I can only wonder what Warren Jeffs must think, when he
reviews some of the teachings of the FLDS -- teachings
that they say were part of original Mormonism, but were
illegitimately abandoned c. 1890.

Here is an articulation of the LDS view on obeying federal
laws, as pronounced "a revelation" by President John Taylor.

His pronouncement was made in an interview with a non-Mormon
reporter, working for the New York Tribune -- but the full
interview was also published in the Church newspaper, with
obvious support from the then Mormon President, Brigham Young:

>New-York Tribune.
>------------------
>New York City, Friday, January 31, 1879.
>
>THE MORMONS AND THE LAW.
>
>-----
>
>A TALK WITH APOSTLE TAYLOR.
>THE HEAD OF THE MORMON TWELVE
>APOSTLES DISCUSSES THE RECENT
>DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
>
>
Salt Lake, Jan. 18. -- I had a long conversation recently, by
>appointment, with John Taylor, the head of the Mormon Twelve
>Apostles, in which he expressed very freely, and with full
>knowledge that it would be published, his views upon the
>recent decision of the Supreme Court affecting polygamy, and
>upon various other matters of interest to the Mormon Church.
>The points of this conversation I give herewith:
>
>"Mr. Taylor, allow me to ask if you dissent from Judge Waite's
>statement of the scope and effect of the amendment to the
>Constitution guaranteeing religious freedom?"
>
>"Yes sir; I think that a religious faith amounts to nothing
>unless we are permitted to carry it into effect. They allow
>us to think -- what an unspeakable privilege that is -- but
>they will not allow us the free exercise of that faith
>which the Constitution guarantees. Here are the injustice
>and the manifest breach of faith."
>
>"Is it not true that marriage is the basis of society and
>therefore within the jurisdiction of the Government?"
>
>"I do not look upon it that way. I consider that when the
>Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted,
>those high contracting parties did positively agree that
>they would not interfere with religious affairs. Now, if
>our marital relations are not religious, what is? You may
>not know it, but I know that this is a revelation from God
>and a command to His people, and therefore it is my religion."
>
>"If marriage can be legitimately called religion, what human
>relation or pursuit may not be so called? And if everything
>is religion, and the State is prohibited from interfering
>with it, what place is there left for the State?"
>
>"I have been anxious to see public affairs conducted in an
>honorable, intelligent correct philosophic, patriotic and
>statesman like form in all things. I think, and know in fact.
>we are misunderstood in many respects. Some people think we
>are enemies to this Government. I can truthfully say I never
>was an enemy to the Government, neither have I ever
>entertained a feeling of enmity in my heart. I do not think
>for one moment that either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young was
>an enemy to the Government; neither do I believe that any of
>our leading men, comprehending correct principles, ever feel
>inimical to the Government of the United States. Joseph Smith
>had a revelation. Could he help that? If the Lord spake to
>him was he to blame?"
>
>"Can religious belief, in your opinion, be accepted by any
>Government as justification of an act which it has by law made
>criminal without abdicating its functions as a Government?"
>
>"When the Constitution says Congress shall make no law
>respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
>free exercise thereof, we take it to mean what it says.
>Congress, indeed can pass laws, and the Supreme Court
>can sanction those laws; but while they have the power,
>being in the majority, the justice of those laws is
>another matter." ...

.

Notice how quickly Taylor side-stepped the question of a
national government having authority to enforce its laws
upon groups like the Mormons.

All that the leaders of such groups need do, is to shout
"religious persecution!" and national (and state?) laws
are nullified.

Taylor acknowledges that appeal to the Supreme Court is a
part of the Constitution of the nation he lives in (USA)
but, at the same time, communicates the fact that the LDS
leaders have no intention of obeying the laws, even AFTER
upheld by the Supreme Court.

This was a major, MAJOR, point in 19th century Mormon
disobedience --- Brigham Young kept saying that federal
laws the Mormon leaders did not obey were "unconstitutional."
When the constitutionality of such statutes was determined,
the Mormon leaders implied that the Supreme Court itself
could not announce such decisions -- it had no authority.

In the case of the U. S. Constitution; it was inspired by
the Mormon God Himself, and thus "Eloheim" alone could give
the final pronouncement on constitutionality -- and Brigham
Young was His mouthpiece on earth.

So -- based upon John Taylor's explanation of Brigham's
policy, and of Mormon dogma in 1879, why does poor old
Warren Jeffs end up in a Utah jail?

If we are to believe Taylor, then all Jeffs needed to do was
to yell "religious persecution," and the statutes designed to
protect young girls from Mormon monsters were nullified.

If this doctrine is "revelation," then how did Brigham's
(and Taylor's) successors change it, without accompanying
"revelation?"

Article of Faith: "We Mormons obey the laws of our country...
when and where we damn well please..."

