The divine right of kings is the name for the idea that God gave kings the right to rule. It’s a combined religious and political doctrine that says kings are in charge because God wants it that way. It isn’t necessarily a theocracy. It just means the king is appointed by God and answers to no one but God; he is not bound by any law created by men. Kings are not accountable to any earthly authority, and any attempt to limit their authority was not only treason, it was a sin.
This idea isn’t limited to European culture. Lots of cultures have this same idea. Rulers in Japan and China, for example, had the Mandate of Heaven. Hinduism taught that a king was an embodiment of one of the Hindu gods. And so forth.
Of Kings, Prophets, and Popes
Since Primary, we who were raised LDS have been taught about how special prophets are. God chooses him before birth and trains him up through life experiences, and then calls him into the Quorum of the Twelve where he outlives everyone called before him. That’s how you become prophet. Prophets aren’t bound by any written law because they said so. Living prophets are more important than scripture, or anything a past (dead) prophet said.
The point is, Mormons are taught a version of the divine right of kings so we can accept prophets.
Evangelical Christians are also familiar with the idea of a Supreme Leader who is not bound by any written law, answers to no one for his actions, and whose actions are sometimes inscrutable but that’s because we’re just not clever enough to understand the Divine mind. God is supposed to hurt bad people — that’s the flip side of the prosperity gospel. Injustices don’t matter that much because all will be made well in the next life.
Catholics officially believe that the Pope is infallible, and then they cheerfully ignore inconvenient teachings. The Pope is elected, which is (delightfully) announced by the color of smoke from the building where they sequester the cardinals until they make a decision.
Evangelicals and Catholics elect, appoint, or hire their leaders. Mormons are the only ones who believe their leaders are chosen directly by God. Our leadership structure is more similar to the divine right of kings (in which God arranges for his chosen leaders to be born in the right situation) than the leadership structure of the Evangelicals and Catholics.
Democracy
The divine right of kings has given way to democracy, in some form or another, throughout much of the world. Democracy, the word, means a system in which the people (demos) have authority (kratia). This, of course, leads to long discussions and wars about what is a “people”. After the Civil War, the USA conceded that Black people are people. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, and thus women became people for the purposes of democracy.
A democratic government does NOT get its authority from God. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said it in the Declaration of Independence, a democratic government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.” That phrase — the consent of the governed — means the government’s power comes from the people.
A democratic government is thus the exact opposite of the divine right of kings.
The Old Rule Was That Tax Exempt Organizations Shouldn’t Do Politics
America’s famous, wobbling separation of Church and State has long forbidden churches from getting too deeply into politics. One of the rules that a church should follow in order to be exempt from taxes is to stay out of politics. Section 501(c(3) of the Tax Code says this pretty clearly:
Corporations, … operated exclusively for religious purposes … no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3).
In a belt and suspenders approach, Congress passed the Johnson Amendment in 1954 to underline the fact that the U.S. tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing specific political candidates. Tax-exempt organizations can talk about political issues, but not about specific politicians. It used to be that, if a preacher mentioned a political candidate by name from a pulpit (either for or against), that church’s tax exemption was in danger. In practice, the rule wasn’t enforced very often, but then again, politics and religion didn’t join forces in a major way for the first couple centuries of America’s existence. To be clear about the developing merger of politics and religion, Trump signed an Executive Order in his first term to tell the IRS to stop enforcing the rule.
Churches Can Now Officially Be Political
In a recent filing in a court case (so this isn’t a law or a regulation), the IRS said that religious leaders and churches should be able to talk about politicians by name, from the pulpit. Republicans have introduced legislation to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Preachers were already supporting Trump by name, but now it’s going to be very clear that churches can talk politics as much as they want.
Trump is essentially already the beneficiary of the divine right of kings. He is not accountable to any other mortals, not even the Republicans in Congress dare tell him no. Nor is he bound by any document, such as the Constitution or court orders. At this point, he won’t rule past 2028, but that’s because of the Constitution and obeying the Constitution is optional for Trump.
Perhaps the religious hallelujah about Trump is already so loud that it won’t get any louder. But there’s something un-American about a pastor preaching that God wants a particular someone to be president.
History Doesn’t Repeat But It Rhymes
There’s a reason the world switched from the divine right of kings to democracy. Kings suck. The Founding Fathers hated kings so much that most the Declaration of Independence is hate mail to King George (if you haven’t read it, you should. Go ahead. Click the link and read it. We’ll wait.)
Joseph Smith liked the idea of kings. King Mosiah said:
Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. Mosiah 29:13.
But kings can also be cruel tyrants. Samuel the prophet tried to warn off the people of Israel from asking for a king.
