12th Article of Faith

I’m not surprised you have a problem with this statement. In our modern world, we’ve had so many examples of when we should no longer subject ourselves to tyranny and fascism that we can no longer justify subjecting ourselves to a ruler or even a local magistrate like a county sheriff for example, based solely on the position of power they hold.

I want to bring up a few points for your consideration:

1.This article of faith is number 12 in a list of 13. Does it’s placement in the list denote its importance?

2. Joseph Smith compiled this list of articles to define the Mormon faith to a government that was very suspicious of what he was trying to do with all his followers. Could it be that he threw this article in there to assure the powers that be that they had nothing to fear from him and his followers?

3. When Joseph was murdered, he was planning on leaving the United States and moving to Mexico (Utah was part of Mexico at the time). If it was wrong to oppose a government, why would he prepare to lead people on a mass exodus out of His father country?

So responding to point number 1, There is not much importance in the placement of these articles. The 13th and final article is all about personal conduct and improving ourselves. And I wouldn’t say that the restoration of the 10 tribes takes precedence over our political affiliations and loyalties. I do believe he started the list in logical order of defining our beliefs. 1. What we worship, 2. Why we worship, 3. Atonement, 4. Principles and Ordinances, 5. Priesthood Power…etc. But as things progress from there, they don’t list our scriptures for 3 more articles, and it doesn’t mention our other scriptures and how they are ratified either. Not everything about the Mormon Church is mentioned in the articles of faith either. So it is not mentioned that if we are prompted to overthrow the unrighteous government we find ourselves under, then that’s what we should do. I guess we should subject ourselves to being governed by righteous kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, but only so far as they obey, honor, and sustain the law. As soon as they usurp authority to overrule the law, then we are to rid ourselves of them and replace them with a governor who will rule righteously. I don’t know if anything I’ve said helps you at all, but I thought I could share the train of thought I have followed in evaluating the beliefs of the Mormon Church. Sometimes I will be able to look at the history of something and it makes more sense to me. Sometimes I look for what logic the prophet could have used to reach their conclusions, and sometimes I find I can develop rebuttal arguments along the way. And lastly I look for what context or examples I can find in the conditions of the day when the prophet lived. Good luck as you try to come to terms with the teachings of the church.

For a long time I have contemplated this question, and I am grateful that I have never felt it needful to confront unrighteous dominion of my government. I don’t think I have any great insights, but would like to share a few thoughts.

The Church teaches, and I believe that America is a very special place, at least until recently. The Constitution is an amazing document, and the American experiment in democracy is absolutely astounding. In so many ways, our nation has blazed new paths to lighten the burdens of mankind throughout the world. But evil raises its ugly head even here. The Saints were massacred in Hans Mill, driven out of Nauvoo in the dead of winter by mobs, and Joseph Smith was assassinated. They fled the then US territory to settle in Salt Lake, but even then Johnson’s army came to put down the “Mormon Rebellion”. That was followed by persecution by officials in the territory and national governments because of their religious beliefs that led to the federal takeover of Church properties and very nearly took over the temples. The Church came very close to bankruptcy. Subsequently, once all attempts at challenging the legality of such government actions failed, they changed their doctrine. With great difficulty Utah gained statehood, but it’s Senator Reed Smoot was denied a seat in the Senate for all of his first term, until his persecutors finally relented.

During all that abuse and persecution, the times when Mormons fought back with violence was by far the exception and not the rule. The folks at Hauns Mill fired a few shots off before they were overwhelmed 10 to 1 and killed, a Joseph and his cell mates were able to get off a couple of shots before he and his brother were likewise massacred. But while Brigham Young was verbally challenging to the approach of John’s Army, he made every attempt to avoid violence. He was willing to torch Salt Lake before allowing the invading army to take what they wanted. The only exception to clear defensive use of violence was the massacre and Mountain Meadows. While the local Mormons were clearly the aggressors in that instant, it was in a highly charged environment of Johnson’s army approaching Salt Lake while verbally aggressive anti-Mormons moving through the territory making threats all the way.

