How Shall We save It?

[John Adams]

P.S. If God's Law (Natural Law) always existed, then we should be able to discover these truths through the scriptures (Bible - Children of Israel organization in the wilderness & Other examples, Book of Mormon - Reign of the Judges & Other examples), Latter-Day Prophets, the current Constitution with all the original research of the Founding Fathers, and other wise men & women's experiences, etc.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Not that this is an answer to healthcare, but...

D&C 42:43 "And whosoever among you are sick, and have not faith to be healed, but believe, shall be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food, and that not by the hand of the enemy."

I personally think that we put far too much emphasis on life and death.

[WhisperFox]

I see several problems with trying the corporation route. These are my personal observations, doesn't make them fact or truth, just my personal views on this.

1 - It starts with the assumption that we are all free men. In my opinion, we are not. We, (our grandparents) as a nation, sold ourselves into socialist servitude before any of us were born. This is a legally binding contract. Like the children of Israel of old, we can't just opt out. We have to abide by the contract until the Lord sees fit to free us. (A topic for another thread).

2 - It assumes we have learned the lessons the early saints hadn't learned in living the law of consecration and the United Order. How many of us really believe we are more righteous than they were? IMO, if anything we are further, as a group, from being able to live the higher law now.

3 - The church has a plan, prepared and taught by Joseph Smith, to be brought forward when the nation as we know it is destroyed. (Also a topic for another thread) While the plan is similar to what is being suggested, we have no authority to create it or live by it currently.

4 - Assuming we created this plan, organized it, set it up, started living by it's principles, all that would be needed to destroy it is to have a single person get offended or easier, have a single person join who had the intention of destroying the organization, and at the first sign of contention, the group would be brought before the legal, (note: not constitutional but legal) law of the land, and the existing court system would destroy it as a challenge to the existing governments "legal" authority.

5 - Groups like this almost always end up being controlled by men with intentions of creating their own little empire. They may have the best intentions in the beginning, but it deteriorates into a new 'religious' united order, controlled by the precepts of men. Not a good combination. Those who follow others into similar groups find that they do not have an equal say, for most follow looking for someone to lead them and they are lead by a single individual, a whosaidofthegreatestmagnitude. The 'freemen' can't challenge the organizing leader, because he is considered by the followers as the whosaidofthegreatestmagnitude.

IMO, until the Lord cleans his own house, we are left, as Mormon and Moroni were, to fight so save what we know will be destroyed. After the Lord cleans house we will have the opportunity to live the higher law.

I disagree with one of Darren's initial assumptions. The Constitution Party can make a difference working from the lower levels of government up. We can run for city, county, and state offices and make a difference. What it takes is each of us getting involved and actually running for and supporting those good, honest, and wise men who run for these lower offices.

At the root level is where the power is created for good government. If we each make changes in the lowest levels of government, we are then able to effect larger changes in higher levels. Then we can unitedly act as 'freemen' within the existing system.

To claim we don't have to act within the system our parents left us is to condone anarchy. It will come soon enough without well intentioned patriots creating it.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

"1 - It starts with the assumption that we are all free men. In my opinion, we are not. We, (our grandparents) as a nation, sold ourselves into socialist servitude before any of us were born. This is a legally binding contract. Like the children of Israel of old, we can't just opt out. We have to abide by the contract until the Lord sees fit to free us. (A topic for another thread).

To claim we don't have to act within the system our parents left us is to condone anarchy."

I have to take issue with these statements. It is the supreme beauty of the Constitution that it recognizes Free Agency as coming from GOD, which no man can infringe (or abridge). The Constitution itself establishes that no person can sell future generations into slavery (or out of their GOD given rights) in that any law in conflict with the Constitution is not law. I understand your logic and precedents (Joseph in Egypt etc...), I disagree with your premise entirely. When we declared independance from Britain we were violating the law entered into willingly by our forebears.

I agree that the Constitution Party can serve a useful purpose.

I disagree with the allusion that we are not authorized to do anything and that there is a plan just sitting around waiting. I know that the elements exist (including rough blueprints for city planning and a temple, many untied documents relating to the Law of Consecration and Constitution etc...)

I have seen no well laid out and organised plan and am simply suggesting putting the pieces together and not waiting for the church to do something.

I don't mean to come off contentious, but it sounds a lot like you are advocating that we remain in our awful state until outside forces act upon us and compel us to action aside from just becoming enlightened and working within an admittedly wrecked system.

I do not advocate that we all move to Manti and live the full law, simply that we discover the plan that you allude already exists. If it does already exist it would be a huge relief to me and I need a copy!

[lundbaek]

I'd like to call attention to a forum thread that addresses the matter of a new improved constitution, or suggested improvements.

Go to: http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com
Click on: JoelSkousen.com in blue on the upper left of page
Click on: Forums on the upper left of this page
Click on: Foundations of the Ideal State
Click on: General Discussion Area
Click on: The Constitution of the United States

I think there are some ideas on this thread that make good food for thought.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

To clarify, I do not advocate changing the Constitution any more than Brigham Young did. Except in that I advocate revisiting what has been ammended since then in addition.

