Theocracy and the United States: Applying the D&C
Posted on January 31st, 2006 by Clark Goble
Over in the Mormons and War thread a lot of discussion has circled around D&C 98. One thought occurred to me though and that is the issue of theocracy. That is to what degree can scriptures like this be applied to our nation as a whole? The problem appears to be Church/State separation which, if we take the prophets seriously, was inspired to be a part of the Constitution.
I don’t want to get into a discussion of “this war was unjust.” I do wonder though how, given that we don’t have a theocracy, D&C 98 could possibly apply to our nation. Certainly elements of it are generic enough to work. But the key verse appears to be D&C 98:33.
And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
Now that’s great if you’re living under a theocracy and have Generals who are simultaneously prophets. But what about in our current government. Let’s say the Lord tells Pres. Hinkley that a war is just. Could that have any bearing on the US government? Should it, given our Constitution?
My sense is that it neither can (as a practical matter) nor should (as a theoretical matter). I think Americans should be justifiably upset if say Clinton thought he received a personal revelation and thus attacked Bosnia. By extension, I don’t think it ought determine US policy if the leader isn’t spiritually attuned enough to discern the will of the Lord. Thus it seems that the applicability of D&C 98 as a general law ended right around the time of Wilford Woodruff.
Once again this isn’t to dispute the important principles in the section, such as patience and turning the other cheek. Yet as a general set of guidelines for our nation’s government, it seems profoundly unhelpful.
Thoughts?
» Filed Under Any
Comments
13 Responses to “Theocracy and the United States: Applying the D&C”
Leave a Reply
An additional comment that came up from the other thread regarding the “save I the Lord commanded them.” If, as Mike appears to agree, this was a revelation to the Church, does this then apply only to revelations through the prophet or should we take it merely as a fancy way of saying, “pray about whether to go to war and call your Senator and the White House on the basis of what you feel prompted.” If it is just the latter, it seems somewhat trivial. I’d hope that everyone prayed about the issue.
It’s interesting given the history of violence in the early Church. It’s hard when reading history to not believe that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young made many mistakes when it came to war. Was the 1838 Missouri war justified for instance? It’s hard to say. What about the Utah War? Lots of complexities to things.
But if D&C 98 simply becomes a command to pray about all things, then I think we’ve lost something.
Clark,
I’ll cut and paste a part of a comment from the other thread here:
As far as applying D&C 98 goes, I suppose it is like any other belief we have in the Church in relation to the World around us. We aspire to be a peculiar people and should agitate for a better world in accordance with our beliefs. We try to get others to see things our way, whether it is in dealing with drug issues in the neighborhood or politics, or the allowable amount of pornography on public media venues etc. War isn’t much different I suppose. If we believe that we shouldn’t go to war unless it is sanctioned by the criteria the Lord has set forth, we should advocate for that position in the general public.
Others may look at us strangely and say they are glad we’re not the secretary of defense, but truly, someday, I believe that the world will be glad to be under the protection of the priesthood, as the people of Enoch’s time were.
But Curtis, the fundamental issue I’m raising is the contradiction between what the Lord set up for our government - a government separated from church - and the dictates of D&C 98 which require a theocracy. I don’t quite see how you’ve addressed that fundamental issue.
I think too much is being read into 98:33. It is not a command to nations, but to the members of the Lord’s Church. Yes, the Lord in history has commanded his people to invade without provocation (Cannan), or to retaliate, or defend themselves (Book of Alma), but this has always been to church members. While they were functioning as nation-states that does not pre-suppose that they are a nation-state.
The context of this particular revelation was to the saints who were citizens of the US, and was to the followers and not to the citizens of the entire nation. This seemed to me a warning to curb the desire for “Frontier Justice” until it was truly called for or directed by the Lord. Aplying it wholesale to all governments seems to me to be a mis-applicaiton.
Now, if the Lord directly inspired your Stake President to get the wards togeather to go burn down the local [insert race, kidred, tounge, or people deserving of being battled], I’de be glad he’s your Stake President and not mine!
While I definitely agree Danno, the issue then becomes the responsibility of the members of the Church within a nation. i.e. how do we act with respect to our political influence.
Clark #5: We act according to the general principle in verse 16: “renounce war and proclaim peace.” “Renounce” is a strong word, stronger than “discourage” or “dissuade.” It implies rejecting war as a legitimate solution to the problems we face.
