In October 1946, a high-ranking leader of a large Christian church in America rose to the podium in a tabernacle, during a large conference in which were assembled 7,000 church members, with thousands more listening via radio transmission, and a million more receiving the messages in the weeks and months ahead. His message was scathing—a castigating rebuke of the use of atom bombs just over a year previous:

And the worst of this atomic bomb tragedy is not that not only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, not only did it not shock us to read of this wholesale destruction of men, women, and children, and cripples, but that it actually drew from the nation at large a general approval of this fiendish butchery.

Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us for this.

If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently no fear of God, man, or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth. And, as one American citizen of one hundred thirty millions, as one in one billion population of the world, I protest with all of the energy I possess against this fiendish activity, and as an American citizen, I call upon our government and its agencies to see that these unholy experimentations are stopped, and that somehow we get into the minds of our war-minded general staff and its satellites, and into the general staffs of all the world, a proper respect for human life.¹

This man was J. Reuben Clark, a counselor to the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and thus a member of the Church’s highest-ranking body. A lawyer by training and a diplomat and statesman by experience, Clark was an ardent advocate of peace.

Seven years prior—one month after the outbreak of World War II—Clark said the following in another church conference:

Nothing is more unrighteous, more unholy, more un-Godly than man-declared mass slaughter of his fellowman for an unrighteous cause… The law declared at Sinai was “Thou shalt not kill,” and in the Garden of Gethsemane: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” With these divine commands deep-embodied in our spiritual consciousness, we can look with no degree of allowance upon the sin of unholy war, and a war to make conquest or to keep conquest already made is such a war.²

In advocating for peace, Clark was thus anti-war. In 1947, fourteen years before Eisenhower nicknamed the Military-Industrial Complex and called America’s attention to it, Clark was pointing out to his Mormon audience its many evils:

Popular feeling is being flogged into a support of this plan [to wage more war]. The press, the movies, the radio, the rostrum, all are deliberately used to build this terrible aim in our hearts. Enormous sums are expended by the military in propaganda, to scare us civilians into a blind following of their insanity. Often this propagandizing is crudely done, at other times it is carried on with great craft and cunning. We are to be made so jittery with fear that we shall follow with eyes shut where they lead.³

He continued, noting that all of this is done “in the face of the divine command: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’”⁴ Many will no doubt recall the reception received by Ron Paul in a South Carolina debate when he suggested this very thing—an institutional adherence to the Golden Rule. The vociferous denigration of this moral principle by the audience was responded to by Clark in his day with the following rhetorical question: “Are we Christians? We act like pagans.”⁵

Unlike fellow Mormon Mitt Romney, who incessantly declares that he “will not apologize for America,” one of Clark’s biographers wrote:

[Clark] exempted no nation from the condemnation of having been a party to the introduction of “barbarous” methods of warfare. The world, he wrote, had “gone back a half a millennium in its conduct of international relations in time of war…” And then, lest his countrymen smugly blame this relapse on others, he added that “no nation has to bear a greater blame for this than our own.”⁶

Clark was a dedicated non-interventionist, and preached the foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson on many occasions. Praising the “great doctrine of American neutrality,” he stated:

I am a confirmed isolationist, a political isolationist, first, I am sure, by political instinct, next, from experience, observation, and patriotism, and lastly, because, while isolated, we built the most powerful nation in the world, a nation that provided most of prosperity to all its citizens, . . . most of popular education, most of freedom, most of peace, most of blessing by example to other nations, . . . of any nation, past or present, on the face of this earth. I stand for the possession of, and exercise by our nation of a full, complete, and unimpaired sovereignty that will be consistent with our membership in the Society of Nations.

In so declaring I have no diffidence, no apology, no shame. On the contrary, I have a great pride in the fact that I stand where the Revolutionary Fathers stood, who fought for, and gained our independence. . . .

I am pro-Constitution, pro-Government, as it was established under the Constitution, pro-free institutions, as they have been developed under and through the Constitution, pro-liberty, pro-freedom, pro-full and complete independence and sovereignty, pro-local self-government, and pro-everything else that has made us the free country we had grown to be in the first 130 years of our national existence.

It necessarily follows that I am anti-internationalist, anti-interventionist, anti-meddlesome-busybodiness in our international affairs. In the domestic field, I am anti-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-Welfare State. . . .

As I proceed, some will say, “Oh, he is talking about the past; but this is a new world, new conditions, new problems,” and so on. To this I will content myself with answering—human nature does not change; in its basic elements it now is as it was at the dawn of history, as our present tragic plight shows. Even savages inflict no greater inhumanities than are going on in the world today.

In the mad thrusting of ourselves, with a batch of curative political nostrums, into the turmoil and tragedy of today’s world, we are like a physician called in to treat a virulent case of smallpox, and whose treatment consists in getting into bed with his patient. That is not the way to cure smallpox.⁷

As the second world war broke out across Europe, Clark said, again in a large church conference, that America’s entrance “would be an appalling prostitution of our heritage.”⁸ His consistent excoriation of unjust, immoral warfare, both at the pulpit and in secular settings, was accompanied by a Christian-based promotion of persuasion and peace. For example, in 1944:

For America has a destiny—a destiny to conquer the world—not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example.⁹

In 1973, a new law school was founded at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah—one of the leading universities in America, which is owned by the LDS Church. It was named after J. Reuben Clark, Jr. At its founding, students then enrolled in the law school, along with their future counterparts, were counseled as follows: “Every time you hear or read the name of your school you can be reminded of the great man whose life you can emulate to your profit.”

Clark’s biographer writes that “the avoidance of war… was one of J. Reuben Clark’s great political objectives…”¹⁰ To emulate such a man suggests, then, that Mormons should likewise be non-interventionist advocates of peace. In the scriptures used by members of the LDS Church, the following related commandment from God is found—one which in many ways serves as a fitting slogan of the life of J. Reuben Clark, Jr.: “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace…”

Clark’s criticism of the government’s “fiendish butchery,” his support of a non-interventionist foreign policy, and his Christian-based advocacy of peace through persuasion is something every individual would do well to emulate, Mormon or not.

——

Footnotes:

¹ In Conference Report, October 1946, 89.
² Ray C. Hillam, ed., J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Diplomat and Statesman (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1973), 120.
³ “Slipping from Our Old Moorings,” in David H. Yarn, Jr., ed., J. Reuben Clark Selected Papers, vol. 5 (Provo: Brigham Young University, 1987), 161.
⁴ Ibid, 162.
⁵ Hillam, Clark, 204.
⁶ Ibid, 203.
⁷ Ibid, 22.
⁸ Ibid, 133.
⁹ Ibid, 210.
¹⁰ Ibid, 120.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Prayers for Peace, Free Principles, and Protection
• Mormon Pioneers and their Modern-day Counterparts
• A Mormon People in Need of Reform

The Declaration of Independence affirms and clarifies the origin of our individual rights. Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration’s primary author, wrote that we “are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Thus, these rights – amongst which are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – both precede any instituted government, and supercede whatever laws it may pass in violation of them.

More than a mere game of semantics, understanding the source of our rights is paramount to understanding what government may legitimately do. Do we enjoy our liberty at the good graces of government, or does the government only exist to protect our pre-existing rights? The answer to this, while thankfully obvious to some, has significant implications for everything the government does (supposedly) in our name.

The main purpose of individuals establishing governments, as the philosopher John Locke observed, “is the preservation of their property.” Prior to any government, individuals have the moral authority to repel any aggressor, and protect their lives, liberties, and property from attack. This individual authority can therefore be delegated to an organization, such as a government, whose officers can defend the individuals within that organization.

To be legitimate, then, any government action must be predicated upon an individual right which has been properly delegated to that government. Military and police powers become easily reconciled, as they are based upon the individual right to self-defense. But so much of what government does falls outside this narrow scope.

Does an individual have an inherent right to take money from his neighbor to keep his business afloat? He does not, and therefore government bailouts of private business have no moral justification. Does an individual have an inherent right to use violence against his neighbor for growing and consuming a marijuana plant? He does not, and therefore the war on drugs has no moral justification. Does an individual have an inherent right to compel his neighbors to help fund his child’s education, and his aging mother’s health care needs? He does not, and therefore government education and welfare programs likewise have no moral justification.

The pattern is clear, and becomes quite useful to analyze whether any government action is morally valid. One must simply ask: would I be justified in doing this to my neighbor tomorrow, if the government were to be dissolved today?

