Dear Judge Waddoups

Dear Judge Waddoups,

Did you notice today that the Supreme Court (ten years to the day after the June 26, 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas) just struck down DOMA (the federal defense of marriage act)?

I know you have been working for some months now on your decision in the Kody Brown bigamy crime case.  I wonder if you have been waiting for the Supreme Court to share its wisdom regarding gay marriage prohibitions with you.

In a 5-4 decision today, the Court told you that DOMA must fall because government must not single out a specific class of people for favorable or unfavorable treatment.  In his 1996 dissent in Romer v. Evans, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that the polygamists in Utah are singled out for unfavorable treatment.  Three-tiered framework be damned, polygamists do fall into a discrete minority class.  They ARE treated as second-class citizens.  Their EXISTENCE is seen as a crime (as was gay people's existence before 2003).

What is the appropriate prison term for a polygamous person?

 - - - Life in prison.

Why? - - - Because he will still be a polygamist when you let him out of prison.

Clearly, today, the Supreme Court acknowledged the absurdity of this, and now so must you, Judge Waddoups.

Jonathan Turley told you that Utah's ridiculous bigamy statute violates no fewer than six of Kody Brown's Constitutional protections - more than enough justification for strictly scrutinizing this dumb law.  Now you can finish your master-work. If gay people can now marry and enjoy all of the benefits accorded to heterosexual spouses, will you let us thrive and walk the streets without fearing imprisonment?

I am holding my breath now, waiting for you to rule that Utah's bigamy statute constitutes IMPERMISSIBLE TARGETING of a religious minority.  Can you have the ruling finished by 5 pm this afternoon?

Sincerely,

Renn Oldsbuster

Drones

There has been discussion for months now about whether Obama should have authorization to use drones to kill American citizens on U.S. soil.  After all, he has already used drones to assassinate Americans abroad.

Several secret Justice Department memos were written to justify this type of drone use, but they have not been released, so the public cannot challenge them.

Today, A.G., Eric Holder, responded to Congress that he would not rule out the use of drones to kill Americans (see article).  He was asked if the Constitution forbids it, and he did not answer directly.

What have I been telling you?  The government is not necessarily your friend.  Yesterday he said that the President has "no intention" of using drones to kill citizens here at home.  That is just code for "until he changes his mind".  The Department of Homeland Security is spending $$-BILLIONS to buy drones for domestic use.  If they don't "INTEND" to use them, then why are they buying them?

Do you smell the scent of totalitarianism yet?  I do.  Will you pretend that it really is no big deal?

Silliness

In the wake of the recent tragic mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, the liberal mob is clamoring for more limits on the availability of firearms and ammunition.  You would assume that these bleeding hearts are genuinely hoping to prevent future massacres by reducing the number of bullets in circulation.  Proposed regulations include the enforcement of background check guidelines.

I don't have exact statistics, but one news report noted that nearly as many people are murdered each year by blows from hammers.  I don't believe that Obama and his posse seriously want to outlaw hammers (or knives for that matter).

Cook County (Chicago-land), Illinois, has some of the strictest gun prohibitions in the nation, yet the number of murders there has increased steadily over the last two years.

Let's be honest.  This push to get guns (or automatic weapons) out of the hands of Americans has little do to with preventing massacres.  You know that liberals want bigger government.  For them government is inherently benevolent - especially if they are running it.  They want it to grow if only so that more of them can enjoy the security of recurring revenue.

Think about it.  What is government?  It is just other folks like you and me who now have the power to make collective decisions for you and me - power which we accorded to them, or power that they seized through duress.  That is why we vote - so that we can get rid of power-hungry tyrants.

Problem is - through devious, cunning manipulation, the government/banker types in America have voided the Constitution, diluted the Bill of Rights, mortgaged our land to our enemies, and plotted to utterly dismantle our republican form of government.  We are more closely resembling ancient Rome and ancient Babylon.

The Framers created the Second Amendment because they had watched European governments seize the citizens' guns and oppress and brutalize them for personal gain.  Their goal was to arm the American citizenry so that tyrannical scum like our current "leaders" wouldn't be able to storm into our homes and take our guns, food and daughters.  That's the whole point.  The regular folks need to have guns so that the enemy - be it foreign or domestic - cannot overwhelm them when our social infrastructure collapses.

