Scott (2:01)

Yeah. And by the way, this is probably going to come out around Thanksgiving. So there you go. Talk about this with your, with your in laws, with your family. Here we go. Religion and politics. Okay, to drop us into our first C context. What brought about this declaration? Why is this in the Doctrine and covenants?

Casey (2:24)

Section 134 is a declaration that's what the section heading says, that's all we've ever claimed that it was. And it was written specifically for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. And it really does need to be considered within that context, too, especially for some of the content that's in the section. So it's presented to the Church in a General assembly on August 17, 1835. In this meeting, Oliver Cowdery and William W. Phelps present two additional documents for inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants. The first is a statement on marriage, and this statement on marriage was de canonized. It was replaced by section 132, which was a revelation on marriage takes press. Secondly, a declaration, which they described as containing certain principles or items upon laws in general and church government. So it talks about secular governments and it talks about the government of the Church in ideal circumstances, what both should do, what they were meant to do, and some things that they're meant not to do also. So what are the limits or the boundaries of Church government? So, an interesting note. Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams, two members of the First Presidency, were not present at the meeting, but they were noted in the meeting minutes as being part of the committee that oversaw the creation of the Doctrine and Covenants. We're going to talk a little bit about why that's controversial in a minute. We also should state we don't know who the author of the Declaration is or how involved Joseph Smith was in its creation. Most scholars look at this document and think that it was primarily written by Oliver Cowdery, since much of the Declaration's language mirrors articles produced when he was serving as the editor of the Church newspapers and by the church newspapers, the Evening and the Morning Star, in the Northern Times. And so we don't know how involved Joseph Smith was in writing this, but it seems like Joseph Smith endorsed this. First of all, he's part of the committee that puts it in the Doctrine and Covenants. And then in 1836, Joseph Smith writes a letter to the elders of the Church, and he counsels them to search the Book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the Church concerning masters and servants, probably making reference to verse 12. Again, slavery is a big topic during this time, and it seems like a lot of the missionaries were basically saying, what if we could teach a slave? Do we have to get consent from their owner, essentially. And Joseph Smith says, look, in the Doctrine and Covenants, the instructions are there, which is section 134. And then a couple years later, Joseph Smith also includes the Declaration in its entirety in A letter to the editor of the Chester County Register and examiner. The only difference was instead of we believe, the we believe statements were changed to I believe. So it seems like when this newspaper reached out and said, well, what do Latter Day Saints believe about the nature and limits of government? Joseph Smith just take section 134 and gives it to them with him saying, I personally believe this, which is a strong endorsement that he was okay with this. The simple fact that we got to circle back to is Joseph Smith knew what was going in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. He's on the committee. He's part of the committee. He's the presiding officer of the committee. And it's been in the Doctrine and covenants since 1835. Every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants has included section 134.

Scott (5:39)

Awesome. Okay, second C. Here. Let's go to the content. So section 134 starts like this. This. 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. This is cool. So the statement that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man is God's endorsement of government, but it does not imply that all governments were instituted of God. See the difference? The concept of government, the general idea of government is God ordained, but you can't always apply that to a specific government as such. Right. He lays out here. He goes on. The standards for good government are explained right here in verse one. He says government should make and administer laws for the good and safety of society. And then verse two adds that these laws should secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. Like those are the ideals. Right. Like, we know that throughout the history of the world, many governments have failed to live up to these standards. Right. So we're declaring in verses one through two, we believe that governments have an obligation to uphold these principles. And, you know, that's. That's a. That's a strong opening. I love it. Remember President Oaks? He said, in terms of citizenry, he says we should be knowledgeable citizens who are active in making our influence felt in civic affairs to bring about this kind of just government. Which is very good.

Casey (7:13)

Yeah. So it's an endorsement of government, generally speaking. But we're not saying, like, Nazi Germany was instituted of God or something like that. Just that the idea that people organize themselves, that they set up ways to govern themselves and provide for common welfare and common good is an idea that was instituted of God.

