Near the end of the Savior’s life, a group of Pharisees and Herodians attempted to trick Him into speaking against their oppressive Roman government. With calculated flattery, they said, “Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.” Then came the delicate question: “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?”
The question is flawed because it relies on a false premise: that an acknowledgement of the supremacy of God somehow exempts us from our civic responsibilities. The interrogators meant to imply that a person who advocates paying taxes to a corrupt Roman government must be lacking in their devotion to God. Jesus answered by showing them the image of Caesar on a coin and responding, “Render … unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:16-21; Luke 20:20-25).
The apostle Paul taught the same principle, encouraging Titus to encourage church members “to be subject to principalities and powers [and] to obey magistrates” (Titus 3:1). And Peter counseled church members, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers” (1 Peter 2:13-14).
The twelfth Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
This might seem like a strange affirmation, since the scriptures warn of the dangers of monarchy and advocate for government by “the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29:26). But it is consistent with the Savior’s guidance that we owe something to our government, even if it falls far short of the ideal.
In fact, we tend to take for granted the freedoms and advantages we enjoy because of the freedom and security provided by our government. In 1835, a group of church leaders in Kirtland, Ohio emphasized this point in a declaration about the relationship between church and state:
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.
Doctrine and Covenants 134:5
In 1994, I heard Elder Dallin H. Oaks deliver a talk at a community event called the Freedom Festival at Brigham Young University. He indicated up front that he was sharing personal views rather than speaking for the Church. In the talk, he shared a useful insight about this passage from the Doctrine and Covenants. Some people, he said, have misinterpreted this verse to justify defying their government as soon as they feel that any of their rights have been violated by that government. He pointed out that this interpretation is inconsistent with the actions of Church leaders, who continued to support their government through decades of unjust treatment:
Think of the persecutions in Missouri, the expulsion from Nauvoo, and the repression 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’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.
“Responsibilites of Citizenship,” Freedom Festival, 3 July 1994
The Declaration of Independence itself supports this approach. The signers advocated severing ties with England only as a last resort and acknowledged that this course of action must be the extreme exception, not the rule:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Captain Moroni was an inspiring military commander who led his people in defending their freedom against multiple would-be oppressors, including Zerahemnah (Alma 43-44), Amalickiah (Alma 46-51), Ammoron (Alma 52-62), Morianton (Alma 50), and Pachus (Alma 62). But it is worth noting that in every one of these efforts, Moroni stood on the side the government which had been established by King Mosiah. He defended it, even with all its faults, against those who wanted to overturn it and replace it with a government of their choosing. Even after writing a stern letter to the chief judge Pahoran, whom he suspected of dereliction of duty, he followed Pahoran’s guidance to quell an insurrection which threatened Pahoran’s ability to govern. (See Alma 62:1-8.)
President Dallin H. Oaks has reaffirmed our responsibility to seek change within our established civic processes:
What else are faithful Latter-day Saints to do? We must pray for the Lord to guide and bless all nations and their leaders. This is part of our article of faith. Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.
“Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” April 2021 general conference
Today, I will strive to fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen of the United States. I will renew my commitment to uphold the law and to advocate for needed changes to the law through established means. I will be patient, hopeful, and optimistic as I seek resolution of injustices and unfairnesses which have not yet been resolved in my community and in our country.
Thanks Paul. I think your last sentence sums it up nicely, “I will be patient, hopeful, and optimistic as I seek resolution of injustices and unfairnesses which have not yet been resolved in my community and in our country.” Sometimes we need to work from the inside to bring about change and while we work through peaceful means…we need to remember to act in ways the Savior would have acted.
There is no “misinterpretation” about it when one concludes that he is not obliged to “sustain and uphold” any government which fails to protect his inherent and inalienable rights. That is the clear implication of the words of DC 134:5. Unlike the actions of others in contexts which can at best only be understood through the foggy lens of history, or the opinion of well intentioned by fallible individuals, the words of this scripture are crystal clear and I am guided accordingly. If others choose to place civil obedience over moral imperative, even as they lead the innocent to the gas chambers, I have faith that a contrary determination will result in a better reward.
Thank you for your comment.
Let’s explore that verse a little more deeply. I think you’ll agree that the primary message of the plain text is that citizens have a duty to sustain and uphold their government. The duty is qualified, but it’s worth noting that the verse is first and foremost a call for caution to those who may be tempted to defy the very institutions which uphold their rights.
It’s true that the “while” clause acknowledges that there are exceptions where moral imperative may overrule our duties as citizens. No one is suggesting here that we should perform unconscionable acts in the name of civil obedience. But the quotations from Jesus, President Oaks, and the Declaration of Independence all remind us that, under most circumstances, our duty as citizens does not conflict with our duty as disciples of Christ, and that we should not take lightly a decision to disobey the civil law.
I hope that’s helpful.