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

[Damien the Leper]

In Sunday's lesson on Helaman 1-6 in the GD class I attended, the teacher was speaking about unity in and with government in regards to the situation with Pahoran and Kishkumen. The conversation almost got to the point where the question was going to be asked, "When is it right for LDS to break with (no longer support) or rebel against government?" My mind went to D&C 134:1-4 and using that as a basis, we can generate this list:

Verse 2

1. Individual free exercise of conscience.

2. Indiviudal right and control of property.

3. Individual protection of life.

Verse 3

1. Government will administer the law in equity and justice.

2. Such administration should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

Verse 4

1. The government (human law) has no right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion.

2. The government should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

So I submit the above list of items that, if any one of which is not being upheld or done and/ the voice of the people or the soveriegn no longer seek for or uphold them, mark the point at which a faithful Mormon can reasonably no longer support the government or actively rebel against it without being in a state of sin.

In addition, there is a similar line drawn for religions in this same scripture set:

Verse 4:

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.

For your convenience, here is official LDS doctrine bearing directly on these verses:

http://institute.lds...-in-131-134.asp

I'm sure others can be found. Notice for example that:

Yes. Look at the LDS who helped in Nazi Germany.

[thesometimesaint]

Valentinus:

There were LDS combatants on both sides in WW2. The Church doesn't hold the individual soldier responsible for the actions of their political leaders. However there were no high ranking NAZIS that were LDS.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus:

There were LDS combatants on both sides in WW2. The Church doesn't hold the individual soldier responsible for the actions of their political leaders. However there were no high ranking NAZIS that were LDS.

I understand that. However, my mother's great grandfather was a German in opposition to Nazi occupation and helped to free Jews along with other LDS who believed the same as he did.

I'm curious as to whether or not an individual(s) involved in the atrocities of the Holocaust would be considered 'faithful' LDS members by contributing to genocide. I'm not judging in any way but I'm curious where the church would stand on such issues.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Still is, and i agree.

So do you support our founding father's? According to the Prophet it is unbecoming of any person to engage in sedition, unless no longer protected in freedom of conscience.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I understand that. However, my mother's great grandfather was a German in opposition to Nazi occupation and helped to free Jews along with other LDS who believed the same as he did.

I'm curious as to whether or not an individual(s) involved in the atrocities of the Holocaust would be considered 'faithful' LDS members by contributing to genocide. I'm not judging in any way but I'm curious where the church would stand on such issues.

No faithful Latter-day Saint worked in a death camp. Fighting in a war is one thing, but the slaughter of Jews in concentration camps was a different matter...not to mention most Germans were kept in the dark about what was going on in these camps. BTW, I have a great story of going to one of these camps...well great and awful.

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

It was a willful ignorance on the part of the Germans. My mom right after WW2 was given an opportunity to record the stories of the Death Camp survivors. But she turned it down. That would have been interesting but as things turned out she met my dad shortly thereafter so it all worked for the best.

[thesometimesaint]

So do you support our founding father's? According to the Prophet it is unbecoming of any person to engage in sedition, unless no longer protected in freedom of conscience.

I believe it would have been impossible for the Gospel to be restored anywhere but in America free of the British Crown, with our own Constitution.

[Stargazer]

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".

Looky, I know its dangerous to refuse to obey an order. Nevertheless it was made blindingly clear to us in Basic Training that it was our DUTY to refuse to obey an illegal order. Woe betide you if you were wrong about the illegality of it, but nevertheless. Ever heard the phrase "between a rock and a hard place"? You could either obey the order and get court-martialed later when the conduct came to light, or refuse to obey and get in trouble that way.

As a sergeant, I once refused a direct order from a lieutenant to do something that was completely legal (but stupid), and managed to escape retribution (I was in the right, but still). It is not something that I recommend as a general course of action.

[Stargazer]

Yes. Look at the LDS who helped in Nazi Germany.

So who were these people, then?

