Ideas for fighting gun rights infringement

Note: Due to recent anti-American voices, which seem to have reached a fever pitch, and I feel constrained, yet again, to write about gun rights infringement.

To all American gun rights advocates

I am addressing my words to everyone who is a gun rights advocate, not just to the latter-day saints (Mormons), so the intended audience is much wider than usual. Use any of these ideas as you see fit, in your fight to protect American rights.

Use the proper terms

Gun control is a misnomer, so never use it. Instead, begin a conversation with the term, so-called “gun control,” and then label it correctly as gun rights infringement. Continue to use the proper term for the rest of the conversation. Remember, so-called “gun control” is not about controlling guns, but about controlling people by infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.

Gun control advocate is another misnomer. When someone says they are a gun control advocate, call them instead a gun rights infringer. (It does not matter that the word infringer is not in the dictionary, everyone will understand its meaning. Sometimes creating a new word is the best option. Shakespeare did it many times, so can you. Besides, used enough times, you can be sure it will eventually make it into the dictionary.)

When someone says that he or she is an American in favor of gun control, refer to him or her ever afterward as an anti-American in favor of gun rights infringement, or just as an anti-American gun rights infringer. The term anti-American fits, for only anti-Americans attack or seek to weaken the constitutional protections of the rights of American citizens.

When referring to behavior that undermines the Bill of Rights protections, call it un-American. That is, after all, what it is.

These terms: gun rights infringement, gun rights infringer, anti-American, and un-American, make people immediately think of criminals and communists seeking to undermine or subvert the American system and way of life. Because they themselves make the connection between infringement and crime and anti/un-American and communist, these terms have a more powerful effect upon the minds of the people hearing them. Never, ever, label someone a criminal or communist or socialist or whatever, for if you do, people’s doubt will come into play and they will not believe the rest of what you say.

Use the terms undermining and subversion liberally in a conversation when describing actions that promote gun rights infringement. No one wants their rights undermined, nor does anyone want the Constitution subverted. These are descriptive terms that paint an immediate picture in one’s mind of spies trying to overthrow the government.

Use the term subversive as a label for anyone who promotes gun rights infringement. When a person calls someone else a subversive and describes their actions as subversive behavior, those that listen to the conversation immediately think of cloak and dagger stuff, such as an enemy trying to destroy the American way of life.

These terms are effective because they are based upon word associations. The words criminal, communist, spy and enemy, all pop up in people’s mind automatically, as soon as you start using these terms. Because they themselves do the associations, or because they themselves make the connections, or think of the associated words themselves, they believe them. Now, everything you say about the person you have just labeled will be more receptive to the audience listening in, for they now will view the gun rights infringer with suspicion.

Use “no infringement” as the standard

Never call so-called “gun control laws,” gun control laws. They must always be called, gun rights infringement laws. Everything must be brought back to the central issue: the infringement of unalienable rights.

Every gun rights infringement law on the books must be regarded and labeled as illegal. Never, ever refer to them as legal. They are all illegal, unconstitutional laws, and always refer to them as such. As long as people think of these illegal gun rights infringement laws as legal, they will be accepting of so-called “legal” gun rights infringement. People need to be presented with contradictory information, before they wake up out of their sleep. They must be presented with two, opposing “realities,” one side saying, “gun control laws are legal” and the other side saying, “gun rights infringement laws are illegal.” They must understand that there is no such thing as “legal” gun rights infringement.

“No infringement” must be the standard. Partial infringement is unacceptable. A full infringement of one’s right to life would be immediate execution. A partial infringement of that same right might consist of poison administered over time so as to shorten one’s life. Full infringement of the right to property would be taking it all, partial infringement might consist of taking only half. The right to liberty could be partially infringed upon by requiring that you be confined three days out of every week. Partial infringement of the right to free speech might be that your mouth be taped shut every Monday and Tuesday. If this all sounds absurd, it is because it is. Infringement is infringement, whether it is partial or full, and it is all unacceptable, tyrannical behavior. This same principle applies to the right to keep and bear arms.

Needs have nothing to do with rights

If a person wanted to administer poison to you, to shorten your life span from 75 to 65 years old, while telling you, “Oh, but you don’t need those last ten years of life!” would you let him? Does your right to life have anything to do with your needs? Are not your years yours, to do with as you want? Does the argument that you don’t need 50% of your property, or you don’t need seven days of freedom because four days is enough, or you don’t need to speak your mind on Mondays and Tuesdays, make it alright to infringe upon these rights? Of course not! So, in like manner, no one has the right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms because a person doesn’t “need” another gun, or more ammo, or a bigger and more powerful weapon. His or her needs have nothing to do with the matter.

So, toss the needs argument right into the trash from the get-go and keep the conversation eternally focused on the rights of man.

Get yourself some weapons and keep them

Get enough firearms and ammunition for every able bodied person of age in your family. Get the weapons you feel are appropriate, including so-called assault weapons. (Notice I used “so-called.”) Make sure your family is trained in their proper use and safety.

Bear your weapons

Rights that are not asserted will inevitably be encroached upon and eventually taken away. Firearms must, of necessity, be borne. In other words, when you go around town to do your daily business, go packing heat. Now, there may be an illegal law against that in your area. If so, then another strategy must be taken. But if there is no illegal law against that, start doing it, and keep doing it.

Educate your neighbors on gun rights

The best means to do that is the following document:

REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session, February 1982, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Just print it out as a hard copy and hand it out or snail mail it, email it, or share it online using its 120+ share functions. The video, Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control World Wide, is also an excellent teaching tool to use.

Meet with other gun rights advocates

Your local gun and ammo supply store may be able to hook you up with other local gun right advocates. This is an important step to take in order to begin the formation of citizen militias.

Begin to form and regulate a local citizen militia

In conjunction with other local gun rights advocates, begin to form a local citizen militia. It is necessary that citizen militias be “well-regulated.” That of course means that everyone needs to possess weapons, perhaps of a specific kind, and also sufficient ammo, but it may also mean that everyone should have the means to communicate with each other, perhaps through ham radio or whatnot. Each militia will decide how best to regulate itself.

When meeting together as a militia, to conduct business, bring your weapons with you. Bearing arms is the key to gun rights (and all other rights) protection.

Do not keep it local. In other words, seek to establish other “chapters” of citizen militias in the regions round about, and work to have each local militia capable of communicating and working with other militias. This is all part of being “well-regulated.”

Citizen militias are for both local and common defense, so they need to be able to co-ordinate efforts with other militias.

Let the Bill of Rights be the common thread that unites all the citizens in the various militias, so that race, color, creed, customs, dress and all other differences are set aside. The only requirement to unite with a citizen militia ought to be that one be law-abiding. Law-abiding should simply mean that a person supports a “no infringement” stance on the Bill of Rights.

Expect infiltration. G-men get antsy about the prospect of an armed citizenry, and especially about organized, citizen militias, so expect that some undercover agents may be joining your group, to spy on it or even to sabotage it or create false flags.

There is safety in numbers and weapons

When these militias grow in sufficiently large numbers, they ought to meet out in the public, packing heat, in peaceful assembly, exercising two of their rights simultaneously: bearing arms and peacefully assembling. In fact, at every public protest or peaceful assembly, of whatever group, the armed citizen militia ought to be there as a show of force, in support of the people’s rights to protest and assemble.

In areas where there are illegal laws on the books, prohibiting or restricting the right to bear arms in public, several local militias could organize peaceful assemblies using this principle*, with thousands or tens of thousands of armed militia men in attendance, as a public demonstration that illegal laws that prohibit or infringe upon the bearing of arms should not be obeyed. This ought to be done quite frequently and only in large numbers, until the police decide not to enforce the illegal laws and they are removed from the books.

*Btw, in case this comes up in the comments, yes, I am fully aware that Ghandi, who was a supporter of this principle, wrote in Chapter XXVII, “The Recruiting Campaign,” in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth:

“I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: ‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.’ The Commissioner referred to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. And I had to justify my standpoint as courteously as I could.”

Solutions for statists

These ideas of mine will appeal to those who do not look to the government to solve gun rights infringement, but for any statists who read this blog, who want to change the government via legislation, you may wish to use the Gun Owners of America lobby group as a tool. By becoming a member and giving them money, they will lobby Congress for zero infringement of gun rights. If enough people join them, and if they get enough money, perhaps they will make a difference. Here is their web site:

gunowners.org

I suggest the GOA and not the NRA, because the NRA does not appear to have a strict, zero infringement policy. They are as likely to lobby for partial infringement, as for no infringement, which would be a waste of money.

The other thing you can do is contact your representatives and senators and tell them that if they support any infringement on gun rights, you will not vote for them. Personally, such tactics seem useless to me, but perhaps they are worth a try.

To latter-day saints

Now I would like to turn my attention to the latter-day saints who might read this blog.

The Lord has given us a charge to befriend the Bill of Rights, therefore, any LDS in a governmental position of authority cannot justifiably violate the rights of any law-abiding citizen while performing government duties. This means that latter-day saint police officers, FBI agents, CIA officials, military personnel, border patrol and any other position of government authority, takes second seat to the Bill of Rights. Should you confiscate a law-abiding citizen’s weapons (and the definition of a law-abiding citizen is one who does not infringe upon the Bill of Rights) by command of a superior, you have broken your covenant with God to obey His commandments, which includes His words about befriending these Constitutional protections.

Righteous LDS are prohibited, then, from infringing on a law-abiding citizen’s rights, by God’s laws. They still have their agency, of course, and can choose to sin, but in order to remain justified before the Lord, they must obey this instruction.

The Lord has said that if we keep His laws, we have no need break the laws of the land. This does not refer to the endless laws on the books, but to those justifiable laws that maintain rights and privileges, which are in the Constitution, which are known as the Bill of Rights. That is all He meant by that. (For more information on all of this, see these previous posts: It is a SIN to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, Talking to myself and What the Lord has said about the Constitution.)

However, the Lord has also said that we are to be subject to the powers that be until He reigns. The question must be asked, then, what are the powers that be?

The applicable gospel principle is the voice of the people, as taught by the seer Mosiah:

It is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

The voice of the people are the powers that be that the Lord referred to. We are to be subject to the voice of the people, we are to observe the voice of the people, and we are to make the voice of the people our law, to do all our business by that voice.  This commandment is an actual law of the Lord and must be obeyed for justification before the Lord.

