In reading recently the Constitution of the United States, I thought of the eloquent words of James Russell Lowell when he was at the court of France. Guizot, the French statesman, said to him: “How long will the Government of the United States endure?” And the reply of James Russell Lowell was: “Just so long as the ideals of the founders of this government endure.” This incident has been told in the remarkable letters of the great statesman Guizot, and it is something for us to remember.

Source: Elder Levi Edgar Young
General Conference, October 1923

Topics: Principles; US Constitution, Threats to

Conflict the Result of Ignorance of Law

I have frequently, in view of recent events, asked myself this question: Have we, modern people, who live in the most enlightened and progressive period of the world’s history, with the experience of the past to guide us, and knowledge of the future, as it has been outlined by the prophets who have lived before, overcome this needless, unjustifiable, erroneous conception of the proper relationship which exists, or should exist, between the church and the state? Do we properly differentiate between our obligation of obedience to civil law, in the administration of temporal affairs, and our obligation to the church, which represents divine law, given for the purpose of preparing men for future glory and exaltation in the kingdom of heaven? Where conflict exists between the two, it is clearly the result of either ignorance, or wilful misinterpretation of both civil and ecclesiastical law.

Source: President Anthony W. Ivins
General Conference, April 1923

Topics: Freedom, Religious

The Latter-day Saints believe that the coming of Columbus to this continent was part of the divine plan by which this land, which had been held in reserve, might become a place of refuge, and asylum for the oppressed and down-trodden of all nations, that freedom of worship, and exercise of conscience, in righteousness, might be enjoyed by all people. We believe that the Lord inspired the framers of our government to give us our legislative, executive and administrative system of government, by which our laws are enacted and enforced. This system, having been given of the Lord, it is not strange that the administration of our civil affairs corresponds so nearly with the organization of the Church, and still differs so greatly in the one essential feature.

Contrast Between Civil And Religious Laws

Our civil laws are enacted by Congress, that body being governed, in framing the law, by the Constitution of our country; by our state legislatures under authority of congress, and our precincts and municipalities under authority granted by the state legislatures. The officers who administer these laws are chosen by the voice of the people. The laws enacted by our precincts and municipalities, and the power of the lesser judges and officers who enforce them are limited in regard to both territorial jurisdiction, and power to inflict punishment. Legislative laws have jurisdiction over all of the people of the state, while congressional laws must be obeyed in all parts of the republic.

Decisions rendered by precinct, municipal or district judges are subject to review, on appeal, and may be carried to the supreme court, whose decision is final. To each of these courts authority is given to enforce its decrees by compulsory means. We may protest, it may be contrary to our idea of right and justice, we may say that we will not submit, but it is all in vain, the civil law compels submission. It may impose heavy fines, and if we refuse to pay, take our property by force to satisfy its judgment. It may incarcerate us in prison, for life if the offense justifies, or even deprive us of life itself.

In contrast to this, the laws which govern the Church are given us by the Lord our God. He is the author of them, he is our lawgiver. He has revealed to us the order of Church government and designated the officers who are to administer its affairs. The ward organizations, with their limited administrative powers, the stakes with their enlarged jurisdiction, and finally the presiding authorities, who have jurisdiction over all of the affairs of the Church, have all been given us by the Lord.

Source: President Anthony W. Ivins
General Conference, April 1923

Topics: Government, Vertical Separation; Law; Rights

The Civil Law Compulsory, The Church Law Voluntary

The purpose of this review, brief and very imperfect as it is, is to call your attention to the fact that the civil law is given for the protection and control of our temporal affairs, while the Priesthood is conferred upon us for the control and development of the Church: that the former differs from the latter in that one is compulsory, the other entirely voluntary. To the civil law all men must submit, regardless of race, creed or condition, while to the priesthood man may submit or not, as he may choose.

