Is the LDS Church disobeying Jesus?

Añadido: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]Here is a question for Dan Mlen.

[00:00:02]>> All right, let's >> And here's a pause so he can say, "All right, let's see it."

[00:00:09]Matthew 5:40 says, "And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." This is interpreted by many as a pretty clear admonition not to get involved in legalistic disputes. Or at the very least, if one does become involved in such disputes because another party initiates them, then Jesus teaches that one should be the deescalatory party. So here's the question. Is that interpretation of Matthew 5:40 correct?

[00:00:34]Or would the original writers of the text have intended a different interpretation? I think it's definitely along the right lines, although I think most scholars would not go so far as to say this is actually prescribing a specific approach to lawsuits and legal disputes. I think it's a little more generic than that, but is probably advocating for a kind of radical non retaliation.

[00:00:59]Uh advocating for not going out of your way to assert your property uh or your status rights. So I think it is advocating for trying to disrupt these cycles of retaliation and vengeance and things like that without necessarily being specifically about lawsuits because we also have some Jewish texts that talk about people taking other people's shirts and cloaks in lawsuits.

[00:01:26]And one thing that is pointed out is that the cloak and the shirt are the two layers of clothing that are usually worn. And if both are gone, then the person is basically nude in a way that was not legally permissible. And so that would be violating the law to actually say, "Well, here have my undergarment as well." And so it's not supposed to be taken as a literal reference to lawsuits involving clothing and probably not lawsuits specifically, but to just kind of a general radical non- retaliation.

[00:02:03]Although there are passages that could be interpreted to disagree with this because although Paul says that you should just suffer wrongdoing rather than retaliate, we also have Paul asserting his legal rights. uh for instance in the book of acts on a few different occasions he asserts his legal rights and then elsewhere you have Paul saying well if you've got problems you should deal with these things internally rather than going to outside uh legal help uh and there are some other ways that passages in the New Testament are understood to advocate for asserting your rights if harm is going to come your way so I don't think it's being very literal I think it is hyperbolic. I think it is a little more generic than having to do specifically with lawsuits.

[00:02:53]But I do think that it is advocating for a kind of radical non retaliation which does in some ways kind of conflict with a few other passages because if it is correct or certainly along the right lines then I have a follow-up question.

[00:03:09]All right, let's see it. H the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claim that >> Jesus Christ is the head of the church.

[00:03:18]>> They also claim that >> he leads his church today by speaking to men called prophets and he does it through revelation.

[00:03:29]>> So should those church leaders not be deescalatory when it comes to legal actions?

[00:03:33]>> So I think that's a perfectly rational application of this passage. However, here's where things are going to get a little fuzzier. When you take this to biblical scholars, particularly those who are going to treat the New Testament univocally as speaking with one single unified and consistent voice and from one single unified and consistent perspective because you do have passages in the New Testament that treat the institutional church as somewhat exempt from that kind of requirement, as somewhat authorized to engage in punitive actions and defensive actions, particularly ly in the pastoral epistles you do have advocacy for punishing members who are doing things wrong. You do have advocacy for uh trying to shut down the work of opponents and stuff like that. And obviously this is not coming from the author of Matthew.

[00:04:27]Obviously this is not coming from the sermon on the mount. There is a transition from the more kind of charismatic movement towards an institutional church and there is a shift in the kind of rhetoric that you see related to what is appropriate and inappropriate uh regarding the actions of individuals within the institutional church and the institutional church qua and agent. So there is a case to make from the New Testament that an institution should be allowed to defend and protect its own rights even if individuals are admonished to suffer wrongdoing rather than engage in those cycles of retaliation and vengeance.

[00:05:09]However, I think the argument gets pretty squishy and it does rely on the presupposition of univocality.

[00:05:16]So I would have a problem with appealing to that kind of reading because again if we go back to Jesus as the ultimate authority Jesus doesn't say okay institutional concerns and needs take priority over individual concerns and needs. You do have this admonition to leave the 99 and go out in search of the one which would seem to overturn institutional priorities. So I think there is a tension going on here in the New Testament and I think the advocates for the institutional LDS church defending its identity and its rights uh whether those perceived harms are actually harmful or not. I think there are folks who are going to see such arguments as valid and there are folks who are going to see those arguments as a little deflecting and a little hypocritical and things like that. So, I think the water gets murkier here, but I personally would love to see an institution actually follow the admonition that you identified earlier in this video. And wouldn't that by extension mean that they shouldn't be instigating such actions, say, I don't know, suing a prominent podcast that challenges them on their claims, for example? I think the Mormon stories lawsuit is a great example of something that would probably not be defensible in light of Jesus's advocacy against retaliation and cycles of vengeance and things like that. But it's also something that people are going to find uh justification for in other parts of the New Testament particularly if they approach the texts in a univocal way so that they can renegotiate things and reconfigure things to prioritize the institution's rights to defend itself and its interests. But again, I am highly critical of univocal approaches to the text. So I think this is doing what most people do with the Bible and that is negotiating with it in a way that serves their interests, makes it maximally meaningful and useful to them and ultimately advances their own identity politics. I think that's what the overwhelming majority of people who treat the Bible as an authoritative text are doing. So in that sense, this is nothing new. I'd love to know if there's some insights that Dan could provide here. And so while we wait for Dan to reply, as always, let me know what you think in the comments.

[00:07:48]>> I try to live by Jesus's statement to put your comment back in its place, for all who draw the comments will die by the comments. And the fit for this video has been The Punisher.