Why Did God Institute Governments?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 133-134 and a lesson titled “Prepare Ye for the Coming of the Bridegroom.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

In 1833, mobs attacked and destroyed the Church’s printing press. Among the print jobs in progress at the time was the Book of Commandments—the Church’s first attempt to compile God’s latter-day revelations into one volume. The mob scattered the unbound pages, and although courageous Saints preserved some of them, only a few incomplete copies of the Book of Commandments are known to have survived.

What we now know as section 133 of the Doctrine and Covenants was meant to be the appendix to the Book of Commandments, like an exclamation point at the end of the Lord’s published revelations. It warns of a coming day of judgment and repeats the call found throughout modern revelation: Flee worldliness, as symbolized by Babylon. Build Zion. Prepare for the Second Coming. And spread this message “unto every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (verse 37). The original plans for the Book of Commandments were not fulfilled, but this revelation is a reminder and a witness that the Lord’s work will go forward, “for he shall make bare his holy arm … , and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of their God” (verse 3).

This scripture block contains the following principles: (1) Jesus Christ calls me to reject Babylon and come to Zion (Doctrine and Covenants 133:4-14), (2) I can prepare now for the Savior’s Second Coming (Doctrine and Covenants 133:1-19, 37-39), (3) The Second Coming of Jesus Christ will be joyful for the righteous (Doctrine and Covenants 133:19-56, and (4) “Governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man” (Doctrine and Covenants 134). This essay will discuss the fourth principle about governments.

The early Saints’ relationship with government was complex. When the Saints were forced out of Jackson County, Missouri, in 1833, they asked for help from the local and national government and received none. At the same time, some people outside the Church interpreted teachings about Zion to mean that the Saints rejected the authority of earthly governments. Doctrine and Covenants 134 clarified the Church’s position on government.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 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;…

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference….

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief;…

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense;…

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government,…

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies;… They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants,…

The position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints towards governments is further clarified Articles of Faith 1:11 and 1:12.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

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

Why Was Biden Administration Anti-Christian?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the move by President Donald Trump to eradicate anti-Christian bias in the federal government. According to Trump, the Biden administration “engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.”

Trump pledged that his administration would not “tolerate this abuse of government.” He then announced that he was establishing a Task Force with the job of eradicating anti-Christian bias. It is no surprise that Trump’s announcement met with condemnation from the Left.

Tyler O’Neil reported on the announcement in his article at The Daily Signal. He said that the responses from the Left “serve to underscore the reasons such a task force is necessary in the first place.” 

Trump cited numerous examples of anti-Christian bias, which these critics largely ignored. He noted that pro-life Christians received multiyear prison sentences for peacefully protesting at abortion centers, while the Biden Justice Department largely ignored hundreds of attacks on Catholic churches and pro-life pregnancy resource centers. He noted the notorious FBI Richmond, Virginia, memo that suggested traditional Catholics represented a domestic terrorism threat. He also cited the Health and Human Services Department’s move to force transgender orthodoxy in foster care. Finally, the president noted that the Biden administration declared Ester Sunday “Transgender Day of Visibility.”

These actions may seem irrelevant to secularists who balk at the idea of saying “Merry Christmas,” but they represent a federal government demonizing Christians while at the same time favoring their ideological opponents.

Critics often dismiss the idea of anti-Christian bias. After all, about 63% of Americans self-identify as Christian, according to the Pew Research Center. How could the government be biased against the majority of Americans?

Such criticisms obscure the real phenomenon. Most Americans may identify as Christian, but far fewer actually attend church, read the Bible regularly, and follow what Scripture teaches even when it is unpopular. Until quite recently, the Left’s approach to social issues has been in the driver’s seat in the culture – and in many mainline Protestant and even some Catholic churches….

Many of those who claim the Biden administration didn’t target Christians focus on Biden’s self-identification as a Roman Catholic and the fact that Biden regularly attends Mass. Yet Biden and the bureaucrats in his administration firmly supported abortion and gender ideology. Their policies alienated and even demonized conservative Christians who disagree with their positions on those issues.