This means that latter-day saints are only justified insofar as they submit to the voice of the people. If that voice is for the government, then latter-day saints must submit to the government. If the voice ever turns against the government, then latter-day saints must submit to the people and stand with the people against their government. Those who do not submit to the powers that be according to this pattern and principle must remain unjustified before the Lord.

Mosiah also said:

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

Therefore, if the time ever comes that the voice of the people chooses iniquity by turning against the Bill of Rights, then destruction will come upon the people, from the Lord. But as long as the voice of the people is in support of the Bill of Rights, latter-day saints can only remain free by aligning themselves with that voice. And by extension, all latter-day saints who oppose the just voice of the people will find themselves brought down into captivity.

Therefore, based on these principles, it is possible for latter-day saints to engage in every idea listed above while remaining justified before the Lord, if the voice of the people is with them. Nevertheless, even if the voice of the people has not spoken, no latter-day saint is justified in violating anyone’s rights, whether acting under government or citizen authority.

Citizen militias in Nephite times

To more fully explain why the Bill of Rights is justifiable before the Lord, it is necessary to look to the Book of Mormon. The Bill of Rights was inspired by the Spirit of freedom (see Talking to myself), meaning that it embodies principles that align with laws that the Lord Himself had given to His people who lived on this land anciently.

The Nephites were organized, from the beginning, as citizen militias. Thus, we find Nephi using the sword of Laban to create weapons of war for his people, so that everyone was armed. In the case of the Nephites, they had both a right and a duty to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, they did not have a standing army. Whenever the Lamanites would invade their lands, the Nephites would stop their daily pursuits, take up their arms, and wage war. When the war was over, they would go back to their normal endeavors. (See The Strength of the Lord.)

The Nephites had no police force, only citizen militias. So, when Korihor was going around telling lies, which was a punishable crime in Nephite law, he was arrested by citizens. It was the citizens, not a police force, that was responsible for making sure that no one’s rights were infringed upon.

Mormon dissed the Nephites of Zarahemla because when Korihor first began spreading his lies there, the citizens did not arrest him, as was their duty. Instead, they left him free to roam about and deceive the people and he was able to cause many souls to sin. Later, he entered the land of Jershon, but the Lamanites who lived there arrested him because, according to Mormon, “they were more wise than many of the Nephites.” Later he went over to the land of Gideon and was again arrested by citizens (this time by Nephites.) Finally, he was arrested yet again and brought back to Zarahemla for trial and judgment.

No pacifism among the Nephites

The Nephites were operating under commandments of God, from the beginning, from the time of Lehi and Nephi, in which they were commanded to keep and bear arms. That they both kept and bore arms as a routine is shown by the fight between Nehor and Gideon, which began as two men talking religion and ended up with each one reaching for his sword, ending in Gideon’s death. Now, Gideon was a man of God, even a teacher in the church of God, yet he was armed, as were all the Nephites.

The law of the Lord, as given to the Nephites, is the same law that has been given to the latter-day saints, as recorded in D&C 98, which was given as the pattern for all Gentile nations to follow. (See D&C 98:38.) That section starts out by talking about justification before the Lord and befriending the Bill of Rights, which, as we know, includes the right to keep and bear arms. It then ends with a “fourth offense” warfare doctrine, giving latter-day saints warfare laws by which they might remain justified before the Lord. Thus, there is no pacifism in the section, nor was there any pacifism manifested among the Nephites.

The only so-called “pacifism” manifested in the Book of Mormon comes from the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who took an oath not to take up arms against their brethren (the other Lamanites). This was an exception because they had not previously entered into the same covenant the Nephites had entered into, in regard to the laws given to the Nephites, which included warfare instructions. In other words, the Nephites had to take up arms in defense of their country, according to the covenant they made, otherwise they would be guilty of breaking their covenant and sinning.

The Lamanites, though, did not have such restrictions, so after they had entered into their covenant to take up no arms against their Lamanite brethren, and had joined the Nephites, they could not break their first oath without sinning, so exception was made for them and they were excused from the typical covenant that every Nephite had to make as a citizen, according to the laws given to the Nephites, as revealed to them by the Lord.

That pacifism was not considered a so-called “higher law” by these Lamanites is evidenced by what they taught their children, for they did not teach their children to enter into the same oath that they did, but they taught them to take the Nephite oath and covenant. Thus, the children of these Lamanites, even the 2000+ stripling warriors, were not taught to be pacifists by their fathers, but were taught the same laws given in D&C 98.

Additionally, the Lamanite Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who had taken this oath, voluntarily supported the war efforts of the Nephites with their sons, with their money and with supplies, including retreating inward towards the center of the land so that the Nephite armies could battle the Lamanites, their brethren.  At one point, in fact, the Lamanites became so concerned with how the war was going, and the destruction of their new Nephite brethren, that they considered breaking their oath and covenant and taking up arms to defend the Nephite nation against the Lamanites.  None of this behavior can be labelled as pacifism.  So, why did they lay down their weapons and never take them again?  It was because of the oath they took, not because of the philosophy we call pacifism.

This shows that the Anti-Nephi-Lehies were an exception to the rule, manifested under a different set of circumstances and conditions, and to a different group of people, and was never meant to be taken as a pattern for the Gentiles. They were held up by Mormon as a standard of keeping one’s oath and covenant even unto death, and of brotherly love, but not as a standard or pattern for Gentile pacifism.

The Gentiles must obey the instructions given to them by the Lord, which are the same ones given to the Nephites, otherwise they will incur the displeasure of God upon them. Mormons, then, cannot justifiably be pacifists, in the sense of refusing to bear arms in defense of their country, like the king-men did. They may choose not to bear arms for individual or family circumstances, as explained in D&C 98, but when their people is threatened by any nation, tongue or people, if, after the third time of offering peace, the offering is not accepted by the invaders, they cannot justifiably refuse to take up arms. They must defend the nation, just as the Nephites had to.

Modern pacifism, then, is a philosophy of men, and is not of God. All Mormons who claim to be pacifists, and who claim that the scriptures justify pacifism for the Gentiles, or who lift it up as the standard for the Gentiles, or who denounce the law of God as written in D&C 98, denying gun rights, self defense and our duty toward common defense, is either in error, having not understood the scriptures, or is intentionally trying to deceive people.

Befriend the Bill of Rights

I bring all of this up to show latter-say saints that they can justifiably befriend the Bill of Rights. They can justifiably keep and bear and use arms. They can justifiably engage in warfare, self defense and common defense. They can justifiably form themselves into citizen militias. And so on and so forth. It is not sin to do these things, but righteousness, for this is all according to the word of the Lord, as given in the scriptures.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

It is a SIN to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms

In DAC 98:2, the Lord states the following:

and now | verily | i say unto you |

concerning the laws of the land |

it is my will | that my people should observe to do all things | whatsoever i command them |

and that law of the land | which is constitutional | supporting that principle of freedom | in maintaining rights and privileges | belongs to all mankind | and is justifiable before me | therefore | i | the lord | justify you | and your brethren of my church | in befriending that law | which is the constitutional law of the land |

and as pertaining to law of man |

whatsoever is more or less than this | cometh of evil |

The constitutional law of the land which supports that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges is known to us as the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. (For more information, see What the Lord has said about the Constitution and also Talking to myself.)  The Bill of Rights, according to the Lord’s own words, is “justifiable before [Him]” and He justifies the church brethren “in befriending that law”.

Justifiable and justified = no sin

The word justifiable means “capable of being justified, or shown to be just.” To justify means “to pronounce free from guilt or blame.” Someone or something that is justified, then, is guiltless or blameless. While I’m at it, I might as well define befriend, which means “to act as a friend to; to favor; to aid, benefit or countenance.”

The Second Amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There are two assertions made in the text itself: 1) that people have the right to keep and bear arms and 2) that this right shall not be infringed. These assertions are justifiable (shown to be just) before the Lord. Also, the Lord justifies (pronounces free from guilt or blame) anyone who is a friend to, favors, or aids BOTH assertions.

Unjustifiable and unjustified = sin

The Lord also stated that “whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.” By this we know that any of the following assertions MUST, of necessity, be unjustifiable before the Lord:

The people do not have a right to keep and bear arms. (Unjustifiable)

The people have a right to keep arms, but not bear arms. (Unjustifiable)

The people have a right to bear arms, but not keep arms. (Unjustifiable)

Keeping and bearing arms are privileges, bestowed by the government through licensing, which may be revoked at any time. (Unjustifiable)

There is nothing wrong with infringing on people’s right to keep and bear arms. (Unjustifiable)

And so on and so forth. Such assertions are all unjustifiable before the Lord. Additionally, the Lord DOES NOT justify anyone who is an enemy to, does not favor, or provides no aid to BOTH of the Second Amendment’s assertions. Such people who fight this right, promoting against it, are UNJUSTIFIED, meaning that they are in a SINFUL state.

Servants of sin

All those who seek to infringe upon this right, in any degree whatsoever, through whatever means used—whether by forcefully getting the populace disarmed through gun control legislation, or through the repeal of the Second Amendment, or by nullifying the amendment through deliberate misinterpretation, or by spreading lies and deceitful propaganda against it—are the servants of sin.

Misunderstandings everywhere

We see by the above that latter-day saints have been given the charge, by the Lord, to befriend the Second Amendment, otherwise, they will remain unjustified before Him. There is a lot of false propaganda going about, both from within and without the church, concerning the Second Amendment and it appears that many people are confused over what this right is for. So, I will attempt to lay it out for the reader, in the hope that once we understand its purpose, no latter-day saint will find themselves on the wrong side of the argument. But before I begin, I want to stress that for latter-day saints, the Second Amendment IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. This is a matter of salvation, or of remaining justified (blameless) before the Lord. All those who wish to retain a remission of their sins, then, must befriend this amendment. With that said, let’s take another look.

What this right is for

Here is the text of the amendment again:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The following definitions come from the 1913 Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language:

regulate : To make regular.

regular (a.) : 6. Mil. a. Designating, or pertaining to, the regular army (see below) of a state: as, a regular soldier.

regular army, Mil. The permanently organized body constituting the army of a state, often identical with the standing army. Cf. REGULAR, a., 6

militia : 3. A body of citizens enrolled as a regular military force for periodic instruction, discipline, and drill, but not called into active service except in emergencies.

keep : 6. To retain in one’s power and possession.

bear : 1. To support and move; to carry; to convey. 4. To manage, wield or direct. 5. To possess and use, as a function or power; to exercise. 6. To possess or carry, as a mark of authority or distinction; to wear; to show, esp. as a characteristic feature; as, to bear a sword, badge, name.

to bear arms, To serve as a soldier.

infringe, v.i. : To encroach; to trespass.

