D&C 134:6-12

134:8 - I think that the concept of obeying the law can be so fickle at times, just like keeping the commandments. Verse 8 is straight forward, “we believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense.” The IM quotes Elder James E. Talmage as teaching, “Now, the Lord has provided that those in his Church shall live according to the law, and he makes a distinction between the law pertaining to the Church and what we call the secular law, or the law of the land, but he requires obedience to each. My love for my brother in this Church does not mean that I am to… stand between him and righteous judgment. This Church is no organization like that of the secret combinations of old, which the Lord hath said he hates, the members of which were pledged, and bound by oath that they would cover up one another’s crimes, that they would justify one another in theft and murder and in all things that were unclean. It is no such organization at all. It would not be of God if it were.” There are a couple of point here that I think are important, first is that the members are supposed to live by the law of the land. I live in a very diverse area, meaning that there is a large population of immigrants, many illegal. In fact many of my best friends in high school were illegal, and one of my son’s best friend’s parents are illegal. In our Church building growing up there was a Spanish speaking ward and I asked someone one day what the leadership did about all of the members who were illegal. They told me that it was complicated and that the local leadership were working as hard as they could to get their members citizenship. That’s a difficult position to be in and I’m glad that I don’t have to make that call, but I think it’s one of those complex issues that comes up and isn’t always a straight forward solution. Another point made here is that everything is done openly, no “secrets,” some things are sacred, or special and guarded, but nothing is secret, and that’s a big difference between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the workings of Satan, secrets, and accessibility, who is allowed and at what price.

134:9- - Talking about government in light of religion begs the topic of separation of church vs. state. Verse 9 says, “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” Basically the IM says that organizations such as churches can only try their members for their membership in the organization for any offenses, the organizations cannot place more severe punishments on the offender than that. The IM quotes Elder John A. Widtsoe as teaching, “No officer in the Church has authority beyond matters pertaining to the Church… and that the Church can try offenders only for their membership in the Church. Any further punishment is in the hands of the civil courts. Members of the Church may either be disfellowshiped or excommunicated.” I had always imagined that during the Millennium, when the Savior rules all, that he would institute a theocracy, where he was the ruler. This implies that all positions in government would be church callings, but after reading and thinking about this I think that it’s more that He will institute a just government where there will be rules and laws and justice and punishments, but that the Church as far as the gospel is concerned will be separate. It feels like if the government is administered by just people in just ways, then it would be gospel based but that is not necessarily the case.

134:12 – Lastly we come to a most interesting concept that deals with short and eternal perspectives as well as individual worth. Verse 12 says, “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, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, not to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situation in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.” But wait, doesn’t Jesus love everyone? Isn’t the gospel made for all men? Why is the gospel to be withheld from someone just because whoever it in charge of them is a monster and denies them that right to freedom of religion? The IM teaches, “Although the Church teaches that slavery is wrong and counter to the fundamental rights of an individual, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that when slavery is tolerated by a government, it is not the Church’s position to try to overthrow that established order: ‘It should be the duty of an Elder, when he enters into a house, to salute the master of that house, and if he gains his consent, then he may preach to all that are in that house; but if he gain not his consent, let him not go unto his slaves, or servants, but let the responsibility be upon the head of the master of that house, and the consequences thereof, and the guilt of that house is no longer upon his skirts… But if the master of that house give consent, the Elder may preach to his family, his wife, his children, and his servants, his man-servants, or his maid-servants, or his slaves.’ In 1834, when this statement was written, the Saints in Missouri were often accused by their enemies of seeking to overthrow slavery. Since Missouri entered the Union as a slave state, this question inflamed the Missourians and doubtless contributed to the spirit of persecution and violence against the Saints. Doctrine and Covenants 132:12 was a reply to these accusations.” I just want to start this by saying that this is true for wives, husbands, and children. If the husband doesn’t want the wife to learn about the gospel then the missionaries won’t teach her, and I would imagine that it’s the same way if the wife doesn’t want the husband to learn about the gospel. Children under 18 must have their parent’s consent in order to be baptized or to take the lessons. The phrase that stuck out the most to me is when it says that members of the Church are not to make anyone influence anyone “to be dissatisfied with their situation in this life.” This is what I would do first. If I lived back in that time and was trying to preach the gospel, a situation where someone prohibited someone else from learning about the gospel, the first thing that I would do would be to tell them that they don’t have to stand for that. If slaves, then they could rebel, if wives, they could leave or demand the freedom to learn because the ultimate prize is the gospel, and it would make sense to me that whatever it took to get the gospel to them would be worth it. This approach is complete destructive to the one that is authorized by the Church and therefore, I would think, by the Lord. It was always the Lord’s intention to have his children live on earth in peace and love and with full knowledge and acceptance of the gospel, however it turns out that the vast majority of people never had the opportunity to learn the gospel in their mortal lives. Some just didn’t live during a time when it was established, others were prohibited to learn, and others rejected religion because of the hypocrisy of the members. There are many many reasons why people did not or would not have the gospel, but in the eternal perspective they will have that opportunity in the next life. To instigate anger or dissatisfaction ultimately doesn’t change the outcome, rebelling or demanding or arguing doesn’t usually change people’s minds, those who reject will still reject, and those who do the rebelling or arguing or demanding bring a spirit of anger and hostility into their lives that is more dangerous than any lack of knowledge about the gospel could ever be. I think that this is a profound commentary on and power of anger or negativity in one’s life. It almost seems that the Church is saying that it is better to wait to learn the gospel in the next life than to become angry because you can’t have it now. That’s a powerful implied statement. Another way to state that would be to say that it is more important to have peace in your mortal life than the gospel, and really it makes sense. Anger or irritation is massively destructive and the fighting that you would have to do in order to receive the gospel if you have been denied by an outside force, parents, masters, etc. that negativity could damage you spiritually to the point where you would have to dig yourself out of a large hole. I don’t know if what I’m saying makes any sense, but I’ve been in situations like this many times, where ultimately I’ve gotten what I wanted but felt like an idiot for the way that I acted in order to get it. For instance, I went on a field trip with my daughter and the kids were being kids and I was irritated because they were supposed to be standing in a line but were grouping up and being disorganized. So I went up and down the line telling the kids “this isn’t a line, this is a mess, get in line.” And I did it for the whole time that we stood there waiting for the bus. Ultimately, yes the children were standing in a line quietly for the most part, but the process that it took in order to achieve those ends were filled with such negativity that the Spirit was long gone and I felt stupid and the kids were irritated and thought I was a jerk. This is a simplified way of understanding this concept but it still makes my point. Yes, if we pushed and influenced people to go against what their parents or spouses or masters say, ultimately, they might have the opportunity to learn about the gospel, but the negativity and hostility and anger that it took to get them to that point drove away the Spirit long ago, and isn’t that the whole point anyway. This concept can only be viewed and understood on the eternal perspective, and it surely has given me a lot to think about.