January 14th, 2012

Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul

I have the pleasure of being on the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition for the Ron Paul 2012 campaign. The press release (included below) received a mention at Politico, and local coverage by the Deseret News and KSL.

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.

110 Responses to “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul”

  1. outside the corridor
    January 15, 2012 at 9:52 am #


    Thank you, Connor.

    I’ve been on your blog in the past. I’m a very active DPer–(Michael Nystrom’s site)–

    and sometimes it feels like an uphill battle on there as an LDS.

    I wouldn’t be on there if I didn’t respect other religions deeply; I wouldn’t be able to deal with some of the disrespect that does exist. Generally, there is great respect on there.
    And sometimes LDS DPers come on and get quite upset. I want to tell them to ‘calm down’–

    it does no good to become defensive.

    BUT, having said that, I almost wept when I saw this announcement on DP yesterday.

    I am far from the “Mormon corridor” , otherwise known as the intermountain West–

    very far. The church does exist where I live (with my family, my spouse is as Pro-liberty as I am)–

    but most of the people in my area support Mitt Romney, because they are so insecure with being such a minority religiously in this area–

    So, I was overjoyed. And I extend my great thanks to you–

    One little frustration. My spouse and I are not on facebook; is there any other way to communicate with other LDS about the campaign, etc.?

    We are planning to be very active, very soon–

    I can’t visit the official page without being a member of facebook; our membership on facebook is out of the question–

    bit frustrating, that.

  2. Rozann
    January 15, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    I finally found the answer to my question of What has Rep. Paul done in his 24 years in Congress? See http://www.thepiratescove.us/2011/12/27/exactly-what-is-ronpauls-legislative-record/

    Absolutely nothing! How is that leadership? How will he work with the congress as president? Will he issue an executive order forcing the congress to pass the legislation he wants? How will he LEAD the congress to the ends he envisions for this nation?

    We need a LEADER, not a dreamer.

  3. outside the corridor
    January 15, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

    who said, “I teach my people correct principles and let them govern themselves”?


    (to the above poster–“Rozann”)

    Ron Paul didn’t say it, but he has lived it–

  4. outside the corridor
    January 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    and, no, *we* do not need ‘leaders’. We’ve had enough of them. *We* have been led down the primrose path–

    by plenty of ‘leaders’–

    we need a man who honors the constitution–

    and whose personal life is exemplary–

  5. AV
    January 15, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    If all Ron Paul could do as President was to just stand guard for the Constitution & not let the Gadiantons in Congress pass or do anything else that undermines our rights, then he will go down as one of, if not ‘the’, greatest President of all time.

    Whereas, any of the other candidates seem to want to open the doors wide & roll out the red carpet to the Gadiantons & allow & help them continue to destroy our rights & freedoms.

  6. outside the corridor
    January 16, 2012 at 9:01 am #


    I looked at the link.

    Why do *you* weigh the success of a congressman based upon how many laws he/she passes? In a truly free society, there are very few laws.

    A person who passes few laws is a guardian of freedom. *We* don’t NEED all these laws. We are tied up in laws, bound up in laws, fettered by laws.

    I looked at that blog, and I noted in the comments section the accusations (false) against Dr. Paul, and I noted that some who commented called those who are supporting Dr. Paul names–

    is that the best that can be done?

    What is a leader? Where are *we* told in the scriptures that *we* need leaders? Are *you* certain that *you* are not wanting a king?

    If *we* truly believe in the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, *we* believe in governing ourselves. Dr. Paul respects that.

    Samuel sadly gave in to the people when they wanted a king, because they demanded a king.

    Judges had worked well, as they did in the Book of Mormon, but the Israelites wanted a king, a “leader”–someone who would make decisions for them–

    how very sad that they wanted to give up their agency in this way–

    *We* have been blessed with a constitutional government which has been eroded slowly and not so slowly in the past 200 years. SO many have tried to destroy this constitution which was inspired.

    What do *you* want from a “leader”? Your answer will say much about how well you understand concepts of liberty and agency.

    Again, I am rejoicing that Latter-day Saints are standing up and speaking up. I’ve been concerned about the constitution and liberty for many decades. I voted for Ron Paul in 1988. So–

    I guess I had better be quiet now.


  7. AV
    January 16, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    A true leader, civil or religious, first and foremost, above all else, protects and guards his people, from additional harm & evil.

    But, even though I think Ron Paul is by far the best running, I don’t think there is anyone out there who can save America at this point, except Christ. He is our only hope & prayer. We must pray for his return & deliverance.

    All we are doing now is rearranging the political deck chairs on the Titanic. We may save a few more people by our continued efforts to wake people up, which is wonderful, but I believe the ship is going down & it’s too late to save it.

  8. outside the corridor
    January 16, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    AV, I agree with you. I do. This is what I have felt and this is what my spouse and I say to each other.

    For that reason I was going to ‘stay out’ of the campaign entirely–

    but . . . I believe *I* will be held accountable for what I have tried to do, and I believe that Jesus Christ is pleased with Ron Paul.


    What *I* do believe Dr. Paul can do is to form a coalition, quite literally, of those people who are ready to wake up and care about the constitution.

    When Jesus comes, this will matter.

    A true coalition of those who want liberty; many of them will be ready to form a ‘true’ government when the Savior comes–

  9. AV
    January 16, 2012 at 2:18 pm #


    I agree with you. We still must do all we can to wake others up and help them prepare for the next phase, that is only for those who love true freedom.

  10. John
    January 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    I would be careful in citing what General Authorities have said in the past. In most cases they are speaking as men and not ecclesiastically. If you take everything they say as literal truths then you would have to accept every statement from J. Reuben Clark as truth and we now know that he harbored some very racist thoughts and was a supporter of National Socialism. But those comments were him speaking as a man, not as a ecclesiastical leader.

  11. TRON
    January 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm #


    Echoing what John said.
    James E. Faust, J. Golden Kimball, and Hugh Nibley( I know he’s not a church leader but was the best scholar we ever had) were all staunch Democrats.

  12. Brad
    January 16, 2012 at 4:19 pm #


    Thanks for the wild goose chase. I decided to research your claims about J. Reuben Clark and found many statements of his in support of the US constitution and personal property rights. I found no evidence that he supported National Socialism. As for his alleged racist comments, it would be tough to single his out against others that made similar “racist” statements such as Brigham Young, Moses, and oh yeah, God.

  13. AV
    January 16, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    No matter who the person is or what position they hold, even Prophet or Apostle, or whether they speak as a man or a leader, it is still ultimately up to us individually to discern, by study & prayer, whether they speak truth or error.

    It is the test of this life to see if we can be deceived or not, even by Church leaders who may be in error themselves.

    For anyone on earth can be wrong or fall or teach falsehoods or be deceived, usually unknowingly, and lead and teach people to do or believe wrong.

  14. Jim Davis
    January 16, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Rozann, really? Are you going to hop on every pro-Ron Paul article, make accusations about his record and then not even reply to people’s responses? The fact that Ron Paul has been the sole sane voice in congress throughout the past 30 years and that he’s only had a few bills pass should not be held against him. It just means he’s been true to the Constitution while the rest of congress has been busy violating the letter and spirit of it. Should we be so shallow as to gauge a person’s success based off of how much compromise and corruption they were able to spread? I believe Ron Paul’s success should be defined based off of his principles, which reflect truth, liberty and the rule of law- not by the number of bills the congress agreed to pass under his name. Don’t be an unprincipled pragmatist. Besides, Ron Paul has been much more successful at changing the dialogue going on in this country than any other candidate.

    I also agree with corridor. We don’t need more laws. We need to scale back.

  15. Mormons For Ron Paul Shirt
    January 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    Great post and good discussion. Add me to the list of folks that loves Ron Paul’s lack of new legislation.

    It always warms my heart when I hear people refer to him as “Dr. No” (I think Sean Connery would be proud).

    @AV-love the “Gadiantons in Congress” reference. Perfect label. Be a good book title too…

  16. Jim
    January 18, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    One problem I disagree with Ron Paul is that he says that marriage is a religious institution. Civil marriage can be totally secular and atheist in nature, and that is a freedom of U.S. citizen to have a recognized marriage as such.

    I am not sure its appropriate to compare Ron Paul with washington, Jefferson etc…totally different time period, different stage of development in history of the country with a different set of problems. Its not fair to either to compare them. If you studied the personal life and record of the founding fathers, do you think they might pass all the lds ideals?

  17. AV
    January 18, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    God was the one who instituted marriage, thus I believe he is the one who should decide everything about it.

    I do not believe that civil governments should have, or really do have, any right to authorize divorces and try to undo what God has joined together. Civil government’s involvement in divorce has created a terrible situation in our nation, which is bringing on it’s destruction, with it’s higher than 50% divorce rate that continues to climb as more and more marriages and families disintegrate.

    For God has warned anyone on earth, civil or religious, from trying to dissolve a marriage. For only God has that power and will decide such things in the next life.

    God has said that he does not even recognize civil divorces, they are as if they never happened to him, for marriage is indissolveable to him in this life. Thus divorced couples are still husband and wife in God’s eyes, for government never had the authority to separate them in the 1st place. And thus as Christ warned, either one commits adultery if they remarry.

    Except in cases of fornication, (premarital sins unknown to the other spouse) which means that the marriage was never entered into honestly & righteously in the 1st place.

    I also wonder if Ron Paul is against polygamy. I would think he would be, for it is unconstitutional and abusive to the equal rights & dignity of women.

    Joseph Smith constantly fought against polygamy his whole life and supported it’s constitutional ban. And if Joseph had made it to be President, he would have surely kept it illegal.

    This is important point to consider for the next President, for many groups are trying to get polygamy legalized today, along with SSM.

  18. Jim Davis
    January 18, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    AV, how is polygamy unconstitutional? Other than a law that congress passed, where in the Constitution does it grant the authority for congress to enact such a law?

    Also, where did you read that Joseph Smith fought against polygamy? He practiced polygamy himself. If he had been elected president there would have been no need to “keep it illegal” since it wasn’t “outlawed” until 1862…well after Joseph had been martyred (1844).

    Disclaimer: I am not pro-polygamy or anti-women.