By the way, the Constitution Party itself advocates these changes as well!

[ChelC]

Are you all going to do the fast - NAG NAG?

I agree with pieces of what everyone is saying. I agree Jeremy that our forefathers broke away disregarding law, and were justified in doing so. Many scriptural figures have broken off, fled, been led by the Spirit to other places. We need to listen to the Spirit so that we are ready to be led. We need to do more to try to reverse the damage done, even though we know it will continue to decline, we may be able to shorten the suffering by prolonging the inevitable. We may be able to help waken others so that they can prepare.

There is a law that has been revealed, and never been lived as intended. I am certain that our prophets will help us to live it, but I also know that we need to have members who study these things and have a good knowledge of them so that we are not running around like a bunch of lemmings trying to figure it out. We are not in a place yet to change things entirely. At least I have not been given any revelation that we are. We are in a place to educate ourselves and others and that should be our great purpose until we are given further light.

None of us are ready yet to agree on anything else it seems... so let's continue to pray for guidance, and study until it becomes clear.

[John Adams]

So maybe the only purpose we can agree on is "Educating each other and others about the Constitution". I guess the other stuff we can just continue to disucss on an ad hoc basis as the subjects arise on the forum.

With that purpose, do you think we could come up with some sort of "basics" document that we could both share with others and also use to test ourselves on as well? I know that various recommendations for books, websites, articles, etc. have been shared many times, but maybe we could come up with a specific list and then that list could be posted as a static document by Brian on the web site. Does this sound reasonable and/or does such a list already exist?

I think it should focus mainly on the Constitution (we could have a separate list for Secret Combinations if needed).

Thoughts?


Also, personally I still am curious about others' thoughts on the other things that have been montioned on this thread as well (e.g., ideal government structure, commerce/production, education, healthcare, talents/resources, etc.)

[WhisperFox]

SwissMiss&Pitchfire - I appreciate your comments. I'll answer your questions with my opinion. Again, doesn't make them right and I appreciate your questioning my post. Definitely, does not feel contentious to me.

Freemen have things in common. People in bondage or serfs have things in common. What it takes to be free is Life, Liberty, and Property (The founding fathers used 'pursuit of happiness' defining that term as the right to own and control private property).

Most people, even members of the church and good patriots don't understand our current form of bondage, and why it exists. Isaiah prophesied of our day saying "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee".

First property.

You own your home, not in allodial - (free from the tenurial rights of a feudal overlord) as your g-grandparents did, one hundred years ago, you now own them in Fee Simple (an inheritable estate in land held of a feudal lord on condition of the performing of certain services). italics are definitions straight from the modern dictionaries.

If you own your property in Fee Simple, you legally acknowledge that you are a serf, to a higher lord who owns the property, and you agree to pay a fee for it's continued use. (property taxes) This arrangement of 'fee simple' is partial ownership inheritable to your children as long as they continue to pay the fee to the lord. Who is the lord? The government. We are in bondage to our government. This bondage to the government is the most common bondage in the history of the world. Even in cultures where an individual is allowed to have a slave, it is enforced by the government.

There are ample other examples, but in the end, this points it out the simplest.

Liberty

In a constitutional republic citizens are allowed to contract freely. This includes contracts of indentured servitude. The Constitution of the United States prohibits "slavery" and "involuntary servitude". If we sign a contract we are legally forced to comply with it's terms. Many, if not all, of our socialist contracts Social Security, Medicare, Income Taxes, welfare programs and others are binding on our heirs. Money we borrow as a nation is a legally binding debt, a contract binding not only on us, but our heirs.

Again, this is simplistic but it gets the basic point across.

Each of these examples show where our g-grandparents allowed certain freedoms to be taken in order to acquire some personal wealth or comfort. We are doing the same today, placing our children in bondage for things we choose to acquire, or comforts we choose to create and then bill them to the next generation in the form of higher taxes and borrowed debt.

Life

Both of these contracts above are good examples of us putting our lives on the line as part of the contract. If you don't pay your contract, you lose either or both your property and liberty, and possibly life if you refuse to abide by the penalties.

Yes, we still have agency, but so do all individuals in all nations, regardless of their form of government. They just must be willing to pay the price their choices incur, inflicted by their governments who choose not to recognize those rights.

Members in China, USSR, India, Iran are counseled to abide by the laws of their lands regardless of whether it violates unalienable rights. Likewise, we are counseled here in the US to abide by the laws of the land, many of which can be proven are unconstitutional. If the current judges are wicked, and rule that something is "the constitutional law of the land" even when it isn't, we, like those in China, have to live by the law of the land.

The Book of Mormon teaches that "Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written. (Ether 2:8-12 )"

Why bother putting the "if they will but ..." in the prophesy unless there was at least the possibility, no probability, that we would fall?

