Historical Background
The Ohio newspapers of the early 1830’s painted the “Mormonite” sect as a misdirected gaggle of idiots, lacking any reason or common sense. The fantastic religious claims of angels, revelation, and golden plates were regularly ridiculed. By 1835, however, the Mormon settlement in Kirtland had become a large well-established force at the polls. This made many nervous. If these people could believe in angels, what could be expected from them politically?
“These religious impostors’… object is to acquire political power as fast as they can, without any regard to the means they made use of. They are ready to harness in with any party that is willing to degrade themselves by asking their assistance. They now carry nearly a majority of this township, and every man votes as directed by the prophet and his elders. Previous to the recent township elections here, it was generally understood that the Mormons and Jacksonians had agreed to share the ‘spoils’ equally, in consequence of which the other citizens thought it useless to attend the polls. This brought out an entire Mormon ticket which they calculated to smuggle in, independent of the ‘democrats’ not under the orders of the prophet. This caused the citizens to rally and make an effort, which, by a small majority, saved the township from being governed by revelation for the year to come.” (Ohio, Painesville Telegraph, Friday, April 17, 1835 from http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/paintel4.htm)
The Northern Times, an early LDS publication, contained the political views of Oliver Cowdery, its editor. In it, he attacked the United States Bank and supported (rather ironically) Van Buren’s nomination for president. The local response was as follows:
“The Mormonites in this county, [as if] weary of the dull monotony of dreams and devotion, of visions and vexation -- of profitless prophecys, and talking in tongues, -- have concluded to turn their attention to political matters. A paper entitled the Northern Times has made its appearance from their press in Kirtland, bearing the name of O. Cowdery, one of their leaders and preachers, as Editor. The editor breaks forth with a flood of words, filling seven columns under his editorial head -- pounces upon the dead carcass of the United States Bank with most Quixotic ferocity -- talks about 'WIGS' -- praises the President -- and says, the nomination of Van Buren ‘we still add, would meet our mind, and receive our warm support.’ As the editor professes to have communications with the spirits of the invisible world, and certifies that he has seen an Angel, and ‘hefted’ the golden plates of the Prophet, he will be a political anomaly, if not a dangerous opponent. (Painesville Telegraph, Friday, Feb. 20, 1835 from http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/paintel4.htm)
A great way to discredit the Mormons was to make them un-American. While their political views were not nearly as extravagant as portrayed, the Mormons had not yet set the record straight regarding their constitutional views.
The occasion was a conference of the Church. Interestingly, the Prophet Joseph Smith was on a mission in Michigan and therefore absent from the conference. The Conference produced “A Testimony of the Twelve Apostles to the Truth of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants”—later signed by the original Twelve Apostles of this dispensation. Next is recorded an “Article on Marriage” which includes the phrase, “we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife… except in the case of death.” The next article is the statement “Of Governments and Laws in General” which later became section 134—signed by Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon.
B. H.
Roberts
It should be observed that this "Article on Marriage" presented by W. W. Phelps, and also the one on "Government and Laws in General," presented by Oliver Cowdery, were not presented as revelations and were not published as such at the time, but were expressions of course, of the belief of the Saints at that period on those subjects. It should also be noted that these two articles were presented and acted upon in the absence of the Prophet who was at the time visiting Saints and preaching in Michigan. (History of the Church, 2:246 footnote)
While the doctrines presented in section 134 came from Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon, the content certainly was approved by Joseph Smith as well as subsequent latter-day prophets. The problem was that the church was being attacked on all fronts.
Joseph
Smith
We pause here, and offer a remark upon the saying which we learn has gone abroad, and has been handled in a manner detrimental to the cause of truth, by saying, "that in preaching the doctrine of gathering, we break up families, and give license for men to leave their families, women their husbands, children their parents and slaves their masters, thereby deranging the order and breaking up the harmony and peace of society." We shall here show our faith, and thereby, as we humbly trust, put an end to these false and wicked misrepresentations, which have caused, we have every reason to believe, thousands to think they were doing God's service, when they were persecuting the children of God. (History of the Church, 2:255)
Introduction
The first amendment to the constitution—the first of our famous Bill of Rights—cryptically declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Wisely, the language of this first bill of rights is brief. The question is, how should “freedom of religion” be interpreted? What does it really mean? Section 134 answers that question—at least for Mormons. It is our anthem as to how the first amendment should be practiced. As President Anthony W. Ivins said, “I ask you, my brethren and sisters, I ask the people of the world, where can a better bill of rights, defining the proper relationship of the Church and the State, the civil and the ecclesiastical authority, be found, than that which I have read (i.e. D&C 134)? Can error or justifiable objection be found in it?” (Conference Report, April 1923, Afternoon Session 89.)