In other words, the intention was to make the entire citizenry of the United States regular, or permanently organized as constituting the regular army of the state—to be called into voluntary, active service only in emergencies, namely, when there were threats, both foreign and domestic, to the security of American freedoms—by not infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

The American people are the people’s army

To be even clearer in writing, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically for warfare. It was codified to make sure that the American people, being armed, could wage warfare against any enemy that threatened any of their rights, whether that enemy was foreign or domestic. The call to warfare would not come from the government, for the government could not call civilians, or forcefully enroll civilians, into the government army, but would come from the people themselves when they saw their rights being threatened.

This right would serve as a protection of all the other rights that the Americans have, and as a deterrent to tyranny, whether that came from the domestic (American) governments, foreign governments, or non-governmental tyranny. The American people themselves are both the first army—or people’s army, whose sole purpose is to protect the people in their rights—they being the army that preceded the governmental armies (which protect the privileges of the government), and also the army of last resort, so that when all else fails in stopping tyranny through peaceful means, the people’s army can be called upon to save the day.

What this right is NOT for

The Second Amendment is NOT the right of self defense. That’s separate. Everyone has the right to self defense. You can defend yourself with anything that happens to be at your disposal: your hands, a rock, a stick, whatever. It also is not a right to hunt. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with hunting. It doesn’t have anything to do with collecting guns, or the sport of marksmanship, or any other past time that uses guns.

Its sole purpose is to prohibit gun control, so that Americans (the people’s army) can remain armed, to form themselves into their own little or big companies (militias), separate from the government, to fight tyranny wherever they see fit, even if that tyranny is from the government itself.

A list of reasons

Here’s a list of reasons for why the early Americans wanted this right protected.

Training expense reduced

Warfare is expensive and training soldiers is a costly, time-consuming affair. Since every citizen had the right to possess, carry and use weapons, if left un-infringed this right would guarantee that the entire population would be armed to the teeth and knowledgeable and skilled in all forms of weaponry. By having the citizenry already trained in arms, this would cut down training costs substantially, when it came time for the creation of a war-time government army.

Originally, the United States Congress didn’t have a perpetually enrolled military which was called into continually active service. It had to authorize a direct tax (by apportionment) to organize an army for a certain length of time, depending upon the war circumstances, and then enroll the already trained American citizenry, which already knew how to use weapons and already possessed weapons, into active service on a voluntary basis.

Voluntary enrollment

The voluntary nature of military service would regulate the justness of the war, for if a war were not just, no one would volunteer for it, except those who themselves were not just (mercenaries), or those who were deceived by war-time propaganda (lies). Wars of aggression, then, would not be waged by a just population, since they would not volunteer, whereas defensive wars would see large numbers of recruits and volunteers. This would serve as a constraint upon the government, keeping unjust government men from consolidating their power by waging unjust wars.

A check and balance to tyranny

The armed citizenry would serve as a check and a balance to the Congress, President, Justices and all other government levels, making sure that nobody tried to tyrannize the people by creating a large, very well armed, perpetually standing government army that could strong arm an unarmed populace into compliance and submission with unjust laws and edicts. An armed populace serves as a deterrent to would-be dictators and dictatorial oligarchies.

Direct and indirect tax limitations

Government armies are expensive to maintain, and taxes were hard to come by, for originally, taxes for armies had to come via direct taxation, which was a very difficult thing to do. The other type of tax, called indirect taxes, such as excise taxes, were hit and miss in bringing in revenue, depending on the economy and the amount of trade, whereas direct taxes, when collected, obtained a very specific amount of revenue. Therefore, direct taxation was the only practical way to support an army, nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution required apportionment when collecting direct taxes, which was intentionally difficult to do. In this way, direct taxation, which was vexatious to everyone, would serve as a constraint to the growth of the government and its army. It would be used only when it was absolutely necessary to obtain these funds. For all other government purposes, excise taxes, or indirect taxes, would be used. This would keep government nice and small, or growing in proportion to the growth of the population and economy.

Tax corruption, which lead to mercenaries

With the advent of the income tax, which is a direct tax on the people interpreted by the Supreme Court as an indirect tax, thus not needing to be collected through the difficult process of apportionment, Congress suddenly had access to an easy way of obtaining unlimited revenue, allowing for the creation of a perpetual, standing government army. This corruption of the tax laws, through the corrupt interpretation of the Supreme Court, allowed for the rapid creation of very big government and a very powerful army, opening the way for the creation of a police state, for when there is money for the creation of an armed executive branch, mercenaries—who wage war or engage in enforcement for money, regardless of the justifications, or lack thereof, involved—will be drawn to enroll.

The current state of affairs

Now we have a situation in which a bloated central government, with large coffers of stolen tax and fiat money, has created a perpetual, standing government army, and other police state forces, all armed to the teeth, with no monetary or volunteerism constraints for waging foreign or domestic wars. Decades of corrupt Congresses has created decades of corrupt laws, all of them concentrating power in the Executive branch of the central government, paving the way for the emergence of a dictator. Mercenaries abound in the land, eager to join the military or police forces. The laws continue to be corrupted, whittling away at all the other Bill of Rights amendments, encroaching everywhere they can.

There is only one thing, and one thing only, that keeps the would-be dictators from seizing complete, totalitarian control of the American people: the Second Amendment.

A bloodbath to exceed the Civil War (or War Between the States)

Everyone is well aware of the history of the French Revolution, none more so than those who conspire to overthrow our freedoms, enslave us and destroy us. (See Ether 8:25.) How did the French react to the aristocracy that they felt were the cause of their woes? By beheading every last one of them they could get their hands on. When people are enraged with their government, to the point that they take up arms against them, the only appeasement they get is from spilled blood, from the ones they label as tyrants.

The U.S. armed forces is, indeed, mighty. I am including every government official, not just the military but also the police and other agencies, as “armed forces.” Yes, they are trained. Yes, they are armed. But when facing 380 million people, a large part of which is also armed, the hundreds of thousands on the government payroll pale into insignificance.

None of the would be dictators want to attempt to enslave the American people through the use of arms, meaning through the armed forces, because it will create another, even greater Civil War, and they know there is the very real possibility of two things: 1) of them losing, and 2) of a portion of the armed forces (who are also American citizens) of defecting to the other side (to the people’s army). They also realize that should they lose such a war, the American people, still enraged, would seek them out and butcher every last one of them, just as the French did.

Thus, with this very real fear in their hearts, those who seek power consolidation and the destruction of the rights of the American people desire to first disarm the public. Once that is accomplished, then, and only then, will they unleash the armed forces on the now unarmed populace.

Deceitful propaganda

All the talk of gun control is not a reaction to the recent events, but is part of the plan to capitalize on every opportunity to disarm the populace. The conspirators do not care about the safety of school children, or the mental health of people. They only care about their agenda and they will use every means necessary to deceive the people into giving up their guns.  For example:

To understand why the above video is so hypocritical, see this.

Other voices

These collectivist liars are not the only ones voicing their opinions. Some voices also understand what is at stake, though they may not be familiar with (or believe) the Book of Mormon prophecies regarding this land and the secret combination. For example, the following is from the Lew Rockwell blog :

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one’s right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one’s right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to do that today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on.

Here is another voice, in the form of a video:

and also this:

It is wonderful to hear such voices, but extremely embarrassing, for the latter-day saints have been given the commission to befriend the Bill of Rights, yet there is nary a peep from us. Our voices ought to be the loudest of them all. We ought to speak as one in our defense and promotion of the right to keep and bear arms. Our leaders ought to be right now issuing a public statement that we have received such a commission and that the church is strongly in favor of gun rights and strongly opposed to any measure that would infringe on this right. The clarion call ought to be:

NO INFRINGEMENT!

ARM THE PEOPLE’S ARMY!

and other such catchy phrases that people can get behind and promote as a movement to make the American people’s army the deadliest peaceful army on the planet, one that no one in their right mind would mess with or even think of infringing upon.

And yet we either hear nothing but silence, or we hear Mormons arguing amongst themselves, one for total infringement, one for no infringement, and another for partial infringement.

What needs to be done

The latter-day saints need to repent of this sin. We need to learn the word of the Lord concerning this commission and take it very seriously, otherwise, captivity may be our future lot. I speak not of the captivity of the entire nation of Americans—for there are many American who have befriended the Second Amendment, even if they do not understand why it is so important, and these Americans will not be brought down into captivity—but of the Mormon portion of her, of the ones who refuse to take this commission seriously, and also of all those in America who fight against this right. All such must, of necessity, come into captivity, for the Lord’s words have never been retracted, and the law of the harvest applies. If we, and our American brethren, do not embrace and support and promote this right, we will remain guilty (unjustified) before the Lord, and the enslavement that we will end up receiving will be what we deserve.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Methods of Scriptural Interpretation

Constitutional Interpretation:

Judicial interpretation explains how a judge/court should interpret specific statutes of law, particularly in constitutional documents and legislation.

There are two main camps with regard to how this legal interpretation should work:

• Originalism/strict constructionism – which would be characterized as “conservative” or “judicial restraint”.
• Functionalism – which would be characterized as “liberal” or “judicial activism”.

Simply speaking, the former emphasizes fidelity to the original meaning [or originally intended meaning] of the words in the constitution.  It seeks to be loyal to the authors’ original intent by looking at things like what the words used generally meant at the time they were written and looking at what reasons the authors had for using particular phrases, etc.

While the latter would argue that the constitution was deliberately written to be broad/vague and flexible to accommodate social or technological change over time.  It seeks to be loyal to the author’s original intent by looking at what the words have generally come to mean in applicable ways to people today, etc.

The Constitutional Example of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”:

In the 8^th amendment of the US constitution, there is a clause that states:

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This seems cut-and-dry – however, there is controversy as to how to apply this clause/standard in specific judicial cases.  To look at it from the point-of-view of the two above schools of interpretation, we could interpret the clause in terms of:

• What were generally accepted as “cruel and unusual” punishments during the late 1700’s?  What were the specific conceptions the founders had in mind when barring “cruel and unusual punishments”?  Etc.
• Or what do we, as 21^st century Americans, understand to be “cruel and unusual” ways to punish criminals?  How did the founders want us to be guided by the general concept of “cruelty” or “unusualness” in assigning punishments?  Etc.

In this way, one group has ground to argue, based on the idea of original intent, that hanging is not a cruel and unusual form of capital punishment because it would have generally been accepted at the time the constitution was written.