Supporters of illegitimate government authority claim that there exists some “social contract” which justifies government powers that the individuals who comprise it do not possess – a contract which has never been signed, nor its terms even disclosed! Some also believe that because a majority of voters approve the powers, they become valid. This wrongly supposes that a majority of neighbors can decide that their immoral actions upon the dissenting minority become magically moral by their simply having said so.

The French economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat rightly said that “if the very purpose of law is the protection of individual rights, then law may not be used… to accomplish what individuals have no right to do.” While it’s easy to point to low-hanging, corrupt fruit on the tree of government, it’s time to pull up the roots and realize how diseased the entire tree has become.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Individuals as Government Guinea Pigs
• The Addictive Drug that Government Will Never Prohibit
• Analyzing Authority Through Anarchy

If one pattern can be deduced from the manner by which governments have historically operated, it is that supposedly noble intentions often lead to a violation of liberty; desired and intended consequences ultimately give way to undesirable and unintended consequences. It is how America first crept, and now is running, towards becoming a police state.

In a 1783 speech in the House of Commons, the English Prime Minister William Pitt correctly observed that “necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” Thus, to pinpoint possible infringements of liberty, one need only take account of arguments advanced by those who claim a certain law to be necessary. While clearly not universally applicable, the general rule is enough to prove Pitt prophetic.

The Transportation Security Administration is one example where this argument is used. It is claimed by this federal agency and its supporters that terrorists need to be stopped before they can attack Americans on our soil, and that therefore the TSA needs to inspect passengers and their belongings before boarding a plane. This, of course, is done in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allegedly guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” which may only be legitimately curtailed with a warrant, given “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This institutional violation of this essential right can, of course, be avoided by not flying. (For now, at least—the TSA’s tentacles are stretching outwards to other modes of transportation.) A person driving a vehicle who encounters a random police checkpoint is afforded no such option to opt-out, for if you were to turn around or try to avoid the checkpoint, police would not only go after you, but likely would feel that they had “probable cause” to search you and your vehicle for your act of defiance.

Tens of thousands of innocent Americans are detained each month at police checkpoints which consider individuals to be guilty before proven or assumed to be innocent. Instituted primarily and supposedly to target drunk drivers, these checkpoints have expended significantly over the years to justify the arrogation of intrusive police powers over citizens.

It happens in Utah. And while the Fourth Amendment applies to the federal government (setting aside the troublesome incorporation doctrine), Utah’s own Constitution contains the same exact text (with minor punctuation modernization)!

Yet the police continue to detain drivers, with no probable cause or suspicion. Over Labor Day weekend a few months ago, Utah Highway Patrol officers put in an estimated 1,000 hours of overtime to help conduct a number of checkpoints. In two of those checkpoints, officers stopped 1,000 drivers and found not a single case of somebody driving under the influence. Police are quick to claim that this is a “success” which shows that their methods are working, but this completely disregards the fact that 1,000 drivers have had their rights violated (even if such people find it to be an acceptable inconvenience).

Supporters of sobriety checkpoints point to Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 vote that somewhere in the Constitution there exists something called a “DUI Exception.” This ruling overturned that of the lower Michigan Court which concluded that checkpoints were unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in the case argued that general searches with no suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment because they have no individual, reasonable suspicion. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, rejected such privacy concerns and rubber-stamped the status quo. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist declared:

For the purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among reasonable alternatives remains with the government officials who have a unique understanding of, and a responsibility for, limited public resources.

Thus, due to limited resources and a “unique” understanding of them, police were given a “choice among reasonable alternatives” to hunt down drunk drivers, despite any privacy rights of those who were not drunk, nor were ever suspected of being drunk. In the dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens stated:

On the degree to which the sobriety checkpoint seizures advance the public interest … the Court’s position is wholly indefensible…. The evidence in this case indicates that sobriety check points result in the arrest of a fraction of one percent of the drivers who are stopped, but there is absolutely no evidence that this figure represents an increase over the number of arrests that would have been made by using the same law enforcement resources in conventional patrols.
…
A Michigan officer who questions a motorist [seized] at a sobriety checkpoint has virtually unlimited discretion to [prolong the detention of] the driver on the basis of the slightest suspicion…. [The] Court’s decision … appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless unannounced investigatory seizures.

The Court further declared that since the checkpoints were equally intrusive on all detained drivers, no one individual could legitimately complain about their intrusiveness. This, of course, is a complete reversal and violation of the Fourth Amendment which guarantees the right to be left alone to all people with only specific exemptions, rather than justifying the restriction of that right in general cases where the imposition may be small, and the “public safety” interest deemed sufficiently important.

Despite there now existing an “exemption” for DUI checkpoints, justified by a few black-robed lawyers, the policy must still also comply with state law. Eleven states currently prohibit sobriety checkpoints. In that list is included Michigan, since after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court felt strongly enough about the issue to declare that regardless of the superior court’s ruling, their state’s Constitution still made such checkpoints illegal within Michigan’s boundaries.

It’s time to add Utah to that list.

HB140, sponsored by Rep. David Butterfield, would do just that. This bill would amend the existing law relating to vehicle checkpoints by codifying the following repeal of the existing practice:

All law enforcement agencies in this state, including state, local, and college or university law enforcement agencies, are prohibited from implementing or conducting administrative traffic checkpoints, except as provided in Section 77-23-103.

The referenced section would allow for checkpoints when officers are acting in accordance with a warrant, when there is probable cause to arrest or search, or when they are acting under emergency circumstances, etc. In other words, it would rightly restrict the practice only to cases in which a specific case of justice was legitimately being pursued.

Those who will oppose this effort include the law enforcement community and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who want to use all methods at their potential disposal to protect the so-called “public safety.” But these groups in many cases neither recognize nor respect the rights of individuals being repealed in the process. Focusing on an end goal with little regard for the means of achieving it is highly problematic, to say the least.

If “necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom,” as Pitt noted, then “public safety” is the pretext for each incremental step towards a police state. Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote that “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” is wise and well known. By clamoring for “public safety” while disregarding the rights of individuals to be free from unreasonable and general searches and seizures, we creep ever more closely to an authoritarian state which codifies government-granted freedoms, rather than recognizing and protecting individual rights.

There is a wide chasm between prosecuting and punishing drunk drivers, and creating and enforcing laws which presume that all drivers may be treated by police as a possible drunk driver. Sobriety checkpoints operate under the implicit (if unspoken) belief that it is more preferable to annoy people than to actually protect them.

Utah has an opportunity to join the increasing number of states which recognize that checkpoints are a violation of one’s right to be free from search and seizure without probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Please contact your legislators today and encourage them to support HB140.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Food Safety Advocates Have Read the Law Wrong
• Of Soft Hearts and Social Safety Nets
• Nullification: A Necessary Power for State Sovereignty

In what quickly became one of the most popular opinion articles recently written for The Washington Post, Carrie Sheffield, a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, lists her many grievances with the church of which she once was a part. Her title, “A Mormon church in need of reform,” makes clear her thesis and end goal.

I understand the grievances she shared, and know many who feel much like Ms. Sheffield. I’ve seen many an “amen!” in social media in recent days as sympathetic former members of the Church, and many heading in that direction, have circulated this article far and wide. Despite that understanding, I believe that this article is misguided and unproductive.

In addressing her remarks, I’ll first respond to a few specific and problematic portions, and later offer more general commentary.

Sheffield first draws the reader in by couching the Mormon question in terms of the current political climate. She draws this connection to conclude that “the church isn’t exactly welcoming of outsiders.” To support this statement, she writes:

Mormons account for 57 percent of Utah residents yet some 91 percent of Utah state legislators self-identify as Mormons. The state that’s home to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has elected only two non-Mormon governors in nearly 116 years and has sent just one non-Mormon to Congress in the past five decades.

Because Mormons are disproportionately elected to political positions, Sheffield believes that the LDS church is not welcoming of outsiders—also claiming in the next paragraph that the church has a “distrust of outsiders.” How such a conclusion can reasonably be made is beyond me. It’s like claiming that Americans are sexist because Congress is comprised of mostly men. Perhaps this perceived imbalance can be attributed to the fact that members of the Church are consistently counseled to become involved in civic matters, or perhaps it simply means that a high percentage of non-members trust their Mormon neighbors and consider them worthy of public office. Sheffield’s twisting of logic to arrive at such an assertion does not stop here, but permeates the remainder of her piece.

