On Law and Social Prohibitions

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
1 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions
On Law and Social prohibitions: Mormonisms Anti-Libertarian Social Actions Feb 2012 James B. Smith
Contents
Forward by John L. Harmer Introduction A series of Facebook posts. The Assertion of Compatibility I. Prohibition What are the Libertarians saying about Prohibition? The Brethren act by the Lords wisdom It is in your power to elect men who will enforce that law. Warning about the Repeal of Prohibition False arguments of those who are trying to break down the safeguards of our Constitution
3 5 7 10 12 12 15 15 17 18 20 20 22 23 26 29
II. Obscenity Laws Definitions The view of the blind So, what are the Libertarians actually saying about obscenity? Libertarians Honor the Obscene Laws do not make men live morally, they allow moral men to live.
The LDS Churchs support for Anti-Obscenity laws. 32 Elder Haight and the use of Law 34 California Proposition 18, April-November 1972 37 The Church sides with the Anti-Obscenity movement 39 United States Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography 40 The Tolerance for evil, October 1971 42 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will servebut as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15 43 III. The Legal Definition of Marriage What Are the Libertarians saying about marriage? The Church calls on elected leaders to enforce marriage definitions. Points of conflict The Watchmen on the Tower issue their Warning A Direct Example how We are all Effected The Past is Prologue Closing: A Question of Judgment Sources and Notes 45 47 51 53 55 57 58 60 65
Forward by John L. Harmer
As a Latter-day Saint I am pleased to recommend James Bradford Smith's remarkable documentation of the historical commitment by the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in support of political issues of moral significance. This documentation by Smith merits the careful study of every Latter-day Saint who seeks an understanding of the historical role of the leadership of the Church in matters affecting the moral climate of our society.
Smith has provided a compelling mandate to every Latter-day Saint to commit themselves to support the leadership of the Church in temporal matters as well as the more traditional theological mandates. His analysis of the correlation between current political issues and the role of the Church in protecting the spiritual welfare of its members is both brilliant and consistent with the past and present practices of the Church leadership. I have frequently quoted the statement of Lord Patrick Devlin, a noted British jurist, when he said:
"The suppression of vice is as much the law's business as the suppression of subversive activities...an established morality is as necessary as good government to the welfare of society. Societies disintegrate from within more frequently than they are broken up by external pressures... (The Enforcement of Morals: Oxford University Press: 1968)
What Lord Devlin said of the role of the state in suppressing vice is equally applicable to the role of The Church.
Any student of the Book of Mormon will recognize the consistency of Smith's analysis of these issues with the admonitions in the Book of Mormon to make whatever sacrifice necessary to preserve our religious freedom. No other responsibility that rests upon the leadership of the
Church is greater than preserving the ability of the members of the Church to live in a social environment consistent with the theology of the Church.
Smith's paper bring to mind the insightful comment of a former General President of the Young Women's organization of the Church, Sister Elaine Cannon, when she said, "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over." By his painstaking research and equally inspired commentary Smith has confirmed the responsibility of every Latter-day Saint to accept Sister Cannon's pithy and irrefutable challenge. As Joshua said, "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve."
John L. Harmer, February, 07 2012

Introduction Every year, especially during elections years, we hear a long line of people proclaiming that the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ supports their political worldview. Recently in Deseret Book I saw a book asking if a person could be a Mormon and a democrat, the text seemed to imply in the affirmative. In the early 2000s there was a movement of individuals who were teaching that God is a Capitalist because they had found that there were a number of similarities between the teachings of the Brethren and their capitalist temporal philosophy. Later on there were a number of members of the Church who used their understanding of the Gospel to argue their support of President Barak Obama. There are currently those who label themselves Liberal Mormons, Mormon Feminists, Gay Mormons, Progressive Mormons and this list goes on and on. The one thing they all have in common is not the Gospel at all. Their core similarity is error. While there may be elements of truth in the multitude of temporal thought, be it on the political left or right, not one of these philosophies is wholly compatible with the restored Gospel specifically because each was developed without the power of the priesthood. In short there is no such thing as a hyphenated Mormon. You cannot be a Zion person who also refuses to leave Babylon, unless your ambition is to become a pillar of salt. Common sense tells us that the appearance of true principles and teachings (those that echo principles found in the teachings of the prophets) in any given temporal philosophy does not make that philosophy true or moral. This is because the fingerprints of mans hubris will always add either interpretations of or limitations to true principle based upon a temporal understanding. By such an act, the introduction of corrupted understanding, mans wisdom renders those truths false. Its the old adage of Satan telling 9 truths and one lie that render the truths void. This is seen as we find that many temporal ideologies have gone out of their way to label immoral acts, such as wealth redistribution or abortion, as moral based upon their convenient interpretation of Gods laws. This tactic has allowed the wicked in all ages to attack
the Saints whenever the Saints take stands that are in accordance with the laws of God. As we will discuss in section three of this text, recently this tactic was used against the Church during the battle over Proposition 8 where the Church was attacked for its intolerant devotion to revealed truth. It is true as Hugh Nibley says:
In the newly discovered gospel of Philip, there is a wonderful passage describing how Satan rules this world by the skillful manipulation of labels. In this world we communicate through symbols, through labels, it explains. Therefore, in this Satan possesses a powerful tool to comfort the wicked, enabling them to discredit the righteous and to brand the righteous with whatever epithets suit them and to unload their own guilt on others.i
For the Latter-day Saints the Gospel is (or should be) the standard by which all temporal philosophies are measured. When measuring temporal philosophies one must not only find where the Brethren have spoken out on a variety of issues, but also carefully examine what actions have been taken by the Church concerning issues core to the philosophy. This
course allows one to see not only the general thoughts of the Brethren, but to what lengths
they are inspired to dedicate the energies of the Kingdom. Such an examination will do more to reveal the standing of the Church than simply pulling quotes out of the Journal of Discourses and screaming GOTCHA! This approach, if undertaken honestly, will stop us from reading in meaning or attributing motives colored by our own preconceived notions that the Church never intended. This issue is important, because in this time of political and moral discord men and women are desperate to find truth, and in doing so often associate themselves with ideas or parties that present an emotional cause or honorable label that imbue adherants with not only passion, but a feeling of moral authority and intellectual superiority. Prof. James H. Charlesworth has pointed out that the danger of such an emotional attachment to groups or dogmas lies in the fact that they sometimes misled us into presenting arguments that were not carefully developed and even false.ii
It is with this in mind that time needs to be taken to address the recent rise in Libertarian thinking and teaching among the Latter-day Saints. It seems that few if any LDS libertarian advocates, while compiling quotes to use in their letters and blogs, have taken the time to examine areas in which Libertarian philosophy and the LDS Church work cross paths. This text will examine these areas. It is not the purpose of this text is not to condemn or excoriate other members of the LDS Church who have chosen to align themselves with the temporal political ideology of Libertarianism; they are good people who love their country and their God. However, it is fair to question their judgment based upon the contradicting values of their religious and political associations. It is the purpose of this short treatment to show that the covenant people must be highly discriminating in their chosen temporal allegiances. Because Satan is a master of manipulating terms, meanings and philosophy, if the saints are not careful, they can and will be duped into forwarding Satans kingdom while thinking they are in the service of God. A series of Facebook posts.
(Note: The author here will reproduce portions of his correspondence with another Latter-day Saint. It is not the intent of this work to attack the individual who expressed these views, but to question the judgment of the views on their own. For this purpose I will only refer to the quoted individual as the Mormon Libertarian in the text. ---The Author)
Late last year a fellow Latter-day Saint, and highly articulate and ardent Libertarian on Facebook, explained to me his theory of government and rights. He explained that a government can have no more rights than those possessed by the individual. Specifically he said: I believe that governments only legitimately have authority that is inherently possessed by each individual comprising it, and which has been explicitly delegated to that government.Individuals lack the authority to dictate what relationships other adults may enter into, and lack the authority to tax one neighbor to provide money to another neighbor who enters into a favorable relationships, etc. They therefore cannot delegate
that non-existent authority to the government of which they are a part. In short, communities have no rights. Only individuals have rights. My response to this comment was to point out that this view was very Ayn Rand of him, to which he defiantly asserted that Rand had nothing to do with his responses. That may be, however he might as well have been quoting Rands 1963 essay on the subject of collectivized rights in which she states: Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). This view then means that marriage laws are a violation of personal freedoms and an abuse of power. Let us then carry this idea out in some further examples using this Libertarians own logic. I, as an individual, do not have the right to dictate what my neighbor will or will not drink or smoke. Therefore, I cannot allocate myelected representatives the power to enact any substance prohibitions. Libertarians lead the way in the movement to legalize marijuana and other sources of addiction and social ills. Because I, as an individual, cannot ethically tell my neighbor what he will or will not read, or what he can or cannot display in public in terms of community standards (as the community has no rights), I cannot call for and cannot allocate to my elected representatives the authority to pass and enforce obscenity laws or material harmful to minors laws. It will be shown in this essay, by an examination of the LDS Churchs efforts in regards to social morality issues, that such logic is utterly fallacious. The Mormon Libertarian has even alluded that it is immoral to support or even seek out social legislation that prohibits certain acts and issues. He cites the criminalization of marijuana as an issue where the government overstepped its bounds. On his blog he states: As one candidate for federal office recently wrote to me: Though an argument could be made that [the regulation of drugs] is a state issue, I do not believe that we ought to
encourage the use of any drug or substance that destroys individuals, families and weakens society. This tainted view of the law sees government as the sculptor of society, and that in order to uphold a certain moral code, or propagate good behavior, we must support government policies which seek to realize those goals. Peace and persuasion are abandoned and replaced with war and coercionalbeit wrapped in flowery language like strengthening society. iii This man goes on to claim that more often than not the only real moral way to support or enact social change is by not clamoring for or consenting to government involvement in the issue. He then goes on to list several ways to enact meaningful social change in a moral manner: Dont want gays to marry? Teach the sanctity of marriage, serve a mission for your
Church, and oppose government involvement in private, contractual relationships. Dont like pornography? Begin a positive propaganda campaign to show how disgusting and degrading it is. While the author agrees with many of the Libertarian ideas on economics, and believes that there is significant value in many their fiscal policies, it is in the arena of social laws where the core problems in the doctrine of libertarianism are visible, and frankly dangerous to the society. As a Latter-day Saint, the author cannot accept the above interpretation of the role of government as correct because he knows of three cases (two of which he was directly involved) in which the LDS Church, under the direction of the General Authorities, called for and supported laws that delivered to government the very powers the Libertarians deny it can hold. That is the Church supported and organized itself in efforts help pass laws to place legal restraints and prosecutable definitions upon materials and actions of individuals.
The Assertion of Compatibility In addition to his political theology, the Mormon Libertarian has asserted publically that if there is one temporal ideology which is compatible with the restored Gospel it is the Libertarian philosophy. The Mormon Libertarian concluded a long blog on the subject with the proclamation; Is Libertarianism compatible with Mormonism? The few offerings provided above, along with a long list of others, assert that it is.iv The idea of compatibility is that the existence and actions of one thing positively influences or enables another to operate as it is intended or that two ideas or objects are complimentary in purpose. It is the idea that two independent pieces can exist in harmony and without conflict. Picture the gears of an engine. Each gear fits into the other and each facilitates the proper function of its mate. However such is not the case between Libertarians and the LDS Church. In fact, in key areas, the Libertarian philosophy and the actions and examples of the
Church stand in stark opposition. This can best be witnessed by highlighting three areas:
1. The Churchs ardent support of legal substance prohibitions. 2. The Churchs calculated and long term support and efforts to influence the creation and enforcement of obscenity laws. 3. The Church teachings, actions and warnings concerning homosexual marriage and the implicit threat to religions freedom In each case listed above, it will be shown, that the stance of the Church has been that laws that establish social prohibition are defensive measures. These laws are justly raised to protect individuals and their communities from the corruption and combinations of wicked men. Before we were born, the Brethren called our grandparents to defend the family from the ills presented by alcohol. Now during our lifetime, we have been told to defend our homes and nation from pornography. More recently we have been called on to defend the institution of marriage. Now we hear of defending freedom of religion. All of these issues we have been
warned of are all interconnected. They are all tools used by Satan and his followers to destroy the constitution of man and retard his eternal progress. As we lose ground on one front, the battle expands to the next and the costs of failure to our posterity grow exponentially. Why does the church support such laws? As a nation becomes tolerant, complacent and even indulgent to vice its morals wash away like shoddy foundations in a flood. As the morals flee, or are purged from the population under the guise of tolerance and equality, all comprehension of true freedom as an eternal law and principle vanishes as people who have become addicted and ruled by vice begin to confuse their lascivious fulfillment with freedom. As attorney John Harmer once noted, The entire fabric of our government is based upon the commitment of the American People to standards of dignity, integrity and virtue. Those morals, in turn allow, us to be self governing under law. It is that capacity to be self governing under law that enables the American people to live in a society that is a democratic republic. Without those moral values that provide us the capacity to self govern, we would soon lose our freedom.
The Brethren show us the path, their counsel is our guide, their example is our pattern, and their voice is the voice of He who calls them His servants.
I. Prohibition
What are the Libertarians saying about Prohibition?

Where in the Constitution does the federal government find the power to ban or regulate drugs? In 1920,
people understood this; when they wanted to ban alcohol, they passed a constitutional amendment. You can't say much good about the prohibitionists, but at least they had enough respect for the Constitution to go through the formal amendment process. David Boaz, Cato Institute .
v
The libertarians hold firmly that prohibition, a series of local and national laws and amendments that outlawed the creation and sale of alcohol in the US, was an unconstitutional failed experiment. They believe the Constitution does not grant the government power to prohibit such personal and market choices as drinking and producing liquor for public sales. The people may have voted for the law, but the law was a violation of the Constitution.
Their philosophy uses the period of prohibition to argue that the banning of alcohol lead to an increase in crime and that the crimes subsided when the law was repealed. In multiple party statements this same passage is rendered: Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. vi This is one of their key arguments in their quest to legalize other social poisons such as marijuana. Like the marijuana prohibitions in place now libertarians will argue that these laws were violations of individual free agency, legislative overreach and force. They argue that the cost of such regulation is actually wasteful, given the prevalence of the crime. They argue that all crimes, including murder and actual use of alcohol increased between 1919 and 1933. Their argument is that the prohibition actually made the people less safe due to the increase in crime that came as prohibition created a criminal underground. This argument they then apply to the modern prohibition on illegal drugs which one post on the
libertarian party website calls 40 years of shredding the Bill of Rights in a vain and vicious crusadevii and Libertarian Party Chaiman Mark Hinkle calls relentless violation of the lives and property of Americansviii The libertarian Cato institutes Handbook for Policy Makers contains the following summery of the libertarian view of substance prohibitions: In the 1920s, Congress experimented with the prohibition of alcohol. On February 20, 1933, a new Congress acknowledged the failure of alcohol prohibition and sent the Twenty-First Amendment to the states. Congress recognized that Prohibition had failed to stop drinking and had increased prison populations and violent crime. By the end of 1933, national Prohibition was history, though many states continued to outlaw or severely restrict the sale of liquorToday, Congress confronts a similarly failed prohibition policy. Futile efforts to enforce prohibition have been pursued even more vigorously since the 1980s than they were in the 1920sYet, as was the case during Prohibition, all the arrests and incarcerations havent stopped the use and abuse of drugs, or the drug trade, or the crime associated with black-market transactions Despite the good news about crime in recent years, crime rates remain at high levels Students of American history will someday ponder the question of how todays elected officials could readily admit to the mistaken policy of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s but recklessly pursue a policy of drug prohibition.ix If the laws were dropped and the freedom returned to the people the crimes, both directly and indirectly related, would cease. Just like bootleggers of the 30s no longer had a reason to bootleg after the Prohibition was repealed in 1933; their logic is that drug dealers would no longer make dangerous back alley deals and kill their competitors and the amount of money wasted on enforcing these prohibitions could be better used. In fact, the Cato Institutes Jeffery Miron argues, in a study he authored, that if drugs were to be legalized and taxed like alcohol and tobacco, there would be a beneficial financial windfall. Miron states:
Legalization means reduced expenditure on enforcement and an increase in tax revenue from legalized sales. This report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government. Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6 billion from legalization of other drugs. The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually; assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs.x There you have it. We would have more money if we didnt have these misguided and failed laws against drugs. And as we all know you can have anything in this world for money. However, their myopic view does not take into account that legalizing the poison does
not mitigate the social impact of the toxin. It merely alters how we perceive it and experience its corrosive effects. The libertarian party seems to skirt the actual social impact of drug use on the individual and their circle of influence; never referencing the litany of studies done worldwide that show that drugs lessens the capabilities of the individual. This bein the case, those individuals who have poisoned their bodies now operate at a lessened capability become a financial and societal burden upon that portion of the population who have not taken that same action. The individual who corrodes their faculties with cocaine and other drugs and then becomes socially unstable thus becomes a threat to the rights of others. The party proclaims that ending prohibitions expands freedom of the individual; the reality is that grander proliferation and societal acceptance of such substances serves to being a greater bondage upon the society as a whole. Like the users alcohol and Porn, the user of drugs is never free, they besoms the servants of those who supply their vice, legal or otherwise.
The Brethren act by the Lords wisdom
When we consider the Churchs involvement in prohibition we must remember that all things done by the Brethren are done by the Lords wisdom and the Lord will remove those Brethren who apostatize and act in ways that lead the saints astray. Along these lines Elder Marion G. Romney stated unequivocally: We must be careful that we are not led to accept or support any organization, cause or measure which in its remotest efforts, would jeopardize free agency, whether it be in politics, government, religion, employment, education or in any other field. It is not enough for us to be sincere in what we support. We must be right.xi
It is in your power to elect men who will enforce that law.
While Elder Romney was correct that we must not support philosophies that limit free agency we find something that seems counterintuitive to our current view of the world.
Between 1900 and 1933 the General Authorities encouraged the saints to vote in support of
the prohibition lawsxii and amendments, they also taught that the laws were not only right, but rooted in the Constitution. This hints that the way the Brethren see free agency may be very different from the way modern politics understand it. The following exhortations to the saints come from President Heber J Grant: The battle is on and I feel assured that it will be won. Why? Because I am convinced beyond a doubt that our fight is right, and right is bound to prevail. I agree with Governor Hanly that we, who are converted to the benefits of prohibition, shall dedicate ourselves to this cause; shall labor for it: shall pledge our honor, and also pledge our means to accomplish it. I endorse William Jennings Bryan's words: " A Christianity that does not make a man a better citizen would be difficult to defend. I shall not attempt to lay down rules to cover every phase of the liquor question that must be met by legislation, but I will venture to suggest a principle that is universal in its application xiii
Let reverence for the law be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, in spelling books, and almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. In short, let it become the political religion of the nation. " As I said before, we are fundamentally in favor of prohibition and we feel that any man who violates the prohibition law, the Eighteenth Amendment, as long as it is in force, is encouraging anarchy and shows a lack of that patriotism which should be in the mind and heart of every true American. I wish to say to our friends who are visiting with us here today, that the Latter-day Saints believe and have taught from the beginning that God raised up the men who wrote the Constitution of this country; that it was an inspired documentxiv His feelings were given a second witness by Elder David o McKay: On the twenty-seventh of June, this year, all Israel, at least in this state, shall have an opportunity to declare themselves in favor of or against God's truth that alcohol, strong drink in any of its forms is not good for man. They will tell you, We want to get rid of the saloons all right, but we can't do it. Prohibition, they will say, will not prohibit. I say, prohibition will prohibit as well as any other law will prohibit the transgression of it. Two things we ought to keep in mind,First, we want the sentiment of the people back of it; and second, we want officers elected in the communities who are in harmony with that public sentiment. Strong drink is not good for man. It is in your power to elect men who will enforce that law. xv
Brethren and sisters, on the next election day, the people of Utah are asked to vote on an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Utah. There are several amendments. I am going to mention only one. It pertains to Prohibition in our State. As you know, we have Prohibition by legislative enactment, but it is not a part of the Constitution of the State, now if we can make it a part of the Constitution of the State, Prohibition is safe. Now, the suggestion is that the prohibition statute be made a part of the Constitution of
the State I am simply mentioning it so that when you go to the polls you will look at that amendment and vote "Yes." xvi
It must be noted that in these above comments that the there was no suggestion that the Saints merely support the measures, these were calls to action. The April 1911 conference (quoted above) was a call for the Saints to stand up and be examples to the world in support of laws that echoed the will of God. Furthermore they were counseled to seek the election of men who would enforce the proposed substance prohibition. Later in the 1918 October conference they were counseled to support the enactment of Prohibition in the state constitution. Throughout the early 20th century the Brethren openly attended and commended a number of temperance movement groups. Chief among these was the Anti-saloon League which is commended openly by President Heber J Grant and others multiple times between 1914 and 1933. The praise offered to the group from the Prophet lead large numbers of Latterday Saints to join and actively participate in temperance and prohibitionist groups. This was an effort the Brethren gave their time to. As mentioned previously the Brethren do not just pick causes which they will support on a whim or based upon passing trends. The decision as to where the apostles time shall be spent is taken to the Lord in prayer, either by the individual or by the group, to seek His guidance; because of their status as the Lords anointed they cannot take the risk of being accomplice to wicked organizations in disguise. They know full well that the members follow their example, and the members are right to do so especially when their example contradicts worldly wisdom.
Warning about the Repeal of Prohibition

