Latter-day Saint Extremism

While there are so-called “extremists” in many areas of our political spectrum this article will deal more with the supposed “right-wing extremists” within our Church and nation.  I have seen a great resurgence of interest in the core principles of liberty and the Constitution within our Latter-day Saint community.  I, myself, have been a part of this resurgence.  Anyone familiar with the principles of liberty can understand why we as Latter-day Saints are particularly attracted to this philosophy and to the cause for freedom. Simply put, the preservation of man’s agency is at the very heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  However, many of us who have whole heartedly embraced this new philosophy and way of life have been shunned and labeled “extreme” by those with whom we feel the most kinship, our fellow Latter-day Saints. The purpose of this article is not to explain whether we are extreme or not, but to dispel public perception and provide tools for us to explain what we are really about.

Extremism can be defined as any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies.  Certainly we as LDS liberty lovers fall under this definition of extremism. However, there are other elements to defining this topic in today’s vernacular. The term we’re focusing on can be relative to the group, culture, and time in which one lives.  Some ideas and ways of thinking can be perfectly acceptable in one culture and time and quite extreme in another. I argue that many if not most of the views we hold would not be out of the norm at all in the days of the American Founding.  However those same views are thought of as “radical” today.  The principles of liberty were common knowledge among all Englishman during the American Colonial period.

Today there seems to be an aura attached to the term “extremist”. That aura is meant to strike fear into the general populace.  The current prevailing thought when someone hears about “extremist individuals” is that these individuals are dangerous and are not just capable of, but are likely to commit extreme acts of unprovoked aggression.  This is the purposeful design of the government and its PR firm, the mainstream media.  This stereotype is simply inaccurate.  The demagoguery is a tactic used to demonize an individual or group of people so that the general populace will disregard their arguments.  After all, if you can immediately discredit individuals through tricky semantics, their arguments are of no consequence since those persons are instantly dismissed as “wackos”.

Those of the past who by today’s standards could have been labeled “extreme” were largely promoting traditional, conservative principles.  Often while learning of and discussing historical events and persons, the actions and words of such figures seem less drastic and radical because one is so far removed from them.  As we discuss the following people, I would like the reader to think of the ensuing words and actions being said and done by someone today.  Think of how the current public might respond to such words or actions. Let us look at a few examples.

Abinadi

Abinadi was a prophet of God, revealed to us in the Book of Mormon, who was sent to the people of the wicked King Noah to call them to repentance.  Abinadi gave explicit warnings to the people using very strong language.  I will shy away from telling the entire story; if the reader is unfamiliar with it he or she can read it in the Book of Mosiah, Chapters 11-17 .  I will, however, list the “extreme” things that Abinadi said and did:

  • Prophesied the destruction and enslavement of the people (Mosiah 11:20–25)
  • Railed against govt. officials for not doing their duty and using their positions to get gain (Mosiah 12:25–37)
  • Prophesied gory events that were to happen to government officials [King Noah and his wicked priests] (Mosiah 17:15–19)
  • Gave his life willingly for the cause of Christ (Mosiah 17:9–10 & 20)

If an individual were to come among us and give us similar warnings in Abinadi-like fashion, he or she would immediately be put in the looney bin and labeled a “danger to the public”.  Abinadi’s words and actions may have been extreme, but they were based on quite conservative principles.

America’s Founding Fathers

It is a well documented historical fact that our founding fathers were smugglers and tax evaders.  They believed in the principle of private property and unhindered property rights, a principle we as Americans might do well to rediscover for ourselves.  These inspired men routinely evaded the British government in order to keep what was rightfully theirs.  Whether we like it or not, our country was founded on traitorous acts.