Let's also look at the LDS who rebelled against the Nazis in Germany. Helmuth Huebener. Rudolf Wobbe. Karl-Heinz Schnibbe. Wobbe reported that "of the two thousand Latter-day Saints in the Hamburg area, seven were pro-Nazi, but five of them happened to be in his and Helmuth's St.Georg Branch (congregation), thus stirring controversy with the majority who were non- or anti-Nazis."

[thesometimesaint]

Looky, I know its dangerous to refuse to obey an order. Nevertheless it was made blindingly clear to us in Basic Training that it was our DUTY to refuse to obey an illegal order. Woe betide you if you were wrong about the illegality of it, but nevertheless. Ever heard the phrase "between a rock and a hard place"? You could either obey the order and get court-martialed later when the conduct came to light, or refuse to obey and get in trouble that way.

As a sergeant, I once refused a direct order from a lieutenant to do something that was completely legal (but stupid), and managed to escape retribution (I was in the right, but still). It is not something that I recommend as a general course of action.

That always is the rub isn't it.

I wouldn't recommend disobeying an order either.

[DavidB]

So do you support our founding father's? According to the Prophet it is unbecoming of any person to engage in sedition, unless no longer protected in freedom of conscience.

Is it right to apply the teachings of modern day prophets to peoples long past who had no prophets?

[Stargazer]

That always is the rub isn't it.

I wouldn't recommend disobeying an order either.

This is why rebellion against an established government is ALWAYS a bad idea. Even if the government denies basic human rights, such as the right of conscience (i.e. religion), it is still a BAD idea. It might be justifiable, but don't even give it serious thought unless there is a decent chance that your rebellion might actually succeed. Even bad governments are superior to anarchy -- consider Somalia, for instance -- and the only reason the US colonial rebels could succeed was because of the long distance and even more to the point, long travel time to Great Britain that made it more or less likely they could succeed. If Cornwall had rebelled against the Crown, the outcome would have been assuredly the Crown winning. Even Scotland, with the benefit of the courage of the Highlanders, could not prevail against England. The Atlantic Ocean was, after perhaps the French, the greatest ally of the American Revolution.

I prefer elections as the choice for overthrowing existing governments.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know as it is always has been a bad idea. There may be an "In the course of human events" type moment. But we must always be willing to accept the responsibilities that come from those actions whether they result in failure or success.

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the American War of Independence,^[8] or simply the Revolutionary War in the United States, began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America, but gradually grew into a world war between Britain on one side and the United States, France, Netherlands and Spain on the other. The main result was an American victory, with mixed results for the other powers.

The Atlantic Ocean wasn't much of a barrier, though it did play a factor in supplying the British troops. The British successfully controlled New York City for the entire Revolutionary War. The French fleet was the ones who bottled up the British fleet at Yorktown and it sure didn't stop them from burning the White House a few years later in the War of 1812.

I too prefer elections.

[Stargazer]

Most rebellions end badly for the rebels. Occasionally they don't. That's why they are generally speaking bad ideas.

And it was the Atlantic Ocean that was a major factor. If Scotland had rebelled, the entire British Army then stationed in England, and the bulk of the Royal Navy could have participated in putting the rebellion down, with little in the way of international repercussions. However, they could not move the entire British Army nor an appreciable part of the fleet to North America to put down the American rebellion, simply because France and every other European power would have taken advantage of it. I say again, the Atlantic was one of the most important allies of the American revolution.

Much later, even though it was right next door, Ireland was able to make enough trouble for the Crown that they eventually bulled through to independence -- and Britain's problem at that time was the British Empire. They were too far flung with their armies and navies to be able to focus on retaining Ireland, not to mention beat down in the aftermath of WW1. Circumstances militated to the favor of the Irish at that time.

Well, anywya, this is history and not Mormonism, so thanks for the interesting conversation but I think we've hit the end of the thread.

[Damien the Leper]

So who were these people, then?

Let's also look at the LDS who rebelled against the Nazis in Germany. Helmuth Huebener. Rudolf Wobbe. Karl-Heinz Schnibbe. Wobbe reported that "of the two thousand Latter-day Saints in the Hamburg area, seven were pro-Nazi, but five of them happened to be in his and Helmuth's St.Georg Branch (congregation), thus stirring controversy with the majority who were non- or anti-Nazis."

