Obeying, Honoring, and Sustaining the Law—
But Which Law?
By Joseph Warren Grammer
But Which Law?
By Joseph Warren Grammer
This study may be controversial to some, yet the subject is very important to the maintenance of liberty as established by God. There are those that would believe that politics and religion should stay separated. Nevertheless, God said, as previously pointed out, “Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal;...” (Doctrine and Covenants 29:34.)
We have also discovered, earlier, that we are to study and learn “Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms — (Also see D&C 88:77-81.)
We also learned that it was a “commandment” (v. 77) to study these things that we might be “prepared in all things” (v. 80), and after we are prepared in all things we are to “testify and warn the people”; for everyone warned is to “warn his neighbor.” (v. 81.) Therefore, it is in this spirit that this study is presented.
Because some may want to make this subject controversial, they should not think the author is trying to incite within the reader a spirit of anarchy, rebellion, sedition, or any unlawful act regarding good government. The purpose of this study is only intended to educate and promote a proper understanding of good government, that reader’s may not be found ignorant of their God-given rights, duties, and responsibilities, in relationship to themselves, their God, and their country — whatever that country may be. Therefore, this study is only an attempt to show that not all laws in these united States of America are Constitutional in nature, and that God holds men responsible for which laws they enact and those they support. It is to show that past teachings of the Lord, through His scriptures and living Prophets, have been to encourage the support of good government, while discouraging the establishment and support of bad government. It is also intended to demonstrate that the scriptures plainly teach which laws to obey, and that God intends man to be free to exercise his agency as his conscience dictates. (D&C 101:78-80; 134:5.)
The reader may recognize that part of the title of this study is taken from the Twelfth Article of Faith. The Articles of Faith form a basic set of beliefs for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, they are revered as the word of the Lord to those members, and therefore bound by them as Church doctrine.
However, because many members of the Church have not studied any deeper than the words in this particular article of faith, they may not fully understand the intent of the Lord in relationship to the agency of man, governments, and relevant responsibilities. Therefore, this study has been undertaken to study the issue of obedience to man’s law.
Examples from Scripture
I have often heard the question: “Do we obey all laws, the righteous and the unrighteous ones?” This question is of particular interest to the Latter-day Saint who loves the agency God has endowed him with, many of whom consider themselves freedom-loving “constitutional patriots” in the cause of liberty and freedom. (The terms patriot and constitutionalist have been getting a bum rap lately, because Satan wants to discredit all such people that love liberty and honor their agency — that which he hates and opposes. Such attempted slander will not deter the honest in heart from seeking to be counted with such giants of liberty as Captain Moroni, George Washington, Joseph Smith, Ezra Taft Benson and the like. Of course, to be associated with such esteemed company is an honor bestowed only by God.)
Many feel if we obey all laws, even those laws which are unjust and infringe on our agency, God will bless us for that obedience. And some feel that only good laws are to be obeyed and that bad laws should be done away with, as our Founding Fathers believed. Many of those that love freedom wonder if the approach of the former is just an easy way out because they don’t want to bother themselves with the necessary study and personal involvement required to maintain their God-given liberties. However, the result of this study will show that the latter is the correct approach to take against bad government, and that it has been a common fallacy that we are to obey all laws, whatever they may be or wherever they may be implemented. This, I believe, is not God’s will.
There are instances, however, which indicate that the Lord honors those who obey His laws over the laws of man. In the book of Daniel we find three young men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who refused to obey a law of the king. The scriptures say that, “Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold ... Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of ... music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” (Daniel 3:1-13.) We are told that it was the law of the land, for it included all “people, nations, and languages.”
This was quite an edict for those who worshiped the only true and living God. It must have taken a lot of faith to not comply with such an unjust decree, though it was a law. And sure enough, someone snitched on them. The record states that “certain Chaldeans” came near, and accused the Jews.
12. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. (Daniel 3:12.)
Most of us know the rest of this story. Yet there is another story of defiance in this book of Daniel. It was when the priests of King Darius convinced him “to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of [King Darius] shall be cast into the den of lions ... Wherefore King Darius signed the writing and the decree.” The story tells how Daniel defied the written law:
10. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. (See Daniel 6:4-10.)
Here again we have an example of one who defied the law of the land and followed his own conscience. The rest of the story is also well known. Similar examples can be found at the time of the Apostle Peter. The high priest of the Sadducees, who cast Peter and the Apostles into prison, commanded them not to preach.
28. 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.
29. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:28-29.)
What about the wise men who were searching for the baby Jesus, did they return to Herod with word about the baby Jesus when commanded to do so? No, they did not! Would they have been righteous if they had followed the law of the land, which was Herod? Should Joseph and Mary have submitted to Herod instead of running off and hiding in Egypt? Were the soldiers doing well by obeying an unrighteous command to slay the children? If we were some of Herod’s men, do you think we would have been blessed because we obeyed his odious order to slay the babes of Bethlehem? (Matthew 2:16.)
Let’s consider the midwives in Egypt during the captivity of Israel when the midwives were commanded by the Pharaoh to slay the man child born in Israel. From the first chapter of Exodus we read:
16. When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. (Exodus 1:16-17.)
Should the midwives have followed the law of the land which was Pharaoh? They did not follow those orders and, consequently, were blessed of God; for when the Pharaoh chastened the midwives for their disobedience, the scriptures report, “Therefore God dealt well with the midwives ...” (Exodus 1:20.)
And again from Exodus we find that the mother and sister of Moses did not submit to Pharaoh’s law, but saved Moses. Would they have been righteous if they had submitted to the Pharaoh’s decree? The daughter of Pharaoh knew Moses was Hebrew but kept the secret. Should she have turned Moses over to Pharaoh’s soldiers? Would they all have been righteous if they all had followed the Law of the land, which was Pharaoh? (Exodus 2.)
Nephi slew Laban, which was not only against the law of the land, but also against the law of God — “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13.) Would Nephi have been righteous if he had disobeyed the Angel (who commanded him to slay Laban) and obeyed the law of the land instead? Was Nephi right to have followed a personal revelation from the Spirit instead of the prevailing law of the land? Those with the Spirit of the Lord know the right answer.
Now let’s consider Abraham’s willingness to offer his most beloved son Isaac as a sacrifice. From D&C 132, we find out that the Lord justified Abraham because of his obedience.
37. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. (D&C 132:37.)