In 1933 when Prohibition was about to be repealed, the Brethren stood defiantly in favor of prohibition and warned of the evils that would come to the land if the law was voided. Notice here that Joseph Fielding Smith, a third witness to the just nature of the law, states
specifically that these laws are defensive in nature. They were laws designed to protect from the evils of other men, supported by the community: There is temptation enough, there is sin enough, that they will find; and it is my duty, as far as I am able to do it, to protect my children and your children. I want them protected. For that reason I am absolutely opposed with all my soul to the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. I know what it means. I know what the conditions were before we had prohibition. I think I know what the conditions will be after it is repealed, if that shall come. Latter-day Saints, from one end of the earth to the other, especially the good people living in these states of this Rocky Mountain region, we should stand for that which is right, for the truth, for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for the protection which we are entitled to receive; and therefore we should stand unitedly against these evils that are creeping in among us from the worldxvii Today we witness the legalization of beer by the United States government. One of our outer defenses has fallen and the enemy spurred on by victory will attack others. But the inner defense, the 18th Amendment, must be defended at all costs. Let the words of General Petain, " They shall not pass, " strengthen every heart and nerve every hand in defense of this part of the Constitution of the United States. In addition to the fact that we believe that Prohibition is the best means of fighting the evil, that the proposal of the Twenty-first Amendment offers no other remedy which we do not have, and that the cause of spirituality demands that we retain it, I will add in conclusion this thought: Out of the high plane of spirituality comes the message from the President of the Church given to the world that intoxicating liquors, strong drink, and tobacco are not good for man. That is God's word given authoritatively and on that truth we stand.xviii
False arguments of those who are trying to break down the safeguards of our Constitution
In another very important speech from the 1933 Conference Elder Rulon S Wells assigned those who sought the repeal of Prohibition to the ranks of those who wished to undo the safeguards of the Constitution. Says Elder Wells: If we do it the wrong way we are committing sin and we are called upon to repent. That is the substance of the Gospel. It applies to our politics, it applies to every problem that comes before us. We have the word of the leaders of this people as to what should be our course in regard to certain political things. I do not wish to get into any political discussion or anything bordering on that, but let me tell you where good and evil are involved, as they are in the prohibition question, it devolves upon Latter-day Saints to choose the right and therefore manifest our faith in God and reject the sophistries and the false arguments of those who are trying to break down the safeguards of our Constitution. My time has already expired. May God help us to carry on this great work by living in accordance with his divine will as it shall be made manifest to us through his prophets, seers, and revelators, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.xix Today the Libertarians tell us that they stand for freedom and they preach their understanding of the constitution. It is telling that their philosophy which holds that prohibition was a sin against the freedoms inherent in the constitution are rejected flat out by the Lords anointed who were alive to receive the revelation for that time. There are only two routes here, either the Brethren are correct and the power to prohibit certain social ills is not only just, but righteous and Constitutional or the temporal understating of man is correct and the Brethren were in error and openly lead the saints of their time astray.
II. Obscenity Laws

But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakesJacob 3:3
It is important now to take a detailed look at the issue of obscenity laws and the very different views taken by the ideological adherents Libertarian and the views and approach taken by the leaders of the LDS Church.
Definitions
First we must define obscenity and pornography.xx The Libertarians define Pornography as free Speech and defend it ardently as a First Amendment issue and address all actions to regulate obscenity as censorship. In this writers experience, defending Pornography as art or speech is a satanic lie. In this aspect the Libertarian party serves as Satans pamphleteers.
Art work tells a story, the pictographs on cave walls echo through history with the story of civilization. Every story has a beginning, middle and an end as all things do. When we admire a great painting we admire not only the brush stroke, but the creative process that preceded it and the finishing touch that made it flow on canvas. In a book we admire the establishment of a theme; we are thrilled to follow its developments, conflicts and resolutions. We are comforted or intrigued with what we see in the end. These aspects of art give us joy, they allow us to feel some connection with the work itself. For example the artworks James Christensen or Berkley Breathed are well known for delivering a childlike sense of fun and fantasy. The literary works of a C.S. Lewis or Jane Austen wrap worlds and messages of change or struggle around characters the reader can see in their minds. This is art in its fullest sense, which is that it expands a persons view, enlivens their mind, inspires the imagination and brings them joy. In the case of works of visual art there is a simple test that will set true artwork apart from photocopied prostitution and that is to ask if life is being degraded for sales. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo, like other great artist dealt with nude images, but this did not make
them pornographers or their works prurient. In fact one of the signs of a true artist is one who treats anatomy and muscle definition like a science, a mind that portrays the epic nature that is humanity. Here is the test, the artist celebrates humanity in lifes full experience, there are a multitude of avenues to portray, and through his work the artist can capture them all. On the other hand the pornographer celebrates nothing of mankind, in fact he wants as little to do with it as possible. He will argue that sex is a celebration of life, as if sex taken lightly was never followed by consequences. In the separating of sex from the emotional and physical consequences that follow it, they are selling a fragmented existence, and not celebrating humanity. Humanity feels pain, emotions and suffers or triumphs, the pornographer cares nothing for these things, the pornographer cares nothing for mankind save the money he can get from them. Life is degraded for sales numbers, making sex a commodity does not celebrate humanity, and it puts a price on it.
There is a name for the combination that seeks to traffic life for money and the
doctrinally literate Latter-day Saints will know it. Here however, in the place of taking a life for money and gain, Satan inspires weak minds to destroy the means by which life is created. If man is as God once was, as the Prophet Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett Discourse, the pornography not only sells the creation of Gods in embryo for temporal wealth and profit, it demeans all creation for the change in your pocket. By doing so, he destroys more than just one life at a time all the while the wealth pours into the coffers of his minions.
Because of these facts it is increasingly difficult to define pornography as speech when speech to humans is so different from what we see. There can be no cutting social commentary in depicted sex acts. There is no furtherance of definable, certain principles, no forwarding of civil discourse and no enlightenment of the mind, there is only the lowest, coarsest path available to man to make a quick buck. Porn when stripped of all the money it wraps itself in so self righteously, is prostitution for the technological age. Pornography is nothing more than individuals being paid a sum money to perform sex acts for the financial benefit of a third party.
Porn participants are prostitutes and their managers are pimps, nothing more. It is vacant, hollow and lacking in everything humans need to communicate.
The view of the blind
This matters nothing to the Libertarian who, like other utopians, seem to lack an understanding mankind or those who seek to destroy it. The Libertarian view is that Porn and prostitution does not harm anybody; it is material which adults choose to view, produce and participate in. However this view is so simplistic and foolish that it is difficult to imagine how anybody could take it seriously. It is foolish for this reason, as a persons mind becomes darkened by the influence of the evil combination pornography represents, they cease to see only images, they begin to see the women and children in the market, at Church, at school and at work as pornography. They begin to lust after and fantasize over teen girls and boys who resemble the barley legal portrayals they viewin their darkened rooms. They begin to believe that the motives of the innocent are in fact libertine. If you can deny that such wicked desires lead to acting out, and thus represent a threat to the freedoms and rights of others, you are not only blind, you fail totally to understand human nature. The mind that has become corrupted by an addiction to pornography can never be a free mind. The pornographers who sell sex as a market good labeled pleasure count on the legions of porn addicts as a slave master counts on his slaves to fill his pocket with easy cash. Of this sick situation of modern society G.K Chesterton said: Sex also is to come to the salve merely as a pleasure; that it may never be a power. He is to know as little as possible or at least think as little as possible, of pleasure as anything else except pleasure; to think or know nothing of where it comes from or where it will go to when once the soiled object has passed through his own hands. He is not to trouble about its origin in the purpose of God or its sequel in the posterity of
man. In every department he is not a possessor, but only a consumer; even it if be of the first elements of lifexxi The Libertarian may be correct that we do not have to, or are not forced to view the ever expanding cloud of obscene materials, but they are wrong that we as a people are not effected and our rights are not infringed, after all, we are forced to live in the fallout.
So, what are the Libertarians actually saying about obscenity?
The Libertarian believes that the production of obscenity is a matter of the market and as a market good it is driven by demand. Their view is that because obscenity is a product that must be purchased by an individual according to their own free will, any attempts to govern or limit the production or distribution of the material constitutes a violation of that individuals
right to buy and the producers right to produce a market product. To the Libertarian obscenity
is an issue governed by the wicked rule that says, every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime. (Alma 30:17) The Libertarian party states that obscenity must be protected speech regardless of the volumes of studies that tell the tale of its apocalyptic effects on the individual. They miss the fact that no matter how free a society is the addict and by extension the addicts loved ones, are in bondage and victims respectfully. The Libertarians protect pornography and as we shall see celebrate it as a bellwether issue of a free society. David Boaz of the Cato institution says the issue of Obscenity is the principle of mind your own business. If you dont want to watch the movie, dont.xxii Elsewhere, while praising the principled Libertarian Phil Carden who defended the pornographic public exhibition of Deep Throat in the 1970s states:
Because of the common law and the Constitution that Philip Carden valued, kings and governors and prosecutors cant just shut down a movie they dont like. They have to go through due process of law. Too often, the law still allows coercion against innocent people When faced with a challenge, I sometimes wonder, what would Phil Carden do?xxiii
Boaz, like all other Libertarians, views laws designed to protect the communities that support, vote for and enact them from pornography as governmental force and abuse of power; as the Mormon Libertarian proclaims with such confidence Peace and persuasion are abandoned and replaced with war and coercionalbeit wrapped in flowery language like strengthening society. xxiv The principled defense of Obscenity as speech is reflected today by the face of
Libertarianism Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has voted specifically that it is Not appropriate to
prosecute all illegal adult pornography (Sep 2007). Elsewhere Pauls voting on such issues, including child pornography is deeply disturbing. According the Family Research Councils voting Scorecard Ron Paul voted NO on the followingxxv: The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (H.R. 4623) that would prevent trafficking in child pornography and obscenity and seek to prevent the use of child pornography and obscenity to facilitate crimes against children. The bill passed the House 413-8. H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Act, sought to increase the financial penalties for violations of federal laws against the transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane materials by television and radio broadcasters. The bill passed the House on a 321-22 vote.
In addition to his voting record on obscenity issues, in an interview with the Washington Post congressman Paul stated that in regards to prostitution: I understand prostitution has been around for a few years. And they tried to legislate it out of existence and I don't think it's worked very well. I would essentially have no restrictions, certainly on the federal level.xxvi Elsewhere it is noted that Pauls attitude toward Prostitution can be summed up as Legalizing prostitution is about protecting Libertyxxvii Pauls stance is in perfect keeping with Libertarian guru Murray Rothbard who, in his book entitled For a new Liberty: A Libertarian manifesto, calls pornography (and prostitution) a victimless crime and notes that the Libertarian cannot even call such things a crime because by their definition crime can only be violent invasion of someone elses person or propertyxxviii
From the Manifesto we can learn more philosophy: if the government presumes to outlaw pornography, it itself becomes the genuine outlawfor it is invading the property rights of people to produce, sell, buy, or possess pornographic material. We do not pass laws to make people upright; we do not pass laws to force people to be kind to their neighbors or not to yell at the bus driver; we do not pass laws to force people to be honest with their loved ones. We do not pass laws to force them to eat X amount of vitamins per day. Neither is it the business of government, nor of any legal agency, to pass laws against the voluntary production or sale of pornography. Whether pornography is good, bad, or indifferent should be of no interest to the legal authoritiesIt should be clear, too, that prohibition of pornography is an invasion of property right, of the right to produce, sell, buy, and own. Conservatives who call for the outlawing of pornography do not seem to realize that they are thereby violating the very concept of property rights they profess to champion.xxix
This philosophy culminates in a party statement to be found on the Libertarian party web page:
We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning: Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders womenxxx In short to the Libertarian, no matter how awful it is, no matter how much damage it causes, in the name of freedom, you, the citizen, the individual, the mother, the father and the victim, have no recourse. You are not at liberty to defend yourself or you innocent children from the wicked and conspiring minds. Elsewhere in a press release Party Chair Mark Hinkle proclaimed the federal obscenity prosecution of pornographer (and Libertarian party donor) John Stagliano a travesty and stated: Federal anti-obscenity laws are unconstitutional in two ways. First, because the Constitution does not grant Congress any power to regulate or criminalize obscenity. And second, because the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech The Libertarian Party's platform states, "We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology." xxxi
Libertarians Honor the Obscene

