Application of the 12th article of faith

[Fether]

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

my question is this. To what extent do we obey, honor, and sustain the law?

What was the church’s guidance for LDS saints in Nazi germany?

If we find someone’s right to an abortion being infringed upon, ought we to defend it? I feel like I would... but not completely sure why right now.

Do we believe in obeying honoring and sustaining the law only when it agrees with our beliefs? Or always?

[jerome1232]

I'm not sure how to say this eloquently but as we look at examples like:

Daniel refusing to stop praying.

Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo refusing to bow to a king.

Joseph Smith escaping from capture.

Nephi slaying Laban in cold blood.

I think it's clear that sometimes God laws must Trump man's law and sometimes we are even commanded to do so. I suppose you must use the holy spirit as your guide.

[Fether]

34 minutes ago, jerome1232 said:

I'm not sure how to say this eloquently but as we look at examples like:

Daniel refusing to stop praying.

Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo refusing to bow to a king.

Joseph Smith escaping from capture.

Nephi slaying Laban in cold blood.

I think it's clear that sometimes God laws must Trump man's law and sometimes we are even commanded to do so. I suppose you must use the holy spirit as your guide.

The situation with Nephi, Shadrach and friends, and Daniel don’t really count.

Nephi: He did not murder Laban (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/09/i-have-a-question/how-can-i-explain-nephis-killing-laban-to-my-nonmember-friends?lang=eng)

Shadrach: it wasn’t an issue of bowing to the king, but worshipping idols.

Daniel: required to act against his religion

Now the situation with Joseph Smith I have no response to haha.

If the government directly demands that we break our own standards, I would go against them, I understand that, but what if we saw injustice occurring to something immoral, like if a woman is being unjustly held from her right to abortion. Would you stand for her legal right, or would you just pass by because you don’t feel her desire is moral enough for your assistance?

Or if a state starts preventing all gay marriages even though federal law says you must allow them, would you honor and sustain the law of the land, or side with the  state in keeping this legal right from going forward because it is against your belief?

Would you obey, honor, and sustain a law that is allowing your neighbor to commit a sin?

[Just_A_Guy]

53 minutes ago, Fether said:

If the government directly demands that we break our own standards, I would go against them, I understand that, but what if we saw injustice occurring to something immoral, like if a woman is being unjustly held from her right to abortion. Would you stand for her legal right, or would you just pass by because you don’t feel her desire is moral enough for your assistance?

It seems to me you are conflating “justice” with “legal due process”.  Antebellum slaveowners under the Fugitive Slave Act could demand citizens of Northern states cooperate in the apprehension of runaway slaves.  The participants in the Underground Railroad were depriving slaveowners of due process; but no one today would suggest that they were “unjustly” depriving those slaveowners of their “rights”.

Notwithstanding the 12th AofF, an individual’s highest duty is clearly to conscience/God. Obedience to secular legal codes is less a matter of absolute morality than of pragmatism—if a legal code, taken as a whole, provides your subgroup with a net benefit, then it’s in your subgroup’s interest to preserve that code by following as much of it as possible. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

my question is this. To what extent do we obey, honor, and sustain the law?

What was the church’s guidance for LDS saints in Nazi germany?

If we find someone’s right to an abortion being infringed upon, ought we to defend it? I feel like I would... but not completely sure why right now.

Do we believe in obeying honoring and sustaining the law only when it agrees with our beliefs? Or always?

I think we are counseled to fully obey, honor, and sustain the law. If we disagree, we are to use legal means to seek and effect change. I would say enforcement of the law is best handled by officers, that we have a civic duty to report infractions, and have the right to assume officers' duties in good faith  if life and limb are in immediate danger.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

If the government directly demands that we break our own standards, I would go against them, I understand that, but what if we saw injustice occurring to something immoral, like if a woman is being unjustly held from her right to abortion. Would you stand for her legal right, or would you just pass by because you don’t feel her desire is moral enough for your assistance?

Or if a state starts preventing all gay marriages even though federal law says you must allow them, would you honor and sustain the law of the land, or side with the  state in keeping this legal right from going forward because it is against your belief?

Would you obey, honor, and sustain a law that is allowing your neighbor to commit a sin?

Government defends a legislated / constitutional right to an abortion, so I don't think that enforcement is up to individuals. LDS are to participate in the public square and make their voices heard. Abortion is a complex issue; we have to respect the various views and accept that our Constitution and laws are the result of compromise and sustain the unity therein, even if we disagree in whole or in part.

States rights is similar, and I think people can and should vote their moral conscience on matters like gay marriage and also abide by the resulting compromise, working for improvements as necessary.

So yes, I obey, honor, and sustain a law that is allowing your neighbor to commit a sin that I feel strongly against, but also take the responsibility to effect change by due process. If I feel that strongly about it.