  19. JJ
    January 18, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    Jim Davis… if you want to know more about AV’s (Amore Vero) views, go search ‘amore vero polygamy’ on ldsfreedomforum.com.

    I am neither promoting/condemning AV’s views. I just think this discussion has been hashed out by AV elsewhere, and does not contribute to Connor’s post.

  20. AV
    January 18, 2012 at 10:10 pm #


    The Constitution gives government the right and obligation to protect women or citizens against any form of abuse of their rights or dignity. And according to Prophets, Polygamy is abusive by it’s very nature, just like any other abomination is that our nation has laws to protect us against.

    Governments are instituted by God to uphold his laws, & polygamy is against God’s laws, especially according to Christ & Joseph Smith and all the teachings & scriptures they brought forth.

    You can find Joseph Smith’s constant teachings & warnings against polygamy online in the historical archives of the ‘Times & Seasons’ Newspaper of Nauvoo, the last few years of Joseph Smith’s life. Where he published most of his talks and writings and warnings to the Saints.

    You can also more easily read a large compilation of his published & documented teachings against it, in the book “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” at RestorationBookStore.org . You can read it there online for free.

    I do not believe Joseph ever lived polygamy, after reading his constant public and published testimony against polygamy and his warnings to the Saints, then & now, to not believe in the false rumors & claims that he was preaching or practicing it secretly & to not accept any person who preaches it or practices it, but to consider them an evil imposter.

    I can’t understand why anyone would believe anyone’s second hand claims ‘that supported & liked polygamy’, over Joseph’s own first hand testimony that he himself published during his life that preached against it?

    I have to side with Christ & the Prophet Joseph Smith’s own words, that can be proven he really said, not someone’s second hand claims who had every reason to lie, for they supported polygamy & had to justify it.

    I’m glad to hear you are not pro-polygamy, for that means the Spirit will have an easier time helping you feel & understand the truth of Joseph’s testimony against it. Those who like the thought of polygamy and thus support & believe in it, have a much harder time accepting Joseph’s teachings as truth.

  21. AV
    January 18, 2012 at 10:23 pm #


    Thanks for directing people to my other posts.

    I actually believe that the issue of polygamy is a very vital topic today for all of us to think about, & especially for this thread pertaining to Ron Paul or anyone running for President.

    It’s very important to know where candidates stand on this issue since so many are pushing for it’s legalization today and we will all very soon have to take a clear stand as to whether we really believe in & support it or not.

    We will also have to very soon decide for ourselves if Joseph lied to the Church his whole life & secretly lived it, or if he was an honest true Prophet & was sincere about how evil & vile it was & his warnings to us to never fall for it.

  22. outside the corridor
    January 19, 2012 at 10:44 am #

    AV and JJ . . .–

    fascinating ‘stuff’–

    As an LDS who believes the Book of Mormon is very literally the foundation of our religion (didn’t Joseph Smith say that as well as that he taught the people correct principles and let them govern themselves)–

    I will state *my* belief that very few LDS really study, rely on or understand the Book of Mormon.

    If *they* did, *they* wouldn’t support unconstitutional candidates, and *they* would understand the evil and conspiring men–

    (and women)

    I am also not pro-polygamy, though I haven’t bothered myself about it; it’s one of those ‘issues’ I have put on the ‘back burner’, hoping it can be sorted out someday.

    My ancestors wholesale gave it up with the Manifesto, and I have no ties to any modern polygamists. I always feel very sad when I think of modern polygamists–

    my spouse is a convert, so no polygamy there either–

    *I* believe that Jospeh Smith’s mission has been clouded by polygamy, so I appreciate AV’s words–

    perhaps it is time to find out more truths–

    I don’t know; I have been too busy studying the Book of Mormon and discovering, daily . . . truths there–

    but I mention this solely because I don’t really believe that most LDS base *their* faith upon the Book of Mormon–

    I have always felt a dichotomy between the words of Jacob (one of my favorite Book of Mormon prophets) and the practice of polygamy in the early church–

    but then I determined long ago not to judge those people, some of whom were my ancestors–

    to leave it alone and let Christ be the judge.

    In the meantime, *I* have never been tempted (nor my spouse) to be involved in plural marriage–

    *I* have never believed that anyone HAD to live plural marriage; I suppose that . . . if *I* really believe in individual agency (which I do both as an LDS and as a libertarian)–

    I will let others make whatever mistakes they choose to make–

    but I think polygamy is a hot topic politically and one that could cause even more problems than it already has (in the early church)

    Having said that, I do NOT believe that polygamists should be persecuted–

    I don’t think anyone should be persecuted–

    as for polygamy being ‘legal’, I agree with whoever said that marriage is a religious institution only and should not be government-guided.

  23. outside the corridor
    January 19, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    I want to add, to anyone who cares, that there ARE issues that I have not put on the ‘back burner’, about which I have studied and prayed and had personal revelation which *I* will not share, except with my spouse and possibly my children–

    *I* believe we each have individual ‘knowledge’ missions/callings–

    that are personal–

  24. Jim
    January 19, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    I stand by any atheist who decides to have a civil secular marriage. The constitution isn’t christian, and actually doesn’t say anything about god or gods or religion in general, thats why there had to be an amendement to cover that.

    The constitution would be a powerful document indeed if it could defend everyones dignity at all times. I don’t think it has that power. I am mostly meaning this as a joke, as I see people at times whom I think have very little dignity, and they appear to like it that way. For some people that is happiness.

  25. outside the corridor
    January 20, 2012 at 7:54 am #

    Jim, so, if an atheist or someone anti-“church” wants to have a ‘legal’ marriage, everyone has to have a ‘legal’ marriage?

    I completely do not agree.

    Marriage began as a religious function; even in primitive tribes it is a religious function.

    If atheists don’t have a social/cultural paradigm in which to marry, then certainly *they* can find one or make one–

    how many people have gathered friends and family around them and gone up onto a mountain and declared their vows–

    it could be done in front of an ‘elder’ of that family (an old person), with everyone witnessing it. Family and friends could witness it and sign their names, and it could be framed–

    there could be music and dancing, etc.–

    But why should everyone else have to have government permission to marry just so that atheists can receive the ‘benefit’ of a ‘civil’ marriage?

    This isn’t about dignity at all; this is about liberty.

    This isn’t about America being a Christian nation; trying to ‘make’ America Christian is one of the reasons there has been so much death and destruction and loss of liberty–

    marriage should not, ever, have the ‘sanction’ of government.

    The government does not ‘own’ people–

    From a strictly constitutional perspective, there is no validity to the argument that, because there are people without religion, the government should require everyone to be ‘licensed’ to marry–

  26. AV
    January 20, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    I can’t find anywhere in the scriptures where it says someone in authority has to marry people in order for it to be valid.

    Apparently any man & woman, even on a desert island, can just promise vows to each other & they are considered married by God.

    It’s ridiculous to think government has to give permission.

  27. TRON
    January 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    Since Connor’s spam blocker blocked my previous post, I’ll only put one hyperlink and see if it goes through.
    Initially I made a top ten list of why not to vote for Ron Paul but my list was assuming he is a Libertarian, which he doesn’t seem to be.

    So here’s a list of the ideas where he isn’t a Libertarian:

    1. Social Security (I thought he was going to take it away but nope)

    2. Medicare (again he’s not touching it)

    3. Medicaid (again he’s not touching it)

    4. Gold Standard (again he’s not going back to it)

    And here’s the maybe:

    5. He wants to make it so the products I buy don’t have to tell me what’s in them or how much. (This is a Libertarian ideal, but I can’t find Ron Paul’s official stand.)

    Just one hyperlink – I’ll see if it goes through. The info on the Gold Standard can be found on Wikipedia under “Political positions of Ron Paul.”

    Obama 2012

  28. Jim
    January 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

    Thank you for the information. If libetarians are not for disclosure of ingredients in food, you can count me out on supporting libetarianism. I firmly believe in truthfulness and full disclosure on ingredients in labling, as far as reasonably possible.

    Its a pet peeve of mine when there are unclear description in ingredients, such as ‘vegetable fat’, or dyes which are labled #7, #9 etc. I guess I could still look them up, but I can’t always remember at the supermarket what is what.

    For LDS that should be very, very important to avoid certain ingredients, like coffee, tea, tobacco products, or alcohol. For jews the list is much more extensive. I am not sure what for muslims. For vegetarians thats very important, and people with food sensitivities.

  29. TRON
    January 21, 2012 at 6:13 pm #


    This from the CATO institute the Libertarian think tank.


  30. TRON
    January 21, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    Now for the second half of the list of where I and Ron Paul just disagree with each other. Two hyperlinks failed so i’ll just do one. And again I’m dividing this in two because the spam blocker seems to only allow one hyperlink. 🙁

    6. Military cutbacks (Congress won’t let him cut it more than Obama is cutting it)

    7. He wants us to be like Pakistan economically (well, this one is still true)

    8. He’s a devotee of Austrian Economics instead of Keynesian economics (still true). But again I ask the Austrians, where is the hyperinflation you guys have been warning us about? 2011?s inflation rate was 2.2 percent. The Keynesians said it wasn’t going to happen and so far it hasn’t. It’s been four years now. How long do we wait or is your model wrong?

    Obama 2012

  31. TRON
    January 21, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Woot, it works.
    Connor you can delete the one’s above that were part of this. And to everybody else if they post later sorry for the repeat.

    And to finish my top ten list:

    9. Wants to eliminate our navy’s control of the oceans so we have free international commerce, which will send us back to a system where the local areas are controlled by the locals and we are charged for using their sea lanes (like it was for most of history). No more international waters. South China sea, anyone?
    (Again, I’m not sure what Ron Paul thinks on this)

    10. He wants the value of the dollar to be higher versus major currencies. This is absurd, since our food and housing is locally bought so the dollar being lower doesn’t effect the local economy. But a higher dollar just guarantees more imports and less manufacturing jobs here. A higher dollar usually only helps the rich.

    Obama, 2012

  32. outside the corridor
    January 23, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    to TRON and Jim,

    How much do you think ANY president can really change things?

    Which person do you think can do a better job? Or do you like things the way they are now?

    For the status quo?

    I have to say that neither of you really understands the concepts of liberty.

    You accept what you want to accept, as do I. You understand what you want to understand, as do I.

