Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

[Matthew.B]

You won't find direct and overt endorsement...other than Pres. Monson's remarks at Dr. Skousen's funeral (unless there is something Pres. Benson said that I am not aware of). Maybe Elder Hartman Rector jr. could.... Also, one of Dr. Skousen's sons gave me info...plus his son-in-law Glen Kimber (though both could be seen as conflict of interest). And I have my direct observation of how BYU faculty and LDS intellectuals regarded him - alone, or vis a vis Hugh Nibley...

Thanks for the information! I wish I could have met Brother Skousen myself.

I guess irrefutable proof that prophets Benson and McKay preferred Skousen's teachings over the BYU prof's would be 'too easy'. Did McKay really directly institute Skousen as a professor at BYU despite Skousen's lack of professional 'credentials'? That says a lot to me.

[lundbaek]

Did you know the entire "Naked Communist" is available online? Pretty cool: http://sherri.machighway.com/~bushidoi/ ... munist.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I understand that President McKay recommended this book in a Church general conference. Does anybody have his actual statement and which conference is made it in ?

[LDSNZ]

Nga mihi Lundbaek!

How are you?

[lundbaek]

I'm OK, thanks. It's the rest of the world that's messed up.

[LDSNZ]

Awesome!

& to that I say:

[karend77]

Did you know the entire "Naked Communist" is available online? Pretty cool: http://sherri.machighway.com/~bushidoi/ ... munist.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I understand that President McKay recommended this book in a Church general conference. Does anybody have his actual statement and which conference is made it in ?

Prophet David O. McKay (1873 - 1970):

“Well, the era through which we are passing is no exception. On the flyleaf of the book, The Naked Communist, by W. Cleon Skousen, we find this quotation, (and I admonish everybody to read that excellent book of Chief Skousen’s) : ‘the conflict between communism and freedom is the problem of our time. It overshadows all other problems. This conflict mirrors our age, its toils, its tensions, its troubles, and its tasks. On the outcome of this conflict depends the future of mankind.”

- Prophet David O. McKay, Conference Report, Oct. 1959, p. 5


I miss the Freeman Institute, talking rationally with other church members about constitutional issues and conservatism, etc. I dont recognize the world I grew up in. I raised my children with the stories of Skousen. Their adult contemporaries think they are crazy for their views. One son is a graduate student at BYU and he laments liberal leaning of the students and some professors, but he is unabashedly fearless in expressing his conservative views - bless his heart.

[marc]

Did you know the entire "Naked Communist" is available online? Pretty cool: http://sherri.machighway.com/~bushidoi/ ... munist.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I understand that President McKay recommended this book in a Church general conference. Does anybody have his actual statement and which conference is made it in ?

Thank you. I love Skousens' works.

[davedan]

I met with Dr. Skousen in Oct 2005 at his home, presented my 9/11 research at that time -- he was very receptive and encouraging. He said I needed to talk about the "implications" and not just the scientific evidence.

Dr. Skousen's love for the constitution is inspired and constitutional books "Making of American" and "5000-year leap" are wonderful. The Book "Naked Capitalism" is profound in that it calls attention to another book "Tragedy of Hope" which is a globalist confessional.

However, not everything Dr. Skousen has ever said is correct. His famous talk "Meaning of the Atonement" teaches some false doctrine. And Dr. Skousen's views on banking reform (wearhousing commodities) is probably not the best idea. But noone is right about everything all the time? I am not sure that Dr. Skousen ever suspected the the FBI chief J Edgar Hoover homosexual and covering for the Mob all those years because they had dirt on him.

Dr. Skousen probably gave Dr. Jones bad advice to make the 9/11 studies political. I have tried to follow the example of the Church on this. However, I think it would be difficult to watch Dick Cheney receiving an honorary doctorate from BYU knowing what we know. But by going public against the VP, it did give the enemy an excuse to apply pressure and end Dr. Jones career. I don't think there was a right or wrong here on Dr. Jones part. If it wasn't this point, it would have been something else down the line.

LDS Apostles and Prophets like N Eldon Tanner, J Ruben Clark, Pres. Ezra T. Benson and Pres. Thomas S. Monson, who served with all these men, are all very familiar with the problems of secret combinations that have infiltrated government. They have made the very clear decision to not declare a "verbal war" with the US and world government, but instead fight corruption by continuing to build Zion and "hastening the work". I don't think the LDS Church was ever going to come out openly against VP Dick Cheney in support of Dr. Jones. I think Dr. Jones is absolutely right, but I don't blame te Church for not going to war over it. I wouldn't ask this of the Church.

[davedan]

When I was at the Nauvoo Temple, the visitors center showed a video telling of the sacrifice of a young women whose husband dies in Afghanistan or Iraq. She was shown, I think, running the olympic torch in 2002, and then at the Whitehouse getting a hug from then President, George W. Bush.