Do Churches Have the Freedom to Determine How It Uses Donations?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns donors demanding that churches return money that they paid in tithing. The case was the focus for much of American religion centered on “the lawsuit that James Huntsman filed seeking the return of $5 million in tithing he donated to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Tad Walch reported on the court decision. 

Faith organizations, including specific religious groups, colleges and universities, as well as charities, didn’t just await a verdict, they had filed their opinions and arguments with the judges who would decide the case in half a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the positions of the Latter-day Saints.

On Friday, they responded with gratitude when a panel of 11 judges on the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the church summary judgment. The judges ruled unanimously in favor of the Latter-day Saints without allowing the case to get to trial.

“This lawsuit is extraordinary and patently inappropriate, a not-so thinly concealed effort to challenge the church’s belief system under the guise of litigation,” four of the judges wrote. “The majority is correct that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation even on the terms of plaintiff’s own allegations. But it would have done well for the en banc court to recognize the obvious: There is no way in which the plaintiff here could prevail without running headlong into basic First Amendment prohibitions on courts resolving ecclesiastical disputes.”

The faith-based groups, representing tens of millions of religious Americans from Baptists to Methodists and Lutherans and Jewish coalitions, were grateful that the judges closed the door on the idea that donors could claw back donations.

They also were grateful that many of the judges supported the church autonomy doctrine, a long-standing legal precedent that says governments and courts should steer clear of wading into church affairs such as how leaders choose to use donations.

Walch’s article is much longer with lots of interesting information. Gene Schaerr is an attorney who represented eleven major religious denominations, from Jewish groups to Protestants and Scientologists.

Schaerr said the Friday’s ruling could have an impact on two other tithing cases, one pending at the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals and the other in U.S. District Court in Uth, which is part of the 10^th Circuit.

            “All three of these cases are essentially challenges to the church’s ability to determine for itself                 how it uses its own resources,” Schaerr said, “and there’s probably no more important issue of                 church government than how a religious body chooses to use its own resources. I think these                 five judges are absolutely right that it’s just not possible, consistent with the First Amendment,              for these kinds of claims to be litigated in court at all.” 

Who Is Jack Phillips?

My VIP for this week is Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. He “has been targeted for refusing to make cakes celebrating same-sex marriage and transgender transitions,” according to Blaze News. The article continued: 

A Christian cake baker has finally defeated legal harassment from the LGBTQ+ movement after fighting in court for more than a decade.

Jack Philips was sued in 2012 for refusing to create a cake for a same-sex couple at his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado and then later sued for refusing to create a cake celebrating a transgender transition. Attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom have defended Phillips for 12 years…

On Tuesday the Colorado Supreme Court dismissed the second lawsuit after saying that the attorney who filed the lawsuit did not follow the proper process to do so. Phillips won the first lawsuit in 2018 after a court found that officials acted with hostility against his faith.

Neither of the legal victories established Phillips’ constitutional right to free speech as a basis for dismissal.

The court’s decision leaves open the possibility that Phillips will be sued again. Until a court is willing to rule on a constitutional basis for free speech, Phillips and people who take a similar stand for freedom of religion and freedom of speech could face court cases. Kelsey Dallas at The Deseret News agreed with me. 

The Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in favor of Phillips left the door open for additional legal challenges, since it didn’t answer overarching questions about what should win out when religious freedom protections conflict with nondiscrimination protections for members of the LGBTQ community.

Instead, the ruling was focused on Colorado officials’ treatment of the Colorado baker. The court ruled 7-2 that officials had been unlawfully hostile about Phillips’ religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court again ruled in favor of a religious business owner in June 2023 in a case called 303 Creative. But that decision also didn’t fully resolve conflict over Phillips’ cakes, since it focused on business owners’ free speech rights and didn’t clearly define what types of products should be seen as expressive.

Nevertheless, Phillips’ attorney team felt that the 303 Creative ruling supported the Colorado baker’s position in the gender transition cake battle and kept fighting for that case to be dismissed, as it now has been.

Like the Supreme Court in 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday did not address key questions about balancing LGBTQ rights with religious freedom.

If and when other cases such as that of Phillips or 303 Creative reaches the Supreme Court, I expect that the high court will eventually rule on the constitutionality of such cases. It seems reasonable to me that a freedom guaranteed by the Bill Rights carries more weight than a more recent “right.” However, I have no legal training and could be wrong!