Sheffield then seeks to succinctly dismantle the pro-family aura that surrounds members of the faith. “Yes, Mormons love families,” she writes. “But the family-values facade applies only if you stay in the fold. Former Mormons know the family estrangement and bigotry that often come with questioning or leaving the church.” It is the height of arrogance, in this author’s opinion, to claim that Mormons’ love of family is merely a “facade.” Sheffield is essentially arguing that this family shtick is a mere ruse which masks a less credible and flowery reality underneath. Mormons are not perfect, and therefore our families are not perfect. Some are violent, others are short-tempered, and many (myself included) have not yet internalized the counsel to love unconditionally. So while in some select cases there may in fact be a family “facade” which hides an uninviting and unforgiving environment, Sheffield’s qualification-free generality should be rejected as far too broad.

In the next few paragraphs, she discusses her personal problems as she attempted to reconcile her beliefs with what she perceived to be conflicting historical and scientific data with which she was presented. This she does under the allegation that the LDS Church “values unquestioning obedience over critical thinking.” Again, a generality—one which is true in some cases, but certainly not all (or even most). Elder L. Tom Perry summarizes a host of other teachings by church leaders: “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” That intelligence comes in part by intense study and questioning, seeking “out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118). Mormons are neither commanded nor counseled to avoid difficult questions. While Sheffield may have encountered some members and leaders of the church who could not satisfactorily answer her questions, her anecdotal experience (even though many others have experienced likewise) does not imply a institutional preference of “unquestioning obedience over critical thinking.” This simply is untrue.

Sheffield claims that the Church “stifles efforts to openly question church pronouncements, labeling such behavior as satanic.” I have never once encountered such an effort, nor the corresponding “labeling.” While obedience is encouraged, both institutionally and culturally, reasonable dissent is not considered satanic. Even with the Church’s involvement in Proposition 8—a large stumbling block for many moderate members of the Church—the First Presidency noted that members “may become involved”—compliance was not required, nor were those who disagreed with the proposition deemed to be on Satan’s side.

So as not to drag this on too long, I’ll comment on one final detail. In her conclusion, Sheffield expresses her hope that increased media scrutiny on the Church “will help break down the church’s fundamentalist trappings: secrecy about its finances, anti-women doctrine and homophobia, to start.” This critical casting of essential doctrines (setting aside the finances issue) as something “fundamentalist” (and thus anachronistic and strange) illustrates much of the standard “ex-Mormon bias” that permeates Sheffield’s opinion piece. It reminds me of the following quote by Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

Church members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone (see Ensign, Nov. 1980, 14). Like the throng on the ramparts of the ‘great and spacious building,’ they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders (1 Ne. 8:26-28, 33).

This leads me to my general observations about Sheffield’s scorn-ridden article. As I noted at the outset, some of the concerns raised by this woman are understandable. Knowing others who have left the faith, I can sympathize with some of the negative feelings and behaviors of which they’ve unnecessarily been a victim. It’s a very real problem, and one which needs correction. In that simple sentence, Sheffield would agree with me.

Yet we diverge drastically in our diagnoses and prescriptions. Ms. Sheffield points her ire at the institution from which she recently separated, claiming that the problem is the “church” along with its teachings, mandates, and practices. She therefore concludes, as noted in her title, that the church needs reform.

I beg to differ. In reviewing some of the valid complaints and concerns Sheffield lists, I see the problem as an individual, and not institutional one. In other words, it is not the leaders of the church and the organization they manage which is root cause of what Sheffield objected to. It is us.

Critics such as Sheffield often object that they were not taught correct church history growing up, with all its warts and bruises. They claim that the Church offers only a sanitized, approved version which is far from reality. While I generally agree, I again differ in the conclusions drawn from this circumstance. Where critics see nefarious collusion and an attempt to win converts by hiding a supposedly troubled past, I see a global church having to craft its curriculum to the lowest common denominator such that the constant wave of new converts can come to understand and implement gospel basics.

Paul’s counsel of milk before meat applies here. He told the Saints in Corinth: “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Corinthians 3:2). In other words, he had to set aside the more complex issues in order to get the basics down first. For a Church continually recruiting new people, a consistent offering of milk therefore becomes necessary.

But what of the more seasoned members of the Church—those of us which grew up in the faith, and have long been accustomed to a diet of milk? Should we not be given opportunities within the organized curriculum of the Church to chew on meat? As is common with growing in years and moving around, I have attended various wards. In most of them, Sunday School was an underwhelming experience; while the teacher would often do their best to prepare, the questions were dry and the presentation not too intellectually nor spiritually stimulating. Participation, in my experience, has often been low—the same few people raise their hands, while the rest stare at their iPhones or scriptures. Sometimes an energetic discussion will break out, but often the class is very basic. Whether this can be attributed to time constraints in class, lack of preparation on the part of the teacher and/or students, or otherwise, this has been my general experience (albeit with welcome and exciting exceptions from the norm). I share this to suggest that again, it’s not the “church’s” fault, but ours. Critics want Church leaders to provide platters of juicy, tender doctrinal and historical sirloin, but I personally feel that most members are not ready for it. And with people in class who are definitely at the milk level, would it really be fair to impose such a diet upon them? Thus I believe that the meatier subjects should not be hidden or avoided, but relegated largely to personal study and more appropriate venues for their discussion.

But the prevailing argument in Sheffield’s post appears to be not that the Church is wrong doctrinally, but that its members do not handle with compassion and love those who end up disagreeing and leaving. What Church leader has ever advocated treating such people with derision and alienation? None. We as members are counseled to love, forgive, understand—to do just as Christ would. Thus, Sheffield’s call for institutional reform is misguided. She should instead be calling for individual reform. Ironically enough, that’s exactly what Christ did, and what his Church does.

I said earlier that I find this opinion piece both misguided and unproductive. I believe it is misguided because it takes otherwise legitimate concerns, saturates them with critical ex-Mormon bias, and then misses the mark on where correction is truly needed. I believe it is unproductive because rather than generating discussion that will help resolve the listed concerns in the future and help both sides come to better understanding and compassion, Sheffield’s work serves only to put Mormons further on the defensive, or lead them to dismiss her diatribe as the angry rantings of an apostate. This is unfortunate.

I know many people who are in Sheffield’s shoes, or are at least growing into them. This is a very real concern, and one which should be addressed directly, in my view. Yes, the Church as an institution can improve, respond, and offer direct counsel or programs that may better deal with these circumstances. But the onus is (and always has been) on us as individual members of the Church to study, learn, grow, love, embrace, and welcome.

President Uchtdorf recently taught:

Developing Christlike attributes in our lives is not an easy task, especially when we move away from generalities and abstractions and begin to deal with real life. The test comes in practicing what we proclaim. The reality check comes when Christlike attributes need to become visible in our lives—as husband or wife, as father or mother, as son or daughter, in our friendships, in our employment, in our business, and in our recreation.

In her experiences shared, Ms. Sheffield evidently encountered many members who had not yet sufficiently developed these attributes, and who perhaps were not practicing what they proclaimed. We each have this personal challenge, and a higher bar of behavior to which we must aspire. We’re not perfect, nor should perfection be demanded of us in the short term. We are, and ever have been, a Mormon people in need of reform.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• A Mormon Leader’s Promotion of Peace
• Mormon Pioneers and their Modern-day Counterparts

One quote, however, really stuck out to me. It’s from a 1978 speech by President Spencer W. Kimball, given to regional representatives of the Church. In it, he clarifies why leaders of the Church have grown more silent on political matters as the organization’s global reach grew. This is a subject I’ve discussed before, and for which there has been plenty of speculation and insight.

Pres. Kimball’s statement, however, addresses the issue head on. For those who are concerned about a lack of prophetic political pulpit-pounding in recent years, this makes clear that it’s our responsibility as members to be involved and engaged, and not the Church’s job, which exists primarily to do missionary work and spread the gospel.

Here’s the quote:

In September of 1968, the First Presidency reminded members of the Church of “their obligations as members of the communities in which they live and as citizens of the nation.” The First Presidency counseled members of the Church as follows:

“The growing world-wide responsibilities of the Church make it inadvisable for the Church to seek to respond to all the various and complex issues involved in the mounting problems of the many cities and communities in which members live. But this complexity does not absolve members as individuals from filling their responsibilities as citizens in their own communities.

“We urge our members to do their civic duty and to assume their responsibilities as individual citizens in seeking solutions to the problems which beset our cities and communities.

“With our wide ranging mission, so far as mankind is concerned, Church members cannot ignore the many practical problems that require solution if our families are to live in an environment conducive to spirituality.

“Where solutions to these practical problems require cooperative action with those not of our faith, members should not be reticent in doing their part in joining and leading in those efforts where they can make an individual contribution to those causes which are consistent with the standards of the Church.

