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.
Re: your last sentence…are you also referring to the parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, currently who have age-inappropriate “diversity education” imposed on their children? In 1988, Sally and I chose to homeschool in the enlightened sphere of Fairfax County, Virginia, only to be told we were violating state law. Homeschooling = illegal in Virginia in 1988. We chose to exercise our rights of individual religious conscience and rolled the dice. The Commonwealth’s AG threatened to take our children from us. We argued our religious rights. Ultimately, the AG backed down and we homeschooled all six of our children throughout their school years (having also had to work to change the laws in Utah once we moved here). So, who is imposing what on who? (By the way, thanks my friend for reading my post and so articulately responding. I hope you and yours are well and prospering.)
Paul,
Sorry I’m not intimately familiar with 1988 Fairfax County practices, so no, that’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to your obviously incorrect statement that the Constitution has never, “not once . . . allowed a Latter-day Saint to live according to the dictates of his or her individual religious conscience.” You must admit that, on a daily basis, the Constitution allows that – apparently, even in the instance you cite, since “the AG backed down.” I’m sorry if you and your family had to endure the indignity of an overzealous AG, but welcome to my world.
Let’s remain in dialogue about the case currently before the Supreme Court, which involves whether exquisitely insecure parents can force the public schools to dumb down curricula to “respect” their tender sensibilities about having their children exposed to anything that might threaten their otherwise sinecured world views. My friend Michael McConnell is on what I suspect is your view in that case, but profoundly wrong. I just wish he, and you, would have the confidence of your convictions!
Living my individual religious conscience today … as opposed to in the days of the Reynolds decision … means being able to NOT participate in some secular form of crazy. I am actually “obviously correct” in my statement unless you can provide me with an example otherwise. The Utah legislature, not the U.S. Constitution, has bailed out religious-minded Utah parents for sure. But there has not been any LDS cakemaker, LDS florist, LDS web designer before SCOTUS, claiming an LDS doctrine against same-sex marriage, who has been released from having to serve the dictates of someone else’s individual conscience.
I’m a bit amazed that you have the wonderful ability to see the injustice in banning certain books but not the injustice in forcing every kid to sit there and listen to certain books. Your sense of justice seems to work only one way. You look at my perspective on the Montgomery County situation as “dumbing down” kids. Fascinating. Where would you draw the line, if any, for a book that might be inappropriate for a school-age child? Would you support a 3rd-grade teacher extolling the virtues of Mein Kampf as age-appropriate? Or a book explaining in painful detail at any age the best ways to bully a gay kid without getting caught? — not telling anyone to bully a gay kid, just how to get away with it if you were to?? No need. I know you cannot draw any line otherwise your whole argument would fall apart.
Because the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people interpreting it, a Latter-day Saint’s only recourse to be able to live his/her individual religious conscience today is to seize the right, as Sally and I did with homeschooling … because, as I say in my book Defeated, the LDS church and Babylon made a deal at the time of Reynolds that the church would accept only religious freedoms granted by Babylon — hence, individual Saints will have to fight the fight themselves without church protections.
By the way, I assumed you did not know about homeschooling in Virginia in 1988 which is why I shared the example…you do not need to know our situation back then intimately to get my point that a missing right needed to be seized by individual parents unprotected by the U.S. Constitution or even the famous Virginia constitutional religious rights.
Having lost, resoundingly, his battle against the self-evident constitutionality of marriage equality, my friend Paul continues, sadly, to rail against any – including the supposedly prophetic and inspired leaders of his own faith – who recognize the moral as well as the legal and political justice of the cause he has spent a good portion of his life opposing. I’ve long been mystified why such an otherwise kind, generous and reasonable person would choose this particular windmill at which to tilt, but I’ve similarly long since given up wishing, for the sake of his own serenity, he would move on. Clearly he has not, and sadly he apparently cannot. That he would also contend that the Constitution has never, “not once . . . allowed a Latter-day Saint to live according to the dictates of his or her individual religious conscience” only adds to the mystery, as that statement is “true” only to the extent that it admits, correctly and in my view properly, that the Constitution prohibits Latter-day Saints or any other religious group to impose their doctrines on others who do not share their beliefs.