Scott (7:30)

Yeah, 100%. Okay, then verse three, it says, 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. We believe that religion is instituted of God. Let me pause there for a second. That's a cool thought. Not our religion is instituted of God, but religion is instituted of God. This is a cool insight into this idea of freedom of religion. Okay. And so let's continue and then we'll talk more about that. But we believe that religion as such is instituted of God and that men are amenable to him, to God, 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. That's good. That's really good stuff.

Casey (8:46)

Yeah. And again, similar point. We believe that religion in general was instituted of God. We don't think all religions were instituted of God. There's been some bad religions out there and some horrible suffering that's been caused by apostate or false religion.

Scott (9:04)

Yeah. Like in the name. In the name of religion.

Casey (9:07)

Right, in the name of religion. At the same time, we believe that there's a lot of beauty and inspiration found in the different religions of the world. Like, we are very ecumenical in that sense that we could look at another religion, even one that's really different from ours, and say, there's good there. There's a ton of good there. But Latter Day Saints also use the lens of the restored gospel to measure the worth of religious concepts and teachings. Religion can be abused, and it can be used to exercise unrighteous dominion, and it can be used flames of hatred and anger among men and women. So section 134 presents the moral standard for religions. Religion should not infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. It says in verse four, proper government. It's also saying, and this is something that we think good government does. Proper government doesn't prescribe rules of worship. It doesn't bind the conscience of men and women. It doesn't control their Conscience, it doesn't suppress their soul. Freedom of religion is something that's a really big, big deal to us. In fact, this is something that in recent years the leaders of the church have become more outspoken about. That the idea that freedom of religion needs to be protected and that freedom of religion is a good thing that leads to human flourishing. For instance, Elder Robert D. Hales late Elder Hales taught, the faithful use of our agency depends upon our having religious freedom. We already know that Satan does not want this freedom to be ours. He attempted to destroy moral agency in heaven, and now on earth he is fiercely undermining, opposing and spreading confusion about religious freedom, what it is and why it is essential to our spiritual life and our very salvation. So two measures of bad religion and bad government are that they oppress people, that they seek to control their thoughts and actions, that they try to prescribe the way a person should worship. A person should be allowed to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. To borrow from one of the articles of faith here.

Scott (11:07)

Yeah, that's good. So the principle is no compulsory means. Right there should be bound, set up by a government, but not compelling anyone to worship a certain way and within a worship setting not to compel people. That's interesting. Okay, let's pick it up in verse five. 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 government governments. And that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected and should be punished accordingly. And that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest. At the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. Then they go on. 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, as without them, peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror. Human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man. And divine laws given of heaven prescribing rules on spiritual concerns for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker. Let's get one more verse. 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 beliefs. But we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy. So there should be some bounds to what religious expression could be. But generally the government should not interfere. It's interesting. So like we know, in 1842, in the letter to John Wentworth, the editor of the Chicago Democrat, Joseph Smith declared, on behalf of the church. And you already alluded to this Casey article of faith 10. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. That principle applies in all countries. And Notice that section 134 is written in such a way as to apply wherever the saints are found. Right. This is worldwide, around the world. We believe in being subject to rulers and being good citizens in the countries that we live in to work to better those countries and nations we live within right within the bounds of government. And religion is a gift from God to actually help do that and to ameliorate the condition of mankind, they go together hand in hand. And I love how he says that both governments and religions are going to be answerable to their Maker, that God is the originator of both. Profound idea.

Casey (13:52)