Apologies. I guess I wasn't clear in that post. I was talking about the LDS who were helping to free Jews and other prisoners.

[Stargazer]

Apologies. I guess I wasn't clear in that post. I was talking about the LDS who were helping to free Jews and other prisoners.

Oops, sorry! I guess I was responding to what you wrote rather than what you meant!

I'm a computer programmer, and we sometimes wish the computer would do what we wanted it to do, rather that what we commanded it to do.

[Damien the Leper]

Oops, sorry! I guess I was responding to what you wrote rather than what you meant!

I'm a computer programmer, and we sometimes wish the computer would do what we wanted it to do, rather that what we commanded it to do.

No harm, no foul.

[The Nehor]

Most rebellions end badly for the rebels. Occasionally they don't. That's why they are generally speaking bad ideas.

And it was the Atlantic Ocean that was a major factor. If Scotland had rebelled, the entire British Army then stationed in England, and the bulk of the Royal Navy could have participated in putting the rebellion down, with little in the way of international repercussions. However, they could not move the entire British Army nor an appreciable part of the fleet to North America to put down the American rebellion, simply because France and every other European power would have taken advantage of it. I say again, the Atlantic was one of the most important allies of the American revolution.

Much later, even though it was right next door, Ireland was able to make enough trouble for the Crown that they eventually bulled through to independence -- and Britain's problem at that time was the British Empire. They were too far flung with their armies and navies to be able to focus on retaining Ireland, not to mention beat down in the aftermath of WW1. Circumstances militated to the favor of the Irish at that time.

Well, anywya, this is history and not Mormonism, so thanks for the interesting conversation but I think we've hit the end of the thread.

I think the more important factor was that the British government was not unanimously opposed to colonial succession. Many members of Parliament sympathized with the colonists. It was also a moral government on a rough worldly level. That is also why Gandhi was able to get India independence. Revolts against strong tyranny are much harder.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the reason that most revolutions are not successful is that there are few that have the ability to govern wisely after the revolution is over.

[The Nehor]

I think the reason that most revolutions are not successful is that there are few that have the ability to govern wisely after the revolution is over.

Most fail because usually it is the people versus the military and the military usually knows how to fight while the people have less training and/or skill in that area. Revolts that have the military on their side almost always succeed.

[thesometimesaint]

True, but even the most aggressive military can't hold a population determined not to cooperate. The American revolution was fought and over before the first shot was fired.

[Nathair/|\]

I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't provide a CFR on this, but 20 years ago, I listened to an audiobook about the three young men mentioned above who fought against the Nazis. At the end was a quote from Ezra Taft Benson where he said that resistance against tyranny is always legitimate.

I have a natural Celtic dislike for unrighteous dominion. If I could go back in time and offer my sword to Michael Collins, Bonnie Prince Charlie, or Owain Glyndower, I would do so with a clear conscience. I'm considering doing the same thing for the rebels in Syria provided:

1. the Cause is just.

a. it is a legitimate rebellion for the purpose of establishing liberty and not like the Iranian revolution which replaced the Shah with the Ayatollas.

b. I would not be in rebellion or treason against the United States.

2. I would be more useful to the cause of liberty than by doing other things.

3. I can actually pull it off.

[blackstrap]

For a moment there,Nathair, I thought you were a fellow procrastinator. I mis-read # 3 as " I can actually PUT it off."

[Nathair/|\]

For a moment there,Nathair, I thought you were a fellow procrastinator. I mis-read # 3 as " I can actually PUT it off."

Thats why, after months of knowing about the rebellion, I haven't even started to work on point 1.

[Stargazer]

I think the more important factor was that the British government was not unanimously opposed to colonial succession. Many members of Parliament sympathized with the colonists. It was also a moral government on a rough worldly level. That is also why Gandhi was able to get India independence. Revolts against strong tyranny are much harder.

Agreed.