Armed Militia People Occupying Federal Building in Oregon are LDS, and Citing LDS Doctrines as Justification (Not Really)

[Okrahomer]

8 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Scott, is DN doing any reporting on this?

I see at least 3 published articles on the DN website so far--there may be others:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765683087/Town-watches-warily-as-armed-protesters-take-over-refuge.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865644791/LDS-Church-condemns-seizure-of-Oregon-federal-facilities-by-militia-citing-Mormon-beliefs.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865644808/Oregon-showdown-echoes-Utah-frustration-over-western-lands-fight.html

 

[Damien the Leper]

Thank you, Okra!

[rodheadlee]

15 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

What ever happened to obeying the laws of the land?

If we fully believe in obeying the law of the land then why are we not still British? Why was it ok to rebel against England?  

[Kenngo1969]

On 1/4/2016 at 2:20 PM, sheilauk said:

So, I've read a couple of articles about this and it seems that the issue is more to do with the Constitution and the Federal Government than any scriptural justification.  My questions are  - how is the Hammonds situation unconstitutional, how is the making of the wildlife sanctuary unconstitutional and why is Ammon Bundy so concerned 107 years after the event!  Seems to me that it is more about a paranoid obsession with the Federal Government rather than helping the Hammonds.  Why are so many Americans so, frankly, ridiculously, paranoid about the Federal Government?  Seems to me the USA would not exist without it!  As for the Hammonds - they should have received the 5 year sentence initially it seems and they lost in an appeal process, so, of course, they complain.  No doubt, if there was a federal court case which supported them (eg they were the victims of a federal crime where the Defendant was convicted and sentenced to a long sentence), they'd be totally supportive of the system!

As my understanding of the US Constitution is limited, I genuinely would like to know if there is any constitutional justification/issue as claimed or any issue over the Hammonds being returned to prison.  (the law in the UK would allow it - if your sentence is illegal or increased on appeal - you get resentenced and are sent to serve any additional time).

As for the article - simply sensational "journalism" at its worst.

Sheila,

Greetings, My Dear Sister Across the Pond.

None of this should be read as my endorsing the actions of the Hammonds or the Bundys. Perhaps it will simply help to frame the issues or the debate. I will certainly defer to the better-informed analyses of my brethren and sisters who are actually at the Bar if they find this summation lacking in any degree. There will be a wide variety of opinions as to whether any given assertion of federal power is appropriate, and debate over such questions certainly is in no danger of abating any time soon.

You're probably aware that the United States Constitution (at least in a historical or ideal sense) creates a dual-sovereignty system, in which some powers are left to the states and others are left to the federal (national) government. This concept largely has fallen into disfavor in recent decades and years, as courts have allowed the federal government to expand its powers in ways never dreamed of by the Constitution's framers.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The seeming limits imposed on federal power by the Tenth Amendment have, however, faced increasing erosion in recent years, in two ways.

One way the federal government has expanded its powers in recent years is by declaring more and more things “fundamental rights” which are not subject to state control. Perhaps the best recent example of this is with respect to the recent United States Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that gay marriage, as a fundamental right, is now legal in all 50 states.

Another way in which the federal government recently has expanded its powers is through the Commerce Clause. The Constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate “commerce” among the several states. In recent decades, courts, including the United States Supreme Court, has read this concept extremely broadly, allowing the federal government to impose expansive regulations on conduct, even when that conduct does not involve “commerce” in any of the usual meanings of that word, and even when it occurs entirely within one state.

Those who favor these (and other) expansions in federal power are quick to point out that those who favored the racial discrimination and segregation of blacks in the “Jim Crow” southern U.S. also appealed to the Tenth Amendment as support for maintaining that status quo. While I think there are reasons good and sound for government to, e.g., privilege opposite-sex marriage over its same-sex counterpart, it's difficult to explain that position without escaping being tarred as someone who engages in, or who favors, allegedly-invidious discrimination.

Personally, while I think there are numerous meaningful differences between appealing to the Tenth Amendment as part of an argument against gay marriage, on the one hand, and appealing to it to maintain racial segregation and discrimination, on the other hand, that's a challenging case to make: no one wants to be tarred as a racist, as a segregationist, or as someone who opposes gay marriage because he wants to deny rights to gays.