Knowing what I know about 9/11 and the reason's for the war, it was difficult to watch that part of the video to say the least. But, I'm not expecting the the Church to go to a political and verbal war If I go out publically against an elected official. But doing so, as Dr. Jones did, is none the less exceptional, and heroic in my view.

[CBentley]

His famous talk "Meaning of the Atonement" teaches some false doctrine.

I have heard this from time to time, but I have not read any specifics. Could somebody state what that was?

[davedan]

He described the Atonement of Christ in more qualitative terms saying that it wasn't necessarily quantitative but since Christ had had more injustice done to Him more than anyone else that the elements were pacified and wouldn't cry out against God for granting to us mercy if Christ says its okay.

The true doctrine about justice and mercy is that God's justice is God doing exactly as He has said, and God's mercy is God doing exactly as He has said.

God is not acting in fear of appeasing justice, or the elements or anything. God is doing as He has said, He is the One who is infinitely Just and Merciful and He has set the conditions of repentance.

[CBentley]

He described the Atonement of Christ in more qualitative terms saying that it wasn't necessarily quantitative but since Christ had had more injustice done to Him more than anyone else that the elements were pacified and wouldn't cry out against God for granting to us mercy if Christ says its okay.

The true doctrine about justice and mercy is that God's justice is God doing exactly as He has said, and God's mercy is God doing exactly as He has said.

God is not acting in fear of appeasing justice, or the elements or anything. God is doing as He has said, He is the One who is infinitely Just and Merciful and He has set the conditions of repentance.

Thanks for sharing.

What is your understanding of the Lord's statement in D&C 19:15-19, wherein He says that if we don't repent that we will have to suffer even as He did?

[Original_Intent]

I consider Connor Boyack to be this generation's Cleon Skousen. He is amazing and already has a few books out that are excellent. Very scholarly and clear thinking, and I think he is only about 30. The sad thing is I won't be around to see the stuff he will be writing by the time he has a lifetime of experience to further distill his wisdom.

[Rensai]

He described the Atonement of Christ in more qualitative terms saying that it wasn't necessarily quantitative but since Christ had had more injustice done to Him more than anyone else that the elements were pacified and wouldn't cry out against God for granting to us mercy if Christ says its okay.

The true doctrine about justice and mercy is that God's justice is God doing exactly as He has said, and God's mercy is God doing exactly as He has said.

God is not acting in fear of appeasing justice, or the elements or anything. God is doing as He has said, He is the One who is infinitely Just and Merciful and He has set the conditions of repentance.

You've misunderstood his talk. Read it again or go read Alma 34, since it says the same thing.

[brlenox]

He described the Atonement of Christ in more qualitative terms saying that it wasn't necessarily quantitative but since Christ had had more injustice done to Him more than anyone else that the elements were pacified and wouldn't cry out against God for granting to us mercy if Christ says its okay.

The true doctrine about justice and mercy is that God's justice is God doing exactly as He has said, and God's mercy is God doing exactly as He has said.

God is not acting in fear of appeasing justice, or the elements or anything. God is doing as He has said, He is the One who is infinitely Just and Merciful and He has set the conditions of repentance.

You've misunderstood his talk. Read it again or go read Alma 34, since it says the same thing.

I think DaveDans assessment is a reasonable assessment. The primary point in Skousens rendition that troubled me from my early 20's was that he gave far too much weight to the other intelligences of creation almost as if they held the God of Heaven in a state of subjection...if he does not do things their way they will remove their support and of course thus would God cease to be God. Until a few years ago, I tended towards acceptance of that perspective though it made me uneasy as I knew nothing better. Now having spent ten years studying and writing and praying about the atonement and the nuts and bolts of how it works I can clearly describe where Cleon failed to grasp certain subtle principles that would have amended his conclusions.

You are right however, that Alma 34 has some great material on the atonement, but it is possessed of materials that can only be understood in the spirit.

[AI2.0]

My three daughters attended Kimber Academy, which uses the educational curriculum of Dr. Glen Kimber and Dr. Skousen, his father in law. I taught at the school for five years. I don't know about the rest of the world, but we were teaching the constitution to our students. My daughters understand the importance of America, the constitution and the value of our freedom in the world.

We're just a small drop in the bucket, but hopefully others will join us as they see the erosion of our country, our rights and our freedoms. Dr. Skousen is not taught much these days among regular church members, that I can see, but parents can do their part. I would suggest that any who feel these things are important read Dr. Skousen's books and share what you learn with others. What he taught is needed more in today's world than at any other time, I believe.

One of the best books for LDS and Non-LDS to understand what the founding fathers wanted for us in writing the Constitution; what we've lost and how we get back on track is his book; 'The 5,000 year leap'.

