Latter-day Saint history is full of rebels and rogues, people who would rather be exiled from the nation, who would rather be killed, than disobey the Lord. Just look at the Smith brothers, the Prophet Joseph and the Patriarch Hyrum, first tortured in Liberty Jail and then murdered in Carthage Jail. How easy for them it would have been to escape punishment. They wouldn’t even have to renounce everything, just the doctrine of the Gathering of Israel and polygamy and all the danger would have passed. Instead they gave their blood to serve the Lord. Look at the Saints, fleeing first Ohio, then Missouri, and finally the United States itself, becoming illegal immigrants as they searched for a place of peace where they could live their faith. Tens of thousands of men, women, and children who would rather give up their very lives than they would leave the Church of God. Look at the thousands imprisoned for polygamy, engaging in decades of civil resistance against unjust laws, sitting behind bars because they refused to comply with and intentionally broke the Federal laws that made illegal that which God had commanded. (For example, the picture of President George Q. Cannon and other LDS leaders in prison for practicing polygamy above.) Look at our history and it is full of rulebreakers, law breakers, and Saints.
So how is it that so many of us have become so milquetoast about standing up to government tyranny? Why is it that so many of us think that the Saints should “strictly obey the laws of the government in which they live,” even when such laws aren’t just wrong or immoral, but when they actively compel us either to disobey God or threaten to punish us for obeying Him? How did we become a group of such ineffectual and weak cowards who will comply and do evil things while hiding under the cloak of the law? Well, surely some of it comes from the way the State acts as a secular scapegoat upon which we can cast blame and thereby avoid responsibility for our own actions. But a great deal of the neutering of our people has to be laid at the feet of a terrible misinterpretation of scriptures, the way Latter-day Saints have interpreted the Twelfth Article of Faith, D&C 58:21, and D&C 134:5 as giving commandments to the Saints to obey the law and to comply even with evil laws. A close examination of these scriptures though shows that such interpretations are gross nonsense in direct opposition to what the scriptures actually teach.
The Twelfth Article of Faith
The Twelfth Article of Faith is the most abused verse in modern scripture. It reads:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
Articles of Faith (henceforth AoF) 1:12
Now, most Latter-day Saints seem to interpret this verse as saying we believe in obeying the law and doing what those in positions of political authority tell us to do. But this isn’t what the verse says at all. Notice it does not say we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates – i.e. in obeying our political leaders. It says we believe in being subject to political leaders in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. This means that we only believe in obeying political leaders inasmuch as they are also are obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. If political leaders are violating the law then their actions and edicts are not binding and we therefore are not bound to obey them.
This insight leads us to our next question: What law then are we to use as our measuring stick to determine whether or not political leaders are acting in such a way that we should follow them or not?
The Principle of Freedom
John Taylor, President of the Church and Prophet of God when he taught the following, explained very clearly what law is to be used as the benchmark to determine if political leaders are obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law or not and therefore the measure by which we determine if we must obey them or not. This is from an address that President Taylor gave in 1884:
It is said in the Doctrine and Covenants, that he that keepeth the laws of God, hath no need to break the laws of the land. It is further explained in section 98, what is meant in relation to this. That all laws which are constitutional must be obeyed, as follows:
“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 the law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, be longs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of the 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.”
That is taking this nation as an example, all laws that are proper and correct and all obligations entered into which are not violative of the constitution should be kept inviolate. But if they are violative of the constitution then the compact between the rulers and the ruled is broken and the obligation ceases to be binding. Just as a person agreeing to purchase anything and to pay a certain amount for it, if he receives the article bargained for, and does not pay its price, he violates his contract; but if he does not receive the article he is not required to pay for it.
There is a lot to unpack here. First note how he references D&C 58:21, which along with AoF 1:12 is one of those verses that gets most abused. Whenever someone wants to argue that Latter-day Saints must obey the law, whatever it may be, they cite D&C 58:21 about how those who keep the laws of God don’t need to break the laws of the land. Notice though how President Taylor slaps down this simplistic interpretation and brings the verse into context of the rest of the scriptures by relating it to D&C 98: 4-7, which is the scripture that President Taylor most extensively quotes in the above excerpt.
