How Jesus Christ Exemplified The LDS Twelfth Article Of Faith In His Dealings With The Adulteress

The Twelfth Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reads, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law".

But does this mean blind obedience? Does this mean we cannot rebel against a government which has become fully ripe in wickedness? Jesus Christ actually provided a noteworthy example on obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law in his dealing with the adulteress in the New Testament.

John 8:3-11 gives us the account:

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Let's recap:

(1). The scribes and the Pharisees, who were the official secular authorities of the society, proposed to execute an adulteress by stoning in accordance with their official law.

(2). Jesus Christ did not render a judgment one way or another, but merely said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".

(3). The scribes and the Pharisees decided to voluntarily depart without exercising judgment, thus effectively vacating the charge against the adulteress.

(4). Jesus Christ then merely confirmed the dismissal of the charge, telling the adulteress that He also did not have an issue with her. He set her at liberty and counseled her not to re-offend.

Unlike the activist judges of our era who frequently overrule the expressed legislative will of the people, Jesus Christ did not overrule the authorities. Thus he obeyed, honored, and sustained the existing law. Through his power of persuasion, He was able to convince the secular authorities to vacate the charges. This effectively counters the false notion held by some that Jesus was some sort of revolutionary insurgent bent on overthrowing society and turn it upside down. Far from wanting to turn society upside down, Jesus Christ merely sought to change hearts, in keeping with his ultimate mission of serving as a Redeemer to mankind by first taking upon Himself the sins of the world at Gethsemane, and then offering up his life as a substitutionary atonement for those sins on Calvary. For these actions He was extended the privilege of resurrecting Himself three days later, thus breaking the bands of death and hell.

The Twelfth Article of Faith is further reinforced by Doctrine & Covenants 58:21-22:

21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

In the Mormon Worker, Ron Madson poses the interesting question of whether or not civil disobedience is a breach of the Twelfth Article of Faith. He cites the example of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who refused a royal command from Nebuchadnezzar to worship a golden image of him. Another example cited is Ammon's qualified pledge of obedience to King Lamoni stated in Alma 18:17, where he said “...whatsoever thou desireth which is right, that will I do". From both these examples, we get the message that the Twelfth Article of Faith does not require us to violate our consciences, and that civil disobedience is in keeping with it if we subject ourselves to the consequences of such disobedience, as did Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego when they allowed the authorities to arrest them and throw them into a fiery furnace, from which they emerged unharmed.

How The LDS Second Article Of Faith Obviates The Need For "White Guilt"...Or Any Other Type Of Collective Guilt

I've been looking for an excuse to expound upon the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Second Article of Faith for quite a while, and a post on the Feminist Mormon Housewives blog has provided the justification.

The post in question is entitled "So it turns out you’re white, but let’s not talk about that...". In this post, Lisa grabs on to one of the third rails of American politics - race - and advocates that we talk about it rather than ignore it. She deftly sums up the two prevailing positions in American society regarding race:

...Most of us liberal white types feel a healthy dose of white guilt, so sorry I am for all the privileges of my whiteness, so so sorry that my gg-grandpa owned your gg-grandpa, and so so so sorry about the unfortunate oppressiveitude of my very white existence.

And most of the conservative white types (my former Republican self included) feel a nice healthy dose of white defensiveness, after all it’s not like I owned slaves or forced anyone to drink from a colored drinking fountain. I should be able to feel proud of my pioneer ancestors and my Irish heritage. I’m not a racist, so why should I feel guilty? eh? eh?

Yes, that's a good summation of the predominant positions, but let's stop right there. Did you notice her use of the phrase "healthy dose of white guilt"?

The fact is, there is no such thing as a "healthy" dose of white guilt, because any form of collective guilt over sins you did not personally commit is unhealthy. This applies in particular to so-called "historical guilt". Note that guilt itself in the broader sense is not an unhealthy emotion when it is resultant from reflection upon your own actions or words, but how can you hold yourself guilty for the sins committed by people you not only never knew, but who may have long since been dead?

Fortunately, we in the LDS Church have an escape clause from collective guilt. It's called the Second Article of Faith, which states, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression". Of course, the primary purpose is doctrinal; it's designed to show that we as Mormons reject the traditional Christian notion of "original sin", which portrays the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden as an act of perfidy by the First Couple rather than as a carefully-orchestrated act designed to unlock the key to mortality for billions of spirits who chose to keep their First Estate and to accept the Father's plan for eternal progression rather than follow Lucifer into outright rebellion and eternal exile. In LDS purview, Adam and Eve are heroes rather than goats.

But there's a broader, more implicit message delivered by the Second Article of Faith. It also implies that we are not responsible for any sins except those which we personally commit, or those committed by others over who we have direct control. An example of the latter: In civil society, parents are held liable for the actions of their kids because kids are not considered emancipated citizens, but are wards of the state under the command and control of responsible adults. Another example: In paramilitary organizations, commanders and supervisors are held accountable for the actions of subordinates.

But nowhere is there the implication that we can be held responsible for the sins of those with whom we had no contact. Consequently, we need not feel or accept guilt for the sins of those with whom we had no contact. This effectively rebuts the notion of "white guilt" or any other form of collective guilt. Likewise, we as Latter-day Saints need not feel guilt over the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the prolonged denial of Priesthood membership to black men who were otherwise qualified. Our responsibility is limited to ensuring the truth gets out without fear or favor, and, in the case of the 1978 revelation extending Priesthood membership to all worthy males, to ensure it is enforced in spirit as well as to the letter.

And finally, a comment posted to the FMH post proved additionally disturbing.

1. One other comment–my reading in feminism and the intersection of sex, gender, culture, and race has been very helpful in opening my eyes to why, as a member of the powerful white majority in my culture, I’m not really the one who gets to say that we’re now post-racial and the bad days are over. Privilege is pretty much invisible to the ones who have it. That doesn’t mean others aren’t hurt by it.

   Comment by psychedaisy — January 18, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

First, Psychedaisy's First Amendment right to say we're post-racial is guaranteed regardless of whether or not she wants to exercise it. Second, the argument the so-called "white privilege" is invisible is designed to throttle discussion, because how does one claim something is not invisible? It shows intellectual dishonesty on her part.

But intellectual dishonesty is part and parcel of anti-racist discourse. Anti-racists talk a good game of tolerance, but restrict it to only those with whom they agree. Visit the anti-racist One People's Project forum and you'll see that they tolerate no contrasting opinions. On the other hand, if you visit the racist Vanguard News Network Forum, you will see that they not only tolerate contrasting discourse, but have even set up an Opposition Forum to encourage it. Ironic that those who are labeled "intolerant" are actually more tolerant than those who proclaim themselves to be tolerant, isn't it?

In the final analysis, it is the anti-racists, the same ones who preach white guilt and white privilege and endlessly denigrate our history, who are really preventing us from becoming "post-racial". I suggest that anti-racism is just as much out of harmony with the Gospel as racism.