Are You Willing to Fight for Religious Freedom?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns religious freedom. In his article in The Daily Signal, Tyler O’Neil stated that it was “the first in a three-part series on the movement for religious freedom in the U.S. legal system today,” and there will be two more installments. The issue in the first installment combines religious freedom with COVID-19. 

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, represents Americans in religious freedom cases who have been turned away from hospitals because they refuse to take a vaccine for COVID-19.

“It’s disgraceful to put anyone on medical death row simply because they’re not willing to take a very controversial experimental vaccine, which is now proven to be very counterproductive,” Dacus tells “The Daily Signal” podcast in an interview conducted in February at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention here.

Some of the Pacific Justice Institute’s clients need organ transplants, he says, but “a minority of hospitals” are denying them.

“Most say no problem, you don’t have to be vaxxed, but these few out there are saying yes, you have to, and it just so happens we discovered they have contracts with Big Pharma,” Dacus says.

The lawyer argues that “more than 99% of those in the hospital with COVID-19, with serious conditions, are people who were vaxxed. The non-vaxxed are not in the hospitals, and yet [a minority of hospitals] continue to push it.”

“We’re defending people based on their sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions, and – needless to say – we’re making great progress and saving thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs for brothers and sisters in Christ across the nation,” Dacus says. “There has been a more than a 13,000% increase in the number of 12- to 19-year-olds who have myocarditis, a very serious heart inflammation disease.”

O’Neil continued his article by citing a 2022 finding in the British Medical Journal of “net harm” being done to young adults by booster shots. According to Dacus, Christians do not have to have particular doctrine or be part of certain churches. They just “have to have a sincerely held religious belief or conviction” against vaccine mandates to apply for an exemption to shots. One valid conviction is to be against vaccines that made with aborted embryos.

Davos also defended “the religious freedom of Christians who refuse to support gender ideology.” Davos also described the Southern Poverty Law Center as “far-left smear factory” because they named his law firm an “anti-LGBTQ hate group” and classed it with the Ku Klux Klan.

Should Tithing Be Refundable?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns a threat to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. James Huntsman, a former member, sued The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the return of $5 million that he paid in tithing over a period of 25 years. A lower court dismissed the case, but the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated the case.

A diverse group of religions sent a friend-of-the-court brief to the court claiming that the case will cause “constitutional chaos” because it is a “dangerous intrusion into internal religious issues.” The brief was from Jewish, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Seventh-day Adventist denominations as well as other organizations. 

The brief claims that the ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “violates the First Amendment and threatens all denominations, which ‘now risk a deluge of dubious lawsuits over their use of donated funds.’” The specific issue concerning the group of religions is that the court said that “the issue at hand was secular, not religious.” The brief said that the statement “was an attempt to do an end run around First Amendment constraints.”

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Monday by a 2-1 vote to reverse the lower court decision to throw out the case. This vote means that two of the three judges believe that a jury should hear the case. Tad Walch published the following information in the Deseret News: 

A U.S. District Court judge granted the church’s motion for summary judgment in September 2021 and dismissed the lawsuit, which alleged the church defrauded its members by using tithing funds for purposes other than charitable purposes. Huntsman’s suit repeated others’ allegations that the church used $1.4 billion in tithing funds to help pay for City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City and $594 million in tithing funds to bolster Beneficial Financial Group during the 2008 financial crisis.

The Church of Jesus Christ has more than 17 million members and maintains that “tithing funds are used for religious purposes,” such as building and operating hundreds of temples, global missionary work, operating “more than 30,000 congregations and five colleges and universities.” A spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ made the following statement:

“The Court of Appeals decision returns part of this case to the trial court for further handling,” church spokesman Sam Penrod said. “As we have previously stated, there was no fraud. The church did exactly what President Gordon B. Hinckley said when it invested earnings on reserve funds in the City Creek project. The church looks forward to defending these facts in the next phase of the legal process.”

“In fact, tithing was not used on the City Creek project,” a church spokesman said when Huntsman filed the lawsuit in 2021. “As President Hinckley said in the April 2003 general conference of the church, the funds came from ‘commercial entities owned by the church’ and the ‘earnings of invested reserve funds.’ A similar statement was made by President Hinckley in the October 2004 general conference. Mr. James Huntsman’s claim is baseless.”