We see this become more and more important. Sometimes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is accused of being an American religion, but you can see here early on, they're already trying to establish this idea of a set of principles that are universal, that transcend national boundaries, that yes, freedom of religion is written into the American Constitution. And I'm so grateful for that. I remember when President Oaks gave his talk on the Constitution a few years ago and he said, you might think it's inappropriate in our General Conference to talk about the American Constitution. But then his reasoning was there are things in the American Constitution that we believe should apply universally. And the Doctrine and Covenants actually teaches that in section 101, the Lord says the same thing, that these rights and privileges belong to all men. One of them is religion or freedom of religion. The freedom to worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, as long as you're not hurting anybody else. So see that upheld here. Okay, let's keep going. Verse 8. We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense. That murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace in all respects should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed. And for the public peace and tranquility, all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment. So this is civil law. Like, we believe that one of the purposes of government is to try to bring justice where injustice has existed, to punish people that do wrong things. And this seems to line up with the philosophy of Joseph Smith, too. This is an 1834 letter he wrote before Section 134 was put together. He says this all regularly organized and well established governments have certain laws by which more or less the innocent are protected and the guilty punished. The fact admitted that certain laws are good, equitable and just ought to be binding upon the individual who admits this fact to observe in the strictest manner an obedience to those laws. These laws, when violated or broken by the individual, must in justice convict his mind and a double force, if possible, of the extent and magnitude of his crime, because he could have no plea of ignorance to produce, and his act of transgression was openly committed against light and knowledge. So again, just an acknowledgement that we let the civil law take its place and let the civil law punish things. If someone came into their bishop, for instance, and confessed that they had murdered somebody, the bishop's not going to be like, okay, we need to hold a disciplinary hearing or something like that. The bishop's going to drive them down to the police station and let the civil authorities do what they have to do. In fact, I know of cases where that's happened before. The people have confessed to civil crimes. And the leaders of the church who they confess to have had to say, we're going to need to involve the civil law in order to take care of this, that there is a division between church and state that exists there.

Scott (16:53)

Yeah, that's good. And it's nice to watch how Section 134 is kind of teasing out the beliefs about church and state. Both good, but they both have bounds relative to one another. Like verse nine, let's keep Going. It says, we do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby this is what it means, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges and the individual rights of its members as citizens. Denied. It's really important that we understand what this is saying and what it's not saying. Sometimes we get the separation of church and state wrong. I hear all the time people saying, oh, you can't say your religious views in a public, you know, square. You can't quote the Bible or you can't pray or whatever. In public. That's not what separation of church state meant originally. It's not what this verse is saying here at all. The idea is the state cannot sponsor one religion and favor it above another, give it privileges or put another religion down in favor of others. Like, we don't believe in that in terms of religious expression. Go for it in terms of, like, bringing up your views that happen to be religiously based, no problem. That's not a violation of church and state, and it's not a violation of verse nine. And I think that's. That's super important to recognize, right? Verse 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, provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing. But we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life to take from them this world's goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or labor, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society and withdraw from them their fellowship. That's the extent to which religious organizations ought to be able to deal with disorderly conduct. Like you said, if there's a civil violation of a law, you gotta turn that over to the authorities. But if there's a violation of the standards of the church, we can take care of that internally.

Casey (18:57)

And I think this has come up a couple times before in our podcast. But an interesting document was made, made available to the public. That's the council of 50 minutes a couple years ago. And everybody thought that The Council of 50 had some sort of explosive revelation in it because it had been restricted to researchers for a really long time. And I mean, if there's anything scandalous in the council of 50, it's that they didn't like the government, which nowadays nobody likes the government. So we were country before country was cool.

Scott (19:28)

Is it fair to say that they were disappointed that the government at the time was not living up to the ideals of the Constitution? Is that fair?

Casey (19:34)

That's the best way to say it. And it's still a common complaint today, right? Like, the ideas are good, but the execution is poor. In Joseph Smith's time especially, that was true, right, That a government that claims that there was religious freedom shouldn't let an extermination order be issued by one of its states and so on and so forth. One major thing that came out of this Council of 50 release was Joseph Smith in the Council of 50 which was seen as a governmental organization. It was supposed to be the government of the Kingdom of God. God really believed in religious freedom and tolerance. For instance, here's a quote from the council of 50 minutes. Joseph Smith taught, God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses and worships for himself. Hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man's religious sentiments. That spirit which has drenched the earth with blood. When a man feels the least temptation to such intolerance, he ought to spurn it from him. Him. It becomes our duty on account of this intolerance and corruption. The inalienable right of man being to think as he pleases, worship as he pleases, and being the first law of everything that is sacred, to guard every ground all the days of our lives. So one of the things the council of 50 minutes contributed was that Joseph Smith wasn't trying to create a Latter Day Saint dictatorship. The Kingdom of God, the way he visioned it was pluralistic and tolerant of different religious faiths. And kind of saw fit to let people make up their own mind based on who had the best ideas. Essentially.