When referencing D&C 98: 4-7, most people seem to ignore verse 4 entirely and focus solely on verses 5 and 6. In doing so they make it sound as if the Lord wants us to obey the Constitution as if it were a divine mandate to do so. But that is not what the Lord says. The first commandment the Lord gives in regards to obedience here is in verse 4 wherein He commands us, “to do all things whatsoever I command them.” In other words, first and foremost, above and beyond the Constitution or any other laws of the land, we are always to obey God first. Then, in doing so, God allows us – and notice He says He justifies us, meaning He allows us but does not command us – to befriend the Constitution. But even then were are only to befriend the Constitution insofar as it and its laws are “supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” which “belongs to all mankind,” and only those elements of the Constitution which support “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” are justifiable before God.
That last quoted phrase narrows the spectrum of laws considerably and acts as an appositive that renames “law of the land which is constitutional” as “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges.” This means that it is not about whether the Constitution says some such thing can or cannot be done. What matters is if the Constitution allows humans their natural rights to act as they choose so long as they do not violate the rights of others. If such law does, then befriend that law for it is not evil. If such law does not, well it does not “belong to all mankind,” nor is it “justifiable before” Him and it “cometh of evil.” If it is not justifiable before God then we have no reason to be involved in it, much less actually support it. This is more than not calling the Constitution “a sacred document” as some have erroneously suggested. The Lord is, in fact, qualifying His endorsement of the Constitution pretty heavily. We are only to follow it if its laws:
- Allow us to follow God’s commandments (as said in D&C 98:4). Even if it is constitutional, if it forbids us form obeying God or if the law legalizes/orders us to do something that breaks God’s commandments then we are not bound to obey such a law. Our loyalty to God is always above and beyond our loyalties to the nations and laws of men.
- The law or article/section of the Constitution in question protects the principles of freedom and maintains the ability of individuals to live according to their rights and privileges as free people. These are universal, belonging to all mankind, and are to be protected for all.
- And finally, what ever laws enacted by it or under it are themselves constitutional, meaning they fulfill all the above qualifications plus the qualifications and limitations laid out in the Constitution itself for what the government can and cannot do, what it can and cannot legislate upon. (See D&C 98: 6.)
President Taylor then goes on to teach an essential truth: Laws which do not violate your individual human rights should be respected and obeyed – held inviolate. This makes sense as such law would naturally accord with, respect, and protect your natural rights. But if the law does violate your rights or if it does violate the Constitution then the agreement between those in power and the people they are supposed to represent is broken and the people – as a group or as individuals – are no longer under any obligation to obey them, the politicians or their laws.
To make sure we understand this, President Taylor compares the entire thing to a contract. If you sign a contract and one party keeps their obligation then the other side is obligated to do the same. If you sign a contract and one side fails to keep their portion of the deal then the entire thing is canceled. Likewise, the contract between the people and government. The contract of government says that the people will authorize those in political office to write laws insomuch as those laws protect the rights of the people and in turn the people will obey such laws. But when the government violates the rights of the people then the people are under no obligation to obey the law or the politicians because they, the politicians, have violated their part of the contract and therefore have canceled out all authority they supposedly had. The whole thing is null and void.
Going back to AoF 1:12 (as well as D&C 58:21) then, President Taylor’s teachings clarify a great deal. We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining laws which are both constitutional and which protection the unalienable principle, rights, and privileges of freedom for each individual. Laws and lawmakers which violate the principles of freedom and the universal rights of all people, of any individual, and/or laws which violate the limits the Constitution places upon the government itself, have broken the contract between the government and the people. Therefore those people, we, are no longer obligated or bound to obey the law/government. On the issue of what is constitutional when talking about places other than the United States, this might be laws that go through both the socially accepted legal processes for making laws in your country and which do not violate individual human rights. The end result is the same.
