“Butt out of our lives and take care of your own . . . It’s none of your business how we decide to live together, support each other, and worship our God. . . . What you’re doing is presenting a bunch of what-if scenarios . . . based only on your misconceptions of our culture. Who are YOU to say that the way we live gives too much discretion to our leaders?”
So wrote one commenter on this blog responding to another with a penchant for posing hypotheticals about the FLDS case. I understand the reaction, but is it really “none of our business”?
The law struggles with how to respond to religion-inspired behaviors that seem to fall outside the “norm.” The struggle is not new. In 1731, some of my protestant ancestors were driven from their homes near Salzburg by Archbishop Firmian’s Edict of Expulsion. Just over a century later, in 1838, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs issued an order stating, “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace . . .” Scarcely a century later, Hitler would do the same kind of thing, with more catastrophic results, in Europe. And then came Governor Rick Perry and his CPS posse.
Governments will set standards. Who will participate in writing them, how will they be written, and what will they say? In this context, these words of Joseph Smith are especially compelling:
1 We believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe that no government can exist in apeace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the bfree exercise of cconscience, the right and control of property, and the dprotection of life.
3 We believe that all governments necessarily require acivil bofficers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of aworship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
5 We believe that all men are bound to asustain and uphold the respective bgovernments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and crebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. . .
If advocates of religious freedom — FLDS or otherwise — get irritated and withdraw from the discussion, laws will be written, interpreted and enforced without our input. In fact, that is arguably one big reason why the FLDS have been put through this ringer in the first place. It is a cruel dilemma: speak up and you paint a target on your back for authorities who want to pursue you for bigamy; lay low and your religious antagonists tighten the rules to make it easier to send you to jail.
The FLDS case has raised a host of issues — constitutional, statutory, substantive, procedural, religious and ethical in nature — some of which are not easy to resolve. Lawyers, judges and law professors try to resolve such issues — about what the law should say or how judges should interpret it — by posing hypothetical scenarios to test the limits of various standards. How far can a proposed rule be bent before it breaks?
For readers with “skin in the game” or without the benefit (I hope we can call it a benefit) of legal training and experience, the hypotheticals can be irritating or even rage-provoking. In the FLDS case, the emotion is understandable.
Many members of the FLDS community have had their families and lifestyles upended without legal justification and — hoping against hope to be able to get back to normal — just want to be left alone. But I think it is a serious mistake to ask for that luxury. Wouldn’t Joseph Smith say that America is entitled to ask, “Where should we draw the line when it comes to behavior?” And wouldn’t he also say, “Get involved!”
Without in any way equating FLDS behavior with Aztec behavior, try this hypothetical: A group legal immigrants from south of the border move to Eldorado, Texas and claim to be descendants of ancient Aztec priests. They insist that they must be allowed to engage in child sacrifice and that everyone else should “butt out” and “worship our God as we see fit”. How should the State of Texas respond? And if Texas can prohibit child sacrifice as part of religious observance, what else can it prohibit — according to Joseph Smith? Keep in mind that “can” (speaking legally) and “should” (from a moral and ethical standpoint) may be two different things.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
CSurge 10.05.08 at 11:55 am
Very well put, Kurt. What I was responding in particular was this quote:
“Of course being a stay at home mom is not child abuse, but in the present situation of communal living where women are entirely dependent on the community to get their basic needs met and the needs of their children ..it gives the “community” (i.e. the Churchm i.e. Warren Jeffs) too much discretion and control over all aspects of the lives of the women and children.”
Then there were other comments about how the money that we freely sent to help out our brothers and sisters was “stolen” by Warren Jeffs and the church leaders.
It’s just the way that we’ve been “helped” that really causes the frustration, and yes, the emotions do tend to run a little high sometimes. Thankfully we have people like you who can put things back into the proper perspective.
As for your hypothetical, Joseph Smith gave the best answer I’ve seen:
“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;”
I take that to mean that as long as the religion isn’t engaging in practices that deprive others of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it should be protected under the First Amendment.
kbp 10.05.08 at 5:09 pm
“Many members of the FLDS community… just want to be left alone. But I think it is a serious mistake to ask for that luxury. “
All citizens should certainly make themselves be heard in a constructive manner.