For his obedience to God’s command Abraham was blessed. “Thou shalt not kill,” was not only a law from God, but also the law of the land; yet, God overrode His own law and commanded Abraham to go against it. Why? For some it may be a hard question to answer. However, there is a transcending principle here. God’s ways are not our ways. (Isaiah 55:8.) It is His prerogative to command what He will, and it is our duty to follow that command. For Abraham, God provided an escape (D&C 132:50), but for Nephi, in slaying Laban, He did not. Both Abraham and Nephi, however, obeyed the command and both were blessed.
Some Guidelines to Follow
The Lord has given us specific instructions on what laws to follow and which laws to reject. The Twelfth Article of Faith is part of those instructions. President Ezra Taft Benson had something to say concerning this in the book, Teachings of Ezra T. Benson. This is a book made up of excerpts taken from many of his speeches and writings after he became an Apostle, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Lord. The introduction to the book states the validity of those items cited; it says in part: “President Benson personally reviewed the entire manuscript, as did his counselors in the First Presidency.” So the following quote was reviewed and approved by Presidents Hinckley and Monson at the time of its publication. Therefore, all that was in the book was approved by the members of the First Presidency; hence, we can take the following words as coming from our Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and his counselors:
“When the Prophet Joseph Smith outlined the Articles of Faith, he set forth in clear, unmistakable terms the foundations of our worship and of our relationships with one another. In view of the troubled times which the nations of the earth are experiencing at present, it is well for us as members of the Lord’s kingdom to understand clearly our responsibilities and obligations respecting governments and laws as declared in the Twelfth Article of Faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
“In it is a declaration requiring obedience, loyalty to, and respect for duly constituted laws and the officials administering those laws. In justifying such loyal compliance, however, the Lord also promulgated certain safeguards and conditions which must be observed if freedom and liberty are to be preserved and enjoyed. These are emphasized primarily in sections 98 and 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants. How I wish these fundamental concepts were emblazoned on the hearts of all our people!” (God, Family, Country, p. 277; Teachings of Ezra T. Benson, p. 679.)
When he was speaking of justifying loyal compliance he said, “however, the Lord also promulgated certain safeguards and conditions....” Let’s now turn to the Twelfth Article of Faith, and Sections 98 and 134 to which he referred, and see what these safeguards are. In doing so, we will also be quoting from President Joseph F. Smith.
The Twelfth Article of Faith
The Twelfth Article of Faith is the scripture that most Latter-day Saints hang their hat on when it comes to the subject of obeying laws. Let’s refer to this scripture which reads, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
However, when many quote this scripture they do not look any closer than the words of the Twelfth Article of Faith. If they study the footnotes of this article they might come to a much deeper understanding.
At footnote “a,” just before the word “subject,” on the very first line of the newer, 1981, addition of this scripture we have a reference to the 134th section; this is one reference President Benson gave, as quoted above. The specific reference given is: D&C 134:1(1-11). Let’s turn to that section and first read verses one and two.
1. We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. (D&C 134:1-2.)
From this we understand that God gives man governments. However, He only gives man governments that are for the “good and safety of society,” and will be framed such as will give men “the free exercise of conscience,” and the right to “life” and “control of property.” Let’s now skip down and read verse five.
5. 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. (D&C 134:5.)
Here we learn that man is “bound to sustain” laws, but only those laws which protect the “inherent and inalienable rights” of the individual — namely those laws which are “framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” And though rebellions to such governments are “unbecoming every citizen thus protected,” yet that government must make sure that they hold “sacred the freedom of conscience.”
From the foregoing we learn that we are to be “subject” to various governments and rulers, for it says in D&C 134:5 that: “... sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected ...” Yet, if those governments and rulers do not protect us in our “inherent and inalienable rights,” we may not have to be subject to them, and that rebellion may be necessary for us to reclaim those rights as it was during the times of our Founding Fathers whom God raised up. Is not this what happened in our country over 200 years ago when the colonists rebelled against the established government and laws of King George, III?
It seems logical to assume that if rebellion against good government is “unbecoming” and to be punished, then rebellion against bad government may be “becoming” and should not be punished. Of course governments don’t usually look at it this way.
People who oppose those that claim to be fighting bad government and laws are usually the people who don’t get any more involved in the political scene than to cast a vote at election time. They think all is well and that our elected officials would do no harm. Therefore, they persecute those that take the time to deeply study issues, revealing sinister situations in doing so.
From President Joseph F. Smith
Another scripture that is often quoted, supporting the idea that we are to be “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law,” comes from D&C 58:21 where it says, “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.” This is clarified by President Smith in general conference, April 9, 1882. This statement was also used on pages 179-181 of the Melchizedek Priesthood Course of Study, 1971-72, which brings it a little closer to our time, showing that it is still a valid statement even today. In that conference address President Smith said, “I feel impressed to read in the hearing of the congregation one of two passages from the revelations previously referred to.” And then he read from D&C 58.
21. Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
22. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under His feet.
23. Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth. Behold here is wisdom. (D&C 58:21-23.)
After he read these words he said, “The following I quote from a revelation given December, 1833, page 357:”
77. According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78. That every man act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgement.
79. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I have raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80.)
President Smith then introduces another scripture: “Again, in a revelation on page 242,” being D&C 98:4-15, which is one of the references given by President Benson:
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
11. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.
12. For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.
13. And whoso layeth down his life shall find it again, even life eternal.
14. 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.
15. For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me. (D&C 98:4-15.)
When President Smith was through making reference to the above quoted scriptures, he continued with his explanation of them and our duties.
“This, as I understand it, is the law of God to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in all the world. And the requirements here made of us must be obeyed, and practically carried out in our lives, in order that we may secure the fulfillment of the promises which God has made to the people of Zion.
“We are told here that no man need break the laws of the land who will keep the laws of God. But this is further defined by the passage which I read afterwards — the law of the land, which all have no need to break, is that law which is the Constitutional law of the land, and that is as God Himself has defined it. And whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil. Now it seems to me that this makes this matter so clear that it is not possible for any man who professes to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make any mistake, or to be in doubt as to the course he should pursue under the command of God in relation to the observance of the laws of the land ...
“I am bound not only by allegiance to the government of the United States, but by the actual command of God Almighty, to observe and obey every constitutional law of the land ... The Lord Almighty requires this people to observe the laws of the land, to be subject to ‘the powers that be,’ so far as they abide by the fundamental principles of good government, but He will hold them responsible if they will pass unconstitutional measures and frame unjust and prescriptive laws, as did Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, in relation to the three Hebrew children and Daniel.