While it is our duty to support our government in its prescribed duties and functions as laid out in the Constitution, it is not our responsibility to support a government which usurps power and authority to rob its people of their means in order to “take care of them” through its myriad of programs and policies.  David O. McKay said:

“It is our duty to strive to make a success of what we possess—to till the earth, subdue matter, conquer the globe, take care of the cattle, the flocks and the herds.  It is the Government’s duty to see that you are protected in these efforts, and no other man has the right to deprive you of any of your privileges.  But it is not the Government’s duty to support you.  That is one reason why I shall raise my voice as long as God gives me sound or ability, against this Communistic idea that Government will take care of us all….  It is wrong! No wonder, in trying to perpetuate that idea, they become anti-Christ, because that doctrine strikes directly against the doctrine of the Savior…No government owes you a living.  You get it yourself by your own acts!—never by trespassing upon the rights of a neighbor; never by cheating him.  You put a blemish upon your character the moment you do.” (Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States p.23, Deseret Book Co. 1966)

Anyone caught evading unnecessary taxation by the government today would consequently be punished, just as in Colonial America. However, today there is another element of punishment that did not exist back then which the government itself does not directly inflict; that is the stigma attached to tax evaders by the public.  People caught “cheating” on their taxes are severely demonized today by the media and consequently the public at large.  So were the Founding Fathers’ ideas of personal property extreme or conservative? Is it extreme to promote the idea that I have a right to keep what I worked for from the hands of conspiring men?

The Mormon Pioneers

It is no secret that the Mormon pioneers experienced great hardship and persecution from the very inception of the Church to their departure from Nauvoo.  The early Saints repeatedly had their property destroyed by mobs, their land taken, their people murdered, and their whole congregation driven to and fro across the Midwestern U.S.  The Church mercilessly petitioned the United States government for a redress of their grievances and at last could not receive any restitution for the atrocities they suffered.  Their final act of desperation was to secede from the United States Government altogether.  As historical fact attests, they removed themselves from the jurisdiction of their persecutors and the government which did nothing to protect their inalienable rights.  Does this mean that they threw off the principles of freedom and the Constitution as well? Absolutely not!  Speaking of the intentions of the Saints, Brigham Young told Colonel Thomas L. Kane of the U.S. Army that:

“…they intended settling in the great Basin or Bear River Valley, and those who went round by water would settle at San Francisco. They would be glad to raise the American flag, said the President: ‘We love the Constitution of our country, but are opposed to mobocracy; and will not live under such oppression as we have done. We are willing to have the banner of the U.S. constitution float over us. If the government of the U.S. is disposed to do us good; we can do them as much good as they can us.’”

As the Saints were seceding, do you think they held on to “extremist” ideas of aggression or retaliation toward the U.S. government or do you think they were holding onto conservative principles espoused by the gospel of Jesus Christ? The history of their following days sufficiently answers this query.

I don’t know if the story of the pioneer Saints’ secession from the United States made headlines in its day, but if a peculiar religious organization attempted to uproot its entire congregation and leave the U.S. today, I’m confident it would cause quite the hullaballoo and they would be labeled as “extremist”.

Jesus Christ

In His day, the Master Himself was labeled an extremist and put to death for his supposed crimes.  Is it any wonder?  He:

In these actions he challenged the strong hold that the ruling class had on the people, a challenge for which they continuously plotted how to be rid of Him.  No doubt He was the most extreme individual that had come among the children of God at that time.  He may have been extreme, but one can hardly say that the very Giver of the philosophies of freedom and liberty did not teach and live righteous conservative principles during His life and ministry.  May I suggest that our Divine Lord was the ultimate “extremist”?

Conclusion

Am I proposing that we as Latter-day Saints often engage in extreme actions in emulation of the above worthy examples? Of course not.  Although many past examples of “extremists” were forced to take extreme actions, they only did so when they were pushed to the point that it was their last and only resort.  So it must be with us as modern American Latter-day Saints.  We still have an opportunity to take back our government and preserve freedom through peaceful means; those being education, awareness, and political activism.  However, just as the above examples have demonstrated, if the time comes that we are left with no other alternative, we ought to be prepared to stop not only at words. If that time comes, we as liberty loving Latter-day Saints should be ready and willing to take the actions necessary to preserve our Constitution, our way of life, and ultimately our liberty!  Does saying that make me an extremist?

About Ron Waline

Ron Waline is a married father of 3 and a recent convert to the cause of liberty. Ron is also an avid wilderness skills practitioner and loves “getting lost” and practicing his survival skills. He is a lover of freedom, liberty, and the rights of man and is striving diligently to learn all he can in order to push forward the cause for freedom.
This entry was posted in Articles and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Latter-day Saint Extremism

  1. Greg West says:

    Am I reading this right? You’re advocating defying the law, tax evasion, and being a public nuisance to the point of having people consider martyring us? I suppose getting put in jail would simply validate your approach in some misguided fashion.

