Can A Mormon Righteously Rebel Against Government Or Fight Against A Religion?

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

1. That only works if you live in a democracy. Democracy is not universal nor is it the only form of government.

2. That is unsupportable from There is no reason or justification for men to disregard or break the law or try to take it into their own hands.

[mtomm]

Maybe Dallin H. Oaks answers this question in the following address:

http://www.ldsinfobase.net/liberty/DHO_citizenship.html

At a clear and extreme level, violations of inalienable rights by a government might excuse citizens from the performance of some obligations of citizenship. But the history of Latter-day Saints' relations to their governments shows that any such exceptions would have to be far more extreme than anything we have experienced in this country.

Even when victimized by what they must surely have seen as very severe government oppressions and abridgments of freedom, the Mormon people and their leaders have remained loyal to their government and its laws. Think of the persecutions in Missouri, the expulsion from Nauvoo, and the repressions suffered in the Utah Territory. As long as a government provides aggrieved persons an opportunity to work to enlarge their freedoms and relieve their oppressions by legal and peaceful means, a Latter-day Saint citizen's duty is to forego revolution and disobedience of law. Our doctrine commits us to work from within. Even an oppressive government is preferable to a state of lawlessness and anarchy in which the only ruling principle is force and every individual has a thousand oppressors. (See D&C 134:6.)

Church members who seek to use LDS doctrine as a basis for concluding that government infringements on inalienable rights have excused them from obeying the law seem to have forgotten the principle of following the prophets. Until the prophets invoke this principle, faithful members will also refrain from doing so. We remain committed to uphold our governments and to obey their laws.

That seems pretty clear.

[BCSpace]

That only works if you live in a democracy. Democracy is not universal nor is it the only form of government.

Democracy seems to be the only type of government supported in LDS scripure and doctrine. Recall what the BoM says about kings.

2. That is unsupportable from There is no reason or justification for men to disregard or break the law or try to take it into their own hands.

How so? Are you saying our founding fathers were not justified or inspired?

http://www.ldsinfoba...itizenship.html

That seems pretty clear.

The disclaimer from that site is also clear.

http://www.ldsinfoba...disclaimer.html

Can you find it published by the Church elsewhere?

[The Nehor]

Democracy seems to be the only type of government supported in LDS scripure and doctrine. Recall what the BoM says about kings.

That kingship is dangerous. The D&C section on government does tell the Saints to obey the will of the sovereign. With the Church itself being a kingdom we shouldn't be too harsh on monarchies.

[DavidB]

Educate me then. Part of the reason I post is to see if my point of view can stand the test.

Bcspace, go back to the institute lesson you linked. Therein you will find an entire section dedicated to speaking against rebellion against government and/or bad laws. You will also find a quote from Abraham Lincoln - which quote is Doctrine by your standard of being published in official materials of the Church - that bad laws must be followed until such time that bad laws are overturned via the Courts or Congress.

[DavidB]

D&C 134:5–6 . “Sedition and Rebellion Are Unbecoming Every Citizen”

President N. Eldon Tanner taught: “There are many who question the constitutionality of certain acts passed by their respective governments, even though such laws have been established by the highest courts in the land as being constitutional, and they feel to defy and disobey the law. “Abraham Lincoln once observed: ‘Bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible; still, while they continue in force, they should be religiously observed.’ “This is the attitude of the Church in regard to law observance. . . . “There is no reason or justification for men to disregard or break the law or try to take it into their own hands. “It is the duty of citizens of any country to remember that they have individual responsibilities, and that they must operate within the law of the country in which they have chosen to live.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1975, p. 126; or Ensign, Nov. 1975, p. 83 .) President Joseph Fielding Smith likewise said: “No member of the Church can be acceptedasin good standing whoseway of life is one of rebellion against the established order of decency and obedience to law. We cannot be in rebellion against the law and be in harmony with the Lord, for he has commanded us to ‘be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign. . . .’ ( D&C 58:22 .) And one of these days he is going to come.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1971, p. 48; or Ensign, June 1971, p. 50 .)