    But, I am wondering what your purpose is–

    I don’t have the time to refute, item by item, your protestations against what *you* perceive are Dr. Paul’s aims and goals. They are silly. He isn’t micromanaging as much as you assume. And he knows that he is limited. His greatest goal and desire is to inflame America, once more, maybe even for the first time, with a passion for the constitution–

    Yes, he plans to phase out many things–

    and perhaps congress will fight him on many things; there is no doubt of that–

    but are you REALLY content with things the way they are? And if so, what does that say about your points of view?

    Do you honestly think that your arguments are convincing to someone who has been studying the constitution and liberty for decades?

    You are either very young or very immersed in neo-conservatism and its supporting media.

    None of the other candidates want to CHANGE anything towards more liberty and sounder economy–

    things will go on, perpetual wars, debt, etc.–

    but someday the bubble will burst.

  33. outside the corridor
    January 23, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    here it is . . .



    about food labels, members of my family have to be on a special diet. The only SAFE way to ensure that they don’t get contaminated is to buy bulk and local and cook the foods (or grow them) ourselves. Yes, we do this–

    the idea that there has to be an ‘agency’ that tells *us* what is ‘safe’ and what is not safe is . . .

    well, it’s silly.

    But I think you’re misunderstanding Ron Paul here, too–

    no president should try to determine the details of our private lives, including our diet, but the U.S. government does–

    how do *you* feel about living in a country that has a higher percentage of its citizens in prisons than any other country in the world, for example?

  34. outside the corridor
    January 23, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    TRON, Ron Paul is not even mentioned in that article on Pakistan–

    I’m trying to be fair, and all I can see is that *you* are coming up with pro-Democrat ‘propaganda’–

    I am neither Republican nor Democrat; I’m not a partisan.

    I stand for the constitution.

  35. Jim
    January 23, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    Maybe I don’t understand what is being proposed. What I want is to know what is in my food, and what isn’t, and for the list to be an accurate representation of what it contains.

    I think that is the most empowering thing a person can have to empower personal choice. What takes away from that power is non-disclosure, when you don’t know how or with what a food has been treated, difficult or obscure descriptions. Is it GMO? is it hydrogenated? what is its country of origin? Wouldn’t it be nice to know if an item possibly has melamine, or lead? or comes from a country which has lower standards for food production and handling?

    I don’t think its silly to have some sort of regulation, one that is impartial. If its an agency that doesn’t do its job, because its not adaquately managed or funded, or if its corrupt, well then thats silly. I don’t know what it would be like to eat something without some sort of idea where it was produced, what was in it, who is responsible….if something happened along the way it could be traced back to the source. It could prevent a lot of problems from spreading. If you can propose something that works better, I think I would like to hear it. Can you trust corporations to be truthful in complete self regulation?

  36. TRON
    January 23, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    @outside the corridor

    Too many things… First you said I was a Neo Con, then you said I was a Democrat.

    Let me clear that up again. I’m a liberal Democrat.

    Second, you said “how do *you* feel about living in a country that has a higher percentage of its citizens in prisons than any other country in the world, for example?”

    I hate it, but as I’ve said on this blog before, I want drugs legalized, which would end most of this problem.

    Third, regarding labels on food – I don’t want the government telling me what to eat, just what’s in what I’m eating. You said, “The only SAFE way to ensure that they don’t get contaminated is to buy bulk and local and cook the foods (or grow them) ourselves. Yes, we do this–”

    AHHHH, I don’t *want* to do that! You promise me freedom then make me grow a stupid garden?!

    Last, the article on Pakistan shows the Libertarian Utopia – no taxes, no regulations, no welfare, no social security, only an army and navy for national defense. Ok, some of their social stuff is not Libertarian. And their military is bigger than the Libertarians would want, but it’s a close comparison.

    So that I’m not confused with a Neo-Con:

    Obama 2012

  37. TRON
    January 23, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    @outside the corridor

    Let me hit your hyperlink. I hope you’re right, that the Asian nations stop using the dollar. Then the dollar goes down against the currencies of China, India, Japan, Iran and Russia. Good. Let’s be optimistic and say it goes down 50%. Chinese goods go up 50% in our country due to the dollar dropping 50%. As of 2010, we import 364 billion dollars worth of goods from China and export 92 billion. With our goods 50% cheaper to China, we will export a lot more of our goods to China. And our importing of Chinese goods will go down significantly, which means more jobs here. And how about Japan? If that Toyota that’s $20,000 goes up to $30,000 but the $20,000 Chevy remains $20,000… well, more Chevys are sold and we get more jobs here.

    Economists have estimated that the dollar being the world’s back up currency only earns the US about 0.1% of GDP – about 15 billion a year.

    I can’t do two hyperlinks (spam blocker), so google “don’t worry about the euro” and choose the top one.


    Foreign governments own 4.5 trillion US dollars. Are they going sell it all? If so, it would be at a huge loss and we may get the 50% drop after all. If not, then the US dollar remains the reserve currency.

    So, the dollar will most likely continue to be the world’s reserve currency. But if it doesn’t, who cares? The jobs we gain through exports will more than make up for it.

  38. outside the corridor
    January 24, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    The FDA is a mixed bag, and not everything that is regulated or even labelled is accurate. I guess *my* concern is that to place so much confidence in one governmental agency is not “safe” either–
    Yes, the corporations are not trustworthy. I don’t believe in corporatism any more than I believe in overgrown government agencies.
    It is in the best interests of food producers and marketers to label their foods. Even now, with the FDA firmly in place, many food products are not specified as non or GMO, etc.
    There are many gaps. Why not try to improve the system?

    Tron, I agree with you about drugs; I have nothing against liberal Democrats. Are you also anti-war? Liberal Democrats used to be–

    As for the economy, I know that America can’t prosper without sound money.

    NO ONE CANDIDATE has all the perfect answers to all of these finely detailed concerns, such as the FDA, etc.–

    What I want to say is that to condemn Dr. Paul because he wants a free market economy, where producers ARE answerable to the consumer (yes, I like Ralph Nader, too)–
    isn’t very sound.

    Depending upon others to protect us, Tron, with regards to food–

    will bring with it risks. Even with the FDA firmly in place, there are abuses all around. Have you seen the video Food, Inc., for example?

    Monsanto is out of control; have any of the recent presidents done anything to help small farmers? No–
    yet, small farmers, especially organic, are the hope of the future–
    Dr. Paul is all for legalizing raw milk, for example, and he is against crony capitalism.

    Gardens aren’t stupid. Nobody is requiring anybody to grow one, but it is one simple way to know what kind of produce is going in the bodies of you and your family members.

  39. outside the corridor
    January 24, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    the language in the following youtube is very offensive; turn down the sound, if you wish–

    the message is relevant–

    in 10 degree weather in Chicago a 5 or 6 block line of people turn out to apply for jobs at a Ford plant–

    just with the hope of getting work; there aren’t anywhere near enough jobs for all of those people; it’s just for the hope–

    I highly recommend that *you* (any of you) turn off *your* FOX and CNN or whatever they are, and start looking around with your own eyes.

    Whatever is or isn’t happening with the global economy, things are not getting better in the U.S.

    Right here in my ‘neck of the woods’ there are more people being layed off ALL the time–

    the economy is not improving–

    it may or may not be ‘too late’, but–


  40. TRON
    January 24, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    @outside the corridor

    Let’s see, last thing first. If I lived in Chicago I would probably be a Republican. Chicago, like some other big and old American cities, is a good example of Democrats going too far to the left. Unions are lots of times too powerful and too close to the mob. Government housing is a nightmare, along with rent control. Government can interfere too much and make matters worse than doing nothing would. If I remember right Chicago also won’t allow Walmart. So while I think most of the country needs to go further to the left there are some places that I think actually need to go further to the right.

    Innovation is very important and too much union control seems to destroy that. And in the modern economy this is very destructive. I think the U.S. is heading out of this recession now. But I think cities like Chicago and Detroit have all the flaws I mentioned above and hence will be way slower to come out and won’t come out as well as the rest of the country. They should copy New York, which has slowly weaned itself off of the same problems and hence improved dramatically.

  41. outside the corridor
    January 25, 2012 at 1:04 pm #

    TRON, you sound like a good-hearted person . .

    and I don’t think you will be able to take anything I say seriously as long as you are a partisan.

    You do seem to believe that parties make a difference.

    I saw above that you are concerned about Dr. Paul cutting military spending (i.e. foreign wars)–

    and yet you say you are a ‘liberal democrat’.

    Either a liberal democrat is a different ‘being’ in 2012 from what a liberal democrat was in 1964 . . .

    or you couldn’t be one.

    Liberal democrats were against the Viet Nam war and would have been against American involvement in the middle east–

    liberal democrats were concerned about human rights and would be carrying signs that read: “Free Gaza!”–

    so, no, you’re not a neo-conservative (at least by label); I am sorry if you thought I called you one; I was thinking of Jim when I used that label (labels ARE silly)–

    but you are a neo-liberal . . . a different ‘animal’ from a liberal democrat–

    but, as I said, parties mean nothing anymore–

    not a thing–

    *sad and glad*

    I’ve never believed in parties, so I’m not sad, but it is hard to figure out what anyone believes–

  42. TRON
    January 25, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    @ outside the corridor

    LOL, I live in Utah county, Utah. A liberal Democrat here is someone who owns less than ten guns. I own eight.

    Ahh, let’s see, some things I believe that makes me think of myself as a liberal:

    I supported “Obamacare” but I really wanted the “public option”.

    I thought the stimulus should have been about two trillion dollars.

    I think the rich should pay a 40% tax rate before anyone else pays a dime. And the poor should never be taxed. Ron Paul would support a sales tax if we need more revenue, automatically taxing the poor. (I’ll never understand that.)

    You asked about the war stuff. Well, if you can believe it, I supported going to Afghanistan, but even more shocking, I supported going to Iraq. I was hoping a Democracy in the center of the Middle East could slowly spread and make it way less likely that we would have wars in the future in the Middle East (since no Democracy has ever gone to war with another Democracy). Well, we did get the Arab spring but I don’t know if Iraq had anything to do with it. If I had known the level of incompetence of the Bush administration in Iraq, I would have opposed the war. The same is true with Vietnam.