Judge Stephen V. Wilson, the district court judge who threw out the case two years ago, said the following:

Ultimately, this is not a case about whether defendant used tithing funds in any manner, directly or indirectly, to pay for the City Creek project…. Rather, the question is more specific: Did (President) Hinckley make a false statement when he said that tithing funds would not be used on the City Creek project, but earnings form invested tithing funds would be used on that project? As discussed about, no reasonable juror could find that the statement was false.”

 

Is AliKhan a Danger to Religious Freedom?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns religious freedom. According to Virginia Allen at The Daily Signal, The U.S. Senate will soon have the opportunity to vote on the nomination of D.C. Judge Loren AliKhan to the bench of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. AliKhan was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 11-10 – strictly along party lines last week. 

The vote moves the nomination of AliKhan to a vote by the full Senate despite being opposed by “a coalition of more than a dozen legal and policy organizations urging senators to vote against her confirmation.”

“During her short 11 years as a litigator, she has developed a remarkably long record of advocacy against religious freedom,” reads a coalition letter sent to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and to Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., the panel’s ranking member. All of the Democrats on the committee voted in AliKhan’s favor, while all the Republicans opposed her confirmation.

“While we recognize all attorneys must represent the best interest of their clients, each attorney is at liberty to determine which arguments to use,” the letter continues. “The courts have continuously rejected her discriminative arguments against people of faith and their houses of worship, and faith-based organizations.” …

The most “egregious” example of AliKhan’s hostility to religious freedom, according to the coalition letter, was demonstrated by her arguments that “houses of worship – meeting outdoors, masked and socially distanced – pose a greater threat to the COVID-19 pandemic than the allowed city-wide protests.”

Arguing before the D.C. District Court, AliKhan, according to the letter, “chose not to bring in a medical expert to support her claims, instead she brought in a Ph.D. in Poli-Science. He asserted that the risk of spreading COVID-19 is higher for events where people are standing (for a church service) than where they are moving (for a protest).”

The Senate is expected to vote on AliKhan’s nomination later this month.

Since judges carry a lot of weight as they rule from the bench, Americans should be leery of this particular nominee. Hopefully, there will be some Democrats in the Senate that will vote against her nomination.

How Does the Abortion Battle Affect Freedom of Religion?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns religious freedom. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that Americans are free to practice their religion. Freedom of religion is called the First Freedom because it comes first in the First Amendment. This amendment forbids Congress from promoting one religion over any other religion and from restricting the right of individuals to practice their religion.

The state of California was sued by four churches because the State tried to force them to provide health care to cover abortion services. Kelsey Dallas at The Deseret News reported on the recent outcome of the cases. 

The churches – Skyline Wesleyan Church near San Diego, Foothill Church in Glendora, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills in Chino and Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch – successfully fought a state policy requiring employers to cover abortion in employee health plans. They argued the requirement violated religious freedom protections.

In two separate cases, judges ruled against California officials, deciding that churches with faith-based objections to elective abortion procedures should receive a religious exemption from the coverage rules.

Dallas reported that the legal battles were about a state policy in California. However, they were similar to several lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate. She wrote, “Various religious organizations spent years in court fighting the act’s requirement that most employers cover birth control in employee health plans.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court “ruled in favor of the faith-based companies and nonprofits multiple times.”

Dallas also wrote about how red states differ from blue states deal with the requirement for most employers to cover elective abortions. “In blue states, faith groups are finding ways to challenge laws expanding access to abortion by, for example, working to limit the use of abortion pills.” Meanwhile, religious organizations in red states “have argued that abortion bans violate religious freedom protections.”

Why Are Christians Being Attacked?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right to freedom of religion. The government cannot make any laws preventing freedom of religion, and it also has the responsibility to protect the right to freedom of religion from all other individuals and organizations.