The exception to this principle would be when the Lord directs His people through His prophets to take an opposing stand to government. Otherwise they recognize the established authority of government.

[DavidB]

D&C 134:5 . “Sustain and Uphold the Respective Governments in Which TheyReside”

The twelfth article of faith states, “We believein being subjectto kings, presidents,rulers,and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” “The three significant words used in the 12th Article of Faith ,” commented PresidentDavidO. McKay,“expresstheproper attitude of the membership of the Church toward law. These words are—obey, honor, and sustain. The Article does not say we believe in submission to the law. Obedience implies a higher attitude than mere submission, for obedience has its root in good intent; submission may spring from selfishness or meanness of spirit. Though obedience and submission both imply restraint on one’s own will,we areobedient only from a senseof right;submissive from a sense of necessity. “Honor expresses an act or attitude of an inferior towards a superior. When applied to things it is taken in the sense of holding in honor. Thus, in honoring the law, we look upon it as something which is above selfish desires or indulgences. “To sustain signifies to hold up; to keep from falling. To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective. “We obey law from a sense of right. “We honor law because of its necessity and strength to society. “We sustain law by keeping it in good repute.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28.) Elder James E. Talmage said: “A question has many times been asked of the Church and of its individual members, to this effect: In the case of a conflict between the requirements made by the revealed word of God, and those imposed by the secular law, which of these authorities would the members of the Church be bound to obey? In answer, the words of Christ may be applied—it is the duty of the people to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s [see D&C 63:26 ; Matthew 22:21 ]. At the present time the kingdom of heaven as an earthly power, with a reigning King exercising direct and personal authority in temporal matters, has not been established upon the earth. The branches of the Church as such, and the members composing the same, are subjects of the several governments within whose separate realms the Church organizations exist. In this day of comparative enlightenment and freedom there is still cause for expecting any direct interference with the rights of private worship and individual devotion; in all civilized nations the people are accorded the right to pray, and this right is assured by what may be properly called a common law of humankind. No earnest soul is cut off from communion with his God; and with such an open channel of communication, relief from burdensome laws and redress from grievances may be sought from the power that holds control of nations.” ( Articles of Faith, pp. 422–23.)

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Kingship is the preferred form of government in the Scriptures. In fact all of Christianity looks towards an everlasting kingship.

I am saying that if we make absolutist claims then we better be darned careful about when and how they are applied. Else we are hoisted upon our own petard.

Yes I can it's in our Articles of Faith.

[BCSpace]

D&C 134:5–6 . “Sedition and Rebellion Are Unbecoming Every Citizen”

President N. Eldon Tanner taught: “There are many who question the constitutionality of certain acts passed by their respective governments, even though such laws have been established by the highest courts in the land as being constitutional, and they feel to defy and disobey the law. “Abraham Lincoln once observed: ‘Bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible; still, while they continue in force, they should be religiously observed.’ “This is the attitude of the Church in regard to law observance. . . . “There is no reason or justification for men to disregard or break the law or try to take it into their own hands. “It is the duty of citizens of any country to remember that they have individual responsibilities, and that they must operate within the law of the country in which they have chosen to live.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1975, p. 126; or Ensign, Nov. 1975, p. 83 .) President Joseph Fielding Smith likewise said: “No member of the Church can be acceptedasin good standing whoseway of life is one of rebellion against the established order of decency and obedience to law. We cannot be in rebellion against the law and be in harmony with the Lord, for he has commanded us to ‘be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign. . . .’ ( D&C 58:22 .) And one of these days he is going to come.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1971, p. 48; or Ensign, June 1971, p. 50 .)

The exception to this principle would be when the Lord directs His people through His prophets to take an opposing stand to government. Otherwise they recognize the established authority of government.