Again, I don't support the actions of the Hammonds or of the Bundys. Nevertheless, if the Tenth Amendment really has become a dead letter in modern U.S. politics and jurisprudence, let those who favor its repeal “stand up on their hind legs,” as a law professor of mine likes to say, and set in motion the process necessary to repeal it. As long as it's still on the books, though, it ought to mean something—and that meaning ought to be far weightier than that attributed to it by courts in recent years.

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Bob Crockett]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Again, I don't support the actions of the Hammonds or of the Bundys. Nevertheless, if the Tenth Amendment really has become a dead letter in modern U.S. politics and jurisprudence, let those who favor its repeal “stand up on their hind legs,” as a law professor of mine likes to say, and set in motion the process necessary to repeal it. As long as it's still on the books, though, it ought to mean something—and that meaning ought to be far weightier than that attributed to it by courts in recent years.

 

Your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment has long been dead with the Supreme Court. 

The Hammonds and the Bundys are welfare bums with big houses and brand new pickup trucks.  They can't compete with people like my grandfather, who owned his cattle ranch.  They have to use BLM land and a manifestly cheap license to do it.  Sheep ranchers, miners, and others are in the same boat.  

An example I like to offer is the license given to mule train operators in the Grand Canyon.   The fees (last time I looked) amounted to about $1,000,000 per year but the cost of repairing and maintaining the trails the mules damage is more than $13 million per year.   And, the mule operators like to keep people like me off the trails, with reports to park rangers and threats, because some of us are able to ascend faster than a mule train and we spook the mules, angering the drivers.

But a grazing permit is far less than a million dollars.  The ecological damage done to BLM land, especially from sheep, is high.  And then there's the fencing they erect, the useless structures, the roads they cut, the fires they burn, the streams the pollute.  They get public utilities to string wires to their structures at public cost.  This damage doesn't begin to be paid for by the nominal fees charged. 

Multiple administrations have tried to cut all this back, but western Senators like McCain and Reid support ranchers' rights to live off taxpayers.   What you're seeing is federal officials trying to get these people to live up to the minimum obligations imposed on them.  But, I assure you that the meat you buy at Safeway and the woolen goods you buy at Walmart don't come from these people.  

As a libertarian, I strongly oppose federal ownership of land in the first place.   If this land were released through auction, these folks would be unable to make a living.   The only reason they are making a living is because of a federal subsidy.   But, given federal ownership at present, if these people want to put their snouts in at the federal trough they need to toe the line.  They spout the party line, whatever party it is, that they are offended by government intervention in their lives.  Fine.  Stop asking for federal permits to use federal land to make a living.   If you are a whitewater rafting company complaining about all the fees and restrictions placed upon you for using a federal water course, then get out of the business. 

As to armed takeover, that is an entirely different matter.  They're felons.  They're against notions of liberty.  They use force to evict the employees, the bird lovers, the public.  They put the lives of law enforcement personnel in peril.  They make a mockery of gun ownership and the responsible uses of guns.  They should have their guns taken away.

And the, quoting scripture.   

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[strappinglad]

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

 

As a libertarian, I strongly oppose federal ownership of land in the first place.   If this land were released through auction, these folks would be unable to make a living.   The only reason they are making a living is because of a federal subsidy.   But, given federal ownership at present, if these people want to put their snouts in at the federal trough they need to toe the line.

 

 

 

The constitution , as I understand it, restricts Federal land ownership to Forts,etc. The amount of Federal Land owned within the original 13 +/- states is considerably less than that owned in the central and particularly western states. If the western states had ownership of most of the Federal land they could use,sell off, lease it and gain tax revenue. Are the Feds appropriating State taxpayers in the same way the Hammonds/ Bundys are? 

[Bob Crockett]

48 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

The constitution , as I understand it, restricts Federal land ownership to Forts,etc. The amount of Federal Land owned within the original 13 +/- states is considerably less than that owned in the central and particularly western states. If the western states had ownership of most of the Federal land they could use,sell off, lease it and gain tax revenue. Are the Feds appropriating State taxpayers in the same way the Hammonds/ Bundys are? 