“Individual Church members cannot, of course, represent or commit the Church, but should, nevertheless, be ‘anxiously engaged’ in good causes, using the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ as their constant guide.”

The First Presidency and the Twelve wish to reaffirm this important statement of 1968. We believe this is the wise course to pursue, wherein Church members are urged to do their duties as citizens. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be committed, as an institution, except on those issues which are determined by the First Presidency and Twelve to be of such a nature that the Church should take an official position concerning them.

We believe that to do otherwise would involve the Church, formally and officially, on a sufficient number of issues that the result would be to divert the Church from its basic mission of teaching the restored gospel of the Lord to the world.

We earnestly hope Church members will feel their individual responsibilities keenly and pursue them wisely.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul
• Latter-day Liberty, the Manuscript
• The Justified Breaking of Unjust Laws

From notables to neighbors, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members prefer Dr. Paul

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign announced today new members of its “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition. Included among the new additions are prominent author Connor Boyack, and two Ron Paul campaign staff working in western states.

Focusing on a large western-states voting bloc, the continued use of coalitions will build capacity in a manner that proved pivotal to the 12-term Congressman from Texas’s top-tier finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The launch of “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” reveals a voter segment not monopolized by any particular candidate. Voters of an LDS background are in fact investigating the limited-government message of Dr. Paul and turning toward his candidacy. Their support and that of many other affinity groups proves Ron Paul can win the votes required be the Republican nominee for the presidency.

Connor Boyack is author of Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics. Latter-day Liberty explores the fundamental aspect of liberty in the good news of the Gospel, what it is and what role it plays in our lives. The book has been featured with Mr. Boyack on national TV, including on “Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano.”

Offering a personal endorsement, Mr. Boyack is also state coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He is a political economist and web developer by trade, and a Brigham Young University graduate residing in Utah with his wife and two children.

“As Latter-day Saints (Mormons), we strongly support the Constitution and revere the founding fathers of this country. We are commanded in our scripture to seek out and support good, honest, and wise men for public office – those who will support and defend the Constitution. In the 2012 presidential campaign, only one candidate clearly meets these criteria,” said Mr. Boyack.

Continuing, Mr. Boyack described his support for Dr. Paul saying, “Rep. Ron Paul has been a consistent champion of the Constitution and the principles of liberty, placing himself in similar esteem with Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and other principled statesmen of the founding generation. He, more than any other candidate, has repeatedly demonstrated an unwavering, consistent commitment to keeping his sacred oath of office. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would do well to seriously study the public record and personal life of Ron Paul, and take advantage of the wonderful opportunity we have to support for President our very own modern founding father.”

Also joining the national steering committee are two Ron Paul campaign staff members, Michelle Jenson of Tendoy, Idaho and Dustin Petersen of Quincy, Washington.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michele Jenson stated, “There is only one clear choice for President of the United States and that is Dr. Ron Paul. Throughout my life, I have morally and spiritually convicted to pick honorable men and women to represent my values, and am encouraged to choose candidates who uphold and protect the Constitution.”

“In my view the only candidate who lives by these divinely-inspired principles and values is Ron Paul. In fact, the conviction of my faith has led me to dedicate my time to Ron Paul, doing all I can to step forward and preserve the Constitution as it hangs by a narrow thread,” added Ms. Jenson.

“As Members of the LDS Church we are taught to support candidates who uphold the Constitution of the United States. Without question, I know that Congressman Paul best represents that counsel. No one has fought more courageously for our Constitutional Freedoms,” stated Dustin Petersen, a BYU-Idaho Senior and who served a Mission in Ecuador.

As a function of today’s announcement, Messrs. Boyack and Petersen and Ms. Jenson are now national advisory board members of the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition.

As a first basic step, those wanting to join the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition should visit the official page by clicking here. They should also send an email to Chris Kuper, National Coalitions Liaison, at hq.coalitions@ronpaul2012.com.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Latter-day Saints and Liberty: Church Priorities vs. Member Responsibilities
• Should Mormons vote for Mitt Romney?

This election cycle, like certain others in the past, has generated a significant amount of discussion regarding the intersection between politics and religion. While some consider the two to be irreconcilable and dangerous when mixed, others see a symbiotic relationship that can and should be allowed to flourish.

For example, Mitt Romney’s membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has provided plenty of fodder for commentary. Pundits have questioned whether his faith is a help or hinderance, with opinions running the gamut. And while the talking heads discuss at great length the impact his Mormon religion will have in conservative, southern states where evangelical Christians dominate the political landscape, they tend to believe he has automatic and near-universal support from Utahns and his fellow Mormons nationwide.

As both a Mormon and Utah resident, I find this assumption to be misguided and disappointing.

A recent Pew survey notes that 74% of American Mormons identify with or lean towards the Republican Party and that 86% view Mitt Romney favorably. One should not conclude from this trend, however, that our faith or culture somehow suggests support either for the Republican Party or Mitt Romney. Actually, Mormons have a historical and doctrinal deluge of counsel encouraging them to support leaders who adhere to the Constitution and faithfully defend individual liberty.

A cursory review of Mitt Romney’s record and rhetoric reveal a candidate whose positions conflict with the Constitution. He supports wars of aggression with no congressional declaration, as required by the Constitution. He supports the failed and unconstitutional war on drugs. He supported TARP and other bailouts which likewise have no constitutional justification nor moral defense. He wants to save and “fix” federal welfare schemes which, though popular, are also not based on any constitutional authorization of power.

In addition to being taught to uphold the Constitution, members of the LDS Church enjoy a rich theology which in many ways supports a libertarian political philosophy over a conservative or liberal one. The Church’s founding prophet, Joseph Smith, once remarked that he governed so many people so well because “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” A later prophet, David O. McKay, said that “A man may act as his conscience dictates so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others.” Thomas Jefferson couldn’t have said it any better. Our scriptures decry preventive, aggressive warfare and high taxation. One such scripture states that government must “secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”

These and a host of other scriptures and historical examples from our church suggest that, to be in harmony with our faith, we must support policies and politicians that are libertarian in nature. While the Bible offers some support for libertarianism, the additional scripture and teachings found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offer a tidal wave of supporting statements in comparison. Libertarianism will have an increasingly prominent role in the political discussion between Mormons as the years progress.

Accordingly, I believe that a sincere review of our doctrine and history in the LDS Church would lead an individual to support not Mitt Romney, a fellow Mormon, but the only candidate who has consistently shown a commitment to upholding the Constitution and defending individual liberty: Ron Paul. It is perhaps perplexing to suggest that Mormons should vote for Paul, a Baptist, but as Romney himself once said: “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.” Mormons should not simply vote for a fellow Mormon, but for a candidate who supports the Constitution and freedom, regardless of that person’s religion.

Members of the LDS Church believe the Constitution to be, as Joseph Smith said, a “heavenly banner” which was “founded in the wisdom of God.”  Another leader of our Church, J. Reuben Clark, once stated that “the distortion of any fundamental principle of our constitutional government would… do violence to my religion.” A more recent leader, Ezra Taft Benson, declared himself to be a libertarian and constitutionalist. Our faith is replete with references that, when collectively considered, suggest support for a strict constitutional and libertarian view point. Mormons should therefore consider voting not necessarily for their fellow Church member, but for a candidate whose record most closely matches their own doctrine. That candidate is Ron Paul.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Chameleon-Like Qualities of Mitt Romney’s Conservatism
• Of Mosques, Mormons, and Mob Mentality
• Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul

Over 100 times a day, militarized police officers throughout America raid the homes of individuals suspected of possessing, using, and sometimes distributing drugs.

These increasingly frequent raids subject many peaceful individuals, including innocent people such as family members, roommates, and bystanders, to the horror of having their homes invaded.

Often, these raids are conducted while the home’s occupants are sleeping, and are executed by officers who look more like soldiers than peace officers, decked out as they usually are in paramilitary gear and guns galore.

Between 1989 and 2001, criminologist Peter Kraska has found at least 780 cases of flawed paramilitary raids which made it to the appellate level in court. Often times, the SWAT team involved got the address wrong, and thus invaded the wrong home, terrorized the wrong family, and destroyed the wrong property in the process.

Even when they get the address right, officers’ plans can go wrong. Last week’s botched raid in Ogden, for example, resulted in six officers being shot, one of who died from his wounds. But the Weber-Morgan County Narcotics Strike Force, which executed the “knock and announce” search warrant, already had a controversial and horribly botched raid to its name.

On September 16, 2010, the same unit invaded a home of an Ogden man with a “no-knock” warrant (which they forgot to even bring with them) to search for drugs.