In regards to the YFZ Ranch residents, they wil be heard the loude$t in Texa$, through the attorneys that are presently signed on to represent them in civil complaints.
Regina 10.05.08 at 7:52 pm
It seems to me that we have to enact laws based on the best information available at any given point in time that is relative to the area being legislated.
However, we also should have the responsibility to change and adjust those same laws as new and compelling information becomes available.
In addition, if we are to be truly responsive to the needs of the people, we need a process where exceptions can be integrated into any laws or governance concerning behaviors. We pride ourselves on being a country of diversity. Yet we enact ‘one size fits all’ laws and regulations. Time and time again we create conflict in not integrating appropriate avenues to address exceptions. There is a not so subtle oxymoron at play here….
If we are going to legislate behavior, yet still be a country that welcomes new comers and prides itself on diversity , then our laws must be reflective of that national standard.
We talk about no longer being a melting pot, rather a salad bowl…our laws need to reflect that recognition of myriad cultures, at the same time maintaining a baseline for behaviors that is based on scientifically sound research and universal mores, and not subject to either individual or group whim, discretion, and emotion.
Regina 10.05.08 at 8:11 pm
oops…
I meant to address the ‘left alone’ issue, and forgot.
I don’t think the FLDS, or any other group of people really want to be ‘left alone’. It’s just that being left alone is preferable to being persecuted.
If the FLDS could be treated with friendship and respect, they would be more than willing to be far more open.
The women I have ‘met’ in the FLDS are amongst the nicest and friendliest folks I have ever encountered.
Problem is, there’s a long history of being treated badly…so being anything but private and closed, or at least very reserved, has proven dangerous….
Those of us who have taken the time to get to know folks in the FLDS community have a huge responsibility to not “screw up”. We have to prove our trustworthiness…
kbp 10.05.08 at 8:18 pm
^o)
Regina 10.06.08 at 8:33 am
Okay….so I’m obsessing….shoot me….
I’ve been mulling this over for awhile and I guess this blog post kind of pushed me to begin to crystalize my mullings…
Our founding fathers clearly saw the potential dangers and pitfalls in allowing church guided, or driven, beliefs to drive law. The inherent danger to our sustainability as a nation, if religion was allowed to drive us, was the only abject exclusion to thinking they addressed.
Issues such as bigamy, polygamy, homosexual unions, etc., and what we ‘think’ about these, are driven by the underpinings of Christian/Judeo religious tenets. Ergo, have no place in law. To the extent that they do exist, and in consideration of the boondoggle they are enmeshed in, it is not prudent or practical to simply suddenly extricate them. However, it would seem to me, decriminalization of those aspects of our law that are clearly driven by the religious convictions of some, should happen forthwith for no other reason than to be in compliance with our constitution. A long term goal should be to not only decriminalize, but to completely remove, these faith, or religion driven, statutes. Although we have to recognize the burden this puts on our already stressed beuracracy. And, as with all things, we must prioritize tasks based on presenting need and fiscal expediency.
Because we have an obligation to protect and assure our own sustainability as a managable and “free” society, the only time faith driven tenets should creep into our laws is when current, available, scientifically sound, knowledge supports the premise that not addressing an issue threatens our ustainability, or has the potential to cause serious harm to an indivdual or community.
So……….this is a dynamic and evolving set of ideas…but comitting them to writing helps the thought process…..and I am so glad I stumbled on a group of people not afraid to tell one another they are ‘full of it’….forces one to move past abstract intuition toward critically developed, solution based, critical thinking…
kbp 10.06.08 at 8:50 am
We the People [subject to classifications for various exceptions and immunities] of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…
TxBlogger 10.06.08 at 10:35 am
It’s no secret that the LAW in Tx was changed to target FLDS.
How can a proposed bill fail miserably, them be slid through attached to another bill?
How is this in any way acceptable? They didn’t even attempt to hide their agenda. We could start with severe consequences for misusing the law.