So I interpret that for myself, I believe the Church encourages us to avoid violence of all kinds whenever possible. Aggression should be used only as the last option. In dealing with oppressive governments and others, it seems to me that staying under the radar is typically the better way, though specific situations may call for something else. Joseph shot back, Brigham didn’t. Saints in Nazi Germany primarily kept a low profile, while a couple of Germans heroically resisted. But confrontation of all kinds usually gets many people hurt or worse. That is why I personally hate the political climate in our country today. Everyone is yelling at everyone else. Few people are looking for common ground, most just assume “if you’re not with me, then you are against me.”

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I think it is also possible that Joseph was establishing the relationship of members to the government, and vice versa.

When I look up the definition of what it means to be a “subject”, the definition in Merriam’s dictionary includes:

one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state

We believe in being honest citizens, and we expect the government to treat us as such and protect our rights.

Clearly there were times when the early church members weren’t protected, and times they felt justified to challenge the authorities.

I’m glad we’re not taught to be 100% subservient no matter what, and we’re not taught to be anti-government independents.

Well, what I’m trying to get at here is… if you supported the independence of Quebec, or Puerto Rico, would that violate the 12th Article? (As I understand it, there is a respectable level of support for such things) Or if you thought Australia should become a republic? And when does “the law” here run counter to the church? All of these are fairly mild political opinions IMHO in themselves, even if someone tries to use violence to achieve them.

While I don’t want to say too much about myself, I probably should mention that I’m not American myself (nor US resident). Like a lot of non-US folk I have a love-hate relationship with the USA, some of which I’m not going to get into, because it would end up detracting from the original point. I will say this though… because I’m not American, I don’t have any particular attachment to the US constitution, Bill of Rights etc. They’re all fine and well as long as they’re upheld, but I actually think they’re no better or worse than a lot of set ups in other western countries. (I agree with most of the historical points made about Joseph Smith and the US govt.)

I think in other parts of the world though, there are issues. I think once we leave the West, i.e. the USA, Canada, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan, we start running into governments which are not so well behaved. In fact, even some of the governments I’ve just mentioned have their problems – there’s been corruption problems in many of them, parties almost never out of office (like the Liberal Democrats of Japan), and in Spain and the United Kingdom, the activities of terrorist groups have brought some ugly responses from the governments (especially in Northern Ireland). Australia’s relationship with the aborigines has not been a happy one either…

Latin America, where there are countless Mormons, has had its share of atrocities through the last few decades. Fascists there have locked up or murdered anyone left of Mussolini, and the Communists have murdered people just for being tribal or middle class. And some of these countries, notably Argentina, seem to change their presidents on a regular basis. Just under ten years ago, Argentina seemed to have one a week for a while. So who should Mormons be subject to?

As for what Mormons living in some of the Middle Eastern states, or the “People”‘s Republic of China…

Well, what I’m trying to get at here is… if you supported the independence of Quebec, or Puerto Rico, would that violate the 12th Article?

…or South Carolina or Texas? Tee hee hee. I’m a secessionist.

Well quite! This is what I’m getting at. Is it alright for Mormons to hold such views (as long as they don’t veer into violence etc) or not? Or does this get in the way of supporting the presidents, kings and magistrates of the world?

(I used Quebec and PR because they’re both obvious North American examples… I think if I was a Tibetan I probably would take up arms, but that’s an extreme government you’re dealing with there.)

I served in Russia, and we went to ridiculous lengths to satisfy their completely absurd laws).

Poor guy! I have heard many stories about the place. I gather that Moscow City Council even listed the Salvation Army as a paramilitary organisation (and their theology aside, I won’t hear a word said against the SA), and that the national government basically doesn’t like anyone who’s Christian and not Orthodox (although they seem to think mainstream brands of Islam, Buddhism and Judaism are alright), including RCs and Protestants. I gather Baptists get it in the neck, and the LDS are treated like the religious branch of the CIA!

I suppose I have a slightly anarchist streak when it comes to secular government in certain respects. I always think there’s room for improvement in one way or another, but I also think that governments make bad decisions on a regular basis (some more so than others). On the other hand, I’m not very enamored of how many Western governments seem to do exactly what big business tells them to either.