    I haven’t seen this many bad ideas in one article in a long time.

  2. Greg, I, as well as the owners of this site, didn’t read that from this at all. Where are you seeing that?

    • Greg West says:

      Skyler, this paragraph seems to extol the “virtues” of smuggling, tax evading, and “traitorous acts”:

      “It is a well documented historical fact that our founding fathers were smugglers and tax evaders. They believed in the principle of private property and unhindered property rights, a principle we as Americans might do well to rediscover for ourselves. These inspired men routinely evaded the British government in order to keep what was
      rightfully theirs. Whether we like it or not, our country was founded on traitorous acts.”

      Under the heading of “Jesus Christ,” the writer twists the religious contention between Jesus and the Pharisees into a political argument. The Pharisees were a religious council that was founded during the Babylonian captivity to preserve Judaism in purity from the threat of assimilation by the culture of its captors. The argument between Jesus and the Pharisees was religious and doctrinal, not political. Because the Sanhedrin (many of whom were Saducees and Pharisees) could not enforce a death sentence for blasphemy–the charge against Jesus– they fabricated a charge of treason and sent him to the Romans.

      Jesus never questioned the right of the Roman Empire to rule, even when standing before Herod and Pilate. Even when standing before Pilate, he answered, “…Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.” (John 19:11) Jesus never confronted the Roman authorities and never resisted them. He never advocated resistance, tax evasion, or revolution against them–even when they were unjustly judging him. That is a powerful example!

      The concluding paragraph of the article states:

      “Am I proposing that we as Latter-day Saints often engage in extreme actions in emulation of the above worthy examples? Of course not. Although many past examples of “extremists” were forced to take extreme actions, they only did so when they were pushed to the point that it was their last and only resort. So it must be with us as modern American Latter-day Saints. We still have an opportunity to take back our government and preserve freedom through peaceful means; those being education, awareness, and political activism. However, just as the above examples have demonstrated, if the time comes that we are left with no other alternative, we ought to be prepared to stop not only at words. If that time comes, we as liberty loving Latter-day Saints should be ready and willing to take the actions necessary to preserve our Constitution, our way of life, and ultimately our liberty! Does saying that make me an extremist?”

      There are three key phrases here that alarm me:

      – “as their last and only resort…”
      – “if the time comes that we are left with no other alternative…”
      – “take the actions necessary…”

      Each of those phrases provides for a situation in which “extreme actions” are justified. I don’t believe that the Lord intends for the saints to take “extreme actions” of any kind. The most extreme action required of us is to live the gospel when the rest of the world may look down on it.

      If a time comes when living the gospel and following Jesus puts us in the same position in which Jesus found himself–being judged by the unjust for false accusations of treason–then Jesus has already set the example on how we are to conduct ourselves. I think the likelihood of that possibility is extraordinarily slim.

      The Lord didn’t call us out of the world to defend the Constitution alone. He called us to build the kingdom of God. We’ll continue to do that whether or not the USA survives or not. The work will go forward, even in a new world order.

  3. Walter Wilkinson says:

    Did the Saints not throw off the Constitution when they arrived in the Salt Lake valley? Brigham Young was setting up the state of Deseret. The flag they raised was not the Stars and Stripes. It was the banner of Zion. They printed there own money. They had a new alphabet and the plan was to speak a language which wasn’t English.
    Of course Brigham Young told US Army colonel Thomas L. Kane he loved the Constitution. Could he have told him anything else without raising suspicion?
    “The Kingdom or Nothing!” John Taylor.

  4. Jeannetta says:

    Amen! We need to do everything possible to stop Progressivism by peaceful means; however, the time is fast approaching where we will need to take a stand, and stand firm no matter what. That may mean unpleasant means. Do we desire violence? No. But I will do whatever I have to in order to protect the virtue of my daughters, the sanctity of my home, and the integrity of our Republic.