Before we consider the sacrifices made by other cultures, shouldn’t we have a look at the daily sacrifices in our own? While mostly covert, and passively accepted; we do live in one of the most violent countries on the planet. Everyday the wealth of some benefits from the sacrifice of others. It doesn’t matter to me that these people/animals aren’t literally placed on an alter before the sacrifice. And what of the gross sacrifice of entire cultures (genocide) attributed to Columbus and the Pilgirms. Texas still puts people to death for their crimes, even the mentally challenged. Is this playing ‘god’? We don’t have to look to other cultures for examples of violence and sacrifice.
Everyone’s take on this may be different, but did ‘god’ intend for man to enforce the 10 commandments? Was man supposed to create laws and punishments for the violation of these laws? Or were people to live by these laws and be judged by ‘god’ when their days were done?
When you decide to contol what another group is doing, there are two choices- assimilation or annihilation. Where does the violence end?
-Aztecs set up in Eldorado and conduct regular human sacrifices.
-PG&E sets up operation in Eldorado, kills thousands knowingly by poisoning the water.
How are those different? Dead is dead.
Are we to prosecute one and not the other? The LAW is not applied equally, never has been, never will be. If it were, the LAWS may be more reasonable and we’d see far less corporate welfare and crime-human sacrifice.
Kurt Schulzke 10.06.08 at 10:53 am
If PG&E can be shown to “knowingly kill thousands,” then — under normal circumstances — we do prosecute PG&E. If the evidence is persuasive, prosecutors will usually (not always because we are all human) prosecute.
You asked “Did ‘god’ intend for man to enforce the 10 commandments?” Joseph Smith apparently thought so. And so did Moses.
By the way, the English common law — which is the tradition underlying much of the law in the United States — is traceable, in part, to the Decalogue.
The Texas statutes — or the manner in which they were enacted — may themselves violate a higher law: the Constitution of the United States. It’s a Constitution that has taken a severe beating recently, but it’s worth defending.
Toes 10.06.08 at 1:16 pm
Ah, but people died and the executives of Pacific Gas were never prosecuted for chromium-6 poisoning, were they? If I recall correctly, that case was settled out of court, in arbitration, a purely financial matter. I don’t think they were even fined by the EPA.
Our laws are roughly based on the Ten Commandments - at least some of them. Legal evolution through Hamurabi’s code, English common law, etc. etc. It’s not against the law to “covet your neighbor’s wife”, but murder is against the law. Bearing “false witness” is against the law, etc. Agreed, we must have laws regarding acceptable human behavior, so that rights of others are not infringed when pursuing our own individual freedoms.
As CSurge pointed out, this quote:
“Of course being a stay at home mom is not child abuse, but in the present situation of communal living where women are entirely dependent on the community to get their basic needs met and the needs of their children ..it gives the “community” (i.e. the Churchm i.e. Warren Jeffs) too much discretion and control over all aspects of the lives of the women and children.” —
really, really others me. It is a fundamental natural principle that Parents have discretion and control over all aspects of the lives of Their Children.
Kurt Schulzke 10.06.08 at 2:22 pm
I can go along with “most aspects,” but not all. And I’m a little surprised that anyone — FLDS or otherwise — would give total, life and death discretion to parents over their children. Is that really what you mean to say?
“People died” is a far cry from “A PG&E exec named Bob Smith killed Nancy Green.” People die all the time. Stocks fall. Trains wreck. Only with a clear causal chain and criminal intent is prosecution appropriate.
Me 10.06.08 at 2:58 pm
Here is a quote from the following article from Joseph F. Smith. The whole article is very enlightening on the constitution to read. When we stray from the law of God (yes, including the ten commandments) we give up our freedom.
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/freedom-quotes/joseph-fielding-smith-freedom-quotes.html
No nation has been more greatly blessed than has the United States. We live in a land which has been called choice above all other lands by divine pronouncement. The Lord has watched over it with a jealous care and has commanded its people to serve him lest his wrath be kindled against them and his blessings be withdrawn. Our government came into existence through divine guidance. The inspiration of the Lord rested upon the patriots who established it, and inspired them through the dark days of their struggle for independence and through the critical period which followed that struggle when they framed our glorious Constitution which guarantees to all the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That is to say, it is the right of every soul to have equal and unrestricted justice before the law, equal rights to worship according to the dictates of conscience and to labor according to the individual inclinations, independently of coercion or compulsion. That this might be, the Lord has said, “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood” (D&C 101:80).