While the other group, still based on the idea of original intent, can argue that hanging is cruel and unusual at a time when we have developed more humane technologies for capital punishments – or that we have come to view the taking of human life as a form punishment itself as being cruel and unusual.

Scriptural Interpretation:

Scriptural interpretation can be seen as very similar to this constitutional/judicial interpretation.  There are different ways to approach the “original intent” question of passages that may seem quite vague when one attempts to apply them to particular circumstances.  These mirror to two schools of thought on judicial interpretation:

• Strict textual/contextual interpretation – which would be characterized as “fundamentalist” or “conservative”.  Wherein this group focuses on the specific context of the scripture, what the author was addressing in that scripture, what did the words used mean at the time they were written, etc.
• Liken the scriptures to yourself interpretation – which would be characterized as being more “liberal” with interpreting passages.  Wherein this group focuses on personal circumstances and concerns, what general concepts did the author outline in that scripture, what do the words used in the translation mean to me or what can I conclude from them personally, etc.

The former approaching scriptural intent by focusing on original context – the latter approaching the same goal by focusing on application to modern issues.

The Scriptural Example of Adultery:

Many directives in the scriptures seem cut-and-dry at first glance.  Take:

thou shalt not commit adultery

as an example.  What seems straight-forward can be really quite vague as we start to look into applying this “statute” to specific cases.  For example:

Alice is in an “open relationship” with Barry.  Both she and Barry have agreed to allow the other to seek extra-marital sexual partners for one-time flings – given that consent is granted prior to any intercourse.  Alice has had sexual relations with men other than Barry [her only husband], but she has always sought and obtained his permission for each of the encounters.

Barry [from the above example; married to Alice] has had some sexual relations with women other than Alice [his only wife], but maintains that – based on the original meaning of the Hebrew word “na’aph” – a man is not able to commit adultery.

Connor is married to two women.  Both know about the polygynous arrangement and both consented to it and find joy in it.  Connor engages in sexual relations with both women separately.

Darren is Christian.  Though he is married to only one woman and has only had sexual relations with his wife, he has imagined lust in his right-brain-heart towards other women.  Jesus Christ said:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Earl is Catholic.  Though he is married to only one woman and has not imagined lust in his right-brain-heart towards other women, he has imagined lust in his right-brain-heart towards his wife.  According to Pope John Paul II:

Adultery “in the heart” is committed not only because man “looks” in this way at a woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman in this way.  Even if he looked in this way at the woman who is his wife, he could likewise commit adultery “in his heart”.

Who in this group committed adultery – which did not?  For what reasons did that person commit or not commit adultery?  Answering these specific cases suddenly reveals how vague a simple command of “thou shalt not commit adultery” can really be.  Am I bound by what adultery would have meant to Moses when he wrote it – or by what the church currently interprets “adultery” to entail – or by what my wife and I have agreed would violate the terms of our marriage covenant?

The Scriptural Interpretation of Hot Drinks:

Another example is:

And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

The current church method seems to be the “strict textual/contextual interpretation” method, wherein essentially all official exposition on the subject default to this quote from Brigham Young:

I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned [in D&C 89]; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given?  Tea and coffee.  We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee — the beverages in common use.

However, Brigham Young is going thru some contextual reasoning.  He is answering the question in terms of what the saints were generally in the habit of drinking very hot.  He is not laying down a clear-cut definition of “hot drinks” so that “tea and coffee” simply can just be substituted in for the words “hot drinks” to make the revelation read:

And again, tea and coffee are not for the body or belly.

However, given Brigham’s line of reasoning, it could be argued that the Lord is counseling against habitually drinking things very hot — which for the early saints happened to be tea and coffee.  However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that those are the only two specific conceptions the Lord wanted the saints to be guided by.

Putting this into the perspective of the two schools of interpretive thought:

• Are we bound by the specific conceptions of “hot drinks” – meaning we, today, should just not drink the things that people in the 1830’s were in the habit of drinking very hot [As Brigham was arguing] — such that even though tea and coffee are now often consumed cold, we still must avoid them?
• Or are we bound to the general concept of “drinks that are hot” – meaning we, today, should not be in the habit of drinking anything very hot [regardless of what the early saints were habitually doing] — such that if the saints became in the habit of drinking apple cider or chocolate as “hot drinks”, then we must avoid those too?

Questions:

• How do you interpret scripture?
• Are you an “original meaning” kind of reader – or a “liken it to myself” kind of reader?
• Might one be appropriate at some times, while the other more appropriate for others?
• What are the implications of favoring one school of thought over the other?
• How might an “original meaning” person give extra insight to a “liken it to myself” person.  What about the other way around?

Next Article by Justin:  The Healing Gifts
Previous Article by Justin:  The Will of God and Faith

“And Thus They Did Obtain the Sole Management of the Government”

Thanks goes out to dark_matter, who made a comment that inspired me to expound upon this principle.

The title of this post comes from Helaman 6: 39, speaking of the Gadianton robbers.  The full scripture reads this way:

And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.  And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.  And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.  And thus we see that they were in an awful state, and ripening for an everlasting destruction.  (Helaman 6: 37-40)

I wonder, does anyone still doubt that we are in the same situation?

Documenting the Most Abominable of the Secret Combinations

Here I present some non-LDS researchers who are documenting in minute detail the main secret combination, the one which Moroni referred to as seeking “to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries”.  (See Ether 8: 25.)  These men and organizations have been doing our work for us and we LDS have largely been ignoring and mocking their findings and conclusions:

Cutting Through the Matrix with Alan Watt – Clearing the rubbish from the road to reality

- suggested by what4anarchy

Bob Chapman’s The International Forecaster

- suggested by PallasAthena

Alex Jones’ Prison Planet – The truth will set you free!

- suggested by a lot of people

To be fair, not all LDS are turning a blind eye to the secret combination:

LDSFreemen.com

LatterdayConservative.com

- recommended by no one (I just stumbled upon them)

There are also a lot of 911 truth sites that point to the existence of a secret combination among us.  For example:

911 Truth Seekers

In addition to the above, there are many other web sites and researchers who are documenting the plans, words, actions and membership of the chief secret combination, both its supporting organizations as well as its main players (the ones actually calling the shots).  But the above web sites should be sufficient to get an idea of what is really going on and who is really in control of our government.

September 2008 Was Our Wake-up Call

Moroni’s warning to us about the multinational secret combination in Ether 8 prophesied that there would come a time “when ye shall see these things come among you” (Ether 8: 24.)  September 2008 was the time when everyone, the world over, finally and plainly saw the handiwork of the secret combination.  It was our wake-up call.  That call is also accompanied with a commandment from the Lord to wake up:

Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up. (Ether 8: 24)

The Secret Combination and Those Who Build It Up

I think it is safe to say that most LDS are not a part of the secret combination.  (At least, I hope not.)  But do we build it up? If you say, “No,” then I ask you, How is it even possible to build up the secret combination?  What is the chief means used by secret combinations to obtain power and authority over men? There is only one scriptural answer to these questions.  It is government.

The Secret Combinations of the World Gravitate to Government

Government control is always what they seek, from the lowliest, local, organized crime gang to the largest multinational combinations.  They want to rule and only government provides them the means to lord it over the people through the use of force.

This is why the first Nephite secret combination, started by Gadianton and Kishkumen had, as its goal, to elect Gadianton to the judgment seat so that he could cause the members of the gang to also have government jobs.  Here are Mormon’s exact words describing Gadianton’s plan:

“If they would place him [Gadianton] in the judgment-seat he would grant unto those who belonged to his band that they should be placed in power and authority among the people” (Helaman 2: 5.)

Gadianton Profiled

Some years ago, I started to write a script for a movie called, The Sons of Helaman, based upon the Book of Helaman.  The script was going to tell the story of the Gadianton robbers and so I had to develop the character of the first robber.  Here was my description of him (not a direct quote from the script, which I no longer have in my possession)  :

Gadianton wasn’t some two-bit thug, such as a local mugger or gang-member, he was an illustrious man of the community, a self-made man of means, a prominent businessman, having utilized the capitalistic system to further his wealth and influence upon the people to the point where he could no longer make the profits he wanted to make and do the things he wanted to do because of government interference. Honest people in government stood in his way to making more money and getting more power and control.  He was a well-known and influential citizen that felt that the amount of money you made and the amount of education you had (he was “exceedingly expert in many words”) ought to determine who ruled and who did not, not the voice of the people. It wasn’t enough that he owned a lot and influenced many, he needed to own everything and influence (rule) all things.

Some in government could be bought, while others (like Pahoran and Helaman) could not.  So, the plan was to put Gadianton directly in government instead of going through front-men or puppets.

Kishkumen and his gang assassinated Pahoran so that Gadianton would be put in power.  This means that they fully expected to get him into office after the assassination, indicating that Gadianton was a viable and visible candidate for the judgment-seat.  Helaman, though, was voted in by the voice of the people (and not Gadianton), and then he (Helaman), too, was targeted for assassination, with the thought that this would finally get Gadianton in.  So, the profile painted by the scriptures is that Gadianton was popularly known, had campaigned for the highest government office in the land, possibly already held a governmental office, was a man of means and influence, was highly educated and was not just some thug or assassin.  In other words, Gadianton was a member of the Nephite elite, or at least thought of himself this way.  The other robbers also were elites as they thought they had sufficient influence over the people to get Gadianton elected.

Additionally, the plan of Gadianton wasn’t his own.  This strategy—which consisted of infiltrating the government by a shadow government that has its own “citizens”, secret laws, trials, code words, covenants, oaths, signs and wonders (see Alma 37: 27) by which to recognize a brethren of the order, and then, once members obtain positions of power and authority, they use their influence to grant other members government jobs until they can use the combined influence to change the government into one that more closely matches the shadow government they belong to, essentially establishing a monarchy—was directly revealed to Gadianton from Satan himself.  (See Hel. 6: 26-29.)  So, this secret plan and strategy is the master blueprint that all secret combinations rely upon, including that most abominable one that is among us now.

Gadianton, then, became the Master Mahan of the Western Continent, when Satan likely appeared to him as an angel of light and revealed to him the ancient plans of how to obtain “kingdoms and great glory” (Ether 8: 9).  Kishkumen and his band adopted the plans of Gadianton when it became apparent that these were the real (satanic) deal, the actual blueprint from the black soul of the devil himself.