According to Ben Johnson at The Daily Signal, the mass murder of three children and three adults at a church-run Christian school “constitutes 2023’s deadliest act of violence of churches.” In addition, the violent attacks against churches in 2023 had “increased nearly three times this year” and “church attacks in 2022 had already tripled over four years.” He continued:

In all, assailants attacked churches 69 times in the first three months of 2023, compared with 24 such acts during the same period last year, a 288% increase. The rising tempo of anti-Christian assaults – which includes arsons, bomb threats, vandalism, and sacrilege – has affected places of worship in 29 states. The motives behind such desecration run the gamut from pro-abortion activism or controversies over transgender ideology to apparently senseless acts of destruction.

The attacks on churches are steadily increasing, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) is slow in finding and bringing the perpetrators of hate and violence to justice. At the same, time the DOJ is extra active in prosecuting Christians who fight for the right to life by praying in front of abortion centers.

Do School Children Have Freedom of Religion?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The latest win in the fight to protect religious liberty came for an elementary schooler in Mississippi. Two years of legal proceedings later, Lydia Booth, age 11, will be allowed to wear her “Jesus Loves Me” face mask to school if she so chooses. A settlement was reached between the Simpson County School District in Mississippi and the Lydia’s attorneys. 

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal-aid organization, represented Lydia in a lawsuit against the Simpson County School District. The lawsuit was filed in 2020 on behalf of then-9-year-old Lydia after school officials told Lydia that she could not wear her “Jesus Loves Me” mask to school.

Tyson Langhofer, the senior counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement Wednesday: “No student should be singled out for peacefully expressing her religious beliefs.” Michael Ross, Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel said the following:

Public schools have no business discriminating against a 9-year-old for her religious expression….

Other students within the school district have freely worn masks with the logos of local sports teams or even the words “Black Lives Matter.” Lydia deserves, and will now have, an equal opportunity to peacefully express her beliefs.

Does Freedom of Religion Protect Silent Prayer at Abortion Clinics?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution declares: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Americans may better appreciate this freedom if they know what happened in the United Kingdom recently.

According to Mary Margaret Olohan at the Daily Signal, a pro-life woman was silently praying outside an abortion clinic in the United Kingdom and was arrested for doing so. Isabel Vaughan Spruce’s arrest shows what could happen in the United States if the Justice Department continues its crackdown on pro-life activists. We know that Mark Houck, a pro-life father, was arrested for pushing a volunteer at an abortion clinic who was bothering Houck’s son as the two of them prayed outside an abortion clinic. 

Spruce was confronted by police and charged with breaking a law against praying silently near an abortion clinic – on four different occasions in Kings Norton, Birmingham. Remember, Spruce was praying silently when she was arrested. Olohan discussed Spruce’s arrest and then linked it to arrests in the United States.

In the United States, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has charged almost 30 pro-life individuals with Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act violations this year. The Justice Department has been using the FACE Act to target pro-life activists as a response to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said earlier this month.

The associate attorney general described the overturn of Roe v. Wade as a “devastating blow to women throughout the country” that took away “the constitutional right to abortion” and increased “the urgency” of the DOJ’s work – including the “enforcement of the FACE Act, to ensure continued lawful access to reproductive services.”

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division enforces the FACE Act, which “prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services.”

It protects both pro-life pregnancy centers and abortion clinics, as a DOJ official noted to Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, last week.

At least 98 Catholic churches and 77 pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life organizations have been attacked since May, but the DOJ has apparently not charged a single person in connection with these attacks. The DOJ has not responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment on this point.

Pregnancy resource centers are typically run by pro-life women who seek to offer expectant mothers alternatives to abortion. Such centers provide diapers, baby clothes, and resources for both mothers and fathers, empowering them to care for their child, overcome addictions, build community, and find jobs.

Did you notice the contradictions? The Department of Justice is supposed to protect “both pro-life pregnancy centers and abortion clinics.” However, it has not arrested anyone for the 175 attacks on pro-life services, while arresting “nearly 30 pro-life individuals.” Are Americans losing their right to exercise their freedom of religion?

Why Is Religious Freedom Essential for True Liberty?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns religious liberty and why it is essential to pursue it worldwide. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including some of my ancestors, have been persecuted for their religious beliefs from the beginning of the Church of Jesus Christ in April 1830.

            President Dallin H. Oaks of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ spoke about religious freedom on Wednesday, July 20, 2022, at the 2022 Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit in Rome, Italy. The title of his presentation was “Pursuing Religious Liberty Worldwide.” He began his talk by declaring that Latter-day Saints, Catholics, and other minorities in the United States have been persecuted because of their religious beliefs. 

For me personally, religious liberty is not academic. In 1838, my third great-grandmother Oaks and her family lost most of their property when the Missouri state militia drove our members, then mockingly known as “Mormons,” out of that state. A few years later, Illinois state authorities stood by while a lawless element burned homes and drove Church members from that state as well. In 1844, my wife, Kristen’s, second great-grandfather, Hyrum Smith, was murdered by a mob who opposed his religion. In 1893, my great-grandfather Harris was sent to prison in the Utah Territory for his religious practices, and my great-aunt was the first woman imprisoned for hers. I am one of many Latter-day Saints whose DNA includes a desire for religious freedom, felt as fundamental as the marrow in our bones.

Leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ seek to bring religious freedom to all people and have done so from the beginning. The Prophet Joseph Smith made the following statement in 1843:

I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am … ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any the denominations.

            Though having different doctrines, Catholics and Latter-day Saints stand shoulder to shoulder in defending religious freedom. Recently, Cardinal Francis E. George, then president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke to a large audience at Brigham Young University. He began his presentation by declaring his personal gratitude for this improved relationship: “after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see one another as trustworthy partners in the defense of shared moral principles and in the promotion of the common good of our beloved country.”

            George concluded his remarks: “that Catholics and Mormons stand with one another and with other defenders of conscience and that we can and should stand as one in the defense of religious liberty. In the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and for religious institutions should become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces at work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality.”

            Oaks said that he was speaking at the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit “in furtherance of our enthusiastic support for such ‘interreligious coalitions’ to defend religious freedom for all people. During the earlier persecution of our Church, we have learned that the best remedy for religious persecution that affects us is to join in efforts to reduce religious persecution that affects others.” He called “for a global effort to defend and advance the religious freedom of all the children of God in every nation of the world.”

            Oaks noted that “Organized religion and personal freedom of religion” are being facing serious challenges. At the same time, “Religious liberty is declining in popularity with governments and their citizens.” He continued:

Religion is under siege by secularism, authoritarianism, and political correctness, all of which seek to replace or weaken the influence of its teachings. Globally, there are many government restrictions on religious liberty. More significant in the long run may be the deteriorating attitudes of individuals toward religion….

Doubtless there are many causes of this deterioration. Whether cause or effect, the education of the rising generation has surely played a role. In the United States we have observed a diminishing coverage of religion in school textbooks and curricula. Two decades ago, a report of the American Textbook Council observed that “The strength of religion in shaping human thought and action is not often explained, and its role as a motivating agent of culture, politics, and ethics often remains under-examined.”

One observer wrote that school textbooks “create[e] the impression that religion and faith have little to do with the development of U.S. History.”

What are the religious freedoms or liberties that concern us? For faith communities, the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of association and the right to assemble; the right to determine new members; the right to select leaders and important employees, including in related organizations; and the right to function as an organization. For individual believers, essential rights include religious expression and exercise and freedom from religious discrimination.

            Oaks suggested that the various religions – Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, Latter-day Saints, and other faiths – can “join forces to confront religious challenges” without examining “doctrinal differences” or identifying “their many common elements of belief.” He then said, “All that is necessary for unity is our shared conviction that God has commanded us to love one another and has granted us freedom in matters of faith.”

            Later in his talk, Oaks declared that “Religious teachings and the religiously motivated actions of believers benefit society and deserve legal protection.” One of the ways that religion benefits society is in giving humanitarian assistance for “hunger, disease, and lack of education to mention only a few” of the many needs.

Religious liberty enables believers and faith communities to provide this aid to society’s neediest members. Most religions exhort their believers to give to the poor. Most also teach their believers that they are accountable to God for this duty. Religions also play a vital role in contributing to social stability. Societies are not held together primarily by law and its enforcement, but by those who voluntarily obey the unenforceable because of their sense of accountability to God….

            Religious freedom is essential for true liberty. Our beliefs are core to who we are. If government or individuals deny freedom to believe, to speak of our beliefs publicly, and to share our beliefs with others, society itself will suffer.