Not only did the Libertarians support and defend Stagliano, they threw an awards dinner and topless dancing display in his honor. In a post announcing a Celebration of free Speech to take place Thursday, December 9, 2010 The Reason foundation announced: This year, the Supreme Court upheld the right to free speech in its Citizens United decision and the Second Circuit appeals court struck down the FCCs indecency standards for being vague and capricious. From violent video games to protests at funerals to photographing public officials to suppressing court documents, free speech is still under frequent attack as
conservatives try to criminalize art To advance freedom, Reason is hosting Free Minds and Free Markets: A Celebration of Free Speech, an evening extravaganza that will bring together some of the leading voices on the front lines of this battle for liberty and raise money for Reasons work in defense of freedom of speech. Please join us for an unforgettable evening at The Box in New York City, on December 9 Honoring: John Stagliano General Admission: $1,000xxxii (It also needs to be said that Mr. Paul Fishbein, the editor of Adult Video News, the porn industrys news arm and propaganda machine was top billed on the Host Committee for this event.) A report in the Adult Video News gives us a picture of this Libertarian celebration of Pornography. I will include here a summary of the event as an illustration of just how closely the Libertarian ideology and party is tied to the producers of evil: In the Bowery section of south Manhattan, a mere stones throw away from New Yorks fashionable SoHo district, a nondescript building on Chrystie Street discreetly hides The Box, a plush burlesque house appointed in the style of a 1920s speakeasy cabaret. One expects the doorman to peer through a sliding eye-level slot, demanding the password for admission to the smoky, music-filled room and the debauchery taking place within. In this setting, luminaries from the worlds of Libertarian politics, mainstream media and a select few from the adult industry, congregated Thursday night for a celebration of free speech and, more specifically, John Staglianos federal court victory in the obscenity case that many regard as a pivotal moment in the adult industrys battle with overzealous, anti-sex government censors.
The freezing wind blowing through Manhattan served as a metaphor for the chilling effect created when artists are scared to create out of fear of persecution or prosecution. In contrast, The Reason Foundation, a Libertarian organization with a long history of support for and from John Stagliano, energized by the good news of the acquittal, celebrated the occasion with an eyes-wide-open program exposing the uninitiated to their motto Free Minds and Free Markets and the vital role of all speech, be it sexual, political or economic, in the pursuit of these fundamental liberties The evening was emceed by David Nott, president of The Reason Foundation, who succinctly explained Reasons decision to hold the event, the choice of venue, the back story of Staglianos involvement with the organization and his admiration for Staglianos hallmark of honesty and integrity, evidenced by his decision to stand tall and face his challengers despite the possible loss of freedom and livelihood Stagliano graciously accepted the award with a heartfelt talk voicing his passionate
belief in sexual expression, including hardcore and fetish porn, as a legitimate art form
that encourages the viewer to enjoy and consider individual sexual boundaries, the complexity of intimacy and personal liberty, areas that should remain free of government sanction Cambria noted Staglianos unwavering insistence that his legal team mount a case to protect the movies as the priority over protecting him. This willingness to sacrifice his personal liberty for societal liberty made Stagliano unique in Cambrias view, no small feat given the lawyers decades long career of First Amendment advocacy representing well-known clients such as Larry FlyntCambria finished on a humorous note, recalling Staglianos admonition about the artistic merit of a video clip from (name of pornographic films redacted). Simultaneously laughing and bristling at the notion of swaying a jurors recognition of the artistic value or community tolerance of a scene featuring (graphic sex act excerpted) Cambria wryly proclaimed John, you gotta be kidding. He remembered that Stagliano, nonplussed as ever, displayed his absolutist belief in the worth of sexual expression involving consenting adults Cambria
victoriously hoisted his shot glass. Heres to you, John. Thank you for the honor and thanks from all of us gathered here tonight. The guest list featured a Whos Who of Libertarianism and pornography, including news man John Stossle and multiple heads of the porn industry. After the dinner and toast The Reason Foundations David Nott invited the audience to stay for the two burlesque shows to follow and the guests were treated to a Burlesque presentation that was according to the article a top-notch campy revue filled with music, singers, topless dancers, comedians and even dancing dogs, the latter act providing the G-rated contrast to a celebration of the X-rated arts in a landscape bearing the fruits of a free market made possible by unencumbered freedom of speechxxxiii This scene brings to mind the Book of Mormons account of wicked men For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall... (Mosiah 16:3) Such men of such a
mind are shut out of the presence of God (Moses 6:49) and are on a path that can only lead
to destruction for to be carnally minded is death (2 Nephi 9:39). The Apostle Paul explained Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8:7) and yet we are to believe that this is the party of freedom and the one most compatible with the Restored Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Laws do not make men live morally, they allow moral men to live.
It is also important to note that many Libertarians state that the enforcement of antiprostitution, solicitation and obscenity laws, while not a federal issue and such laws are a violation of Constitutional Freedoms, these subjects are left to the states. However, does anyone really believe that those wicked souls who profit from vice would let the states pass laws that prohibit their livelihood? Does anyone really think that if one holds the idea that citizens cannot allocate the power to enact social prohibitions to their federal representatives,
they will turn and say that such actions can be justly allocated to their state representatives? No, the progression of wickedness will roll over any just means enacted to stop it. The logic also works the opposite way. If the people can vote to deliver such powers to their state representatives on the state level, they are just as free to allocate such power to their federal representatives. There is nothing in the constitution that states that the people cannot choose to do so. Rothbard makes the same argument made by Ron Paul, the Mormon Libertarian and others which state that it is immoral to attempt to legislate morality because morality can only be an act of free will. Universally Libertarians miss the fact that anti-obscenity laws are not designed to enforce a moral code upon the corrupt, but to protect the innocent and the righteous from the corrupt. They do not seek to make men moral by law, such a thing is not possible, but to allow the moral to live and raise their children in a society that is not coarsened and corrupted by a cadre of men who seek to destroy society for profit. It is this minority of wicked men who have no right to introduce vile, addictive and socially poisonous material into society without opposition.
@
Yet, the Libertarian tells us there can be no opposition without violating the rights of the wicked, they tell us we are not free to decide our own standards and seek to ensure our children are not exposed to lies and malicious propaganda of evil. It is not those who seek laws to restrain obscenity who are attempting to alter the social landscape, they are trying to preserve the societal conditions that existed before the obscene flood began. It is the pornographers and the Libertarians who are seeking to enforce a new moral code upon the people. For generations Americans lived knowing that they possessed the power to protect themselves by law from the wicked and capricious schemes of other men. It is the pornographers and their Libertarian supporters who have raised a new constitutional amorality that refuses the citizen to organize in defense of his family and community by legal means.
The Hon. Robert Bork, in his text Slouching toward Gomorrah sums up the Libertarian error on this issue as follows:
The nature of the liberal and Libertarian errors is easily seen in discussions of pornography. The leader of the explosion of pornographic videos, described admiringly by a competitor as the Ted Turner of the business, offers the usual defenses of decadence: 'Adults have the right to see [pornography] if they want to. If it offends you, don't buy it.' Those statements neatly sum up both the errors and the (unintended) perniciousness of the alliance between Libertarians and modern liberals with respect to popular culture'If it offends you, don't buy it' -- is both lulling and destructive. Whether you buy it or not, you will be greatly affected by those who do. The aesthetic and moral environment in which you and your family live will be coarsened and degraded. Economists call the effects an activity has on others 'externalities'; why so many of them do not understand the externalities here is a mystery The externalities of depictions of violence and pornography are clear. To complaints about those products being on the market, Libertarians respond with something like 'Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set.' But, like the person who chooses not to run a smelter while others do, you, your family, and your neighbors will be affected by the people who do not change the channel, who do rent the pornographic videos, who do read alt.sex.stories. As film critic Michael Medved put it: ' To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing. . . .xxxiv It has been shown that the Liberation party is fully compatible with the satanic combination that is pornography. The existence and actions of the party positively influences or enables another to operate as its creator intended. The party acts in a manner which protects the combination and makes it difficult for the righteous to stop its progression. In this aspect, the party is as much a part of the secret combination as the producers of the material themselves. The question is can an organization which openly celebrates and seeks to protect monstrous evil be compatible with the Kingdom of God? We know it cannot be. To say such a thing is to teach false doctrine.
The LDS Churchs support for Anti-Obscenity laws.
On January 9 2012, the author met with Elder John K. Carmack, of the LDS Church Perpetual Education Fund, to discuss the Elders history of Church assignments in the anti-obscenity battle. Elder Carmack produced to the author at that meeting a First Presidency letter entitled First Presidency Statement on Pornography. This letter was published in the Church News of February 26 1966 and signed by David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner, Joseph Fielding Smith and Thorpe B. Issacson. The letter proclaimed the following: The circulation of pornographic pictures, books, magazines and films in nearly every community has now reached an alarming stage. Its detrimental effect upon standards of morality is becoming so serious that all
thoughtful people must unite to combat it. The sale of unclean printed matter, the showing of salacious films, the presentation of questionable TV programs and the dissemination of immoral material through other means, have become so offensive that decent citizenry can no longer remain silent. These merchants seem to have no concern for the morals of the people, not the wellbeing of the communities at large which inevitably must suffer through the crime and corruption which always results from a lowering of standards of decency. Again, notice the defensive language, we must combat it because it is detrimental to society as you would an enemy. But how? Though the Mormon Libertarians positive propaganda campaign to show how bad it is? No, as we will see, the Church has taught that it is just to use the law to fight and combat evil. Here is where the LDS Church and the Libertarian world are enemies, where the Libertarians teach doctrines and principles that stand in pure, defiant opposition to the revealed wisdom of the Lords servants. The letter continues:
We call upon the members of the Church and all other right thinking people to join in a concerted movement to fight pornography wherever it may be found, whether in books and magazines, on the screen or in material sent through the post office.
We also urge legislators and civil authorities in every state and community to do all in their power to curb this pernicious evil.
Local as well as federal processes may be required to stem this tide and yet such action will only come if an aroused electorate makes its feelings known.
As we will see there were legislators, members of the Church and attorneys who took up the call and did in fact receive not only the support of the Church, but the organizational power of the priesthood. The letter goes on to sharply question the judgment of political leaders who believe issues of freedom of speech are at risk when it comes to Pornography. The presidency concludes: It seems incredible that elected officials can be so far misled as to suppose that they are acting in the public interest when they allow this debasing condition to continue. Minorities seeking to make financial gain at the expense of a silent majority should not be permitted to bring widespread tragedy upon others for want of a strong expression in defense of decency. (emphasis added) The letter ends by calling every father and mother to demand an immediate termination of this flagrant vice. This was not a statement simply decrying the social decay the Brethren saw around them, this was a call to arms, to use the local and federal means as a way to limit and fully curtail the proliferation of obscene material into society. The Libertarians call such a thing unconstitutional, the Brethren call it defending freedom.
Elder Haight and the use of Law

