This last Sunday was “fifth Sunday” where the bishopric chooses a topic for the “fifth Sunday lesson.” Rather unusually, the First Presidency sent out an assigned topic for this lesson and it was religious freedom and the Constitution. A 22-minute video of a pleasant conversation about the topic between President Christofferson and Elder Cook was included with the suggested materials, along with some paragraphs lifted from GA talks, associated discussion questions, and links to a couple of talks by President Oaks. Like the 2021 Conference talk “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.”
As fate would have it, I taught the lesson in my ward (and a second time later that day). So I thought I’d share my notes, just throwing out a few points, then get some feedback from readers for how the discussion went in your ward if you were able to attend the lesson. I know from a few discussions that plenty of bishoprics were worried the lesson might turn into a messy political discussion, but that didn’t happen in my lessons (which was part of the reason I sort of volunteered to teach it, so the discussion would not head in that direction).
- I started off the lesson reading this exact quote from the video: “This is not a history lesson or a political discussion.” But I didn’t show the video (I know some teachers did). Too much good stuff to talk about and the video would have taken most of the time.
- We talked about the First Amendment for ten or fifteen minutes: the Freedom of Speech Clause, the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause. There is no “thou shalt have religious freedom” paragraph in the Constitution. What we call “religious freedom” rests on those three clauses and a few other minor references in the body of the Constitution, plus the body of US Supreme Court cases that apply and extend the relevant First Amendment clauses.
- In the United States, we swim in the water of religious freedom. You don’t generally realize that until you serve in a foreign country as an LDS missionary or live overseas for work or otherwise. So I invited those who worked or served in foreign countries to share their experience and observations. There were some nice productive comments shared. A good direction for the lesson.
In one of the lessons I went ahead and read most of the long quotation from President Oaks’ 2021 talk, which quotation was included with the materials sent out by the FP. I’m going to paste it here because it is really ought to get more attention. I’ll highlight some of the more important sentences.
On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify. …
There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election.
Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve. That is one reason we encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters. We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate. We teach correct principles and leave our members to choose how to prioritize and apply those principles on the issues presented from time to time. We also insist, and we ask our local leaders to insist, that political choices and affiliations not be the subject of teachings or advocacy in any of our Church meetings.
So how did things go in your ward lesson? Did anyone outside the US get the lesson or was it just US wards and stakes? Was it a positive lesson or did it go off the rails into politics?
.
Wheat & Tares 
I understand the lesson was confined to the US, which would make sense. We didn’t get it here in the UK. Our ward had the stake patriarch come and give a presentation. We have a lot of new members, so I imagine leaders felt it would be useful.
Our lesson turned into a self-righteous MAGA promotion. One of our members, who was a former mission president, blamed ALL of America’s problems on immigrants. Not illegal immigrants, but immigrants generally. I just shuddered.
Ours was a monologue, not a discussion, from a military vet about being grateful for vets and their families. Ironically, this vet’s combat service was an operation against my husband’s home country that killed 600 of his fellow citizens, most of them civilians. My husband wanted to walk out but ultimately forbore.
I was actually pleasantly surprised at the genericness of the monologuer’s platitudes about the US; I was expecting something a little crazier given his past comments, maybe something like True North’s experience. But it was only the usual cringey ‘Murica stuff.
The branch I am attending in Ukraine did not do that lesson.
Attending the Spanish ward. A white male from the stake who works at a charter school, who spoke OK Spanish, gave the lesson. One lady remarked, “sorry, but I think politics and religion should be separate.” Other than her, most commenters seemed receptive and tried to link gospel principles to the US’s founding documents. The ward is a mix of conservative and moderate. Politics is never discussed. The ward is very open to immigrants and doesn’t question legal status, although I know several people who try to help people gain citizenship.
My liberal believing wife was not keen on that lesson, especially with a white male from the stake giving it.
