What Do D&C 134:4, 1 Cor. 10:29, etc.. Say To Those Who "Infringe Upon The Rights And Liberties Of Others"?

Since gays in California currently HAVE the right to marriage, any efforts on our part to to infringe upon their right or liberty to marry is counter to scripture. Let's look at these passages along with quotes from various authorities and commentaries -

D&C 134:4 - "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..." (emphasis added). It is obviously contrary to God to try to take away the civil and constitutional rights of others based on our own religious beliefs. We are not to force our subjective moral standards on others in violation of their legal rights and privileges to benignly do as they please.

Someone wrote to us claiming that D&C 134:4 refers only to religious freedoms and not other freedoms since the subject of the section is primarily dealing with religious freedoms. President Wilford Woodruff would disagree. He said, "That this Church, while offering advice for the welfare of its members in all conditions of life, does not claim or exercise a right to interfere with citizens in the free exercise of social or political rights and privileges." (James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 3: 185.)

Obviously President Woodruff didn't believe that D&C 134:4 gives us the green light to "..interfere with citizens in the free exercise of social or political rights and privileges" so long as freedom of religion remained untrampled. Unfortunately, we seem to either ignore or reinterpret the passage in order to justify our efforts to force our standards on society.

Regarding D&C 134:4, consider this quote from a D&C commentary -

"Religious freedom does not imply nor provide license to infringe or impose upon the rights and liberties of others."
(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982-1983], 2: 375.)
Notice that the adjective "religious" was not used when refering to the rights and liberties of others, thereby indicating that ALL rights and ALL liberties are to be protected.

Also, if the letter writer's theory were true, the Church would have free reign to deny ANY freedom or right to ANY group as long as that group's religious rights are respected. We could support laws denying them voting rights, tax deductability, hiring, renting, etc... where we (and any supporters) are in the majority. Wouldn't it be nice if KSL, Deseret Book, Deseret Industries, etc.. didn't have to hire non- "temple recommend holders"?

Does anyone really think that God would approve of LDS infringing upon the God/State-given rights of others, especially if other faiths or groups were given the same rights in places where they are in the majority? Clearly, all the rights and liberties of all men must be held inviolate.

The obvious meaning of the "rights and liberties" portion of D&C 134:4 clearly refers to all legal and civil rights.

Let's move on to 1 Cor. 10:29 - "...for why is my liberty judged* of another man's conscience?"
(* Note - the Greek word for "to judge" used here is also rendered as "to determine" elsewhere in the KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc... It is also rendered as "to be called into question" in Acts 23:6 , Acts 24:21; etc...; as "to go to law" in 1 Cor. 6:6; and as "to be so decreed" in 1 Cor. 7:37.)

Please consider how the word is rendered in other Bible translations -

(New King James Version)
"... For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?"
(English Standard Version)
"... For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?"
(New Living Translation)
"... For why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks?"
(Amplified Bible)
"... For why should another man's scruples apply to me and my liberty of action be determined by his conscience?

In other words, liberties and freedoms are not to be determined or limited by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others. Since we can't use our own moral opinions to limit the rights of others, we have no right, doctrinally, to oppose Civil Same-Sex Marriage.

In context, verses 27 through 33 have Paul saying that we should limit our otherwise allowed behaviors if they offend others, which offense may cause them to reject the Gospel. In verse 29, though, Paul says that we do this only for the sake of the others' conscience and rejects the idea that the opinions of others can limit our freedom. If the opinions of others can't limit our freedom, how can we hypocritically state that OUR opinions can limit the freedom of others? Verse 30 says that since Paul is saved through grace (and not by living the Law of Moses), why should he be judged for doing something that the Law of Moses forbids? He is saying that he is not subject to the law of Moses and therefore can't be judged by it. He doesn't want the old laws limiting what he can do under the new law. He will voluntarily refrain from doing things forbidden under the old law so as to not offend those still under that law, but the old law does not restrict him otherwise, for why should his liberty (rights) be judged (restricted) of/by another man's conscience (personal moral beliefs)?

