Comments on: Political Tuesday: LDS Political Thought: Lesson 3 (1948-49)

By: Vader

Vader — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:07:46 +0000

I think the notion of federalism as protection of freedom of religion comes out of the Utah experience, not the Missouri or Illinois experiences. The Saints perceived that, if they were allowed their own state government, they could count on that government to protect the practice of plural marriage. They were not the only ones, which is precisely why they were denied a state government of their own until they gave up plural marriage. The anti-polygamy laws were passed by Congress, in which the Saints had no representation, as an exercise of Congress’ jurisdiction over the territories of the United States.

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:27:37 +0000

OK. I see a brief reference to Joseph’s opposition to slavery calling for Abolition by “compensating the owners” (of course for loss of human property). But where is the reference to the direct and explicit scriptural explanation that the Constitution was established to promote agency, yes, but specifically to promote that “it is not right that man should be in bondage one to another”? D&C 101:79-78.

There are many forms of “bondage one to another” but the obvious one is human slavery protected by the original Constitution at the same time it established the principles for its eventual demise, even if at a horrible cost.

And Mark B. has a great point about the 14th Amendmentand “federalism” sometimes referred to as states’ rights doctrine. Ardis knows I don’t like to self-promote, but I get pretty worked up about this, as did the Prophet Joseph (or at least his scribes – but he signed the letters!)

http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2011/02/states-rights-stink.html

I should calm down. Elder Durham at least poses the question, “Does the principle of freedom belong to all mankind?” and as Bruce Crow points out, there is a lot here “from both sides of the aisle.” It isn’t exactly proto-Skousenism.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:56:34 +0000

Later, on March 25, 1839, a letter was penned in which the Prophet declared that the Constitution was “a glorious standard … founded in the wisdom of God” because it embraced the principle (federalism combined with civil liberty) which “guarantees to all parties, sects, and denominations, and classes of religion, equal, coherent, and indefeasible rights” (D.H.C. III, page 304).

It’s ironic that Bro Durham specifies “federalism” as part of the principle that guaranteed equal rights to religion. In fact, in 1839 the First Amendment, that great protector of such civil liberties as freedom of the press, of speech and of religion, did not prevent the state governments from abridging those freedoms. Under the principle of federalism in those pre-14th Amendment days, the national government had no authority to require the states to conform to the First Amendment.

By: Bruce Crow

Bruce Crow — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:40:09 +0000

Wow, there is so much here, including some ideals from both sides of the aisle. It is interesting to see a platform built on single premise. Party platforms today seem to be built on the idea of “How much do we have to include to get 51% of the vote?”