Have we lost the rights to that promise? I believe we as a people have turned our backs on being a Christian nation. This started long ago but seemed to reach it's peak in the early 60's and into the 70's when the US Supreme Court ruled, taking God out of our schools and public meetings and we as a people sat back and accepted it. Even we as LDS sat back and did nothing.

Most of the last vestiges of Constitutional law have been rapidly swept away by President Bush in the last few months. Standing up now, and declaring that we have constitutional rights is legally punishable by imprisonment without charges being filed, without trial, and without even notification to family as to why or where one is being imprisoned.

Our form of government has changed. We no longer have a Constitutional Republic, we now have a Socialist Democracy just as was advocated by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. We have openly adopted at least 7 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Perhaps there was a reason why President Benson pleaded with us to read both the Constitution of the United States and the Communist Manifesto.

Are we in bondage? Most certainly. Will it get worse? Also a certainty.

As far as advocating that we sit back and do nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. I called and continue to call on everyone to stand up, make a stand, take the heat and help make a change. Running for office isn't simple, cheap or fun. It takes much more work than just typing on the computer.

Pretending that we can somehow stop the current abuses by separating ourselves from our current nationally chosen form of government, setting up a corporation informing our legal masters that we no longer want to play by their rules, is a simplistic, financially hazardous, and possibly fatal move. If I am correct, and we really are in bondage, then those men that would lose their lordship would crush any such attempt before it had a chance to sprout and gain a foothold.

When we awake to an awful sense of our situation we look for escape routes, ways to turn the tides, or at least for scapegoats. In the end, we must follow the prophet, cleanse the inner vessel, and place ourselves in the hands of the Lord. When we take a stand it MUST be when the spirit has prompted. It MUST be by the right spirit. A spirit of fear, anger or despair is not of Christ but is from another source.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

My point about the beauty of the Constitution is that it cannot be corrupted. It establishes the rights of man through GOD as being beyond repeal. Any law contrary is not a law and hence the bondage that you profess exists only because we allow it to. Our children cannot be held to any contract that they were not party to. Our bondage is not legal bondage nor can it be.

How we get out of it is another point of discussion as we are obliged to work within the current system (by the brethren) as are those in China etc...as you pointed out.

I think that the latter part of your post is rather condescending. It mischaracterizes all of the points I have been making and casts them in a wildly hypothetical scenario of your choosing.

I am all for folks supporting the Constitution Party and being active politically. If we are willing to work together in this admittedly corrupt system and admittedly futile task, how much harder should we be willing to work to establish a better system (one that will not fail and will become Zion) to come forward when the collapse that we all say is coming occurs?

[Darren]

Ok my friend Bruce and I had a long conversation to hammer this out for you all. We need to quit guessing on how to save the constitution, and get back to the principles of the constitution to save it.

This will answer many of your questions:

The Lord High Chancellor of England is a Great Officer of the State, appointed by the Monarch. Hitler was appointed the Canceller of Germany and he is the man that got to cancel the crimes in Germany. The Lord High Chancellor (Canceller) is the Italian method of running government by the equity system, by the power of the Pope, this is what the Pope does, he cancels the sins. This Chancellery is a high power and position in the equity (top-down) system of government, or orthodox system, of the Great and Abominable Church.

In Finland the word for priesthood is basically Finish for Popehood, they call the priesthood “Papeous.” The European way of saying that the Pope is the Papa, as in the French “Pape”, they just say “Papeous” in Finland for priesthood, that’s Latin for the Pope-ness.

Chancellery is the filthy system that took over control of the government of England except for at trials of a peer by his peerage. The ancient supreme court of England at this event comes out of obscurity as the supreme jury for these trials. It has only come together twice in the 20th century. When a trial of a peer happens in England we get to see the ancient Anglo/Saxon system of a Supreme Court, the Supreme Jury of the ancient church comes forward. Typically the Lord High Chancellor (Canceller of sins) in his Catholic robes and with his staff in hand is in charge of Parliament, but when the Lord High Steward of England is called to preside over the Supreme Jury of England which is the Supreme Court of England, something amazing happens. What happens is the Lord High Chancellor has to break his staff in two, and leave the Parliament. Then the Lord High Steward comes in and then he presides over the Supreme Jury, the Supreme Court of England. The make up of the Supreme Court of England is a Chief Judge and a Supreme Jury.

Our founding fathers were somewhat inspired from their ancestors with the idea for a Supreme Court, a Supreme Jury, but they really didn’t understand the workings of this ancient church system, at least not well enough to fend off the Greco/Roman system of orthodoxy, and keep the policies of the orthodox kingmen away from this country. And as you will see this inability to demonstrate or explain every aspect of how to work by the law created the conditions that lead to the failure of the constitutional system of the ancient church, operating on God’s law, that New England was continuing to operate under, so that later that system collapsed in 1818, ushering in the conditions just before Joseph Smith was in a situation to ask and then restore the ancient church law system. I will explain.