The lesson was bland and boring–this particular instructor always is–but largely uneventful. There were a few likely MAGA commenters who seemed to be getting close to the line of expressing controversial political opinions, but they chose to hold back, and I appreciated that.
Probably the worst moment came when one man (who loves to share these kinds of relatively fringe Church history stories) recounted how all the signers of the Declaration of Independence, plus George Washington, appeared to Wilford Woodruff and pressured him to do their temple ordinances over the course of two days. This was offered as evidence that these were righteous men influenced by God to help bring about the Restoration. A lot of members love these stories because they validate both their political and their religious beliefs and reinforce the conviction that they are in the One True Church–why else would George Washington be begging from the grave to be endowed by proxy? I personally dislike the story for several reasons:
1. Wilford Woodruff is the only witness.
2. Woodruff was an avid journal keeper, yet he recorded nothing about it at the time. The first mention comes in a Tabernacle discourse about a month after the ordinances were done (there’s no question the ordinances themselves happened).
3. His retelling of the event grows more impressive as the years go by.
4. American bias! Why didn’t prominent figures who advanced self-government and freedoms long *before* the Founding Fathers appear to Woodruff and demand their ordinances? Solon, Cleisthenes, Ephialtes, Pericles, Polybius, Cicero, Stephen Langton and the barons of the Magna Carta, Edward Coke, John Milton, John Locke, and Voltaire, to name just a few. And those are only figures from Western civilization. What about people who advanced freedom over the centuries in China, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere? Are they any less deserving of having their ordinances fast-tracked than the American Founders–or is Woodruff imagining things and embellishing because he’s proud to be both an American and a Mormon?
It was a big nothing burger. Our ward felt it was important that everyone watch the full video (and made it sound like this was the express instruction from SLC), so most of it was just listening to the video and them fawn over each other. I would have preferred to steer the lesson like the OP did, using the talk as more of the springboard.
But that WOULD have given more opportunity for the crazies to come out of the woodwork, especially in the red state I’m in…
I didn’t attend but heard from a couple of friends in neighboring wards. In one, a MAGA candidate for county office passed out flyers for his upcoming primary election. In another, a woman lectured the class on how the Iran War is a holy war ordained by God to prepare for the Second Coming. In hindsight, LDS church leaders should know that a majority of their members are Trump supporters and that a political lesson could go sideways in a hurry.
Rose, Oh they know. I don’t think they care.
My ward managed to keep it relatively palatable, up until the very end, but it felt like everyone was completely ignoring what was wrong with America, which left a bad taste in my mouth. There was a bit too much of ‘We are God’s chosen nation’ vibe going on there for me to be totally comfortable. Don’t get me wrong, religious freedom is important. It’s a good conversation to have and it’s a right we should be grateful for, but I feel like the lesson didn’t allow for anything but platitudes.
During bishopric meeting last month (I’m the ward clerk), we were discussion who should teach the constitution lesson. One of the counsellors kept suggesting several of the trumpiest members of the ward. I could see the bishop was not comfortable with those suggestions, so I volunteered reminding the bishop that I have a law degree. So, taught the lesson.
I did show the video in its entirety but broke it up into four segments and embedded them in a PowerPoint. I would play a roughly 5-minute section and then ask discussion questions relevant to the section we just watched.
The ward is in a rural-ish area on the east coast and is very large. We have a highly diverse ward economically and politically. So for the most part, the comments we apolitical and relevant. Our most trumpy guy hinted at his political leanings, but I was able to pivot the conversation away pretty easily.
I asked about what other God given inaliable rights there are beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That kinda puzzled them for a minute, so I read the first amendment to them as a reminder.
Working of Oaks quoting Clark, I asked how has the constitution developed over time to meet the changing needs of an advancing world. A couple people mentioned amendments, which I agreed was one way the constitution developed. Pointing to Oaks’ statement, “we do not see inspiration in every SC decision, I added that constitutional interpretation has also developed over time and the general trend has been for courts to formally recognize additional rights and to expand interpretation when necessary for the common good (the Roberts court’s ridiculous originalism mindset, notwithstanding). (I didn’t make the Robert’s court comment, just thought it.)