Scott (21:03)

Yeah. And I think Joseph shows this in his execution of his governmental duties as mayor of Nauvoo. So there's this awesome ordinance in relation to religious societies that's published in Nauvoo March 1, 1841. So he's the mayor and here's what it says. Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Nauvoo that the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter Day Saints, Quakers, Episcopals, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans, that was their word for Muslims at the time, and all other religious sects and denominations, whatever, shall have free toleration and equal privileges in this city. Close quote. Like they put it in their books, like, equal privileges, free toleration, let them worship how, where, or what they may. So I love that it's not just a highfalutin idealism that is being articulated, but he actually put it into practice when he was the mayor of Nauvoo.

Casey (22:05)

A nice visual symbol of this too is that when you go to Nauvoo, the two tallest structures in the city besides the water tower, which is kind of obnoxious. The water tower is in everybody's photos, but right there on the bluff is the Nauvoo Temple. And then right next door is a big Catholic church. And again, Nauvoo is a really small town. I don't know what attendance at any of the churches in Nauvoo was like, but just on the hill. That ideal that Joseph Smith was expressing of we can have two religious societies that exist in peace with each other. And I've actually stopped in when I was in Nauvoo and talked to the priest at the Catholic church. Very nice. Very nice man. I'm grateful that the two can exist side by side with each other with no conflict that expresses what Joseph was going for. For let's pick it up in verse 11 and 12. And these are the two verses that you really need to understand the historical context for. So I'll read them and then comment on them. We believe this is verse 11, 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. So this is no mystery what they're talking about here. This is in the wake of the persecutions that happened in Missouri to the saints. There's worse persecutions that are yet to come after this is written. But they're basically saying, we think that we should be able to appeal to the civil law when we're wronged.

Scott (23:41)

So the context would have been 1833 expulsion from Jackson County. Not yet. The 1838 extermination order. This is written in 1835. So we're kind of between those two points. But one of those is in the rearview mirror that they're talking about here.

Casey (23:54)

Yeah, And I would say this is at least partially in fulfillment of the Lord's command to have them raise up an ensign of peace even to their enemies. They're basically saying to the people that kicked them out of Jackson county, hey, would you be willing to let the civil law address this? We're not going to use violent means to get our lands back, but we do think that the law should be allowed to redress stuff like what happened in Jackson County.

Scott (24:17)

Do you think the accusations against the church at this time, that we were trying to become something other than what the US Constitution would allow for, was trying to become its own independent kind of thing, and that Joseph Smith was this guy that was trying to take over the world or whatever? These accusations will be amplified in 1838. In Missouri. But is any of that in the air at this time? Could that be some of the stuff that this is written to respond to, to say, no, we're. We're actually totally in favor of Constitution and good government and all that. Is this responsive to any of that accusation?

Casey (24:51)

Do you know, I would guess at least one of the charges that still gets leveled against the Saints from time to time is that we're seditious because we're trying to build the kingdom of God. That might stick more with Latter Day Saints because we literally are city builders. Like, we came out and built settlements throughout the west, and we try to establish polities that can serve us and help us at the same time, too. I mean, we do always stress and emphasize that we're good citizens and we believe in being subject to the civil law. And I don't know why Latter Day Saints are more scrutinized for following, I guess you would say, spiritual laws than other Christians and people from other religions are. I guess it's maybe because of the heightened level of commitment. It's similar to what happens with Muslims because Muslims have a very committed religion. Sometimes people say, are they more loyal to their religion or to their country? Although now that I think about it, I mean, John F. Kennedy was accused of being more loyal to the Catholic Church than to the country. He had to give a major speech where he basically said, you know, what if there was a conflict between my role as president and my role as Catholic? Here's what I do. Mitt Romney had to give a similar speech in 2012 when he ran for president to just basically say, yeah, I believe in the civil law. I believe in my religion. I hope the two never come into conflict. If they did, I would uphold the law as a civil officer of the law.

