A vainglorious faction inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is urgently pushing for a new “civic theology.” More idolatry than theology, this push would have church members move beyond a historic reverence for the inspired U.S. Constitution, more than a governmental framework for a free society, to a new enlightened view of the Constitution as a playbook of virtues focused on the meaning of citizenship.
Make no mistake, this peculiar view of the Constitution as a blueprint for citizen-peacemaker begins and ends with an irrational and partisan worship of political compromise. This elite faction of LDS insiders is upselling the Constitution as a compromise to cover a series of political sins.
The truth is that political compromise is a simple reality, not a divine virtue. If the U.S. Constitution could speak about compromise in a free society it would say “obviously,” not “now you understand why I exist.” So, we must ask why, why has this elite faction made political compromise its signal of exceptionalism for Latter-day Saint citizenship? And how did this extant, self-evident, and unavoidable political practice of compromise come to be equated with “peacemaking”?
We have heard this faction’s premise argued by high church authorities and lesser civic authorities following their lead. (Here, here, here, and here) In contrast, LDS church President Russell M. Nelson provided an articulate admonition in support of peacemaking but the voices of compromise have unashamedly politicized his words. Hence, peacemaking now equals political compromise.
But the real story about the rise of this cult of compromise begins in 2014, when then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke at Utah Valley University and explained how Latter-day Saints must turn from singularly defending LDS doctrines and values regarding the natural family and religious freedom to accommodating antithetical LGBTQ+ civil rights. “I believe that in time, with patience and goodwill, contending constitutional rights and conflicting personal values can be brought into mutually respectful accommodation.”
Those words were the basis for the “Utah Compromise” of 2015, the church’s “Fairness for All” political campaign that led to congressional legislation of the same name in 2019 and, ultimately, to the church’s endorsement of same-sex marriage in the 2022 federal Respect for Marriage Act. Ideas have consequences and the ideas of accommodation and compromise with gay rights led from one political misjudgment to another to compromising church doctrines on marriage and family. That’s not peacemaking, it’s contention.
This elite faction on Temple Square and at Brigham Young University has now deflected its several political misjudgments by anthropomorphizing the U.S. Constitution. It seems to make the Constitution human and political compromise became its crowning behavioral virtue.
But the U.S. Constitution isn’t human. We are. It is as only as good as we are and, frankly, we’re not very good. The evil institution of slavery was a constitutional “compromise” and Abraham Lincoln had to violate the document to end slavery. Appomattox was no compromise.
In the same breath, Latter-day Saints should pause to note that this cherished document didn’t save the lives of Joseph Smith and the early Saints. Despite its inspired and unprecedented view of governmental structure, the U.S. Constitution is not scripture and has never been a friend of individual Latter-day Saints. While the church is allowed to pray in its buildings, sell its wares, and educate its college kids, not once has the U.S. Constitution allowed a Latter-day Saint to live according to the dictates of his or her individual religious conscience.
Highly esteemed retired LDS jurist Thomas Griffith delivered BYU’s 2024 Durham Lecture on the topic of “How to Support and Defend the Constitution in a Divided Nation.” He said, “The American Constitution is intended to create common ground.” No, it’s not. The structures of the U.S. Constitution predicted that every American would preemptively stand up for what they believe, not for how they would preemptively compromise their most cherished beliefs. The Constitution is a rule book, not a playbook.
It’s all sophistry to cover a secreted and vainglorious political effort, originally conceived independent of church leadership by a church public affairs director and an attorney for the church as early as 2009, to get the church to ultimately endorse same-sex marriage. And they got what they wanted in 2022. Achieving that dark and intentional result is a perfect example of rhetorical deception in the names of compromise and peacemaking.
Peacemaking in the Lord’s way is personal, not political. Faithful Latter-day Saints are peacemakers who don’t preemptively compromise their values, ever. The kindest political behavior we can exhibit is to honestly and transparently stand for what we believe, independent of a secular world, looking to God, not the U.S. Constitution as our exemplar for citizenship.