In pre-war Nazi Germany, gun ownership was virtually eradicated.  No wonder Hitler met with little resistance in his campaign for total national control.  We, the People, are asleep because we are not the ones making the plans for the devastation of our land.  The least we can do is be prepared and be armed.

Why does Obama want you to give up your assault rifles?  Because he doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself when he comes to take your gas and food.  He wants your protests to fall on deaf government ears - just like they do now.

Silliness !!!

I'm Confused

Race discrimination is a delicate topic in the U.S. (and in other parts of the western world).  If you want to preserve your reputation, you simply do not bash members of non-white races.

Mark E. Petersen

The Mormon Church came under fire in the 1970's because it denied priesthood ordinations to black men.  Its longstanding policy was articulated by Mark E. Petersen in this speech. 

Spencer W. Kimball

The hue and cry reached a fever pitch in 1978, and the Church's Council of the Twelve saw no other option but to surrender to public sentiment and alter its policy.  The Church was facing immense pressure regarding its new temple in Sao Paolo, Brazil.  Church president, Spencer W. Kimball, had been confronting criticism for several years.  In June, of 1978, Kimball announced that through "revelation" he (and the Twelve) had been directed by God to start ordaining negroes.  You can read about these events here, but I have been unable to find a copy of the alleged revelation to Kimball.  Perhaps he considered it too personal and not for general publication.

Last week the Church announced a batch of changes it has recently made to its canon of holy writ - the four "Standard Works" (read this article in the Salt Lake Tribune).  Among the recent edits are "tweaks" to the portions of the scriptures that address race.  Part of Peggy Fletcher Stack's article reads:

 - - - The lead-in to Official Declaration 2, which describes the church’s 1978 announcement to lift its ban on black males holding the faith’s priesthood, makes clear that Mormon founder Joseph Smith had previously ordained several black men.

Subsequent LDS officials "stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent," the new introduction says. "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

The new edition does not dispel any of the theological myths that arose to defend the practice, saying only that Mormon leaders believed it would take a revelation to undo the ban. 

"I am thrilled by the new statement regarding blacks," says Darius Gray, former president of the Genesis Group, a support organization for black Mormons. "The language is more forthcoming than anything we’ve previously had on the past priesthood restriction, so I take great pleasure in seeing the changes." - - -

So, as an external observer, I find my self confused by the mixed arguments made by the Church regarding its policies towards negroes and the priesthood.  The Church's two contrasting explanations can be summed up by the following:

1.  Blacks were denied priesthood throughout and since Bible times.  Joseph Smith eventually came to understand this proscription and retracted the ordination of Elijah Abel (a negro) after having given him the priesthood in error.  Negroes remained ineligible to receive priesthood until 1978, when God deemed them finally worthy (lifting the "Curse of Cain"), and He directed Spencer Kimball to start ordaining them, admitting them to the temples, and sealing them to white people. 

2.  Blacks have been worthy to hold priesthood since the days of their first ancestor.  Joseph Smith ordained them rightfully.  Joseph Smith's successors INEXPLICABLY suspended the ordination of negroes, - - - - and, no matter how hard we look, we cannot find a single treatise in the "records" of the Church to help us understand why blacks were refused priesthood.  So, when we woke up in the 1970's, we realized what a silly oversight this was, and we hurried and corrected it (especially in light of the huge international outcry against our doctrines).

Aren't you just as confused as I am?  Do you get the impression that the Church's doctrines have a half-life of about 20 years, and depend wholly on the prevailing tide of fashion and public sentiment?

The Finish Line

Judge Clark Waddoups

Jonathan Turley

Sorry I haven't posted in a long while.  Too much going on.

From friendly observers who attended the Federal District Court hearing in the Kody Brown case last month, I learned that our ol' buddy, Jerryold Jensen, was obliterated by Judge Waddoups.  Turley barely needed to stand up.