Scott (26:14)

Yeah, that's good. Now let's go to the most controversial verse, verse 12.

Casey (26:18)

Okay, so verse 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 bondservants, neither preach the gospel to nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with, with, or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations 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. So this is what I'm saying. Needs to be taken into context. The situation here is this is being written in 1830s America. So this is pre Civil War, pre emancipation proclamation, pre 13th amendment, end of slavery. And it's a time of intense racial division in the United States.

Scott (27:11)

This has to be responsive to Jackson County, Missouri. Right. Because that was one of their biggest things against the Saints, is they're going to come incite our slaves to revolt against their masters. And, you know, these are all these converts from the north are coming in to meddle with our slaves. And this has to be at least partially responsive to some of those accusations in Missouri, don't you think?

Casey (27:30)

Yeah, yeah. I mean, you don't have to. The mob in Missouri basically says this is one of their reasons for kicking them out of Jackson county was that they were too, you know, lackadaisical, maybe even radical in their attitude towards people in slavery.

Scott (27:47)

Essentially radical in terms of leaning abolitionist, almost. Right. They were accused of being abolitionist almost.

Casey (27:54)

I think the accusation that the mob makes is that they were inviting free blacks to settle among them and that the mob was worried that they would intermarry, that the saints were too racially progressive. And most of the saints do come from the northern United States where slavery isn't allowed. Although if you try to survey Latter day Saint attitudes on slavery in the 1830s, it's all over the map. Right. They're very diverse when it comes to that. And church leaders recognize the reality of them trying to build Zion in a slave state. We've said this many times, but Jackson county, Missouri was a really hard place to build Zion, where I think the Lord was trying to confront them with a lot of these issues surrounding race and surrounding colonialism and all this kind of stuff. And so this is them being practical. Basically, they're issuing a declaration where they're saying, hey, we don't believe in interfering with slaves or going against the wish of their masters. Where this is legal, it's fine. This is them being practical. For instance, a letter was sent out instructing the elders of the church near around this time that said this. It should be the duty of an elder when he enters into a house, to salute the master of that house. And if he gain his consent, then he may preach to all that are in the house. But if he gain not his consent, let him go not unto his slaves or servants, but let the responsibility be upon the head of the master of the house and the consequences thereof. And the guilt of that house is no longer upon thy skirts. This comes about because of what happens in Jackson County. Missouri. And also probably some accusations made in Kirtland, Ohio, like the Painesville Telegraph, which is a local newspaper that's kind of antagonistic towards the saints in Ohio, sought that the church was seeking greater political influence and maybe made accusations like this that they were abolitionist or something, which could be used to paint them as radical. So they're just basically saying, hey, we're not trying to change those laws or interfere with them. We believe in obtaining consent from the master. Which, again, is pretty outdated. But today. But at the time, it was a real, genuine concern. And I will add that at the time they write section 130 for, there's still hope that they will get their land back in Jackson County. Like there's. So they're seeking to sort of assuage everybody's fears that they're going to go in and radically change the racial order. And that's why this verse is in there in particular.

Scott (30:15)

Yeah. And verse 12 should not be read to mean that church members endorsed slavery at that time. It's just saying we're going to play within the current rules that exist in this government because the government has a right to establish rules like that. And so we're going to play within those boundaries. I mean, we see really explicitly when Joseph Smith runs For President in 1844, he openly opposes slavery. He advocates for its end. Here's a line that he says from his presidential platform. He declared, quote, petition also ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators, to abolish slavery by the year 1850 or now, and save the abolitionists from reproach and rage, ruin, infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man and hire him to labor like other human beings for an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage. Close quote. So, obviously, clearly, clearly, clearly, we're not pro slavery, but verse 12 is saying we'll operate within the current bounds. Right.

Casey (31:30)

We'll uphold the law where it is, the law essentially, in every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude, is what they're saying here. Again, a little historical time capsule right there.