  5. James Davis says:

    The message of this article is very close to something I wrote back in August (click on my name to read it). I’m glad someone else recognizes that the word “extremism”, as relative as it is, is often used to smear those who think or act too different. The half-truth that many members misinterpret as doctrine is that we are to be “moderate in all things”. Therefore, in a quest for moderation, many members will adjust their own standards and values to the middle of what the world’s standard’s are (political ideologies especially). A line from my article is as follows:

    “People take the moderate position because, to them, it’s safe. It’s uncomfortable and embarrassing to be perceived as an extremist. So rather than take a stand on moral ground they compromise their principles and values to accommodate the most amounts of people. I suspect these could be some of the same cowards that Jesus said- because of being lukewarm, that He will spew them out of His mouth.”

    We shouldn’t fear man. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what others think or say about us. God’s opinion is the only one that should matter to us. As Latter-Day-Saints we should refrain from using the tainted word “extremist” when referring to someone else’s political ideology. After all, if we truly are on the Lord’s side on all issues then we will definitely be labeled as such by the world.

  6. Ron Shirtz says:

    Greg, LDS are a peculiar people are at odds with the world by the standards we live by. We are a well established “Public nuisance” by the missionaries we sent out throughout the world. People at social activities become uncomfortable around us when we meekly abstain from drinking and smoking. We are a well-known PC problem with our public declaration of what constitutes a “family”.

    To be LDS, is to be a Nuisance!

  7. ElderChantdown says:

    Very well said. Matthew 15 is one of my favorite chapters of the New Testament. In verses 8 and 9 He says “This people draweth nigh unto me with their MOUTH, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” I was reminded of this when you wrote, ” -we ought to be prepared to stop not only at words.” Verse 9 says “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” This is evidence of the accuracy of your statement regarding Jesus where you said He “Defied and preached against long held traditional law, *most of which law was not divinely sanctioned*”

    For a couple generations now we LDS as a people have shown ourselves to be the “chosen” people in every single way. We have even demonstrated the trademark “Pride Cycle” of the Nephites, the typical “Hard Heartedness” of ancient Israel. The apostasy of all those as well as the early christian churches were not near so fast as our rapid fall from grace. We limited our worship to mere words long ago (72 words to be exact). And this was mostly self inflicted whereas the pioneers at least had some serious government bullying. Well it is all connected, us and our ancestors.

    I have been being very honest with myself in the last few years and I have often been alarmed at what I have found. How can I decry the corruption of my nation and ignore the corruption of my religion? The two, we will find, go hand in hand, especially as far as The Americas are concerned. Is it even logical to encourage fellow LDS to join me in looking for leaders who promote guidance according to simple, constitutional principles. Leaders who would never be led by incessant legalese, or allow us to be bogged down under burgeoning bureaucracy? We have a Talmud of a Handbook to encourage and embolden Pharisees and intimidate Good-Intentioned-Shepherds with shear size. (from 14 to 400 pgs. in little over a century). http://martinluther537.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/the-church-handbook-of-instructions-and-thinking-on-your-own/
    Who needs constitutional principles and much less The Holy Spirit when we got rules and regulations to keep us safe? Do I really expect my brothers and sisters to wake up and fight against the lack of transparency in government spending and the Federal Reserve, without once even pausing to give second thought to the same thing going on with sacred tithing funds? Can I honestly hope that my people will see the unnecessary nature or illegality of the income tax, or at very least, as you say, change their “stigma” and “demonizing” of others’ exercise of agency. I think that any hope in this type of understanding is silly as long as it remains too much to ask that we read and apply God’s law of tithing the way He asked us to. We liked Babylonian taxation techniques (philosophies of men) so much that we adjusted divine law to a more improved version that mirrored them. To most of us Zion is something that is either already here (In our hearts. Oh what a lovely thought! What sweet words! Who needs truth and deeds?) or it can be built comfortably in complete harmony with Babylon and all its “precepts of men” and “doctrines of devils”. What a complete take over the enemy has perpetrated on our very elect minds and spirits.

    Extremism? That is what we all are a bunch of extremists. Whether left or right, of men or of devils (for some are of men and others of devils D&C 46: 7) they are all just the extremes at either end. We must appear extreme to all those on either and every side as we return to the middle, the firm foundation, God’s Truth.

    Ps. Matt. 15 really is full of applicable material. You could even use these verses to describe G. West’s taking offense at your heartfelt words.
    12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
    13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

  8. David says:

    Are you people nuts? Try reading the D&C where it says that violence and war is unsantioned unless you are attacked 3 times. Your fear of “progressiveness” is driven by politics that you somehow you associate with the gospel. Try listening to General Conference (especially President Uchdorf’s priesthood talk) and get off the rameumptum of thinking right-wing politics is godliness. Don’t they teach Christianity in your ward meetings?