I finished up the lesson sharing the same quotes from Pres. Oaks that Dave B. used, and also quoted from his talk at the 2022 religious liberty conference when he said, “When citizens learn to live together with respect—despite important religious differences—they are also more likely to live peacefully with others with whom they have important secular differences.”
My final question was “What blessing have you found living in a pluralistic society with religious and secular differences?” I concluded with my testimony that God loves all his children equally, regardless of race, religious, culture, or language, and that as citizens of this country, we have a unique opportunity to choose a government that can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and bring about a Zion like society, if we choose leaders who support Jesus’ teaching to love our neighbors.
So, yeah. For those who were paying close attention, I outed myself as a bleeding heart, but several people thanked me afterward, so I think it went ok.
The lesson went pretty well in my ward. We watched the entire video, which I thought was wise because (a) it ate up time that could otherwise be spent off the rails, and (b) it contained a lot of anti-MAGA coded messages. The teacher reiterated the no-politics rule before the discussion and the class focused on reaffirming the anti-MAGA coded messages–particularly women’s suffrage. That may seem like weak tea but given that there is a distinct anti-suffrage movement among Christian nationalists, this seemed to me to be the cleanest way to implicitly criticize Christian nationalism within the parameters of the allowable discussion. (I was not the engine behind this focus–I never said a word, as usual.)
The closest we got to going off the rails was when a guy asked how, given the 12th Article of Faith, we can justify the American Revolution, which did not involve honoring, obeying, and sustaining British law. Nobody offered a coherent response–more like “We accept the 12th Article of Faith until we don’t”, which is basically where I come out too.
This was northern Virginia. My sister’s report from American Fork was similarly positive.
Thanks Dave B. for your perspective on the lesson. We were of the same thought, that we did not want it to diverge into a political discussion, but kept it to a citizen responsibility discussion. My two counselors taught the lesson, I was supposed to be out of town, but had to return early. Both are centrist politically and they are not rabid in either direction. We are a congregation in California. The video was shown in it’s entirety. Conversation was appropriately centered on being good people who should participate in the process of government, quoting President Oaks’ remarks to delineate that topic.
I keep in my night stand these four little books: The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” I re-read them every election cycle. I was glad to see the video began with the famous quote from the Declaration: ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” I cringe when politicians say “rights granted under the US Constitution.” The Constitution grants no rights and that quote states why, they are God given. For some reason, that quote really moved me this past Sunday.
I hope we all can be more civil to one another when it comes to politics. The political machine in the United States has become an industry and I personally think that, that is the reason so many individuals are rabid, angry and hurtful when dealing with their fellow citizens on political matters. Many have been duped into believing the fringes are the most important things, and living on the outer edges politically, does not allow one to come to the middle and have honest civil discourse. The adage rings more true to me with each passing year; “Follow the Money.”
On a different note, I wondered why President Oaks was not present in the video considering his knowledge of the law. Is he in decline physically perhaps?
I did not have the lesson and I haven’t looked at the materials on the church website. Even so, I want to offer a perspective that may differ. As I see things, “rights” are not granted by God — rather, people only have whatever “rights” that are granted by their societies or governments. As an American, I theoretically enjoy the rights provided by our Constitution and system, assuming honest administration of the laws — but I am not presently in the U.S., so I only enjoy those rights that the government here allows me.
The notion of God-given inalienable rights is a nice rhetorical flourish, and I appreciate its intention within the context of the Declaration of Independence. But let’s be real — it takes work and often blood to secure rights to people, and there is always some fragility in whatever rights have been granted to a people. Even once granted, a corrupt or criminal government can take away rights, but so can an inefficient or careless government.