One such example of when politicians have obviously overstepped their authority and nullified any obligation on our part to obey them is when they use their power to legislate religious practices. When the government orders us to do something God has forbidden us to do or forbidden us to do something which God has commanded us to do, we always obey God even when it means breaking the law – as the early Saints did for decades in defiance of the laws of the United States which made polygamy illegal. President Taylor himself died in hiding because he was on the run from Federal agents who wanted to imprison him for being a polygamist. Clearly, President Taylor knew that the foremost obligation of the Saint is to obey God in all things, even if it means doing so in defiance of the laws of the government and places you in danger of violence or death for doing so.
Rights Protected By Law
This idea that the Saints are only bound to obey laws that are both constitutional and which protect their rights and are only obligated to obey political leaders when they are enacting or following such laws is expounded upon further in D&C 134:5, which says:
We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
We are only bound to uphold the government and laws which governs the places in which we reside if and only if those governments protect us in our inalienable rights. Such rights would include, but not be limited to, our rights to life, liberty, property, speech, belief, expression, religious practice, conscience, the pursuit of happiness, and all other rights which one can imagine. But notice what that suggests. If we are bound to respect and follow the governments and laws of whatsoever country we reside in only when said governments and laws protect our rights then the implicit argument is that when governments and laws violate our rights then we are not bound to obey them. This corresponds well with President Taylor’s teachings.
Likewise, notice that sedition and rebellion – that is trying to overthrow the government – is only “unbecoming” when the government and laws which the people are rebelling against actually protect the rights and liberties of the individual. But this implicitly allows for sedition and rebellion against governments which violate the rights and liberties of the individual. This undermines the argument that Latter-day Saints are bound by our beliefs to obey the laws of whatever land we live in whatever those laws may be. It also directly explicates what it means for us to be subject to “kings, presidents, and magistrates” as mentioned in AoF 1:12. We are only subject to them when they and their laws protect our rights. When they and their laws violate our rights then we are no longer bound to obey them and indeed have the right to rebel against them.
The freedom of conscience which is to be held absolutely sacred. When one understands what this right is then it is easy to understand why. The best definition of the freedom of conscience I have come across is as follows:
Freedom of conscience is at its heart but still larger than the freedom of religion or belief. It covers all ethics and values a human being cherishes, whether of religious nature or not. There are no admissible limitations to this freedom, as long as personal convictions are not imposed on others or harm them.
The freedom of conscience is not limited to simply what you believe, it is how you act upon those beliefs. This is why it is so sacred. It is the very essence of agency itself, our right to believe what we wish and to live how we wish without interference from outsiders who are trying to force us to think and live as they do and/or think we should. This right is so vast that it includes all other rights under its protections. One example: Why do you have the freedom of speech? One reason (among many) is that your freedom of conscience allows you to live according to your beliefs and to communicate those beliefs to others.
The freedom of conscience is therefore of eternal value. God cast out Lucifer along with an innumerable amount of His own children and caused His Only Begotten to suffer the eternal and indescribable agonies of Hell in order to ensure each and every single human has the freedom of conscience. Christ bled in Gethsemane and suffered on Golgotha to make this sacred right something ensured to all people. No wonder it is described as sacred and why those who lived under governments which violate this sacred right are justified in their sedition and rebellion against their corrupt government.
Influential English political theorist John Locke noted:
Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.
Second Treatise of Civil Government, Section 222 by John Locke
The reason people living in nations where the laws and/or government violates their rights are justified in sedition and rebellion is because it isn’t truly sedition or rebellion. Politicians in such governments, as President Taylor explained, have broken their contract with the people. By their violations of the rights of individuals the leaders in such governments have already declared war against their people by using mass violence to violate human rights. Rebellion against them is therefore merely recognizing the true state of the relationship between the government and the people, one where the government is using the violence, force, and power at its command to wage war against its own people and to subject them to the domination of not a foreign power but a domestic one. Against this the people have a natural right to resist, hopefully in the most powerful ways – through nonviolence and civil disobedience.