The founders of this nation were men of humble faith. Many of them saw in vision a glorious destiny for our government, provided we would faithfully continue in the path of justice and right with contrite spirits and humble hearts, accepting the divine truths which are found in the Holy Scriptures. The appeal of these men has echoed down the passing years with prophetic warning to the succeeding generations, pleading with them to be true to all these standards which lay at the foundation of our government. This country was founded as a Christian nation, with the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of the world. (”Blessed Is the Nation Whose God Is the Lord” 274)
TxBlogger 10.06.08 at 3:09 pm
Don’t like PG&E? We could insert Monsanto etal. The gulf is dying, soil is being depleted, food is void of nutrition, people are consuming Frankenfood with no idea of the long-term effects. The devastation they’ve created, has happened overtly, and fully supported by the government.
You asked “Did ‘god’ intend for man to enforce the 10 commandments?” Joseph Smith apparently thought so. And so did Moses.
As an agnostic (at best), I can’t argue what’s in any given ‘bible’, but that seems in contradiction to the golden rule- judge not…..
Which is neither here nor there, we will continue to have laws, and many based on religious values, or someone’s twisted interpretation of their bible.
But, what of those who follow a different god/bible? Is there a place for them? Native Americans weren’t interested in being assimilated into English Common Law or Christianity. The few who weren’t assimilated or annihilated were given sovereignty to live/practice as they saw fit. Might the solution be to grant FLDS sovereignty? How long can a people be under constant surveillance and persecution? It’s getting quiet ridiculous. If the real goal is to prevent them from living their religion, then why mince words. Who is it that fears them? What’s the basis for the fear?
The founding fathers clearly didn’t include women, people of color, or even working class/poor white males in “We The People”. Who’s left? Monied, white males (which has expanded to include ‘some’ others) exacted the same disrespect and oppression they were seeking freedom from. They created freedom for themselves, not “we the other people”. They created, and continue, to create the laws that govern the rest of us.
Seeing that they have no problem killing, overtly or covertly, perhaps the law prohibiting murder was actually to protect them from those who might seek revenge for the oppression they lived under.
What is the goal? To design a culture/country that fosters peace, goodwill, health, tolerance or maintain the status quo and continue to create laws designed to control the emotional reactions of those who are angry about the gross inequities they experience? Or laws to control those who are different?
Bottomline, Laws, at best, function in lieu of conscience and should be equally applied if they are to exist. We won’t have reasonable or rational laws until they are.
So, what do we do about the human-sacrificing Aztecs in Eldorado? Wipe them off the face of the planet if they don’t succumb to the laws created by those with the power to assert their own beliefs? Imprison all their males and disperse their women and children into the dominant culture? Will history repeat itself, or will the dominant culture find a fresh, new solution?
duaneh1 10.06.08 at 8:03 pm
Missionaries accuse Brazil of allowing infanticide
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-22-infanticide_N.htm
So is our goal to assimilate or annihilate all cultures whose practices, “mainstream” culture would find barbaric? Will the end result be a monolithic society where nothing outside a narrow range of “norms” will be tolerated?
I personally would draw a line at human sacrifice here in the United States, but since no subculture or religious group practices it, I suppose the discussion is academic. But what about an indigenous society that predates all other human settlements and encroachments into their territory? Do we have the moral right to go in and force them to adhere to our standards of morality and justice?
Kurt Schulzke 10.06.08 at 11:32 pm
TxBlogger –
You’ve raised a multitude of issues. They could be (and actually have been) the basis for several articles. I’d like to respond, for now, to just one paragraph. You wrote:
“The founding fathers clearly didn’t include women, people of color, or even working class/poor white males in “We The People”. Who’s left? Monied, white males (which has expanded to include ‘some’ others) exacted the same disrespect and oppression they were seeking freedom from. They created freedom for themselves, not “we the other people”. They created, and continue, to create the laws that govern the rest of us.”