The Misguided Notion of the Constitution as Peacemaker
A vainglorious faction inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is urgently pushing for a new “civic theology.” More idolatry than theology, this push would have church members move beyond a historic reverence for the inspired U.S. Constitution, more than a governmental framework for a free society, to a new enlightened view of the Constitution as a playbook of virtues focused on the meaning of citizenship.
Make no mistake, this peculiar view of the Constitution as a blueprint for citizen-peacemaker begins and ends with an irrational and partisan worship of political compromise. This elite faction of LDS insiders is upselling the Constitution as a compromise to cover a series of political sins.
The truth is that political compromise is a simple reality, not a divine virtue. If the U.S. Constitution could speak about compromise in a free society it would say “obviously,” not “now you understand why I exist.” So, we must ask why, why has this elite faction made political compromise its signal of exceptionalism for Latter-day Saint citizenship? And how did this extant, self-evident, and unavoidable political practice of compromise come to be equated with “peacemaking”?
We have heard this faction’s premise argued by high church authorities and lesser civic authorities following their lead. (Here, here, here, and here) In contrast, LDS church President Russell M. Nelson provided an articulate admonition in support of peacemaking but the voices of compromise have unashamedly politicized his words. Hence, peacemaking now equals political compromise.
But the real story about the rise of this cult of compromise begins in 2014, when then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke at Utah Valley University and explained how Latter-day Saints must turn from singularly defending LDS doctrines and values regarding the natural family and religious freedom to accommodating antithetical LGBTQ+ civil rights. “I believe that in time, with patience and goodwill, contending constitutional rights and conflicting personal values can be brought into mutually respectful accommodation.”
Those words were the basis for the “Utah Compromise” of 2015, the church’s “Fairness for All” political campaign that led to congressional legislation of the same name in 2019 and, ultimately, to the church’s endorsement of same-sex marriage in the 2022 federal Respect for Marriage Act. Ideas have consequences and the ideas of accommodation and compromise with gay rights led from one political misjudgment to another to compromising church doctrines on marriage and family. That’s not peacemaking, it’s contention.
This elite faction on Temple Square and at Brigham Young University has now deflected its several political misjudgments by anthropomorphizing the U.S. Constitution. It seems to make the Constitution human and political compromise became its crowning behavioral virtue.
But the U.S. Constitution isn’t human. We are. It is as only as good as we are and, frankly, we’re not very good. The evil institution of slavery was a constitutional “compromise” and Abraham Lincoln had to violate the document to end slavery. Appomattox was no compromise.
In the same breath, Latter-day Saints should pause to note that this cherished document didn’t save the lives of Joseph Smith and the early Saints. Despite its inspired and unprecedented view of governmental structure, the U.S. Constitution is not scripture and has never been a friend of individual Latter-day Saints. While the church is allowed to pray in its buildings, sell its wares, and educate its college kids, not once has the U.S. Constitution allowed a Latter-day Saint to live according to the dictates of his or her individual religious conscience.
Highly esteemed retired LDS jurist Thomas Griffith delivered BYU’s 2024 Durham Lecture on the topic of “How to Support and Defend the Constitution in a Divided Nation.” He said, “The American Constitution is intended to create common ground.” No, it’s not. The structures of the U.S. Constitution predicted that every American would preemptively stand up for what they believe, not for how they would preemptively compromise their most cherished beliefs. The Constitution is a rule book, not a playbook.
It’s all sophistry to cover a secreted and vainglorious political effort, originally conceived independent of church leadership by a church public affairs director and an attorney for the church as early as 2009, to get the church to ultimately endorse same-sex marriage. And they got what they wanted in 2022. Achieving that dark and intentional result is a perfect example of rhetorical deception in the names of compromise and peacemaking.
Peacemaking in the Lord’s way is personal, not political. Faithful Latter-day Saints are peacemakers who don’t preemptively compromise their values, ever. The kindest political behavior we can exhibit is to honestly and transparently stand for what we believe, independent of a secular world, looking to God, not the U.S. Constitution as our exemplar for citizenship.