Scott (31:41)

And that leads us into the controversies of Section 134. Casey.

Casey (31:52)

Couple controversies, Scott, I'm going to throw one at you. I know some groups that feel like section 134 is not legit in the last couple years, there's arisen some groups within the church that are sort of Joseph Smith originalists and seek only things that come from Joseph Smith as being legitimate and everything else isn't. Now we mentioned in the context of this section that Joseph Smith wasn't there when this was presented to the Church. And I know some groups that have even produced their own version of the Scriptures that leaves out section 134 because they don't see it as legitimate. And these are usually people that are a little bit more, I don't know, against government or think the government should be severely limited. And I've even had one say to me, like, I disagree with the idea that government was instituted of God. I think government is the problem. What would you say to that? Do you think Joseph Smith was okay with Section 134 being in the doctrine?

Scott (32:46)

I think the, the argument comes from the fact that. That Joseph Smith wasn't there. Right. Like. Like to that point from the Joseph Smith papers. Let me, let me just Read this. On 17 August 1835, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon present the Doctrine and Covenants to a general assembly of the Church in Kirtland for approval. Significantly, Joseph Smith, who was visiting Michigan territory with Frederick G. Williams, was not present at this assembly. After representatives of different priesthood offices expressed their satisfaction with the book and after the whole congregation unanimously accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith. W.W. phelps and Cowdery presented two additional documents that the assembly accepted and adopted and ordered to be printed in the book. The statement on marriage that was removed in 1876, and this statement, this declaration on government and law, section 134, that's the fuel, right? That kind of fuels that argument. Joseph Smith was gone to Michigan and so they hurried and canonized this and slipped it in before Joseph could oppose it. But I thought you did a formidable job earlier talking about how Joseph Smith explicitly endorses this. Right? He endorses it in print. He tells elders of the church to refer to this section when they want to know how to deal as missionaries with slave owners and whether it's okay to preach to the slaves. And so I thought you did a job. Good job. You referenced when Joseph sent this entire section to the, to the editor of the Chester County Register and examiner and instead of saying we believe, he said I believe. I believe all of this. Right. So that's, that's pretty good.

Casey (34:20)

Casey. I have to admit when I heard the argument that Joseph Smith wasn't there the day that they presented this, like I was a little bit flummoxed, like. But he was on the committee that prepared the Doctrine and Covenants. Do they really think, think that Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon just slipped this in without him knowing? And he was also on the committee for the 1844 Doctrine Covenants, which includes this and then every edition since. So Brigham Young was okay with this. Heber J. Grant was okay with this because an edition of the Doctrine and Covenants came out like no prophet has sought to intervene and said, well, section 134, Joseph Smith disagreed with. And they don't have any documentary evidence where Joseph Smith ever like criticized Section 134 and said, no, that just doesn't represent my thinking. No, he was on board. He just wasn't there the day that it was sustained. That's a super weak argument.

Scott (35:10)

Amen. Okay, let me ask you a controversial question. Should we remove or rewrite verse 12 of the doctrine and Covenants?

Casey (35:18)

Yeah. I just spent the last five minutes defending section 134. Now I'm saying we should alter section 134.

Scott (35:25)

Do you believe verse 12 should. Should be removed or rewritten?

Casey (35:28)

I mean, short answer, yes, but let me explain my rationale. I love the Doctrine and Covenants, you know what? And I sustain it and I sustain the leadership of the church. Verse 12 of section 134 is a historical artifact, essentially. It's a, it's a relic from a time when the Saints were dealing with some, some real issues. And, and I, I think given today's world, it, I would be be more than okay if they chose to de canonize just that verse. I think everything else in section 134 can stay or they just rewrote it. And the reason why I feel so cavalier about this one is this is not a revelation. It's a declaration. It was a collaboration probably among leaders of the church, mostly Oliver Cowdery. What it says is that we're not going to interfere in countries where slavery is legal. But let me just point out out slavery isn't legal anywhere anymore. It does still happen. We googled this before we went on just to make sure that we were right. It still does happen, and it's a tragedy wherever it happens, but it's not legal. And we don't need to have verse 12 in order to secure the right of the Church to exist in any countries, to be honest with you. In fact, if you're looking at section 134, the things it says about religious freedom. Freedom would probably be a bigger impediment to the church being allowed into some countries than verse 12. So I mean, I'm okay that it's there as a kind of historical artifact and it does spur this really fruitful conversation about, well, what was going on with the church during this time and why were they being persecuted. In fact, I like the fact that it highlights that the church was persecuted because it was too progressive when it came to race. But right now it seems pretty regressive. This is way above my pay grade and not my decision to make.