[mhewett]

"Skousen, a Mormon who died in 2006 at 92, was for years dismissed by many mainstream conservatives, including William F. Buckley Jr., as a conspiracy-mongering extremist; he was also eventually criticized by the Mormon Church."

Is this Rosen character accurate in his assertion that Skousen was "eventually criticized by the Mormon Church"

I know you asked this a long time ago but I thought I would add what I have learned.

Listening to skousens talks reveals some very interesting facts as to the question of being extreme. In one talk he relates how in 1953, a communication between China and russia was intercepted. this contained the communist plan to take over the world. By 1970, the USA was to have been under communist control. Makes you think twice about if McCarthyism was actually on the money. I think it would make people sit up and listen to know about this plan, of course this was probably not broadcast to the world at the time. The communists were infiltrating universities, the media, schools and worst of all, government. Those are facts, he saw these things happening due to his work. The majority would not have seen these things so corrupt people could pull the wool over the eyes of the majority. So was he extreme or was it there was a very real threat to liberty that he was trying to expose?

Like his sacking as police chief, so the reason for the church 'criticizing' him is also not true. What happened was people were discussing the constitution in priesthood and relief society meetings as they were learning about it due to skousens work on teaching the constitution as the founding fathers meant it to be. What happens when discussions become political? The brethren noticed that meetings were becoming contentious and while they wanted the constitution to become a part of discussions, the contention made that idea impossible so they had to move away from that line of discussion.

There is a lot of incorrect assumptions about skousen. He loved liberty and the constitution as the founding fathers wanted it to be. He did the leg work to find out what it really was about. Some people don't like that because it is uncomfortable to them and their views so they try to discredit him. Listen to his talks and you will learn a lot about the man and what really happened to him in his life.

[OCDMOM]

I'm reading his book Days of the Living Christ, It is so good. He has a very special spirit.

[KMCopeland]

The constitutionalism of many Tea Partiers is "eccentric and extreme" and "a comprehensive, if startling, worldview about the proper roles of government and faith in American life"

I'd say that's an accurate statement.

"Skousen, a Mormon who died in 2006 at 92, was for years dismissed by many mainstream conservatives, including William F. Buckley Jr., as a conspiracy-mongering extremist; he was also eventually criticized by the Mormon Church."

"Skousen’s vision of the Constitution was no less extreme."

Skousen's constitutional arguments offer "eccentric view the Supreme Court has rejected"

Is Rosen an idiot, completely ignorant, or a gadianton?

There are actually other conclusions you could draw.

I know we all expect this type of garbage from most media outlets these days since they are mostly controlled by the PTB but what bothers me the most is that so many conservatives and Mormons seem to be falling right behind this "constitution is radical" line.

I'm unfamiliar with this "constitution is radical" line. Could you elaborate?

Of course the constitution is radical to Gadiantons! They can't stand it. Just like Lucifer could not stand the fact that his tyranical plan was rejected over Christ's plan of freedom!

Deciding that someone's political positions mean they're like Lucifer -- big mistake.

Yet many members of the Church keep right on voting for Harry Reid and electable candidates like Mitt Romney and then defend their doing so!

At the risk of asking a stupid question -- do you believe that voting for Harry Reid means you should be excommunicated?

I have heard of an instance or two where members of the Church criticize Skousen (probably a mix of Reid and Romney supporters).

You've led a sheltered life. There are far more instances than one or two of members of the Church criticizing Skousen. I don't think that's an excommunicatable offense either.

I never have understood how anyone Mormon could do such a thing.

Such a thing as criticize W. Cleon Skousen's political thoughts? Goodness. What I can't understand is why you can't understand that.

[fuddyduddyneighborly]

Thanks for the information..!!!

[KMCopeland]

Listening to skousens talks reveals some very interesting facts as to the question of being extreme. In one talk he relates how in 1953, a communication between China and russia was intercepted. this contained the communist plan to take over the world. By 1970, the USA was to have been under communist control. Makes you think twice about if McCarthyism was actually on the mone.

Was the US under communist control by 1970?


The communists never made any bones about the fact that they wanted the entire world to be communists too. This is only something to fear if 1)you think they could have pulled that off and 2)if they pulled it off. I don't think they could have pulled it off, and I know that they didn't.

I would like for most of the world to have democracy. I think it's the best way for the most people to have good lives. Maybe there are communists who think that is as sinister as you and others, seem to feel their devotion to communism is. Or was. Does that make it so? Them believing that?

I just don't think there are as many things to fear as you do. Don't get me wrong. There are things to fear. Communism? I don't think it's one of them. It's a weakened philosphy, and a repudiated form of government. It is my considered belief that we are not now in any danger from it, if we ever were.

The brethren noticed that meetings were becoming contentious and while they wanted the constitution to become a part of discussions, the contention made that idea impossible so they had to move away from that line of discussion.

Wise indeed.