Though the suspect was a roommate who had already moved out, they proceeded with their raid in the dead of night.

Once police busted down the door with guns drawn, they encountered Todd Blair standing in a defensive position with the only weapon he could quickly access: a golf club. Fearing for their safety, and claiming they thought it might be a sword, the officers put three bullets into Blair’s body, dropping him instantly.

Imagine yourself in this situation. It’s midnight and you’re woken out of a deep slumber by the sound of screaming men inside your home. As the adrenaline immediately surges through your veins and in the fraction of a second you have to make a decision, would you not reasonably suspect that you’re being attacked, and must therefore defend yourself, your family and your property?

Considering the numerous instances in which police officers invade the wrong home, use excessive force, and injure or kill innocent individuals as part of the so-called “war on drugs,” it might instead be argued that these policies, along with the militaristic method by which they are often enforced, are actually a war on American citizens.

Think about it: hundreds of homes are being invaded daily (or nightly, as is often the case) by highly trained police officers who often feel, as an Arizona SWAT officer once said, that “you get to play with a lot of guns… it’s friggin’ fun, man.”

This heavy-handed enforcement is often riddled with errors and accidents, resulting in the destruction of property and death of innocent bystanders. Does this not sound like war?

It’s time for a tactical offensive on the real enemy: failed anti-drug policies. Let’s stop killing peaceful people and filling the prisons with the ones who survive, but instead find a more sane, humane and reasonable approach to dealing with the drug crisis.

In short, let’s promote peace as the necessary alternative to the war currently being waged on American citizens.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Failed War on Drugs
• The Applauded Assassination of an American Citizen
• Spice, Marijuana, and the Criminalization of “Gateway Drugs”

I’m a frequent patron of Amazon.com. As I browse their wide selection in search of a product, one of the first criteria I apply to determine if a given product is worth what’s in my wallet is the customer reviews. At a quick glance, I can see the community’s rating of the product as well as the total number of reviews that calculated the overall rating. It’s extremely rare that I purchase anything with three or less stars (out of five total).

This is the market at work. Competition yields a better product, and increased selection offers a consumer such as myself the opportunity to rate the different products based on criteria I deem important, such as price, durability, brand recognition, and the reviews of individuals who have previously purchased the item in question.

With that context, consider the question: why should government be any different?

In a recent Rasmussen poll, just 6% of those surveyed thought that Congress was doing a “good” or “excellent” job. 68% viewed Congress’ job performance as “poor.” In Amazon.com-speak, this is like a product having a rating of a fraction of one star, with the vast majority of reviewers commenting to emphasize the product’s poor performance. No doubt these individuals would recommend that the potential purchaser of that item steer clear and find something better.

As one example, Crayola sells “washable colored bubbles,” and as the Amazon.com reviews from furious parents will indicate, it turns out that the bubbles aren’t that washable at all. Dozens of negative reviews report stained clothing, concrete, and children, and the product has one star out of five — the lowest possible rating. Hundreds, if not thousands, of similarly-catastrophic products are accompanied by reviews which immediately warn would-be buyers to reconsider.

Imagine ten parents wanting to buy these bubbles, reading through the near-universally negative reviews, and then nine of them deciding to go ahead with the purchase. Any bystander with a brain would be quite perplexed, wondering why such an awful product could command such strong sales figures.

We witness a similar pattern every election cycle. Despite abysmal, single-digit approval ratings, Congress will be little affected at the ballot box; if past elections are any indication, more than 90% of incumbents seeking re-election will defeat their opponents and retain their position. As the Proverb says, “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”

Americans know that their government is a poor product, and they’re openly disgusted with its quality and performance. But the nature of the state, with its monopoly on force and geography-based jurisdiction, prevents market forces from having any influence on improving the product. Competition in the marketplace yields products which are higher in quality and increasingly affordable. The state’s product of government decreases in quality and becomes more costly over time.

Innovative and radical ideas are needed in order to expose the underbelly of the state to competitive attacks from individuals and institutions which can perform traditional government functions better, faster, and cheaper. Any wise manufacturer seeing their product ripped to shreds by reviewers will halt production, invest in research and development, publicly commit to quickly fix the problems, and rapidly respond to the market’s collective input to create a product better suited to its liking. We, the people, must likewise put the brakes on the government while alternative solutions are proposed, considered, and finally implemented.

With a 6% approval rating and a 90% election rate, it’s clear that something is broken. The defective product that is our government might at this point be simply accompanied by a single, one-star review which reads: “buyer beware.”

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Individuals as Government Guinea Pigs

I write to point out the many inaccuracies in the Herald’s recent editorial (“Highland tilts at D.C. windmill,” Dec. 15) regarding the recently-passed Highland food freedom ordinance.

The Herald explains that this ordinance attempts to exempt local agricultural producers from state and federal licensing and inspection laws. This is blatantly untrue; the ordinance introduced by Councilman Butler and passed by a majority of the council does absolutely nothing in regard to state laws.

After expressing their sympathy for those who feel crushed under the oppressive weight of federal bureaucracy, the Herald’s editorial board dismisses Highland’s action through a series of false and misleading claims.

First, they claim that “it is simply a fact of law that the federal government has wide-ranging powers of commerce.” In support of this claim, they cite “long practice” and “rulings of the Supreme Court.” The slave trade was likewise defended with such intellectually disingenuous explanations.

City attorney Kasey Wright and the Herald editorial board believe, as do so many others, that the judicial opinions of black-robed lawyers have conferred upon Congress new authorities to micro-manage any and every commercial activity within the country’s borders, including in one’s own home. This misguided and horribly dangerous assertion primarily rests upon an FDR-era court case, Wickard v. Filburn, which radically violated the original intent of what the founders meant by allowing for the power to “regulate” interstate and foreign commerce.

The editorial board also objects to the inclusion of text from the Declaration of Independence in support of an individual’s right to freely produce and consume food. And yet we read in Utah’s own Constitution that “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.” For the Herald, though, referencing our God-given rights is, as they write, “irrelevant to the question at hand.”

In another unfortunate manifestation of constitutional apostasy, the Herald flatly decrees that Highland’s attempt to object to the unlawful usurpation of un-delegated power by the federal government is without basis because, as they explain, “federal law is supreme over … local ordinances.” This is misleading at best.

This is a reference to the “supremacy clause,” often argued by many to be the authority by which federal law inherently and automatically trumps any lesser, conflicting law. Thus, under this argument, Highland’s codified attempt to reject federal regulation over local food would immediately be rendered invalid.

However, this clause (in Article VI, Clause 2) states that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.” In other words, a federal law can only invalidate a lesser, conflicting law if that federal law was made “in pursuance” of (or, is justified by) the Constitution.

Herein lies the entire basis for Highland’s objection to federal regulation over local food. The editorial board states as its “bottom line” that “Highland has absolutely no authority to immunize its residents against the authority of the… federal government.” But the true bottom line is this: has the federal government ever been constitutionally delegated the authority to dictate what an individual can grow, sell, and consume within city or state limits?

The answer is no. Supreme Court Justices cannot magically create new congressional authority, and as the people have not delegated such power to their government, they therefore retain that power (as the Tenth Amendment states). Highland’s proactive response to an overbearing, Constitution-violating federal government should be applauded and replicated, for as James Madison once said, “it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.”

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Food Safety Advocates Have Read the Law Wrong
• Opposing Marijuana Criminalization
• The Justified Breaking of Unjust Laws

Earlier this month, the National Organization for Marriage—one of the groups who put a lot of effort into supporting Proposition 8 in California—tweeted:

“I’m personally opposed, but…..” Is @RepRonPaul willing to take a real stand for #marriage?

The quote at the beginning was a reference to a recent presidential debate, where Rep. Paul argued that states—and not the federal government—should determine what they will do about marriages. He noted that he was personally opposed to same-sex marriage, but did not see a role for the federal government in deciding one way or the other what should be done about it.

NOM wants Ron Paul to “take a real stand for marriage,” implying that increased government intervention is “a real stand” one must take if one is to support marriage as being between a man and a woman. In other words, in the eyes of NOM, if you oppose government intervention into and regulation of marriage, you effectively do not support marriage.

The underlying issue is one that pervades all political issues, for proponents of any given position often argue that if you really want to see something done, or supported, or strengthened, or defended, or rejected, then government is the solution.

This is evident in no better place than with drugs. It’s quite easy to get a person to admit that the federal government has no constitutional (and thus legitimate) authority to wage the war on drugs, or specifically, for example, to criminalize marijuana. And yet the same people so often believe that were we to decriminalize this naturally-occurring plant, we would not be (to use NOM’s argument) “taking a real stand against drugs.”