  9. Ron Shirtz is right! Democrats such as Sen. Reid and the Udall family may be dodging the mud-slinging reserved to people such as Glenn Beck, but the bottom line remains that all of us are “peculiar.” While we claim that the Constitution is an inspired document, if the rest of society tramples on the Constitution, we have the revelations of God to fall back on, and that could put us on a collision course in the future, as it has in the past.

  10. Casey H. says:

    I’m a moderate Saint, so when I saw the title of todays blog on Mormon Times I was expecting to receive some thoughtful perspective on this point of view. But trying to make tax cheats equivalent to patriots and weaving Book of Mormon verse into your defense of such views defies logic. There were only a handful of people left in the country willing to be open minded enough to listen to your logic today, now there is one less.

  11. We only need to look to the Doctrine and Covenants and the overall history of our Church to see what the word & will of the Lord is concerning our dealings with government. There are countless examples of trying to work within the system, exhortations to be law-abiding citizens, and the fact that the LDS Church fought the issue of plural marriage all the way to the Supreme Court. So departing from a course of moderation is only to be looked upon as a last resort, even though there is ample evidence that our Constitution is “hanging by a thread.”

  12. Greg West says:

    David, Casey, and Charles,

    You guys are right on the money! For those of you who are newcomers to the site, I’ve written a few past articles that are relevant to this left/right wing divide in the Church and the danger it poses to the establishment of Zion.

    Liberal or Conservative? Joseph Smith’s 1844 Presidential Platform
    http://ldsliberty.org/liberal-or-conservative-joseph-smiths-1844-presidential-platform/

    Saints in a New World Order
    http://ldsliberty.org/saints-in-a-new-world-order/

    Partisans And The Saints: Choosing A Side Or Choosing The Right?
    http://ldsliberty.org/partisans-and-the-saints-choosing-a-side-or-choosing-the-right/

  13. Ron Waline says:

    Greg, I do extol those “virtues” when they are based on sound principle and when they are carried out by someone who is in the proper position to be able to and may have no other choice but to carry them out. In this case that sound principle is that of private property rights, the ability to have unhindered control of that which you rightfully and legally own (D&C 134:2) . While I do believe in and promote this principle nowhere did I say that all Latter-day Saints should stop paying their taxes. While I do believe that we have a legal and moral right to that which is ours I know and understand that as a covenant people we have a much more important charge at this point in history, that is to live up to our Covenants and take care of our families. It’s a little difficult to accomplish those goals while in prison or dead. I believe we as Latter-day Saints are not in a proper position to defy the govt. by acting on this principle at this point in time. Therefore it is not in our best interest to commit those acts unless our survival depends upon it, in which case that judgment would be left up to the individual. Again, I am not calling Latter-day Saints to evade paying taxes, only to wake up to the principles and understand that they have a right to that which they own. If enough of us as LDS and Americans understood that there would be no need for evasion because we might be able to more effectively repeal certain legislation and programs to be able to live that principle. My point was that while we may be looked upon as “extreme” for believing in and promoting that particular principle the principle itself is based on a very conservative platform.

    The portion of my article regarding Jesus Christ was not meant to illicit an understanding that Christ was possibly a renegade out to criticize and tear down the government nor did I imply that he was promoting the things that you’re saying I did. If that’s what everyone got out it I apologize for not being more clear. What I was trying to point out was that in His time and situation Christ was quite an extreme individual because his actions (while based on conservative true principles) defied and challenged established Judaic Law. For Christ the contention was indeed religious, but for the Pharisees and Sadducees there is little if any difference between religious and political seeing as the Jews were held under a quasi theocracy with traditional law still in force in concert with Roman Law of course. This being the case the Pharisees and Sadducees saw Christ as a threat to established Traditional Judaic Law and consequently their power as executors of that law.