Listen to his talks and you will learn a lot about the man and what really happened to him in his life.

I've heard some of this talks and I've read his books. I think he was probably a really sweet, truly wonderful man. I know he was a good Latter Day Saint and that tells me wonderful things about him too. But there are people, some of them on this board, who have all but replaced the brethren with him. As though his politics were prophecies from the mouth of God, and if the current Church leadership, and/or membership, doesn't toe the W. Cleon Skousen political mark they are out of line. I don't think he would have approved of that.

[Ezra]

Democracy is the road to socislizem "Karl Marx"


Republic vs. Democracy

Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.
Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches for checks and balance. Lawmaking in Democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the majority by polls and/or voter referendums, which in turn is mob rule 50% plus 1 vote takes away anything from the minority. Here is one example; if 51% of the people don’t pay taxes they can vote a tax increase on the 49% that do, which is mob rule.
Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly said that they had founded a republic in numerous quotes, and documents.


Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion", the word Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with this quote, along with more warnings from others.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
“But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.” Henry David Thoreau



Our military training manuals use to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.



Below is what the Manual No. 2000-25 says in Section IX Lesson 9.

DEMOCRACY:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.


REPUBLIC:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.



The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. His right hand man, Harry Lloyd Hopkins, the New Deal architect, who suggested many of F.D.R.’s policies said.

"We shall Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference". Harry Hopkins

Gods government is a republic.

[buffalo_girl]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11 ... g-the-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Lack of transparency and stupidity of the voters insured National Health Care Bill would pass."

One of the architects of Obamacare said the law was written in a deliberately “tortured” way and relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to ensure its passage.

In a newly unearthed 2013 clip, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health economist who helped craft parts of the Affordable Care Act, got fairly candid about the tactics used to get the Affordable Care Act passed during a panel at the Annual Health Economists’ Conference last year.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”

Gruber then trumpeted the value of a “lack of transparency” — and called American voters stupid.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”

Better for the American people to be saddled with a law they don’t understand, Gruber claimed, than for them to understand the law and rally against it.

“Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent,” Gruber said, “but I’d rather have this law than not.”

UPDATE: The original video that contained Gruber’s comments was deleted from YouTube on Monday morning.

University of Pennsylvania officials did not immediately comment to TheBlaze on why the video was taken down.

Hey,! and this guy isn't even an 'elected representative'. That's how stupid we are!!!

[Benjamin_LK]

The constitutionalism of many Tea Partiers is "eccentric and extreme" and "a comprehensive, if startling, worldview about the proper roles of government and faith in American life"

"Skousen, a Mormon who died in 2006 at 92, was for years dismissed by many mainstream conservatives, including William F. Buckley Jr., as a conspiracy-mongering extremist; he was also eventually criticized by the Mormon Church."

Consider the 'source' of these comments.

The New York Times is a globalist propaganda tool.

William f. Buckley Jr., was a member of Yale's Skull & Bones secret society, an unblinking sociopath, and very 'integrated' into the NWO matrix.

I have no problem with Skousen's take on the Constitution. I don't necessarily agree with his take on Capitalism (watch the blowback on that statement). I think Conservative thought tends to equate Capitalism exclusively with unalienable rights. I don't.

It seems to me the Constitution is pretty straight forward as far as it goes. I see a couple of areas having to do with Executive Power during wartime that makes me wish it could be fine tuned a bit.

As far as I'm concerned, the 'conspiracy-mongering extremists' are those pointing a finger at those of us trying to preserve our constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights. They are the extremists and a threat to our sovereignty and liberty as a people and a nation.

I don't know, but I see the conspiracy mongering extremists as a problem because they are unwilling to accept practical solutions. If a deadly disease is going around, you quarantine areas with the infectees to protect other people from contracting the dangerous disease. You also can't trust people trying to leave the area. But when the disease is done, you can go back to business as usual.

I also despise the conspiracy nuts' response to the Boston Bombing. The temporary curfew was there to help get medical assistance to dozens of people who needed emergency help as well as minimize panic, which I doubt any conspiracy nut would like to have people trample them down in the streets.

I generally agree with the rejected bill of Chuck Hagel proposing we reinstate the draft. It would raise a lot of questions to people if we had a draft as to whether or not we should actually go fight a war. Switzerland seems to work in that direction by having mandatory military service. Some might consider it tyranny, but at the same time, if you had your children potentially called off to war, IMHO, that would raise a whole lot of questions as to whether or not the war is worth being fought.

[buffalo_girl]

if you had your children potentially called off to war, IMHO, that would raise a whole lot of questions as to whether or not the war is worth being fought.

I certainly do NOT need a maimed or murdered child to 'raise questions as to whether or not the war is worth being fought'!

Should we cheerfully lead our children to the altar of Moloch for the High Priests of lucifer to sacrifice them to their god?