Here's what I gather from the various reports:

There were several anti-polygamy harpies there, and they went largely unnoticed.  I think they wanted to stir the emotions of other polygamy haters, but this hearing wasn't about emotions - it was about the violation of the Browns' rights.

Jerrold Jensen

AG Deputy Jensen wanted Waddoups to summarily judge that the case should be thrown out because the Browns don't have standing and haven't been harmed.  Jonathan Turley wants the judge to rule in the Browns' favor because they have been abused by the State.

When the hearing started, Waddoups noted that Turley had alleged that no fewer than SEVEN of the Browns' constitutional liberties have been violated - including -

Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Due process
Equal protection
Freedom of association
Free exercise

He asked Jensen to explain which degree of judicial review/scrutiny should be applied by the Court to Turley's constitutional claims against the statute.  Instead of answering intelligently, Jensen said either that the standard of review should be merely "rational basis" (the lowest), or that there need be no review at all because the Browns' claim is merely a "facial" challenge (i.e. that they are simply complaining unjustifiably about the wording of Utah's anti-bigamy statute).

Waddoups mentioned each claim one by one, and, each time, Jensen shouted, "Your honor, I have THOUSANDS OF STORIES of women and children who have been abused by polygamy and compounds." I found it amusing that at the end of the hearing Waddoups asked Jensen why he had not included even ONE of these THOUSAND STORIES in his briefs.  He also reminded Jensen that these 'stories' have NO RELEVANCE to the Browns' case.

But here is where it gets good.  I can only think that Judge Waddoups has been reading Yours Truly, because he proceeded to ask Jensen (in Renn-Oldsbuster-style) what exactly a person must do to fall afoul of Utah's bigamy statute.  I'm paraphrasing, but here's how it was narrated to me:

Waddoups said, "Okay, Mr. Jensen,  . . . . . . 

 . . . . . . let's take the example of an unmarried man who has three girl-friends whom he feeds, clothes and houses, and with whom he makes a permanent commitment and has children.  Does that trigger a prosecution under the statute?"

Jensen said, "No."

" . . . . . . okay, let's take the example of an man who has one legal wife and two girl-friends whom he feeds, clothes and houses, and with whom he makes a permanent commitment and has children.  Does that trigger a prosecution under the statute?"

Jensen said, "No."

" . . . . . . okay, let's take the example of an man who has one legal wife and two other partners whom he calls "wives", and whom he feeds, clothes and houses, and with whom he makes a permanent commitment and has children.  Does that trigger a prosecution under the statute?"

Jensen said, "No."

" . . . . . . okay, let's take the example of an man who has one legal wife and two other partners whom he calls "wives" and with whom he has a spiritual commitment ceremony performed by his Jewish rabbi, and whom he feeds, clothes and houses, and with whom he makes a permanent commitment and has children.  Does that trigger a prosecution under the statute?"

Jensen answered that it was the act of "MARRYING" that constitutes the felony (all this notwithstanding the fact that in Utah it is legally impossible to "MARRY" more than one person !!).

Waddoups retorted that the only thing he could conclude from Jensen's answers was that Utah's application of the statute is a form of religious discrimination.  Despite Jensen's argument that the Browns' claim is purely "facial" ( - i.e. statute is worded in a manner which impermissibly targets Fundamentalist Mormons - ), the judge demonstrated that the claim is an "as-applied" claim - namely that the statute violates constitutional liberties in the way in which it is applied - i.e. that the language of the statute seems fair and of general applicability in the innocuous way it is worded ("don't cohabit" and "don't purport"), but when law enforcement gets its teeth into folks, it is always ONLY EVER Fundamentalist Mormons who get ensnared in the net.  When Lehi's bumbling Kops went on TV to proclaim the Browns felons on the heels of their "televised confessions", the wire was tripped.  The Supreme Court doubtless understands this, and so did Mark Shurtleff.

Think about this, folks, can you remember a single Utahn in the last 100 years who was prosecuted for cohabiting and purporting ('code' for religious plural marriage) who WAS NOT a Fundamentalist Mormon?  This is the very epitome of impermissible targeting of a 'discrete, insular minority'.