The constitution is not read to restrict land ownership, but to authorize it.  But I agree with you that federal ownership of extensive tracts of land is contrary to good stewardship and freedom.  Look at what it has done to the Bundys.  It has made them slaves to a welfare system, and decades of family before them -- no less than the Irish system of putting people on the dole.  It has led them to quoting scripture and Mormon beliefs as a means to enhance their stake in welfare and as means to intimidate people.

But there is no justification to simply turn federal land over to the states.  What makes the states any better than the government?  I'd rather have the feds own land than my home state of California.  The land needs to be auctioned off like military bases.  

Your question:  "Are the Feds appropriating State taxpayers in the same way the Hammond/Bundys are?"  I don't understand the question.  The States don't have any inherent right to own land, either.  Government's role is to protect the right of property owners, not to own property just for the sake of owning something pretty.  

I should also add that the Bundys also seem to be protesting the fact that the government use the power of eminent domain to pay ranchers for their ranches to create a wildlife refuge.  I'd like to know more about that -- how many farmers were affected.  I certainly dislike the creation of these refuges and parks, especially if it requires eminent domain, but I'd like to have more facts.  Are any of the protesters affected farmers?  I don't see any claim for that.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[strappinglad]

There is always going to be arguments about who bought, appropriated what land first. Here is a visual representation of Federal ownership in all of the States. There are good arguments about who would look after ' public ' lands better. 

 http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

[Kenngo1969]

People of this ilk love to quote the Declaration of Independence while ignoring the Constitution.  If someone wants to practice civil disobedience, that's fine, but there are two elements to civil disobedience: (1) open defiance of a purportedly-unjust law, and (2) willing acceptance of whatever penalty is imposed for violating that law, even if the law and the penalty are unjust.  And I know the Supreme Court essentially long has paid lip service at the Tenth Amendment.  The question is, Should it?

Quote

As to armed takeover, that is an entirely different matter.  They're felons.  They're against notions of liberty.  They use force to evict the employees, the bird lovers, the public.  They put the lives of law enforcement personnel in peril.  They make a mockery of gun ownership and the responsible uses of guns.  They should have their guns taken away.

I agree.  I believe I said, not just once, but twice, that my comment shouldn't be read as supporting the actions of the Hammonds or the Bundys.

[Avatar4321]

15 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

If we fully believe in obeying the law of the land then why are we not still British? Why was it ok to rebel against England?  

For one the command didn't come till over 50 years later

[The Nehor]

On January 4, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Thinking said:

You never know how people are going to turn out. Ammon Bundy was the assistant to the president of the mission where my brother served in Minnesota.

In my Mission that meant the Mission President wanted to keep a close eye on you.

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

If we fully believe in obeying the law of the land then why are we not still British? Why was it ok to rebel against England?  

Are you suggesting the Founding Fathers were LDS?

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

If we fully believe in obeying the law of the land then why are we not still British? Why was it ok to rebel against England?  

Thankfully the Church wasn't founded until 1830, 54 years after the American Revolutionary War.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/5/2016 at 10:37 PM, Valentinus said:

Scott, is DN doing any reporting on this?

 

I've not been following the coverage, but LMGTFY.

When I do so, I see that Deseret News coverage consists primarily of wire service reports with some local coverage of the Church's statement.

Edited to add:

I see that Okrahomer did a more thorough search than I did.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Wow.  So there's still a lot of news coverage of the "Mormon angle" on this story.  Here's an interesting article about it that just came out.  Some excerpts:

> How The Bundys Showcase A Growing Divide In Mormon Culture And Politics

==My perspective on "Mormon culture" is certainly finite, but I have not detected much of a "growing divide" (at least the one described in this article).

> Ammon Bundy, clad in the attire of a 19th-century frontiersman, stepped up to a soapbox in Minneapolis, and began fervently preaching to a crowd of onlookers.

> It was 1997, and “Elder” Bundy was a 21-year-old missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was celebrating the 150th anniversary of Mormon pioneers arriving in Salt Lake Valley. Local members in Minnesota donned costumes and pushed handcarts, and missionaries were invited to reenact the town-square sermonizing that had once been popular among religious proselytizers. Some of the shyer elders demurred — but not Bundy.

