Good morning y'all. How are things going this morning? How is your Christmas shopping coming? Anything new and unusual happening?

How about you Sally? Wow! Your uber-orthodox sister is having two holiday gift exchanges this year?

Do you mean like a Winter Solstice and a Christmas gift exchange?

No fetchin' way! Oh sorry! I didn't mean to, ya' know, Mormon swear. I mean really, a gift exchange for Smithsmas as well as Christmas? I'm just not sure what to do with that. Well, I hope everyone else is going well.

Today's lesson is on being a good citizen. Can anyone tell me what a citizen is?

Yes, Fred. It's someone who lives in an area controlled by a government. Hmmm...., doesn't that mean everyone?

Yes, Tamy. Yes, technically you are correct. From its Greek origins, a citizen is someone who lives in a polis, or more meaningfully a metropolis.

What about those who live outside of a metropolis?

Yes, Sally. Okay, okay. You are right. Looking at the word from its Greek origins is not really helpful with regards to common usage today. In its common usage, Fred is pretty much correct. All of us are citizens of multiple governmental entities, ranging from the country, down to the city or town in which we live.

So what does it mean to be a good citizen?

Penny, how about you? Okay, participate positively in the community and obey the laws.

That seems pretty reasonable. From a church perspective, what does it mean to positively participate in the community?

Yes, Brent. You are correct, if you look at much of the history of the church, the church acted as the defacto government of the Saints. How did that manifest itself?

Yes, Randy. You are right, the church essentially voted in bloc, starting most particularly in Missouri. That is the primary reason that initially agitated the Missourians against the Mormon's.

Yes, Liz. You are right, aside from taking over the governmental process through the bloc voting process, Joseph fundamentally took over the government of Nauvoo. Through a very interesting city charter that was granted by the state of Illinois, the church controlled Nauvoo, up through organizing and deploying its own militia.

Yes, Penny. Well, you have the points correct, but the sequence is a little off. Joseph did establish the theocratic Council of Fifty, first, then, he was crowned king of the world. The revelation of that point was one of the reasons why the Expositor printing press was destroyed. Joseph had the belief that the church would eventually be the governing body of the world, but provided for a very subtle difference between the church governing body and the Council of the Fifty.

Yes, Fred. You are correct. In D&C 134:9, it 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.

If you go a step further in history, in the Great Basin, the church was the government. Effectively, Brigham Young was the dictator of the Great Basin for a number of years. So how does the church justify its 1835 pronouncement in Section 134, but then more than just "mingle" its religious influence with civil government?

Anyone? What, no hands? Well it certainly is difficult to understand, but I'll bet if you used some twisted logic you could come up with an explanation that was fitting.

Okay, let's move onto another point. Penny mentioned obeying the laws. What is the church's position on obeying the laws?

Yes, Fred. Well, that's pretty straight forward. We should obey the laws. That's pretty much as I've been taught as well. Let me read from a First Presidency message, written by Marion Romney, who is quoting from Doctrine and Covenants Commentary.

Latter-day Saints should strictly obey the laws of the government in which they live. By our own declaration of faith we are committed to do so, for we declare to the world that "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." (A of F 1:12.)

This we do in harmony with the Lord's command:

"Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

"Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet." (D&C 58:21-22.)

"Civil authority is of divine origin. It may be more or less adapted to the needs of man; more or less just and benevolent, but, even at its worst, it is better than anarchy. Revolutionary movements that aim at the abolition of government itself are contrary to the law of God. ..."[i]

Okay, so we have indications from both the First Presidency and the scriptures that we should obey the laws of the land. That is in fact part of being good citizens. Does anyone see any issues with that?

Yes, Sally. No, you are not mistaken. Polygamy was in fact against the law in Ohio, when Joseph supposedly married Fanny Alger. It was also against the law in Illinois when Polygamy became much more common, but still secret, or was that sacred? No, I think it was secret. How can we possibly justify that?

