Does the Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ Require Belief in Certain Political Principles? Yes. Here Are a Handful

Until recently, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had a homogenous culture. That is now shifting. That shift also seems to correlate with a shift in political views. There was a time when it would have been difficult to find a leftist in the church. But now, leftist views are more common.

Part of the explanation might be that the internet has amplified voices that previously could not have been easily heard. But even if that is the case, and there are the same number of leftists in the church as always, the conversation is now louder. We should engage in that conversation – peacefully and respectfully – but engage.  

“And I give unto you a commandment” Jesus said, “that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. Teach ye diligently that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine . . . in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God . . . Of things both in heaven and in the earth . . . things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass, things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms.” D & C 88: 77-79.

The perplexities of the nations and a knowledge of countries certainly include political issues. And, we have clearly been instructed as members of the church to engage politically. Although we are not told what to believe politically, the doctrines of the church must inevitably lead to certain political conclusions. The plan of salvation does not work if we are told every particular on how we should act. The higher law of the gospel rejects detailed prescriptions such as those that came through the law of Moses. We are taught correct principles and then are tasked with figuring out how those principles apply to governments in a fallen world.

Before I discuss the principles, let me address the instruction to not judge others for their political beliefs. The fact that we are asked not to judge others for their political views does not mean we cannot be wrong. All of us apply doctrinal principles imperfectly in various ways and in various aspects of our lives. The entire program of the church is to help each other refine our views so that our beliefs and actions are more closely aligned with the truth. The instruction to not judge, in any context, was never an instruction to not discuss or to not instruct. We teach one another that we may be instructed more perfectly in theory and principle. I expect to engage in respectful dialogue with my fellow members on the conclusions I defend in this article and I stand by the conviction that they are true.

What does church doctrine require us to conclude when it comes to government? There are many, but I will highlight five broad conclusions, each based on foundational doctrines.

1.      The doctrine of agency requires us to put liberty as the first principle of government, which in turn requires us to favor a meaningfully limited (read small) government. The Lord suffered the constitution to be established “That every man may act in doctrine and principle . . . according to the moral agency I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” D & C 101: 78. The constitutional law of the land is to support freedom, and “whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” D & C 98 5-7. “I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.” D & C 98: 8. As Latter-Day Saints, we have a unique insight of the foundational importance of liberty. We know that war in Heaven was fought over this very principle. It is so essential to the plan of salvation that God was willing to let millions of His children fail, rebel, and subject themselves to untold suffering. Agency was that important – more important than that everyone make it back to God’s presence. Knowing that, at a minimum, we should exercise extreme caution before considering government policies that would enervate freedom in the name of ensuring prosperity, or that “one should shall not be lost.” Moses 4: 1. The end of government is freedom, not prosperity.

2.      The doctrine of self-reliance requires us to be skeptical of government welfare programs. Church leaders have counseled that if one has done all they can do to support themselves and still need assistance to meet the necessities of life, they should turn first to family and close friends, then to the church. The Lord’s anti-poverty program is based on work, agency, and voluntary assistance. Government redistribution programs are founded on coercion.

3.      The doctrine of the family requires us to support policies that promote the nuclear family and traditional gender roles. This is a rather new development. Until about twenty years ago, church doctrines on the family were largely taken for granted in the culture at large. That is no longer the case and it behooves us to reaffirm God’s unchanging laws on gender and sexuality. Stunningly, these principles have now become “controversial” within the church.

4.      The doctrine of the church requires us to oppose leftism. Many use the word “liberal” or “progressive” to describe leftist people or philosophies. I will not. The ideas of leftism are not liberal. The root word of liberal is liberty. Those who consistently believe in liberty are appropriately called liberals. Individuals are liberal on some issues and illiberal on others. But leftist philosophy generally has little tolerance (liberality) for disagreement, and, the core tenet of leftism requires a command-and-control style government. Nor is there anything “progressive” about leftist ideas. They are regressive ideas that are as old as the tyrants who experiment with them in various degrees. The core tenets of leftism are these:

a.      Forced redistribution of wealth;

b.      Heavy regulation and control of private property;

c.      Skepticism or rejection of traditional gender and family constructs;

d.       Overemphasis on “social responsibility” and underemphasis on individual responsibility; i.e. blame for problems is always with the government, the wealthy, corporations, or an oppressive culture.

Of course, there is substantial variation in how a person can apply these general ideas to various policies. I do not suggest that our doctrine demands a categorical ban on any government action that may be loosely associated with these tenets. I suggest only that, in general, these concepts are difficult to reconcile with church doctrine and teachings.  