In our Constitution, Article One, it talks about the House of Representatives and the Senate, and this is where what ever decency that is in our country comes from.

In the Second Article of the Constitution it talks about the President and what is so stupid here is that in Old England the way that you get a president is the same way that any corporation gets a president, the board of directors hires and fires him. The way that a person is made the prime minister of England is the parliament puts him in or puts him out.

Congress can put out the President like they did with Clinton, they can impeach and remove him. But they do not put him in. There is a copy of the congress body to do that.

What is different about the United States and England is that in this country, the President besides, being in charge of enforcing the law as an Anglo-Saxon Corporate Chief Executive, he is also in charge of the “State” or is the Chancellor of the Equity system of the Great and Abominable Church. Over in England the Monarch is in charge of the State.

Because our President can be so powerful the founding fathers thought to give the congress the power to hire and fire him.

The founding fathers said what they will do, is have an Electoral College, every state gets to elect a number of electors based on the representation in congress, and this group will go out and find the top Executive in America. The Electoral College will be an executive employment agency to find the top Executive for the country.

What Jefferson and the Kingmen of the south did to try to get this system of hiring and firing the Chief Executive out of the hands of the Christian way of working by the law, was to get together in filthy political parties to overpower the mechanism, the Executive Employment Agency of the Electoral College. Political parties are a destruction of the constitution.

All political parties are, is a way to destroy an Electoral College. Over in Britain, regardless of what they do with the prime minister, if they fire him, the monarch is still there to continue the orthodox system. But there isn’t any method of consistency in keeping the orthodox system in control in the Constitution, that’s the main reason why we have political parties, to keep the system of policy (top-down government) in place.

The First Article of the Constitution is the congress, and it is very interesting, the Second is about the executive. But look at it, we don’t use it, we hire the Chief Executive by the asinine political parties getting around the Electoral College.

Then the Third Article is the Supreme Court and this now is absolute insanity. It says in the Constitution that all criminal trials in this country will be done by Jury, and that no fact establish by a Jury shall be questioned by any other authority, other than by the rules of the common law.

In the common law of England they have a Supreme Jury at the top, and the Supreme Jury in England must be unanimous, just like the twelve apostles. “If you are not one, you are not mine” the Lord said. And He said that the twelve would judge Israel. This is the system of law for the Supreme Court.

All of our forefathers ever since Oath came to Northern Europe in the first century AD had each of them take his name upon them, as they take their “oath”. All the lands of Northern Europe used to have a Supreme Jury, that is what heavenly Father restored for them at the head of his church, a Supreme Jury, 12 men to judge the tribes of Israel.

Except for the word Seer, the word Prophet is a Greco/Roman word. “Warden” means guardian, Steward means, “Ste” pathway, or the pathway of life, or the straight and narrow way, so the High Steward is the guardian of the straight and narrow way, he is the chief judge or president of the straight and narrow way.

The Lord High Stewart was the acting leader of the ancient Anglo-Saxon Church. And the Supreme Court, the Supreme Jury represent the 12 tribes of Israel of this organization of the tribes in Northern Europe.

The Lord restored a Lord High Steward today and that is the President of the L.D.S. Church and he works with a Supreme Jury, and that’s the way the true church works, and that’s the way England works, minus the Greco/Roman system.

Our asinine Third Article of the Constitution says we will have a supreme court but it doesn’t say how many people are supposed to be in it. Is it a supreme committee?? That works by majority rule??? That is not the common law. There are nine members, where did they get that? There is no number stated in the Third Article of the Constitution, and so it is just absolute insanity. This is one of the first things that will go when the constitution is restored, the idea of this nine member Supreme Court having anything to do with the concept of Law.

A supreme committee, sitting in silly black robes of Roman Monks, that’s just right straight out of the greasy old orthodox system. We have the Lord High Steward, the Prophet, and the Supreme Jury the Twelve Apostles, and we are to work together by the law.

The Leadership of the Church is the Supreme Judge and Jury for our working by the law.

The way that Moses established Israel is that he had a judge of 10’s, he had a judge of 50’s, he had a judge of 100’s, a judge of 1000’s and the tribe leaders working directly with him to judge the people.

The way that this works in Norway is that they call it a Law-Right, that is the name of the Jury. Every Hundred of Norway is divided into tenships.

In Norway the ancient way that they do this, is they have a jury, and the jury is made up of the tenmen, in England called the Tithing-Men, “ti” is Scandinavian for 10, and thing is Scandinavian for parliament, tenmen-parliament, that is what they call the parliament in Iceland to this day, the “allthing” of Iceland. And for Elder Tingey, ting is a Scandinavian way of saying thing, tingey means parliament island.

In Norway a law-right is the tenmen from the ten tenships getting together, and then the two men over the 50’s they’re also on the jury, but they go back and forth between the jury and the bench with the judge, the 50-men has to be unanimous with the jury. The 50-men also sit with the judge and if the judge says something that they don’t agree with, the two of them together can out vote the judge.