    So there you are, now you can call me anything you want. 🙂

  43. outside the corridor
    January 25, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Utah is a culture I have labored to understand . . .

    and probably never will–


    pro-war, eh?

    Ah well–

    are you . . . LDS?

    How do you ‘square’ the middle east with the righteous generals of the Book of Mormon?

    Especially considering that it is well-known, now, that such dictators as Hussein (in Iraq) were educated in the U.S. school of the CIA and brought into power by covert U.S. operations–

    These things are not ‘theory’; several former CIA officers have testified of these things–

    I never have been able to understand how LDS can justify the sorts of things that the U.S. has been doing in the middle east–

    considering that when the Nephites were righteous they refused to go against the Gadiantons and only prepared to defend themselves when the Gadiantons came to them–

  44. Liz
    January 25, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    Well, you do have to compromise some of your personal beliefs as a Latter-day Saint in order to get fully behind Ron Paul. His moral relativism I find unattractive. His unwillingness to stand up for Judeo-Christian ethics I find cowardly. His antipathy for the Jewish state is a big unnatural.

  45. Liz
    January 25, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    Latter-day Saints should convert Ron Paul, not necessarily vote for him. How’s that?

  46. outside the corridor
    January 26, 2012 at 8:01 am #

    Liz, where have you gotten your information?

    It is not correct.

    If I make an attempt to refute what you say, you won’t agree with me, because you have been listening to people who do not know Paul, obviously.

    But I will still try.

    Tell me what you think moral relativism is. The man was an OB/GYN and refused to participate in abortion.

    How are his ethics not “Judeo-Christian”; he believes in the bible and in the constitution–

    more probably than any other candidate. Did early prophets (including Joseph Smith in the D&C) not tell *us* that the constitution is an inspired document?

    As for ‘antipathy’ for the Jewish state, how? He doesn’t want Israel’s ‘enemies’ to have foreign aid either, and Netanyahu himself told the American congress that Israel can (and does) take care of itself.

    He doesn’t believe it is the responsibility of America to direct the affairs of any other nation–how is that unnatural?

    Where do you get your information?

    Ron Paul is an America-first statesman. He is a gentleman and a man of solid and consistent principles. Has that become an anathema to Americans?

    I find it remarkable that so many who describe themselves as LDS . . . have such a lack of understanding about the constitution and the religion they claim–

    and why aren’t *you* more comfortable on a pro-Romney or a pro-Gingrich or a pro-Santorum blog?

    I come here to read Connor’s insightful pro-libertarian essays–

    and I end up arguing with people who seem as unlike LDS to me–

    or more so than the Catholics and Lutherans who are my neigbors–

    and, Liz, how did you come up with my compromising ‘some of my personal beliefs’–from any of the things I said to anyone.

    I did say that I couldn’t understand (to TRON) how LDS could justify the middle eastern wars after reading the Book of Mormon.

    I am attempting to speak Greek to Romans . . .–

    or French to Koreans–

    as the young people say these days, “a total disconnect”–

  47. outside the corridor
    January 26, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    I just realized that there is no point in being defensive and argumentative.

    I realize that I was . . . astounded by your statements, and so I responded somewhat emotionally, for me, anyway–

    I will assume you want to have a reasonable discussion.

    Rather than, on a blog ‘authored’ by a Ron Paul supporter, ‘defending’ Dr. Paul, to whom I have listened for almost three decades–

    I will ask you several questions. I think these are reasonable.

    I am not condemning or making blanket statements about any of the following people–

    but will you tell me in what ways the following people represent values that the “LDS” will not have to compromise their principles in order to support?

    –Barak Obama
    –Mitt Romney
    –Newt Gingrich
    –Rick Santorum

    I may be making an assumption that *you* are interested in any of these people, and if this is not so, there won’t be any need to discuss this further–

    but . . .

    which people DO support LDS values and, if you believe they do, how do you prove that, both by their records and their speaking?

    You will need to be specific enough that the actual value (both LDS and of the individual) can be understood.

    Your brush with regards to Ron Paul is very broad–

    You will need to be more specific as to how you believe he is morally relative, doesn’t have or support Judeo-Christian values and is antipathetical to Israel.

    I can tell you that he believes in agency. Individual agency, something which LDS highly value or did . . . in the pre-mortal existence. He believes that the individual has the right to choose how to live, believe and act, wherein the liberty or rights or life of another human being (including the unborn) are not violated.

    I don’t see how that contradicts LDS belief.

    He speaks for agency, and he votes for agency.

    “Judeo-Christian” is very broad, but Dr. Paul has privately (not publicly) confessed that Jesus Christ is his Savior.

    As for being anti-Israel, that, also, will have to be proven.

    I assume that you have expoused the neo-conservative expression of “support” for Israel being the waging of pre-emptive wars against countries that have not attacked either Israel or the U.S.–and I wonder how Dr. Paul’s being against those wars could be equated with his being anti-Israel, the state which you called “the Jewish state”.

    There are, by the way, quite a few Jews who are libertarians AND who support Ron Paul. Many Israelis themselves are not fully pleased with how their *own* (I am trying to avoid collectivism, so I use asterisks now and again) government is being run. There are Jews who do not believe that it is in the best interests of either America or Israel or Judaism for America either to control Israel or to fund Israel–
    Dr. Paul is less ‘extreme’ in that he believes Israel should be left alone (as with all other countries) to determine her direction on her own and not have interference from the U.S.–
    There are Jews who believe that Israel has taken a ‘wrong turn’, so to speak, and there are Jews who criticize Israel.

    Noam Chomsky is a liberal Jew who criticizes both the U.S. and Israel, and I happen to think highly of him.

    There is a group of Israeli Jews in Israel who support Ron Paul, by the way–

    here is one who is very inspiring:


    “liberals”, “conservatives”, Democrats, Republicans, Independents–

    Americans AND Israelis are beginning to question policies that have not worked and have wrought horrific destruction to innocent people–

    Yes, there are American Jews who are also supporting Ron Paul; there are quite a few active groups in various states–

    I will wait patiently for you to show me evidence that any of the other candidates are more in line with LDS and “Judeo-Christian” values (by the way, “Judeo-Christian” is a questionable label; many Jews don’t appreciate the connection, and most Christians who use it see Jews only as people to convert to Christianity–LOL!)

  48. Rachel
    January 26, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    I am LDS. I have studied the constitution. I have studied the Book of Mormon, more intensely as of late. Alma through 3rd Nephi 6 or so is very informative as to our current state of affairs in this country and how God would have us handle it. I support Ron Paul. He is the only honest candidate and the only candidate who has a consistent record. As for not accomplishing anything in Congress, that is why I admire him. Those men are in Washington D.C. making laws in all kinds of areas where the federal government has no business. Ron Paul votes “no” on any legislation that is not within the powers of Congress as designated in the Constitution. The problem is, if they all did that, they would lose their “careers”, a term Bob Bennett used when he was voted out.

    We are in serious trouble. I am with those who said that the only one who can save America is Christ. It is because the people are choosing wickedness, and many of the LDS members are doing it ignorantly because they have not studied it out: “Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon all the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written…For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.”

    I also believe that I will be held accountable for my choices when I vote. We should support those who uphold the constitution—honest men, wise men, and good men should be diligently sought and upheld. (D&C 98:5-10)

  49. Jim Davis
    January 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm #


    Just because Ron Paul doesn’t believe in legislating vices doesn’t make him a moral relativist. Accusing him of being such reminds me of what Frederic Bastiat said about confusing government’s role with society’s role:

    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.

    Apparently if we object legislating vices then we are moral relativists… or opposed to morality at all?

  50. Jim
    January 26, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    That would be interesting, christ running for office.

    OTC-Well you got that right, after reading even just a little bit from jewish webpages, I can see how most jews consider christianity a heresy. Its pretty reasonable, as most christians think of more modern movements as being ‘cults’ if its not in alignment with their religious ideas. Like LDS, Bahais, christian science etc…Jews should not be singled out as someone to convert, for christians, anyone that isn’t a christian is someone to convert.

  51. Jim
    January 26, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    Jim D,
    On moral relativists, is that really a bad thing? I am confused, I thought that LDS people believed that one was judged according to ones level of knowledge. One persons capacity and willingness to obtain knowledge differs from another person, also in what capacity one is operating in the world will affect perception. That sounds like moral realtivism. For instance Thomas Monson cannot operate within the same ethical sphere as a new convert to mormonism, especially if they converted from a philosophy that was very, very different.

    I found this curious statement from the D&C
    “It is impossible for a man to be asaved in ignorance.There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;We cannot asee it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.”

    A lot of people are ignorant of this statement. For an atheist spirit simply doesn’t exist at all. The statement is also directly opposite of some religions in the world. Some believe that matter is spirit ultimately, but a more dense and ‘gross’ form. Its sort of the same statement, but inverse, placing ‘spirit’ above physical. So, someone will most likely operate differently depending upon how one percieves and understands reality, and understanding of how the world works. There are a few theories about ethical developement and ethical hierarchy that will confirm that not everyone is operating from the same vantage point.

  52. Jim Davis
    January 26, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    LDS doctrine is incompatible with moral relativism:

    Thomas S. Monson:

    “Brethren, none within the sound of my voice should be in any doubt concerning what is moral and what is not, nor should any be in doubt about what is expected of us as holders of the priesthood of God. We have been and continue to be taught God’s laws. Despite what you may see or hear elsewhere, these laws are unchanging.” (Dare to Stand Alone)

    Neal A. Maxwell:

    “As prophesied, ethical relativism is now in steep crescendo: “Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world” (D&C 1:16).” (Deny Yourselves of All Ungodliness)

    Relativism involves the denial of the existence of absolute truths and, therefore, of an absolute truthgiver, God. Relativism has sometimes been a small, satanic sea breeze, but now the winds of relativism have reached gale proportions. Over a period of several decades relativism has eroded ethics, public and personal, has worn down the will of many, has contributed to a slackening sense of duty, civic and personal. The old mountains of individual morality have been worn down. This erosion has left mankind in a sand-dune society, in a desert of disbelief where there are no landmarks, and no north, no east, no west, and no south! There is only the dust of despair! …Theories based on relativistic ethics are congenitally and fatally flawed, and these have created the greatest confusion around the very issues that matter most.” (Some Thoughts on the Gospel and the Behavioral Sciences)

    Larry W. Gibbons:

    “In this day of moral relativism we must be prepared to take a stand and say, “This is right, and this is wrong.” (Wherefore Settle This in Your Hearts)

    D. Todd Christofferson:

    “We need strong Christians who can make important things happen by their faith and who can defend the truth of Jesus Christ against moral relativism and militant atheism.” (The Power of Covenants)

    I argue that those who force others (through government) to live up to their ideals subscribe to moral relativism. For how else would they justify their use of force if not through relativism? I believe what George Albert Smith wrote in his creed:

    “I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.”