5.      Church doctrine explicitly requires us to believe in the core principles of the Constitution. This has been made clear by our current prophet, President Oaks, most significantly in his general conference talk of April 2021. In that talk, President Oaks outlined five principles of the Constitution that he said were divinely inspired:

a.      The source of government power is derived from the people;

b.      Federalism;

c.      Separation of Powers;

d.      Guarantees of individual rights;

e.      The rule of law.

These are lofty and general ideals. But they mean nothing if they are not applied in actual policy. Consider carefully how each of these principles have faired in our modern government. Then consider what policies we should be promoting if we take these general ideas seriously.

The government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. This is not a reference to elections. This means that a government can only justly exist in the first instance because the people who are governed have consented to that government’s authority and the principles by which it must act. Key follow-up questions to this premise include: What powers do the people themselves have, and, can the government’s power exceed the powers that the people have? In other words, if it would not be justifiable for you to do it as an individual, why would it be justifiable for the government to do it? Note, I am not referring to procedural processes like a court system or holding elections. Those are processes reserved to the government for obvious logistical and practical reasons. I am referring to the substance of what government does and the justifications for the exercise of power. If it is not justifiable for an individual to tackle and arrest someone, or to take their money, because they have not paid an employee a sufficient wage, then from where did government derive its power to do that? Note that it is perfectly justified for an individual to tackle and arrest someone who is actively assaulting another person. Rather than taking government for granted, we should closely scrutinize the dubious moral basis for government’s usurpation of vast powers to regulate a host of mundane and benign conduct.

Federalism is encapsulated in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[1] I wonder if anyone could count on more than one hand the powers exercised exclusively by the states. The Federal government has claimed a role in virtually every governmental endeavor that any signer of the Constitution would have identified as only a power of the state governments. Education, land use regulation, health care, agriculture, road construction, building codes, welfare, and a host of others are heavily influenced, if not directly controlled, by federal laws. Federalism is all but non-existent in our modern government.

The separation of powers is also largely an illusion. As Congress created more laws and executive agencies to administer them, more and more power has been conceded to the Executive. When Congress creates an agency, it delegates the power to interpret and enforce certain laws. It even gives agencies the power to write “rules” to carry out the specifics of what Congress intended to accomplish by passing the legislation. The result is that executive agencies routinely exercise the executive, judicial, and law-making powers the Constitution designed to be exercised independently. The “justification” for this unconstitutional system is essentially that we don’t have time to wait for Congress to pass all the rules we need, and we don’t have the capacity in our judicial system to decide all the controversies that arise. But that was a feature of the Constitution – a divinely inspired one according to President Oaks – not a bug. What are we doing as Latter-Day Saints to push back against a regulatory state that is squarely at odds with a key inspired feature of the Framers’ design?

The Constitution’s guarantee of individual rights at least has the distinction of still having vitality in our political system. However, that is as much a reflection of the breakdown in federalism and separation of powers as it is a reflection of our commitment to individual liberty. The Framers seriously debated whether a bill of rights was necessary for the precise reason that enumerating rights might lead the government to believe that anything not specifically protected was fair game to regulate. Thus, they added the long-forgotten Ninth Amendment. Thankfully, our church has been adamant and vocal about our commitment to religious freedom. I see no less a justification for Latter-Day Saints to be equally adamant in defending the other rights that stand on equal footing with religious freedom including the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of speech, or the right to privacy inherent in the prohibition on unreasonable government searches and seizures.

Finally, the existence of the Constitution itself, President Oaks taught, is indicative of our commitment to the rule of law. Use of the word “law” in that phrase cannot have reference to statutes or ordinances. Else, the rule of law would become meaningless if the government could pass whatever law it wanted however unjust. The word law must reference a higher law. In political philosophy, the inspiration behind the Constitution referred to that law as the natural law. This refers to our intuitive understanding of right and wrong. In the Church, we call that the light of Christ. In Moroni 7:16 we read, “For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil.” 2 Nephi 2: 5 says: “And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men.” Our task is to ensure that the statutes enacted by government are consistent with the natural law as far as is practical. That can be the only effective meaning of the rule of law. We should be highly skeptical of laws and regulations that have no clear connection to enjoining behavior that is not inherently wrong or harmful to the equal rights of others.

Exercising our agency requires us to use our mental faculties to arrive at conclusions on how we should act and how we should organize society. The Lord has revealed a rich set of doctrines in this last dispensation that inform how we ought to act politically. My invitation to you is to engage with me in the process of deducing specific political choices from the doctrines we have been taught. Lets begin.

[1] Note the reference to reserving any residual powers “to the people.” This underscores my point from the previous paragraph. Any power not delegated to either the federal or state governments is naturally retained in the people.