Our lesson started late thanks to undisciplined sacrament meeting speakers. (How are we going to deal with that as a church when we go to a 25 minute Sunday School?) We watched the full video, and were left with a little over 10 minutes for class discussion. The bishopric counselor seemed very keen to keep the discussion on track and happy he only needed to manage a few minutes of it. It mostly avoided getting political, though someone told us his interpretation of separation of church and implied that things were better when we prayed in public schools (which was long before he was born). I tried to add to the discussion with my observations about the substantial divergence on matters of religious freedom between Ukraine, where I was a missionary, and neighboring Russia, illustrating that established rights can erode quickly. I also suggested that if we care about religious freedom we ought to be coming to the defense of other groups when we see attempts to infringe on their rights.
Mostly, I came away from the meeting wondering what the intended objective of this whole thing was. I can’t imagine it yielded any new insights or changed hearts. It felt like typical 5th Sunday filler material, only centrally coordinated and slightly topical for this year.
The fifth-Sunday lesson on the Constitution went reasonably well, though there were a few comments that reflected both American exceptionalism and some thinly veiled MAGA endorsements. One comment from a class member especially resonated with me. They suggested that when God inspires individuals, whether prophets or statesmen, His purpose is ultimately to bless all His children, not just a select group. Viewed through that lens, the Constitution’s divine inspiration is not simply about the United States. Its influence helped inspire constitutional government, individual rights, and democratic reforms in many other nations. That perspective helps me think about the lesson. God desires freedom, agency, and human dignity for all His children, wherever they live, and many people around the world enjoy those blessings through constitutional systems developed in their own countries.
At the beginning of the lesson the instructor referenced discussions that took place during ward council about the upcoming lesson, how apprehensive people were about the lesson, who was the best suited to give the lesson, and what the guardrails were going to be for the lesson.
Then the instructor spent several minutes talking up the video. “I watched the video 10 times and learned something different each time.” This is the best discussion I’ve ever seen on this subject ever!” “I couldn’t say anything that they didn’t already say better, so we’re going to watch the video.”
We then watched the video.
After all that more than a dozen hands went up. Only three people got to make a comment because there wasn’t enough time.
I got the distinct feeling that in ward council they must have determined the best strategy was to stall the proceedings with monologues and the video and leave no time for discussion.
I’m not sure whether that was a good approach or a bad approach, I guess it depends on the kinds of comments you anticipate and, depending on your political persuasion, whether or not you want to hear them. I will say that it’s interesting that in the ONE lesson that I can remember where people were extremely anxious to actually participate for once that they didn’t get an opportunity to do so.
My lasting impression was that the guys running the show had the attitude of:
Oh no, we’re out of time. /s
Phew, the lesson is behind us. Mission accomplished.
The people that did get to comment reinforced the idea that the Constitution was written to protect religious folk (what about atheists?) and it was all about preserving free agency, but not free agency, it’s moral agency, like Bednar said in his general conference talk…
One comment did get to reiterate how religious freedoms aren’t just for us. We should respect the beliefs of others and not fight so hard to be right all of the time. The one comment that I wanted to make but didn’t get to was to ask those in attendance to extend that same respect for members of the church that may also believe differently.
All in all it was a pointless lesson. “Vote for people that reflect moral principles.” Where everyone walks away from the lesson believing that they do just that.
Which is probably why they were doing everything in their power to limit discussion. They didn’t want someone standing up and calling anyone out.
Political discussion is perfectly fine in church until the other side “has all the cards” and you know you haven’t got a good defense for your position.
I was visiting a ward I’ve never been to far away from home but still in the US. They had a combined RS/EQ lesson but about being a good listener and effective minister. I missed the beginning of the lesson so I don’t know if there was any attempt to tie into the designated topic or if it was a total dodge. It was a very well done lesson BTW.
Apparently, Elders Cook and Christofferson’s explicit endorsement of the 19th amendment did not have the salutary effects I expected, at least not in Utah County.
https://www.ksl.com/article/51510073/backlash-erupts-in-utah-county-after-23-year-old-conservative-influencer-becomes-deputy-clerk