“I firmly believe that the only way in which we can be sustained in regard to this matter by God our Heavenly Father is by following the illustrious examples we find in holy writ. And while we regret, and look with sorrow upon the acts of men who seek to bring us into bondage and to oppress us, we must obey God, for He has commanded us to do so; and at the same time He has declared that in obeying the laws which He has given us we will not necessarily break the constitutional laws of the land.
“Now I desire to read another passage in a revelation given in 1834, which will be found on page 364 of the Doctrine and Covenants, commencing at the first verse.”
At this point President Smith read verses 1-4 of Section 103, of which the fourth verse says:
4. And that those who call themselves after my name might be chastened for a little season with a sore and grievous chastisement, because they did not hearken altogether unto the precepts and commandments which I gave unto them. (D&C 103:4.)
President Smith then continued reading with verses 5-11. Verses 8, 9, and 10 reading as follows:
8. But inasmuch as they keep not my commandments, and hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the world shall prevail against them.
9. For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men;
10. And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. (D&C 103:8-10.)
Toward the end of his discourse he speaks these words about being proven and staying true to God’s commandments:
“We have got to meet opposition as it presents itself, battling against it with the weapons of truth which God has placed in our hands ... He intends to try us and prove us, and He has a right to do it, even to the death if need be, and only those who endure to the end, who will not flinch, but will maintain their integrity at the risk and sacrifice of their all, if need be, will gain eternal life, or be worthy of the reward of the faithful.” (Journal of Discourses, 23:69-72, 75-76.)
One of the scriptures that President Smith read was from D&C 98, which was also a reference President Benson gave as mentioned earlier. In this section we learn that there are two kinds of laws that we are to be concerned with, (1) “the laws of the land,” which are based on Common Law, and (2) the “law of man,” which is statutory law.
We are told in verse five that the laws of the land are the “constitutional” laws. That verse goes on to say that such laws are to support those principles of freedom which maintain the rights and privileges which “belong to all mankind.” It also says that such constitutional laws are “justifiable” before God. Verse six goes on to tell us that the Lord justifies those who befriend the Constitutional law of the land.
Verse seven mentions that if the laws of man are “more or less” than the constitutional laws of the land, then they are “evil.” What is considered more or less? This statement might be answered in these ways: (1) The Constitution does not restrict man, it only restricts government, and if a law puts MORE restrictions on a man than does the Constitution, then that law is evil. (2) If a law provides LESS protection for a man’s rights, then that law is evil. To this author, it seems logical to conclude that if the Lord justifies those who befriend the constitutional laws of the land (verse 6), he would justify those who opposed unconstitutional laws. That is to say, the laws of man which are more or less than the constitutional laws, which God established, man should not be friendly toward. There are other verses in this section that tell us to do just that: “And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good ... Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies ... For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.” (D&C 98:11, 14-15.)
Liberty, Church, and Agency
When laws are oppressive to people, those people cannot be free to exercise their agency or serve their God as He and they wish. It is important to realize that it is a significant fact that freedom must be in place before the followers of Christ can function in a meaningful, organized and productive manner. In a general conference, President Benson said,
“But freedom is a weighty matter of the law; the lesser principles of the gospel you should keep but not leave this one undone. We may have to balance and manage our time better. Your other church work will be limited once you lose your freedom as our Saints have found in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and many other nations.” (Conference Report, April 1965, pp. 123-24.)
To help establish this idea we must remember that Moses delivered Israel out of Egypt before Jehovah established His Church among them. In the Book of Mormon we find that Ammon encouraged Limhi to flee from bondage, “Therefore they did not at that time form themselves into a church.” (Mosiah 21:32-36.) And liberty had to be established in the land of America before the Church could be restored in these latter days. Again, in a general conference, we hear from President Benson:
“Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel.
“Only in this foreordained land, under its God-inspired Constitution and the resulting environment of freedom, was it possible to have established the restored Church. It is our responsibility to see that this freedom is perpetuated so that the Church may more easily flourish in the future.” (General Conference, October 1987; The Ensign, November 1987, pp. 4, 6.)
So we find from the Prophets of God that this nation was established by the hand of the Lord, and He expects us to uphold those laws which are constitutional — nothing less. In the words of the Lord we read that we are not to consent to the pollution of that which He established:
97. Let not that which I have appointed be polluted by mine enemies, by the consent of those who call themselves after my name;
98. For this is a very sore and grievous sin against me, and against my people, in consequence of those things which I have decreed and which are soon to befall the nations.
99. Therefore, it is my will that my people should claim, and hold claim upon that which I have appointed unto them, though they should not be permitted to dwell thereon.
100. Nevertheless, I do not say they shall not dwell thereon; for inasmuch as they bring forth fruit and works meet for my kingdom they shall dwell thereon. (D&C 101:97-100.)
This once-great nation was a bastion of liberty and its people could worship, work, play, learn, create, and do most anything they could imagine without the interference from government. It used to be a country that Captain Moroni would have been pleased with. But as the years progressed Satan took hold of the hearts and minds of the people. Today, this nation is diseased with more crime, immorality, corruption and secret combinations than the world has ever known.
As individuals study the Declaration of Independence, they can find that our Founding Fathers set forth some 27 complaints concerning the abuses King George perpetrated upon the American people. Because of those abuses, a bloody revolution took place — God inspired wise men for the very purpose of establishing a land of liberty, and He redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80.) Did we permanently rid ourselves of these abuses? If one was to examine the political climate in America today they would find these same abuses perpetrated upon its people again. This time they are not from a foreign power, but from the powers that are in our own government.
Some of these current abuses can be found listed in the Communist Manifesto. This manifesto gives ten points, or planks, upon which the communists have built their philosophy, or plan of action to destroy the freedom of all people.
Is Communism really dead? Not really! I have often lectured on the subject, and in doing so would give a short quiz to those in attendance. The quiz consisted of reading a series of political statements, asking those in the audience to tell which of the American documents they came from — Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, or Bill of Rights — trick question. The audience didn’t know that there were very few statements from these documents presented, the majority being taken from the Communist Manifesto. All of those taken from the manifesto were thought of as coming from one of the great documents of America. The American people are so used to living with so many prescriptive laws, and hearing so much socialistic propaganda, they believe it is the original American way of life, which it is not. This little test also showed how the American people are not educated in true American principles as contained in our great founding documents.
