Now more than ever, we need the 12th Article of Faith.

The Articles of Faith were first composed in 1842 as a summary of the Church’s doctrines, but they are based on both modern revelation and canonized scripture. Jesus’ instruction in Mark 12:17 to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” is a well-known New Testament passage undergirding the 12th Article of Faith. Paul’s statement to the Romans is more direct: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God….Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”

And yet Christians have struggled to balance submission to earthly and heavenly authority throughout history, not least because they have at times found themselves subject to wicked governments. Early Christians could both fervently desire to be loyal citizens, and develop a substantial literature venerating those who resisted the unrighteous demands of wicked rulers.

There is a long Christian tradition of debate about the proper approach to civil authority and interpretation of the relevant Bible passages, from Augustine and the medieval “two swords” theory to Luther’s “two kingdoms” doctrine, with substantial differences between various Reformers and Protestant movements. Luther’s theory of government had to account for both worldly princes who could be instrumental in promoting the Reformation, and those who forbid publication of the New Testament.

The 12th Article of Faith places us within this tradition of wrestling with the relationship between believers and secular government, without conclusively resolving all the conflicts that can occur – as the fraught relationship between the Church and the federal government during the first century of its history shows.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely only on biblical verses and Christian tradition. We can find additional guidance in modern revelation and the Book of Mormon. The first 10 verses of Section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants were revealed in 1833, while Section 134 is a statement of beliefs relating to government issued in 1835. Like the New Testament passages, modern revelation commands support for the law, but it also limits the power of secular authorities in matters of conscience.

The Book of Mormon has a surprising amount to say about righteous people living under wicked rulers, with several cases of conflict with secular governments during the long century of well-attested Nephite history. Examples include:

• The people of Alma continued to pray silently in defiance of an unrighteous command to cease praying (Mosiah 24:11-12).
• The prophet Abinadi continued preaching even after the wicked King Noah tried to silence him (Mosiah 13:1-2).
• The Nephites took up arms to defend themselves against Amlici, who had declared himself king contrary to the will of the people (Alma 2:1-16).
• Amulek spoke out against unrighteous lawyers and judges who were laying the “foundation of the destruction of this people” (Alma 10:27).
• The prophets Nephi and Samuel the Lamanite preached against the government after robbers had gained control of it (Helaman 6:38-39).
• Captain Moroni famously threatened to bring down violence on leaders who he thought were indifferent, slothful and neglectful towards the freedoms of the people and their defense, or who had betrayed the people (Alma 59:13, 60:14, 18-19, 27).

Roughly speaking, we might say that Book of Mormon prophets opposed rulers who intruded on matters of conscience or worship, tried to override democracy, or betrayed the people they were meant to serve.

These examples do not justify all acts of defiance. Modern revelation and examples from scripture align the Church with lawful good, and Section 134 specifically warns against “terror and anarchy.” If you thought the peaceful transfer of power in an electoral democracy was the right occasion for a violent insurrection, you deserve a prison sentence and lasting shame.

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates” – but this support is not unconditional. The principle upon which support depends is “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Therefore our obligations, even toward democratically elected governments, do not extend to illegal actions. The principle of obeying, honoring and sustaining the law instead gives us an obligation to reject wholly unlawful acts.