I'd have to disagree completely. Your quote here assumes that democracy is in effect. Your second quote includes " relief from burdensome laws and redress from grievances may be sought from the power that holds control of nations" but contains no explicit direction from which the Power sends such relief.

[BCSpace]

Kingship is the preferred form of government in the Scriptures.

Doesn't appear to be preferred by the Lord. Again Mosiah 29.

In fact all of Christianity looks towards an everlasting kingship.

One executed by Christ.

I am saying that if we make absolutist claims then we better be darned careful about when and how they are applied. Else we are hoisted upon our own petard.

Sure.

[DavidB]

I'd have to disagree completely. Your quote here assumes that democracy is in effect. Your second quote includes " relief from burdensome laws and redress from grievances may be sought from the power that holds control of nations" but contains no explicit direction from which the Power sends such relief.

In one way or another almost all approach the Church like its teachings are just items in a buffet line. And what I quoted is.from the lesson plan you posted.

[BCSpace]

Mosiah 29:26–27. The Danger of the Majority

Choosing “That Which Is Not Right”

• Elder Neal A. Maxwell (1926–2004) of the Quorum

of the Twelve Apostles warned that we must not

be indifferent to wickedness in society, because

destruction awaits nations that choose unrighteousness:

“Speaking behaviorally, when what was once the lesser

voice of the people becomes more dominant, then the

judgments of God and the consequences of foolish

selfishness follow (see Mosiah 29:26–27).

“Cultural decline is accelerated when single-interest

segments of society become indifferent to general

values once widely shared. This drift is facilitated

by the indifferent or the indulgent as society is led

carefully down to hell (see 2 Nephi 28:21). Some

may not join in this drift, but instead they step aside,

whereas once they might have constrained, as is their

representative right. . . .

“We actually have an obligation to notice genuine,

telltale societal signs. . . .

“For what happens in cultural decline both leaders

and followers are really accountable. Historically, of

course, it is easy to criticize bad leaders, but we should

not give followers a free pass. Otherwise, in their

rationalization of their degeneration they may say they

were just following orders, while the leader was just

ordering followers! However, much more is required of

followers in a democratic society, wherein individual

character matters so much in both leaders and

followers” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1999, 28–30; or

Ensign, May 1999, 23–24).

• President Boyd K. Packer also spoke of the recent

trends of distorting tolerance:

“The virtue of tolerance has been distorted and

elevated to a position of such prominence as to be

thought equal to and even valued more than morality.

It is one thing to be tolerant, even forgiving of

individual conduct. It is quite another to collectively

legislate and legalize to protect immoral conduct that

can weaken, even destroy the family.

“There is a dangerous trap when tolerance is

exaggerated to protect the rights of those whose

conduct endangers the family and injures the rights

of the more part of the people. We are getting

dangerously close to the condition described by the

prophet Mosiah [in Mosiah 29:26–27]” (“Children of

God,” BYU Women’s Conference, May 5, 2006, 6).

And that from the new BoM Institute manual. Dangerously close to rebel talk if you ask me.

[BCSpace]

I'd have to disagree completely. Your quote here assumes that democracy is in effect. Your second quote includes " relief from burdensome laws and redress from grievances may be sought from the power that holds control of nations" but contains no explicit direction from which the Power sends such relief.

In one way or another almost all approach the Church like its teachings are just items in a buffet line.

I certainly don't recommend cafeteria Mormonism

And what I quoted is.from the lesson plan you posted.

Sure. But I pointed out some context that seems to go against your opinion.

[DavidB]

I certainly don't recommend cafeteria Mormonism

always good to.follow.ones own advice. You created a premise whilst denying the teachings of the Church.

Sure. But I pointed out some context that seems to go against your opinion.

I have not posted an opinion I have posted the teachings of the Church, which teachings you are in disagrement with.

[BCSpace]

You created a premise whilst denying the teachings of the Church.