While the guilty may plead the fifth, the Mormons plead the first! It is the reason the gospel was restored in the United States of America. Prior to the constitution, could Mormonism have survived in America? The Salem Witch Trials suggest not. Indeed, there was barely enough religious tolerance in the 1830’s for such a religion to survive.
M. Russell
Ballard
The principles and philosophies upon which the U.S. constitutional law is based are not simply the result of the best efforts of a remarkable group of brilliant men. They were inspired by God, and the rights and privileges guaranteed in the Constitution are God-given, not man-derived. The freedom and independence afforded by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are divine rights—sacred, essential, and inalienable. In the 98th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord indicates that the “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.” (D&C 98:5.)
I focus my comments on sixteen significant words found in the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
These words are simple and direct. Their message and meaning appear to be clear. But through the years presidents, Congress, and the courts have interpreted them in so many different ways that many people today have no sense of the perspective upon which they were based.
Believe it or not, at one time the very notion of government had less to do with politics than with virtue. According to James Madison, often referred to as the father of the Constitution: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of the government—far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians, New Hampshire: Plymouth Foundation, 1984, p. 361)
George Washington agreed with his colleague James Madison. Said Washington: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the President, 1789–1897, U.S. Congress, 1899, vol. 1, p. 220.)
Nearly one hundred years later, Abraham Lincoln responded to a question about which side God was on during the Civil War with this profound insight: “I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.” (Abraham Lincoln’s Stories and Speeches, ed. J. B. McClure, Chicago: Rhodes and McClure Publishing Co., 1896, pp. 185–86.)
Madison, Washington, and Lincoln all understood that democracy cannot possibly flourish in a moral vacuum and that organized religion plays an important role in preserving and maintaining public morality. Indeed, John Adams, another of America’s Founding Fathers, insisted: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles F. Adams, 1854)
Yet that is precisely the position we find ourselves in today. Our government is succumbing to pressure to distance itself from God and religion. Consequently, the government is discovering that it is incapable of contending with people who are increasingly “unbridled by morality and religion.” A simple constitutional prohibition of state-sponsored church has evolved into court-ordered bans against representations of the Ten Commandments on government buildings, Christmas manger scenes on public property, and prayer at public meetings. Instead of seeking the “national morality” based on “religious principle” that [page 66] Washington spoke of, many are actively seeking a blind standard of legislative amorality, with a total exclusion of the mention of God in the public square.
Such a standard of religious exclusion is absolutely and unequivocally counter to the intention of those who designed our government. Do you think that mere chance placed the freedom to worship according to individual conscience among the first freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights—freedoms that are destined to flourish together or perish separately? The Founding Fathers understood this country’s spiritual heritage. They frequently declared that God’s hand was upon this nation, and that He was working through them to create what Chesterton once called “a nation with the soul of a church.” (Richard John Neuhaus, “A New Order for the Ages,” speech delivered at the Philadelphia Conference on Religious Freedom, 30 May 1991.) While they were influenced by history and their accumulated knowledge, the single most influential reference source for their work on the Constitution was the Holy Bible. (“Religion in a Free Society,” Ensign, Oct. 1992, 65–66)
DC 134:1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the
benefit of man
Dallin H. Oaks
U.S. citizens have an inspired Constitution, and therefore, what? Does the belief that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired affect citizens’ behavior toward law and government? It should and it does.
U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency’s counsel to study the Constitution. They should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.
They should be law-abiding citizens, supportive of national, state, and local governments. The twelfth Article of Faith declares:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers,
and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the
law.
The Church’s official declaration of belief states:
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. …
We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside. (D&C 134:1, 5)
Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under a divinely inspired constitution should promote morality, and they should practice what the Founding Fathers called “civic virtue.” In his address on the U.S. Constitution, President Ezra Taft Benson quoted this important observation by John Adams, the second president of the United States:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Similarly, James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution,” stated his assumption that there had to be “sufficient virtue among men for self-government.” He argued in the Federalist Papers that “republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”
It is part of our civic duty to be moral in our conduct toward all people. There is no place in responsible citizenship for dishonesty or deceit or for willful law breaking of any kind. We believe with the author of Proverbs that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34.) The personal righteousness of citizens will strengthen a nation more than the force of its arms. (“The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, Feb. 1992, 73-74)
The First
Presidency
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that a vital cornerstone of a free society is the principle of religious liberty. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids any “law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Ours has been a society which encourages religious liberty and toleration. The result, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson of the United States Supreme Court, has been that “nearly everything in our culture worth transmitting, everything which gives meaning to life, is saturated with religious influences.” (McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 335–38 [1948].)