The basic underlying principle is that we, as LDS, have our own laws and others (non-LDS) have their own various sets of rules. We may avoid ordering pork when dining with Jews or vegetarians, so as to not cause them offense, but the laws which the Jews observe have no claim on us and our liberty is not to be judged by another law's (man's) conscience. Just as their laws have no power over us, neither do our laws, in a non-theocratic society, hold sway over them. They are free to do as they wish until they decide to join us and adopt our laws. We have no right to impose our laws, beliefs or opinions on them, for why is their liberty judged of another man's (our) conscience?

Along those same lines, D&C 134:9 states - "We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government..." Wasn't government force used at the prompting of the majority's morals to take away our rights to practice our ideas of what constitutes a proper marriage (polygamy)? That action was clearly condemned by the Brethren. Why is it OK for us to be hypocritical and gore the oxen of others by taking away their rights to practice what they feel constitutes a proper marriage when we screamed like a pig under a gate when our own ox was gored for doing the same? What does the Lord say about hypocrites?

The section is clearly about the roles and limitations of religion and government. In other words, the separation of Church and State. D&C 134:6 says that we are to show deference to political officials and obey their laws regulating the interactions of men and nations. It later talks about God's laws and that we are not only responsible to God only for them but also responsible to God for our actions regarding man's laws. The Church deals with God's laws and the State deals with laws regulating the interactions of men toward each other.

Regarding the separation of Church and State, Bruce R. McConkie, in his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, discusses Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:22-26. He states -

"How better could the Master Teacher proclaim his doctrine of separation of church and state than he did here in avoiding the trap of the Pharisees and Herodians?
These scheming and hypocritical "spies" offered Jesus these two alternatives as possible answers to their diabolically clever question: (1) Say, 'Yes, pay the hated poll tax to Rome as the law already requires,' which answer would cause the Pharisees to inflame the people against him. Or: (2) Say, as the sect of Zealots taught, 'No, Israel is a theocracy; God only is her King; pay no tribute to a foreign power,' in which event the Herodians would have delivered him "unto the power and authority of the governor," charging him with sedition and rebellion.
But from his lips instead came the decree: 'Render unto God and Caesar their own.' That is, in this present world where wicked men will not repent and come unto the fulness of the Lord's perfect order of government, there must be two separate powers, ecclesiastical and civil, the one supreme in spiritual matters, the other in temporal. Neither power can dictate to the other. And men are subject to them both."
(Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols.,[Salt Lake City: Bookcraft], 1:600,601.)

Clearly the Church and the State need to be separated and not be allowed to trespass on each others' "turf". The civil and legal rights and benefits pertaining to marriage are clearly the domain ("turf") of government (Caesar). Religious belief and doctrine have no right to infringe on the civil rights and liberties of others. We know that marriage has a legal/secular component because even clergy state that they perform marriages "by the power vested in me by the state of...I pronounce you husband and wife". We also know that people can't go to their clergyman to obtain a legal divorce. These aspects of marriage are clearly the domain of Caesar thereby refuting the idea that marriage is solely the domain of the church.

D&C 98:5-7 states that any law that violates the Constitution is evil. Consider this quote regarding D&C 98:5-7 from a Doctrine & Covenants commentary -

"As to the laws of the land, how does one know whether any given law is constitutional and justifiable before the Lord? The revelation of the Lord provides the answer. Any law that supports the principle of freedom in maintaining the rights and privileges of mankind is constitutional in the eyes of the Lord."
(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982-1983], 2: 166.)

Changes in the Constitution always expand and recognize our God-given rights. There has never been an amendment taking away the rights of others. Any campaign to deny anyone his or her equal rights and equal protection under the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional and, therefore, evil, per D&C 98:5-7.

"This philosophy is also set forth in James Madison's famous Federalist No. 10, where the Father of the Constitution espoused the ideal of a pluralistic society under a government founded upon a vertical and horizontal separation of powers. Such a system is legalistic, and as such it is concerned with the maintenance of human rights rather than being responsive to popular opinion."
(Hyrum L. Andrus, Liberalism, Conservatism, Mormonism [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965], 18 - 19.)