Why Is Freedom of Religion Essential to Independence?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns freedom of religion. Religious freedom has been under attack for several years with increasing intensity. During the past year, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have spoken to global leaders and to college students from Italy to Brazil to Iowa about the different facets of religious freedom according to Christine Rappleye. 

            President Dallin H. Oaks, the first counselor in the First Presidency, spoke on religious freedom on two occasions and in two separate countries. On November 12, 2021, he spoke at the Joseph Smith Lecture at the University of Virginia. In December, he spoke at La Sapienza University in Rome, Italy. Here are some of his statements:

We have always had to work through serious political conflicts, but today too many approach that task as if their preferred outcome must entirely prevail over all others, even in our pluralistic society. We need to work for a better way – a way to resolve differences without compromising core values. We need to live together in peace and mutual respect, within our defined constitutional rights.

(The Joseph Smith Lecture at the University of Virginia on November 12, 2021, speaking on “Going Forward With Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination.”)

Religious freedom is a fundamental feature of our religious doctrine. The restoration of the fullness of Christian doctrine teaches us that God created and put His children on earth to grow spiritually by making right choices between good and evil consistent with His commandments.

Freedom of choice is, therefore, fundamental to God’s plan.

(Tuesday, December 14, 2021, at La Sapienza University, in Rome, Italy)

            Several members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke about religious freedom. Among them were Elders David A. Bednar, Quentin L. Cook, and D. Todd Christofferson.

[We feel] very strongly about religious freedom not just for ourselves, but for all. … Like some Muslims in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world, members of our Church have felt the effects of persecution and profiling and we join with good people everywhere in condemning such actions.

(Elder David A. Bednar at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, on October 19, 2021, during the final session of the free two-day conference “The Islamic World Today: Issues and Perspectives”)

My plea is that all religions work together to defend faith and religious freedom in a manner that protects people of diverse faith as well as those of no faith.

Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, Latter-day Saints and other faiths must be part of a coalition of faiths that succor, act as a sanctuary and promulgate religious freedom across the world. We must not only protect our ability to profess our own religion, but also protect the right of each religion to administer its own doctrines and laws.

(Elder Quentin L. Cook during a gathering in Salt Lake City with interfaith leaders from New York in advance of BYU’s religious freedom review on June 17, 2022)

One of the reasons I wanted to talk about Runnymede [where the Magna Carta was sealed in 1215] and to talk about these constitutional provisions is because they are crucial to us being able to go all over the world and be missionaries and they have been established so that people of faith can share the precious gospel truths that they feel.

(Elder Quentin L. Cook wen he examined a range of old books and commentaries on the Laws of England during a visit in October 2021 to the McGowin Library that houses Pembroke College’s Special Collections at the University of Oxford)

Religious liberty protects not just believers but everyone. It is the taproot that sustains and nourishes many other fundamental freedoms, values and social goods.

(Elder D. Todd Christofferson spoke from the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Friday, October 29, 2021, during the Forum on Religious Freedom in the Southern Cone based in Chili. The term “Southern Cone” refers to the area that comprises the countries of Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay)

            Rappelye’s article included several other quotes from other Church leaders. You can find those quotes here.  From the beginning of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leaders have sought to protect freedom of religion for people of all religions or those with no religion.

Is Freedom of Religion Under Attack?

             The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the need to protect freedom of religion. According to Dennis Prager, a recent attack on Judaism and Christianity was from The New York Times and took place at the most holy time of the year for each religion. On Good Friday – the eve of the Passover – the “Times published an opinion piece on God, the Bible, and Passover” and “mocked all three.” 

             As usual, the two copies of his column – one in the print edition and one in the digital edition – were written by one person who was upset with his religion. Shalom Auslander is “a Jew who is bitter over his ultra-Orthodox upbringing in Brooklyn.” The main idea of his writing is that it is time to “give up God.” Prager gave the following highlights for Auslander’s words.

Auslander begins his column with a brief explanation of the name “Passover” – God passed over the homes of the Israelites on his way through Egypt, slaying all firstborns. The author follows that introduction with a proposal: “In this time of war and violence, of oppression and suffering, I propose we pay over something else: God.”