If war is proposed by our political leaders, we determine if the justification for going to war meet the requirements in the scriptures. If they do, we support it. If they don’t, we don’t.
Mike:
What you suggest in #6 (”…meet the requirements in the scriptures…”) further inflates the problem Clark identified in the original post because it’s quite easy to locate scripture passages that provide conflicting messages on the justifiable use of violence. I am willing to bet that neither you, Curtis, nor others of your ilk even consider 1 Nephi 4:13 as a scripture touching on the appropriate use of violence as applied to warfare while others, like myself, do. Now, I’m not here to debate the relative merits of Nephi slaying Laban but merely want to point out that your suggestion fails to establish some sort of resolution to the problem.
I think Clark does something so rare in Mormondom. He actually attempts to apply context to the interpretation of scripture. With the D&C we have a plethora of information providing context. We know relative dates for almost all of the sections, we know what was happening in Mormondom at the time as well as the events that shaped society as a whole. I think your reaction is one that tries to apply what was very specific counsel to a very general purpose– which is a mistake. I don’t think that D&C 98 is worthless to us but not quite as literally applicable as you would have be.
Mike, I don’t see that as the case in the least. I recognize why you want to see it as a general command for pacifism. The problem is two fold. First the brethren don’t appear to have interpreted it in that fashion. The second problem is that the church since the events in the 1890’s has taken a very strong position of neutrality. Thus pacifism depends upon God not saying anything with the significance of silence being denial but the history of the church entails that silence far from implying an answer is simply due to accommodation with the country.
Put simply, it seems like this is just a very elaborate argument from silence that is misplaced.
I think D&C 98 is important for some basic principles. But I just can in no way see it as an argument for pacifism, especially given actions from 1838 - 1845 and through the 1850’s and 1860’s. The Mormons were not, the Trinity movies notwithstanding, pacifists by any stretch of the imagination.
Paul #7:
Have you considered how 1 Nephi 4:13 fits into the equation?
The passage explicitly states that the slaying is done by “the Lord…to bring forth his righteous purposes.” In the narrative, Nephi takes great pains to inform the reader how the Spirit three times had to encourage him to do the deed. Nephi resisted, but eventually obeyed the Lord’s commandment. But in any case, the key is that God commanded it; Nephi didn’t do it because he thought it was the best course of action.
However, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with war, armies, foreign relations, or our relationship to the state, so I would hesistate to use it as a model when making decisions in those areas. I also find it one of the most difficult passages in our scripture, because we have nothing but Nephi’s word on how the killing was justified, and some could (and have) used it as justification for murder (I’m thinking specifically of the Lafferty brothers). I’m not saying it’s not true, just that we need to be careful what we do with it.
As far as D&C 98 goes, how much applicability you give it is, of course, your own decision. But considering that it discusses “the law that I gave unto mine ancients…[and] an ensample unto all people” (v. 33, 38), I would hesitate to dismiss it as having no relevance to our modern world.
Clark #8: “Pacifism” is the word you chose to apply to my position. I have never used it, and do not consider myself a pacifist. I believe very strongly in the right of self-defense (both individually and for the state), and I believe that war is justified when God commands or permits it.
Your claim that “the church since the events in the 1890’s has taken a very strong position of neutrality” is simply untrue. The Church has denounced war in general, and some acts of war specifically, since then. Please see the document I referenced previously. Neutral silence is a much more recent position, and there have been comments warning against war as recently as October 2002 General Conference.
Just to add, Nephi also gives the justification that the Lord gives to justify killing Laban. It is very much an utilitarian view of killing.
Mike, once again those references don’t address the fundamental issues. I certainly agree one must love. I’m sure Captain Moroni loved the Lamanites and Nephite dissenters he had to kill. The question is over how to act.. And certainly one should be on guard regarding war. I’ll respond to your other points in the other thread, as I want to keep this one on a more theoretical basis.
BTW - Mike, do you have the full text for the 1942 statement? I’m afraid what you quote has so many ellipses that I’d like to see the full text and read it in context. It’s not up at lds.org.
EDIT: It is on lds.org. Here’s the full text.
Interestingly it makes many of the same points I did above.
I apologize for the multiple ellipsis. The paper was put together by T. Allen Lambert, and is more of an abbreviated list than I would like. I would like to flesh it out sometime, but that project hasn’t come to my front burner yet.
Please see my comments on the other thread re. President Grant’s statement.