  53. outside the corridor
    January 27, 2012 at 7:02 am #

    I appreciate what both Jim(s) say–LOL!

    I MUST read Bastiat, Jim D.–

    Jim, you make some good points about moral relativism–

    I am an individualist, and I have grappled with the Lord telling Nephi to kill Laban–

    though I accept that it happened, and I accept that the Lord told Nephi to do it–

    so I understand that exceptions (to *us*) exist, though obviously to God they are not exceptions.

    Collectivism implies that the greater good for the group will sacrifice the rights of the individual, so I . . . have a conflict over that–

    but God has His own Plan–

    so, yes, Thomas S. Monson has more to account for than a new convert from . . . Timbuktu.

    Thank you, Rachel. Sometimes it gets lonely in my ‘neck of the woods’–


  54. Jim
    January 27, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    Mr. Davis,
    I thought of another example of moral relativism, the LDS doctrine of ‘three degrees of glory’. On the website ‘Confident christianity’ its a criticism of the LDS faith that it fails to adaquately address sin and evil. In mainstream christianity, any sin is a failure to meet the holiness of god. In the LDS faith one can still achieve some ‘glory’ despite some level of sin. So, I think the leadership hasn’t really thought out their statements, or are purposely avoiding this logical conclusion around relative morality.

    OTC great comment

  55. Pierce
    January 27, 2012 at 11:58 am #


    “For instance Thomas Monson cannot operate within the same ethical sphere as a new convert to mormonism, especially if they converted from a philosophy that was very, very different.”

    I do not believe that Thomas Monson should be trying to operate in the ethical sphere of somebody else. As a prophet, it’s his responsibility to help the world align its morality to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Moral relativism is the antithesis to principles. Under it, principles bend to whatever is deemed popular or seemingly necessary at the time. Only God has the power to truly determine morality, and that is a big reason that prophets continue to exist.

  56. outside the corridor
    January 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    one thing that I have read over and over again in scripture is that God’s ways are not man’s ways–

    LDS who have spent a great amount of time reading and studying the scriptures know that God’s language is different from man’s language, and most linguists realize that the languages of human beings are corrupt and incomplete–

    this explains a lot of things–

    no matter how HARD a person tries to have communication that is not corrupted, it’s simply not possible.

    The natural man being an enemy to God means so much more than just ‘cussing and smoking’ (LOL!)–

    it means that being human divides us from God–

    in a very real way, in every possible way–

    so . . . getting bound up in words can . . . be a real pain.

    *trying to lighten things up and still make a point*

  57. jim
    January 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    In theory an LDS prophet has the power to take the church in any direction he feels ‘inspired’ to take it. If anyone follows is completely up to the masses or an individual in the masses. Its sort of like asking ‘is the pope catholic?’

    “Moral relativism is the antithesis to principles.” not really, its based upon what you know and understand. I personally don’t consider the LDS faith to be true. I also think that perhaps the leadership knows that its not true, but has reasons to keep it going. Either economically, or for a sense of stability. For instance the Worldwide church of God eventually declined on a number of doctrinal statements and basically said it wasn’t the only true church/religion anymore. I think that would be too bewildering for the membership if the LDS church did the same thing.

  58. jim
    January 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    I never understood that statement of the ‘natural man being an enemy of god’ as some sins are deemed ‘unnatural’. Personally I shy away from condemning natural states of the human condition. Personally I think that UNnatural states are a bad condition, like not recognizing your needs and desires in life, if they are not recognized its very likely to get disorted or displaced.

    I simply don’t get it, cussing and smoking? Sure those are against LDS ideals, but really in a lot of other religions those are either not offenses or minor offenses. In some religions there simply is not any seperation from god at all, and one can never be.

  59. outside the corridor
    January 29, 2012 at 8:00 am #

    Jim, I was trying to be ‘funny’–

    you didn’t get it, but that’s all right. I was making ‘light’ of the ‘sins’ that many LDS get worked up about, which are so very minor–

    the point I was trying to make is that our language is imperfect–

    so we don’t often ‘get’ what God is trying to say; nor do we always ‘get’ what others are trying to say.

    In other words, be kinder to yourself and others?

    It was meant to be . . . encouraging–

  60. Jim
    January 29, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

    ok great. I take things too seriously….

  61. TRON
    January 30, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    If you want to see how well Ron Paul’s (Austrian) economics will work. Read this. Paul Krugman has a noble prize in economics.


    So yes let’s cut back government, if we want another great depression.

  62. Liz
    January 30, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    I like Ron Paul. I think he contributes to the dialogue, no doubt. So no hostility please.

    He does want to legalize prostitution and drugs. He equates their value to society with marrying and raising a family, or perhaps with attending church. Reality indicates these things are not all of equal value to society.

    Although this country was founded on Judeo Christian morals and institutions, Mr. Paul would just as soon erase those foundations by erasing them from our legal and legislative systems. Read the Book of Mormon if you want to know what happens next when you do that.

    Finally, Mr. Paul allegedly wishes Israel did not exist. Read the Book of Mormon AND the Bible, and you find out why that is an uncomfortable position for an LDS person to support.

    Finally, having little to do with religion, Mr. Paul has been in government for decades and has been compromised. He does stand alone, but he has been unable to build coalitions or be persuasive with his ideas. He is a hard idealogue.

    Would I vote for him over Obama? Yep. Would I vote for him over a God-fearing candidate? Nope.

  63. Liz
    January 30, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Plus Ron Paul has little birdie arms.

    Just kidding! Relax.

  64. Jim Davis
    January 30, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Liz, that’s a major distortion of Ron Paul’s views. He isn’t about “legalizing” drugs and prostitution. He argues that the federal government has no authority to criminalize these things. If you believe in the Bill of Rights then you’d also believe that since the federal government doesn’t have a certain authority then it is left to the states and people (10th amendment). He also cites the first amendment as an argument for freedom of religion/expression when he speaks about marriage…another issue that the federal government has no authority to make laws concerning.

  65. Jim Davis
    January 30, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    Liz also says:

    “Mr. Paul allegedly wishes Israel did not exist.”

    This is also a major distortion from the truth. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, said the same things that Ron Paul has been saying regarding America’s role in his nation. Watch this video where he says that Israel doesn’t need America’s interventions.

    This video also does a fair job in dispelling the myth that Ron Paul is anti-Israel and in explaining that his views are more in favor with Zionism and Israel’s sovereignty than is often reported by some Fox news jingoists.

    As I read the Book of Mormon I find no evidence that we should be sending our military to impose our will around the world. I do see an argument that we can be a sanctuary for a people who are being exterminated by there own nation. Maybe Liz can provide examples of what she means by- “Read the Book of Mormon AND the Bible, and you find out why (Ron Paul’s stance towards Israel) is an uncomfortable position for an LDS person to support.”

    President Benson supported Ron Paul’s position towards Israel (and all nations) when he said:

    Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies.” (America at the Crossroads, August 30, 1969.)

  66. outside the corridor
    January 31, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    TRON, that’s “Nobel”. “Noble” is a nice word, but it means something else–


    I agree with Jim Davis. You made a very good point about giving people refuge. Unfortunately, neither America nor England gave refuge to Jews before WWII. Bad move.

  67. outside the corridor
    January 31, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    Liz, I’m disappointed. You didn’t answer my questions, and your ‘case’ against Dr. Paul is too, too vague.

    I offered to discuss this with you reasonably and factually, but you came back with the same fuzzy stuff–

  68. Carissa
    January 31, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    “He does want to legalize prostitution and drugs. He equates their value to society with marrying and raising a family, or perhaps with attending church”

    Not buying it. Why did people in the early 1900’s go to all the trouble of passing a constitutional amendent to prohibit alcohol? Was it because they knew that was the only legitimate way to give the federal government that power? Were they stupid or are we cutting some corners with our federal war on drugs?

  69. TRON
    January 31, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    @outside the corridor

    Ahh 🙂

    That’s embarrassing. Nobel Nobel Nobel

    See what happens when my wife doesn’t check it before I hit “Submit”.

  70. Liz
    February 1, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    Outside the corridor, you don’t pay me enough to do your thinking for you. I have done it, BTW, I just don’t have the time to lay out several pages in the comments section of the esteemed Connor Boyack’s blogsite. Freedom is a two-sided coin – the other side is responsibility which infers morality. That’s what Mr. Paul lacks as far as I am concerned.

  71. Liz
    February 1, 2012 at 8:31 am #

    Oooh. Lot’s of good stuff here. Mr. Davis, read the rest of what Uncle Benson wrote and said on this matter. Better yet, do you believe the mandate in the Book of Mormon that lays out the duty of this nation to export freedom and Godliness to the rest of the world? I think not, based on your comments. I’ve compared Ron Paul’s position on foreign policy to a man living next door to a battered woman. He sees her bloodied and weeping on her front porch daily, but turns away saying, “I’m sure she doesn’t want anyone meddling in her affairs.” A safe position no doubt, popular with pacifists and the timid, but moral? Absolutely not.

  72. Liz
    February 1, 2012 at 8:32 am #

    Get some religion, Mr. Paul!!! Then I would support you.

  73. outside the corridor
    February 1, 2012 at 9:20 am #


    You have poor blog manners–

    There is no scripture in the Book of Mormon that lays out of the duty of ‘this nation’ to export freedom and Godliness–

    but if there is . . . ‘this nation’ is not equipped to do it, being morally unsound in every possible way.

    You claim there is such a mandate, and I have read and studied the Book of Mormon, and I haven’t found it, so, I am asking you to tell me where it is. Or is it your secret? Do you have a private copy of the Book of Mormon that only you have access to?
    The believers in Christ are always asked to teach the ‘rest of the world’ the truth, but *you* are making a huge assumption to equate believers of Christ with America and America’s current foreign policy.

    As for Dr. Paul’s neighbor being battered and his not helping, that doesn’t fit either–

    the idea that America has ‘ helped’ battered people in other nations is a complete fallacy. America’s military regime and foreign policy has exported terror.

    So, we will not be able to agree, very obviously.

    I never said that I paid you; I don’t know what that has to do with a discussion on a private blog. I asked you to substantiate your claims, and you continue to make vague comments that aren’t scriptural. Your writing is rudely done (“Uncle Benson”?)

    I won’t be able to have a discussion with you.

  74. Carissa
    February 1, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    Liz, on the subject of “exporting freedom and godliness to the world” have you read this talk by J Reuben Clark? http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/let-us-have-peace/

    Do you agree or disagree with him? I am confused what your position is.

  75. outside the corridor
    February 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    I didn’t edit my last post, and it may not make sense–

    I’m sorry. “Everyone” has a ‘private’ Book of Mormon; I don’t lend mine out either. I mean: a copy that has a theology in it that differs from all the Books of Mormon I have seen/read–

    I don’t mean any unkindness; I hope you know that, Liz–

    Perhaps I just don’t get your sense of humor.

    I don’t want to provoke you or make you feel criticized–

    I just needed to tell you that I am not going to be able to communicate with you, because we obviously don’t have a common “language”, either in political understanding or in methods of writing–

    Having said that, however, I know there are people who are gifted at communicating with those who don’t speak the same ‘language’ philosophically–

    and I take my hat off to them–

    Since it’s obvious that neither of *us* (Liz and OTC) is going to convince the other of anything, and since it appears that there really isn’t any sort of mutual understanding, I am just throwing in the towel.

    I mean no rudeness myself in telling you that, Liz.

    If there is anyone else on this blog of Connor’s that wants to be a support to others who are isolated Ron Paul supporting LDS–

    I am here–


  76. outside the corridor
    February 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    TRON, you’re ‘teachable’; that’s good–

  77. Liz
    February 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    We will not be able to agree. Maybe you would take it from Cleon Skousen? I do believe we have different copies of the Book of Mormon. Maybe for different reading levels.

    (Relax! Just yanking your chain!)

  78. Liz
    February 1, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    Yes Carissa, that was a good little article that I agree with. I do not think a Barack Obama should send our military anywhere. He does not have American values and would use force (and has done so) where it is not warranted. I do not think Ron Paul should manage troops. I don’t think he cares enough, or has the proper moral compass to use them properly.
    I do believe in a strong military, I believe as a general rule that we should stop aggression before it hits our borders. I agree with yours and Reuben J. Clark’s premise that this country has not stayed true to the Judeo-Christian morality required of the people that inhabit this land in order to warrant God’s full protection. I still believe, however, that even so this country has the best environment you’ll get worldwide as far as Christian living is concerned. It is a battle. Ron Paul believes this country has no moral obligation to the world. I believe that is contrary to what is taught in our church, and in the Book of Mormon. I know for a fact that Ezra Taft Benson believed this country had a duty to live Christian law and export democracy to the world. Not through force. I also know for a fact he believe in a strong defense. I find Ron Paul, although he has a traditional family and is decent enough, to be very spiritually weak. Did you see him in that values summit, or conference some months ago? It was very apparent that things of a spiritual nature are awkward and foreign to him. That shapes his view of the world. He feels America has no moral authority, because he has no moral authority. That’s weak. I also think it is not America’s true nature. It is the attitude of a freeloader, or a weakling. did I explain myself clearly? So, in average peaceful times, a Ron Paul type would be OK. In times of crises like now, that type of passiveness would be idiocy.

  79. Liz
    February 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    He’s definitely a “not my brother’s keeper” type of guy, and since he doesn’t share my values, I’d just as soon not have him be my keeper. I definitely don’t want him as my president, however. Say he lets Iran get their nukes, which he’s stated he’s inclined to do, and they inadvertently use it on us, and he’s up in Air Force 1 over the border to Canada shouting out, “I gave you your freedom, buy your guns, get your gask masks, every man for himself!” It may be “libertarianism” more than cowardice, but they look an awful lot alike in people with no or limited moral compasses. You think?

  80. Carissa
    February 1, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    Thanks for your response, Liz. But dang, you see RP so differently than I do, I wouldn’t even know where to start…
    In what way, specifically (absent the use of force, as you mentioned) would you expect our political leaders to “export democracy” to other countries? I assume setting an example/having friendly relations is not enough? Would you bribe them with foreign aid or something?

  81. Carissa
    February 1, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    A few quotes from the above article (with which you said you agreed with). Tell me if these things do not sound nearly identical to the policies Ron Paul is advocating:

    “A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live.”

    “We can and should mind our own business and let others do the same.”

    “In my view, our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now” 

    “We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation and as a world, the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount. There is no other way.”

  82. Carissa
    February 2, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    (Worth reading if one wishes to more deeply understand the personal views of J Reuben Clark w/ respect to America’s foreign policy):


  83. Liz
    February 2, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    I agree with “Live and let live.” Hitler was not letting live. 9-11 terrorists were not letting live. I almost choked when Ron Paul preached the Golden Rule as his foreign policy. Just like you wouldn’t practice the Golden Rule if you are being raped and stabbed by someone in a ski mask, you have to understand that the Golden Rule Doctrine will be a one-way street with most of the Middle East, and others. I like better Reagan’s philosophy of trust, but verify. Although I do think I would want someone to kill me if I were a power crazy genocidal dictator into oppression and destruction of the American way of life. But that’s because I’m a Christian type and see that as despicable. Obviously Saddam Hussein was very much down with Satanic living.

    Same thing with minding our own business. 9-11 victims pretty much were. What Ron Paul is saying, then, is blame yourselves and don’t retaliate. Uh, no. I’ve got kids, and I care about them.

    I don’t think we should “spar” for military advantage. We should simply obtain it and maintain it. No sparring. So we agree again. I do trust my judgment over that of Saddam Hussein, and would prefer to be well protected when dealing with someone like that.

    So in a nutshell, Ron Paul is another believer in his own style of Utopia. One where everyone does the right thing, and there need to be no laws, and somehow the little person is still magically protected from vice and violence. We already have a unicorn in office now. Let’s try a realist this cycle, is my thinking.

    Thank you for hearing me out. Dr. Paul is a healer and ideas guy by nature, and I think he is well suited to be a doctor. How he got into the corrupting role of career politician I know not. Adecent sort that I would not trust with something of great importance to myself. He doesn’t get the job done.

  84. Carissa
    February 2, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    “What Ron Paul is saying, then, is blame yourselves and don’t retaliate”

    If that is what he was all about, he wouldn’t have voted for marque and reprisals against the 9-11 terrorists. You are overlooking that.

    His golden rule suggestion was meant in a broader context than just dealing with criminal terrorists (he was speaking philosophically about international relations). He was advocating exactly what we heard from an apostle in general conference a few years ago:

    “[The golden rule] is equally binding upon NATIONS, associations, and individuals” (my emphasis)

  85. Kelly W.
    February 3, 2012 at 7:12 am #

    Liz, your 9/11 example is bogus, because 9/11 was an inside job.

  86. Liz
    February 3, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Hee HEE! Kelly, that’s a good one. Way to play on the Ron Paul devotee stereotype.

  87. Liz
    February 3, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    OK then. If he didn’t mean to include rogue nations like Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. in the Golden Rule thing, then he might be taken more seriously if he would articulate that.

  88. Brint Baggaley
    February 3, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    Why not try serious research on 9/11 and find out for yourself if Kelly is joking, playing, or possibly has information that most people don’t want to consider?

  89. Carissa
    February 3, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    I think he did mean to include all nations, Liz. The commandment wasn’t meant to be applied only when it was easy. But that also doesn’t mean justice goes out the window. It’s possible to have both, but it requires humility, honesty, and charity.

    I think part of applying the golden rule is trying to understand others’ motives and feelings, and analyzing our own actions to see how that might affect them. Ron Paul is the only one I’ve seen raising these questions, despite the criticism he gets for it.

    So when you say “Ron Paul believes this country has no moral obligation to the world” I think you are very mistaken. I think our country has a great opportunity to teach the world our values by living them, even when it’s hard.

  90. outside the corridor
    February 4, 2012 at 9:13 am #


    I appreciate your comments.

    Everyone who supports the liberty movement, as it is ‘taught’ or represented by Ron Paul . . . on this blog–
    (which I found, btw, googling, “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” 4 or 5 years ago)–

    I’m an old timer. I am not from Utah, though I attended college there (and graduated from a Utah university after having begun college in my home state–far from Utah) and I met my companion there; he is a convert from ‘outside the corridor’, himself–

    but he joined the church while working in Utah–

    and then we came back to live where we are most comfortable.

    I don’t understand the Utah culture very well. But I did serve a foreign mission many years (almost 4 decades) ago–as did my spouse.

    We were both involved in the Republican campaigns for several candidates in our state here almost 40 years ago–

    For those who care we were members of the old Freeman Institute, founded by Skoussen. I knew Skoussen before he was involved in that; I used to work with him, not FOR him, but with him–

    We read ALL the books. We bought ALL the programs. We were very involved in freedom on every level.

    And then we felt that somehow everything was being manipulated and hijacked and sabotaged–

    Then we discovered Dr. Paul in the mid-80s, and we voted for him in 1988–

    we’ve been watching him since. I am careful about using the word ‘following’, because though I believe he is a great man–

    he is just a man.

    May I ‘share’ my experience with you?

    I have been surrounded by family members, ward members, friends who are not, yet, ‘awake’–

    that is a word used often in the liberty community to express what happens when you have a sudden, sometimes, realization that things are not what they appear to be, and *you* have to give up your safe, comfortable perspectives–

    to accept the truth of what is going on in the world, and especially in this nation–

    when this happens you feel like a ‘covnert’, and, believe me, for *me* (I won’t speak for anyone else here) . . . the gospel and mission and atonement of Jesus Christ mean MUCH more to me now that I am ‘politically awake’–

    for those of you who have served missions, do you remember how frustrated you might get with people who just wouldn’t ‘get’ it?
    Sometimes they wanted to ‘get’ it, but most of the time they just enjoyed . . . squabbling with the missionaries or having the attention of the missionaries or . . . –maybe they were just frustrated with their lives; maybe they were lonely; maybe they were trying to convert the missionaries–

    at some point every missionary had to learn when someone was really humble and realy wanted to know the truth and when someone was not–

    the WORST thing that any missionary could do and still can do–

    is to become defensive.