So, while Shiblon was conferring the sacred records upon his nephew Helaman (in Alma 63), Satan was conferring the cursed plans upon Gadianton.  Nevertheless, although blackhearted, in all outward appearances Gadianton was still the upright and “moral” citizen, after all, he was blessed materially so he must have been blessed by the Lord, right?  (The pure doctrine of “If ye keep the commandments of the Lord, ye shall prosper in the land” was perverted into the satanic doctrine of “If ye are prosperous in the land, it shows that ye do keep the commandments of the Lord.”  To this very day, all robbers use the riches = righteousness defense.)

The Gadianton Robbers Were all Elites, as Is the Present Combination

Every Gadianton robber thought that it was his right to rule (and to literally own) the people and their lands and property and this is consistently shown from the time of Gadianton to the end of the Nephite civilization.  Their means of rule was always the government and consistently their tactics were to infiltrate the judgment-seats with their own members and work to consolidate all governmental power into an executive branch, to eventually appoint a king.

Although Anthony E. Larson’s Nephite-American harbinger theory (see parts 1, 2, 3 & 4) explains that the Gadianton robbers paralleled Islamic terrorist cells and organizations in our own day, the Nephite combination only used these gorilla tactics when they were forced from their government positions of power and from the community itself.  While they still resided among the people, they infiltrated and sought to control, not fight, the government and to change it from within.  The Islamic terrorists do not work this way.

The Gadianton robbers are the pattern for the secret combination in our day.  The combination we have among us is comprised of elites.  They come from families of power, prestige, wealth, education, influence, fame, etc.  They feel, like the ancient Gadiantons, that they were born to rule and they use government as a means to that end.

The modus operandi and goal is always the same.  Compare, for example, Giddianhi’s words (threats) with President Bush’s words (threats) concerning the need for a 700 billion dollar robbery, er, bailout:

And behold, I am Giddianhi; and I am the governor of this the secret society of Gadianton; which society and the works thereof I know to be good; and they are of ancient date and they have been handed down unto us.  And I write this epistle unto you, Lachoneus, and I hope that ye will deliver up your lands and your possessions, without the shedding of blood, that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs. I am Giddianhi.  And now it came to pass when Lachoneus received this epistle he was exceedingly astonished, because of the boldness of Giddianhi demanding the possession of the land of the Nephites” (3 Ne. 3: 9-11.)

And now for President Bush.

How We Build Up the Secret Combination

Just as the ancient robbers sought to consolidate governmental power into one executive branch, so the current combination seeks to do the same.  Every law or action taken by the Congress, by the President or by the Justices that builds up executive power and reduces the power of the legislative and judicial branches, and/or reduces (or eliminates) the checks of power put into the government by the Constitution, builds up the secret combination.

Below the level of the Federal government, all robbers and their accomplices in State, county and city governments have the dual job of consolidating power into the executive branches of these governments, with the intention of eventually handing over the reigns to the Federal handlers.  Thus, we see robbers on all levels performing their secret work of destruction as they intentionally destroy their local economies and stall budget deals (sound familiar California?), so that local governments will need federal bailouts, becoming federalized (or nationalized) and consolidating power into one central location.  With their mouths they speak lies, saying they are working to save us, while in reality they work to destroy and enslave us.

This work of destruction of liberty has gone on since the beginning, but as time goes on it becomes more pronounced due to greater numbers of robbers (and their accomplices) and more infiltration of all levels of government.  Eventually, they reach the point where they in fact do obtain the sole management of the government.  It is then that they rape, pillage, murder and rob the people with impunity and in full view.  We are at that point now.

As the secret combination has been in government since the publication of the Book of Mormon, and as it uses government to accomplish its goals, if you have supported or voted for anyone at all in government who has concentrated power and authority in the hands of the President (or any of the executive branches), or you have supported or voted for any measure, proposition, law or policy that does the same thing, you have built up the secret combination. Whether it was done knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, the effect is the same.

The Hands of the LDS and of the People of this Nation are NOT Clean

If you are like most LDS, you have probably voted for people or issues that have concentrated governmental power into the hands of the secret combination.  You may think Moroni’s prophecy of vengeance “upon those who built [the secret combination] up” (Ether 8: 24) doesn’t apply to you, because you did not do it intentionally to build it up, but the Lord at the last day will show you that it does.  (This brings to mind the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”)  We are an unclean people and have largely sought to build up power bases and authority instead of seeking, like Moroni, to pull them down.

Repentance is Our Only Option

I believe the literal and complete and final fulfillment of the following prophecy is about to burst upon us:

Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;  and also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—the weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—but that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; that faith also might increase in the earth; that mine everlasting covenant might be established; that the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. (D&C 1: 17-23)

Moroni has given us the solution to this major problem on our hands: “Repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you.”  If we do not follow this counsel, the penalty is destruction, for the weak are about to break down (destroy) the strong.  Destruction will be upon the secret combination (for the Lord will not allow it to accomplish its goal in this nation) and also upon all those who built or who are building it up.

Next Secret Combinations article: Opening old wounds

Previous Secret Combinations article: Is the topic of “secret combinations” taboo in the LDS church?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Root Cause of the Current Financial (Monetary) Crisis and Its Solution

Ever since I learned of the biblical prophecies—and later of the additional prophecies of the LDS—concerning these days in which we live, I’ve always wanted to be an observer of the affairs of men, watching the winding up scenes unfold before my eyes, without participating in the iniquities, frivolities and foolishness of men, nor in the judgments of God upon them.  However, I believe that the Lord wants more than this:

And now, as I spake concerning my servant Edward Partridge, this land is the land of his residence, and those whom he has appointed for his counselors; and also the land of the residence of him whom I have appointed to keep my storehouse; wherefore, let them bring their families to this land, as they shall counsel between themselves and me. For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.  Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; for the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.  But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.  (D&C 58: 24-29)

Notice that the Lord didn’t say we should be engaged in good causes (plural) but in a good cause (singular).  Many will interpret this passage to mean that we can be engaged in any cause that is good, but I believe that the Lord had reference to only one cause which is defined by Him as being good: the cause of Zion.

For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard.  (D&C 21: 7)

Zion holds the solution to all of the world’s problems.  Zion is not just for the saints, but for all men and the time will come that many of the wicked will flee to it (see D&C 45: 68 and 133: 12) to escape the wrath of God and the judgments upon Babylon.  Every LDS, then, after escaping Babylon themselves, should also be helping others escape.  After all, as saints, we are supposed to be a light unto the world, setting an example of godliness to all those that view our good works, so that they can glorify God.

So, when I see the crisis happening on Wall Street and the $700 billion dollar solution our president is providing, I wonder what the latter-day saints will do.  Will we accept the solution provided us by our Gentile, Babylon-based government and be cast out as good-for-nothings?  Or will we provide the Zion solution and become the temporal saviors of men, even saviors upon Mount Zion?

For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; and inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.  (D&C 103: 9-10)

The Financial Crisis

By now everyone should be aware that there is a financial crisis happening in America.  It is no longer a question of whether bad financial times are upon us, but how bad they are and how long they will last.  The doomsayers predict a financial depression that will last many years and make the American Great Depression of the 1930′s seem like a walk in the park.  The optimists say we can ride this wave out because America is still dynamically very strong.

On everyone’s mind is both how to fix the situation and who will do the fixing.  Specifically, the question is, “Which presidential candidate, Obama or McCain, can fix it?” The two, major, political party candidates have become the saviors of men in the eyes of the masses who support them.

As an anarchist and a latter-day saint, my view is that government is usually the one that causes these problems to begin with, and therefore, should never be called upon to fix them, as it usually only ends up making things worse.  If there is a solution to our economic situation, it will come from the people themselves, working independent from the government.

But before a solution can be offered, the problem must be identified, not just the symptoms of it.

A financial crisis is a monetary crisis

A financial problem is a monetary problem, it usually being either that there isn’t enough money going around (deflation) or that there is too much money going around (inflation).  That seems to be simple enough to fix.  In deflation, you just print more money and circulate it.  In inflation, you just stop or slow down the printing presses and also destroy money that comes into your hands.  Yet, despite (more or less) being in control of the amount of money in circulation, by being in control of the printing presses, the Fed has failed to stabilize the economy, bringing us into the Great Depression of the 1930′s twenty years after it (the Fed) was created and now bringing us into an even greater depression known by some as the Global Systemic Crisis seventy-eight years after that.

So, owing that the Fed isn’t really doing the job we were told it was supposed to do (stabilizing the economy), maybe we ought to look a bit further and deeper and consider that the problem is not how much money is going around, but whether what is going around is actually money.

The Lord talked about money

In 17 of the revelations given to Joseph Smith, the Lord mentioned money.  Here are the specific scriptures: D&C 24: 18 given in July, 1830; D&C 48: 4 given in March 1831; D&C 51: 8, 11, 13 given in May, 1831; D&C 54: 7 given in June, 1831; D&C 56: 9-12 given in June, 1831; D&C 57: 6, 8 given on July 20, 1831; D&C 58: 35-36, 49, 51 given on August 1, 1831; D&C 60: 10 given on August 8, 1831; D&C 63: 40, 43, 46 given in August, 1831; D&C 69: 1 given in November, 1831; D&C 84: 89-90, 103-104 given on September 22 and 23, 1832; D&C 90: 28-29 given on March 8, 1833; D&C 101: 49, 56, 70, 72 given on December 16, 1833; D&C 103: 22-23 given on February 24, 1834; D&C 104: 26, 68, 84 given on April 23, 1834; D&C 105: 8, 30 given on June 22, 1834; and D&C 124: 70 given on January 19, 1841.

The above scriptures cover the time between July 1830 and January 19, 1841.  This means that whatever currency was used by these Americans during that time was considered by the Lord as actual money.

But what was money during the years 1830-1841?

The 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language was the dictionary in use among Americans during this time and defined money in the following manner:

MONEY, n. plu. moneys.

1. Coin; stamped metal; any piece of metal, usually gold, silver or copper, stamped by public authority, and used as the medium of commerce. We sometimes give the name of money to other coined metals, and to any other material which rude nations use a medium of trade. But among modern commercial nations, gold, silver and copper are the only metals used for this purpose. Gold and silver, containing great value in small compass, and being therefore of easy conveyance, and being also durable and little liable to diminution by use, are the most convenient metals for coin or money, which is the representative of commodities of all kinds, of lands, and of every thing that is capable of being transferred in commerce.

2. Bank notes or bills of credit issued by authority, and exchangeable for coin or redeemable, are also called money; as such notes in modern times represent coin, and are used as a substitute for it. If a man pays in hand for goods in bank notes which are current, he is said to pay in ready money.

