Lakota independence—prophecy starting to be fulfilled?


Christian Kenny Heap brought to my attention the recent Lakota declaration of independence from the U.S. and I thought it was important enough news to merit a blog post. As I stated in my follow-up comment to his remark, it reminded me of a scripture:

The Lord said, “And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.” (D&C 87: 5. See also Micah 5: 8-15; 3 Ne. 16: 7-15; 3 Ne. 20: 15-21; 3 Ne. 21: 12-21; D&C 109: 65-67.)

In case you are not up to speed on what the Lakota nation is doing, read the FoxNews report, visit any of the Lakotah Oyate web sites (LakotahOyate.com, LakotahOyate.org and LakotahOyate.net), visit the Republic of Lakota web sites (RepublicOfLakota.com and LakotaFreedom.com), check out the WordPress blogs talking about Lakota, or just Ixquick “Lakota, independence” or some other term like that.

So, now that the Lakota nation has declared its independence, does this mean we are entering the time in history when the prophecies of the above listed scriptures will be fulfilled? My gut feeling (not inspiration or revelation, yet) is that both the Lakota secession and the Aztlan movement (Ixquick“Aztlan”) are pieces of the future (perhaps not-so-future?) fulfillment of these prophecies.

So, what do you, dear reader, see in these occurrences? Does the Spirit whisper that the departure of Lakota from the U.S. is a sign of the times to be examined, or is it nothing of any significance and to be ignored?

For me, this can play out any number of ways, but none of the peaceful ones seem likely.

First of all, the enemies of the U.S. would probably immediately jump on the legitimizing secession bandwagon, by recognizing the Lakota nation as a sovereign country. Apparently Russia is already considering this. If foreign countries recognize Lakota, it will be fuel to the fire if the U.S. decides to handle another bid at secession like the War of Northern Aggression (for Southerners) or the War Between The States (for some Southerners and some Northerners) or the Civil War (for Northerners), however you call that conflict. Even if the U.S. tries to handle the situation peacefully, by fighting it through the courts, the Lakota nation is pretty well grounded legally, and probably would win legally, but with recognition by other nations, the Lakota people will have already won the first battle in declaring their legitimacy as a sovereign nation. The recognition by other nations of the Lakota nation will but help to divide America into two parts: U.S. citizens and Lakota citizens. A divided nation is good if you have ideas of conquering it.

Secondly, there is a large amount of land involved, in which plenty of non-Lakota people live. These Americans “own” land, which apparently really belonged to the Lakota people, and when the Lakota nation starts issuing liens, what is going to be the reaction from these people? There is definitely going to be a whole lot of irate individuals as a result of this.

The Lakota are extending an invitation to all people, of any race, that they can come and live in their land tax-free, if they will renounce their U.S. citizenship. They are already issuing Lakota passports and Lakota driver’s licenses to accommodate people. How many people who have had it with U.S. taxation are going to take them up on this offer? The influx of people may be exceedingly great if the U.S. allows secession to go through peacefully. Only the threat of violence or illegitimacy from the U.S. might dissuade tax evaders and those who are tired of oppressive U.S. taxes (a great number of people) from becoming Lakota citizens.

If the U.S. decides to determine the right of secession by conflict, like Lincoln did, it will be facing an impoverished people who currently have nothing to live or die for. In other words, these people are destitute right now and may become galvanized into action by conflict. They have an extremely high suicide rate, indicating nothing to live for. If suddenly they have to fight for their land and freedom, the U.S. will have given them both a reason to live and a reason to die. Such an enemy will be on the defence, defending their lands, homes, wives, children, etc. (Just fill in Moroni’s whole title of liberty.)

There is also the problem of justification. Would the U.S. be justified in the eyes of God in attacking the Lakota nation? Is the Lakota nation justified in seceding from the U.S.? As LDS, we have modern scriptures that help us arrive at the correct answer to these questions, as the Lord has revealed his laws of justification in D&C 98: 33-38, as well as other places.

All in all, based upon the U.S. government’s past behavior when it comes to secession, a peaceful solution does not seem likely. Conflict seems probable. I do not expect the U.S. government to give up sizable chunks of real estate in 5 States and the accompanying tax revenue, nor allow itself to be drained of tax-paying citizens who renounce U.S. citizenship to live tax-free in another part of America, without objection. (The Lakota still live in America, so, it is not like they would be going to a totally foreign country or a completely foreign land.)

Finally, if the Lakota situation does erupt, Aztlan or other groups (such as Vermont secessionists) might see it as the opportune moment to take what they want of America. The potential for a firestorm is definitely here.

In case this comes up…

Yes, Russell Means, otherwise known as Oyate Wacinyapin, is part of the Lakota Freedom Delegation and is also the actor who starred in (among other movies) The Last of the Mohicans with Daniel Day-Lewis. Means played Chingachgook, the very last of the Mohicans, but in actuality, he “was born an Oglala/Lakota Sioux Indian,” according to IMDb (the Internet Movie Database.)

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: The tribal nature of the gospel

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: A basic right denied

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