Conspiring men have not changed their goals, they have only changed the name of the game, which includes the many socialistic programs that trick the gullible American people into giving up their liberties. And, if we think that Communism is dead, all we have to do is just ask the Cuban people, those behind the “bamboo curtain” in China, or some African nations and we can learn the truth. A study of how well the American people have adopted all ten planks in the manifesto was thoroughly treated in my book, Awake and Arise.
We are not honoring the Ten Commandments anymore in this country, nor are we being protected by the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, but we are faithfully living all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. And most of the American people do not even know it.
In 1857 Brigham Young stated that the United States government was the same as a “united hell.” On October 7 of that year he said,
“The time has arrived when we have either to be trodden under foot by our enemies and die, or to defend ourselves and our rights; and which will it be? Every man and woman feel their hearts fail them when they think of submitting to the oppression and unlawful abominations practiced by our enemies, and sought by them to be introduced into our society; and we will not submit to such wicked and unlawful treatment, whether it comes from United States or united hell, for the terms are synonymous as the Government is now conducted.” (JD, 5:331.)
Are we so naive as to believe that things are better today when it has been prophesied that it will be worse? The heritage bequeathed to us by our founding fathers, which God divinely established “... by the hands of wise men whom [He] raised up unto this very purpose ...” (D&C 101:77-80), must not be permitted to be polluted. ( D&C 101:97.) We, “... those who call themselves after [His] name ...” have a responsibility to protect that which God has ordained. The day will come when we will have to make an accounting of how we honored and defended that which our forefathers shed their precious blood to establish.
The Principles of God Have Not Changed
“But,” say some, “this is all well and good, but the examples given from the scriptures are from the past and do not relate to us today. We are told to be subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and we should be obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, as commanded in the Twelfth Article of Faith. We live in a different time in history. Things are not the same.”
If that is the argument, then, perhaps taking a good look at the results of the Nuremberg trials, following World War II, could help dispel that belief. Those that know their history have found that German officers were NOT exonerated for their part in committing atrocities during the war just because their superiors gave the orders to do so; there were more far-reaching moral issues at stake than just following orders.
In a lot of instances, did not many in Eastern Europe defy their established laws and governments to throw off Communist tyranny? Did we not applaud their efforts? Did we not praise those who escaped from those evil governments, which escaping was against the laws of those governments? Why is it okay for those in other nations to rise against oppressive laws and governments, and at the same time it not be acceptable for freedom-loving Americans to do the same in theirs? To feel otherwise seems inconsistent and contradictory to the true spirit of liberty and the foregoing scriptures.
Let us refer to another point in Church history as an example of our proper stance before wrong and unconstitutional laws. Heber Bennion once pointed out:
“To claim that we cannot be true Latter-day Saints without strict obedience to every law of the land, irrespective of its justice and constitutionality, is not consistent; IS NOT TRUE. Daniel would not do it, nor his three Hebrew brethren, and they were indeed true Former-day Saints. Hundreds of Latter-day Saints have gone to prison because they would not do it. President John Taylor died a martyr in exile rather than do it, and men were dropped from their positions in the Church because they promised to obey the law of the land. Joseph F. Smith would not do it, but went on the underground for years, and had 11 children born after the manifesto by five mothers.” (Supplement to Gospel Problems, p. 80, as presented in The Sanhedrin, p. 190.)
To help bring this subject to a close, and a little closer to home, let us refer to a conference address given by Elder Henry B. Eyring, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, during the general conference of April 1999. Elder Eyring told of his great-grandmother Mary Bommeli. He said that she was living in Switzerland and was 24 years old when she was taught the gospel by the missionaries. Eventually she went to Berlin to work, being hired to weave cloth. Elder Eyring mentioned that, “It was against the law then to teach the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Berlin. But Mary could not keep the good news to herself.” Elder Eyring said that, in spite of the law, his great-grandmother shared the “joyous doctrine” with some of her friends, who also told others. As the word got around, she was picked up by the police and put in jail. But that didn’t stop her from sharing her story, either. While in jail she spent all night writing a letter to the judge, sharing with him her beliefs. After the judge read her letter, he had her released. (The Ensign, May 1999, pp. 74-75.)
In sharing this personal story, Elder Eyring was expressing his gratitude for the bravery of his great-grandmother’s testimony, as indeed he should. She obviously was a courageous woman, and because of her courage in standing up for the right, in the face of a bad law, her posterity was blessed, which posterity includes Apostle Henry B. Eyring.
On June 15, 1999, Congress awarded a gold Congressional Medal of Honor to a black lady that is now in her eighties. Her name is Rosa Parks. In 1955, Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus, which was the law in Little Rock, Arkansas, at the time. The event was the spark that ignited the modern-day racial strife. During the Congressional proceedings honoring Rosa Parks, President Bill Clinton extolled her virtues in her defying that law. The President also referenced to the fact that it was against the law to do what she did, which caused her to be put in jail. President Clinton then said that more people should “follow her lead.” With such a comment, what was the President of the United States saying to the American people? Was he telling us to openly and blatantly defy bad laws? It sure seems to sound that way.
Now we might ask, Why does there seem to be a dichotomy between the examples in scripture, in history, and the apparent current Church philosophy which says: Obey all laws, even the bad ones, and you will be blessed. Have God’s principles of right and wrong changed? Is it okay to praise those in past history for defying bad laws, but deny us the right to do the same today? Is God a partial God? Does He condone those in other countries in defying bad laws, but deny those of us in the United States of America for doing the same? No! God has neither changed nor is he partial. “For do we not read that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” (Mormon 9:9; D&C 20:12.) From the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith we read that the Prophet stated how far people should go in honoring an unconstitutional law when he said,
“The different states, and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
“Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No! ... This is the doctrine of the constitution, so help me God.” (TPJS, p. 279.)
At the same general conference of the Church, in which Elder Eyring gave his loving testimony of his fearless great-grandmother, Elder M. Russell Ballard, also of the twelve, said, “But one thing is certain: the commandments have not changed. Let there be no mistake about that. Right is still right. Wrong is still wrong, no matter how cleverly cloaked in respectability or political correctness.” (The Ensign, May 1999, p. 85.)
We have also discovered, earlier, that we are to study and learn “Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms — (Also see D&C 88:77-81.)
