being illegal and ineffective. I have little doubt that most people would happily submit to State control of their religious practices today, which shows just how degraded our society has become in that it fears and loves Man more than God.

In the revelation given August 6th 1833, imperfectly quoted in the Lamoni Herald, the Lord says:

“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” [D&C 98:4-7]

What is the first injunction in this commandment “concerning the laws of the land?” It is that before everything the Lords people shall “observe to do all things whatsoever he commands them.” And that is both reasonable and right. He is before all. He is above men and nations. He is superior to governments and courts. But he tells his Church to befriend the constitutional law of the laud. If it is not constitutional he says it comes of evil. It must support the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges; if not, it comes of evil. Who is the Lord directing? His Church. Whatever is contrary to the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, which includes not mere belief but the free exercise of religion, he does not command his people to obey but says they shall do his will.

It seems like people almost always forget verse 4 when referencing D&C 98, but our author here does not and as a result his understanding is far better than many of our modern commentators. Laws that violate the Principle of Freedom, that do not maintain our individual rights and privileges, are evil. Further, all of this only matters inasmuch as the laws in question don’t violate the first clause, found in verse 4, which says that above and before all else we must do all that God commands. That is the Lord’s will “concerning the laws of the land,” that we obey them only inasmuch as they do not contradict the commandments of God. If they do so, then ever if they are constitutional and even if they do not violate our rights, we are still do to do what He commands us to do. Even if that means breaking the law. His Saints should not listeth not to obey the will of man, but in all things keep the commandments of the Lord Our God, no matter what the laws and demands of men say elsewise. That, not our total obedience to the State, is His will.

Further on He says in the same connection:

“And whosoever layeth down his life in my cause and for my names sake shall find it again even life eternal. Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.” [D&C 98: 13-14]

Here is an intimation of what would be the consequence of obeying the
Lord in all things, before all things. And that this trial would be in reference to something not then revealed is evident, for the Lord said:

“For he will give unto the faithful line upon line precept upon precept and I will try you and prove you herewith.” [D&C 98: 12]

…Is not one of the revealed purposes of the Constitution to secure that freedom necessary for every man to exercise his own “moral agency?” When god commands and man believes he is to obey the commandment, no matter what the law of man may say and even it it leads him to death? That is the Divine intimation.

Is it dangerous to disobey the State? Absolutely. The law is founded on violence in a statist (“state-ist”) society. That means every time you have even the most minor run in with the enforcers of edicts of the State, the police, they could kill you. And recent history has proven that there is no law so minor that the police won’t kill you to enforce it. This our author clearly knows. I would argue living among refugees then suffering a state sponsored pogrom against them, persecution which had on multiple occasions threatened him and his people, our people, with total genocidal extermination, our author probably understood the probable results of disobedience to the government more than we do. Yet, he still counseled his readers to fear and follow God, not man. That is, as our author points out, the actual test as the Lord lays it out in D&C 98. He will test us, try us, prove us to see if, when faced with the choices of suffering and death or disobedience to Him, we would choose Him and suffer shame, suffering, and death over the powers, praise, and pronouncements of men.

• 

• 

…And the true servant of God will do what he has said concerning the laws of the land, namely, “It is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. “And if doing this lead him to prison or to death he must “obey God rather than man” or he will be found “unworthy.”

… Any man who says that he really and firmly believes a certain law of God is binding on him and who will not obey it in preference to a conflicting law of man or a decision of a court had either an unsound mind or a cowardly soul, or is a most contemptible hypocrite.

I neither have no ability nor desire to improve upon this clear statement of truth. Will we choose God and glory that we are counted worthy to suffer for His name as the ancient Apostle did (See Acts 5:40-41) or will we shrink and obey the laws of men over God? That we could suffer imprisonment or even death from choosing to follow God isn’t just a negative outcome, it is a crucial part of the test of life, a test which I fear far too many of us may fail. Not because we would crack under suffering, there is no dishonor in that I think because at least the spirit would be willing even if our flesh was weak, but because too many of us love and obey the Government more than we do the Gospel and God.

The Latter-day Saints are no lawbreakers, in spirit or intent. Some them have found themselves in the position foreshadowed in the revelations of God to this church. A law has been specially framed against the establishment of their religion. The issue is obedience to God or submission to man, choice between a divine decree about which they have no doubt and a human enactment that they firmly believe to be unconstitutional and void. It is a matter of conscience. The course of the faithful and the brave is so plain, that it needs no fingerpost to point the way nor urging voice to whisper “walk therein.”

When reading this I had not expected to come across a Latter-day Saint declaration of the doctrine of nullification, but here it is nonetheless. When our author declares unconstitutional laws “void” he is repeating the idea taught by Thomas Jefferson when he explained that, “a nullification, by those sovereignties [the individual states], of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument[the Constitution], is the rightful remedy,” to unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws are, in fact, not truly laws at all as they violate the very legal basis by which true laws are made and constrained. They are void, of no force. Therefore the Latter-day Saint who violates such an edict is not truly a lawbreaker because you cannot break something which is not a law. Instead the Saint in such a situation is a victim of the overweening pride, power, and violence of a government who is acting beyond its authority and in violation of its just purposes. Yet, even as a victim of such oppression we must not back down. We must always choose to follow and serve God and, like a profitable servant, we shouldn’t need to be commanded to do so, to be told to do so. It should be obvious and easy; we shouldn’t be torn as our first loyalty, our only loyalty, must always be to God and His Kingdom. We must do what is right and let the consequence follow. And yes, it may be dangerous and even terrifying. But if we screw our courage to the sticking-place, the Lord God and His Christ, then we’ll not fail.

****

Below is a picture of the scanned copy of the original article so that the reader may peruse it in its fulness.