In England there is no record of the common law of England before Richard the Loin Hearted. His younger brother started organizing England under the catholic system to make an army to get England ready for the invasion of Europe by Genghis Kahn. When he tried to set up that system over the tribes of Israel working together in England the people said go jump in the lake, we are going to make the orthodox King sign the Magna Carta.

When Genghis Kahn swept across Northern Europe all juries disappeared out of Germany, because the Germans organized as a big Roman Catholic army, the gild system made the guns, but they had army leadership under Dukes and Counts. The Catholic Church tried to set up that system for Anglo-Saxon’s but the people said baloney on you.

Part of the Magna Carta was that the King had to stop ignoring jury trials. The King said, “I will remember all jury trials back to the beginning of my brother’s reign, Richard I, or 1180 AD. 1180 AD is the beginning of legal memory, before that in England there is no memory of any jury verdicts. But in Iceland they have legal memory back to the early 900’s when the people got over there, escaping from Catholicism. In Norway they had been doing this law-right thing since Woden came in the first century AD. Even though the Catholics came in and changed much with their orthodox system, the people still continued in the customs they originally had.

In the true church we have a high council, and they are the jury of the rights of the Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the Stake. The Stake President institutes their verdict.

In Norway it is like going back to the time of Moses, with each 100’s divided into 10 10’s and 2 50’s. The 10 tithing-men in the 10-men parliaments and then with the 2 50-men they are the jury members. Isn’t that an interesting part of history?

Heavenly Father restored the Church like he wants it to work, and there is no reason at all that we cannot work under that system, in our 10’s, 50’s and 100’s, 1000’s and in our tribes, with its headquarters, its economy, its function and operation located within the safety of the church’s people.

Eventually, there is going to be a separation of Church and State. And what that is is the wisdom of the world’s wise men, which is the State, will parish.

The equivalency in that ancient system of the 10’s and the 50’s are our Wards, the 100’s are our Stakes and the 1000’s are equivalent to our Temple Districts and then the tribes of Israel were divided into 12 or the divisions of our church through our patriarchal blessings into our home lands.

Over in Northern Europe the people think of themselves as tribes. They have a word over there “Stahm” and that is for the tribe of the Saxons, and then the Bavarians are another tribe, and each tribe has its land just like in Israel, each of the 12 tribes had its land. Throughout Germany and Scandinavia the little tribe that my ancestors are from in Norway are the Trons which means the “troen” or “the believing people.”

The thousand is the temple district, then you go above the thousand and that is the land or tribes, and then you go above that and you have the Kingdom of the Keys, that is the “Key-rik”, Kirk or in English the Church.

In Scandinavia every land is called a “rik” the organization of all the tribes together make the Key-rik, the Kirk or the Church.

Everyone on earth through their patriarchal blessings will be offered a place in the tribes of Israel and if they are not a descendant then they will be adopted or have the opportunity to be so.

The issue here is the crazy Great and Abominable Church that dominates more than 99% of everybody’s thinking in the world today. Soon our people will understand the absolute insanity of the orthodox political government, and their kids being sent off to the orthodox school system.

When the Vikings went down and set up the crusades they had been running on the system given to them by Wotan, of looking unto god in all that they do, in their 10’s, 50’s, 100’s, 1000’s, Tribes and the Church, Individually and collectively seeking the purpose of the Lord in everything that they did.

In the Mediterranean they found a system that had been running a long time from Rome and then from Constantinople, on Orthodoxy or the correct hunches of the catholic leaders. In Constantinople they had all of their records of all the orthodoxy of the orthodox leaders, of the catholic monarchs and catholic politicians, in Bologna. The crusaders said that they would call all the teachings and things that have come to the world from the Catholic leaders, the One-spin-al leaders, the Universal leaders, in Bologna the worlds first One-spin-ity a “University”. And from there would export that University system to Paris, to England and then all across the world to get all the people working by the University system, the Orthodox system, the political system where the Political leader gets correct guesses to control the good people of his Pollis, or within the walls of the City, and he will give them their city or civil rights.

Happy Thanksgiving, God Bless,
Darren

[WhisperFox]

I think that the latter part of your post is rather condescending. It mischaracterizes all of the points I have been making and casts them in a wildly hypothetical scenario of your choosing.

I'll start with this as it is the one comment that concerns me the most. I never intended to be condescending. In all sincerity I apologize for anything I may have miss understood or miss interpreted. I have re-read my post and I can't find how I was condescending or what I miss characterized that you posted. I'm sincerely sorry if I did.

I'm not sure what you felt was "wildly hypothetical". I posted what I thought might be possibilities and answered them but then erased them when I found that it was condescending for any of them that I was wrong in assuming. If my post left that impression I probably could have or should have posted differently.

If you want to be more specific I'll gladly eat crow for my blunders, I'm used to crow. I make a lot of mistakes writing. I'll explain or apologize as appropriate.

My point about the beauty of the Constitution is that it cannot be corrupted.