From what I learned about the hearing, EVERYBODY in the courtroom cringed with pathos over the drubbing administered to Jensen by the judge.  Jensen was heard to tell the judge on more than one occasion, "Okay, you got me on that one."  Utah's media, though present, was remarkably kind to Jensen, in no case disclosing that Jensen got pummeled and made a virtual fool of himself.

Why am I so hard on Jensen?  After all, wasn't it cruel for the AG's office to send him to the (inevitable) slaughter?  Truth is - it wouldn't have mattered whom they sent.  There was no sane answer to Waddoups' questions.  I secretly wish it had been Laura DuPaix.  Jensen fell on his sword.  I will bet my life that Waddoups is getting ready to rule in the Browns' favor.

We know that, whatever the ruling, the losing side is bound to appeal to the 10th Circuit.  For this reason, I believe that Waddoups is authoring a veritable volume of jurisprudence to support his finding in favor of the Browns.  None of the facts of the case is in dispute.  All that matters is the constitutionality of a statute that was already eviscerated by the Lawrence decision on June 26, 2003.  The 10th Circuit has squirmed its way out of addressing Reynolds on the merits more than once.  I'd like to see it try this time.  Jonathan Turley is no dog-meat.  You know he is ITCHING to get this case in front of SCOTUS.  If the the 10th Circuit concurs with Waddoups, Reynolds is cooked.

I smell the finish line. You can also read Jonathan Turley's general comments here.

Free Soda

When I was in elementary school, I remember that I was not always happy.  Some of my teachers were grumpy, and I was forced to eat garbanzo beans, even though they made me retch.

I remember that I had a desperate longing for free soda pop.  The idea that there would be root beer and Dr. Pepper in the drinking fountains stirred hope and joy in my heart.

Looking back, I realize that that would have been a bad idea, so I don't dream about it anymore.

Last night's presidential election result suggests to me that many people feel like I did in elementary school.  Free water isn't good enough.  They want free soda pop.  They want -

Free birth control pills
Free marijuana
Free phones
Free food
Free housing
Free transportation
Free loans
Free health insurance
Free immigration 
Free schooling
Free money
Free everything

Of course, they forget that nothing is "free".  Everything they harvest from the nanny government is obtained by having the Internal Revenue Service break down somebody's door and break his back.   This reality is contorted a little by the fact that the theft is also done cunningly.  When Ben Bernanke prints $40 Billion each month in phony paper Federal Reserve Notes, the theft is done gradually (remember the frog in the boiling milk).  The value of your dollar shrinks every day.

Obama was able to keep the piper away until after the election, so the ongoing celebration over the continuing flood of free stuff was not disturbed by the grim tidings of insolvency or bankruptcy.

The lust for free stuff inebriated a majority of the electorate sufficiently for them to dismiss the travesty in Benghazi, and see Balack Obama as the new Pied Piper.

I shouldn't grumble - the utter destruction of this nation was prophesied millennia ago.  God's "marvellous work and wonder" is inevitable.

If not already, then very soon there will be ONLY TWO types of people in this country - those who will kill someone else in order to get food; and those who would rather starve than kill another person.  The scriptures allude to these two classes as "tares" and "wheat".

In which class do you fall?

Disingenuousness

Those of you who read my hyperbolic posts must by now be somewhat numb to my ranting and pontificating.  I don't want to be a windbag or a broken record, but I have to follow up my last post with another indictment of Utah's Attorney General's office.

I went back and re-read Jeryold Jensen's cringing reply in the Kody Brown bigamy statute challenge, and I noted that he quoted liberally from the book God's Brothel by Andrea Moore Emmett (a rabid anti-Mormon).  Moore-Emmett trots out the trumped-up sob-sob stories of her harpie Tapestry cronies.  Deputy AG, Jeryold Jensen, dredges the litany of exaggerated horribles in his reply to the court . . . . . Polygamy hurts women . . . . Polygamy hurts children . . . . . Polygamy brought down the Twin Towers . . . .  on and on and on.