We, thus, deplore the growing efforts to establish irreligion, such as atheism or secularism, as the official position of the United States of America, thus obscuring and eroding the rich and diverse religious heritage of our nation. We refer here to attacks on time-honored religious symbols in our public life. Such symbols include:
1. The reference to “one nation under God” in our pledge of allegiance;
2. The motto ‘In God We Trust’ on our coins and public buildings;
3. “Praise [for] the power that hath made and preserved us a nation” in our national anthem;
4. Use of the Bible to administer official oaths;
5. The words “God Save the United States and this Honorable Court,” spoken at the convening of the United States Supreme Court;
6. Prayers at the beginning of legislative sessions and other public meetings;
7. The performance of music with a religious origin or message in public programs;
8. The singing of Christmas carols and the location of nativity scenes or other seasonal decorations on public property during the Christmas holidays; and
9. References to God in public proclamations, such as at Thanksgiving.
From its beginning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has accepted the constitutional principle that government will neither establish a state religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. Our formal statements of belief include these principles:
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may” (A of F 1:11).
“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul” (D&C 134:4).
“We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy” (D&C 134:7).
“We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship” (D&C 134:10).
During the course of our history members of our Church have been the victims of official persecution motivated by religious intolerance. We are, therefore, committed by experience as well as by precept to the wisdom of a constitutional principle that government and public officials should maintain a position of respectful neutrality in the matter of religion. If any of our members holding public office have failed to observe that position in any of their official responsibilities we counsel them to remember the principles quoted above.
But the constitutional principle of neutrality toward religion does not call for our nation to ignore its religious heritage, including the religious motivations of its founders and the powerful religious beliefs of generations of its people and its leaders. The basic documents of our land, from the Mayflower Compact through the Declaration of Independence and the writings of the Founding Fathers to the inaugural addresses of presidents early and modern, are replete with reverent expressions of reliance on Almighty God and gratitude for his blessings. The reference to God and Divine Providence in our historic state documents and the other religious symbols summarized above are time-honored and appropriate expressions of the religious heritage of this nation. As the Supreme Court noted in a leading case, “There are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God,” and these ‘ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the kind of unquestioned religious exercise’ that the government is forbidden from sponsoring (Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 435 n. 21 [1962]). (“News of the Church,” Ensign, May 1979, 108-109)
DC 134:1 God… holds men accountable for their acts in relation to
them
David O.
McKay
No member of the Church can be true to his country, true to his Church, true to his God, who will violate the laws which relate to the moral welfare and spiritual advancement of mankind. Members of the Church should uphold the law everywhere. And it is time all of us—the leaders of this country, the politicians, the statesmen, the leaders in civic affairs in the state and in the cities, as well as parents and private citizens—should so speak of and so uphold the constitutional law of the land that everywhere there will be a renewal of respect for it and a revival of the virtues of honor, honesty, and integrity. (Man May Know for Himself: Teachings of President David O. McKay, compiled by Clare Middlemiss [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1967], 100)
Ezra Taft
Benson
We must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented. The Lord said that He "holds men accountable for their acts in relation" to governments "both in making laws and administering them" (D&C 134:1). We must follow this counsel from the Lord: "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" (D&C 98:10). (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 621 - 622)
John Henry
Smith
I trust that this feeling pervades the hearts of the people called Latter-day Saints, and that all of us feel within our souls a determination to stand for the principles of right, and sustain our government in every proposition of liberty, justice and mercy and the maintenance of these principles of righteousness, the prevention of the shedding of blood, to the most reasonable extreme. (Conference Report, April 1898, Afternoon Session)
DC 134:2 government [to] secure to each individual the free exercise of
conscience, he right and control of property, and the protection of
life
Ezra Taft
Benson
America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church… The Declaration of Independence affirmed the Founding Fathers’ belief and trust in God in these words: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
The Doctrine and Covenants states, “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 134:2). Life, liberty, property—mankind’s three great rights. (“Our Divine Constitution,” Ensign, Nov. 1987, 4)
Samuel
Adams
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. (Rights of the Colonists, Nov. 20, 1772)
Dr. Charles Malik
The Honorable George Sutherland, a former student of this institution, later President of the American Bar Association, and a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, carried the same thought a little further when he said, "To give a man his life but to deny him his liberty is to take from him all that makes life worth living. To give him his liberty but to take from him his property, which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave." (BYU Speeches of the Year, 1961, 2)
Ezra Taft
Benson
As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (The Law, 1850, p. 6.)