    Truth doesn’t need to be defended; it only needs to be taught or spread–

    When ANYone puts you (as a missionary or as a person who is trying to teach ANYone any truth) on the defensive, they have done something that is VERY easy to do–

    it’s easy to put people on the defensive; it is HARD to defend, because it’s not a good idea; Jesus Christ didn’t defend the truth; the truth just WAS; HE just WAS–

    He just had to proclaim the truth and His own divinity–

    if people didn’t accept it, He didn’t argue with them, because He was strong and He knows everything, and He knows that arguing doesn’t work–

    hearts must be softened, and the only way that hearts can be softened is often through tribulation–

    until someone has an experience that opens his/her heart to the truth, it won’t happen–

    whether *you* are on a mission or whether *you* are a mother/father trying to teach children–

    you can pray to have the spirit to teach others, but *you* must depend upon the Spirit to know each man/woman’s heart and what each man/woman can understand, eventually–

    and let it go–

    encouraging others in the truth is important, and that is why I am on here.

    I’ve had a lot of experience. I’ve raised a family, and my husband and I are grandparents.

    If anyone wants to ask me about how I spent 20 years just telling one of my siblings what *I* believe about politics and this nation and how overjoyed I was when that sibling’s spouse woke up and woke up my sibling–

    I will share that with *you*–

    but I won’t discuss things with people who aren’t willing to listen–

    I won’t aruge, and I won’t defend the truth, because truth is–

    it is, and it needs no defense. To explain it to those who WANT to hear it is needful; anyone else . . .

    needs to be treated with kindness–

    and compassion–

    truth will prevail.

    Have no fear.

  91. Carissa
    February 4, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    The great thing about open discussions such as these blog comments, is that while Liz and I may continue to see things differently (and I completely respect the fact that she does), there are others reading who may benefit from both sides of the conversation. It’s mainly for that reason that I occassionally like to add my 2 cents. And I don’t feel defensive about it. I’m at peace with wherever our country ends up because I’m at peace with my own conscience.

  92. outside the corridor
    February 4, 2012 at 11:08 am #



    When I said that my husband and I realized that things were being hijacked, I meant the Republican party, not the old Freeman Institute–

    it was a good program, and I know it’s now called something with a lot of words in it; we got things from them regularly, but we had already invested a lot years before–

    not involved in any organization but the church these days–


    but we intend to become involved in Dr. Paul’s campaign very soon in our state; we have yet to have a primary, but time is of the essence–

    it’s the first time in 35 years that we will be involved–

  93. outside the corridor
    February 4, 2012 at 11:10 am #

    You are right, Carissa–

    very right . . .

    Yes, I don’t have much ‘hope’ for America at this point, but . . .

    I’d rather go down with the ship, I guess–


    And even if it’s heavy to bear at times, the truth does set us free–

    so, yes–

    that, too–


  94. outside the corridor
    February 4, 2012 at 11:38 am #

    and, Carissa and Liz–

    some people have the personality to argue in a friendly manner–

    also . . . for some of *us* age and experience (not talking about happy things here) have made us yearn for peace–

    in our lives, in our hearts, in the world–

    *you* can get to that point where there has been so much strife in your life and . . .–etc.–

    that you only want peace–

    and so *you* (some of *us*; I fight the idea of collectivism, so I try not to assume that *we* all feel the same way about ANYthing)–

    (and I know this happens, because I’ve talked to other, older people who have experienced a fair amount of trauma of one kind or another who changed drastically from it)–

    just have to say, “I can’t talk to you about this; you may be a wonderful person, but I’m too tired, been around too many blocks”–

    I have a ward friend who is a passionate neo-conservative, a passionate war monger, though she has never served in the miitary, none of her children have ever served in the military–

    she is SO ready to send others to war, and I’ve tried to express to her my . . .


    interestingly, though we are near the same age, she never had friends come back from Viet Nam in body bags, and she was into drugs as a teen and young adult–

    protested the war. I never did; I was active LDS, and I privately thought the war was all wrong–

    but I didn’t protest, and I had friends in body bags, friends horrifically crippled, etc.–

    I tried to explain how *I* felt; I tried to quote President Kimball; she said, “well, I never thought much of Kimball”–

    and . . . I finally realized that I could only tell her how I ‘feel’–

    sort of like a testimony; you tell someone how *you* ‘feel’–

    and then you say, “we can’t discuss this”–

    we can talk about other things, but not politics; we are too different–

    unfortunately, she thinks that only people who believe the way she does are worthy members of the church, and she is always surprised when . . . she respects me spiritually, like, “how did that happen? You’re not a neo-conservative!”–

    and I have caught her trying to ‘teach’ me the ‘right way’ by talking to other people about how badly Gingrich and Santorum and Romney and Cain (her words) are being treated by the MSM and laughing off Ron Paul, because she knows how I feel, though I won’t say a word to her–

    it’s funny; I won’t talk to her, but she can still try to ‘convert’ me back to neo-conservatism; I was raised by warmongers; both my father and father in law and all my uncles fought in WWII–

    raised to cry, “war, war, MORE war!”–

    I’m an anti-Nephi Lehite–


    Thank you for reading, if you do–

    That’s why I have to back out of anything that even comes close to contention; can’t take it anymore–

    I admit it; I’m not ashamed of it; I wear my grey hair with pride–


  95. Carissa
    February 4, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    Ha, yes :). I agree with you. There is definitely a point when backing out is a good idea. I think your advice is worthwhile and well taken. We are a military family and I often wonder why continual warfare isn’t seen more as a threat to the family. It’s very hard on soldiers and their spouses and children, and even extended family. We should be so careful about when we decide it is necessary. There are so many needless suicides, divorces, etc. Tragic.

  96. outside the corridor
    February 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    bless your heart, Carissa–

    I care deeply about friends (everyone) in the military, and I keep their names on the prayer roll quite regularly–just the family friends; I can’t do everyone–


  97. Kelly W.
    February 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    @ outside the corridor,

    Wow, I was moved by all your comments; many them are my own feelings also. You ought to write a book, or, at least share some of your experiences online so others can read and be inspired.

    I especially like your comment of the Republican Party being hi-jacked by the Powers That Be and trying to figure out the Utah culture.

    I have lived in Utah most of my life, and I sure can’t figure them out. How so many (the majority of them) can be neo-conservatives and still profess to be good Mormons is beyond me…

    You’d think that after all the lies of WMD and 9/11, waterboarding and the misnamed Patriot Act, they’d open their eyes to Ether 8:24….. but no….

  98. TRON
    February 4, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Wow, finally even the Ron Paul style Austrian economists are admitting that their model was wrong and that the Stimulus worked.


    Again, the number one reason not to vote for Ron Paul. Only democrats support Keynesian economics.

  99. TRON
    February 5, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    So Ron Paul thinks a flat tax or sales tax is better.


    Ron Paul would raise taxes on anyone who is paying no income taxes or who gets tax credits. So under Ron Paul at least 46% (according to the Tax Policy Center) of Americans will pay more in taxes than they do now.

    So let’s look at the Americans that pay no income tax now.

    So at Ron Paul’s 5% sales tax, this is what you can expect:

    If you’re single and make $8,700 or less you will be taxed up to $435 more per year.

    Married and earning $17,400 or less you pay up to $870 more.

    Married with two children and earning $27,000 or less you’re taxed up to $1350 more.

    HOWEVER if you earn $1,000,000 per year, even if you spend 100% of what you earn, you will still pay $300,000 less in taxes.


  100. Katie
    February 5, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

    This comment is for “outside the corridor”. I agree with your feelings and empathize with you. I can’t remember when I did, but at some point in my twenties, I decided that whenever I saw a veteran of any war in any public place where I could tell they were a veteran by the clothes they wore, or the plates on their car, that I would thank them. Always, I am surprised by the great emotion in their response. It seems a paradox that in trying to thank and bless them, they bless me. Well, I met the husband of the author whose book is listed below… because I thanked him. I was deeply touched when he asked us to wait and then came back with a copy of this book as a gift.
    If we were engaged in a righteous war, at the command of the Lord, that would be one thing… but ever since Vietnam and perhaps for over 100 years of THIS nation’s history (in my opinion), it has been blood for money. God is not in it! How CAN He be in in it?! We will never convince any enemy of any truth at the end of a gun for “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

  101. outside the corridor
    February 6, 2012 at 7:07 am #

    Katie, that looks like a beautiful book–
    THANK you! I agree.

    Kelly W., thank YOU, too–


  102. Brint Baggaley
    February 6, 2012 at 11:01 am #


    Thanks for your comments on the tax issue. I may be in a vast minority, but I would love a flat tax and it would increase my taxes quite a bit. I believe that everyone should be a contributor and don’t let myself off the hook. I think your comments show very well how unfair the tax system currently is.

  103. TRON
    February 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    @Brint Baggaley

    I thought the Libertarians wanted little or no taxes on everyone. I showed that the poorest of the poor will pay more taxes under Ron Paul than they do now. With either a sales tax or a flat tax.

    Proverbs 28:15
    15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.

  104. Brint
    February 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm #


    I would like as few taxes as possible. I just think it is fair that everyone pays the same percentage. Why should I support a government program if i’m not willing to pay my share of it? The Socialist George W. Bush (you may get a chuckle out of that one) with his working class family tax cuts made me a non taxpayer for a few years. From my experience, I’ve decided I would rather pay my percentage and have my self respect.

    On another level, I believe that freedom is having choice and accepting responsibility for the results of that choice. I chose my vocation. I chose my family size. Why should you or Connor or anyone else pay for my decisions? Such a program takes away my responsibility and therefore my freedom.

  105. Jim Davis
    February 6, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    Tron, Ron Paul doesn’t believe in any form of income tax because it insinuates that the government owns the fruits of your labor and it only allows you to keep a certain percentage of it. The link you provided doesn’t propose a flat/fair tax. He merely points out that a low rated flat/fair tax it better than a progressive income tax but that doesn’t mean he supports it. For any interested in reading what the link actually says…

    While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.