This is demonstrably false. With this statement, you have unfairly stereotyped the founding fathers and “monied white males”. You’ve also wrongly besmirched the Constitution, a document that has done more than any other in the world to create the world’s largest, longest living middle class. No other country can boast of such economic and political even-handedness. In no other country could a Bill Clinton or Sarah Palin or Barack Obama ever hope to be the country’s chief executive. No, it’s not perfect. But it beats the existing alternatives, hands down.
But back to the founders. The founders were far from a monolithic group of “monied whites” happy to grind poor whites and blacks into the ground. First, slavery was a British institution long before it became an American one. For some Founders, the Revolution was in part an opportunity to end slavery.
Second, Most of the founders — including Ben Franklin, John Adams, Benjamin Rush and John Jay — were humble, hardworking people who hated slavery. They signed off on the original Constitution because they saw it as necessary to the immediate survival of the newly independent nation and believed it could and would be amended over time to erase the sin of slavery.
It is true that some founders — mostly from the South — did all they could to protect their slave-holding franchises. Years later, their political heirs formed the Democrat Party. (See Bruce Bartlett’s book, Wrong on Race, for thorough documentation of this fact.)
But the fact remains that most of the Founders risked their lives, fortunes, and careers in an effort to level the playing field as it had never been leveled before.
Pliggy 10.07.08 at 2:49 am
You do know that the Anti-Polygamy George Reynolds decision was based on the stopping of human sacrifice, right?
No I don’t believe that CIVIL government should enforce the ten commandments, but a religious church government sure should be able to.
R 10.07.08 at 6:22 am
//For some Founders, the Revolution was in part an opportunity to end slavery.//
Which ones?
R 10.07.08 at 7:25 am
//Years later, their political heirs formed the Democrat Party. //
And then the Democratic party changed its politics in the mid-20th century.
Kurt Schulzke 10.07.08 at 8:34 am
R -
The Dem party did not change its politics and still hasn’t. It has only changed the tactics that it uses to exploit and marginalize blacks. There are many examples, but one works here: affirmative action.
Through affirmative action (in employment, college admissions, mortgage lending and government contracting), the Democrats (and some notable Republicans over the years) discredit black Americans who earn their positions legitimately. Because of this vicious policy, no black American ever knows for sure whether he/she got where he/she is because of skin color or merit.
If the Dems had changed their fundamental politics, they would have sent KKK Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops Senator Robert Bryd packing “in the mid-20th century.”
Byrd, then a sitting U.S. Senator, said in 1948 that he would “never submit to fight beneath that banner (the American flag) with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
50 years later, in 2001, he was still flinging the term “nigger” on national TV. Some change in politics.
Kurt Schulzke 10.07.08 at 8:40 am
R -
For a discussion of Founders and their opposition to slavery, one good resource is here. You can read a more in-depth treatment of the subject in David McCullough’s excellent biography, John Adams. You can search “slavery” in the GoogleBooks version.
duaneh1 10.07.08 at 10:43 am
Txblogger, It is unfair to use contemporary values and norms of present soceity to make moral judgements about cultural practices that were acceptable over 200 years ago. The founding fathers were very liberal for their day. The constitution they implemented has proved to be very flexible in adapting to changes in societal values over time.
Thomas Forguson 10.07.08 at 6:35 pm
Government has no business telling someone how they can form a family. If two gays want to get married, they should be allowed. If people want to form a plural marriage, that should also be allowed. We are not so wise that we know how everyone should live. We should adopt a live and let live attitude when it comes to morality
Kurt Schulzke 10.07.08 at 11:05 pm
Thomas –
Should the government be able to tell you what you can teach your children about homosexuality? Because that’s the real issue. Legalize gay marriage and you effectively force every father and mother in America to forever refrain from saying “homosexuality is bad for you and bad for America”.