I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God. The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny. If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations—a throwback to the feudal system of the Dark Ages. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .
Since God created man with certain inalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the nonbeliever can appreciate the logic of this relationship. (God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 283-284)
DC 134:2 the free exercise of conscience
Brigham
Young
The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence and the Lord cannot violate his own law. ... This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice. (Improvement Era, 1949, Vol. Lii. July, 1949. No. 7)
President Joseph F.
Smith
... all the members of the Church ... [may] express their will according to the God-given agency that every man in the world enjoys. ... The freedom of the Latter-day Saints has never been curtailed nor lessened one whit by their becoming members of the Church of Christ. ... There are no freer people upon the face of the earth today than the Latter-day Saints. (Improvement Era, 1949, Vol. Lii. July, 1949. No. 7)
The First
Presidency
The Church, while reserving the right to advocate principles of good government underlying equity, justice, and liberty, the political integrity of officials, and the active participation of its members, and the fulfillment of their obligations in civic affairs, exercises no constraint on the freedom of individuals to make their own choices and affiliations … any man who makes representation to the contrary does so without authority and justification in fact.” (President Stephen L Richards, Conference Report, October 1951, pp. 114–15)
DC 134:3 such as will administer the law in equity and justice
should be sought for
The First
Presidency
We urge members of the Church to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs. Members of the Church are under special obligations to seek out and then uphold those leaders who are wise, good, and honest (see D&C 98:10).
Thus, we strongly urge men and women to be willing to serve on school boards, city and county councils and commissions, state legislatures, and other high offices of either election or appointment, including involvement in the political party of their choice. (“Getting Involved, Giving Service, Growing,” Ensign, Feb. 1999, 15)
DC 134:4 unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe
upon the rights and liberties of others
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers did not qualify their statement regarding the free exercise of religion. What if religion is used as an excuse to persecute others? Is it possible that the colonists did not foresee radical religious entities? What is the government’s responsibility in protecting its citizens from religion gone wrong? Historically, this is a common occurrence, from The Inquisition to the more recent phenomenon of a murderous Jihad and everything in between.
“Freedom of religion is one of the basic
tenets of the Constitution that prohibits the government from interfering with
the free exercise of one’s faith. Some religions, however, directly infringe
upon other basic human rights, which forfeits their First Amendment
right.
“The Followers of Christ
Church is one such religion. Some may remember the Worthington case that
made headlines this summer. The case involved the death of a toddler whose
parents were members of the Followers of Christ Church. Since the church shuns
modern medicine, young Ava Worthington died of a preventable infection. She was
not the first, nor the last, to die under such circumstances. The Worthingtons were acquitted for the death of their daughter
and the father received a slap on the wrist.
“Now another death in the
Followers of Christ circle has been reported, and this time it was a newborn.
The odds of any justice being offered, if indeed the parents of this infant even
get tried, are slim. The acquittal of the Worthingtons
set a very dangerous precedent and essentially ignored a statute that forbids
religious defense for manslaughter cases involving children. The high mortality
rate of Followers of Christ children—more than 26 times the normal rate, as
reported in Time—shows how dangerous this sect of society is and that
authorities need to step in to prevent such senseless deaths.
“Freedom of
religion is a First Amendment right and is part of the Bill of Rights. However,
this right comes under scrutiny when it begins to infringe upon the rights of
others. Namely, in this case, the right to live.” (Will
Blackford, Daily Vanguard, Oct. 16, 2009, at http://www.dailyvanguard.com/the-freedom-of-neglect-1.2001273
DC 134:4
the civil
magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience
(“The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, Feb. 1992, 74)
DC 134:6
We believe
that every man should be honored in his station
DC 134:9
We do not
believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government
No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion;
DC 134:10
We believe
that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members
DC 134:12
we do not
believe it right to interfere with bondservants