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us.” (1 Samuel 8:10-19 (NIV))
When churches start teaching that God wants a specific person to be a king, human rights suffer. Freedom constricts. There’s a reason that democracies have better human rights records and more freedom than authoritarian forms of government.
I suppose humanity must learn the lesson again.
Questions:
- Do you expect the First Presidency to send a letter saying that bishops and Sacrament meeting speakers should NOT talk about specific politicians during Church services?
- Do you see the Democrats trying to get a religious sponsor the way the Republicans have the Evangelicals?
- Do you think non-partisan churches would attract members? Or will the partisan churches be more well-attended?
- You’ve heard Churchill’s quote: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
- Do you agree or disagree? Is democracy the best of a set of bad options? Or was the world better when everyone believed God wanted kings to rule?
Wheat & Tares 
Well, the United Kingdom had to set aside democracy, so to speak, during the second world war by forming a unity government from May 1940 to May 1945 — they did it voluntarily, which is to their credit. As long as politicians and parties were allowed to squabble and jockey for the next election, the U.K. was sadly unable to respond to Hitler’s threat to their country. But to their credit, the U.K. returned to democracy immediately after Hitler’s demise.
Regarding the matter of churches, I think it would be great if all churches, including ours, embraced the concept of teaching people correct principles but letting them govern themselves.
“teaching people correct principles but letting them govern themselves” is an extremely vague concept, especially when referring to national government!
What exactly does that mean to you, ji?
Btw, JS was eventually crowned a king, and certainly did not practice his lofty principle, if he ever did.
Loudly, with regard to the J.S. quotation, I was not referring to national government.
I also said it would be great if all churches, including ours, embraced the concept of teaching people correct principles but letting them govern themselves.
ji… my mistake, thankyou.
A few quibbles:
1. I think Catholics would describe the election of a new pope much like LDS would describe the selection of a new apostle. A select group of men seek to understand the will of God in choosing the next person. In theory virtually any male member of the religion could be chosen; in practice there is a leadership class within the religion where all the possibilities come from. Between conversation and prayer the group reaches a decision. The cardinals require a 2/3 majority, as seeking unanimity with 100+ people might never happen. The apostles are probably unanimous in their decision, but there are at most 14 of them.
2. The Johnson Amendment prohibits endorsing or opposing political candidates. Donald Trump is neither. He is a politician and holds political office, but he’s not running for anything, so he’s fair game for churches to endorse or oppose.
I don’t expect that any of this changes anything in the church. Church leaders will refrain from overtly political statements but continue generic support of conservative principles (abortion is bad, individual liberty, religious liberty, “defend the family”, etc.) while rarely championing liberal governmental efforts (support the poor, build social safety nets, protect minority groups). Individual wards will largely follow their lead, except for the occasional person in the ward that just has to pipe up about how the democrats are communists, and we’ll all just ignore that person like we already do, whether we agree or disagree personally.
1. Yes, I think there will probably be a letter from the FP to local leaders that reaffirms the LDS policy of political neutrality, at least when it comes to public statements and teachings. Any other approach would just open a can of worms (or pry further open the can that’s already ajar). There are people in almost every LDS congregation that will simply stop attending and possibly resign if MAGA Mormons start spouting about Trump in church on Sunday with the apparent endorsement, or at least permission, of the authorities.
2. It’s an open question whether “liberal churches” will politicize the same way Evangelicals have converted to Trumpism. The danger is that churches that choose to go political lose a lot of their moral credibility. In my eyes, Evangelicals have already lost all theirs and LDS are busy following that example.
3. Yes, it just might happen that ten years from now, every city has a few “Non-Partisan Church of Christ” churches, with varying names but signaling they haven’t gone political. But look at what happened before and during the Civil War: most large denominations split into northern and southern branches. Here’s a wild one: Could we end up with LDS stakes composed of five or six MAGA congregations and one or two Dem congregations? Could we end up with a Quorum of the Twelve with 9 or 10 MAGA apostles and 2 or 3 Dem apostles?
1. I expect a letter, but in my MAGA area the leaders will not read it over the pulpit (I am not just guessing, they refused to read the Covid First Presidency letter).
2. I doubt the Demcrats will respond in such a fashion. I do expect some Jews, Muslims and moderate Christians to throw their energies into the Democratic party as Trumpism collapses from exhaustion. I just hope our democracy survives the Trump dismantling of our institutions.
3. I hope there will be a pendulum swing in religions taking a political role, towards separation and away from collusion with the political flavor of the moment. But the political right is “using” Evangelicals to wage a religious crusade on those outside the fold at the moment. Who knows how long this abusive marriage will last?
4. Churchill enjoyed playing the wit with a sympathetic audience. He was the consummate politician. No, I reverence democracy more than that.
