D&C 134:1-5

When I listened to the book The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage, the section that was the most impactful was the chapter that dealt with article 12 which says, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.” This was powerful for me because I am a rebel, a conspiracy theorist to the max, I do not comply, I’m a fighter, definitely not friendly to authority. But this chapter was very explicit that we need to be compliant to the laws of the land, and I thought “yeah, this country because we are the greatest on earth and our laws of just…” blah blah blah. I thought “but what about all the people in other corrupt countries? What are they supposed to do?” The section in that book that discussed this concept was very helpful in assisting with my understanding of what it means to obey the laws of the land. This section, as well as the accompanying explanations from the IM were also very informative. The IM explains that this section initially began as an article called “Government and Laws in General” and was voted on to be accepted in the printing of the Doctrine and Covenants since 1835. The “reason for the article on “Government and Laws in General,’ is explained in the fact that Latter-day Saints had been accused by their bitter enemies, both in Missouri and in other places, as being opposed to law and order. They had been portrayed as setting up laws in conflict with the laws of the country.” The IM was also clear that “It should be noted that in the minutes, and also in the introduction to this article on government, the brethren were careful to state that this declaration was accepted as the belief, or ‘opinion’ of the officers of the Church, and not as a revelation, and therefore does not hold the same place in the doctrines of the Church as do the revelations.”

134:1 - Every single one of these verses is really in depth with extensive explanations. Verse 1 explains, “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man.” The IM explains, “The Lord in the very beginning revealed to Adam a perfect form of government, and this was ‘instituted of God for the benefit of man.’… It was not long after the Lord established His government with Adam, and had commanded him to teach correct principles to his children, that men began to rebel and turn away.” Then there is a very interesting statement from Elder Erastus Snow, “Even the monopoly of the one-man-power as in Russia (the Czar), or the monopoly of the aristocracy as in other parts of Europe, or the imbecility and sometimes stupidity of a republic like our own, is far better than no government at all.” This statement was outright shocking to me, but he further explains, “Not that they are always the best forms of government for the people, or that they afford liberty and freedom to mankind but that any and all forms of government are better than none at all, having a tendency as they do to restrain the passions human nature and to curb them, and to establish and maintain order to a greater or less degree. One monopoly is better than many; and the oppression of a king is tolerable, but the oppression of a mob, where every man is law to himself and his own right arm, is his power to enforce his own will, is the worst form of government.” This made sense to me but was so incredibly depressing to think about. I considered all of the situations that I was aware of where there is “mob rule” type of governing, for instance, the wild west during the early settlement times, there would be tons of people just running around crazy doing whatever they want. I think about gangs and how there is an order kept within the group but when it comes to rival gangs, it’s all out warfare. Really, when it comes to mob rule it really comes down to who’s the strongest and who’s willing to do the worst stuff in order to be the top dog and that’s a scary prospect for me as a small woman with children.

134:2-5 - Verse 2 brings up the concept of “the right and control of property.” The IM quotes Elder David O. McKay as having a very interesting take on this saying, “We must recognize that property rights are essential to human liberty.’ He cited George Sutherland, who became a United States Supreme Court Justice: ‘The individual… has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, and the right to his property. The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes life worth living. To give him liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.’” I think about how society kept black people in bondage even after they were emancipated by Abraham Lincoln, and that was through “sharecropping.” As far as I know, sharecropping is kind of like serf-dom, where the people work the land for a small share of the product grown on it, but it is not enough to thrive and is usually barely even enough to keep from starving to death. I believe that when sharecropping came around the plantation owners gave the freed slaves the option to stay and work on the land but charged them for the tools they need in order to do the work, and then charged them interest, and then not pay market value for the goods, so that they are eternally indebted to the owners, and unable to ever get out of it. The concept of owning property, I feel, appeals to most people, I know that it does to me, but I’m going to have to think about this more because it’s really interesting.