We also learned that it was a “commandment” (v. 77) to study these things that we might be “prepared in all things” (v. 80), and after we are prepared in all things we are to “testify and warn the people”; for everyone warned is to “warn his neighbor.” (v. 81.) Therefore, it is in this spirit that this study is presented.
Because some may want to make this subject controversial, they should not think the author is trying to incite within the reader a spirit of anarchy, rebellion, sedition, or any unlawful act regarding good government. The purpose of this study is only intended to educate and promote a proper understanding of good government, that reader’s may not be found ignorant of their God-given rights, duties, and responsibilities, in relationship to themselves, their God, and their country — whatever that country may be. Therefore, this study is only an attempt to show that not all laws in these united States of America are Constitutional in nature, and that God holds men responsible for which laws they enact and those they support. It is to show that past teachings of the Lord, through His scriptures and living Prophets, have been to encourage the support of good government, while discouraging the establishment and support of bad government. It is also intended to demonstrate that the scriptures plainly teach which laws to obey, and that God intends man to be free to exercise his agency as his conscience dictates. (D&C 101:78-80; 134:5.)
The reader may recognize that part of the title of this study is taken from the Twelfth Article of Faith. The Articles of Faith form a basic set of beliefs for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, they are revered as the word of the Lord to those members, and therefore bound by them as Church doctrine.
However, because many members of the Church have not studied any deeper than the words in this particular article of faith, they may not fully understand the intent of the Lord in relationship to the agency of man, governments, and relevant responsibilities. Therefore, this study has been undertaken to study the issue of obedience to man’s law.
Examples from Scripture
I have often heard the question: “Do we obey all laws, the righteous and the unrighteous ones?” This question is of particular interest to the Latter-day Saint who loves the agency God has endowed him with, many of whom consider themselves freedom-loving “constitutional patriots” in the cause of liberty and freedom. (The terms patriot and constitutionalist have been getting a bum rap lately, because Satan wants to discredit all such people that love liberty and honor their agency — that which he hates and opposes. Such attempted slander will not deter the honest in heart from seeking to be counted with such giants of liberty as Captain Moroni, George Washington, Joseph Smith, Ezra Taft Benson and the like. Of course, to be associated with such esteemed company is an honor bestowed only by God.)
Many feel if we obey all laws, even those laws which are unjust and infringe on our agency, God will bless us for that obedience. And some feel that only good laws are to be obeyed and that bad laws should be done away with, as our Founding Fathers believed. Many of those that love freedom wonder if the approach of the former is just an easy way out because they don’t want to bother themselves with the necessary study and personal involvement required to maintain their God-given liberties. However, the result of this study will show that the latter is the correct approach to take against bad government, and that it has been a common fallacy that we are to obey all laws, whatever they may be or wherever they may be implemented. This, I believe, is not God’s will.
There are instances, however, which indicate that the Lord honors those who obey His laws over the laws of man. In the book of Daniel we find three young men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who refused to obey a law of the king. The scriptures say that, “Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold ... Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of ... music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” (Daniel 3:1-13.) We are told that it was the law of the land, for it included all “people, nations, and languages.”
This was quite an edict for those who worshiped the only true and living God. It must have taken a lot of faith to not comply with such an unjust decree, though it was a law. And sure enough, someone snitched on them. The record states that “certain Chaldeans” came near, and accused the Jews.
12. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. (Daniel 3:12.)
Most of us know the rest of this story. Yet there is another story of defiance in this book of Daniel. It was when the priests of King Darius convinced him “to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of [King Darius] shall be cast into the den of lions ... Wherefore King Darius signed the writing and the decree.” The story tells how Daniel defied the written law:
10. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. (See Daniel 6:4-10.)
Here again we have an example of one who defied the law of the land and followed his own conscience. The rest of the story is also well known. Similar examples can be found at the time of the Apostle Peter. The high priest of the Sadducees, who cast Peter and the Apostles into prison, commanded them not to preach.
28. 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.
29. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:28-29.)
What about the wise men who were searching for the baby Jesus, did they return to Herod with word about the baby Jesus when commanded to do so? No, they did not! Would they have been righteous if they had followed the law of the land, which was Herod? Should Joseph and Mary have submitted to Herod instead of running off and hiding in Egypt? Were the soldiers doing well by obeying an unrighteous command to slay the children? If we were some of Herod’s men, do you think we would have been blessed because we obeyed his odious order to slay the babes of Bethlehem? (Matthew 2:16.)
Let’s consider the midwives in Egypt during the captivity of Israel when the midwives were commanded by the Pharaoh to slay the man child born in Israel. From the first chapter of Exodus we read:
16. When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. (Exodus 1:16-17.)
Should the midwives have followed the law of the land which was Pharaoh? They did not follow those orders and, consequently, were blessed of God; for when the Pharaoh chastened the midwives for their disobedience, the scriptures report, “Therefore God dealt well with the midwives ...” (Exodus 1:20.)
And again from Exodus we find that the mother and sister of Moses did not submit to Pharaoh’s law, but saved Moses. Would they have been righteous if they had submitted to the Pharaoh’s decree? The daughter of Pharaoh knew Moses was Hebrew but kept the secret. Should she have turned Moses over to Pharaoh’s soldiers? Would they all have been righteous if they all had followed the Law of the land, which was Pharaoh? (Exodus 2.)
Nephi slew Laban, which was not only against the law of the land, but also against the law of God — “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13.) Would Nephi have been righteous if he had disobeyed the Angel (who commanded him to slay Laban) and obeyed the law of the land instead? Was Nephi right to have followed a personal revelation from the Spirit instead of the prevailing law of the land? Those with the Spirit of the Lord know the right answer.
Now let’s consider Abraham’s willingness to offer his most beloved son Isaac as a sacrifice. From D&C 132, we find out that the Lord justified Abraham because of his obedience.
37. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. (D&C 132:37.)
For his obedience to God’s command Abraham was blessed. “Thou shalt not kill,” was not only a law from God, but also the law of the land; yet, God overrode His own law and commanded Abraham to go against it. Why? For some it may be a hard question to answer. However, there is a transcending principle here. God’s ways are not our ways. (Isaiah 55:8.) It is His prerogative to command what He will, and it is our duty to follow that command. For Abraham, God provided an escape (D&C 132:50), but for Nephi, in slaying Laban, He did not. Both Abraham and Nephi, however, obeyed the command and both were blessed.