The principles are true. They will never change. If that is what you mean by 'cannot be corrupted' then you are correct. As far as the law of the land, they have been corrupted. Choosing to ignore that fact and to personally claim constitutional rights doesn't change the fact that the government under which we now live no longer protects the rights you refer to.

It establishes the rights of man through GOD as being beyond repeal.

All rights come from God regardless of the nation we live in. They are held inviolate or ignored by governments. "beyond repeal" is an interesting choice of words. They indeed remain true but are not always enforced by our government. When the government of any nation violates them, with the consent of the people, either by action or inaction, these 'God given rights' are no longer part of the 'law of the land'. As Joseph Smith said they would be held inviolate (sacred, undisturbed; untouched) by the Elders of the church. The principles remain true, the rights still come from God, but the nation or government can choose to defend them or trash them. "We the people" determine the 'law of the land', based on common consent. We are told that anything not constitutional "cometh of evil". As a nation we choose evil regularly.

Any law contrary is not a law and hence the bondage that you profess exists only because we allow it to.

Any law contrary is still the law of the land, which we are obligated to sustain until we can change it. Hinckley and Oaks have both written on this topic.

You are correct, these laws and bondage exist only because we, as a people, allow them to exist.

Our children cannot be held to any contract that they were not party to.

Our children can and are bound by the contracts we place them under. Elder Oaks laid it out as plain as can be given. You and I are bound to pay for the ignorance/greed of our grandparents setting up the Federal Reserve, Social Security, and the graduated Income Tax systems. All three are easily proven to be unconstitutional. If you choose not to pay the debt, our parents incurred, you pay the price of a bondsman, having property confiscated or going to jail. Our children are "legally" obligated too. Not fair but it is the law of the land.

Our bondage is not legal bondage nor can it be.

Our bondage is legal. If it is not, someone other than myself needs to correct Brother Oaks and President Hinckley. We the people passed the laws either by vote, consent, or by silent consent. The laws continue to be proven legal each time the penalties are upheld in a court of law. It is currently the law of the land. As such, I can only see 3 choices.

1-Ignore it an hope it goes away. This is what got us where we are.

2-Take an active role in government and try to facilitate change in regaining the liberties lost. Challenge unconstitutional laws in the court system, run for office, repeal unconstitutional laws, etc.

3-Overthrow the existing corrupt system. While this sounds radical, our founding fathers went to great lengths to provide this as an alternative when all other avenues have been used.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I obviously will not convince you that precedent does not make law, nor will I try.

If you cannot find how your above post comes off as condescending and mischaracterises my stance, then no hard feelings and we will just move on.

If the legislature were to meet today and pass a law electing a king and thereafter transfering all power to the same and it made its way with the blessing of both house and senate and then was signed by the president and thereupon fasttracked over to the Supreme Court who ruled that it was not unconstitutional, would it then be law?

I say no, emphatically, it cannot be because there does exist one precedent that does represent the original law, and it is even more binding than the rule of law itself which you assure us trumps the Constitution itself. The new "law" is only a piece of historcal humor as a wasted coup attempt, because upon ratifying the Constitution we ensured that no law could be law contrary to the principles established therein.

Could we then just let things go and have ourselves a king, sure, that's what we have done. That does not change anything (which is the point!)

I know that you disagree with this point, and I know that our first duty to redress the wrongs perpetuated this way is through (cough cough) "legal means" but that does not give it legal sanction as law by the church or GOD (lest he cease to be GOD by repealing himself in sanctioning it!). It only means we are to turn the other cheek to the offender, and give him our coat and cloak also (read shirt off my back) (a whole lot of times, 7x70).

Okay so I did try (last time though I promise).

[WhisperFox]

Darren. Post what you believe and teach and take responsibility for it. Posting Bruce's ramblings doesn't help.

Guess I'm lost again. Holding the principles of the constitution inviolate means holding them sacred, that they were written by honest, good, and wise men under the direction of the Lord.

What I read had very little to do with the constitution, except with a few irreverent and condescending remarks.

In the Second Article of the Constitution it talks about the President and what is so stupid here is that ...

Our asinine Third Article of the Constitution says we will have a supreme court but it doesn’t say how many people are supposed to be in it. Is it a supreme committee?? That works by majority rule??? That is not the common law. There are nine members, where did they get that? There is no number stated in the Third Article of the Constitution, and so it is just absolute insanity. This is one of the first things that will go when the constitution is restored, the idea of this nine member Supreme Court having anything to do with the concept of Law.

Then, after these bizarre statements, we are given to believe that the Lord expects us to adopt, not the Constitution of the United States as He has repeatedly stated in the Doctrine and Covenants, and by every latter-day prophet, but we are to follow these new ramblings in setting up an apostatized Viking government to usher in the new millennium and the New Jerusalem. You present it as if we will set up these totally unknown groups and systems and incorporate into them a few of the truths found in the constitution.

Odd to me that no latter-day prophet, nor the Doctrine and Covenants tells us to seek for the truth in these foggy areas. The Lord's law of witnesses requires us to receive this from multiple reliable sources if we are to take any of it seriously. These are not there for a reason.

You may really like Bruce and find valuable bits of truth in your dealings with him, but in order to keep from leading yourself and others astray, you better find these other witnesses that the Lord should provide or you are treading on very shaky ground. To say that he associated with David O. McKay or Cleon Skousen is not a witness. Many apostates rubbed shoulders with apostles and prophets before being led astray and leading others astray.

I believe Bruce proposes a form of government that never really existed. What he proposes is a fantasy he has created in his mind, a merger of little truths or coincidences he has stumbled across over his years of linguistic study. I believe this is why there is no substance to his ramblings. One is left with bits of information that don't ever gel into a supportable goal. His writings are all like this last post. No conclusion. No direction to act. Just small bits that never really fit together.

Trying to present the hundreds of systems of government abused by the peoples of Europe for over 1700 years as a simple, single form of government is non-sense. They were not the same for any significant period of time. Most were monarchies and dictatorships who used the remnant of their apostate religious beliefs to support their personal conquests by the sword.

To claim that they were part of the Lost Ten Tribes is nothing more than miss direction. We aren't called to base our form of government on what we know of the governments used by the remnants of Ephraim, Manasseh, Judah, Israel at the time of David, or Moses and the Children of Israel, all of which we have valid records for. We aren't called to rebuild the reign of the judges in the Book of Mormon, though we know it was established by the hand of the Lord.

We are called to learn and sustain the principles of the Constitution of the United States of America as written and produced by our founding fathers. Bruce may indeed be a genius, but I'll rely on the latter-day prophets, the and the writings of the founding fathers as my source for truth.

[WhisperFox]

SwissMiss&Pitchfire - Spoken/written like a true patriot. Don't give up on me, I'm just trying to pass on some uncomfortable truths as I see them. In essence we are not far apart and I hope someday to talk in person and have you over for dinner so that we can be true friends.

If the legislature were to meet today and pass a law electing a king and thereafter transfering all power to the same and it made its way with the blessing of both house and senate and then was signed by the president and thereupon fasttracked over to the Supreme Court who ruled that it was not unconstitutional, would it then be law?

BTW, I believe you will see this happen in the next few years. The foundation for the abuse is laid. It will have the twist of an emergency situation. The masses will just follow along because it is the 'right' thing to do.

If the above occurred we'd have the same three options I listed before.

1-Ignore it and hope it goes away. This is what got us where we are.

2-Take an active role in government and try to facilitate change in regaining the liberties lost. Challenge unconstitutional laws in the court system, run for office, repeal unconstitutional laws, etc.

3-Overthrow the existing corrupt system. While this sounds radical, our founding fathers went to great lengths to provide this as an alternative when all other avenues have been used.

If this occurred and 'we the people' didn't oppose it, it would become the law of the land, and until the Lord gave us permission to correct the wrong by force, I believe we would be under obligation to abide the law just as the people of Alma had to abide their bondage until the Lord decided they had paid their penalty for having supported King Noah.

As with the people of Alma in bondage, if the Lord allows the penalty because the people have chosen wickedness, you and I can't change the penalty phase for the nation, even if we are righteous. If we attempt to correct the wrong, without the Lords approval, just because we know it is unconstitutional, then we will die or be imprisoned as those men died that tried to free the people of Limhi. If we die or are imprisoned for doing what we thought was right, but not in the Lords due time, we are unprofitable servants for he can't use use in his due time, or when the time is right. If we die as the price of regaining freedom, that's an entirely different issue.

Believe me when I say I understand where you are coming from. We are on the same page. No the actions won't be right, constitutional, or even supportable, but until more wake up and have a desire to fight for the constitution as you do, the Lords hands are tied by our national wickedness.

The Lord has to teach us patience to keep patriots from becoming zealots.

See what you would do if you were with Alma. Check out Mosiah 18-24

the people of Limhi were in bondage.

Mosiah 21:6-12
6 And it came to pass that the people began to murmur with the king because of their afflictions; and they began to be desirous to go against them to battle. And they did afflict the king sorely with their complaints; therefore he granted unto them that they should do according to their desires.
7 And they gathered themselves together again, and put on their armor, and went forth against the Lamanites to drive them out of their land.
8 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did beat them, and drove them back, and slew many of them.
9 And now there was a great mourning and lamentation among the people of Limhi, the widow mourning for her husband, the son and the daughter mourning for their father, and the brothers for their brethren.
10 Now there were a great many widows in the land, and they did cry mightily from day to day, for a great fear of the Lamanites had come upon them.
11 And it came to pass that their continual cries did stir up the remainder of the people of Limhi to anger against the Lamanites; and they went again to battle, but they were driven back again, suffering much loss.
12 Yea, they went again even the third time, and suffered in the like manner; and those that were not slain returned again to the city of Nephi.

they repented, as a people

Mosiah 21:13
13 And they did humble themselves even to the dust, subjecting themselves to the yoke of bondage, submitting themselves to be smitten, and to be driven to and fro, and burdened, according to the desires of their enemies.
14 And they did humble themselves even in the depths of humility; and they did cry mightily to God; yea, even all the day long did they cry unto their God that he would deliver them out of their afflictions.
15 And now the Lord was slow to hear their cry because of their iniquities; nevertheless the Lord did hear their cries, and began to soften the hearts of the Lamanites that they began to ease their burdens; yet the Lord did not see fit to deliver them out of bondage.