The Purpose of the State
Now that we understand these truths, let us discuss how we can apply them.
Almost every person in the world lives under the rule of a government which violates his or her rights. Often how deeply your rights are violated varies even within national boundaries, based on details such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc., but the violation still occurs. This is because almost every country on the planet is ruled by a statist (“state-ist”) government. And the State, as a form of government, is based on violence. As Yale law professor Dr. Stephen L. Carter explains, in a statist society violence is the very fundamental basis of how the law functions:
“Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill…even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.”
People do not obey the laws of the State because they are good, just, righteous, noble, or obviously the best policies to follow. People follow the edicts of the State because if they do not then the government will send its representatives to beat, cage, or kill them. Between this and the violation of basic property rights forced upon the public through the system of extortion and theft know as taxation, a system in which government officials demand you give them some of your money otherwise they will destroy your life by throwing you into a cage and then taking everything it wants from you and causing you to lose everything else, the State is in effect one continual violation of your basic human rights after another. It is at war with you.
Government exists as a general concept when and where ever humans come together and voluntarily agree to a mutually established set of rules and norms to govern their lives that promote their liberty and prosperity. The State exists to enable a class of political elites and their cronies to steal the wealth of the public and to convince their victims to kill and die to preserve the position and control of those in power. It is not, in the truest sense, a government. It is not, in the truest sense, even order. Order is established by people voluntarily coming together to take care of their wants and needs. The idea that someone in political office can use overwhelming violence to terrorize people into compliance with its arbitrary whims, which it calls laws, and to beat, cage, or kill them if they do not is not order. It is barbarism and chaos. You never know when or how you may run afoul of it and be subjected to even worse violence. And against such it seems clear that, according to the scriptures and President Taylor’s teachings, we would be justified by God in resisting it and violating its edicts.
The Necessity of Resistance to Tyranny
Now, what form that resistance should take is up for question. Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence that humans are willing to suffer while evils seem sufferable. And that seems to be true in history. When taxes and fines are low enough it may simply be easier to pay them and move on, feeling as if they are not worth your time. In such cases perhaps merely outlasting such minor evils is enough resistance. I doubt it though. It is upon such works of extortion and theft that the larger violations of life and liberty by the State are founded upon and it is only through resisting such infringements that the natural desire for liberty can be encouraged. Unless we resist, the State will ever expand its power indefinitely. It is this insight that Jefferson had in mind when he wrote his well known quote about the Tree of Liberty in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith:
God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. [sic] There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
The only way a people can ensure their liberty is my actively resisting tyranny. The lack of such resistance is not proof of liberty or even a peaceful, successful society. It is evidence of a lethargic, ignorant, lazy, servile society, one which finds its chains no longer chafing and its oppression no longer galling. If we are to preserve our rights, preserve our humanity, than resistance to oppression is our obligation. As Jefferson put it, when governments violate the rights of people “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.” And while many people, including Latter-day Saints, don’t understand this the scriptures teach us that the purpose of government is to protect our liberty and when it violates our rights all obligation we may have to it is dissolved and we have the right and power to resist and change it. Our ability to resist unrighteous dominion by the government is testified to in scripture and the necessity of us doing so is testified to by history. It need not be violent on our part. Indeed, violence would be self-defeating as it would drive people into the arms of the State for protection.
Nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience, practiced individually and by the masses at large, depowers the State and renders it irrelevant without having to fire a single shot. These methods allow us to fulfill the commands of Christ that forbids bloodshed and to love and serve our enemies while also securing for ourselves the agency and liberty He gave to us through His Atonement. Indeed, in such a case resistance would not be an act of violence or hate for our oppressors but an assertion of our love for them as we refuse to allow them to denigrate their or our humanity through their actions and the issuance of a call for them to repent of their evils, to do penance for their wrongs, and to join the path of liberty, peace, and prosperity for all of society.