You know, Jerry, if polygamy and its practitioners are truly that despicable, and you are so hell-bent on proving the constitutionality of the bigamy statute, why won't you prosecute polygamists?  You had David Kingston for unlawful sex with a minor.  You had John Daniel Kingston for allegedly roughing up his daughter.  You had Jeremy Kingston for marrying his aunt.  You had Addam Swapp for bombing a church building.  Every one of them was assumed to have two or more wives.  You prosecuted none of them for bigamy.  What's more, you had Warren Jeffs!  You had pictures of him with DOZENS of wives.  Oops, wait - - -  nobody thought of charging him with bigamy.  Is it because you know that your stupid statute is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ???!!!!!

I saw a banner at a polygamy rally once which read:

"LAWRENCE TRUMPS REYNOLDS - ARREST US OR SHUT UP !!!".

No kidding!  Utah will soon watch its departing AG slither into oblivion, and be replaced by Mormon bishop, John Swallow.  Will Swallow swallow his Church pride and usher in a new era of liberty and oversee the end of the discrimination against Utah's most traditional families?

Based on the signals being given off by Judge Waddoups, I believe he will allow the evidentiary hearing to proceed, AND he will rule that the Browns have been harmed and that the bigamy statute violates the U.S. Constitution.  Then what?  Swallow's role will require him to appeal the district court's ruling to the 10th Circuit in Denver.  If that is unsuccessful, he will have to hope for help from the U.S. Supreme Court - the court that wrote the Lawrence decision (6 to 3) decriminalizing ALL adult intimacy.

On the other hand, he could save the State millions of dollars in legal fees and embarrassment simply by getting the legislature to remove the offending words in the bigamy statute - or would that be too easy?  You decide.

Topsy-Turvy

I have made this point before in my post: "THOUGHT vs. DEED".  Jerryold Jensen's motion and recent reply in the Kody Brown case seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of Utah's farcical bigamy statute prompted me to make it once again.

The First Amendment forbids government to burden Americans' exercise of their religious beliefs. The Reynolds court came along and eviscerated this liberty.  It said that states could itemize a list of religious activities which can be believed in but NOT practiced.  Thus, Utah (and some neighboring states) could include polygamy as a conduct which could be criminalized.

So, in the wake of Reynolds, you could believe in polygamy to your heart's content (as Mormons do), but you could not practice it.  The thoughts were just fine - the ACTIONS were not.

So, there are tens of thousands of Fundamentalist Mormons in the Intermountain West who eagerly embrace plural marriage in their minds.  Utah residents who proceed to take a plural wife are presumptive felons (although the current Attorney General's office insists on NOT prosecuting them).

The prohibited actions (contemplated in Reynolds) occur when a man is married to one person and goes to bed with a different person (male or female).  That makes you a felony bigamist.  The 2003 Lawrence decision overruled that legislation, otherwise tens of thousands of Utahns would be in prison now for bigamy.  So they can't prosecute the SEX.  They have to rely on the other prong of the bigamy statute - the "purport" prong.  You are guilty of bigamy if you are married to one person, and assert (believe) that you are married to another.  Kody Brown has ONE legal wife.  He THINKS of the other three ladies as "wives" in a religious sense, but the State has already said that having additional spouses is legally VOID and impossible.  Legally, the other three women are girl-friends, mistresses, or just partners in an affair.  So, Brown can call them "wives", but wives they are not.

As Jerryold Jensen points out in his reply, Kody's sexual activities with the various ladies are utterly shielded by Lawrence.  It is the fact that Brown THINKS of them as "wives" that makes him a felon.

So now we have the unintended consequences of the Reynolds insanity.  We have a state that REFUSES to prosecute the prohibited exercise (actions) of the believers, while it insists on criminalizing  . . . . . . . . . . . .

THEIR THOUGHTS !!!!!!!!!!

Wait though!  It criminalizes their lifestyle (existence and mindset) as did Bowers to homosexuals (until 2003), but the chief Mormon law enforcement officers of the state dare not prosecute it now for fear that someone like Kody Brown will come along and TEST the statute in the courts.  The Church wrote the statute.  Is it not the Church now who is frantically trying to salvage it?  I wouldn't be surprised if those Lehi Keystone Kops have already been excommunicated for the biggest tactical blunder in modern Church history.

