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

Going From “You Owe Me” to “Money”

The history of money:

Standard economic theory is that once upon a time all transactions were exclusively barter:  e.g., 20 chickens for your cow, a basket of corn for your basket of wheat, 3 animal furs for your spear.  Then inconveniences arose when your neighbor didn’t need that many chickens right now but you still needed his cow – so then money was invented as an arbitrary medium of exchange that you both could agree had value.

However, anthropologists have never found places where everyday transactions look like Adam Smith’s theory of the exclusive barter system – the place where everybody in the community does business via on-the-spot trades.  What anthropologists do observe among primitive communities is an exchange system more like:  “Take the cow and now you owe me one.”  If these communities are tribal [e.g., Native Americans], there is often no exchange at all – rather things are shared commonly or allocated by a tribal council, etc.

In other words – the story doesn’t go:

barter –> money –> debt

rather, it goes the other way:

debt –> money –> barter

There was never a community of on-the-spot traders that sought out a medium of exchange, that then became money.  There was a “Just take it and now you owe me one” system of tribal-sharing that turned into a system of measured obligation [called debt – where money is the unit of measure].  And then on-the-spot trading and bartering systems only appear among people in money-based systems where the currency has collapsed.

The role of the state:

What made the “Just take it and now you own me one” turn into a system of measured obligation and money?  For millions of years humans organized themselves according to their tribe and their tribe’s land – and nothing else.

Advancements such as monoculture and city-states created large groups of largely unrelated persons living together – humans began “bonding” through commerce or business or information.  While civilization has undoubtedly caused great benefits for the human species, having larger communities bound by principles other than kinship created a greater potential for war [leading to plunder and slaves to be divided up] and a greater interest in taxation.

We observe complex financial systems of measured credit and debt at the beginning of recorded history.  Meaning, by the time historical records began to be written, humans had already come to a point past the tribal-sharing model, and were full-swing into a monetary-based system such as:  “just compensation shall be 20 heifers of the finest quality, if not he shall be put to death.”

In Egypt, a strong centralized state excised taxes from everyone else.  In Mesopotamia, the state emerged rather unevenly – beginning first with large temple-districts [e.g., Gobekli Tepe], and then later palace-complexes.  In any event, the state is where money begins as a unit of measure – used to allocate resources within these new systems of human organization.

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

There three ways to understand this scripture:

• Nothing belongs to Caesar because all things are God’s.  So render nothing.
• Some things do belong to Caesar, but the United States is not under a “Caesar”, but is a representative democracy.  “We the People” are “Caesar”.  So you don’t have to render, but you can/should.
• Money belongs entirely to Caesar and God has nothing to do with it.  Render it all.

Now show me some tribute money — and what is the image and superscription you find?  All money pertains to Caesar.  There aren’t legitimate parts of the state that have claim on some of our money and illegitimate parts that do not.  Legal tender belongs to the state alone and those who want to be free of its control can’t be half in Caesar’s game and half out.

Meaning you can’t charge money for your labor, spend money to buy the fruits of another’s labor, and lay-up your money for a rainy day, etc. — and not expect to fall under the jurisdiction of Caesar who wants his due rendered to him.  Caesar’s is a money-based community.  God’s is a money-free community.

Once you convert something of real value [e.g., your time or your labor] into something of no value [like dollars] – it is lost forever.  The only way to retain the value is to stay in Caesar’s game.  Find someone else who plays and trade with them.

Dollars are like inches. They are only a unit of measure [dollars = value, inches = length].  We know we don’t carry around inches in our pocket – yet many actually believe dollars to be something.  And money falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state.  As such, once you work for dollars, the thing of value disappears and is replaced by the thing of no-value.  The only way to get back value is to find someone who plays the same game and do a value-for-no-value trade with them – perpetuating the whole thing.

The role of the gospel:

Jesus’ ministry cost very little – a couple taxes paid via miraculous means.  God finances His operation in His own way.  However, the Gentile LDS church has not been able to recreate this.  We instead maintain a significant financial operation – making it obvious to any outside observers that it’s the power of money [not of the priesthood] that carries the work forward in these latter-days.  We have sufficient for our needs and invest the difference.