The Doctrine & Covenants clearly states that the Lord raised up wise men to write the Constitution of this country -

D&C 101:77-80 - We LDS are to act.."According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

Consider these comments from Doctrine and Covenants commentators -

"It is strange that many men should have such a strong desire to force others to adopt their views and practices. It is strange to contemplate that prisons, torture, and death have been employed in the service of compulsory religion. No doubt, most of those who have resorted to such means have done so believing that they were trying to benefit their fellow-men by compelling them to believe and to do right. They did not call themselves persecutors. Nor do their modern successors regard themselves as persecutors, if they slander the members of unpopular churches, boycott them socially, and otherwise, and do everything in their power to prevent people from becoming interested in them. But, no matter how they regard themselves, they are persecutors, and as such they are in the service of Satan, who is the originator of the compulsory plan of salvation, and who has tried to enforce it among men from the beginning. God's kingdom is founded on perfect liberty."
(Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978], 650 - 651.)

"In speaking of the central purpose to be achieved through the Constitution of the United States, God said in a revelation to Joseph Smith that this great document had been established 'that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him. (D&C 101:77-78). (Italics added in the original.) In other words, the central purpose of the Constitution is to establish a climate of freedom in which each individual may act, according to the doctrine and principles he espouses, in determining his future. Any policy of government that militates against this central purpose is unconstitutional."
(Hyrum L. Andrus, Mormonism and the Rise of Western Civilization [Provo: BYU Extension Publications, 1966], 25.)

"When he [God] establishes his kingdom it will protect all in their equal rights; I as a Latter-day Saint, will not have power to trample on my fellow-man who may not be orthodox in my opinion, because I am a Latter-day Saint; nor will my fellow-man to whom I am heterodox, have the power to trample upon me. Does not that look right? That is the kind of kingdom we have to contend for; that is the kind of kingdom we have to establish, and it is already provided for in the Constitution given unto us by God, and through the glorious labors of the fathers who laid the foundation of this government, who were inspired and raised [up] by our Almighty Father for this express purpose." (Hyrum L. Andrus, quoting George Q. Cannon, Joseph Smith and World Government [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1958], 29.)

The Lord's clear intent is that we abide by the Constitution while, like Nephi, looking forward to the law being done away with. "...we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled" (2 Nephi 25:24). Nephi looked forward to Christ's coming to live under his law and we LDS should look forward to the return of Christ and the government and laws he'll establish. Until then, we are to live according the Constitution and the scriptures. The scriptures are very libertarian. They firmly assert that all of God's children are equal and that none are "more equal than others". No one is given more rights than others and no one can impose their own individual morals on others.

Even if our (and the authors of the various commentaries) interpretation of D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 and other verses is incorrect, does ANYONE really believe that the Lord approves of us infringing upon ANY rights or liberties of others which are in no way infringing on our own, especially when the others would also have the green light to infringe upon ours? Consider the following -

Rights & Liberties -

We reverence the Constitution, which we believe was inspired of God; we cherish the memory of the patriots who framed it; we accept their enunciation of the inalienable rights of man, and, in common with all freemen who love this glorious land and desire to see its noble institutions perpetuated, we claim the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness, as our own consciences dictate, so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others.
(Contributor, vol. 6 (October 1884-September 1885), Vol. Vi. June, 1885. No. 9. 354.)

True liberty consists in the privilege of enjoying our own rights, not in the destruction of the rights of others.
(Contributor, vol. 5 (October 1883-September 1884), Vol. V. February, 1884. No. 5. 193.)

Every man has the right to believe as he pleases, and to do as he pleases, so long as his acts do no interfere with the rights of his fellow men and he does not infringe upon their liberties. We as a people have suffered from these things, and we ought to be the first and foremost to defend human liberty. If men are in error, they are to be pitied, not punished, unless they carry their errors beyond proper limits and infringe upon the liberties of others.
(Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses, 5 vols. [Burbank, Calif., and Woodland Hills, Ut.: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987- 1992], 2: .)

Governments must be righteous to receive the support of the Church. They must be in harmony with the principles of justice acknowledged by believers in God. This includes the full and unqualified right of the free exercise of individual liberty whenever it does not infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.
(John A. Widtsoe, Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1937], 100.)

The bottom line is that our support for laws banning Civil Same-Sex Marriage is clearly in violation of scripture and hypocritical due to our response when others used their "...religious opinions to prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others..." IOW, we LDS were the victims when our rights to practice polygamy were infringed. The persecuted should never become the persecutors. It is obvious that we LDS have done that very thing.