Scott (37:20)

No, but it does lead us to kind of, you know, think carefully about what the nature of scripture is. Some scripture, you could argue, like verse 12 is like a museum. It's like, it's a place you go where you see in the ancient past and you see some of the problems they were dealing with, which we no longer deal with with. And it's interesting, like if we, if we went fully with your logic, we, we could say, hey, we should get rid of the book of Leviticus. Most of those sacrificial descriptions and ordinances there, like, they don't really apply anymore to us. Right. The whole law of Moses, we could just, let's just decanonize any reference to the law of Moses because it's no longer. But again, I wouldn't really argue that it's this idea of like, well, sometimes scripture is a museum to be learned from or to find interesting, but it doesn't currently apply in terms of our marching orders. Whereas other verses, you'd say those are as current as our, you know, as anything that's very relevant to our problems now. And that was written a thousand years ago, 2,000 years ago, or you know, 150 years ago. So I think there's an argument to be made about the nature of scripture here that it should stay because it's in that same category of kind of the museum artifacts, the vestiges of bygone days that give us insight into the wrestles of our spiritual ancestors. And maybe there's some lessons to be learned. But I'm hearing what you're saying too. I actually like that too.

Casey (38:51)

I like that argument. That's probably the best argument I can think of, is, yeah, we're not going to go back and de canonize everything. We're not going to de canonize Philemon in the New Testament because it's written to a slave and it basically asks him to go home and stay with him. At the same time, Leviticus and Philemon were canonized thousands of years ago. This is our book. This is the Doctrine and Covenants. Right. In many ways you could argue that the Doctrine and Covenants, which is the newest of our scriptures, it's just 200 years old. It's a baby on the scriptural timescale of things is still being created. Like we do creative things with the Doctrine and Covenants all the time. We just barely issued some updates based on the best research about what was there in the headings. And we did make minor changes in some of the texts too. Nothing that really changed the game. But I mean, we do have the freedom because this is our book and because it's essentially being created under our will watch. To maybe make minor adjustments like this from time to time. Like, we have decanonized stuff in the Doctrine and Covenants before the article on marriage was decanonized, lectures on faith were decanonized. I'm just saying verse 12 would be a good candidate for decanonization because nobody in the Church believes that it doesn't represent the official position of the Church, so why keep it in the Doctrine and Covenants? At the same time, I'm countering myself and saying, well, the Word of Wisdom looks pretty dangerous different than the Word of Wisdom we practice today. But we haven't decanonized Section 89 and issued an update. Some things I'm okay being in there as a historical artifact, but other things I see in there saying, hey, when we present ourselves to the world, I don't want us arguing that slavery is okay as long as the government says it's okay. I can't see anything positive in slavery. And plural marriage is a little bit more complicated than that. I think there were some positive outcomes, and I believe that it was instituted of God, but I don't think slavery was instituted of God. I think God doesn't like slavery. It contradicts section 101. It's not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And again, this isn't endorsing slavery. It's just saying we're not going to interfere if it's legal. But I just don't think that's a position we hold anymore. So again, that's as controversial as I'm going to get.

Scott (41:06)

Yeah, I mean, that's pretty controversial for you, Casey. Usually I'm the guy kind of toe on the edge here.

Casey (41:12)

I mean, they decanonized the whole lectures on faith and there's a lot of good stuff in the lectures on faith. So I'm just saying, hey, let's think about it, right? Let's have some conversations. Does verse 12. Do we really gain anything by having it there? But I guess you're right. That could be us pulling one thread. We start to decanonize all our least favorite verses and we don't accept it as it was when it came to us at the time.

