Doctrine and Covenants 134
Historical Context
Doctrine and Covenants 134 is a declaration that, along with the rest of the content of the Doctrine and Covenants, was first presented to a general assembly of the Church on August 17, 1835. In the meeting Oliver Cowdery and William W. Phelps presented two additional documents for inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants: first, a statement on marriage, and second, the declaration “containing certain principles or items upon laws in general and church government [D&C 134].” Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams were not present at the meeting, but they were noted in the meeting’s minutes as part of the committee overseeing the creation of the Doctrine and Covenants.
We do not know who the author of the declaration is or how involved Joseph Smith was in its creation. Most scholars believe that the declaration was primarily written by Oliver Cowdery since much of the declaration’s language mirrors articles produced when he served as the editor of the Church newspapers The Evening and the Morning Star and the Northern Times. While we do not know how involved Joseph Smith was in the creation of Doctrine and Covenants 134, Joseph did endorse the declaration on two different occasions. In 1836, Joseph wrote to the elders of the Church and counseled them “to search the book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the church concerning masters and servants.” Several years later, Joseph included the declaration in its entirety in a letter to the editor of the Chester County Register and Examiner. Joseph signed his name at the end of the letter and changed all of the “we believe” statements to “I believe.”
A vital part of the context surrounding Doctrine and Covenants 134 was the continuing difficulties of the Church in Missouri. The Saints in Missouri were forcibly evicted from their homes in Jackson County, Missouri in the Fall of 1833. When Doctrine and Covenants 134 was written the Saints in Missouri were refugees in nearby Clay County, but still held hopes to return to their lands in Jackson County. Daniel Dunklin, the governor of Missouri, expressed sympathy toward the plight of the Saints. At the time slavery was legal in Missouri, and some of the persecutions against the Saints came in part because the Church newspaper The Evening and Morning Star published several articles which were interpreted as supporting the abolition of slavery and encouraging the migration of free blacks to the state. Doctrine and Covenants 134 does not denounce abolition, but it does announce a policy of non-interference on the question. This part of the declaration may have been written to help soothe the fears of Missouri leaders who feared the Saints planned to interfere with slave holders (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:12).
The declaration was first included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and has been included in every subsequent edition.
See “Historical Introduction,” Appendix 4: Declaration on Government and Law, circa August 1835 [D&C 134].
Verse-by-Verse Commentary
D&C 134:1–4
1 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.
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 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.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, 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.
The statement that “governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man” does not imply that all governments were instituted of God, just the general concept of government. The standards for good government are also explained in this passage. Governments should make and administer laws “for the good and safety of society,” and these laws should “secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life” (D&C 134:1–2). Throughout the history of the world, many governments have failed to live up to these standards. Latter-day Saints hold an obligation to uphold these principles within the governments they live under. President Dallin H. Oaks counseled, “We should be knowledgeable citizens who are active in making our influence felt in civic affairs.”
The statement that “religion is instituted of God” also should not be taken to imply that all religion is instituted of God. There is much beauty and inspiration found in the different religions of the world. Latter-day Saints must use the lens of the restored gospel to measure the worth of religious concepts and teachings. In many cases religion has been abused and used to exercise unrighteous dominion and to stoke the flames of hatred and anger among men and women.
The standards for moral religion are presented Doctrine and Covenants 134:1-4 as well. Religions should not “infringe upon the rights and liberties of others” (D&C 133:4). Proper government should not prescribe rules of worship, bind the conscience of men or women, control conscience, or suppress freedom of the soul (D&C 134:4).
When a society encourages a robust freedom of religion, the rights of all people are safeguarded. Elder Robert D. 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.”
D&C 134:3–8
5 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 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.
6 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.
7 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 belief; 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.
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.
In an 1842 letter to John Wentworth, the editor of the Chicago Democrat, Joseph Smith declared on behalf of the Church, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Article of Faith 10). Around the world, Latter-day Saints live under a number of different systems of government. In each country, the Saints are counseled to be good citizens and neighbors and to work to better themselves and the nations they live within.
An epistle written from Joseph Smith and other Church leaders in 1834 provided the following counsel to the elders of the Church:
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 that individual, must, in justice convict his mind with 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.
D&C 134:9–10
9 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.
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 limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
Joseph Smith and other Church leaders forcefully emphasized the importance of religious freedom and the dangers of religious intolerance. Writing to John Wentworth in 1842, Joseph Smith asserted, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may” (Article of Faith 11). Though Joseph Smith and others sought to establish the kingdom of God on the earth, one of the values upheld and enshrined within that kingdom was tolerance for those with different religious convictions.
In a meeting of the Council of Fifty, a body intended to serve as a parliamentary council over the kingdom, Joseph Smith spoke at length on the importance of religious tolerance. He 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. 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.
In the same meeting of the Council of Fifty, Joseph further declared:
When I have used every means in my power to exalt a man’s mind and have taught him righteous principles to no effect—he is still inclined in his darkness, yet the same principles of liberty and charity would ever be manifested by me as though he embraced it. Hence in all governments or political transactions a man’s religious opinions should never be called in question. A man should be judged by the law independent of religious prejudice, hence we want in our constitution those laws which would require all its officers to administer justice without any regard to his religious opinions, or thrust him from his office.
D&C 134:11–12
11 We believe 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.
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 bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle 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.
The final part of the declaration must be carefully considered in the context in which it was written. The 1830s were a time of intense racial division in the United States. During this time many people of African ancestry lived in slavery, and there was a great racial divide between white and black Americans. Most Church members came from the Northern United States, where slavery was not allowed, though some Church members came from Southern States, where slavery was legal. Church leaders recognized the reality of this situation and counseled missionaries to be cautious and careful when teaching slaveholders or slaves. In a letter written to the missionaries of the Church, leaders counseled: “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 that 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 that house, and the consequences thereof; and the guilt of that house is no longer upon thy skirts.”
The persecutions the Church faced in Missouri was one factor that inspired Church leaders to write the declaration in Doctrine and Covenants 134. Part of the intent of the declaration was to soothe the government leaders in Missouri who feared that Church members intended to spread abolitionist views. Church leaders may have also been concerned about accusations made by the Painesville Telegraph, a newspaper near to Kirtland, that the Church was seeking greater political influence.
When Joseph Smith ran for president of the United States in 1844, he openly opposed slavery and advocated for its end. In his official presidential platform, he declared, “Petition also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and 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!’”
Footnotes
