LDS Church and the U.S. Constitution

Buscador, there is a HUGE difference between the Constitution, Jefferson’s perception of the “wall of separation” and many modern interpretations of the “separation of Church and State”. Personally, I believe the original Constitution was inspired, and I agree totally with the idea of making sure that no Church (capital C) ever becomes a direct or de facto national church, but even after the ratification of the Constitution every state except Pennsylvania had a state religion – and every state allowed that state religion and its adherents to express their opinions based on their religious principles.

There is a fundamental problem, imo, with many modern attempts to stop religions and churches from adding their voices to the public debate – or even contributing resources to “political” issues. No issues are completely “political”, since they all deal with and affect directly the public – the citizens of the state and/or country. Those citizens have an equal right to voice their feelings and opinions, and the organizations that represent them do, as well. I believe the only issues are transparency of expression (funding disclosure, for example) and rules of special treatment (tax-exempt status, for example). As long as those issues are addressed openly and fairly, I have no problem whatsoever with religious individuals and institutions participating in the political process, since they are affected directly by the decisions that will be made. Silencing them simply because their opinions are based on religious principle is just as egregious, imo, as silencing others whose opinions are not based on religious principle.

I know you are not making this explicitly about Prop 8, and I don’t want to do that either (narrow the scope to that issue), but it is very instructive of the problem I see with selective application and hyperbolic, emotional reaction. The LDS Church followed the laws and rules set up for tax-exempt organizations to the letter. It adhered exactly to the contribution guidelines codified as law, and it also followed the reporting guidelines and deadlines to the letter. In the end, it contributed approximately 0.1% of the total money raised to oppose Prop 8 (just a little over $2,000), and its total contributions of in-kind value was under $200K – an incredibly tiny amount compared to the entire money raised and the value of other organizations’ comparable contributions (on BOTH sides of the campaign). However, there are people looking for blood who are screaming that the Church lied about or hid its involvement and should be punished for it – when nothing could be further from the truth. There are others who complain that the Church never should have gotten involved in a “political” issue like Prop 8, when there are literally hundreds of religious and non-religious organizations that got involved – again, on both sides.

As I said, I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of Prop 8 – and I mean that sincerely. What I’m saying is that Prop 8 is a good example of the way that the underlying concept of the role of religion in America is misunderstood by many who cite constitutional concerns that don’t mesh with the actual concerns of those who wrote the Constitution. The LDS Church’s involvement in Prop 8 would have been seen as natural and quite minimal by the Founding Fathers, especially since it was a state initiative and not a federal one. They would have understood completely that individual members can act as private citizens, even if encouraged by an organization.

(Good heavens, do we outlaw union members from “voting in lock step” with their unions’ official encouragement – or tell the union leadership they can’t express a political opinion on ballot issues? How is that any “more constitutional” or “right” than a church’s encouragement? If anything, since union membership is required for some jobs, it could be seen as “worse” for unions to take political stances for their members, since those members can’t leave the union and keep their jobs.)

Anyway, I hope that helps in some way.

You make some good points Ray, I think there is a fine line that is difficult to articulate. At first I thought Buscador was going to ask about the early attempts at theocracy – how could that fit if the constitution was inspired to separate church and state? I think the points, or questions, are similar in spirit. I guess I see it as one of the thousands of little seemingly contradictions that are all around us. Maybe I have acclimated (so to speak) to the paradox of life (and life in the church) enough that these things barely trigger my radar. I don’t know, it’s paradoxical. As Richard Bushman once said “LIFE is paradoxical.” I notice at times in myself my actions can contradict my deepest values, it’s hard to nail down why – but I hope I’ll always keep looking. I do enjoy subjects like this, but perhaps I don’t expect any definable solutions. Please excuse the random thoughts.

Orson, my perceptions are influenced greatly by my degree in History and my few years as a Social Studies teacher and coach – teaching Government as part of that. (The coaching experience influences my view of organizational activities.) The public sector is messy and convoluted and contradictory, especially in a democracy where anyone can voice an opinion, no matter who informed or uninformed it is.

Hi Ray. This is my first post here. You lucky guy. (I’m being very sarcastic btw) 😆

I think that when Jesus returns to rule and reign for a 1000 years, it will be a theocracy, but with the same freedom of conscience that was intended by the Constitution.

Until then, I think all religious organizations have not only the right, but the duty and obligation to represent their beliefs, morals, and values before government, and to exert all in their power, lawfully, to steer government to foster policy that will preserve a moral society.

I know you’ve seen this quote before, but the way I see it, it pertains to this topic.

John Adams said: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Here is a statement you may find interesting:

“All churches not only have the right to speak out on public moral issues, but they have the solemn obligation to do so. Religion represents society’s conscience, and churches must speak out when government chooses a course that is contrary to the laws of God. To remove the influence of religion from public policy simply because some are uncomfortable with any degree of moral restraint is like the passenger on a sinking ship who removes his life jacket because it is restrictive and uncomfortable.” — (M. Russell Ballard, “Religion in a Free Society,” Ensign, Oct. 1992, p.64-65)

Societies degrade over time, and religion has a vital role to play in it’s preservation, IMO. Lobbying happens to be how influence is exerted in the present. Many groups and organizations do this, and I think Churches must do the same.

Great topic though.

I think that when Jesus returns to rule and reign for a 1000 years, it will be a theocracy, but with the same freedom of conscience that was intended by the Constitution.

It is interesting that the theocracy that existed in Utah under BY was so devoid of that same freedom of conscience that you mention. The reformation with its catechisms and the B’Hoys certainly made it clear that it was important to toe the line. I think that primarily because of my perception of governance under the BY time period theocracy, I have a hard time envisioning a theocratic government as providing freedom of conscience. Any thoughts on this?

Bouvet, It’s cool.

I was torn as to whether or not I should begin a discussion about this topic. In my family, when I speak of this issue passions rise and sometimes name calling begins. It is difficult to maintain civil discourse on this topic. I think it is related to the sharp divide that exists in the U.S. because of the differences of opinion and existence of dogmatic rhetoric which leads to heated discussion.

Ray, my original question was not one of legality or constitutionality, but of whether the church, pushing a religious agenda in a public policy question, contradicts the church teachings that the constitution, which creates a wholly secular government, was divinely inspired. The individual states having an official church is irrelevant to the question. It is the church’s internal philosophical/doctrinal contradiction that interests me.

I maintain that the church has fallen into lockstep with her evangelical counterparts instead of remembering its unique American position that God inspired the constitution to be written, and recognizing that that inspiration led to a secular government. And the policies and laws that government makes should be based on reason and best practices, not religious influence. The problem with using religion, even my own precious one, to be the basis for public policy violates the spirit of a secular government.

I think the church missteps when it influences laws based on doctrine. I do not think the church violates laws or the constitution when it jumps into the political fray, but it contradicts its own stated beliefs.

I appreciate the irony.

The only thing more spicy than discussing religion or politics at the dinner table is … religion and politics!

I appreciate everyone so far giving each other lots of room and keeping it positive. It is totally fine to discuss challenging topics, but every please keep in mind this site is setup as a support group more than a debate club. We will disagree, or at least not see things the same, more often than not.