I merely disagreed with your obvious premise, now confirmed, that you thought I was in disagreement with some doctrine. I have not disagreed with any doctrine presented in this thread including the quotes you presented from officially published works.

I have not posted an opinion I have posted the teachings of the Church, which teachings you are in disagrement with.

Given the context I showed you, can you point out specificially which ones?

[DavidB]

Argue with the Prophets and Apostles. They are the people you are kicking against. They are the ones who state there is no justification.

And you did not provide context. You made up your own philosophy and must dismiss Doctrine to maintain your position.

[thesometimesaint]

For some odd reason I can't remember where exactly it is I'm called to be democratically elected a king/priest to the most high God. Moreover a kingship is a kingship is a kingship regardless of if it is Christ as king or good king Benjamin of the Book of Mormon as a form of government.

[CV75]

Here, I'll propose two more ideas to add to the list.

1) When the means of democratically changing a government no longer exists. I believe the scriptures or doctirne could imply this somewhere but you'll have to help me out.

2) When the voice of the people desires that which is contrary to that which is right. Mosiah 29:26-27 This implies the Democratic process above is still in place. It also perhaps implies a rebellion suited to the size and nature of the wrong.

Are you trying to come up with a list of conditions that would possible justify a prophet to seek divine guidance about whether to lead the saints against their government?

[The Nehor]

Are you trying to come up with a list of conditions that would possible justify a prophet to seek divine guidance about whether to lead the saints against their government?

Take to the streets and raise the barricades.

I think there are times when rebellion against the law was justifiable. Most of Europe during the early 40s for example. I certainly would not condemn someone for undermining the Third Reich or joining opposition groups against occupying powers and their puppet government. Nor do I think God would judge anyone who did so.

If bcspace is trying to argue that Obama winning the election And instituting a social program is cause for rebellion then I would say no, That is still the kind of thing that is fought in the voting booth and the courts.

[mtomm]

The disclaimer from that site is also clear.

http://www.ldsinfoba...disclaimer.html

Can you find it published by the Church elsewhere?

I can find the report of the speech in the Church News where parts of it are quoted but not where it has been published in it's entirety. Too bad, it's a good one.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/24415/Recognize-responsibilities-as-well-as-rights.html

[CV75]

That is still the kind of thing that is fought in the voting booth and the courts.

That is what I am trying to determine before continuing my particpation in this thread. Could it be as simple as envisioning a set of conditions where a prophet would pray or receive guidance about rebelling against a government? I was hoping someone would come up with a brilliant list from the scriptures, other than "when the Lord says to."

I think without a prophet we could do whatever we felt was right and God would judge us according to the light we have.

[mtomm]

If bcspace is trying to argue that Obama winning the election And instituting a social program is cause for rebellion then I would say no, That is still the kind of thing that is fought in the voting booth and the courts.

Is this a United States of America only church? The LDS Church is apolitical so that it can continue to expand and grow throughout the world. A rebellion against the US government would be suicide. I could see our missionaries being escorted out of many countries that "allow" us there as a courtesy.

[The Nehor]

Is this a United States of America only church? The LDS Church is apolitical so that it can continue to expand and grow throughout the world. A rebellion against the US government would be suicide. I could see our missionaries being escorted out of many countries that "allow" us there as a courtesy.

This is why I doubt the prophets will ever overtly approve of something like this unless it gets really bad. Not only would it alienate other governments it would also lead to the persecution of saints within said country. It is like asking why the Prophet did not warn the world about Hitler. It would have done little good and would have put LDS in death camps. I would leave it up to individual revelation to decide when revolt is needed.

[Stargazer]

I am getting to this rather late. Perhaps no-one will now visit this topic since it has perhaps been hashed out to death already and everyone is tired of it. But I am finally getting around to it, and I just had to reply. TSS made me do it.

Is this a United States of America only church? The LDS Church is apolitical so that it can continue to expand and grow throughout the world. A rebellion against the US government would be suicide. I could see our missionaries being escorted out of many countries that "allow" us there as a courtesy.