The Lord didn't free them for many years, (until the end of chapter 22)

The people of Alma got to skip the three times of going to war and being beaten. They had repented, but they still had to go into bondage and wait to be delivered. Each time the Lord provided a leader, but both groups were delivered without bloodshed. I'm sure they had swords prepared (heaven knows I do) but the Lord delivered them. Unfortunately we have been promised that once our liberty is lost it will cost us blood to regain it in our day.

Now, you may disagree with me that we are now in bondage. These groups paid 50% as a tax. That was considered bondage. My tax rate counting federal, state, sales, utility, auto, licensing, income, etc. comes to over 60%. To me this feels like bondage. This took me a long time to recognize.

We don't have to agree on this, but we have to agree that we have to wait till the Lord tells us it's time before we can take up the sword in righteousness. The law of witnesses applies. We will all know when the time is right.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

"I'm sure they had swords prepared (heaven knows I do)"
So by your own argument, are you going to turn in your (swords) and food storage if and when that law is passed to that effect? Or will you risk "then we will die or be imprisoned as those men died that tried to free the people of Limhi. If we die or are imprisoned for doing what we thought was right, but not in the Lords due time, we are unprofitable servants?"
---------
"We don't have to agree on this, but we have to agree that we have to wait till the Lord tells us it's time before we can take up the sword in righteousness. The law of witnesses applies. We will all know when the time is right."

Let me be very clear that I do not advocate trusting in the arm of flesh, now or ever. I know that we are in bondage, but I also know that we should render unto Ceasar that bondage which is his.

I will not argue with your example, but instead point out that the Lord can also work in an individual capacity as in Lehi's example. If we wish to be spared what is coming and meet the requirements, the Lord will provide an out if it provides for the greater good. I know this to be the case as did Lehi who I am quite sure was thankful not to be present to witness the destruction of Jerusalem.

[WhisperFox]

So by your own argument, are you going to turn in your (swords) and food storage if and when that law is passed to that effect? Or will you risk

Not likely. While my point was we have to recognize the current "law of the land", I am not a pacifist nor am I a very good sheep. I'm ready to fight and die for what is right, but the time has to be right and the spirit has to confirm that. If I go running off to avenge an injustice without the spirit, I'm on my own.

I'm not sure what I'll do if they pass such a law, and you have hit a sensitive nerve with that one. I expect that to be my greatest challenge sometime in the future. I've spent so much time and energy studying out the issues and preparing for what is to come, that to just turn my 'swords' in along with my food storage may be more than I could do.

I suppose, if the Lord commanded the prophet to tell us to do that, and if I received a confirmation that it was true, I would do just that. So far the Lord has been very generous with me. Each time I have come across something that the prophet tells us that doesn't square with my personal beliefs, the Lord has graciously answered my prayers and shown me that I was in error and the prophets counsel was correct.

The trial may come if I don't receive such a confirmation, or if the prophet makes no pronouncement, then I'm not sure what I would do. I guess follow the spirit.

As far as being willing to stand alone, one of the most troubling parts of the Book of Mormon to me has been the story of Abinadi. All the pictures are painted with him as an old man, but I can't find anything that tells me he was. Reading one night I had an impression or question come to mind,

"Did this prophet have a wife and kids at home, and was he really just a young man". Makes the story take on a whole new meaning to me if he was a young man.

"Would I be willing to stand and testify to a wicked world knowing they were going to burn me for my words?"

Another troubling incident is when the saints were armed and ready for battle against a large organized mob. Both the saints and the mob had legally organized militia as part of their numbers. The saints had the better arms, location, and man power. The saints were ready for battle and were expecting their first major victory.

Joseph counseled them to surrender and to turn in their weapons. These weapons were their personal arms, and the only protection they had against further abuse by the mobs. The saints turned them in, Joseph was taken in chains, and the saints were sorely abused during the coming weeks and months.

Was he right in his counsel? Do I have the faith to follow such counsel?

Just the opposite has happened in the scriptures and in church history with saints winning against overwhelming odds. Gideon, at the request of the Lord, trimmed his army from 32,000 to 300, and they proceeded to destroy an army "as the sand by the sea side for multitude".

Or, like you said, he led Lehi out of danger in the night.

If we had a crystal ball we'd know what to prepare for. As it is we just learn what we can and try to learn to live by the spirit.