He then proceeds to depict the rabbi at his yeshiva as a sadist who reveled in the suffering of the Egyptians, “young and old, innocent and guilty.” This rabbi, he claimed, even told his yeshiva class that during the first plague – which caused the waters of Egypt to turn into blood – “Mothers nursing their babies … found their breast milk had turned to blood.”

Auslander then adds: “‘Yay!’ my classmates cheered.”

Prager proceeded to explained that he had “studied in a yeshiva until the age of 19"

as well as “written three volumes of a five-volume commentary on the Torah (“The Rational Bible”). In addition, he wrote “the best-selling Haggadah in America (according to Amazon), “The Rational Passover Haggadah.” Obviously, he knows “a fair amount about this subject.”

            Prager explained that he “never heard a Jew say that Egyptian mothers’ milk turned into blood.” This was a new idea to me also. The chapters in Exodus tell us that water turned into blood but did not mention mothers’ milk. If Auslander was not lying, he certainly wrote something that is bizarre and not heard previously.

             Auslander wrote that his classmates cheered when the teacher spoke of the deaths of the Egyptians. Prager stated, “this is the very opposite of how Jews have been taught to relate to the sufferings of the ancient Egyptians.” He then gave three examples.

First, according to the Talmud – the holiest Jewish work after the Hebrew Bible, written nearly 2,000 years ago – with regard to the Egyptians drowning in the sea after God split it to enable the Jews to cross it, God admonished his angels who sang a song of rejoicing: “My handiwork is drowning in the sea and you are singing before me?!” Every Jew who attends yeshiva is taught that. Every.

Second, also nearly 2,000 years ago, the Midrash (a collection of stories and commentary that interpret the Hebrew scriptures) explained why Jews are to recite only half of the Hallel (psalms of thanksgiving) during the days of Passover following the Seder: “We cannot sing a full song of thanksgiving for the salvation of our people, which was purchased so dearly with the sinking of the pursuers into the Red Sea.”

Third, for at least 100 years, and some say many more, the reason Jews have given for the symbolic spilling of wine from their cups while reciting the 10 plagues during the Seder is that we are to symbolically diminish our joy when retelling the Egyptians’ suffering.

            Prager shared more information from Auslander: “If ye were mortal, the God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims would be dragged to The Hague. And yet we praise him. We emulate him. We implore our children to be like him… Perhaps now is a good time to teach our children to pass over God – to be as unlike him as possible.” Auslander continued by saying that children should jeer, “Boo!” “when they hear biblical stories about God.”

            In closing, Prager drew two conclusions. The first is that The New York Times would join Auslander in the hope that children would boo God. Since the time of Marx and Lenin, leftists loathe the traditions of traditional Western religions and Judeo-Christian values. Prager separated the liberals that affirm religion from the left who hates it. “The left understands that the only viable opposition to it consists of Orthodox Jews, traditional Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and traditional Mormons.” Prager’s “second conclusion concerns cowardice.”

It is close to inconceivable that The New York Times would publish a column mocking Allah, Muhammad, and the Quran during the month of Ramadan (or, for that matter, at any time of the year).

It is now Ramadan, and the only articles I could find in The New York Times about the Muslim holy month are about food: “15 Recipes for Observing Ramadan” and “Where Breaking the Ramadan Fast Includes Caribou,” an article about Muslims in Anchorage, Alaska.

Why is there no New York Times piece mocking Allah or Islam? There are, after all, plenty of disaffected Muslims like Auslander, the disaffected Jew, who could write one. The answer is The New York Times is deathly afraid of incurring Muslims’ wrath, but it has no fear of incurring the wrath of Jews or Christians. For good reason.

            Prager concluded his article by saying that Auslander’s column tells us more “about The New York Times and the left than it says about Judaism or the Bible.”

I suppose that every religion – besides Islam – have disaffected members who write terrible words about their former religion. There are plenty of former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who write “anti-Mormon” garbage. Anyone who is sincere in their seeking to learn about any religion should go to the source and not listen to someone who is bitter about their experience.

Anyone seeking information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should link to this website. It contains current information as well as historical information. Also, you could stop the young men in dark suits, white shirts, and ties or the young women in dresses – both of which wear name tags with the name of the Church.