> “He was totally fearless. Definitely a leader,” recalled one former missionary who served with Bundy. “When he decides to dig in on something because he thinks it’s got some kind of a higher purpose, he’s not gonna back down.”

==I have a friend from my mission who was likewise "fearless."  Brash.  Bold.  I was excited to see him return to his native land (far away from Utah), as I thought he would be a great long-term strength to the Church there.  Alas, he lasted a while, then dropped everything about the Church.  It was a sad and sobering thing.  On this topic I think an article by Elder Oaks, "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," published in the October 1994 Ensign, is pretty much required reading for Latter-day Saints.

> Widely admired by peers at the time for his boldness and work ethic, Bundy spent several months serving as an assistant to the mission president (the highest position a young elder can hold) before eventually returning to his family’s rural hometown in Nevada, and losing touch with most of his fellow missionaries.

==Yeah, that happened with my friend as well.

> The next time they saw him, nearly two decades later, Bundy was on the news showing off his taser wounds amid a tense, high-profile standoff with the federal government over land rights. It was the spring of 2014, the beginning of a turbulent ascent that would soon turn him into a polarizing folk hero of the far right — and, increasingly, an embarrassment to his church.

==This characterization is, I think, largely true.  But then, the antics of Kate Kelly were also "an embarrassment," yet I do not recall any news media critiquing her in that way.  So while this characterization is accurate, the media's selective application of it is nonetheless problematic.

> On Monday, the Mormon church released a statement condemning Bundy’s militia for seizing control of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, where the group is refusing to leave unless the government meets its demands. “This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis,” the church’s statement read, adding that conflicts should “be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.”

==And that should, I think, settle the matter.

> But the militia showed no signs of standing down in the fourth day of the standoff — and in the meantime their rhetoric has been rife with references to LDS theology. One of the occupiers has identified himself to media only as “Captain Moroni,” a hero of the Book of Mormon, and Bundy himself said he was prompted to take up arms after receiving divine revelation that “the Lord was not pleased” with the injustices faced by ranchers in Oregon.

==I am not persuaded that ranchers in Oregon, who just happened to have had a lot of press about them over the past few years vis-à-vis tangling with the federal government, are - from an LDS perspective - within the spiritual stewardship of Ammon Bundy.  That is to say, if the Lord is "not pleased" with their plight, and if He wants something to be done about it, I am not sure why He would provide revelations on the matter to Ammon Bundy.  That's generally not the way revelation and stewardship are administered in the Church.  Add to that the express condemnation of his actions by the leaders of the LDS Church, and Mr. Bundy is left no quarter in terms of claiming some sort of religious/spiritual vindication for his actions.

==From a secular point of view, Ammon Bundy choosing to inject himself into this situation makes a lot of sense.  He and his family tangled with the feds just last year.  And there was quite a bit of notoriety about it.  And Ammon Bundy took pains to use social media to, how shall I put it, aggrandize himself and his feud with the feds (the above article has a large photo of Mr. Bundy *literally* showing off taser marks on his chest on April 11, 2014 after a confrontation with federal law enforcement officials).

==On balance, this appears to be far more about Ammon Bundy and his politics (and, sadly, his pride/ego) than about "revelation."

> The public split between the church and the Bundy militia highlights an increasingly deep cultural and political divide that runs through much of contemporary Mormonism.

==This raises an interesting point.  While I am not persuaded that there is widespread support in the Church for far-right, militant extremism such as we have seen from Mr. Bundy, I do think there are increasing "cultural and political divides" about other issues, the most prominent being A) same-sex marriage and the broader issue of homosexuality, and B) the roles/functions of women in the Church (including disputes about ordaining women to the priesthood).

> On one side of this rift is the religion’s mainstream majority, heavenbent on assimilating and thriving in American life; on the other is a narrower swath of doomsday “preppers,” Glenn Beckian gold hoarders, and fiercely anti-government libertarians whose more radical tendencies harken back to the faith’s founding.

==Again, I question how significant this other "side" really is.  Any thoughts?