Some Guidelines to Follow
The Lord has given us specific instructions on what laws to follow and which laws to reject. The Twelfth Article of Faith is part of those instructions. President Ezra Taft Benson had something to say concerning this in the book, Teachings of Ezra T. Benson. This is a book made up of excerpts taken from many of his speeches and writings after he became an Apostle, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Lord. The introduction to the book states the validity of those items cited; it says in part: “President Benson personally reviewed the entire manuscript, as did his counselors in the First Presidency.” So the following quote was reviewed and approved by Presidents Hinckley and Monson at the time of its publication. Therefore, all that was in the book was approved by the members of the First Presidency; hence, we can take the following words as coming from our Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and his counselors:
“When the Prophet Joseph Smith outlined the Articles of Faith, he set forth in clear, unmistakable terms the foundations of our worship and of our relationships with one another. In view of the troubled times which the nations of the earth are experiencing at present, it is well for us as members of the Lord’s kingdom to understand clearly our responsibilities and obligations respecting governments and laws as declared in the Twelfth Article of Faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
“In it is a declaration requiring obedience, loyalty to, and respect for duly constituted laws and the officials administering those laws. In justifying such loyal compliance, however, the Lord also promulgated certain safeguards and conditions which must be observed if freedom and liberty are to be preserved and enjoyed. These are emphasized primarily in sections 98 and 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants. How I wish these fundamental concepts were emblazoned on the hearts of all our people!” (God, Family, Country, p. 277; Teachings of Ezra T. Benson, p. 679.)
When he was speaking of justifying loyal compliance he said, “however, the Lord also promulgated certain safeguards and conditions....” Let’s now turn to the Twelfth Article of Faith, and Sections 98 and 134 to which he referred, and see what these safeguards are. In doing so, we will also be quoting from President Joseph F. Smith.
The Twelfth Article of Faith
The Twelfth Article of Faith is the scripture that most Latter-day Saints hang their hat on when it comes to the subject of obeying laws. Let’s refer to this scripture which reads, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
However, when many quote this scripture they do not look any closer than the words of the Twelfth Article of Faith. If they study the footnotes of this article they might come to a much deeper understanding.
At footnote “a,” just before the word “subject,” on the very first line of the newer, 1981, addition of this scripture we have a reference to the 134th section; this is one reference President Benson gave, as quoted above. The specific reference given is: D&C 134:1(1-11). Let’s turn to that section and first read verses one and two.
1. We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. (D&C 134:1-2.)
From this we understand that God gives man governments. However, He only gives man governments that are for the “good and safety of society,” and will be framed such as will give men “the free exercise of conscience,” and the right to “life” and “control of property.” Let’s now skip down and read verse five.
5. 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. (D&C 134:5.)
Here we learn that man is “bound to sustain” laws, but only those laws which protect the “inherent and inalienable rights” of the individual — namely those laws which are “framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” And though rebellions to such governments are “unbecoming every citizen thus protected,” yet that government must make sure that they hold “sacred the freedom of conscience.”
From the foregoing we learn that we are to be “subject” to various governments and rulers, for it says in D&C 134:5 that: “... sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected ...” Yet, if those governments and rulers do not protect us in our “inherent and inalienable rights,” we may not have to be subject to them, and that rebellion may be necessary for us to reclaim those rights as it was during the times of our Founding Fathers whom God raised up. Is not this what happened in our country over 200 years ago when the colonists rebelled against the established government and laws of King George, III?
It seems logical to assume that if rebellion against good government is “unbecoming” and to be punished, then rebellion against bad government may be “becoming” and should not be punished. Of course governments don’t usually look at it this way.
People who oppose those that claim to be fighting bad government and laws are usually the people who don’t get any more involved in the political scene than to cast a vote at election time. They think all is well and that our elected officials would do no harm. Therefore, they persecute those that take the time to deeply study issues, revealing sinister situations in doing so.
From President Joseph F. Smith
Another scripture that is often quoted, supporting the idea that we are to be “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law,” comes from D&C 58:21 where it says, “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.” This is clarified by President Smith in general conference, April 9, 1882. This statement was also used on pages 179-181 of the Melchizedek Priesthood Course of Study, 1971-72, which brings it a little closer to our time, showing that it is still a valid statement even today. In that conference address President Smith said, “I feel impressed to read in the hearing of the congregation one of two passages from the revelations previously referred to.” And then he read from D&C 58.
21. Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
22. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under His feet.
23. Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth. Behold here is wisdom. (D&C 58:21-23.)
After he read these words he said, “The following I quote from a revelation given December, 1833, page 357:”
77. According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78. That every man act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgement.
79. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I have raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80.)
President Smith then introduces another scripture: “Again, in a revelation on page 242,” being D&C 98:4-15, which is one of the references given by President Benson:
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
11. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.
12. For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.
13. And whoso layeth down his life shall find it again, even life eternal.
14. 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.
15. For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me. (D&C 98:4-15.)
When President Smith was through making reference to the above quoted scriptures, he continued with his explanation of them and our duties.
“This, as I understand it, is the law of God to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in all the world. And the requirements here made of us must be obeyed, and practically carried out in our lives, in order that we may secure the fulfillment of the promises which God has made to the people of Zion.
“We are told here that no man need break the laws of the land who will keep the laws of God. But this is further defined by the passage which I read afterwards — the law of the land, which all have no need to break, is that law which is the Constitutional law of the land, and that is as God Himself has defined it. And whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil. Now it seems to me that this makes this matter so clear that it is not possible for any man who professes to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make any mistake, or to be in doubt as to the course he should pursue under the command of God in relation to the observance of the laws of the land ...
“I am bound not only by allegiance to the government of the United States, but by the actual command of God Almighty, to observe and obey every constitutional law of the land ... The Lord Almighty requires this people to observe the laws of the land, to be subject to ‘the powers that be,’ so far as they abide by the fundamental principles of good government, but He will hold them responsible if they will pass unconstitutional measures and frame unjust and prescriptive laws, as did Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, in relation to the three Hebrew children and Daniel.
“I firmly believe that the only way in which we can be sustained in regard to this matter by God our Heavenly Father is by following the illustrious examples we find in holy writ. And while we regret, and look with sorrow upon the acts of men who seek to bring us into bondage and to oppress us, we must obey God, for He has commanded us to do so; and at the same time He has declared that in obeying the laws which He has given us we will not necessarily break the constitutional laws of the land.