As one candidate for federal office recently wrote to me: “Though an argument could be made that [the regulation of drugs] is a state issue, I do not believe that we ought to encourage the use of any drug or substance that destroys individuals, families and weakens society.”

This tainted view of the law sees government as the sculptor of society, and that in order to uphold a certain moral code, or propagate good behavior, we must support government policies which seek to realize those goals. Peace and persuasion are abandoned and replaced with war and coercion—albeit wrapped in flowery language like “strengthening society.”

It is entirely possible to support something without clamoring for or consenting to government involvement in the issue. In fact, more often that not, that is the only moral avenue for having that something become reality. Don’t want kids smoking? Get involved in mentoring, education, and communication to persuade and influence the rising generation. Don’t want gays to marry? Teach the sanctity of marriage, serve a mission for your church, and oppose government involvement in private, contractual relationships. Don’t like pornography? Begin a positive propaganda campaign to show how disgusting and degrading it is.

The wise economist Frederic Bastiat spoke so well of this very problem:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

If one opposes the criminalization of an activity, it does not therefore follow that he supports or agrees with the activity. And if one supports a certain behavior or idea, it does not therefore follow that government should intervene to compel others to act accordingly.

As it turns out, those who clamor for government intervention are rarely “taking a real stand,” for their cowardly position relies upon the collective, organized force of the state to do what they are unable or unwilling to do on their own. Those who take a real stand advocate and lead using their individual and legitimate capacity of persuasion to effect change through moral means.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Real Representation in Lehi: A District-Based City Council
• Principled, Even When Difficult

In a general conference address in 2008, Elder Bednar taught that “meaningful prayer requires both holy communication and consecrated work.” He elaborated:

We press forward and persevere in the consecrated work of prayer, after we say “amen,” by acting upon the things we have expressed to Heavenly Father.

In other words, while praying for things we earnestly desire is critical, it is not sufficient; our prayer must be accompanied by effort to accomplish the very thing for which we are petitioning God. Just as faith without works is dead, so too is prayer without work.

It is with this background that I point the reader to the First Presidency’s 2011 Christmas message, released this week. In that brief, three paragraph note, we read the following:

May this Christmas season be a time of prayers for peace, for the preservation of free principles, and for the protection of those who are far from us.

It first becomes important to ask: are these things we are praying for at all? Are peace, principles, and protection truly our desire? Rather than requesting that soldiers be kept safe while deployed abroad, are we asking for their safe and speedy return? Instead of simply asking that the leaders of our nation be inspired, are we praying for all those who are working to defend the principles of liberty that once made this nation so great?

If we can answer in the affirmative, then we are on the right road—but only by a few steps. It is not enough to simply ask that such things be made a reality. Without a demonstration of consistent commitment on our part to do whatever is in our power to make it happen, our heavenward petitions will fall on deaf, divine ears.

As President Thomas S. Monson has said: “Pray as though everything depended upon God; work as though everything depended upon you.”

Whether we are sufficiently working at those things is a personal question we must each consider. Am I substantively and legitimately working to bring about peace, to preserve free principles, and protect those who are far from me?

Are you?

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• GOP Ditches Free-Market Principles
• A Mormon Leader’s Promotion of Peace
• Free Trade, Fair Trade, and Protectionism

Earlier this year, Lawrence Vance gave a speech at the Mises Institute‘s 2011 Austrian Scholars Conference titled “Is Libertarianism Compatible With Religion?” Narrowing his question to Christianity specifically, Vance used select Biblical passages to conclude in the affirmative, asserting the following:

Not only is libertarianism compatible with the most strict, most biblically literal form of Christianity, it is demanded by it.

It is my intention in this article to demonstrate that if select passages from the Bible offer a stream of support for libertarianism (something with which I agree), then the additional scripture and teachings found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offer a tidal wave of supporting statements in comparison.

I won’t be addressing here the question that has been circulating in the media lately regarding whether Mormons are Christians. (All Mormons would say yes; most would say “duh…”) For this article, I will simply assume that the reader will concede that Mormons are Christians in that they worship Jesus Christ and consider Him their savior.

A brief description of Mormonism will prove helpful for those currently unfamiliar with its basic structure and tenets; understanding Mormonism’s support for libertarianism necessarily requires first understanding Mormonism. “Mormons” are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was officially organized in 1830. The nickname “Mormon” is derived from The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ which is a record of prophetic counsel and history considered as scripture; Mormons also believe in the authenticity and revelatory history of the Bible.

Just as Christians embrace the New Testament in addition to the Old Testament—the sacred text of the Jewish faith—Mormons embrace the Old and New Testament, as well as the Book of Mormon (a prophetic record of people which anciently inhabited the Americas), the Doctrine and Covenants (a prophetic record in modern times), and the Pearl of Great Price (a selection of writings of and revelations received through the Prophet Joseph Smith). Modern prophets and apostles lead the Church today and provide continuing revelation, just as in times of old. Thus, we believe in and adhere to further revelatory texts and instruction that provide additional context and guidance. These are replete with counsel and principles that harmonize very well with libertarianism.

These additional scriptures are in fact so permeated with principles common to the political philosophy of libertarianism that I decided to write a book to highlight them in greater detail. Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics is a lengthy response to the question asked in this article’s title. Like Mr. Vance, I answer in the affirmative—with a few figurative exclamation points added on to the end.

While the Bible does indeed contain scriptures that affirm the non-aggression principle or some related aspect of libertarianism, the other sacred texts and statements from leaders of the LDS Church have them in abundance. A few examples should suffice to demonstrate direct support of libertarianism; I offer far more examples, and expound in greater detail, in my book.

• Perhaps the best example comes from Joseph Smith, the first prophet in the restored Church. When asked by a visitor how he was able to govern so many people (then in Nauvoo, Illinois) so well, he replied: “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”
• Doctrine and Covenants 134, a chapter in scripture prefaced as “A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general,” contains several verses which uphold the explicit right to private property. For example: “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”
• David O. McKay, a prophet during the 1950s and 60s, once said that “A man may act as his conscience dictates so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others.” Thomas Jefferson couldn’t have said it better.
• Captain Moroni, a military general leading the Lord’s chosen people around 100 B.C. as told in the Book of Mormon, wrote to the government he fought to defend that “I seek not for power, but to pull it down.” A prophet years later wrote of Moroni that “if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.” This serves as a clear endorsement of his efforts to decentralize power and uphold individual liberty. Moroni further created a “Title of Liberty” to rally his people to freedom’s cause.
• During a righteous period of time as documented in the Book of Mormon, two previously warring civilizations lived in harmony. The fruits of this relationship, praised as a positive result of that righteousness, included free trade and open migration, with individuals enjoying great prosperity where continual destruction once existed.
• Towards the latter end of the Book of Mormon, the prophet who later compiled the record of scripture offers a stark warning to future readers. He documented how secretive groups of conspiring individuals brought down two separate and previously strong civilizations by infiltrating their respective governments and imposing their statist wills on the masses. We are counseled to “suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain” and commanded by God to “awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you.” Studious Mormons thus are sensitive observers and opposers of corruption and conspiracy— especially within government, since scripture also documents that such groups usurp political authority in an attempt to further their nefarious ends.
• In the Book of Moses, a war among God’s children during their pre-mortal existence is revealed. Satan’s initial plot is documented, wherein he “rebelled against [God], and sought to destroy the agency of man.” This agency, elsewhere stated by God to be a gift given to each of his children, is a close cousin of liberty. It is the ability to choose between opposites while possessing a knowledge of good and evil. The scriptures are replete with examples of God using persuasion alone to encourage his children to use their agency (voluntarily) to follow him and keep his commandments. “Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh,” says one Book of Mormon scripture, “and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.”
• In the Book of Mormon, taxation is inseparably linked with slavery and bondage. One king was described as wicked for, among other reasons,imposing a single 20% income tax on his people, while another king is praised for his righteousness for levying no taxes whatsoever.
• There are clear examples in The Book of Mormon showing the Lord’s disapproval of preventive war. Upholding the Just War Theory (and non-aggression axiom), one ancient prophet rebuked his people for their desire to wage an offensive assault on their enemies. He said: “The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.”

Countless other examples exist (including one where the Prophet Joseph Smith advocated for nullification!). With the brief descriptions provided for the above examples, I have absolutely done them an injustice. I elaborate in far more detail, and offer hundreds of other scriptures and quotes, in my book.