Topsy-Turvy.

The following YouTube video is a Monty Python skit about church police.  Skip to 00.36.

Tipping Point

Cleon Skousen made a wise argument years ago.  He said that the big question in the choice of a government system is not between Democrat and Republican, or even Conservative and Liberal - it is the choice between tyranny and liberty.

The source of the following quote is questionable, but I like it anyway - -

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

America is at an interesting point in its history.  When you look at the political landscape in America, you quickly discover that the urban, densely populated areas of the country incline towards voting Democratic, while the heartland seems to prefer the Republicans.  Union members typically prefer Democrats, as do blacks, Hispanics, women, college students, illegal immigrants, Hollywood and the vast majority of the mainstream media.

Democrats typically argue for bigger government programs, more government control, more entitlement programs, more "redistribution" of private wealth, more taxation, more regulation of businesses, and more safety net programs for the sick and the poor.

In recent presidential election cycles, the actual popular vote for president has been extremely close, sometimes swinging only one or two percent in either direction.  The electoral college system, however, makes certain states - Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado and others - into pivotal swing states.  Win those states and you can be president.

There are reportedly some 12 million illegal aliens in America.  Like black people, these people would likely pick Balack Obama 99 to 1.  Why?  Because Obama wants to give them amnesty and a quickie path to U.S. citizenship.  Why?  Because he knows that if he can get these immigrants the right to vote, they will vote for him - A.) Because he was the one to let them in, and B.) Because he will give them all the free stuff he can possibly give them - free medical care, free food, free housing, free everything.

So, if the voting bloc that prefers to tax the private sector in order to fund public benefits for itself grows by millions, then the liberal Democratic model will take permanent control and never look back.

You may ask why any politician would be so stupid as to desire to take our country in such a direction.  Well, if you are the politician who doles out the free benefits from the public trough, you can control the public resources and control the people who receive them.  So we come back to the liberty:tyranny paradigm.  It is the tension between a local government controlled by the people, and a powerful, centralized government which controls the people.

Don't think that I believe that the Republicans are more righteous than the Democrats.  The tyrannies perpetrated by the Bush administration were breathtaking -  9/11, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the Patriot act.  Corporations bribe politicians and finance their campaigns.

One thing is sure - we are at a tipping point.  We have lost our understanding of the principles of freedom.  We have embraced secular myths such as evolution and atheism.  We have entertained a melting pot of ideas and racial carmelization.  It can no longer be said that our ideals are clear and consistent.  What was a nation of Christians is now a nation of who-knows-what.  The Constitution was voided with the fraudulent passage of the 14th Amendment.  It "hangs by a thread".  Corruption and sin are rampant.  The Gadianton Robbers have confiscated all four corners of the earth.  All men are enslaved. 

We have looked into the heavens and counted some 250 billion suns (solar systems) in our Milky Way galaxy.  So far also, we have counted perhaps 250 billion GALAXIES like ours !!!  I don't believe that any of the life forms here on earth arrived here by any other means than by transplantation. The Gods know what they are doing.  They have been at this terra-forming game for a long time.  I should not be so cynical about the progress and decline of our Father's children on this planet.  He placed us here.  He knew what we would do.  He knows how it will end.  He knows what He will do to wrap things up.  He is doing what He has done on numerous other planets.  If given the chance, we will do the same ourselves one day.

Still, it is bracing to be around at this spectacular tipping point.  Here are some prophetic predictions from Nephi in America 2600 years ago:

 5.   But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a ^aland of promise, a land which is ^bchoice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath ^ccovenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath ^dcovenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be ^eled out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

 6.   Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall ^anone come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

 7.   Wherefore, this ^aland is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of ^bliberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound ^ccursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8.   And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be ^akept as yet from the knowledge of other ^bnations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

 9.   Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a ^apromise, that ^binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall ^dkeep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their ^einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

 10.   But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in ^aunbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and 

having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true ^bMessiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is ^cjust shall rest upon them.

 11.   Yea, he will bring ^aother nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be ^bscattered and smitten. (2 Nephi 1, 1-11)