Are you willing to allow the government to tell you what you can tell your kids?
duaneh1 10.07.08 at 11:47 pm
Kurt, so we cannot legalize gay marriage because that will “force” all parents to say “gay is good”? Parents can still say “homosexuality is bad”. How will legalization of gay marriage prevent parents from saying that? Did equal rights legislation for black people prevent racists from telling their children that blacks are inferior?
duaneh1 10.07.08 at 11:55 pm
Also, when miscegenation laws were overturned by the Supreme Court decision: Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, did that stop white supremist groups from indoctrinating their children?
Kathy 10.07.08 at 11:57 pm
‘Parents can still say “homosexuality is bad”. ‘ and, therefore be labeled a bigot or homophobic.
duaneh1 10.08.08 at 11:51 am
Kathy, Parents today are currently are labled as bigots for saying “homosexuality is bad”, gay marriage or not!
duaneh1 10.08.08 at 11:54 am
correction “are currently labeled as bigots”
Kurt Schulzke 10.08.08 at 12:44 pm
Duane –
You don’t understand. It’s not just a matter of being labeled bigots. It’s a matter of being prosecuted for hate speech. Sent to jail or fined. And if sent to jail, guess who gets the kids?
Thomas Forguson 10.08.08 at 1:40 pm
Kurt, your logic is faulty. Please explian in detail how that works.
Me 10.08.08 at 2:22 pm
Thomas,
Kurt’s logic is good. LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED TO FLDS WHO WERE LABELED ALL OF THE ABOVE just for adhearing to Bible principles.
If we pass laws against the laws of God (written in the Bible), we lose our freedoms. The reason for all the corruption in the government today is because they have violated the laws of God. To restore those freedoms, we must go back to the laws of God, yes, including the 10 commandments.
I don’t think I need to tell you where God stands on the homo issue, and abortion issue, and many others, which are becoming the downfall of the nation.
duaneh1 10.08.08 at 2:56 pm
Hate speech is protected in the US. “Me”, the same laws that protect beliefs such as polygamy (or should) and the 10 commandments are the same laws that should protect gays, atheists, and other religious beliefs other than Christianity.
The same rights that should allow you to practice polygamy are the same ones that would allow gays to practice their lifestyle.
Me 10.08.08 at 2:58 pm
Since this topic concerns the words of Joseph Smith, I thought the following quote would be applicable:
http://www.fldstruth.org/sysmenu.php?MParent=HISTORY&MIndex=108
The mob that collected at Carthage, Illinois, to commit that deed of blood contained a delegation representing every State in the Union. Each has received its blood stain. In the perpetration of this great national sin, they acted upon their own free volition which God implanted within them, as much so as if they had been willing to hearken to the advice of the Prophet and his friends when they showed them how to preserve the nation from destruction, how to do good to all, and how to introduce every holy principle that is calculated to bless and exalt a people. But, said they, “we will not hearken to the counsels of this man;” for, like the Jews of old, they were afraid if they let him live he would take away their place and nation. They not only feared the principles which he taught, but they feared the increasing numbers which followed him; they feared that if they let him alone he would incorporate in his religion all the religion there is that is good for anything, or that is according to the Bible, and all the honest, truthful, and virtuous of the nation, they feared, would follow him; and they feared that thereby they would be deprived of their rich emoluments and livings, so they concluded to get rid of him by slaying him. In killing the Prophet Joseph Smith, they did not kill “Mormonism,” and they cannot kill it unless they kill all the “Mormons,” for if they leave a single Latter-day Saint living he will cry to the people to repent of their sins and return to the Lord, and the Lord will work with him to gather the righteous, build up His kingdom, build up Zion, and establish Jerusalem no more to be thrown down. Well, they will go on their way, and we will go on ours. If they had hearkened to the counsel of Joseph Smith, this nation would have had no wars; there would have been no division in the Government, but it would have gone on in harmony and prosperity.
Me 10.08.08 at 3:04 pm
Duane,
You are right, as long as those beliefs don’t endanger the rights of others.
Thomas Forguson 10.11.08 at 9:32 am
Me: the first admendment forbids our governmnet enforcing the word of GOD.