Yes, Fred. That is an interesting perspective. Perhaps the marriages really weren't marriages by definition of law. It does get more complicated that that, because Joseph was performing marriages when he had no civil authority to do so. He also essentially had everyone divorced by proclamation in Nauvoo, again without civil authority to do so. The whole set of issues surrounding marriage became very warped and complicated in the Nauvoo time frame. But one thing is clear, the actions taken by Joseph in Nauvoo, were strictly illegal according to state law.

What do you think Randy? I think you have an interesting point, Thoreau did mention the importance of civil disobedience, which may apply here. We know that Martin Luther King, Jr. used civil disobedience as a method of promoting change, so did Ghandi. What does the church say about civil disobedience?

Yes, Brenda. Like you, I don't remember hearing its being encouraged. I also have a vague sense that it was discouraged.

Because I anticipated this particular line of reasoning, I did a little search in church publications on this topic. David Burton, Presiding Bishop, made the following comment.

My young friends, rules are important, even critical. In life there are also penalties, perhaps even disqualification, if rules are broken. Our participation in life's important events may be jeopardized if we fail to follow the rules contained in our Father in Heaven's commands. Involvement in sexual sin, illegal drugs, civil disobedience, or abuse could keep us on the sidelines at key times. You would do well to view rules as safety restraints, not as chains that bind. Obedience builds strength. And that's the way it is.[ii]

So, as I suspected, the church's position, as published in the Ensign in 2003, is that civil disobedience is discouraged, or seen as an act of disobedience in general.

But was this disobedience not just limited to a short period of time in the very early years of the church when it trying to figure things out?

Yes, Penny. You are correct, the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 formally outlawed polygamy, and yet the church continued with it officially until 1890. Even after the first Manifesto of 1890, the church continued polygamy secretly for another 14 years until 1904. Joseph F. Smith issued the Second Manifesto at that point. That's right 14 years, not 14 days, 14 weeks, or 14 months. It was 14 years. How come we don't talk about the Second Manifesto or the 200ish marriages authorized by the First Presidency after President Woodruff's Manifesto in 1990?

Tom, I think you are right. This is part of the overall sanitization of church history. The church realizes that it teaches obedience to the law as well as honesty. The law was being violated at will and the church continued its public lying to church members and governmental authorities regarding the ongoing practice of polygamy. This reminds me of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Some have excused this behavior as civil disobedience, yet we understand from Bishop Burton's comments in the Ensign that civil disobedience is not in harmony with guidance from the church.

Yes, Sam. You haven't been here for awhile have you? The restroom is down the hall and to the left.

Randy, you had your hand up. You are right. Quinn did mention Joseph's creation of what Quinn called "theocratic ethics." Essentially, I think the best summary explanation of theocratic ethics is that Joseph would regularly justify irregular behaviors by saying that God had told him to do so. One of the better summary quotes on the application of this principle comes from a letter that Joseph wrote to Nancy Rigdon, attempting to justify his proposal for an illegal polygamous marriage. From the letter we read:

That which is wrong under one circumstance may be and often is right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,-- at another time he said though shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added... even things which may be considered abominable to all who do not understand the order of heaven...[1]

Brigham Young carried forward the theocratic ethics, perhaps to the extreme, in the Great Basin.

Well, we are running short on time. But let's summarize a few points. We should be good citizens, by participating positively in government and by keeping the laws. We may be glad to live in a time when the church is not the de facto government and is less effective with the bloc voting approach than it was in earlier times. We are encouraged to keep the laws. The visible actions of the church today show that the leaders support the notion of keeping the laws. The church discourages civil disobedience, but to insert my personal opinion, civil disobedience can be a useful approach to foster change. I think the key is that the church should be consistent in what it says. If it discourages civil disobedience, it should not use civil disobedience. Also those trying to justify historical actions should not use civil disobedience as an excuse for former illegal activity by the church or leaders of the church.

There is much, much more that we could discuss on this topic, but time constraints prohibit further discussion. If you want, a few of us could meet over in the corner room by the nursery during the next hour to continue the discussion.

Sally, will you say the closing prayer? Thanks.

Good luck with your holiday activities!