“Now I desire to read another passage in a revelation given in 1834, which will be found on page 364 of the Doctrine and Covenants, commencing at the first verse.”
At this point President Smith read verses 1-4 of Section 103, of which the fourth verse says:
4. And that those who call themselves after my name might be chastened for a little season with a sore and grievous chastisement, because they did not hearken altogether unto the precepts and commandments which I gave unto them. (D&C 103:4.)
President Smith then continued reading with verses 5-11. Verses 8, 9, and 10 reading as follows:
8. But inasmuch as they keep not my commandments, and hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the world shall prevail against them.
9. For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men;
10. And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. (D&C 103:8-10.)
Toward the end of his discourse he speaks these words about being proven and staying true to God’s commandments:
“We have got to meet opposition as it presents itself, battling against it with the weapons of truth which God has placed in our hands ... He intends to try us and prove us, and He has a right to do it, even to the death if need be, and only those who endure to the end, who will not flinch, but will maintain their integrity at the risk and sacrifice of their all, if need be, will gain eternal life, or be worthy of the reward of the faithful.” (Journal of Discourses, 23:69-72, 75-76.)
One of the scriptures that President Smith read was from D&C 98, which was also a reference President Benson gave as mentioned earlier. In this section we learn that there are two kinds of laws that we are to be concerned with, (1) “the laws of the land,” which are based on Common Law, and (2) the “law of man,” which is statutory law.
We are told in verse five that the laws of the land are the “constitutional” laws. That verse goes on to say that such laws are to support those principles of freedom which maintain the rights and privileges which “belong to all mankind.” It also says that such constitutional laws are “justifiable” before God. Verse six goes on to tell us that the Lord justifies those who befriend the Constitutional law of the land.
Verse seven mentions that if the laws of man are “more or less” than the constitutional laws of the land, then they are “evil.” What is considered more or less? This statement might be answered in these ways: (1) The Constitution does not restrict man, it only restricts government, and if a law puts MORE restrictions on a man than does the Constitution, then that law is evil. (2) If a law provides LESS protection for a man’s rights, then that law is evil. To this author, it seems logical to conclude that if the Lord justifies those who befriend the constitutional laws of the land (verse 6), he would justify those who opposed unconstitutional laws. That is to say, the laws of man which are more or less than the constitutional laws, which God established, man should not be friendly toward. There are other verses in this section that tell us to do just that: “And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good ... Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies ... For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.” (D&C 98:11, 14-15.)
Liberty, Church, and Agency
When laws are oppressive to people, those people cannot be free to exercise their agency or serve their God as He and they wish. It is important to realize that it is a significant fact that freedom must be in place before the followers of Christ can function in a meaningful, organized and productive manner. In a general conference, President Benson said,
“But freedom is a weighty matter of the law; the lesser principles of the gospel you should keep but not leave this one undone. We may have to balance and manage our time better. Your other church work will be limited once you lose your freedom as our Saints have found in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and many other nations.” (Conference Report, April 1965, pp. 123-24.)
To help establish this idea we must remember that Moses delivered Israel out of Egypt before Jehovah established His Church among them. In the Book of Mormon we find that Ammon encouraged Limhi to flee from bondage, “Therefore they did not at that time form themselves into a church.” (Mosiah 21:32-36.) And liberty had to be established in the land of America before the Church could be restored in these latter days. Again, in a general conference, we hear from President Benson:
“Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel.
“Only in this foreordained land, under its God-inspired Constitution and the resulting environment of freedom, was it possible to have established the restored Church. It is our responsibility to see that this freedom is perpetuated so that the Church may more easily flourish in the future.” (General Conference, October 1987; The Ensign, November 1987, pp. 4, 6.)
So we find from the Prophets of God that this nation was established by the hand of the Lord, and He expects us to uphold those laws which are constitutional — nothing less. In the words of the Lord we read that we are not to consent to the pollution of that which He established:
97. Let not that which I have appointed be polluted by mine enemies, by the consent of those who call themselves after my name;
98. For this is a very sore and grievous sin against me, and against my people, in consequence of those things which I have decreed and which are soon to befall the nations.
99. Therefore, it is my will that my people should claim, and hold claim upon that which I have appointed unto them, though they should not be permitted to dwell thereon.
100. Nevertheless, I do not say they shall not dwell thereon; for inasmuch as they bring forth fruit and works meet for my kingdom they shall dwell thereon. (D&C 101:97-100.)
This once-great nation was a bastion of liberty and its people could worship, work, play, learn, create, and do most anything they could imagine without the interference from government. It used to be a country that Captain Moroni would have been pleased with. But as the years progressed Satan took hold of the hearts and minds of the people. Today, this nation is diseased with more crime, immorality, corruption and secret combinations than the world has ever known.
As individuals study the Declaration of Independence, they can find that our Founding Fathers set forth some 27 complaints concerning the abuses King George perpetrated upon the American people. Because of those abuses, a bloody revolution took place — God inspired wise men for the very purpose of establishing a land of liberty, and He redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80.) Did we permanently rid ourselves of these abuses? If one was to examine the political climate in America today they would find these same abuses perpetrated upon its people again. This time they are not from a foreign power, but from the powers that are in our own government.
Some of these current abuses can be found listed in the Communist Manifesto. This manifesto gives ten points, or planks, upon which the communists have built their philosophy, or plan of action to destroy the freedom of all people.
Is Communism really dead? Not really! I have often lectured on the subject, and in doing so would give a short quiz to those in attendance. The quiz consisted of reading a series of political statements, asking those in the audience to tell which of the American documents they came from — Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, or Bill of Rights — trick question. The audience didn’t know that there were very few statements from these documents presented, the majority being taken from the Communist Manifesto. All of those taken from the manifesto were thought of as coming from one of the great documents of America. The American people are so used to living with so many prescriptive laws, and hearing so much socialistic propaganda, they believe it is the original American way of life, which it is not. This little test also showed how the American people are not educated in true American principles as contained in our great founding documents.
Conspiring men have not changed their goals, they have only changed the name of the game, which includes the many socialistic programs that trick the gullible American people into giving up their liberties. And, if we think that Communism is dead, all we have to do is just ask the Cuban people, those behind the “bamboo curtain” in China, or some African nations and we can learn the truth. A study of how well the American people have adopted all ten planks in the manifesto was thoroughly treated in my book, Awake and Arise.
We are not honoring the Ten Commandments anymore in this country, nor are we being protected by the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, but we are faithfully living all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. And most of the American people do not even know it.