The notion of anti-obscenity laws being a means of defending the innocent was ridiculed by the Mormon Libertarian when he mocked the idea that the law could be used to enact righteous social prohibitions in order to uphold certain moral code. The ridicule is shallow a and dangerously ill conceived seeing as the Church does advocate for laws that uphold a certain moral code. In what feels to be a prophetic response to the Rothbards and Ron Pauls, Elder David B Haight, in a speech entitled personal morality commended on the lack of laws to regulate obscenity and the righteous action that can be taken to stop obscenity: Cable television and satellite transmissions, with their powerful capacity for good, are not only being used, but are also being abused. State and national laws necessary to govern their proper use are not yet established, and they are almost totally unregulated. Greedy men have been ready to exploit this vacuum in legal regulation without regard for the consequence to its victims. The emphasis here is that the lack of laws restricting obscenity was the problem. He does not say, its offensive, dont look at it, but its their right to produce it. Since we as individuals lack to power to restrict what others will produce or purchase, we lack the ability to grant government that power as the Mormon Libertarian and the Cato institute would. Isnt it
immoral to seek government intervention in such matters? If Mormonism and Libertarianism are compatible would not the Brethren and the party agree on such a central point? It is the reality that Elder Haight actually assails the notion point blank: This growing presence of obscenity has been aided by the lowering of media standards for advertising, by relaxed movie ratings, by television soap operas and situation comedies that use their powerful voices to justify, glamorize, and encourage sexual relations outside of marriage. Perhaps we have been intimidated by those who claim that producing, distributing, and using obscene materials is a basic right to be defended. This is not true. Even under the divinely inspired constitutional principles of this land, obscenity is not condoned nor protected. The United States Supreme Court has clearly held that criminal prosecution of those who produce and distribute obscene materials does not violate their First Amendment rights. (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 1973.)
And who is to blame? We could conveniently point the accusing finger at public prosecutors who are not vigorously enforcing the law. But we need men and women of courage and conviction in these offices of public trust if the awful tide is to be stemmed. But as one accusing finger is pointing toward those who make or enforce the law, another may point to ourselves, who may be equally to blame.
Fortunately, what is deemed legally obscene is partially determined by local community standards. We as citizens, by our own standards, are the ones who can help establish what offensive materials arewhich ones are legally obsceneand cannot claim protection from the law.
Unfortunately, many people assume that even hard-core pornography is legal because it is so prevalent. But that is not true. Some public prosecutors may excuse themselves from seeking enforcement of obscenity laws by explaining that community standards determine what is obscene. They therefore conclude that because the community
tolerates such material, its presence must reflect the accepted community standard. Concerned citizensyou and Ican change this misunderstanding. We can make our own elected officials and law enforcement people aware that we support the fair enforcement of laws prohibiting obscenity and regulating indecency, thank them for their past service and present efforts, and encourage them to continue the difficult and sometimes thankless task of strictly enforcing the existing laws in a consistent and fair manner. where legislation is needed to meet new technological advances in cable and satellite transmission, let us support the enactment of reasonable laws and regulations that would help reduce the number of those whose lives will otherwise become marred by addiction, child abuse, and many of the other social ills that pornography helps foster. These laws should be carefully drawn within constitutional limitations, so that the freedoms we seek for ourselves now and in the future are not denied for others.
Elder Haight covers a lot of anti-Libertarian ground; let us examine a few of the points of
conflict here: Elder Haight states specifically that part of the problem is that the laws are not being enforced, the Libertarian claim those laws should not exist in the first place. The Libertarian Party Press release about the Stagliao prosecution specifically states In a free and open society this is exactly the kind of prosecution that should not happen He notes that it is up to the people to help establish what offensive materials are which ones are legally obsceneand cannot claim protection from the law Libertarians see such actions by local governments to be censorship and equate it to force and coercion. He dismisses the idea that just because content can be found within a community, that the community accepts it. He encourages the members to make their voices heard in support of obscenity laws and recommends encouraging the individuals who prosecute pornographers.
On the notion that obscenity laws are a righteous means of defending the innocent from evil the Apostle calls on the Saints to support the enactment of reasonable laws and regulations that would help reduce the number of those whose lives will otherwise become marred by addiction, child abuse, and many of the other social ills that pornography helps foster.
Finally he points out that such laws can be constructed within the frame work of the constitution.
California Proposition 18, April-November 1972

What Elder Haight spoke of here was based not in a what people should do view, but rather was rooted firmly in what had previously been done with full Church support. In 1972 several members of the Church along with a coalition of Christians from other denominations set out to place California Proposition 18 on the ballot for the 72 November election. The ballot intuitive would have allowed the prosecutable definition of contemporary community N standards to be decided by the population within a ten mile radius from where obscene material was being sold or distributed, making it easier for local prosecutors to combat and remove offending material from any incorporated area. If the people of the township voted for a certain standard to be upheld, that standard would then be in effect without having to consider the contemporary standards of the bigger and more liberal metropolitan areas. Columnist James Kilpatrick in the November 3 1972 edition of the California Free Lance-Star recorded that proposition 18 would create sweeping prohibitions against the topless and bottom less attractions that now astonish the tourists and it would write an encompassing law for the protection of minors This was all true, then came the standard lies that the passage of the law would lead to criminal prosecutions of those who exhibited Michelangelos David or the works of Renoir. The classic arguments were made, it violates the first amendment, it restricts speech, its unconstitutional, its morally wrong. All the sounds made by the Libertarians today.
Then on May 8 1972 a letter started to arrive in the mailboxes of every Stake President, Bishop and branch president in the state of California, this letter from the Prophet Joseph Fielding smith and the First Presidency announced not only support for the measure, but requested the leaders organize the priesthood to see that the measure made the ballot. The letter read as follows: Dear Brethren: We understand that an initiative measure is being proposed in California which will place into the state constitution and statutes of California effective laws which will enable local communities to review the distribution and exhibition of obscene literature and motion picturesAs leaders and members of the Church, we should lend our support to those political leaders who are endeavoring to stem the tide of this great evil. Accordingly we urge you to organize yourselves to assist those who are sponsoring this measure to get it on the ballot in order that the citizens of California will have the opportunity to consider the matter and vote on it. Sincerely yours, Joseph fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner The first presidency xxxv Overnight the priesthood of the LDS Church was involved in a anti-obscenity campaign that would go on to collect over 1,000,000 unique signatures in 8 weeks. By mid-June the issue so alarmed the representatives of the porn industry that they, after realizing that the ballot measures authors could not be bought off, pledged over three million dollars in funds to destroy Proposition 18xxxvi Then in August a second letter from the First Presidency in support of the measure was sent to the saints of California. In personal correspondence proposition 18 sponsor and co-author Senator John L. Harmer informed Elder Howard W. Hunter (who initiated the writing of the first letter in May) :
The second letter from the first presidency appeared about the 23rd of august. In it the First Presidency endorsed proposition 18 and urged the members of the Church (as individual citizens) to assist in the dissemination of fact regarding Proposition 18xxxvii At this point, it must be understood that the Church was now in full support of the proposition and the members of the Church were now urged to go toe-to-toe with the pornographers and their Libertarian supporters in order that the facts of the measure might be known. At the same time Harmer and the regional representative of the Quorum of the twelve, Brother Talmage Jones, flew to Church Headquarters to meet with Elders Gordon B. Hinckley and Marvin Ashton. During the October 1972 General Conference, as the supporters of Prop 18 were assailed by wave after wave of propaganda, under direction from the First Presidency Elders Hunter, Benson, Hinckley and Ashton met with the regional representatives of the Church in California where they urged the Regional representatives to return to their stake presidents with the strongest possible endorsement of our efforts.xxxviii
f
In the end Proposition 18 failed. The Porn industry spent millions to squash it and even enlisted the support of Hollywood A-list types such as John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. This was just the beginning of the LDS Churches push for the creation and enforcement of obscenity laws. In the 1980s and 90s Church was continually involved in a number of actions designed to stop the production and distribution of obscene materials.
The Church sides with the Anti-Obscenity movement

On December 1, 1987, Elder Carmack of the First Quorum of the Seventy went on public record as an authority of the Church and the February 1988 Ensign reported: the Church wholeheartedly supports the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with its freedom of speech guarantees, but agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that the First Amendment was not designed to protect and does not protect pornographic material.Lets reject the myth that this is a censorship issue and make it
what it isa vital public safety issue, although there are laws that need enforcing, additional legislation is needed.xxxix
United States Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography

A year earlier, on January 22, 1986, Sister Ardeth G. Kapp, General President of the Churchs Young Women organization, appeared as a representative of the Church before the United States Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography where she made a strong plea for enforcement of laws against pornography. The April 1986 Ensign reported: Sister Kapp spoke of pornography as an enemy invading the country and called on the government to act against it. This commission has an opportunity to help restore a climate where values can have a chance to survive and thrive, she said. Sister Kapp, speaking in behalf of the Church went on to list three areas of action the
Said Sister Kapp: Church wished to see taken by the Commission.
As a Church and as citizens of this land we ask and pray that this commission commit to three important actions: 1. Give proper heed to the wealth of testimony and evidence before you. Present to the Attorney General and to the American public a clear finding that obscenity and indecency contribute significantly to many of the growing social ills besetting this country, including child abuse, violent sex crimes, suicide, and disruption of families through divorce and infidelity. 2. Recommend to the Attorney General and to the President of the United States that all federal laws relating to obscene and indecent materials be given full enforcement. 3. Recommend that the Congress of the United States and state legislatures fashion new legislation, where needed, to meet the challenges of advancing technology that has stepped beyond the reach of existing obscenity laws.
This is all deeply anti-Libertarian, yet here Sisiter Kapp, in her prepared statement on behalf of the Church, comments on the responsibility of elected officials to enforce community standards, a responsibility which Libertarians deny exist. Sister Kapp Continued Third is the role of elected officials. It is their responsibility, she said, to see that protective legislation against pornography exists and is vigorously enforced. She noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled obscenity is not constitutionally protected and that community values can be preserved and enforced by law.xl In May of that same year the Ensign reported the following about Church Leaders feelings concerning the enforcement procedures recommended by the United States Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography. Elder Bruce P. Lindsay, Church spokesmen: urged that the recommendations of the United States Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography be quickly implementedthe commission tentatively approved a draft report recommending a variety of approaches to fighting pornography in the U.S. These approaches ranged from seizure of the assets of businesses selling obscene materials to use of pandering and prostitution laws against producers and casts of X-rated filmsChurch leaders are encouraged by the measures proposed by the Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography and are hopeful that the legislative and law enforcement branches of government will move swiftly to implement and enforce the needed reforms,xli All of the above enforcement measure the Libertarian would consider unconstitutional, and based upon Rothbards definition, outright crime. Yet the Brethren are quoted in the Churchs own publication to be encouraged and wished to see the actions taken. In 1987 the official Church delegates to the Religious Alliance Against Pornography conference included Elder Loren C. Dunn of the First Quorum of the Seventy and president of the North America Northeast Area; Young Women General President Ardeth G. Kapp; Dr. Bruce C. Hafen, dean of Brigham Young Universitys J. Reuben Clark Law School; and Dr. Richard P. Lindsay, managing director of Church Public Communications and Special Affairs.xlii
Speaking at the event Elder Hafen stated: Societys right to limit certain forms of speech is now established beyond question. Society does have the right to regulate offensive expressionThe justices of the Supreme Court have understood what the ancients understood: some sense of restraint is absolutely essential to maintaining a free, democratic society over the long term. The Ensign also reported Noting that pornography affects more than just the consumer, Brother Lindsay said, Absolute free speech is neither desirable nor required by our Constitution and laws.
The Tolerance for evil, October 1971