When arraigned before Pilate one of the charges brought against the Redeemer was that he was guilty of sedition, in that he had declared himself to be a king. Yes he answered, but my kingdom is not of this world. It was not a menace to the kingdom of Herod, or the empire of Rome. His was the kingdom of heaven, and had nothing to do with the kingdoms of this world, except that he taught his followers to be obedient to them, but the people, failing to distinguish between the temporal and spiritual could not comprehend.

Source: President Anthony W. Ivins
General Conference, April 1923

Topics: Government, Vertical Separation; Law

Summary And Application

So, my brethren and sisters, I reach this conclusion: That it is the duty of each member of the Church to honor and obey the law of the land, and sustain the men who are chosen to administer it, in so far as they do so in righteousness and justice. That the Priesthood is conferred upon us for the development and control of the Church of Christ, and that it cannot be legitimately used for any other purpose. That whenever we use it for the promotion of personal interests, to gratify personal pride, or ambition, or apply it by compulsion or restraint, we are upon dangerous ground, and not in harmony with the word of the Lord. My conception is that the exercise of the Priesthood can only be legitimately used where the purpose is to provide equal opportunity for all, in the sphere occupied by each member of the Church, and special privileges to none, except as men may have merited honor and distinction through devotion to the work of the Lord.

Do not understand me to infer that men holding the Priesthood are not entitled to participate in all of the activities of the state, and enjoy any and all of the emoluments to which citizenship entitles them, but this participation, and the honors which may come to them should be the reward of merit; and the influence of the Priesthood, as such, should not be used to accomplish their personal desires.

Neither do I wish to infer that the Priesthood should not be exercised in the promotion and development of the temporal interests of the people. It is a poor system of religion, indeed, which treats only with the salvation of the souls of men, while it leaves their bodies to perish.

What a simple thing it is, and yet how vitally important. If the people of the world could only be taught obedience to this doctrine, to willingly honor and obey the law of the land in the control of civil affairs, leaving all men to answer to the Lord in matters of faith and worship, each having decent respect for rights and opinions of his neighbor, thus rendering to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to God that which pertains to his Kingdom, peace would soon prevail throughout the earth, Christ’s Kingdom would be established, and the will of the Lord would be done of earth, as it is done in heaven.

Source: President Anthony W. Ivins
General Conference, April 1923

Topics: Law; Politics

Best Men Should Be Chosen Regardless Of Politics

Politics reminds me very much of the measles. The measles don’t hurt much if you will take a little saffron tea or something else to keep them on the surface, but if they once set in on you, they turn your hide yellow and sometimes make you cross-eyed. So do not let politics set in on you. I believe absolutely in the best men for office. I believe in honest, upright, good men being chose to occupy places and positions in the state and in the Church.

Source: President Heber J. Grant
General Conference, October 1922

Topics: Politics

I want to suspend reading the remainder of this passage for a moment, while I call your attention to the fact that the conditions here named, as to the Gentile nation in this land, are wonderfully fulfilled. When this Book of Mormon came forth in 1830, there were about twelve millions of people in the United States; now we have nearly three times that number in the Eastern States Mission alone; and in all the United States, we exceed by considerable, a hundred millions within the borders of continental United States. It was a very bold prediction to write in a book in 1830, when the United States occupied practically only the Atlantic seaboard, and the Ohio valley, to some extent—it was a rather bold prediction to write in a book the prophesy that this Gentile nation—the United States-would be “exalted above all other nations, and above all the people of the whole earth.” But witness its fulfilment today! It is true, and this nation, had in mind when this prediction was sent forth in our modern language was regarded merely as an experiment in government, and no such future was ever dreamed of for it as is here predicted, and now fulfilled. And also the other and the sadder part of it; namely—that they would not only be lifted up in power above all other nations, but also they would be filled with all manner of lyings and deceits, and mischiefs and hypocrisies and murders and priestcrafts and whoredoms and of secret abominations—“And if they do all these things, and shall reject my gospel—” and behold, that is what the people of the United States did when they rejected from habitation among them, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and expatriated the membership thereof, so that they were under the necessity of finding a refuge in a land, which, at the time our fathers entered it—The Salt Lake Valley—was no part of the United States of America—but was Mexican territory.