To be poor and join the church — one will be immediately confronted with the image of a wealthy group with certain expectations.  It is a wealthy church with a self-perpetuating financial arm that is able to use interest profited off of tithing contributions to fund for-profit ventures that “fund the work of the Lord”.

While it could be argued that, practically-speaking, currency is just simply required to “spread the gospel” and that leaders are just being “good stewards” — I don’t think anything about the gospel reads as being “practically-minded”.

The corporation that carries the trademarked name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, like any other business, dependent on money.  It must play Caesar’s game.  No operation playing that game can sustain itself without engaging in at least a bit of for-profit venturing, shrewd investing, and fund-raising here-and-there.  And I would not expect them too.  I do not fault that corporation for it’s handling of and dealings with money – I find fault for the claim that it is the same organization that existed in the primitive church, but not doing it.

One can never be free while still playing Caesar’s game:

Jesus and the kingdom have no use for money.  Jesus taught His disciples to live contrary to the principles of surplus economics and instead rely alone on God to provide [not self-reliance and provident living].

There is a reason Jesus sent missionaries out without purse or scrip – commanding them to take no thought for food, drink, or clothing – to freely give miraculous works to any who receive them – to rely on the mercies of the world to provide for their needs.  It is because only the poor are intended to teach and preach the gospel.

And only the poor [who are meek] will inherit the abundance of spiritual manifestations and the Earth.  Zion is to be a money-free community where all members live together and have all things common – where all mine are thine and we are glorified together.

When humans lived in the Edenic state of multihusband-multiwife tribes – money did not exist.  The idea of “having any money” was foreign to Adam, who only kept the tokens associated with his priesthood.  Any return to such a paradisaical lifestyle will only be associated with complimentary return to the manner of connectedness and cooperation humans shared before statism, monogamous family-units, and monetary-based systems of exchange.

Want to start a real revolution this new year?  It takes a revelation…give it a try…

Next Article by Justin:  Falling to the Earth as a Sign of Conversion

Previous Article by Justin:  The Adultery of Mary

Romans 13: 1-7 and Joseph Smith

Many libertarians, when talking to Christians about the government, feel the need to explain Romans 13: 1-7 to fit their libertarian views. A search on LewRockwell.com using “Romans 13” brings up a slew of articles that do just that. For example, the first article listed in the search is entitled, “Romans Chapter 13” by Chuck Baldwin and his first paragraph states:

“It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, “What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone.” Or words to that effect.”

But when approaching Latter-day Saints, such lengthy explanations are unnecessary. If a Latter-day Saint brings up Romans 13: 1-7, all that needs to be said is, “Look at the Joseph Smith Translation.” So, let’s do that, okay?

First, let’s quote Romans 13: 1-7.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher power. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Romans 13: 1-7)

Obviously this is talking about government (the state) and its officials (the higher powers that are ordained of God to be his ministers,) the relationship of saints to these government officials (one of submission) and the payment of taxes to the state (that saints must pay their taxes.)

Now let’s look at the Joseph Smith Translation of Romans 13: 1-7.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher power. For there is no power in the church but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For, for this cause pay ye your consecrations also unto them; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. But first, render to all their dues, according to custom, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, that your consecrations may be done in fear of him to whom fear belongs, and in honor of him to whom honor belongs. (JST Romans 13: 1-7)

This passage is talking about the priesthood leadership of the church (the higher powers that are ordained of God to be his ministers,) the relationship of saints to the priesthood leadership (one of submission) and the payment of consecrations to these authorized priesthood ministers (that saints must obey the law of consecration and consecrate their surpluses to the Lord.)

Next Joseph Smith article: Breaking News: Joseph Smith’s Daguerrotype is scanned and uploaded

Previous Joseph Smith article: Joseph Smith’s Daguerreotype – An Appeal for Help

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist