Yesterday, the FBI shot and killed Craig Robertson at his Provo home while attempting to serve a search warrant. Based on media reports, Robertson appears to have been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was also a right-wing extremist who threatened violence against the President of the United States and fantasized (online, at least) about murdering people he perceived as his political enemies.
We don’t know a lot of details about the service of the warrant or the shooting. It shouldn’t need to be said, but I’m going to say it anyway: his death is tragic. Yes, the things he wrote were not only disgusting, but actually evil. Still, the penalty for being evil is not death: threats against the President or the Vice President are punishable by a fine and/or not more than five years in prison.[fn1]
At the same time, I’m sympathetic to the FBI having a hair trigger here. Robertson had guns, and had made threats not only against the President and various politicians, but against FBI agents themselves. On three days in March he posted “TO MY FRIENDS IN THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF IDIOTS: I KNOW YOU’RE READING THIS AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW CLOSE YOUR AGENTS CAME TO ‘VIOLENT ERADICATION,'”, “TO MY FRIENDS IN THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF IDIOTS: I KNOW YOU’RE READING THIS AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW CLOSE YOUR AGENTS CAME TO ‘BANG,'” and “THE FBI TRIED TO INTERFERE WITH MY FREE SPEECH RIGHT IN MY DRIVEWAY. MY 45ACP WAS READY TO SMOKE ‘EM!!!”
We don’t know whether Robertson was carrying, pointing, or firing a gun when the FBI tried to serve the warrant. We don’t know whether the shooting was legally justified. But in a better world, Robertson would still be alive, either because he hadn’t made his stupid and terroristic threats or because the FBI had subdued him by other than shooting him. But to be clear: (a) his death is not something to celebrate, and (b) his death isn’t the result of unjustifiable FBI overreach.
With that said, the LDS church has a right-wing extremist problem. It’s not just Robertson. Ammon Bundy and his family have been engaging in violent right-wing insurrection. Members of the church participated in the January 6 insurrection.
Now, the church and Robertson’s ward members are not directly responsible for his violent threats (or for the Bundys’ behavior or for the January 6 rioters). I’ve seen people suggest that Robertson’s ward members should have taken more seriously his Facebook posts and, perhaps that, in light of them, he shouldn’t have had a calling. Which is possible, if his ward members or bishop were aware of them. But different wards seem to have different cultures around Facebook. I suspect, for instance, that I’m only connected to my wife and two or three other people in my ward on Facebook. If his ward members were unaware of his online extremism, I don’t see any reason why they should be expected to react to it.
But the church could be more direct in its condemnation of violent right-wing extremism. Yes, it condemned “violence and lawless behavior” (which was a good move!). Yes, Pres. Oaks has championed civility in public political discourse. But these messages don’t seem to be sticking. Or, at least, they’re not being received by the people who need to hear them.
But the church could! In researching my forthcoming book,[fn2] I came across discussions of LDS tax protestors in the 1970s. Basically, by the 1960s, tax protest had become a big thing in the South and in the West, including in Utah. But members of the church put a uniquely LDS gloss to tax protest, with one man claiming had had a “deep religious conviction” that the federal income tax was unconstitutional.[fn3] A Salt Lake-based precious metals dealer told the LA Times that Utah was at the heart of the tax protest movement, with 14,000 people actively opposing and defying the tax law.
The IRS disputed his claim. But whether or not members of the church were leading, or disproportionately participating in, the tax protest movement, the perception that they were proved an embarrassment to the church. In an October 1972 Conference address, President Harold B. Lee said,
“Now there is another danger that confronts us. There seem to be those among us who are as wolves among the flock, trying to lead some who are weak and unwary among Church members, according to reports that have reached us, who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities.”[fn4]
Instead, Pres. Lee said, members must not “break the laws of the land.”
The following year, the church followed up with a Priesthood Bulletin in which it said that tax protestors should not speak in priesthood or sacrament meetings, firesides, or other places they could propound their anti-tax ideology.
These statements actually were not as effective as one would expect so, in 1976, the church announced that conviction for tax fraud or evasion would automatically lead to disciplinary proceedings, and instructed bishops to ask known tax protestors about their tax payments during temple recommend interviews.
And that seemed to turn the tide. That same year, Utah’s IRS director announced that he saw a shift in tax protest in Utah. But that shift required direct (and repeated) language from church leaders as well as ecclesiastical penalties for failing to comply.
Now, does that mean that no member of the church today is a tax protestor? Absolutely not. And there’s no way to know whether Robertson would have made terroristic threats if the church had been more direct and aggressive about rooting out right-wing extremism.
But there’s reason to think it would have reduced the chances. After all, as an active member of the church, presumably a clear statement by the church that this type of behavior was absolutely inappropriate (along with potential sanctions) would have made him think twice about his behavior.[fn5]
And even if it didn’t, to the extent it is clear that church culture condemns that type of behavior and rhetoric, he would have found a less-receptive (or, at least, smaller) audience for his violent threats (assuming, of course, that most people who saw his Facebook posts were his coreligionists). This type of cultural approbation would do at least some work toward stemming the types of rhetorical violence and extremism that bled into the real world with actual violence and extremism.
Robertson’s death was tragic. His Facebook posts were disgusting. And, even though I believe that this type of violent right-wing extremism is embraced by a tiny minority of church members, it is prevalent and accepted enough that the church needs to be direct and forceful in quashing it. And, based on its experience in the 1970s, the church is capable of being direct and forceful.
[fn1] The Supreme Court has made clear that “true threats” are not protected by the First Amendment as free speech. It’s not my area, so I don’t know the precise contours of “true threats,” but one at least one legal commentator I respect believes that at least some of Robertson’s posts would meet the standard for being unprotected true threats.
[fn2] I’m not sure yet about the timing, but never fear! I’ll tell you about it once the publication schedule is complete!
[fn3] For the record, a religious conviction that you don’t need to pay your taxes doesn’t somehow invoke a First Amendment trump card. The courts have been very clear that the government’s need for revenue is compelling enough that it supersedes even a sincere religious opposition to taxpaying.
[fn4] While I’m talking tax here, interestingly, the next paragraph could have been spoken specifically about Robertson, the Bundys, or the January 6 rioters: “Others have tried to marshal civilians, without police authority, and to arm themselves to battle against possible dangers, little realizing that in so doing they themselves become the ones who, by obstructing the constituted authority, would become subject to arrest and imprisonment.”
[fn5] Of course, there’s no guarantee; in Evangelical circles, congregants are pushing back when their pastors teach them to behave in Christlike ways.
Photo by David Trinks on Unsplash