3. Wealth; affluence.

Money can neither open new avenues to pleasure, nor block up the passages of anguish.

(Money entry of the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language)

The Lord talked about talents

Within this same time period, the Lord also mentioned talents in two of the revelations given to Joseph Smith:

But with some I am not well pleased, for they will not open their mouths, but they hide the talent which I have given unto them, because of the fear of man.  Wo unto such, for mine anger is kindled against them.

Behold, they have been sent to preach my gospel among the congregations of the wicked; wherefore, I give unto them a commandment, thus: Thou shalt not idle away thy time, neither shalt thou bury thy talent that it may not be known.

(D&C 60: 2, 13; revelation received on August 8, 1831)

And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God.

(D&C 82: 18-19; revelation received on April 26, 1832)

But what is a talent?

TALENT (Lat. talentum, adaptation of Gr. τáλατον, balance, weight, from root ταλ-, to lift, as in τληναι, to bear, τáλας, enduring, cf. Lat. tollere, to lift, Skt. tulã, balance), the name of an ancient Greek unit of weight, the heaviest in use both for monetary purposes and for commodities (see Weights and Measures).  The weight itself was originally Babylonian, and derivatives were in use in Palestine, Syria and Egypt.  In medieval Latin and also in many Romanic languages the word was used figuratively, of will, inclination or desire, derived from the sense of balance, but the general figurative use for natural endowments or gifts, faculty, capacity or ability, is due to the parable of the talents in Matt. xxv.

(Talent entry of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1910)

(See also the talent entry of the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language.  That entry explains: “Among the ancients, a weight, and a coin. The true value of the talent cannot well be ascertained, but it is known that it was different among different nations.“)

So, the talents mentioned in D&C 82: 18, which were “to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church” could be a reference to money, specifically, a unit of weight used for monetary purposes.  But what American unit of weight used for monetary purposes was in use on April 26, 1831?

The Lord talked about dollars

In two of the revelations received by the Prophet, the Lord mentioned dollars:

Or in other words, if any man among you obtain five dollars let him cast them into the treasury; or if he obtain ten, or twenty, or fifty, or an hundred, let him do likewise; and let not any among you say that it is his own; for it shall not be called his, nor any part of it.

If it be five dollars, or if it be ten dollars, or twenty, or fifty, or a hundred, the treasurer shall give unto him the sum which he requires to help him in his stewardship—until he be found a transgressor, and it is manifest before the council of the order plainly that he is an unfaithful and an unwise steward.

(D&C 104: 69-70, 73-74; revelation received on April 23, 1834. See also the Book of Commandments XCVIII: 12, page 244, which used the word talents in stead of dollars.)

And they shall not receive less than fifty dollars for a share of stock in that house, and they shall be permitted to receive fifteen thousand dollars from any one man for stock in that house.  But they shall not be permitted to receive over fifteen thousand dollars stock from any one man.  And they shall not be permitted to receive under fifty dollars for a share of stock from any one man in that house.

Verily I say unto you, let my servant Joseph pay stock into their hands for the building of that house, as seemeth him good; but my servant Joseph cannot pay over fifteen thousand dollars stock in that house, nor under fifty dollars; neither can any other man, saith the Lord.

(D&C 124: 64-66, 72; revelation received on January 19, 1841.)

From the above it becomes plain that the words dollars and talents are interchangeable, meaning the same thing.

But what is a dollar?

DOLLAR, n. [G.] A silver coin of Spain and of the United States, of the value of one hundred cents, or four shillings and sixpence sterling. The dollar seems to have been originally a German coin, and in different parts of Germany, the name is given to coins of different values.

(Dollar entry of the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language)

DOLLAR, a silver coin at one time current in many European countries, and adopted under varying forms of the name elsewhere. The word “dollar” is a modified form of thaler, which, with the variant forms (daler, dalar, daalder, tallero, &c.), is said to be a shortened form of Joachimsthaler. This Joachimsthaler was the name given to a coin intended to be the silver equivalent of the gold gulden, a coin current in Germany from the 14th century. In 1516 a rich silver mine was discovered in Joachimsthal (Joachim’s dale), a mining district of Bohemia, and the count of Schlitz, by whom it was appropriated, caused a great number of silver coins to be struck (the first having the date 1518), bearing an effigy of St Joachim, hence the name. The Joachimsthaler was also sometimes known as the Schlickenthaler. The first use of the word dollar in English was as applied to this silver coin, the thaler, which was current in Germany at various values from the 16th century onwards, as well as, more particularly, to the unit of the German monetary union from 1857 to 1873, when the mark was substituted for the thaler. The Spanish piece-of-eight (reals) was also commonly referred to as a dollar. When the Bank of England suspended cash payments in 1797, and the scarcity of coin was very great, a large number of these Spanish coins, which were held by the bank, were put into circulation, after having been countermarked at the Mint with a small oval bust of George III., such as was used by the Goldsmiths’ Company for marking plate. Others were simply overstamped with the initials G.R. enclosed in a shield.  In 1804 the Maundy penny head set in an octagonal compartment was employed. Several millions of these coins were issued. These Spanish pieces-of-eight were also current in the Spanish-American colonies, and were very largely used in the British North American colonies. As the reckoning was by pounds, shillings and pence in the British-American colonies, great inconveniences naturally arose, but these were to some extent lessened by the adoption of a tariff list, by which the various gold and silver coins circulating were rated. In 1787 the dollar was introduced as the unit in the United States, and it has remained as the standard of value either in silver or gold in that country. For the history of the various changes in the weights and value of the coin see Numismatics.  The Spanish piece-of-eight was also the ancestor of the Mexican dollar, the Newfoundland dollar, the British dollar circulating in Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements, and the dollar of the South American republics, although many of them are now dollars only in name.

(Dollar entry of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1910)

The American Dollar is a Silver Coin

This may come as a surprise to many LDS (and Americans), but nowadays we don’t use American dollars, which is a quantity of silver, usually coined for ease of use.  What we use today are Federal Reserve Notes, otherwise known as fiat currency.  In all of the modern revelations quoted above, whenever the Lord was referring to money or talents or dollars, He was referring to the commodity currency then in use, specifically, a quantity of (usually coined) silver.

Silver is the only legal, American money

Douglas V. Gnazzo of the Honest Money Gold and Silver Report web site wrote an excellent article entitled Honest Money and published in 6 parts, in which he went over the history of American legal currency.  In it, Douglas explained that a “dollar” is defined both by the Constitution and by the Original Coinage Act of 1792 as being a specific quantity of silver, namely, 371.25 grains of silver.  This legal definition has never been changed, meaning that what we are currently calling a “dollar” is not real American currency.  To read the entire Honest Money article, click the following links:

Honest Money, Part I: The Constitution and Honest Money

Honest Money, Part II: Silver Standard with a Bimetallic Coinage System

Honest Money, Part III: Coinage Acts of 1834-1900

Honest Money, Part IV: Treasury Notes

Honest Money, Part V: History of American Money and Banking

Honest Money, Part VI: The European Connection

Honest Money, Part VII: The Moneychangers – Secrets of the Temple

Honest Money, Part VIII: Final Summary and Conclusions

You will recall, for example, that Congress has power to “coin money.”  It doesn’t have power to “make money” or to “print money,” but merely to coin it.  The money referred to in the U. S. Constitution is silver, thus, a power to coin money is a power to coin silver.  The two phrases are synonymous.  In fact, in many Latin American countries the word for money is plata, which is the word for silver. We can see from this that the Spanish milled dollar, which is what our American dollar is based upon, has had influence in many countries.

Fiat Currency, Fractional Reserve Banking and Usury is the Problem

Like evil bedfellows, fractional reserve banking and usury almost always accompany a fiat currency.  (See the above Honest Money article for an explanation about these banking practices and why they are so evil.)  Usury is condemned in the scriptures (both ours and others’ scriptures) and religions past and present have spoken against it as a great evil.  However, all three principles have been generally accepted among today’s society and even among most Latter-day Saints.  In fact, even in the church we find usury among ourselves (e.g. Perpetual Education Fund), though many do not consider it so as they interpret usury to mean excessive interest and not just any interest.

Notice that the current financial problem has nothing to do with regulation (or lack thereof) of the banking institutions by the government.  As long as a currency is metal-based, society naturally regulates itself without any need of government intervention, eliminating the practice of usury and making sure that only full-reserve banking occurs.  So, the roots of the financial crisis go deeper than mere de/un/regulation.  They go all the way to the currency itself, for fiat currency will always result in financial instability and prosperity for the few at the expense of the many.  This is a long way off from the Zion ideal of all having all things common.

Commodity Currency is the Solution

The use of metals as money has historical precedent and is the surest foundation upon which to build.  The following is part of the money entry of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1910:

The Metals as Money. Reasons for their Adoption. Superiority of Silver and Gold. – The employment of metals as money material can be traced far back in the history of civilization; but as it is impossible to determine the exact order of their appearance in this capacity, it will be convenient to take them in the order of their value, beginning with the lowest.  Iron – to judge from the statement of Aristotle – was widely used as currency. One remarkable instance is the Spartan money, which was clearly a survival of a form that had died out among the other Greek states; though it has often been attributed to ascetic policy. In conjunction with copper,  iron formed one of the constituents of early Chinese currency, and at a later time was used as a subsidiary coinage in Japan.  Iron spikes are used as money in Central Africa, while Adam Smith notes the employment of nails for the same purpose in Scotland.  Lead has served as money, e.g. in Burma.  The use of copper as money has been more extensive than is the case in respect to the metals just mentioned. It, as stated, was used in China along with iron – an early instance of bimetallism – and it figured in the first Hebrew coins. It was the sole Roman coinage down to 269 B.C. and it has lingered on to a comparatively recent date in the backward European currencies. It even survives as a part of the token coinage of the present.  Tin has not been a favourite material for money: the richness of the Cornish mines accounts for its use by some British kings. Silver holds a more prominent place than any of the preceding metals. Down to the close of the 18th century it was the chief form of money, and often looked on as forming the necessary standard substance. It was the principal Greek money material, and was introduced at Rome in 269 B.C. The currencies of medieval Europe had silver as their leading constituent; while down almost to the present day Eastern countries seemed to prefer silver to gold.

The pre-eminence of gold as money is now beyond dispute; there, is, however, some difficulty in discovering its earliest employment. It is, perhaps, to be found in ” the pictures of the ancient Egyptians weighing in scales heaps of rings of gold and silver. ” According to W. Ridgeway’s ingenious theory gold comes into use as a currency in due equation to the older cattle unit, the ox. It was certainly employed by the great Eastern monarchs; its further development will be considered later on. Metals of modern discovery – such as nickel and platinum – are only used by the fancy of a few governments, though the former makes a good token coinage.

The preceding examination of the varied materials of currency, metallic and non-metallic, suggests some conclusions respecting the course of monetary evolution, viz.: (I) that the metals tend to supersede all other forms of money among progressive communities; and (2) that the more valuable metals displace the less valuable ones. The explanation of these movements is found in the qualities that are specially desirable in the articles used for money. There has been a long process of selection and elimination in the course of monetary history.

First, it is plain that nothing can serve as money which has not the attributes of wealth; i.e. unless it is useful, transferable and limited in supply. As these conditions are essential to the existence of value, the instrument for measuring and transferring values must possess them. A second requisite of great effect is the amount of value in proportion to weight or mass. High value in small bulk gives the quality of portability, want of which has been a fatal obstacle to the continued use of many early forms of money. Skins, corn and tobacco were defective in this quality, and so were iron and copper. Sheep and oxen, though technically described as ” self-moving,” are expensive to transport from place to place. That the material of money shall be the same throughout, so that one unit shall be equal in value to another, is a further desideratum, which is as decidedly lacking in cattle-currency as it is prominent in the metals. It is, further, desirable that the substance used as money shall be capable of being divided without loss of value, and, if needed, of being reunited. Most of the articles used in primitive societies – such as eggs, skins and cattle – fail in this quality. Money should also be durable, a requirement which leads to the exclusion of all animal and most vegetable substances from the class of suitable currency materials. To be easily recognized is another very desirable quality in money, and moreover to be recognized as of a given value. Articles otherwise well fitted for money-use, e.g. precious stones, suffer through the difficulty of estimating their value. Finally, it results from the function of money as a standard of value that it should alter in its own value as little as possible. Complete fixity of value is from the nature of things unattainable; but the nearest approximation that can be secured is desirable. In early societies this quality is not of great importance; for future obligations are few and inconsiderable. With the growth of industry and commerce and the expansion of the system of contracts, covering a distant future, the evil effects of a shifting standard of value attract attention, and lead to the suggestion of ingenious devices to correct fluctuations. These belong to the later history of money and currency movements. It is enough for the ordinary purposes of money that it shall not alter within short periods, which is a characteristic of the more valuable metals, and particularly of silver and gold, while in contrast such an article as corn changes considerably in value from year to year.

From the foregoing examination of the requisites desirable in the material of money it is easy to deduce the empirical laws which the history of money discloses, since metals, as compared with non-metallic substances, evidently possess those requisites in a great degree. They are all durable, homogeneous, divisible and recognizable, and in virtue of these superior advantages they are the only substances now used for money by advanced nations. Nor is the case different when the decision has to be made between the different metals. Iron has been rejected because of its low value and its liability to rust, lead from its extreme softness, and tin from its tendency to break. All these metals, as well as copper, are unsuitable from their low value, which hinders their speedy transmission so as to adjust inequalities of local prices.

The elimination of the cheaper metals leaves silver and gold as the only suitable materials for forming the principal currency. Of late years there has been a very decided movement towards the adoption of the latter as the sole monetary standard, silver being regarded as suitable only for a subsidiary coinage. The special features of gold and silver which render them the most suitable materials for currency may here be noted.  “The value of these metals changes only by slow degrees; they are readily divisible into any number of parts which may be reunited by means of fusion without loss; they do not deteriorate by being kept; their firm and compact texture makes them difficult to wear; their cost of production, especially of gold, is so considerable that they possess great value in small bulk, and can of course be transported with comparative facility; and their identity is perfect.” The possession by both these metals of all the qualities needed in money is more briefly but forcibly put by Cantillon when he says that “gold and silver alone are of small volume, of equal goodness, easy of transport, divisible without loss, easily guarded, beautiful and brilliant and durable almost to eternity.” This view has even been pushed to an extreme form in the proposition of Turgot, that they became universal money by the nature and force of things, independently of all convention and law, from which the deduction has been drawn that to proscribe silver by law from being used as money is a violation of the nature of things.

(An excerpt from the money entry of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1910)

So, when the Lord told the kings of the earth and the saints to bring their gold and silver to Zion, He was referring to commodity money, as that was the commodity money of the time.  (See D&C 124: 11, 26 and 111: 4.)  Have we complied?  Do we contribute commodity money to the cause of Zion, or do we contribute fiat money?

We need a private, LDS, commodity-based (gold and silver) currency

I am among those who believe that we are currently witnessing the beginning of the eventual (and planned) break-up of the United States of America.  We may also soon witness a corresponding break-up of the Church.  Regardless of what happens, though, the prophecies must be fulfilled, which means that when we cast our talents “into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church”, upon living the law of consecration, we will be casting in commodity money, specifically, gold and silver money, and not fiat money.

In anticipation of the complete break-up of the USA, the total devaluation of our current fiat currency, the attempted introduction of another currency and another type of government, even regional government, and, after all these (and other) tribulations, the cleansing of the church and the establishment of the law of consecration, we ought to be pro-actively engaged in the good cause of Zion.

Zion needs a currency, independent of the governments of the world, meaning that it must be a private currency.  As private currencies are legal in this country, there is nothing to stop the LDS from creating one.  To get us started in that direction, in the Establishment of Zion Think Tank Forum I gave some examples of what can be used as this private, LDS currency.

The corporate Church won’t do it

Many members wait for Salt Lake to issue the instructions, but the Lord has already told us that “it is not meet that I should command in all things.”  Besides, I have reason to believe that the dissolution of the corporate Church is on the horizon.  So, if a silver and gold-based commodity currency is to be had again among the saints, in fulfillment of prophecy, the saints themselves must be the ones to create it.  Such a currency would not only stabilize all LDS communities who use it among themselves, but would also allow non-LDS to escape the financial wrath of God upon all those who transact in fiat currency.

A side benefit

Having a private, LDS, precious metals-based currency will also allow those using it to get around the mark of the beast prophesied by John in the Book of Revelations.  (See Rev. 13: 16-18; Rev. 14: 9-12; Rev. 19: 20; and Rev. 20: 4-6.)

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Introducing a new bartering currency—the first coin: 1/2 Troy oz pure silver .999 fine

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: If voting could change things, it would be illegal

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The dissolution of the corporate LDS Church via “gay marriage”

I’ve stayed out of all the online LDS discussions concerning what is termed “same-sex marriage,” “SSM” or “gay marriage,” after all, I’m an anarchist, so I don’t believe in government involvement in what I consider private affairs. The recent First Presidency letter read in California sacrament meetings asking California saints to do all they could to pass Proposition 8, which would amend the California constitution to have a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, has sparked a lot of online talk among LDS. But I have remained silent.

However, my own belief and understanding has always been that the main reason why the Church (with a capital ‘C,’ indicating the corporate entity, not the lower case ‘c,’ indicating the baptized people of the Lord) is supporting this California constitutional amendment is that “gay marriage” may lead to the dissolution of the corporate Church.

Yes, I am aware of the moral and other reasons that the Church is putting forth for this push to define marriage, in documents such as The Divine Institution of Marriage, which is the Church’s latest press release concerning this issue (and thanks goes to the Faith Promoting Rumor blog for bringing this press release to my attention), but what has gnawed at me for a long time were the legal ramifications. What does this mean to the corporate Church?

The new Church press release briefly mentions some legal aspects of legalized same-sex “marriage.” Here are the two paragraphs devoted to this issue:

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished. (Emphasis mine.)

Apparently, I am not the only one thinking about the legalities of SSM. Just yesterday a LDS saint alerted me of a letter from a stake president who was asking for donations to pass the California Proposition 8. In that letter, here is what the stake president wrote:

The ramifications of this vote are wide-spread and numerous. In places where the definition of marriage has been expanded, institutions have been forced to accept and embrace alternate lifestyles or risk losing government privileges, including tax-exempt status. (Emphasis mine.)

My understanding is that the Church is incorporated in the state of Utah [changed from 'Nevada', see below] as a corporate sole, under 501(c)3 tax exemption. Corporations have got to obey the laws of the state in which they are incorporated, right? And states have the “good faith and credit clause” by which they respect and accept the judgments of judges made in other states, right?

So I can conceive of the corporate Church coming to the point where it has to pick sides: either obey the laws of Utah [changed from 'Nevada', see below] and keep its corporate charter and articles (and the corporation itself) intact while disregarding the Lord’s moral directives toward homosexuality, or obey the Lord’s moral commandments and disobey the laws of Utah [changed from 'Nevada', see below] , effectively opening up the possibility of forced dissolution of the Church.

Now, anyone who has sufficiently gone over this blog should know that I have no problems with the dissolution of the corporate Church. I feel that we should be a free-church, not a corporate state-Church. And I feel that we ought to voluntarily un-incorporate the Church, whether doing so ourselves or by using the services of certain free-church ministries.

But do I really believe that the Church will un-incorporate itself of its own free will? Of course, not. Corporations, like governments, tend to do everything in their power to perpetuate their own existence. However, legalized “gay marriage” may be just the thing that will force un-incorporation upon us, making us a free-church, and finally allowing the natural system of tribal anarchy to reign among the saints, in preparation of all that is prophesied to happen in these days.

If Prop 8 is defeated, and in my opinion, it will be, regardless of how much money is pumped into its campaign by LDS and others, what will happen to the corporate Church? Anybody versed in corporate law is welcome to respond and give his or her understanding as to whether legalized SSM may present a real danger to the life of the Church corporation sole or its tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. As I am not schooled in corporate law, my understanding may be flawed. Feel free to correct me.