Surely the history of above and the stance of the Church on the issue of obscenity law are not brought up among Mormon Libertarians, but these are not isolated instances. The October 1971 Ensign contains a priceless editorial entitled The Tolerance for Evil which contains the following:
Using freedom of expression and the need for realism in art as a front, the makers of movies, the writers of books, and the producers of television have turned loose a torrent of filth that would have been obscene a decade ago but is now merely an indication of our modern, progressive thinking There is a subtle but real trend in the United States to see nothing as being obscene or to make obscenity a protected form of expression. This is the growing tolerance for evil spoken of earlier. And it is gaining support in some legal decisions. In most instances that support is based outwardly on the idea that freedom of expression is of greater importance than anything elseFreedom of expression certainly is a priceless right. Latter-day Saint theology on the free agency of man speaks clearly to all of us that there should be the widest possible discussion of ideas in the search for truth. Let us not be misled, however, into thinking that any society can stand absolute, unbridled freedom. Freedom is meaningful only when there is responsibility. When one
man exercises his freedom in such a way as to endanger others, it would be folly to allow him that freedom. Peddlers of smut, and this includes many who are now operating in the commercially acceptable media, are a danger to society. Their wares, in most instances, are intended to reap a profit, not further discussion of significant ideas. There is a very real difference between the advocacy of evil ideas, which can be allowed in a democratic society, and the gratification of lust in visual and printed form.xliii
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will servebut as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15
In the aforementioned Libertarian press release Obscenity prosecutions were called a
travesty and it was also stated that legal action against the selling of movies performed by consenting adults to entertain adult DVD viewers who have chosen to watch these films was not only unconstitutional but also that In a free and open society this is exactly the kind of prosecution that should not happen. The Mormon Libertarian even assailed flowery language of strengthening society as a pejorative and ridiculous idea. The Church, through its inspired leadership and its example of allocating Church time and energy to the support of anti-obscenity measures casts the bright light of truth upon the Libertarian fallacy. No one knows more of freedom than its author, and that one author of freedom, by his chosen Prophets sets to us the examples to follow. If the Brethren state that we have a moral obligation to fight, combat and seek laws that curtail by law freedoms of satanic combinations then it is an act of defiance to align oneself with a political ideology that teaches that we cannot do that thing God has requested. The Libertarian tells the Saints we cannot act because it is immoral and wrong, that by seeking to make laws to protect ourselves and our posterity from the combinations of wicked and conspiring men we are acting in ways
God cannot condone. Yet we know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. (1 Nephi 3:5) Given the magnitude of the philosophical conflict and the impact on society and Gods children the issue of obscenity represents, the honest Mormon Libertarian, when asked if they give their support to people, parties or groups who teach doctrines that are contrary to those reveled by the lord and accepted by the Church have no other response than to look their leaders in the eyes and say YES. Like all other temporal ideologies, Libertarianism has areas in which truth can be found, and like all other temporal ideologies that truth is corrupted by the wickedness of men. The Church cannot be and is not compatible with Libertarianism, if it was, it would be supporting the very evil combinations it is destined to destroy. Elder John Widstoe, speaking of this lifes wars against evil summed the mission of the Church thusly:
Sin cannot be shown love or mercy. However meek and beguiling it may present itself. It cannot be condoned. Were that done the structure of truth would collapse. The battle of the Church is against sin, of every kind; it must be conquered. or the plan of salvationwill be defeated; it must be fought to the bitter end. Tolerance of sin is itself a sin.All human affairs must be measured by the standards of right. If evil is in man's acts. it becomes a sin to support themxliv
III. The Legal Definition of Marriage The power to define is the power to discriminate. Libertarian Party Press release xlv Prop. 8 attempted to deny people an indispensable right vested in all Americans. ---Cato Institute chairman Bob Levy, co-chair of the advisory board to the American Foundation for Equal Rights xlvi
Finally we must examine the issue in which the Libertarian party and the LDS Church were set against each other like the magnetic poles. That issue was Proposition 8, an amendment to the California constitution which was voted on and passed in November of 2008. This amendment, by consent of the people, delivered to government the power to define marriage as between Man and Woman. It is not the purpose of this short treatment to discuss deep political theory or deep theology and mans shallow perception of his own existence. Or purpose is to illustrate chasm between the party and the prophets. As in the previous sections we will rely upon documents published for the public by the LDS Church and members and representatives of the Libertarian Party to illustrate the divergence of philosophy and values on the issue of marriage which render the two totally and undeniably incompatible. In my initial Facebook posting with the Mormon Libertarian I asked him if he supported the Libertarian party view of same sex marriage. Specifically I asked him about a statement from Mark Hinkle, the Libertarian party chair which included the following: Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all"Marriage equality is not enough, however. I've heard some people express concern that allowing gay marriage would send us down a slippery slope. I hope it does. We should settle for nothing less than a society in which
the legal code is wiped clean of references to a person's sexual identity or depends on how many sexual partners they have. xlvii He responded: Yes and no. The government should not be involved in marriage. If it is, then it should not endorse an incorrect definition of what marriage is. I do not believe that a union between two members of the same sex is an actual marriage in the true sense of the word. But I think that the government has no business in sanctioning, subsidizing, or incentivizing personal relationships of any kind Fair Enough. However doesnt this stand allude that the Churchs support of legislated marriage laws is misguided? Now in all honesty I must state clearly that the Mormon Libertarian was a defender of the Church amid the Prop 8 ordeal of 2008 in as much as he openly defended the Churchs right
to act as it did; despite his aforementioned philosophy which states: Individuals lack the
authority to dictate what relationships other adults may enter into. They therefore cannot delegate that non-existent authority to the government of which they are a part. On his blog he defended the Church by saying: Speaking out on political issues is something the Church has always done. For what is politics, but a system of principles upon which men should be governed? Contrary to other inaccurate assertions, it would be hypocritical for the Church to support an issue in principle only, and not rally its forces when the principle at hand is under threat of perversion or extinctionThe Church has a divinely-mandated duty to speak out against moral issues, as has been evidenced by the prophetic cry of repentance throughout the ages. Some issues receive a significantly greater amount of attention from Church leaders, and its up to them to determine what hand they will play; after all, they are the leaders of the Church. When the moral issue they are concerned about takes its shape
in the form of legislation, this in no way hinders them from persuasion and encouragement. Here M.L. is totally correct and stands with his religion while the temporal political ideology he represents and promotes as the most moral option for Latter-day Saints, attacks his religion as an enemy of freedom. Yet, as we will see, by throwing his voice, time and effort into promoting the party he is forwarding the cause of an ideology that, again on this vital issue, stands in direct opposition to the Church and thusly is wholly incompatible with revealed truth. What Are the Libertarians saying about marriage? The Libertarian views marriage strictly as a government approved contract and will not consider it to be more than that. Jeffery Miron of the Cato Institute notes: Civil marriage is a legal institution created by governments. It is, in essence, just a bundle of contracts involving the marrying couple, their children and others. A marrying couple gets legal rights and responsibilities about division of property, inheritance, guardianship of children and other issues. The government enforces this bundle of rights and responsibilities. The question is, does the government need to specify a particular bundle of contracts, enforce this bundle and call it "marriage"? The answer is no.xlviii Marriage is just a Bundle of Contracts to the Libertarian. In the same article Miron defines religious marriage as a mere custom, ceremony or rite that some couples wish to pursue. And then goes on to argue that religious marriage will not be affected in any way by the furtherance of homosexual marriage. There is no thought of what the end result on society will be, what the ramifications will be save they define such a future as free. Cato Institute Chairman Bob Levy also promotes this idea of marriage as a mere contract and comments that stopping the definition of marriage would be a benefit for the nation: In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the judge held that the act's divergent treatment of same-sex and heterosexual couples violates the equal protection principles
implicit in the Fifth Amendment. The court asked whether Congress had a legitimate basis for treating same-sex couples differently. The unambiguous answer was "No." How about procreation? No. Infertile persons are permitted to marry even though they cannot procreate. Child rearing? No. Studies show that children do just as well when raised by same-sex parents. Promoting traditional marriage? No. Heterosexual marriages will not be affected by allowing gay marriages. Conserving government resources? No. The Congressional Budget Office found that recognizing same-sex marriages would save money. We would have fewer children in state institutions, lower divorce rates and promiscuity, and increased wealth.xlix In another Cato article Levy reject the notion promoted by the LDS Church that the recognition of Homosexual marriage would lead to threatening the rights of conscience and religion. Mr. Levy states: Whose rights have been violated and must therefore be protected by government when a homosexual couple marries? Answer: Nobody's rights have been violated; no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people. Accordingly, a ban on samesex marriage has one overriding objective not to protect rights, but to elevate i.e., promote heterosexual over homosexual unions.l The Libertarians universally denounced the effort to pass Prop 8 as an attack on freedom. In a post on the Libertarian Party website entitled California case represents the ills of Direct Democracy author Andrew Davis decries Prop 8 as a vote against a free society: Proposition 8 represents the ultimate failure in direct democracy and majority rule when the people vote against more freedom, rather than for more freedom. The Libertarian Party officially opposes marriage as an institution of government--both gay and straight marriages. "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships," says the Party's platform.
Elsewhere party members and representatives went on the attack against the supporters of prop 8. Libertarian Activist Angela Keaton ( who served as the executive director of the Libertarian Party of California between 1999 and 2005) in a statement denying the LDS Churches claim that the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula called on the LDS Church to: ...to cease efforts to deliberately mislead the public about the intent and impact of the bill The proponents of this hateful proposed constitutional amendment in California are trying to change the subject in a deliberate effort to misleadProponents of the proposition know that if its true intent is clear to voters, voters will overwhelmingly reject it. By muddying the waters with this fabricated (and discredited) education argument, they are hoping to change the subject and fool otherwise tolerant voters into supporting the unsupportable. Libertarians throughout California and across the United States from the very highest levels have committed their resources to lobbying against Proposition 8 and educating voters on the facts, and many of them have stepped forward with comments of their own, addressing the continued unethical and immoral campaign tactics employed by the Yes On 8 campaign.li In the same statement, Keaton, who is also a member of the Libertarian National committee, defines prop 8 thusly: it is a mean-spirited effort to target the LGBT community. Proponents of this divisive amendment should come clean and stop lying about their intentions and the issues. I encourage Californians to reject the lies, stop the hate, and vote NO on Proposition 8. George Phillies former chairman, presidential candidate and current treasurer/ secretary of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, took a direct shot the LDS Church: This November, Californians have a choice: join with loving Massachusetts, or sink backward with
hate-filled Utah. I urge the good people of California join free Massachusetts: Vote NO on Proposition 8. In a post on the official party website entailed Equal Rights for Allor Just Some, The party posted a scathing attack on the LDS Church insisting that members of the LDS Church (and other groups) were guilty of depriving people of their rights and goes on to accuse these representatives of deceitful actions, attempted extortion and violating civil rights. Finally this posts ends with the battle cry When the California marriage ban is eventually overturned the Yes on 8 supporters will be forced to realize that their argument is unfounded and irrelevant, until then the battle for civil rights will continue to be fought in California. Lastly, Libertarian Allan Wallace of Outright Tennessee denounced the supporters of prop 8, including the LDS Church to be unchristian liars who violating the golden rule of Mathew 7:12. Wallace states: Proposition 8 is motivated by Hate, and as a Christian myself, I would like to remind the proponents of this discriminatory legislation that Hate comes from the devil, not from God, the Ten Commandments instruct believers not to bear false witness, and Jesus commands us to love our neighbors in the same way we love ourselves. By this example, Proposition 8 isnt very Christian. We have seen here that the party views state that: Homosexual marriage is a right, in as much as the government should have any place in defining relationships. Governmental involvement is defining marriage is unconstitutional. The social ramification of Homosexual marriage will result in fewer children in state institutions, lower divorce rates and promiscuity, and increased wealth Traditional marriage is not harmed by Homosexual marriage.
The family unit is not harmed by Homosexual marriage, in fact children do just as well when raised by same-sex parents.
Proposition 8 represented the ultimate failure in direct democracy and majority rule when the people vote against more freedom, rather than for more freedom.
Finally the Yes on 8 movement was dishonest, filled with lies, homophobic and motivated by hate.
The Church calls on elected leaders to enforce marriage definitions. The proclamation on the family was defined by Apostle Boyd K. Packer as a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow. The proclamation is sent directly from the First Presidency of the Church and as such we as Latter-day Saints know it to be from God. President Marion G. Romney, in the April 1945 Conference, made it clear that: what the presidency says as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here. It is scripture it should be studied, understood and followed, even as the revelations in the Doctrine and covenants The Proclamation on the Family sets out the role of the family in society and in eternity. The Proclamation makes it clear that the family unit is essential for the salvation of all mankind, not just those who accept the doctrine. It sets out several points that the Latter-day Saints all know, then delivers a warning to all mankind then culminates in a call to action. ALL HUMAN BEINGSmale and femaleare created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose
THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.
Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. (Emphasis Added)
Keeping with its established pattern of supporting laws which serve to protect the family and in complete agreement with D&C 134:5 which states governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest the Church again in 2008 called upon the Latter-day Saints to labor to pass a protective measure to safeguard the family in society. It is Interesting to note that the situation that surrounded Prop 8 is not unlike prop 18 of from 1972. In both cases the Church issued statement of support and called the Saints to labor in order to pass a legislative act on an issue vital to the moral fabric of the nation. In both cases the Church worked with representatives of different faiths and in both cases the LDS Church supported legal provisions to the California state constitution that would provide binding and enforceable legal definitions and prohibitions. In the June 20th 2008 letter from the First Presidency to the saints in California, the prophet and his counselors (under the guidance of the Lord) asked members in to do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment. The letter stated:
A broad-based coalition of Churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause. We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage. The LDS Church aided in organizing volunteers for YES on 8 and organized for volunteers to call friends, family and fellow citizens in California to urge support of the effort to defend traditional marriagelii . The Brethren asked for 30 members from each of the various wards in the state to consecrate 4 hours a week to the YES on 8 campaigns. Younger Latter-day Saints were asked to use social media to get the word out and share their testimony about the importance of defending the institution of marriage.
Points of conflict
The Church wholly and ardently refutes the Libertarian view of marriage that proclaims it to be a legal institution created by governments just a bundle of contracts involving the marrying couple, their children and others. With equal vigor the Church refutes the equally false idea held by Libertarians that a legal definition of marriage was intended to elevate i.e., promote heterosexual over homosexual unions. In direct opposition to these false ideas the Church defined marriage as follows: Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a
religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.liii The Libertarians perpetuate the idea proclaimed as fact by Cato Chair Bob Levy that children do just as well when raised by same-sex parents. This notion is directly refuted by the Church in its 2008 Divine Institution of Marriage statement. The Church states: extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said: The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. Popenoe explained that: . . . The complementarily of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a childs overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the childs longer-term development, while mothers focus on the childs immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a childs long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support.
The Watchmen on the Tower issue their Warning
While the Libertarian hold that in a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all and that legal definitions like Prop 8 represent vote against more freedom, rather than for more freedom. The Church is unwavering in its prophetic insight that the drive for equal standing under the law for homosexual marriage will result in a loss of freedom from religions institutions and people of religions conscience. In the Divine Institution of Marriage and the more recent Marriage and Religious Freedom (2012, written with leaders of other faiths) letter the Church lays out its predictions for the loss of freedom
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. (Divine Institution of Marriage)
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.(
Divine Institution of Marriage)

advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. (Divine Institution of Marriage)
Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations
are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. (Divine Institution of Marriage)
altering the civil definition of marriage does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries (Marriage and Religious Freedom)
religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly married. (Marriage and Religious Freedom)
Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex married relationships. (Marriage and Religious Freedom)
These statements are serious business and no mere speculation. And no amount of Libertarian utopian thinking can avoid the outcome of such a situation. That outcome is nothing more than the end of right of conscience and religious liberty. The Marriage and Religious Freedom letter continues:
in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex wedding there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.
In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil marriage is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.liv
Because the Libertarian idea of a national mind your own business policy (as Cato Institutes David Boaz puts it) is a utopian dream at its very best, the loss of freedom outlined in the letters above is the direct and only realistic result of the Libertarians short-sighted and naive ideology. They assailed prop 8 as a vote against freedom, they said it denied rights to Americans. The Church and those who stand by its side say that Prop 8 and those who sought to support it are in fact fighting for the religious rights inherent in the constitution which will fall as a result of the lascivious and wicked schemes of this amoral generation.
A Direct Example how We are all Effected

Earlier we examined Cato Chairman Bob Levys assertion that Heterosexual marriages will not be affected by allowing gay marriages and no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people. in response to this myopic and shallow view the Church responds with a vivid example: It wont affect you, so why should you care? is the common refrain. While it may be
true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. .. The establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil
right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality. So yes, your immediate marriage to your spouse may not be altered, but the society your child is raised in, that society that aims to mold young minds and make them conform is forever altered and can never be returned to its former state. Future generations will be taught that the righteous of our day were bigots who wished only to deny right to those who they disapproved of. These actions can only lead to increased persecutions of the righteous, there will be and cannot be equality in such a world.
The Past is Prologue

The Church, as has been shown, holds that populations do in fact have the right to enact social laws. The Church viewed both prohibition and obscenity laws as defensive measure and the same holds true for the defense of marriage.
The loss of true freedom, religious freedom and the freedom from wickedness, is the spark of destruction. Ecclesiastes 1:9 reminds us The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. We can rest assured that there is nothing new in the claims of the Libertarians when it comes to the freedom to be lascivious. Vice as a notion of freedom has been rejected before and is being rejected now. If these notions were true they would be a part of the Church of Christ, but they are not and have never been.
The formation of families according to the eternal design is core to this existence and children, future generations of Gods posterity, are entitled to be born into such a unit. They have a divine right to a family after the eternal design. The Church routinely acts on social matters in order to protect the rights of generations yet unborn! If the family as a unit is
overturned by our generation, it condemns future generations to be reared in a society so wicked, so opposed to the pattern of true life that they cannot truly choose right from wrong. Such a situation is reached when the cup of iniquity is full. It is fair to say that a man who lives and dies in prison but is morally pure and upright before God has more freedom than the man who is born into a life of uncontrolled hedonism. Modern thinkers and callow souls love to point the finger at the Lord and call is mercy cruel. The flood, the destruction of Sodom and the cities of the Plains, the destruction of Babel, and the wars of the Old Testament are relegated to the actions of an intolerant vindictive god. Such a view misses the mercy of destruction. As a society coarsens, little children are born and from their very infancy they are saturated in wickedness so powerful that by the age of accountably they are programmed to see good as evil, evil as good, injustice as justice and righteousness as intolerance. In such a society the most merciful thing for the Lord to do is to wipe it off the map; bury it under the ashes and spare his innocent ones the corruption their older brothers and sisters were apt to give them over to. Hugh Nibley teaches:
There comes a time when the general defilement of a society becomes so great that the rising generation is put under undue pressure and cannot be said to have a fair choice between the way of light and the way of darkness. When such a point is reached the cup of iniquity is full, and the established order that has passed the point of no return and neither can nor will change its ways must be removed physically and forcibly if necessary from the earth, whether by war, plague, famine, or upheavals of nature (Mormon 2:1315).lv
Between mans adoration of vice, the proliferation of pornography and pornographic propaganda as acceptable speech, the temporal wisdom that praises homosexuality as a courageous and proud existence and the effort to teach that all marriage is subjective, can we really think that the rising generations will be able to accept the Gospel when the Gospel is diametrically opposed to all of these contemporary ideas?
If our generation poisons the well from which future generations will drink as a result of our uncritical or rationalized adherence to temporal ideologies, which serve in part to promote evil, our childrens sins fall upon our heads. This is a double condemnation people of the Covenant and those to whom God has bestowed his power. The warning of Jacob was recorded for our sakes, as Jacob told his brethren: remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day. (Jacob 3:10)
Closing: A Question of Judgment

This temporal life has an atmosphere all its own. Elder Neal A. Maxwell used to call it a spiritual ecology. Like our earthy atmosphere, which can only hold so much water before it becomes saturated and purges with great storms and torrents of rain, our spiritual atmosphere can only tolerate so much sin and wickedness before it too must be purged with great destructions. This is the lesson of history. It is foolish and destructive for the Latter-day Saints to dedicate their time and efforts to men or a group of men who seek to further saturate our atmosphere with greater sin under the banner of greater liberty. To claim, as the libertarians do, that people do not possess the right to establish societal prohibitions and standards which serve as a means of protection in the face of wicked and evil machinations, is the same as saying they have no right to defend their just traditions and heritage and pass on those lessons and freedoms to their posterity. The profound G.K. Chesterton nails the importance of this issue: Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good mans opinion, even if
he is our groom; tradition tells us not to neglect a good mans opinion, even if he is our father.lvi As the Libertarian doctrine is accepted and the laws and the prohibitions, recognized and fostered by our traditions, that once kept a civil order are undone, those laws are replaced with an eternal bondage. That bondage is imposed upon rising generations by their morally bankrupt progenitors. The rights of the children to live free from sin have been stripped from them. The vices that seeded the destruction of the Antediluvians, the Nephites, the Jaredites and others are now examples of freedom and liberty for all. The community standard is now replaced by the standard of the individual which, by its nature, lowers all standards to the lowest common denominator. The standards of the people and by extension the representative government of the people can only be as high as the most degrading societal trend the people will accept. If one takes a Libertarian view, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in all three of the above cases of prohibition, support of community standard and obscenity laws and in the case of advocating and organizing for legal definitions of marriage, was acting in a manner that makes it an enemy of freedom. Taking their philosophy to its full extension according to the libertarian, in all three cases the Church was advocating that its members support laws that give government authority that the individual does not possess right to grant. In his own words the Mormon Libertarian explained: governments only legitimately have authority that is inherently possessed by each individual comprising it, and which has been explicitly delegated to that government They therefore cannot delegate that non-existent authority to the government of which they are a part. It would be unreasonable to argue that there is not some truth and wisdom to be found in libertarian ideas. It is also unreasonable to argue that there is not a profound evil in them. When it comes to the most important issues of this life, namely the right to protect the innocent from the wicked combinations of men and the protection of the family for future
generations, the libertarian party and its followers represent the organized opposition to truth and light. Their philosophy on these issues core to the Plan of Salvation are in direct opposition to the Lords and by definition must be satanic. The question then is this, how can one say that they support the Church, its prophets and its doctrines on the one hand, and then on the other throw their time, efforts and support behind a party, group or organization that not only advocates the opposite of the Church on issues vital to the eternal plan of God, but teaches a temporal doctrine that casts the Church as an enemy of freedom for its actions in defense of Gods children? This question goes for ANY temporal group a covenant person may become affiliated with, be it in business, pleasure or politics. As Elder Romney stated it is not enough for the covenant people to be sincere, we must be right The Lord leaves no question about the chasm between the ways of the world and His ways: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9) God has also made it clear that His law and no other will bring men the most intimate relationship with Him. Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.(D&C 105:5.) If libertarianism, or any other temporal philosophy, was truly compatible with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ then Zion could be established based upon the principles of those philosophies. However, no matter how many granular truths may be found to convince some men that such human creations are the most moral or principled temporal political philosophies, they are deeply anti-Zion, in that with their reliance upon mans wisdom they point men not to Christ and Zion, but away and down into shallow valleys of conflict, pride and confusion. The freedom so many proclaim today is the eternal bondage of the adversary, it is his doctrines that conflate freedom with vice which is the error of the libertarian that the covenant person must reject. Elder Neal A. Maxwell commented on this subject by saying: Evil people often think, as did Cain, that they are free. No doubt Noahs contemporaries regarded themselves as liberated and sophisticated It is the living prophets who can tell us of true
freedom as they bring to us a marvelous blend of objectivity and relevancy. In this short treatment we have examined three areas in which one temporal philosophy, currently popular among many Latter-day Saints, serves as a source of opposition to the Lords work. Similar studies could be carried out on every philosophy of man with similar results. In this case there are two key areas that the philosophy in question not only opposed the voice of the Lord, but was an active force for the adversary. I would pray that as we progress toward what Elder Orson F. Whitney called the twilight of time the Latter-day Saints will become more discriminating concerning temporal things and seek to follow the brethren toward Zion orthodoxy. The saints cannot be a Covenant people and still support temporal parties and organizations that serve other masters. The inquisitive Latter-day Saint will find that the major questions of this ignorant present have been answered. These answers are to be found either in the words of the Lords Anointed or in the example and precedents they have set for us in the past and will continue to set as time rolls forth. For this reason we are told by the Lord to feast upon the words of the prophets. When we search, study, pray and take our questions to the Lord in faith, he will aid us in finding where the answers lay. More often than not answers to the tough questions of our day will not come in a flash. He wants you to search and labor for wisdom. Still there is no greater wisdom than to mold your hearts to follow the prophets; especially when their words stand in conflict with the current feelings of the world around you. We look to Elder Maxwell in closing: When the spirit teaches prophets the truth of things as they really are, this includes sensitizing these special men to the implications of what is just beginning, implications that are imperceptible to others. Prophets are alerted to tiny trends and bode ill for mankind. Prophets therefore, and the Lords early warning system: they both detect and decry at his direction. What may seem to be a premature expression of prophetic concern is actually the early discovery of a difficulty that will later plague the people prophets are, literally and figuratively, set apart from society so that they can better gauge impending problems, helping
those who will either cease and desist from that which is wrong or to prepare for that which is about to be.lvii
Sources and Notes

Nibley, Hugh, Approaching Zion: the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Deseret Book company 1985, Vol 9:19-20
ii i
Charlesworth ,James H., The Old and New Testaments: Their Relationship and Intertestamental Literature, Trinity Press International, p.62
iii
Boyack, Connor, December 16, 2011, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/persuasion-vscoercion-taking-a-real-stand

iv
Boyack, Connor, Nov, 30 2011, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/is-Libertarianismcompatible-with-mormonism

v
Boaz, David. "Drug Legalization and the Right to Control Your Body." The Cato Institute. October 25, 2007. 11 Feb 2012
vi
Highlights and Summary of The Libertarian Party's Solution to America's Crime Problem http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence
vii
Wrights, R. Lee, The Most destructive and Devastating War in American History , http://www.lp.org/blogs/mary-ruwart/the-most-destructive-and-devastating-war-in-americanhistory
viii
Hinkle, Mark, Libertarian Party: 40 Years Is Enough, End The drug War (http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-40-years-is-enough-end-the-drugwar)
ix
Threats to Civil Liberties: The War On Drugs, Cato Handbook for Policymakers, Seventh Edition, section 33, 2009
Miron, Jeffrey A. and Katherine Waldock. "The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition." The Cato Institute. September 27, 2010. 11 Feb 2012
xi xii
Quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, Safety in the Face of Dangers, BYU Devotional, May 10, 1966.
It is in your power to elect men who will enforce that law. I have in mind now the remark of one of our best chiefs of police who, when asked the question, " If this state go dry, can you with your force find out where they are selling liquor unlawfully? " " Yes, " said he, " if the public sentiment is back of it, we can stop the illegal selling. " The testimony of twenty-nine district judges of the thirty-eight in the state of Kansas is to the effect that prohibition prohibits; that this law can he enforced just as well as the law against horse-stealing or any other crime.
Governor Stubbs of that state testifies to the same fact. They will tell you that we will go dry if our neighboring town will go dry. For example: Fairview will vote dry, if Mount Pleasant will go dry. Ogden will go dry, if Salt Lake will go dry. That argument can be answered by showing that it is a poor business investment for any town to license (David O McKay, 1911, You know it is sometimes charged that it is a utopian idea to seek for prohibition trader present conditions; but it is also a practical idea, for the largest business concerns in the United States today have adopted it; the railroads controlling a business that excels all others unless it be the insurance companies, have adopted prohibitory measures among their employees. It was not so a few years ago. Now, they have not adopted it just for moral purposes; they found out it was to their financial interest, to introduce prohibitory laws. (Ibid)
xiii
Heber J Grant, 1914 General Conference, http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/x4.asp?t=3237&ID=10694936 Heber J Grant, General Conference 1930, http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/x4.asp?t=4555&ID=13697448 David O McKay, General Conference, April 1911 David O McKay, General Conference, October 1918
xiv
xv xvi
xvii
Joseph Fielding Smith, General Conference 1933, http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/x4.asp?t=4734&ID=14068926
David O McKay, General Conference, 1933, http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/x4.asp?t=4753&ID=14108935

xix
xviii
Rulon S Wells, General Conference 1933, http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/x4.asp?t=4775&ID=14155503 I need not get into citing the tombs of research and data that assert that pornography is social arsenic and is a mitigating and inciting factor in many sex crimes. Elder Holland, President Hinckley, President Monson, President Kimball, Elder John M. Madsen, Elder Bruce Hafen, Dr. victor Cline, Dr. Dean Belknap and countless others have already done under the direction of the Holy Ghost. I also do not need to show the definite link between Pornography and violent sex crimes, while the CATO institute denies this link exist, it is documented all too well in Det. Vernon Geberths Sex Related Death and Homicide Investigations manual. I will say this, this author, as an anti-Obscenity researcher (2003-2009) sat in locked rooms in interviews with rapists, child molesters and murders who all spoke very candidly about their love of obscenity.
xx
There is no more powerful testimony than the feeling of the spirit of God leaving you as you walk into a room with a man who is beyond all feeling.
xxi xxii xxiii xxiv
Chesterton, Gilbert Keith, The Well and the Shallows, Ignatius Press, 2006, pg.173 Boaz, David, Standing on Principle when it Matters, Cato policy Report, July/August 2010 Ibid
Boyack, Connor, December 16, 2011, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/persuasion-vscoercion-taking-a-real-stand

xxv
Heck, Peter, Pro-Family concerns with Ron Paul, Oct 2, 2011, http://www.peterheck.com/libtree/liberty_tree/view/1448/pro_family_concerns_with_ron_pa ul
xxvi
Akers, Mary Ann, may 25 2007, Do Tell: Ron Paul On Babies, Prostitution, Marijuana and Chocolate Chip Cookies, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/05/do_tell_ron_paul_on_babies_pro.html?vm =r
xxvii xxviii xxix xxx
Ron Paul on Healthcare, On The Issues, http://www.issues2000.org/ron_paul.htm Rothbard, Murray, For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto, second edition, P.27
Ibid, P. 127-128 http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech
xxxi
Press Release Thursday, July 15, 2010, http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/ridiculouspornography-trial-violates-constitution xxxii https://www.reason.org/freespeech/ (Last Accessed January 30 2012)
xxxiii xxxiv
John Stagliao Honored by the Reason Foundation, Adult video News, December 10, 2010,
Bork, Robert, Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Harper Perennial; Rep Sub edition (December 16, 2003) 150-152
xxxv
First Presidency Letter, May 8, 1972, copy on file at the Church history library
xxxvi xxxvii
Harmer, John, A War We Must Win, Bookcraft, 1997 P. 68 Letter from John Harmer to Elder Howard W. Hunter, Oct 29, 1972 Ibid, P. 73 Ibid
xxxviii
xxxix xl
Church Supports Anti-Pornography Motion, News of the Church, Ensign, Feb 1988
Sister Kapps Plea to U.S.: Enforce Laws on Pornography, Ensign, April 1986, News of the
Church
xli
Recommendation against Pornography Lauded, Ensign, May 1986, News of the Church.
xlii xliii xliv xlv
Church Leaders Combat Pornography, Ensign, 1987, News of the Church Editorial: Tolerance for Evil, Ensign, October 1971
Widstoe, John A, Evidences and Reconciliations, Bookcraft 1943 Page 271
Press release, Libertarians applaud steps toward marriage equality, April 13, 2009, http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/Libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality Shapiro, Ilya, Californias Gay Marriage Ban Lack Rational Basis, The Cato Institute, August 4 2010. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/californias-gay-marriage-ban-lacks-a-rational-basis/
xlvii xlvi
Press Release, "Libertarians say marriage equality only one step toward ending legal discrimination", Friday, June 10, 2011, http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/Libertarians-say-marriage-equality-only-one-steptoward-ending-legal-discriminat
xlviii
Miron, Jeffrey A. "Government Needs to Divorce the Marriage Business." The Cato Institute. August 13, 2010. 18 Jan 2012 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12054
xlix
Levy, Robert A. "Court Ruling on Federal Law Advances Same-Sex Marriage." The Cato Institute. July 22, 2010. 21 Jan 2012 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11997
l
Levy, Robert A. "Marriage Equality: Protect or Promote?" The Cato Institute. August 25, 2011. 21 Jan 2012 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13611
li
Keaton, Angela, Libertarians Nationwide Unite To Oppose Proposition 8 and Demand The Truth, October 27, 2008, http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/libertariansoppose-proposition-8/
lii
LDS Newsroom, Church readies members on proposition 8, October 8 2008, http://newsroom.lds.org/article/Church-readies-members-on-proposition-8
liii
The Divine Institution of Marriage, August 13, 2008, http://newsroom.lds.org/article/thedivine-institution-of-marriage Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods that Stand of Fall Together, Signed on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by Presiding Bishop Burton, January 12, 2012
liv
Nibley, Hugh, An Approach to the Book of Mormon: the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Deseret Book company 1985, Vol 6:140
lvi lvii
lv
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Moody Publishers (June 1, 2009), P. 74
Maxwell, Neal A., Things as They Really Are, Deseret Book Company, Salt lake City, Utah, 1980, P. 77-78

On Law and Social Prohibitions

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

On Law and Social Prohibitions

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

3 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

Forward by John L. Harmer

4 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

John L. Harmer, February, 07 2012

5 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

6 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

7 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

8 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

9 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

10 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

11 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

12 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

What are the Libertarians saying about Prohibition?

13 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

14 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

15 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

The Brethren act by the Lords wisdom

It is in your power to elect men who will enforce that law.

16 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

17 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

Warning about the Repeal of Prohibition

18 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

19 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

20 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

II. Obscenity Laws

21 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

22 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

The view of the blind

23 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

So, what are the Libertarians actually saying about obscenity?

24 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

25 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

26 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

Libertarians Honor the Obscene

27 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

28 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

29 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

30 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

31 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

32 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

The LDS Churchs support for Anti-Obscenity laws.

33 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

34 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

Elder Haight and the use of Law

35 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

36 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

37 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

California Proposition 18, April-November 1972

38 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

39 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

The Church sides with the Anti-Obscenity movement

40 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

United States Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography

41 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

42 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

The Tolerance for evil, October 1971

43 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

In the aforementioned Libertarian press release Obscenity prosecutions were called a

44 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

45 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

46 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions

47 | P a g e On Law and Social Prohibitions