Christianity is a message of peace and liberty. It is morally propagated only through persuasion. It demands that its adherents apply its principles not only in their private lives, but in the public sphere.

A modern day prophet once emphasized that those principles are inseparably infused with liberty. Joseph F. Smith declared: “The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of freedom; the gospel of the Son of God is the gospel of liberty.” Numerous scriptures and statements affirm this very point; as with Christianity in general, Mormonism’s basic tenets uphold the importance of individual liberty.

The rest of Vance’s article has equal application to Mormonism, including pondering why so many Mormons reject libertarianism. Despite the poor track record of Latter-day Saints to be defenders of individual liberty, the duty remains. As one Church leader declared: “Our most important need as defenders of liberty is to know what true liberty is, to teach it, to profess it, and to testify of it.”

My book — Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics — is one Mormon’s attempt to teach, profess, and testify of individual liberty, specifically within the context of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Still, its message is important for Christians in general, as well as atheists, agnostics, and anybody seeking to learn how they can persuade more of their Mormon colleagues and friends to adopt a libertarian framework. That others not of the Mormon faith can enjoy and value the book is evidenced by the fact that it has been endorsed by Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Doug French, Lawrence Reed, Michael Boldin, and others.

Is libertarianism compatible with Mormonism? The few offerings provided above, along with a long list of others, assert that it is.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Long-Overdue Rise of Libertarianism
• The Justified Breaking of Unjust Laws
• Of Mosques, Mormons, and Mob Mentality

Connor,

My name is Matthew Skanchy and I am the Area Captain over Utah County for Senator Hatch’s campaign. I called you recently, but I wasn’t able to reach you and I wanted to send you an email to provide you with my contact information.

I would love to hear about your opinion on re-electing Orrin. I would also be happy to try and answer any questions or concerns you might have regarding specific issues relating to your opinion of Senator Hatch.

I hope you have a great week.

Best,

Matthew Skanchy
Area Captain
Hatch Election Committee

This was my reply:

Mr. Skanchy,

I must confess that your email suprised me. I assumed that I had long ago been stricken from Senator Hatch’s list of delegates to contact and court, as I am publicly and emphatically opposed to this re-election bid. I know most of the main staffers on this, his seventh campaign, and have been extremely open about my views in this regard.

Nevertheless, you said you “would love to hear about [my] opinion on re-electing Orrin.” If you knew me, you’d know that I never turn down a request to share my opinion, so here goes… nothing? I note that you go to BYU, so I assume you will not consider it inappropriate for me to toss in a few scriptural references as I proceed.

In D&C 98:10, we are commanded to support honest, good, and wise men. I have heard several stories about Senator Hatch which suggest he is a good man. (I have heard some stories about the opposite, too.) Likewise, I have heard mixed responses on the Senator’s honesty. But these are mostly personal characteristicts of which I have little concern as they relate to public policies.

So let’s focus on the “wise” aspect. For one who has, for over three and a half decades, been in a position of public trust and legislative authority, this personal characteristic has very public implications. For if a Senator is not wise, then he may be doing damage to the very principles and policies he claims to support.

Noah Webster, in his landmark 1828 dictionary, defined wisdom as “discriminating between what is true and what is false.” Thus, to be wise, one must be correct; only when founded upon truth can an individual claim the characteristic. But upon what metric are Senator Hatch’s actions to be judged in order to determine whether they are correct?

That metric is, of course, the U.S. Constitution — a document to which Senator Hatch has pledged his allegiance in having taken the oath of office six times now. He has committed to God his intent to support and defend it. Thus, if he has been wise, and correct, he would have reconciled each of his thousands of votes to that document; one cannot be a wise (correct) legislator while advocating policies that run afoul of the Constitution’s clear mandates.

This is especially important for a Latter-day Saint such as the Senator, who is told by God to “befriend[] that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6). So my rhetorical question is: has the Senator been wise/correct and voted, for the past 35 years, in harmony with the Constitution for which he has pledged numerous oaths?

The answer to any impartial observer — meaning campaign staffers working towards his re-election don’t count — is a resolute, absolute NO.

Let’s look at a few of the many legislative initiatives Senator Hatch has supported which violate the Constitution:

• He co-sponsored a bill which included an individual mandate for health care.
• He voted for Medicare Part D.
• He voted for and sponsored SCHIP.
• He voted for TARP.
• He voted to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• He voted for the automobile industry bailout.
• He voted to establish the Department of Education.
• He voted for farm subsidy programs.
• He voted to expand the role of the federal government in child care.
• He voted against denying federal funds to the NEA.
• He votes for undeclared wars, the PATRIOT Act, foreign aid, welfare programs, warrantless searches, AIDS programs, and a litany of other unconstitutional policies and programs.

These are some of the many anti-constitutional votes he has cast which are clearer in their opposition to the document he has sworn an oath to uphold. Numerous others exist which are important and likewise build a case to demonstrate Senator Hatch’s lack of wisdom.

It’s perhaps possible that you are unaware of these and related votes which betray the Senator’s claim to a conservative mantle, whatever the American Conservative Union may have to say on the matter. You may even be supportive of the above-listed votes, and likewise position yourself as a domestic enemy to the Constitution. Or perhaps as a student you were simply looking for resume-building opportunity and are excited to work on the Senator’s re-election campaign, hoping that it will help your own career. I don’t know.

But what I do know, Mr. Skanchy, is this:

Anybody who claims to support the Constitution, or defend individual liberty, or who sincerely wishes to limit the size and scope of the federal government, must deny to Orrin Hatch the opportunity of a seventh six-year term — that is, if they are to be consistent in the application of their alleged principles and priorities. Those who have repeatedly violated the Constitution should not be sent to Washington with another opportunity to swear an oath in its support.

It’s unwise for a woman to marry a serial adulterer and hope for any sort of fidelity. Similarly, it is unwise for a Constitution-supporting citizen to offer any sort of support to a candidate who, as a legislator, has so often cast votes in opposition to the document he has sworn on oath to uphold.

I hope that you, too, have a great week. Mine will be great, as you hoped for, as I will be taking advantage of several opportunities to educate delegates and concerned citizens throughout the state as to why Senator Hatch is no friend of the Constitution, how he has consistently proven himself unwise, and why he should be summarily denied re-election to the position he has held since 1976, before you or I were even alive.

Connor Boyack
Precinct Chair, LE18
Editor, www.dethronehatch.com

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Primary Election Post-Mortem
• Why Senator Bennett Lost
• Constitution, Conscience, Constituency

Over the past several decades, governments at all levels of society have incorporated into their codified laws prohibitions against drugs. Reviewing lists of banned substances has become an exercise in linguistic gymnastics. Consider just a few of the many, many items placed on prohibition by the government: gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, a general anesthetic with minimal side effects; 12-Methoxyibogamine, used to help cure opiate addiction; 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, used medically to help treat post-traumatic stress disorder; alpha-methyltryptamine, an anti-depressant; and dihydrocodeinone enol acetate, a semi-synthetic substance similar to hydrocodone, a popular pain reliever.

Here in Utah, the state government has gone so far as to ban a synthetic marijuana substitute called “Spice” as well as bath salts. But despite the sustained attack on all sorts of natural and synthetic drugs, there is one drug—an extremely addictive and popular one— that government will never prohibit.

Drugs laws in general are predicated on the assumption that though drug consumption is an individual behavior, the effects of that consumption, especially in the aggregate, are a net negative to society. Laws punishing the production, distribution, and use of drugs are therefore an attempt to prevent individuals from causing harm to society as a whole.

In pursuing such policies, the government which seeks to discourage drug use in fact encourages the abuse of and addiction to the one drug it loves and will never outlaw: control. Infinitely more problematic than a man ingesting marijuana is the politician who abuses the institution of government to exercise powers that have no legitimate basis nor delegated authority. This infectious addiction has permeated all levels of government, becoming a contagion spreading to every policy and issue in which government has any influence and impact.