> The growing political gulf between these two factions of Mormonism is on vivid display in the Bundys’ home state of Nevada — a key battleground in the 2016 Republican primary contest where candidates are already navigating the topography of the LDS landscape as they court the state’s disproportionately influential Mormon vote. (Though Latter-day Saints make up just 5% of the state’s population, they have comprised roughly 25% of GOP caucus voters in the last two presidential elections thanks to Romney.)

> “It makes me literally cringe when I hear the media report that some of these people are LDS,” said David Hall, a Mormon from Nevada, adding that when Bundy and his followers publicly suggest their actions are supported by church doctrine, “such statements border on apostasy.”

==I'm not sure it's appropriate for Mr. Hall to make such declaratory statements to the media about "apostasy."

> Todd Craney, who worked as deputy political director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, said the the typical Mormon caucus-goer in Nevada may sympathize with the Bundys on the federal land use issue — a hot-button debate throughout the American west — but is likely to find their civil disobedience alarming.

> “Mormon Republican voters in my experience are largely mainstream conservatives who are civic-minded Mitt Romney voters that don’t subscribe to the extreme tactics of a very small faction,” said Craney.

==That sounds about right.

> “Nevada Mormons spend quite a bit of time trying to blend in,” said one Nevada Mormon who, perhaps fittingly, asked to remain anonymous. He added, “If a presidential candidate came out and backed the Bundys, they would probably lose a lot more Mormon votes than they would gain.”

==That sounds about right, too.

> But the Bundys’ brand of Mormonism is not without its adherents. As BuzzFeed News’s Jim Dalrymple wrote, the church has a long history of conflict with the federal government that dates back to its earliest days, when founding prophet Joseph Smith organized a Mormon militia to protect the community from aggressors.

==This seems rather like a bit of muckraking.  The era of "conflict with the federal government" ended long ago, well before anyone now living was even born.

> While LDS doctrine holds that the United States is a modern Promised Land — and its Constitution a divinely inspired document — the religion’s culture also has a deeply ingrained suspicion of federal power.

==I'm not sure such suspicion of "federal power" is any more "deeply engrained" in LDS Americans, those of a socio-political "conservative" bent, that is, than that which is found in many other subgroups across America.

==It's also a little strange to read about such widespread "suspicion" in Mormons, while elsewhere reading about how over-represented Mormons are in many parts of the federal government.  If such suspicion of the federal government were really so widespread and acute, I would think there would be a reluctance for Mormons to work for the federal government.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by smac97

[Gray]

Is this not more about extreme libertarianism than it is extreme Mormonism? And even then, it's like half-understood libertarianism. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Is this not more about extreme libertarianism than it is extreme Mormonism? And even then, it's like half-understood libertarianism. 

Is there another kind of libertarianism? 

[Zakuska]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Is there another kind of libertarianism? 

[sheilauk]

On 1/5/2016 at 10:44 AM, rodheadlee said:

If we fully believe in obeying the law of the land then why are we not still British? Why was it ok to rebel against England?  

It wasn't.  But, hey, you won so we all have to live with it!

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

It wasn't.  But, hey, you won so we all have to live with it!

One day we will realize the error of our ways and return to the Empire.

[sheilauk]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

One day we will realize the error of our ways and return to the Empire.

Gone, all gone!   

Course, we could have a go at resurrecting it - I fancy being an Empress...

 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

Gone, all gone!   

Course, we could have a go at resurrecting it - I fancy being an Empress...

 

Here is how you go about rebuilding the Empire from a man who knows:

 

 

[saemo]

12 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

Gone, all gone!   

Course, we could have a go at resurrecting it - I fancy being an Empress...

 

Would you like to see, Britannia rule again, my friend?

[Zakuska]

18 minutes ago, saemo said:

Would you like to see, Britannia rule again, my friend?

Well technically they still do posses Josephs Pillow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone

That would make them the heir...

Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska

[sheilauk]

1 minute ago, saemo said:

Would you like to see, Britannia rule again, my friend?

No.  I was joking/teasing.  I don't really want to see any form of Empire by anyone.  Except the Lord's Kingdom.