Scott (41:38)

Next thing you know, we've got a Thomas Jefferson Bible thing happening all over again with the Doctrine and Covenants where he literally. I just saw recently Thomas Jefferson's Bible and it's in the Smithsonian. He literally, like took a, like an exacto knife and cut out parts he didn't like in the New Testament. It's so crazy, but yeah, so careful. We don't want to promote that in the Doctrine and Covenants. But okay, great thoughts, great thoughts.

Casey (42:02)

All right, Scott, So we've made it to the last of the seas. We are the consequences of section 134.

Scott (42:14)

I think the immediate effect of section 134 was to help church members of that time kind of get on the same page. It was good for helping church members to kind of know where we stood relative to government, what the boundary lines were, what we felt like was appropriate and inappropriate. It also helped outsiders at the time view us not as seditious and not as those who are really trying to, you know, build the kingdom of Joseph Smith or whatever. We have something pretty defensible at that time to say no. Like we literally. We believe that's how they all start all these verses. We believe in the proper role of government and religion and we think they can coexist well. So I think it was very helpful at the time. So that's kind of. I would say that's the immediate consequences. I don't know. What else would you Add to.

Casey (42:59)

Section 134 is an important part of our civic theology. And I don't know anybody that better elaborates on civic theology than Dallin H. Oaks. Like President Oaks is such a keen legal mind and has spoken about this. And all section 134 is saying is, hey, government is good, but there should be limits on the power of government. And religion is good, but there should be limits on the powers of religion. This is a quote from President Oaks that I think just kind of captures the gist of what he's saying here. He said this. When believers in Jesus Christ take their views of truth into the public square, they must seek the inspiration of the Lord to be selective and wise in choosing which True principles they seek to promote by law or executive action. Generally, they should refrain from seeking laws or administrative action to facilitate beliefs that are distinctive to believers, such as the enforcement of acts of worship. Even by implication, believers can be less cautious in seeking government action that would serve principles broader than merely facilitating the practice of their beliefs, such as laws concerning public health, safety, and morals. So he's basically saying when we go into the public square, we need to be conscious of the fact that we're not the only group here. We shouldn't seek to oppress other groups, like institute a set of laws that make people conform to what it means to be a good Latter Day Saint. Like, I'd be uncomfortable with a law that said everybody has to go to church on Sunday or something like that. But he also says that our religion can influence laws that we see as good for everybody. Like, I don't see any positive benefits to alcohol. You know, that might just be my upbringing. But I would be okay if we passed prohibition again because I don't think the sale of alcohol is good for people. And so that's one tenet of my religion that I think works for other people and wouldn't be oppressive if we did that. So your religion can guide your politics. Right. But when you enter into the realm of political thought, too, you should be cognizant of the fact that we're not the only group and we need to seek compromise. President Oaks is really fond of saying we seek to moderate and unify, and that's what our thinking in politics should be. And, man, could we use a little bit more of that right now in our current situation, we can also say, hey, we think this is right because God told us it's right. It's in the scriptures that should be allowed to be part of the conversation, too.

Scott (45:29)

Yeah, I love that. Fearless about your own beliefs, but not trying to impose that which is unique to your own religious institution upon others. Fearless about defending morals that are universal but not particulars of your peculiarities. Can we say that of your faith tradition? I love that prediction. The Oaks quote. Thank you. That's thought provoking to me. That strikes me as very wise. I love it. Well, that was fun, Casey.

Casey (45:51)

I hope section 134 spurs a lot of people to start having these conversations, but in a reasonable way. It's such a reasonable document, right? It's written really well. Like, if Oliver Cowdery did write it, he did a good job.

Scott (46:02)

Good stuff. Well, thanks, Casey, as always. Pleasure to be with you, man.

Casey (46:06)

You too. Thanks, Scott. I'LL see you next week.

Scott (46:09)

Okay, we'll see you then.

Casey (46:13)

Ra.