?Armed Rebellion

This has been interesting to me since it first made news awhile back in Nevada. I am for the most part fairly libertarian. IMO the government should provide roads, police and fir protection, and education (including higher education for those who want it bad enough to work for it). I do not favor any bureaucracy. And I honestly do believe the right to bear arms is to not only protect us from enemies but to protect us from the government (although I don’t see us using them for that). All of the Bill of Rights can be directly correlated with grievances the colonies had with Britain.

I do think it interesting the first article has the leadership of this protest equating the Constitution with scripture. I do believe the Constitution may have been inspired, but that does not make it scripture in my mind. However, to those who believe every word in General Conference and every word in the Ensign is scripture I can see how that equation might be made. I think the whole Captain Moroni, Title of Liberty, etc., probably plays better in Utah than Oregon. It’s also an interesting equation between the BoM story of Captain Moroni and this standoff.

So, I believe they think they are inspired and/or scripturally right. I also believe they think the Constitution is on their side. They may be right, but I’m not going to join their fight. I do disagree with the terrorist label for them, I don’t believe they are terrorists I believe they are protesters.

It might be interesting to see if PR makes any kind of statement.

Every church allows nuts to join it.

Okay, here is my question – we are excommunication happy in this church, if something or someone makes us look bad we show them the door. Why not this family? We honor the law. This is clearly not honoring the law and a super stretch of interpretive doctrine.

Thoughts?

This would seem to fall under protecting the good name of the church and should the government choose to do so I think they could press some very serious charges. (Side note: it appears the government is ignoring them which is perhaps why they have tried to appeal to the media which is certainly not ignoring them.) I would think that the church could take disciplinary action. The polygamists also use scripture as justification so there is precedent.

My concern is not what the Bundy’s and their followers did is that they see God’s hand in it and claim a confirmation of the Spirit that they’re doing the right thing. When someone claims a witness that what they’re doing is right with a capital R and it’s clearly not what you believe, how can you give credence to anyone’s testimony or trust what you might have felt yourself?

There are other posts on the net about the double standard. For example:

A 12 yr old boy with a toy is gunned down in 2.3 seconds, a 150 armed men take over a federal building…Barely a peep.

Stupid (literally) fanatics. No sympathy at all, especially since the family in Oregon don’t want anything to do with them and don’t support their action in any way and to any degree. That family is protesting the right way; the Bundys are delusional nut jobs – and I lived in NV when the first confrontation happened.

Leaving them alone without supplies and power is smart. It highlights their stupidity.

I like the Church’s statement. Simple, direct, and comprehensive.

I have said I don’t like excommunication, generally, but support it in some cases. This is one such case.

I have said I don’t like excommunication, generally, but support it in some cases. This is one such case.

I am trying to understand their POV. I am not a farmer or a rancher but I have family that are. They very much resent government interference. I consider it as competing interests. Suppose the government says that the milk you sell must not exceed a certain minimum of bacteria. Public safety right? But some farmers must then use anti-biotics on their herds or face going under? Maybe the government says that fecal waste ponds must be lined with cement (cows poop a lot while waiting to get milked). This serves to protect the groundwater to stay clean. Again public interest but it can be very expensive for a farmer to alter how his family has done business for generations. Suppose that a cattleman has moved his cattle through a particular canyon every year like his father before him. Then the canyon becomes protected as a national park or recreational area and the cattle are not welcome there any longer. It is in the national interest to preserve wildlife areas for future generations. But for the farmer/rancher, they may see their way of life and the “freedoms” they enjoy being chipped away at piece by piece.

That is the extent of my efforts to understand this mindset. I cannot fathom the part about arming themselves and becoming occupiers.

However – I also am trying to look at this as an extension of protest. It certainly gets messy. What forms of protest are allowed and what forms are not? Messy, messy, messy

I guess if I were to draw a clear red line it would be the guns. If this were a peaceful – non violent “sit-in” then I would be in full support even if I disagreed with the politics.