    While I never even said anything about Jesus confronting Roman authorites and resisting them etc. I find some very faulty logic in your assertion that we should never resist tyranny or the state in emulation of Christ. While I believe we should make Christ our example I don’t believe He would have us give up our rights and liberties without any resistance. The fact is that Christ had a mission, He fully understood that mission and he fully understood what His role and actions must be to fulfill that mission. Our mission is not to Atone for the sins of the world. I do not doubt that it may be better for some to not resist but that is for them to prayerfully decide. If you truly believe that we should never resist then you’ll probably have some issue with some of our own Church History, most particularly the issue regarding polygamy. Joseph Smith even defended himself at Carthage. Would you say He was out of line for not following the Saviors example by doing so? If someone comes after you with the express intent to kill you and/or your family or take away your means of survival I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t defend yourself.

    We as Latter-day Saints are a chosen people with some very particular responsibilities. Chief of those responsibilities is to live the gospel of Jesus Christ and make good on our Covenants with the Lord. The point of this article was to call to attention the conservative platform on which our so-called extremist views are held and to educate on some of those principles from an LDS perspective.

    That being said I still hold that if it comes down to it we would be justified in using extreme actions to safeguard ourselves from absolute tyranny. I also believe that at this point in history and at this time of crisis in our Nation the Lord does not intend for us to take extreme actions and nowhere did I allude that He did in my article. But, that doesn’t mean that a time when extreme action would be permitted will never come. The best way to avoid having to take extreme actions is to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Every man and woman must decide for themselves what is extreme for them and at what point they would take action and what actions they might take. Those choices will be different for everyone. You are right, the Lord did not call us out of the world to defend the Constitution alone and if we do our job in building the kingdom we won’t have to work very hard to defend the Constitution because it is based on principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While it is not a perfect document it is the only one of its kind sanctioned by the Lord himself and while I have a more important job as a husband, a father, and a Priesthood holder I will continue to defend that document by whatever peaceful mean necessary secondary to my more important roles. But if it does come down to it I would not count it as immoral or contrary to the gospel to preserve liberty for my family and for the rights of my fellow bretheren to worship as they please by defending that document even unto the shedding of my own blood. I hope and pray it never comes to that and its my belief that if we do our duty in spreading the gospel and furthering the cause of liberty we will never have to make such a decision. But if it comes down to it I would not hesitate to take whatever actions are necessary so long as they are moral and justified. The only caviat to that is if specific revelation is given by a modern Prophet and that has not happened yet to my knowledge.

    Greg you put a lot of words in my mouth, maybe that’s because I wasn’t as clear as I ought to have been. If that’s the case I apologize. I hope this clears things up.

  14. John says:

    Although I come to this discussion late, I find that I need to make one comment. The saddest thing that is happening with the stand on “exteme” beliefs by many LDS members is that it is driving a wedge between them and we more moderate members of the faith. Personally, I sense a feeling of being shunned or being not liked by my fellow ward and/or stake members who strongly stand on their constitutional rights and beliefs. If I don’t completely and immediately agree with these beliefs, I seem to become a “second-class citizen” of the Church.
    I sort of don’t think that’s what the Savior was all about. Stand up for your beliefs. Stand up for the constitution. But understand that we who don’t agree with your “extremism” are your brothers and sisters, whether we are members or not.

    • Ron Waline says:

      Thank you John for your comment. I think this is something that we liberty-minded Latter-day Saints sometimes don’t take into account. I’ve heard stories of such treatment that you’re alluding to and it makes me sad. We should not have to be reminded but sometimes we need to be.

  15. James Davis says:

    I thought this quote by Dallin H. Oaks was applicable to this conversation:

    “Moderation in all things is not a virtue, because it would seem to justify moderation in commitment. That is not moderation, but indifference. That kind of moderation runs counter to the divine commands to serve with all of our “heart, might, mind and strength” (D&C 4:2), to “seek … earnestly the riches of eternity” (D&C 68:31), and to be “valiant in the testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:79). Moderation is not the answer.” –Dallin H. Oaks (Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall, Ensign, 1994)

  16. scott says:

    My experiance as a mormon for 30 years is that most of mormons care nothing but for their own liberty without compromise. Usually liberty principals between different cultures conflict. For example mormons vs gay marriage, or mormons vs poor who need healthcare, or mormons vs single mothers allowing them to raise their babies, or mormons vs historians who work toward preventing dishonesty of religionists refusing to reveal true religous history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>