Source: Elder Brigham H. Roberts
General Conference, October 1922

Topics: America, Heritage

We believe that [God] inspired the writers of the Constitution of the United States, that they were led by his Spirit when they composed that splendid pronouncement of government and law. Of course we have had views different from some of our friends in regard to what shall be considered constitutional and what should be considered unconstitutional, and those are questions that have been raised almost from the beginning of our establishment as a nation.

Source: President Charles W. Penrose
General Conference, October 1922

Topics: US Constitution, Inspired

It has been the counsel of the leaders of this Church from the beginning, to observe the Constitutional law of the land, and it is stated in the revelations that whatsoever is more than this or less than this, cometh of evil. We do not need anything outside of this strict letter of the law, for if we do go beyond it, or come tardy of it, we are liable to make a mistake. The agency that the Lord has given to his sons and daughters was given to all—the free agency to choose between right and wrong, and that agency makes us free, for the Lord has said, “If ye abide in my truth, then are ye free indeed.” Now, whenever any man enters any organization, secret or otherwise, that takes from him a certain degree of that free agency to choose between right and wrong, and makes of him a servant, to do as he is told in certain matters, quite irrespective of the righteousness or justice of the case, or of the right or wrong of the case, then that man surrenders that much of his free agency which he ought not under any circumstances to surrender. Let me explain.

In the Bishop’s Office the question was brought directly before us as to the right of a man to labor on some work which the Church was doing, whether he belonged to a Union or not. We decided that we would hire Union men or non-Union men; if they were good workmen, we would not ask the question as to whether they belonged to any Union or not. But we were confronted with this difficulty: one of our brethren who is a Union man, refused to work on the job with a non-Union man, a good member of the Church. In this case we said, this brother who does not belong to your Union is a good man, a good neighbor, a good citizen; you meet with him at the Sacrament table and administer the Sacrament to the Latter-day Saints. You may be appointed as a block teacher and go around teaching the Saints their duties. You may both be called on to administer to the sick, and you go and offer your prayers, but when it comes to working together, you, our brother who has a Union card and belongs to the Union, will not allow this goodbrother of yours to work for his living, nor will you work with him in any way, because he does not belong to your organization. Now we ask, do you think this is right or just or fair? He, a good man, every way acceptable, a good workman, to be deprived of working on a job because he refuses to surrender any part of his God-given agency to any organization whatsoever on the face of the earth? Or, because in this he refuses to put himself in a position where he may be called upon to do a wrong; for it is a wrong to say your own brother shall not have the privilege of earning a livelihood because he will not join your organization. On the other hand, a man comes along who is not the best kind of a citizen, who may be more or less disreputable, who is rather a discredit to good citizenship than otherwise, and yet he can show a Union card, and you, my good Latter-day Saint brother, who belongs to the Union, you will work with him; you will allow him to work for his living and join with you in this work, although e is not one-twentieth part the tithe of such a man as your own brother in the Church is, whom you refuse to work with.

This Union brother acknowledged that such was practically the case, and yet he was powerless to help it. Now, my brethren and sisters, don’t you see that this man had surrendered so much of his free agency to this Union of his that he was not permitted to do that which was plainly and clearly right toward his own brother in the Church? Therefore, I say, the counsel which has been given all along by the leaders of the Church, to refrain from joining any organization, or giving your allegiance, or any part of your allegiance to any society or Union which will interfere in the least degree with your free agency, is good sound counsel. Of course, one will say that he has a right to join whatever organization he pleases. It is true that he has that right, but his duty, his plain simple duty, is to protect his brother and the interests of his neighbor. A good many people stand upon their rights, as they say, and quite often forget their duties. Our duties to our God; to our Church; to our families; to our neighbors these ought to be first, rather than prating so much about our rights.

Source: Elder Charles W. Nibley
General Conference, October 1922

Topics: Duty; Unions

•  ⟨⟨ 
•  ⟨ 
•   |  
•  ⟩ 
•  ⟩⟩