I seem to recall hearing or reading something an authority of the church stated which specifically excluded the Church from conducting a war, with the proviso, "unless the Lord commanded otherwise." It should be clear to anyone who has a doubt on this that the Church will not go to war. It is clearly not the function of the Church, no matter what the poltical circumstances, or the country that is involved.

However, the scriptures make it clear that rebellion against an unrighteous government is not forbidden under all circumstances. And the law of this land (USA) clearly supports the theory, at least, that rebellion is not in all cases forbidden.

Scriptures in this regard include:

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.

This sets forth the justification for rebellion and the circumstances under which it might be righteous to rebel. Now, for those of you who insist that under no circumstances is it justifiable to rebel against a government, please explain away the above verse.

I served 8 years in the US Army, and while it was made very clear to us that obeying orders was paramount, and even if by following orders we might lose our lives, we were required to obey them. Nevertheless our trainers in Basic were careful to tell us that certain kinds of orders were illegal, and must not under any circumstances be obeyed. In short, we were to obey as long as it was legal to do so, but we were not only permitted, but required to rebel against certain kinds of orders. Now, rebellion of this sort is always dangerous, because the issuers of such illegal orders would naturally have considerable power. But we were taught what kinds of orders we had to disobey.

The midwives in Pharaonic Egypt were order to kill male Hebrew babies at birth, while they were still just newborn. But they disobeyed the law, and lied about the circumstances of these births. Where is your vaunted "no justification to break the law" in this case?

Granted these are extreme cases, but that is exactly what DC 134:5 deals with: Extreme Cases. There is no carte blanche to rebel against legally and lawfully constituted authority.

The Founding Fathers of the US clearly anticipated the need to rebel. If there was no justification, then they shouldn't have rebelled against George III, and we quite properly should repent as a nation, abolish the office of President, and ask Elizabeth II to appoint a Governor General in his place, who will henceforth give the Royal Assent to the laws which Congress shall pass. We can then become citizens of the United States and subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I, for one, welcome our new Imperial overlords (and ladies).

The greatest impetus towards Independence versus a mere reformation of our relationship with the English Crown, was the book Common Sense, by Thomas Paine. Have you ever read it, those of you who claim there is never any justification for rebellion?

There are many legal authorities who have stated that there is not only a right, but sometimes there is a duty to rebel. The right is enshrined in a number of our US state constititons. Kentucky's states the following:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

Pennsylvania's contains the exact same wording in bold-face, and Texas's states it in very similar wording.

The Tennesee constitution states:

That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

And North Carolina's uses the exact same bolded wording.

Germany's Grundgesetz, or Constitution states, in Article 20(4):

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

Since the German constitution, like the US constitution, guarantees human rights and the rule of law, anyone seeking to overthrow it may be resisted, because they are attempting to take power to abrogate those rights. Who might seek to abolish the German constitution? It would have to be some governmental cabal, or party, or some military establishment of some sort. Such as in a Putsch, as was attempted by Hitler and the Nazis before they got their heads together to seek power in a quasi-legal fashion.

Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights, a most bloviating document, nevertheless states:

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law."

The thing is, DC 134:5 clearly permits rebellion, but only under dire circumstances. You can't rebel just because you don't like the current President, or Governor. But the right clearly exists, and exercise of a right cannot, by definition, be unrighteous. And no church authority has the right to claim that there is no justification, ever, for rebellion. Such a claim in in clear contradiction to the scriptures. So until DC 134 is removed from canon, there we are.

I suggest those who disagree read Right of Revolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Stargazer:

I'm a military brat, and served myself in the USAF. Unless you are constitutional law lawyer yourself, or have a JAG Officer behind you. it isn't a good idea to claim exemption from obeying the orders you are given in the US Military.

More over I'm not to one whom said “There is no reason or justification for men to disregard or break the law or try to take it into their own hands".