The idea that prophets are picked before their birth and sent into good, loving families has always sat wrong with me. It smacks too much of blacks being born black because they were less valiant in the pre-existence. And if God’s favorites are sent into good loving families, what does it say about those of us born into abusive families? God must hate us.
And looking at Joseph Smith, maybe God should have waited to find out if Joseph would invent polygamy as a command from God because he didn’t know how to keep his pants zipped up. Selecting a nonproven 14 year old as the one to restore the gospel seems foolish because even back in primary I knew what 14 year old boys were like. Fart jokes and pie in the face humor. They were brats who took your new doll up into a tree and left her 30 feet in the air because they knew it would make their little sister cry. They were the kind of mean kids who when playing a neighborhood ball game made the girls and little kids go home crying so the older boys could play without having to be nice to the girls and little kids. Yeah, I had big brothers and thought God was pretty stupid to pick a 14 year old boy brat to be prophet. I knew what 14 year old boys were like and God wasn’t THAT stupid.
“Catholics officially believe that the Pope is infallible, and then they cheerfully ignore inconvenient teachings.” I believe that Catholics only believe the pope to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, and this has a specific meaning, and I believe that Catholics believe a pope has only spoken once ex cathedra since the doctrine was officially promulgated in the 19th century. Many Catholics would also say that while there is an election, the 2/3 majority requirement gives the HG an opportunity to guide the selection, so they see God at work.
I expect the LDS church to continue political neutrality.
Many thanks to Dave W and Georgis for clarifications and corrections.
When I made this connection to the divine right of kings, it helped me understand why Trump supporters don’t care if he violates the Constitution. He is fully and completely outside/above the law in the eyes of his followers. While I know we’ve had presidents who have done some controversial things, the current attitude toward lawlessness is unique. The Republican party pressured Nixon to resign, and he did. Both political parties have pressured candidates to withdraw from a campaign when scandals came to light, and they did.
But now … Trump’s supporters are no more likely to demand his resignation than Catholics are to pressure the Pope to resign, or Mormons are going to want the prophet to step down. Evangelical leaders do have some accountability, and there isn’t really an equivalent to a Pope or a prophet in Evangelicalism.
Trump really is as immune to earthly authority as any of the European kings. Which, by now, is the same thing as pointing out that water is wet. I just hope this attitude ends with Trump. He doesn’t have a successor — he regularly throws people under the bus. That’s what will save American democracy, if anything does.
The church will not send a letter prohibiting endorsing specific politicians until it suits them. That means Trump is ok for now… but once he goes batsh*t crazy (I’d say we’re already there but most LDS disagree), or when a democrat is elected, they’ll send a letter. If AOC were to be elected you can bet they’ll send a letter.
Kings are never a good idea even if they are benevolent or righteous. People change and go bad, and also it’s about information sharing. A democracy is much more likely to allow all information to flow upward. The people under a righteous king are less likely to allow unfavorable opinions to make it to the ears of the righteous king.
I don’t know about a new letter, but I expect the Church to continue it’s official nonpartison policy while continuing to unofficially endorse Trump by remaining silent as he carries out his cruel, unconstitutional and immoral agenda.
I doubt the 1st Presidency will come out with a new letter. It has long been their policy not to endorse political candidates candidly (even if they do endorse certain policies tacitly).
Democrats have a greatly different set of constituencies than the Republicans, the social dynamics of which wouldn’t permit them to operate like the Republicans. The Democrats simply can’t feed off of religious fervor of select policies the way the Republicans can over abortion and antagonism to LGBTQ rights.
I think the churches that are more conservative and more agenda-pushing tend to thrive more.
On democracy, it is interesting to note that among the ancient Greek writers democracy was widely criticized. In fact it really only appeared to be Herodotus (and to some degree Demosthenes) who extolled the virtues of democracy. The meaning of democracy, of course, has changed since. But the attitude of many ancient Greeks was that it would be ideal to have greater power over larger territory like the Persians. If you look at the US nor from a internal/domestic point of view but from a global/foreign policy point of view, the country appears very different indeed. The US is extremely powerful and has long gotten its way, often at the expense of freedom and choice.
July 13 is the anniversary of the attempted assassination of Trump. A year later, I still hear people, including government leaders, say that God saved Trump for a special purpose. Setting aside the despicable implication that Corey Comperatore wasn’t special enough for God to save, I think it’s worth considering the consequences of the somewhat widespread belief that Trump’s presidency is a product of divine intervention. If God chose Trump, then his seeming incompetence and corruption must be an illusion. It’s just like a toxic bishop whom we must tolerate in silence because, according to Pres. Eyring, God “makes no mistakes in His calls”.