Initially, a few people who had access to it experimented with this drug and had limited success in getting the “high” they sought after. Over time, trial and error has produced a far more potent synthesis of the drug which has created countless thousands of addicts and untold destruction to society.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, asked:

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

History has conclusively answered the question. The overwhelming majority of government edicts seek to control the behavior of peaceful people by regulating, criminalizing, mandating, and subsidizing their actions. While such central planners excuse their policies in prohibiting drug use on grounds that such drug use hurts other people within that drug user’s sphere of influence, they fail to apply the same standard to themselves. The arrogation and abuse of authority to use coercion against other people whose lives they wish to shape has a far more disastrous effect on society as a whole than does the ingestion of a plant by a man in his home. The latter’s actions may only negatively affect the lives of a few people, if at all. The former’s actions, on the other hand, affects the lives of all who have the misfortune of living under his jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial… the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

Similarly Noah Webster cautioned us:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

Many people fret over the “second hand” effects of a person’s drug consumption, and rightly so. To the extent that one individual’s actions cause harm to another individual, then there is opportunity for the law to intervene and uphold justice. Yet those who so often clamor for the law to control a person’s drug consumption and discourage drug use become, in the process, enablers of a far more deadly, addictive drug whose side effects create not only “second hand” concerns, but rather permeate the entire social fabric and affect millions of lives with the single stroke of a pen.

If we are to outlaw drugs, then let us criminalize the worst drug of them all: the coercive control of sovereign individuals. Let us reject the notion that the punitive arm of the state can and should be employed to exceed its moral authority and instead impose whatever a majority of a legislature wishes. And most importantly, we must eliminate the cognitive dissonance permeating our society which supports outlawing certain harmful drugs while deeply inhaling the worst of them all.

By criminalizing an individual’s drug consumption, the government turns a personal problem into a national disaster. But by allowing the criminalization of that drug, we turn a personal drug addiction into an systemic one. The second-hand effects felt by a few then become the routine oppression felt by us all.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Individuals as Government Guinea Pigs
• Government and Childbirth, Compared
• Opposing Marijuana Criminalization

Should the federal government outlaw the production and/or consumption of a naturally growing plant? The Deseret News editorial board believes so, supporting in its recent editorial the Obama administration’s “strong policy against the legalization of marijuana.” A better question is whether the government even has the authority to proclaim it illegal and criminalize its use.

Many people seem to take it for granted that an all-powerful government can shape society as it pleases, and for this the government is often praised. But the federal government is constrained by the limited, delegated powers found in the Constitution — and even then, its actions must be reconciled with the philosophy of liberty the Constitution was instituted to secure and defend.

The war on drugs — marijuana included — has no such constitutional foundation. If any government is to regulate and enforce such laws, it is those of the several states; the federal government has no authority to do so. Worse still, the government’s war against its own citizens has cost $2.5 trillion and has been anything but successful. Drug use is at record-setting levels, prisons are filled to the brim with non-violent drug “offenders,” and police forces nationwide have been rapidly and dangerously militarized.

Constitutional authority or not, can the government ever legitimately possess the authority to criminalize the growing and ingesting of a plant such as marijuana? To answer this question it is important to first affirm an obvious but oft-ignored fact: a government cannot possess authority to do anything its citizens could not morally do on their own. Or, as Ezra Taft Benson said: “The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.”

No one of us can justifiably use coercion (or the threat thereof) against a neighbor who decides to grow a marijuana plant and smoke or ingest it. We therefore cannot delegate to our government that non-existing authority; any government that legislates and enforces such a policy does so illegitimately.

The Deseret News editorial worries that “the last thing the nation needs is an official stamp of approval” by decriminalizing marijuana. Does deciding not to use coercion against an individual who performs an action mean that one necessarily approves of that action? By not having laws criminalizing dangerous sports, video game addictions, or suicide, does that mean that we have implicitly given individuals approval to engage in such activities? Must we make illegal every action, item, or lifestyle of which we disapprove? Moral laws exist to defend life, liberty, and property; outlawing a plant hardly falls within the proper role of government.

Our society can collectively convey its disapproval of things such as marijuana, but most do so through legitimate and moral means such as persuasion and education. The Deseret News opines that Utahns “need little convincing, generally, that marijuana use should remain illegal.” Rhetoric such as this must be better translated to provide a more complete understanding. Put differently, they are saying that Utahns generally believe that it’s okay to fine, incarcerate, and otherwise use force against peaceful people who grow and consume naturally occurring plants.

If this is true, it paints a contrasting picture to what many think Utahns generally stand for. If true, we stand neither for the Constitution nor for limited government, let alone liberty. If true, we reject persuasion and advocate force to bring about desired societal goals.

Decriminalizing marijuana is not about “approving” its use, but rather defending individual life, liberty, and property by only consenting to governmental powers that are legitimately delegated from consenting individuals who themselves possess such authority. Those who claim to champion the Constitution and promote individual liberty must necessarily support repealing the “strong policy against the legalization of marijuana” which the Deseret News editorial board applauds.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Spice, Marijuana, and the Criminalization of “Gateway Drugs”
• Analyzing Authority Through Anarchy
• Of Plenary Powers and Constitutional Conservatism

There exist within the prevailing political systems of our time certain lies which have so long been repeated as fact that they have become accepted as such. One is that the government operates with "the consent of the governed." Another is that there exists a "social contract" which justifies and/or requires certain government programs or policies.

A third one has received much attention of late, only due to superficial back and forth squabbling regarding how it is to be usurped and commandeered by whom. This myth is pervasive and profound, in that it lies at the very foundation of the structure upon which most governments currently rest. It is that one person, even if elected by a majority of them, can be a “representative” of a constituency of unique individuals. Representation is the open political secret of our day—the political version of adults going along with the Tooth Fairy ruse in order to fool the rising generation and continue the tradition.

Consider just one simple example that demonstrates the absurdity of claiming that representation works: a Democrat living in Provo, Utah—one of the locales with the highest Republican affiliation in the country. This individual is in the political minority, and almost all political leadership positions will be filled by Republicans. To say that he is “represented” by anybody in government, whether at the municipal, state, or even federal level, is laughable.

Even among members of the same party, substantial differences exist on important policy issues. Does one Republican legislator somehow represent people of drastically diverging opinion on any given issue? Or is the opposite clearly true, but we keep up the self-deceptive representation ruse in order to reassure ourselves that the government is us, and our collective actions through that government have moral sanction and the “consent of the governed?”

States around the country are going through the process of “redistricting” in light of updated census figures, in order to determine jurisdictional boundaries for legislative, school, and congressional districts. These are often very heated processes whereby leaders in competing political parties use whatever tools are at their disposal to increase their personal and party’s opportunity for retaining and gaining political strength by determining the best map.

In redistricting, lines are drawn and districts are created; from such is a “representative” elected. A person on one side of the road may have a certain legislator as his representative, and the neighbor across the street may have a different one altogether. People of common interest may have different districts through which to operate, and people of very diverging interest may be lumped together into one district with a single individual tasked with somehow representing the entire group.

Representation simply does not work; it is a logical impossibility. As such, the term “representation” in all its forms should, in the political realm, be discarded. As children growing up who learn that they have been lied to and the Tooth Fairy is in fact fictional, adults should come to realize that it is a myth to suppose that their diverse interests can, along with everybody else’s, somehow be represented by a single person.

What to call it instead? How about simply the winner of a popularity contest? For that is what politics is, and what elections boil down to. He who wins the most votes gets to wield political authority, voting according to his personal interests and beliefs, his alleged principles, or the majority opinion of his constituency. But he does not represent each person. If anything, he might represent the individuals who voted for him, but then what of those who voted for the other candidates? They effectively have no voice in government. Tell these people that they are being represented, and they will laugh in your face; the minority is keenly aware of the majority’s self-enabling myth.

In an 1807 letter to the Governor of Ohio, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that “That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part.” True enough, but the form of government both then and now renders that impossible. A noble ideal, but hardly practical within the construct of geography-based government that so predominantly exists today.

Utah offers another interesting example that demonstrates how representative government is simply about power and popularity. Due to an increasing population, Utah is getting a new, fourth congressional district. The lines have not yet even been drawn—meaning that nobody knows who will be a part of this district—and yet there are several candidates who are seeking to become the “representative” of an as-yet non-existent group of people. More correctly stated, then, these candidates are simply ramping up their campaigns to win the political popularity contest, the voters of which will be announced at a later date.

One might reasonably argue that the form of government we currently have is efficient, or beneficial, or better than legitimate alternatives. What cannot be reasonably argued, however, is that the claim of being a “representative” government is legitimate. Rather, our government operates on majoritarian control alone. Decisions are made by those who show up, it’s true, but they are made at the expense of whatever minority group that disagrees but is forced to be governed by a larger group of neighbors who outnumber them.

Democracy, whether called “representative” or direct, is simply gang rule—a political popularity contest where winner takes all, and the losers are sidelined with simplistic reassurances that they are being represented. It’s time we stopped clinging to an obvious myth.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Real Representation in Lehi: A District-Based City Council
• An Inversion of Political Intimidation
• In Defense of Utah’s Caucus System