    Ron Paul’s true desire is to repeal the 16th amendment which “authorizes” the federal government to tax our income (a power that didn’t exist before 1913). If you ever listen to him or read his books you’d understand that he wants an income tax rate of “0.00%” across the board. The link continues…

    But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans. The answer to spending and debt is to return to a constitutionally limited government that protects liberty – not one that keeps robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    Which philosophy do we espouse?

    A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax -Carl Marx (2nd Plank of Communist Manifesto)


    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. (D&C 134:2)

  106. outside the corridor
    February 7, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    Brint, I can relate to you. My husband and I, though very well educated, chose low-key employment, so that we could concentrate on our family (necessary, because of some heavy special needs in our children)–

    we also made choices with regards to our family that others should not have to share, HOWEVER, we have found, in speaking with people much wealthier than we . . . that we have honestly paid more for most of our family’s needs, etc.–because we have been more independent. In many ways we have worked much harder.

    We paid ‘cash’ for a lot of things that others had better benefits for, just ‘because’ they had better benefits–

    We realized that our tax percentage has been as high, though we have become more and more relatively poor as the years have gone by–

    as many who are very wealthy–

    this means nothing to those with whom we go to church who, because of the outward appearance of our lack of prosperity (small home/old cars, though we keep ourselves very neat, very comely and do not look even remotely ‘poor’, and though our home is very clean)–

    those in our ward who make a LOT of money complain “around” us about ‘those who make less who pay so much less’–

    it is a prejudice, whether it is true or not. If you don’t have a large home and new cars, you are considered a ‘leech’, even if you work more hours/week, even if you work harder physically to make up for deficits, even if you pay as high a percentage as they do, because they can pay accountants to find loopholes–

    So, we gave up. They will judge us, because we make them uncomfortable, and because they are heavily influenced by the MSM they have heeded the propaganda that divides *us* all from each other. We have to make certain we don’t do the same thing, even if, when we speak to them, we realize that in some ways they don’t work as hard for what they have–

    *I* (and my husband) would rather work harder and not owe others! It IS a true principle to be self-reliant, and if you’ve felt the sting of condescension from those who believe that their high income justifies them in thinking of others as ‘leeches’–you don’t want that.

    I had some other ideas that I wanted to ‘share’ along the same line, but I’ve forgotten them; maybe I was supposed to–


    And, yes, Jim Davis, Ron Paul is heavily misunderstood–

    I appreciate your last post, too–

  107. Brint Baggaley
    February 7, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    @Jim Davis,

    Thanks for hitting the political nuts and bolts of this issue very well. Ditto.


    Sorry to hear that such pride exists in the Church, and I’m glad self reliance isn’t a lost principle.

  108. outside the corridor
    February 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Not everyone is that way, of course, but there are too many–

    I think it’s merely a fulfillment of prophecy though–:)

    If anyone is interested about parallels between the British Empire and the American Empire–

    in the 1880s in England farm workers who had independent cottages (paid rent to landowners who were not their employers)–

    made 10 shillings/week. This was just the men working, and they did put in long days in the fields, but they enjoyed their work for the most part.

    This was as the empire was crumbling.

    Rent for the independent workers was 1 shilling a week for a modest cottage and 2 shillings a week for a larger home–

    Each cottager had land for chickens, bees and a bountiful garden–

    There was also room in the village for any cottagers who wanted to grow grains on community properity (not government owned)

    The cottagers were free to glean from the ‘wheat’ fields at the end of the harvest, and often they would glean enough, if they had children who were good workers (the women generally did the gleaning) to provide their own flour for the winter–
    they would barter with the local miller to pay him part of their gleanings to grind the flour, and the flour would be stored in the kithcen until the next harvest–
    Many of them had enough to do this; those who were infirm (this was before socialism in England; this was as the feudal period was waning, and there were no labor unions among the farmworkers–yet)–

    or elderly (and the elderly didn’t have a safety net then, just the workhouse or help from their children)

    were often fed by those who had more flour–

    there was a strong sense of community, and very little governmental presence.

    I don’t know how many Americans/Mormons pay no taxes (these farm workers were not taxed, because they were considered to be too poor to pay taxes; their wages were ‘skimmed’ so that the farmers could pay their own taxes)

    and have rents or mortgages that are only 10 to 20 per cent of their income–

    These people considered themselves to be VERY poor. They were proud, hard working, would not allow idleness among themselves, and their children all worked hard; the young women worked as maids in dairys and in homes and wealthier kitchens; the boys worked in the fields with their fathers, but the mothers/women were the caretakers of the home–

    They made their own clothing or received second hand clothes from the wealthy employers of their daughters. They had no vehicles. Those who wrote about this period said that there was NO hunger–

    The cottagers had high standards of cleanliness; there was a lot of pressure on the families and the wives to keep their homes up–

    clean . . .

    there was little to no mental illness; there were rarely children who were cognitively challenged, and other than a few epidemics of measles, little illness–

    yet, *we* look back on these people and ‘feel sorry’ for them. I don’t know about *you*, but we have a very modest home, and our pre-tithing, post-tax income is just a little over 3 times our mortgage (including insurance and property taxes)–

    a very modest home–

    we have a very good credit rating–

    No, we are not wealthy–

    but we work hard.

    The point is that those cottagers inherited solid furniture and often animals from their parents, and THAT generation was wealthier—

    they earned more in the fields than their children’s generation, in terms of what food and housing cost!!!

    But THAT generation had inherited very nice things from the previous generation in which there was even more prosperity for farm workers!

    How can this be? *We* have been told how ‘blessed’ we are–

    and yet . . . my parents had more than I did, and my grandparents, though they were parents with children during the depression . . . had NO debt–

    NO debt . . . mortgages were considered a shame in the early to mid part of the 20th century–

    mortgages a shame–

    no debt . . . big gardens . . .–

    they ate better than my parents’ generation, and we spend more for food than my parents’ generation–

    What is the parallel?

    The more prosperous farm workers in England who were the grandparents of the farm workers in the 1880s . . . were at the BEGINNING of the British empire, before Britain began to use up her wealth maintaining overseas empires–

    The same thing is happening again.

    Socialism followed the 1880s–

    the government began to support more people; they lost thier pride, and fewer people were willing to suffer to be independent–

    And, yet, *we* think *we* think we are so prosperous and free?!

    My husband and I will never have the wealth and prosperity of our parents’ generation, and yet we both began working before our teens–

    and we both put ourselves through college, and he put himself on a mission, with his own money–I earned about 1/3 of mine–

    Our children will not be as prosperous as we ard, though they work EVER so hard–

    and . . . the empire is expanding even more–

    History is helpful in understanding what is happening today–

  109. TRON
    February 9, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    @Jim Davis and Brint

    Okay, I will go along with you that Ron Paul isn’t going to do a sales (fair) tax or a flat tax. But the fact that he thinks they “would be a better alternative” either means he hasn’t thought it over or thinks a tax increase on poor people is a “better alternative.”

    But let’s talk about the taxes he does believe in – non-protectionist tariffs and excise taxes.

    First, excise taxes:


    As this chart shows, it still favors the rich way more than the poor or middle class (who take the biggest pounding by it).

    Next, tariffs. As CATO itself shows, tariffs again benefit the rich way over the poor. Though from what I read on what Ron Paul has said, I think he would try to fix that part (yes, even more so than Obama or any other Republican).

    Lastly, comparing a Progressive tax to the Communist manifesto is just a cheap shot. Hitler didn’t smoke so I guess we should all start smoking so we won’t be like Hitler. The Communist manifesto also wants to get all of the royalty in Europe off the public dole… something Libertarians would agree with. But that doesn’t make me think you all are Communist sympathizers.

  110. Brint Baggaley
    February 10, 2012 at 9:34 am #


    I really like that you are willing to discuss things here, and appreciate a daily dose of thought. Personally, I’m still a fan of the flat tax. I guess I really like the Lord’s way where everyone pays 10%. I realize there are great differences in that church donations are voluntary, etc. but I see some good benefits anyway. The Lord views my tithe and Jon Huntsman, Sr.’s with equal validity, thus making all flesh equal in his eyes. There is no class warfare. If I were living in a tent and collected $1 worth of cans for the day, my dime of tithing would be fully respected, and I would have the self respect of contributing. I could be wrong, and I realize that others may view it differently, but when I think of fairness, can I define it better than the Lord? The main point that I really like of Ron Paul’s is the idea of getting the size of government under control. I think taxes could be much lower for all of us if the Federal Government stuck to its constitutional authority and we didn’t go fight wars everywhere. I don’t think he is against poor people at all. If we look at everyone doing what is fair, the small government agenda is pro-poor people. In fact, I believe, if we all had to pay for what the government does, it would put a natural limit on governmental growth.

    On to the excise tax. It is defined as “A Federal or State tax imposed on the manufacture and distribution of certain non-essential consumer goods. Examples of excise taxes include environmental taxes, communications taxes and fuel taxes.” (http://www.investorwords.com/1813/excise_tax.html)
    In my view, who pays what would depend largely on what the excise tax is. Where the examples given are actually arguably essential (in the case of fuel and to some extent communications), it would be normal that they affect poor people disproportionately. If excise taxes were to be increased to replace income taxes, then it seems to me that what items they decided to tax would determine whether the poor or rich would be most effected. They wouldn’t simply increase the gasoline tax or communications taxes. A tax on yachts or private aircraft would affect the rich. A tax on food would disproportionately affect the poor. So I guess it comes down to exactly what would be done.

    On to tariffs. It looks like you have no problem with Dr. Paul’s ideas on tariffs, so rather than dwell on in, I would just add that it gives good faith as to how he would set up a decent excise tax system.

    Finally, the progressive income tax being compared to the Communist manifesto. I don’t think this is a cheap shot, as Marx is the modern author of the progressive income tax. I do think the term Communist is not well understood and has a bad taste because of Cold War propaganda. To see just how close Communism is to our own common beliefs, a good look at the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 is a great starting point. See: http://www.stateofmankind.com/governing-principles/the-constitution-of-the-ussr/

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.