UD

Another set of quotes from the same 1879 interview with
John Taylor, (then) President of the Q12:

>"'The Lord' is a foreign power to this Government, in
>the sense in which you constantly refer to Him."
>
>"I am afraid He is, and there lies the difficulty. We are
>now proscribed, it will be others' turn next. Congress
>has assumed a most fearful responsibility in breaking
>down its Constitutional barriers."
>
>"You hold, then, that your church possesses the oracles
>of heaven exclusively, and that the condemnation of
>polygamy by all Christian nations is without reason
>and wisdom, and contrary to the spirit of revelation?"
>
>"We most assuredly do."
>
>"You claim then polygamy as a principle is of universal
>applicability and could be universally practiced?"
>
>"Yes, sir. It is the normal condition of mankind and has
>been practiced from time immemorial by almost all nations.
>Monogamy is but the outgrowth of a system where corrupt
>Christianity affiliated with a debased paganism. Why,
>sir, three-fourths of the human family, as near as can
>be told, are acknowledged polygamists to-day, and
>the balance corruptly so, though professedly monogamists." ...


Taylor enunciates a big shift away from earlier "public" LDS
doctrine regarding latter day plural marriage: that it was only
SOMETIMES allowed, in order to raise up a righteous generation.
Taylor thus effectively "ruins" the argument voiced by the
Book of Mormon's Jacob -- that extra wives, concubines,
mistresses, etc., are normally prohibited to the Nephites
and their ilk.

Taylor abandons the Book of Mormon's "escape clause" as set
forth in the Book of Jacob, and announces that polygamy is
the divine plan for ALL nations, world-wide -- no matter if
the inhabitants are Mormons or not.

So, the concubines of the Book of Mormon's Wicked King Noah
are as legitimate as are the Hindu plural wives which the
19th century British Empire tolerated in far off India.

And why?

Because nations have disallowed the Mormon God to be a
resident power in their foundations and sustaining documents.

The Mormon God MUST naturally be THE resident power in
constitutional republics like the USA.

But, how on earth can such a situation ever be accomplished?

Answer: By having the government offices filled by loyal
Mormons, who will obey the pronouncements of the Living Prophet.

Ergo: Nations have no authority to curb the "normal condition
of mankind" with governments and laws, unless they are run by
the Mormons themselves.

I do not think this notion was original to John Taylor. Even
though it contradicts certain portions of the Book of Mormon,
I conclude that it was a secret in Mormonism from 1830 onward.

UD

They are even exempt from local laws.

While they con and use the membership. Talk about feudalism and enslavememt. Thank you for the information that you put on the web, it was beneficial to us when we were leaving!

This interview, in 1879, could not possibly have been printed in the Deseret News with the approval of "then president Brigham Young," since Young had died in 1877.

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This interview, in 1879, could not possibly have
> been printed in the Deseret News with the approval
> of "then president Brigham Young," since Young had
> died in 1877.

Yes -- that is true.
I lost track of the timeline.

Thanks for the correction.

...since Taylor wasn't ordained as prophet until three or so years after Young died, that interview may have taken place sometime between the two events.

I'm not sure Brigham Young's support is obvious, since he was dead at the time.

At the moment a prophet dies....he ceases to be a prophet that commands obedience to his utterances.

Except for Horny Joe.

His prophecies must needs endure as sacred writ. Better to simply twist his words than to renounce them in the way succeeding prophets have been disavowed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2014 11:39AM by Shummy.

John Taylor lied when he said that neither he nor the other church founders or leaders were enemies of the government. He also lied when he said that neither he nor other church leaders felt enmity for the government. The temple endowment ceremony included an "oath of vengence" against the United States Government until sometime around 1920. Vengence is both a state of some kind of war, and of enmity. The church is still an enemy of civility and real justice. They're just getting more and more sneaky as time passes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2014 01:53PM by azsteve.

"If this doctrine is "revelation," then how did Brigham's
(and Taylor's) successors change it, without accompanying
"revelation?"

Well, when the federal government disincorporated the church, seized all assets worth more than $50k, and put a "for rent" sign on the Tabernacle, it suddenly became very easy to change the doctrine. And as one observer of the day sarcastically noted, it was changed by "convenient revelation."

The church is still picking and choosing the laws it will obey .Our stake pres admitted I was being ruled out for callings ( divorce mother) with disability, English ( in Scotland) and opinionated…all bad things to the Scottish leaders…I was told people were concerned I was unreliable, would fail and would not cope…I accused him of discrimination…he replied it was divine revelation I replied well if God thinks so little of my I ail leave now and began to leave the room, was ordered to sit down! I refused stood eye to eye…I asked how someone of my career status could be classified as unreliable ( I had not been off sick in 6 yrs despite having a chronic illness) I liaised and lectured nurse managers all over the country a job with needs for time management, leadership and assessment skills..up to degree standard…could he justify this comment of his…he bad pedalled, I replied it was discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 , Stake pre replied,' I do not care about your laws, I do what god says'…I replied ' you will care when you get a law suit in your lap!' and left.