Will this book be available through amazon.com?

I’m intrigued… and a little nervous about what the message contained in this book might be. The word “liberty” gets thrown around a lot by people who equate it with a “winner take all” attitude that doesn’t gel at all with the message of the Gospel of Christ. I’m anticipating a partisan read but I’ll reserve judgment until I get a copy of the book in my hands and have a chance to look through it.

The question that I ask myself regarding “liberty” is if Jesus teaches me that the highest law for me to live is to “resist not evil”, how would this principle look when applied to me in response to the evil intent of a person who seeks to take my liberty against my will?

“…but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”

So would the application of this higher law mean that I would “give” my liberty to the evil person who “asketh it of me”?

Stunning endorsements, man! I might have to break away from my tightwad ways and pony up for this epic work. Congrads to you!

As someone who has had the privilege of reading the manuscript let me say that you guys are in for a treat! It is one of the best books I have ever read. I’ll be one of the “bulk buyers”.

But that is not my question. “Whatever application this has” IS my question.

Whom do we call a “good leader”, the example of the people of Ammon who refused to take up arms or those who are quick to take up arms to defend life and liberty?

Which of these examples lives this higher law of resisting not evil that Jesus taught?

I’ve been following your blog for about a year now, Connor. I’m familiar with your style and it is partisan. What I’ve come to learn is that God doesn’t really care about petty human politics and attempts to claim that God favors any particular ideology over another cannot be truly based on an analysis of his teachings, but only by parroting the fanatical claims of theo-political zealots who can’t see past their own bias and prejudices.

I am worried about what we are teaching our concience when we justify our actions while protecting life and liberty.

Our standard needs to be the higher law (if I understand it correctly) hence my question how it pertains to liberty.

This is why I asked you before “according to what law?” when you said elsewhere that we are justified in situations of self-defense.

I want you to teach this higher law in your book.

“… an analysis of what liberty is and how it applies to government and politics, using logic, reason, and secular sources of information, in addition to the abundant scriptures and statements from prophets and apostles which relate to these issues.”

What stood out to me is this: “…secular sources of information, in addition to the abundant scriptures…”

Might as well say, “Scriptures mixed with the philosophies of men.”

Sound familiar? Anyone who’s been through the temple should recognize those as the words of Satan and what he offered when mankind sought knowledge.

D&C 134:9 “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government…”

Yet that’s exactly what theo-political zealots try to do when they mix man’s political philosophies with scripture: to further their own political objectives.

Your endorsements are from Libertarians, not God. But you title your work “Latter-day Liberty” in a blatant attempt to woo naive Mormons into buying your politics.

You’re not unlike a lot of politically fervent Mormons who have a stronger testimony of their politics than they do their faith. Who would sooner quote from the collected works of Cleon Skousen and Ayn Rand than holy scripture (of course, to them, Skousen and Rand are as “true” as the Book of Mormon), unless they’re sifting through sacred texts to take snippets out of context in order to offer the illusion of divinity to the manmade philosophies that are more appealing to their egos and baser desires while ignoring core teachings that completely undermine them.

I would advise you to change the title of your manuscript. Remove all references to “Latter-day Saints” and the “Gospel” because what your selling is your opinion, not doctrine–to imply otherwise is an insult to God and only tries to bring Him down to the level of petty humans and their politics. You might “believe” that your opinion is “true” but one thing that I’ve learned over the years is that when it comes to government and politics there is room for differences of opinion even within the gospel. It’s the fanatics who think that God is on their side who lose their way because they should have been more concerned with whether or not they were on God’s side.

My remarks aren’t a judgment on your book. I haven’t read it. They are concerns I have based on what others have written before you. Others who have tried to square human philosophies with God’s word. You’re bringing nothing new to the table in that regard.

What you might perceive to be “100% in line with scripture” might not gel with the perceptions of others and you need to be prepared for that. There CAN BE different interpretations of scripture between two different people, even two different prophets. That doesn’t necessarily mean that one is right and one is wrong. Such interpretations can simply be applied to different problems when one turns to the scriptures for an answer to a question.

Like I said, there is room for differences of opinion in the Gospel. You can get angry at that fact, you can get angry at me, but it’s a fact that isn’t going to change no matter how many books you write or blogs your create.

I stand by my concerns and repeat my advise: Change the title and make it clear to your audience that this is your opinion and your personal interpretation of doctrine. Not to do so would make this text little more than your own personal Rameumptom. You are not a prophet, you’re just another guy with an opinion, exercising his right to share it. To imply otherwise is to be deceitful and give you little more credibility than he would mix scripture with the philosophies of men and call it “religion.”

The title of your work implies an endorsement where none exists. “A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics.”

Your title reveals a gross–some might say heretical–assumption on your part: that your opinion IS the Gospel’s approach to government and politics.

If it was “a gospel approach” then it would have been released by the Church, brought before the membership in General Conference, put to a sustaining vote and included in our standard works.

But that’s not where it comes from because it’s not a gospel approach. It’s YOUR approach. Your opinion. You can back up your opinion with all the sources that you want, scriptural or secular. That’s fine. But don’t call it something that it isn’t. In the end, the Gospel is not yours to manipulate, you are not God, you are not a Prophet, you’re like me: just another schmuck with an opinion. But I don’t presume that God agrees with my politics. Because I honestly don’t think that God cares about my politics–only what’s in my heart and how I treat my fellow man–just as I don’t think he cares about anyone’s politics, including yours. A difference in opinion, even a political one, is not indicative of a moral failing or an indicator of one’s worthiness. The General Authorities of the Church have said as much: “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties.”

For every essay or book that uses scripture to try and validate libertarianism, there’s another that does the same for conservatism, liberalism, socialism, even anarchism. All contain valid arguments, verbatim quotes of scripture, different opinions but none is more “right” or more “true” than the others. They all do the same thing, they try and ride the coattails of a higher philosophy but instead of validating their own politics and opinions, it only serves to bring down God’s word into the mud and muck of human pettiness and that makes God look like just another petty human schmuck with a political agenda and not the divine parent that He is.

Your book is your opinion but your opinion is not Gospel, to present it as such–and that’s precisely what the title does–is dishonest and if you profit by that dishonesty (which I’m sure you will), it’s going to come back to haunt you. In this life or the next.

Congrats on your book, Connor. While I have misgivings with the way that religion and politics are something interspersed in LDS academia, your style rarely comes across as sanctimonious or anything other than your own personal scholarship.

You should try to get an interview on Glenn Beck’s radio show. This is right up his alley, but he does tend to shy away from overtly Mormon stuff, or showing a strong bias. But this really seems like good material and an important subject for today.

Ryan, I would be interested to see Beck’s response to a few of Connor’s chapters- particularly the ones dealing with drug prohibition, America’s foreign policy, and immigration. I think he could learn a lot from reading Connor’s book.