In 1857 Brigham Young stated that the United States government was the same as a “united hell.” On October 7 of that year he said,
“The time has arrived when we have either to be trodden under foot by our enemies and die, or to defend ourselves and our rights; and which will it be? Every man and woman feel their hearts fail them when they think of submitting to the oppression and unlawful abominations practiced by our enemies, and sought by them to be introduced into our society; and we will not submit to such wicked and unlawful treatment, whether it comes from United States or united hell, for the terms are synonymous as the Government is now conducted.” (JD, 5:331.)
Are we so naive as to believe that things are better today when it has been prophesied that it will be worse? The heritage bequeathed to us by our founding fathers, which God divinely established “... by the hands of wise men whom [He] raised up unto this very purpose ...” (D&C 101:77-80), must not be permitted to be polluted. ( D&C 101:97.) We, “... those who call themselves after [His] name ...” have a responsibility to protect that which God has ordained. The day will come when we will have to make an accounting of how we honored and defended that which our forefathers shed their precious blood to establish.
The Principles of God Have Not Changed
“But,” say some, “this is all well and good, but the examples given from the scriptures are from the past and do not relate to us today. We are told to be subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and we should be obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, as commanded in the Twelfth Article of Faith. We live in a different time in history. Things are not the same.”
If that is the argument, then, perhaps taking a good look at the results of the Nuremberg trials, following World War II, could help dispel that belief. Those that know their history have found that German officers were NOT exonerated for their part in committing atrocities during the war just because their superiors gave the orders to do so; there were more far-reaching moral issues at stake than just following orders.
In a lot of instances, did not many in Eastern Europe defy their established laws and governments to throw off Communist tyranny? Did we not applaud their efforts? Did we not praise those who escaped from those evil governments, which escaping was against the laws of those governments? Why is it okay for those in other nations to rise against oppressive laws and governments, and at the same time it not be acceptable for freedom-loving Americans to do the same in theirs? To feel otherwise seems inconsistent and contradictory to the true spirit of liberty and the foregoing scriptures.
Let us refer to another point in Church history as an example of our proper stance before wrong and unconstitutional laws. Heber Bennion once pointed out:
“To claim that we cannot be true Latter-day Saints without strict obedience to every law of the land, irrespective of its justice and constitutionality, is not consistent; IS NOT TRUE. Daniel would not do it, nor his three Hebrew brethren, and they were indeed true Former-day Saints. Hundreds of Latter-day Saints have gone to prison because they would not do it. President John Taylor died a martyr in exile rather than do it, and men were dropped from their positions in the Church because they promised to obey the law of the land. Joseph F. Smith would not do it, but went on the underground for years, and had 11 children born after the manifesto by five mothers.” (Supplement to Gospel Problems, p. 80, as presented in The Sanhedrin, p. 190.)
To help bring this subject to a close, and a little closer to home, let us refer to a conference address given by Elder Henry B. Eyring, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, during the general conference of April 1999. Elder Eyring told of his great-grandmother Mary Bommeli. He said that she was living in Switzerland and was 24 years old when she was taught the gospel by the missionaries. Eventually she went to Berlin to work, being hired to weave cloth. Elder Eyring mentioned that, “It was against the law then to teach the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Berlin. But Mary could not keep the good news to herself.” Elder Eyring said that, in spite of the law, his great-grandmother shared the “joyous doctrine” with some of her friends, who also told others. As the word got around, she was picked up by the police and put in jail. But that didn’t stop her from sharing her story, either. While in jail she spent all night writing a letter to the judge, sharing with him her beliefs. After the judge read her letter, he had her released. (The Ensign, May 1999, pp. 74-75.)
In sharing this personal story, Elder Eyring was expressing his gratitude for the bravery of his great-grandmother’s testimony, as indeed he should. She obviously was a courageous woman, and because of her courage in standing up for the right, in the face of a bad law, her posterity was blessed, which posterity includes Apostle Henry B. Eyring.
On June 15, 1999, Congress awarded a gold Congressional Medal of Honor to a black lady that is now in her eighties. Her name is Rosa Parks. In 1955, Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus, which was the law in Little Rock, Arkansas, at the time. The event was the spark that ignited the modern-day racial strife. During the Congressional proceedings honoring Rosa Parks, President Bill Clinton extolled her virtues in her defying that law. The President also referenced to the fact that it was against the law to do what she did, which caused her to be put in jail. President Clinton then said that more people should “follow her lead.” With such a comment, what was the President of the United States saying to the American people? Was he telling us to openly and blatantly defy bad laws? It sure seems to sound that way.
Now we might ask, Why does there seem to be a dichotomy between the examples in scripture, in history, and the apparent current Church philosophy which says: Obey all laws, even the bad ones, and you will be blessed. Have God’s principles of right and wrong changed? Is it okay to praise those in past history for defying bad laws, but deny us the right to do the same today? Is God a partial God? Does He condone those in other countries in defying bad laws, but deny those of us in the United States of America for doing the same? No! God has neither changed nor is he partial. “For do we not read that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” (Mormon 9:9; D&C 20:12.) From the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith we read that the Prophet stated how far people should go in honoring an unconstitutional law when he said,
“The different states, and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
“Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No! ... This is the doctrine of the constitution, so help me God.” (TPJS, p. 279.)
At the same general conference of the Church, in which Elder Eyring gave his loving testimony of his fearless great-grandmother, Elder M. Russell Ballard, also of the twelve, said, “But one thing is certain: the commandments have not changed. Let there be no mistake about that. Right is still right. Wrong is still wrong, no matter how cleverly cloaked in respectability or political correctness.” (The Ensign, May 1999, p. 85.)
President Ezra Taft Benson
It is time for us, as members of the Church, to walk in all the ways of the Lord, to use our influence to make popular that which is sound and to make unpopular that which is unsound. We have the scriptures, the prophets, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now we need eyes that will see, ears that will hear, and hearts that will hearken to God’s direction.” (Official Conference Report, October 1 and 2, 1988, pp. 103-04.)
It is time for us, as members of the Church, to walk in all the ways of the Lord, to use our influence to make popular that which is sound and to make unpopular that which is unsound. We have the scriptures, the prophets, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now we need eyes that will see, ears that will hear, and hearts that will hearken to God’s direction.” (Official Conference Report, October 1 and 2, 1988, pp. 103-04.)