Liberty under a free-church

If and when the Church becomes un-incorporated, whether by its own volition or through government force, and we truly are a free-church, proponents of legalized SSM cannot use the law to force the church to accept homosexual arrangements, whether legal or illegal. Because a free-church is outside of the jurisdiction of State regulations, it essentially does not exist in the eyes of the State, therefore all religious pronouncements are of a completely private nature.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Anarchy in action: congregational nullification

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: How I get out of jury duty

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Abraham Lincoln

If you go to lds.org and do a search among the general conference addresses using “Lincoln” as the term, you will come up with 64 articles. Of these articles, not a single one speaks negatively of him. The GA’s are not only fond of quoting one of his statements or making an example of his life, but also of extolling his virtues, essentially putting him on a pedestal. Here are some quotes to illustrate this point:

Richard C. Edgley said that Lincoln “freed the slaves.” Paul H. Dunn considered Lincoln one of the “great leaders.” Devere Harris implied that Lincoln was both “great” and had reached “the pinnacle of performance.” Royden G. Derrick said, “We revere Abraham Lincoln because of his commitment to a principle in which he strongly believed.” He also stated that he was a “patriot.” Sterling W. Sill called Lincoln “our great Civil War president.” David B. Haight implied Lincoln, known as “Honest Abe,” evidenced “public virtue.” He implied that Lincoln rose “above self-interest” and acted “in the public interest with wisdom and courage.” Joseph B. Wirthlin said that Lincoln was “one of the greatest and most eloquent presidents of the United States.” James E. Faust believed Lincoln had “special gifts” and listed him along with Moses and Leonardo da Vinci. Mark E. Petersen called Lincoln a “man of God.” He also called him “the great emancipator.” Dallin H. Oaks called Lincoln “educated,” serviceable,” and that his “use of a limited amount of information” was “wise and inspired.” Neal A. Maxwell said that Lincoln provided “spiritual leadership.” Jeffrey R. Holland called Lincoln “one of the most gifted leaders ever to strive to hold a nation together.” Marvin J. Ashton called him “the great American leader Abraham Lincoln.” Marion G. Romney said that Lincoln “demonstrated his great integrity” in leaving a sentence in his ‘The House Divided Against Itself’ speech despite knowing it would probably mean losing the Senate seat. He said that Lincoln “had the integrity to act in harmony with his convictions” despite being “ambitious” and desirous of the presidency. His integrity meant “defeat in his race for the Senate,” but, Romney said, “fortunately for the country” it later made him president. He then said, “How glorious…it would be if all of us possessed the integrity of…an Abraham Lincoln.” Thomas S. Monson called Lincoln “the revered Abraham Lincoln.” Spencer W. Kimball said that Lincoln “achieved the highest success attainable in life and undying fame to the end of time.” Gordon B. Hinckley, talking of Lincoln, said that there was “true greatness to the man” and that he laced the nation “together ‘with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God’ gave him to see the right.” Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking of the debunking of the story of “Abraham Lincoln’s walking a great distance to return a small coin to its rightful owner,” stated that “clever debunkers in their unrighteous zeal have destroyed faith in such honesty.”

One of the debunkers of the myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln is Thomas J. DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo has written, so far, two books on Lincoln (The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe) and published a score of articles about him, a list of which are found here and here. You can also listen to an audio interview he recorded here. I’m also including a videotaped speech of DiLorenzo entitled, “Why Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln,” which can be viewed in six parts:

DiLorenzo is not alone in making these claims. There are other researchers who are bringing Lincoln facts to light, such as Sam Dickson, who wrote an article entitled, Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln. (These two men fulfil the law of witnesses: in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.) Nevertheless, I will focus on DiLorenzo’s articles and research.

I am not convinced that DiLorenzo’s, Dickson’s and other’s zeal in debunking Lincoln myths is unrighteous. Eventually all truth is to be revealed, all hidden, secret things are to be uncovered and all lies exposed as falsehoods. We LDS should applaud all efforts that correct past errors, including any erroneous view of Lincoln’s actions.

Although Lincoln undoubtedly believed he was in the right, that alone is not enough to revere him, despite what Elder Derrick said above. There have been plenty of tyrants and dictators who also firmly believed in their own principles. What is important is that the actions of a man correspond to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ as we know it. It is the gospel by which we measure all things.

Many of the GAs quote Lincoln, as he said many great and memorable things, but it is best to keep in mind that Lincoln was a politician. Politicians attempt to say the things that their audience want to hear. In the case of Lincoln, he did this masterfully. This is why both Christian and atheist alike claim Lincoln as their own. So, we cannot take a politician merely at his word, we must examine his actions to determine the real value of the man. And we must compare those actions with the gospel. As Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

In examining his actions, it is important to keep in mind the opposite principles of free agency and coercion, one being of God, the other satanic. In the pre-mortal council, some spirits of Heavenly Father did not wish to follow Christ. They didn’t want to be a part of that “union.” Our heavenly house was divided against itself. Did Heavenly Father force Lucifer and his followers to remain in heaven? Were they forced to accept Jesus? Or did he freely allow them to cut themselves off and leave, which is the right of secession? As a result of 1/3 of these spirits leaving, did the government of God dissolve? Or does it still exist? Keep this in mind when you ponder on the fact that Lincoln “saved the union” (at gunpoint) and “saved the Constitution” (by denying the right of secession and by forcing the South to submit to it, upon pain of death, imprisonment and/or loss of property.)

Now, here is a summary of DiLorenzo’s points on the unlawful and immoral acts of Lincoln:

• Lincoln saved the union geographically, but destroyed it philosophically
• He invaded the southern states without consulting Congress (unconstitutional)
• He declared martial law (unconstitutional)
• He blockaded southern ports without declaring war (unconstitutional)
• He suspended the writ of habeas corpus (unconstitutional)
• He imprisoned without trial some 13 northern citizens
• He arrested and imprisoned newspaper publishers who were critical of him
• He censored all telegraph communications
• He nationalized the railroads
• He created three new states (Kansas, Nevada and West Virginia) without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to rig the 1864 elections and give himself more electoral votes
• He had soldiers interfere with the elections in the north (they used colored ballots, like a blue ballot was republican, a red ballot was a democrat, and if you saw someone with a wrong color the soldiers would not let them vote) using bayonets to rig the election
• His amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody at the time as legal
• He deported congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio (who eventually ended up in Canada,) breaking his door down in the middle of the night using Federal soldiers without a warrant and dragged him off to military prison (this happened to 13,000 people, too)
• Vallandigham spoke of the real reason Lincoln was doing these things: “The real purpose of these acts was national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation and strong government, no more state lines, no more state governments, and a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism.” Shortly after saying this, Valandegan was deported.

Some of the northern war crimes committed include:

• Some 50,000 southern civilians were killed by the Federal army
• 1 out of 4 southern white men between 20 and 40 years of age were killed
• Randolph, Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi were burned to the ground as was Atlanta
• When Atlanta was burned, 90% of the structures were burned to the ground and then after they were all burned out, winter was coming on, and Sherman evicted the remaining residents from their homes, the countryside having no food in it

The idolatrous worship of Abraham Lincoln is an obstacle to the transition to anarchy. As long as LDS look upon him as a national hero, even a man of God, they will always be conditioned to look upon the State as a good thing. The purpose of this post is to cast additional light upon the Lincolnite sacred cow so that LDS can more clearly see and decide for themselves if Lincoln is worthy of their adoration and if he was the champion of liberty that we’ve all been taught he was (in our government schools.)

The South has always vilified Lincoln, while the northerners and LDS have always deified him. Maybe it is time we LDS re-examined our viewpoint, based upon this new research, to determine whether we are the ones in error.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: The Anarchy of Alma

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Is anarchism compatible with D&C 134?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

What the Lord has said about the Constitution

In the church, there is a common tendency to idolize the U.S. Constitution. We frequently hear that it is an inspired document and that the men who were responsible for its creation were raised up by God to this very end. Some even go so far as to believe the Constitution is a revelation from God, equal in authority and as binding upon the people as the scriptures themselves. Many U.S. LDS imagine that the government of the Lord in the Millenium will be some version of the constitutional republic created by the Founding Fathers, namely, a democratic Republic. Adding fuel to this fire is the oft-repeated “Constitution-hanging-on-a-thread” prophecy, which is attributed to Joseph Smith, though there are various versions of it, the texts of which are not canonized, but which are revered and believed by many U.S. LDS to be true. (Non-U.S. LDS are not as enamored as the U.S. LDS with the Constitution, so they don’t quote this prophecy so much.)

But what does the Lord actually say, in the canonized scriptures that we have, about the Constitution?

CONSTITUTION OF THE LAND

The Lord said, “And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” (D&C 98: 5-7)

The Lord said, “According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (D&C 101: 77-80)

Joseph Smith prayed, “Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.” (D&C 109: 54)

That’s pretty much all that is said about it. It is mentioned in two revelations in which the Lord speaks (D&C 98 and 101) and it is mentioned in the revealed dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple (D&C 109.)

There are some interesting things about these three revelations. First of all, the Constitution is never called the U.S. Constitution. It is either called “that law of the land which is constitutional,” “the constitutional law of the land,” “constitution of the people,” “Constitution of this land,” “those principles,” and “the Constitution of our land.”

Secondly, it is never implied that the Lord is referring to the entire Constitution. There are qualifiers among these revelations. In other words, the Lord is referring to that part of the Constitution that supports “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges.” He also says that “whatsoever is more or less than this,” meaning this rights and privileges part of the Constitution that supports the principle of freedom, cometh of evil. So, from the first revelation, the Lord explains that there is a part of the Constitution that is justifiable before the Lord and that belongs to all mankind, not just Americans, and that there is a part of the Constitution that is not justifiable before the Lord and that “cometh of evil.”

In the second revelation, the Lord explains that the Constitution (the part that supports the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges) “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh.” He also mentions the moral agency of man (which reminds me of anarchy) and then the Lord says something quite peculiar. He says, “Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” The word “therefore” means “for that reason” or “consequently.” So, the part about slavery in the Constitution obviously came of evil and was ‘not right,” but also any part of the Constitution that caused that “any man should be in bondage one to another” was “not right.”

As all forms of government force people to obey certain rules, called government laws, upon pain of death, imprisonment or property theft, government in and of itself causes all men to “be in bondage one to another.” So, pretty much the entire Constitution is in the “more or less” category that “cometh of evil.”

Finally, the dedicatory prayer refers to the Constitution of our land as “those principles,” and prays that they be established forever. The only “principles” justifiable in the Constitution are the ones referred to in the first two revelations. These are the principles that support that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges; that should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh; that allow every man to act in doctrine and principle and according to their moral agency and their individual accountability; that are justifiable before the Lord; and that belong to all men.

So, what are these principles? We call these principles the Bill of Rights. Only the Bill of Rights fits the above description and only the Bill of Rights belongs to all mankind. It is instructive, too, that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people specifically from the government (the rulers.) The Bill of Rights is the only part of the U.S. Constitution that is truly of the people. It is truly the Constitution of our land. Anarchy, therefore, is consistent with these revelations.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Anarchy does not require perfect people

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: 1930′s Spanish Anarchy

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist