LDS Freedom Forum

Hello to all,

My name is Darren, some of you know me from the Thursday night meetings. I am 42 years old and married to a wonderful wife for 20 years with a son 18 and a daughter 8. I am a part owner of Nomen Global Schools, where we teach ESL classes to hundreds of non-English speakers from all around the world.

I am a long time constitutionalist having actively persued related issues for over 20 years. I authored a popular political web site from 1997 until 2003 (since shut down). I have vigorously studied the gospel as my focus. I have been most interested on the subject of the millennial Zion, this being a personal passion of mine. I have also attended the University of Utah and studied Political Science.

I do not believe that through Politics we can answer the problems it pretends to address. For years now I have been perusing a study of History coupled with a study of the origins of the LAW, specifically Ancient Anglo Law (in the book, The Majesty of God’s Law), as I have been coming into an understanding of the correct principles of working together.

How many of you know of the prophesy that the United States as a government will fall, as part of the end of all nations? And that the constitution that is the basis of our free society will be what is left, if our people do their job.

How many of you know where we get the constitution that is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 101:77-80? Don’t say the “Miracle in Philadelphia” because you would be wrong and you would offend a lot of puritan New Englanders, see http://www.cslib.org/cts4ch.htm

And if you don’t understand the message in the above paragraph then how can you possibly understand the following revelation?

"Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground; and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean; and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” (Dean C. Jessee, "The Historian's Corner" BYU Studies Vol. 19, No. 3, Spring 1979, p. 392)

The key to understanding the scripture and the quote above is the different spellings of the words,

(Large C) “Constitution”
and
(small c) “constitution”

The first word “Constitution” is the one that will fall as part of the end of all nations, it is the one that is called The United States Constitution.

The second word “constitution” is the gospel of Jesus Christ as operated by Ancient Anglo Law, and as Moses set it up for the children of Israel. The “constitution” is the basis for the “Constitution” which is unfortunately also contaminated with “Byzantine Lex” (orthodoxy.)

In the millennium we will be working together by the constitution, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we will be “Restoring their judges and all as at first;” (Hymn #2.) The politicians, policies and these principles of orthodoxy of the Great and Abominable Church will be gone forever.

With this knowledge of how we are to move directly into the millennium why are we not there yet?

Because of our participation through the political systems now on the earth, we are part of the Great and Abominable Church as set up by Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. Until we recognize this modern version of the Gadianton Robbers and wake up to our awful situation we will not be part of the move into the millennium.

I welcome your questions and comments.
If you would like you may e-mail me a personal letter at [email protected]

God bless you all,
Darren

I think the US Constitution has already been shredded to a great extent, or is on the brink of ruin.

Do I understand you correctly, that you believe that after the US government has fallen, restoration of government will be according to the principles of the Gospel, and the US Constitution will not be revived ? Instead, the new government will be organized under Gospel principles, written or not?

It has crossed my mind many times that our original Constitution was too vague, as perhaps best evidenced by Alexander Hamilton's reversal on the welfare issue because of the use of the term "welfare" in the so-called welfare clause of the Preamble. So I can understand and appreciate the need for a new Constitution

Somehow, I get the idea that you anticipate an unwritten code of laws, which I cannot envision as being effective. I seems to me that certain Gospel principles have been (mis)used to shred our present Constitution.

Do you take issue with Americans trying to get our government back on the Constitution track, or operating in conformance with the principles of the Constitution ? Do you consider that effort a waste ?

I think the US Constitution has already been shredded to a great extent, or is on the brink of ruin.

I agree with this statement.

Do I understand you correctly, that you believe that after the US government has fallen, restoration of government will be according to the principles of the Gospel, and the US Constitution will not be revived ? Instead, the new government will be organized under Gospel principles, written or not?

The US government has very little if any of the gospel of Jesus Christ left, as it had it’s opportunity to continue in, as it was given its chance by the new Englanders. So, I would say yes. I believe that it has now fallen on the shoulders of the saints to bear up the constitution. The new constitutional way of working together will be the millennial law system.

It has crossed my mind many times that our original Constitution was too vague, as perhaps best evidenced by Alexander Hamilton's reversal on the welfare issue because of the use of the term "welfare" in the so-called welfare clause of the Preamble. So I can understand and appreciate the need for a new Constitution

I really liked the quote from this website referenced earlier.

“An unwritten constitution that the whole society believes in is likely to be much stronger than a written one that a society does not believe in. England has lasted a millennium with an unwritten constitution, whereas a majority of the countries today with a written one have seen it ignored by military strongmen and others.” http://www.cslib.org/cts4ch.htm

The purpose of a constitution is to incorporate the purpose of Jesus Christ into a group of people. The United States Constitution failed firstly in having a clearly defined purpose statement, that has come to be evident as we as a nation have adopted a new non-christian basis. The purpose stated in the preamble is amiss compared to Moses 3:7.

Somehow, I get the idea that you anticipate an unwritten code of laws, which I cannot envision as being effective. I seems to me that certain Gospel principles have been (mis)used to shred our present Constitution

.

Your statement shows your misunderstanding as to how the law operates.

The way that the uniform, identical, ancient, ancestral Law of the Germanic Peoples operated among the Three Germanic Tribes of the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, who established England, is summarized in the first volume of Winston S. Churchill’s, “A History of the English-speaking Peoples.” That first volume is entitled, “The Birth of Britain.” The second chapter in that volume is entitled, “The English Common Law.” That Chapter ends with these words:

“The Liberties of Englishmen rested not upon any enactment of the State, but upon immemorial, slow-growing Custom, declared by Juries of Free Men, as they gave their Verdicts case by case in open court.”

This uniform, identical, ancient, ancestral Law of the Germanic Peoples was declared by the Twelve-man Juries of the Germanic Peoples, as they met to try people in relation to their Rights, throughout all of Germanic Europe, in the “Hundreds” (named with the Romanesque name, “Counties,” in some places in Europe and in the USA) of those Peoples. As they have done for nearly two Millenniums now, these Juries conducted these Trials every 3 Months (in “County Courthouses” in the USA).

Rather than (mis)used I would say that certain Gospel principles have been misunderstood. How many people really know how the united order is supposed to work? Without studing the ancient records of our Anglo-Saxon for-fathers I think we will misunderstand how that is to be done.

Do you take issue with Americans trying to get our government back on the Constitution track, or operating in conformance with the principles of the Constitution ? Do you consider that effort a waste ?

It is a waste of time to me if it is not motivated to get us moving toward God’s purpose.

Good questions, I hope this helps, I hope to share much more soon.
Darren

Darren, or anybody else, Have a look, please, at D&C 109: 54, where it reads "...may those principles, which were so honourably and nobly defended, namely the Constitution of our land, be established forever." My understanding is that the prayer asks that the Constitution as originally writted be established forever, including during and beyond the restoration of order. I assume that would include up thru what amendment I don't know. At least 1 - 10. What do you make of it ?

I also note that in the printing of Ezra Taft Benson's talks and writings, the word "Constituion" is always capitalized.

Don't go off thinking we're stupid or antagonistic for not immediately accepting what to me for sure is a brand new line of thinking on this subject. Most of us here are only part time students of the Constituion at best.

“It is my conviction, however, that when the Lord comes, the Stars and Stripes will be floating on the breeze over this people.”
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... rticle.php?
articleid=3

I am in agreeance with you lundbaek, he definetely was speaking of the U.S. Constitution. I think that the confusion comes when people try to reconcile seperate elements and piece them together. Yes the old order will be restored, yes the Law of Consecration, yes the United Order. I believe that is our job, to reconcile the mosaic law (which will be restored) WITH the higher inward law. Can the law of Moses coexist with the higher law? Yes, and it will be so. Likewise the constitution will be our governing document and the stars and stripes our flag (although I think it will be the 13 stars version for 12 tribes + gentiles who will all have a place there as evidenced by the temple.)

I am for the constitution and any written Constitution based on the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

D&C 98: 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

I am not against the Constitution I am against those principles that get into any written Constitution including ours that is not the constitutional law of the land (the gospel of Jesus Christ).

I repeat I am for the Constitution of the United States of America, but it will fall if it is not based on the constitutional law of the land.

My purpose in getting involved with the Latter-Day Conservative is to engage in dialogue that will teach those principles that are referenced in “The Majesty of God’s Law” that teach us what is the basis of the Constitution of the United States. And I have a lot to share.

God Bless,
Darren

Darren,

You've definitely got me curious. I'm currently in the middle of the Majesty of God's Law and I think I understand your thoughts on the "Miracle of Philadelphia" vs. all the history really behind the Constitution (Jefferson's extensive research of the Bible, of the Anglo-Saxons, etc.).

However I'll have to come up to speed with your thoughts on the Constitution vs. the constitution. I do feel the principles of our current U.S. Constitution are perfect, but there always ends up being misunderstandings when people can interpret words any way they please (refer to some of wordpur's comments in other threads as an immediate example ). What is of cousre most dangerous is when people have evil motives behind why they would do so. An even better example of these various misunderstandings would be 1) the ongoing disagreements on this forum with Mark who probably has good intentions but we just can't agree on our understanding of principles vs. 2) someone who wanted to cause confusion and misunderstanding out of inherently evil intentions to hurt others, to take advantage of others, etc. Still, either way there still ends up behind lots of misunderstandings.

I really enjoy the study of language and at a very simplistic level I think even if we all are "pure in Christ" there still could be lots of miscommunication due to our various uses and understanding of language. Actually I had a great conversation with a cousin about one of the joys of the Millenium will be truly learning to "counsel" (refer to many talks by M. Russell Ballard) knowing that there are no inherently "evil" men around.

Long story short, I would be interesting in hearing more about your "understood constitution" vs. our written "Constitution".

I have not read "The majesty of God's law". Your take on Big C...little c is new to me. I am open to hearing more...and will weigh it carefully. I look forward to your involvement.

Hello to all,

I want to first say here that I am not against the Constitution, I am for it. It is unproductive to be engaged in a negative. I am for truth (that which is everlastingly believable.) We waste our time and energy by being against something. Being against something bad can only create a void where more bad will enter. By being for something good you occupy the space and kick out the bad. If you want to save the constitution you need to be FOR what it is and what will save it.

All of us here have read and understood The United States Constitution. Let’s now discover the constitution or the basis of our Constitution together.

All a written constitution is is a Township Charter or incorporation document. Incorporation is for what? Joining the body of Christ.

When you incorporate you start out by stating your (group’s) name and your mission statement (purpose).

Christ said about his mission statement:
Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

To have an everlastingly effective mission statement we need to have as our constitution’s mission statement something to this effect, i.e., we (I) will do what we (I) do best to help bring to pass God’s purpose …saving men (firemen) …feeding men (grocer) …helping men get around (automobile mfg.) …serving men (leaders.)

Then you will need by-laws to describe how you will accomplish your purpose.

Christ said about his by-laws,
3 Nephi 15:9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me

note: A "by" is just a Scandinavian (Anglo) word for township.

Our by-laws should include something like, i.e., we (I) look unto Christ in all that we (I) do, we (I) follow God’s Law, we (I) work for God’s Glory... by doing ____ (the specific work and practices that we will do for His purpose).

These by-laws are not where we come up with a bunch of silly policies to obey. The church doesn’t have a policies manual it has a handbook of instructions that includes the scriptures.

God has made ONLY ONE LAW for us to obey.

Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus saith unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 this is the first and the great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang ALL THE LAW and the prophets.

The only Law we are to obey is to love God.
It may be that many non-LDS people may wonder how it is that a person can “love the Lord thy God with all thy … mind.”

That is no problem for LDS Children. Each knows how, nearly every Sunday, the covenant is made to “always” (there is the “all” part of “all thy mind") “remember” (there is the “thy mind” part) God’s “Son.”

So, it can be said that, for an LDS child it seems that there is the obvious way to keep “All the Law,” by keeping the Covenant that Vocabulary Experts might think of as “the Communion Law” of the LDS Church. So, our children keep what these Vocabulary Experts might consider “the Common Law of the LDS Church.”

The Forefathers of the first Members of the LDS Church, which Forefathers were the American Free Men of New England or London Free Men there, back to about 451 AD, observed The English Common Law by attending Church on Sunday, in their “Tenship” or, later, “Township” Church Meeting House and taking (what the Roman Catholic Religion, when it eventually got to Northern Europe, called) “the Communion of the Lord’s Supper.”

The Twelve-man Jury of an English “Hundred,” called a “Hundredship” (“Hundertschaft” in German) in Germany, got together to try the Free Men of their Gild (corporation) whom it was thought might have broken the Oath which they had taken in their Temple. We only know of two Christian Religions, today, which have “Temples.” One is the Commonwealth of London, and the other is the LDS Church.

The Commonwealth of London or any of the Shires into which all of the Lands of all of the Germanic Tribes of Northern Europe are divided, are the continuation to Modern Times of the Ancient Israelite “Thousands” of the Germanic Tribes. All of the Shires of the Northern European Peoples used to function around the Temple that was the “focal point” of every Shire, throughout Northern Europe.

The Roman Catholic Church destroyed every such “Law” Temple of Northern Europe, except for the one that was out of reach for it, in the Commonwealth of London.

As the Free Men of London continued to do, earlier all of the Manhood of Northern Europe used to gain their Status, of becoming a “Free Man” in their Gild, by proceeding through their Temple Ceremony and, therein, taking the “Oath” that made each of them a “Free Man” and gave each of them the “Rights” of a “Free Man.”

Nearly every Sunday each Free Man took the “Communion” in his “Common” or “Tenship” and promised to keep his Oath to keep the “Common Law.”

Every Three Months “Juries of Free Men” got together to “declare” the “immemorial, slow-growing Custom” upon which the “Liberties,” the “Rights” of their people “rested,” as those Juries “gave their Verdicts case by case in open court.” Ibid.

The law is nothing more than our being judged (as to the intents of our heart) by a Twelve-man Jury as to whether or not we have kept our covenant we made in the temple with God, to do all we do for him, and as we promise on Sunday, to always remember him, in our work life, in all our dealings with our fellow men. If we live and work by our covenant we are a FREE MAN. There are no policies to control your life, you control your life.

We wish to work together. In the division of labor of this world there is something that each of us can do that will benefit the others.
The people of the earth generally recognize the benefit of the division of labor. The constant issue among those among whom the labor is divided is, who shall have the “power.” There has to be direction to the labor. “Who shall direct it?” This “power” comes out as the word, “force.”
This “power” of which we speak is “the right to force people.”
In the eyes of the part of mankind experienced in work, it is an impossibility for people to work together without “power” ― “the right to force people.”

“But, people who are forced to work are SLAVES!” With one exception.

“What is that?”

That is if, in our work together, I force me and you force you.

That is what, as we shall now see, has been “Law” for as far back as we have record of it.

THE LAW EXPLAINED SIMPLY AND PERSONALLY

I can state what Law is in a simple, personal way, it is: “No one has ever been able to take the life, liberty of property of myself, my father or any of his English forefathers except that we get to be judged the way that Jesus said that nice people get to be judged in the Bible.”

“How did Jesus say that nice people get to be judged, in the Bible?”

Paraphrasing, he said, “I am a God and have never done even the littlest thing wrong, so it really isn’t fair for me to judge the nice people, because they have all done some little thing wrong; so, I am not going to.” He said to “ ... the twelve ... that ye may sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22). Elsewhere he said, including his twelve, “If you are not one you are not mine.”

From time immemorial it has been the Law that no one has been able to take the life, liberty or property of myself, my father or his English forefathers except twelve of our peers – not someone who is better than us – unanimously, as one man, find that I or they have broken this one Law that we have all shared in common back through immemorial time to the extent that I or they should be deprived of our life, liberty or property.

So, this Law is the constitution of the Constitution.

What is the Law of Satan? Nothing more than a bunch of filthy policies for controlling the minds and bodies of men. And what is the government of the great and abominable church of the devil? It is that Satan and his priests reign with blood and horror over men.

Socrates explains in the book The Meno, how to set up the great and abominable church’s government (policy system) for Satan's control. He starts by teaching his orthodox philosophy to the Greek people.

Socrates: 71C No man on earth knows what virtue is.
Meno: 71C You do not even know what virtue is?
Sacrates: 80D I have no idea what virtue is.
Socrates: 71C I never yet came across anybody who did know,
Meno: 89E But do you think there are no teachers of virtue?
Sacrates: 96C Nowhere are any teachers of virtue to be found … virtue cannot be taught…
Sacrates: 91B ...these men who profess to be teachers of virtue…
Sacrates: 91C …they are a manifest plague and corruption…
Socrates: 96D So our first duty is to look to ourselves, and try to find somebody who will have SOME MEANS OR OTHER of making us better… and on which one would of course be wise to keep an eye… to the ORTHODOXY of an orthodox statesman (99B, C ,D and 100A).
Socrates: 1086B 6 …without the catholic we cannot acquire knowledge.

Socrates sets up the government systems of the earth for Satan here, on the basis of (Satan speaking here) Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, me and my orthodox man, the Politician. Keep your eye single to the orthodoxy of the catholically orthodox politicians.

By participating in Satan’s system we will have Political leaders who will build a “Polis” Greek word for a castle where the nice people are protected. And he will make the “Policy”, the correct hunches (orthodoxy) of the catholic (literaly a Greek word for universal) man and my policy will be enforced by the Police.

“And I will be their God.”

With that I wll take a break from what I have to share with this group, as we have only scratched the surface.
God Bless,
Darren

Darren,

You mentioned in your first post that you are a part owner of Nomen Global Schools, where you teach ESL classes to hundreds of non-English speakers from all around the world. Where does the funding for the school come from?

I might add that one of the "Founding Fathers" stated that the Constitution was made for a moral people, and that it will not work for any other. I think most of us at least will agree that some immoral changes have been incorporated into our Constitution.

Nomen Global receives its funding entirely from student tuition. We have campuses in Provo and Salt Lake City, Provo is our bigger campus and also the corporate headquarters. Check us out at http://www.nomenglobal.com

Darren

Greetings,
In your study of the Constitution and in your effort to save the Constitution do you ever study its roots "the constitution"? We will not save the Constitution (big C) if we do not save the constitution (small c).
see this web site for more understanding:
http://www.cslib.org/cts4ch.htm
The small c constitution is the gospel of Jesus Christ (the how we work together part) and was the part of the Connecticut Compromise that was not supposed to be lost.
Without the constitution we have no Constitution.
God Bless
Darren

There is a lot more to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than the US Constitution. LDS scriptures, in particlular the D&C, make it clear that LDSs are admonished / told / commanded to "befriend that law which is the constitutional law fo the land". To me, and apparently to David O. McKay, J. Ruben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, and others more studied in the Gospel and in the Constitution, that means we should study the US Constitution and do all we can to maintain and uphold it. It appears to me that this directive has been largely ignored. And it also appears to me that the Church General Authorities are purposely not promoting it at this time for reasons I discused elsewhere on this forum. Like it or not, I accept that decision, and look for ways I can promote it in my own less effective ways. Perhaps if LDSs attention could be more focused on those verses in D&C 98, 101 & 109, more of us might get the message. But it appears that the Church has bigger problems to deal with at this time, in addition to the other reasons for leaving it be.

THE STATUE of SAMUEL ADAMS
There is a statue of Governor Samuel Adams of Massachusetts standing in front of Boston’s colonial townmeeting hall, Faneuil Hall, in downtown Boston.

Many people realize that the American Revolution was planned, developed and finally begun – or, in other words, that it was “organized” – in Boston, Massachusetts.

Some people may even know that the townspeople of Boston got together, over the years that the American Revolution was being organized, to approve of the way that it was being organized, in Faneuil Hall.

What is incredible is the fact that almost all Americans are so overwhelmed by surprise when they read what has always been common knowledge among the people who erected that statue to Governor Adams’ memory and inscribed this message in its base:
“HE ORGANIZED THE REVOLUTION
(“the American Revolution,” that began the USA)
AND SIGNED THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE”

A lesson of study in the constitution of the Constitution.
Property rights in an English Freehold.

Let us now address the idea of the English Freehold.

Practically all States in the U.S.A. are divided in counties, which are, in turn, subdivided down into communes. These communes are, in turn, subdivided down into, “freeholds.” To find a map showing these freeholds, one goes to the courthouse of a county in which a freehold is located, and there looks up the map, the “plat,” of the freehold in the book of the commune (township) in which the freehold is located. When you find that map, you will see the boundaries of the freehold drawn on the map; those boundaries will be “legally described,” in terms of where they are within the township.

The lots on which nearly all of the homes in America are built, as well as nearly all farms in America, are “freeholds.” Historically, a person had to become a “free man,” in his commune, both in Old England and then also in New England, when it was established, before he could own a freehold in that commune. When he did acquire the freehold then, in addition to being a “free man,” he was also called a “freeholder.”

When New England was being established, a Civil War had broken out and was raging in England, between the freeholders of its communes, on one side, and the Monarchy’s politicians, who provided England’s money, on the other side (the clash between Episcopal [King men] and Presbyterian or Congregational Church [by representation and Judges]).

Because the freeholders in the communes perceived the basis of the constitution of England as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as followed by them in the congregations of freeholders within their communes, their version of Christianity is called, “Congregationalism”; and they were called, the “Congregationalists.”

The Congregationalists of England easily deposed the Monarchy in the early 1640’s and continued to rule England without a monarch through the 1650’s.

However by the 1660’s they had run out of energy. They could not, by any understanding of Christianity conceivable to themselves, figure out how to finance the operations of the new money economy that their country was accustomed to, by that time.

Therefore they asked the son of the monarch, whom they had dethroned, to return to England to play the traditional role that monarchs had theretofore played in the workings of England’s money economy.

However, when that son of the deposed king did return, the freeholders of England insisted that, with the past Civil War, they had seen the end of holding land in England by the despised system of holding land that had been brought to England from France, after the Norman Conquest: that was the Normans’ brand of, “Feudalism.”

From now on, if nothing more, at least all private property land-holding in England was going to be done through the English “freehold” concept. The son of the deposed king agreed and was invited back to rule in England.

Most fortunately, for Samuel Adams and the U.S.A., the freehold concept of England, from the time of its English Civil War on, had become a point of tremendous national pride, in England, and a subject of very intense and skillful scholarship, as a result.

The scholars of the Common Law of England studied and did their research work in the old fortresses in London of the Crusaders, called, the “Knights Templar.” Their four centers of study of the Common Law are called, the four “Inns of Temple.” In one of these “Inns,” the “Inn of Middle Temple,” there had been working, in Samuel Adams’ day, one of the greatest scholars of the Common Law of England who had ever lived. His name was Sir William Blackstone.

In 1765, just two years after the Proclamation of 1763, Blackstone began publishing his most famous, “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” That publication gained a great reception and respect in England; but, because of Samuel Adams, an even greater reception in the American Colonies.

The great reception, that it thus gained, in America, was due to the fact that Blackstone had proven in his publication that the freehold concept had been in England before the Norman Conquest, and that those who retained their freeholds from before that time had retained a right that the Kings of England had no right to alter, since all of the rights, which the Kings of England claimed, with which to rule England, were those which they inherited from William the Conqueror, by virtue of his, “conquest.”

The point was that he really had not conquered the free holders, had not conquered them out of their freeholds, and therefore none of William’s heirs, the later Kings, had any right to alter the freehold concept.

Certainly the son of the deposed king had waived all right to alter it, as the condition for his return back to England, so the idea Blackstone published became most popular and famous in Old England. It became explosively famous in America where, through Samuel Adams’ use of it, all Americans could use it to tell King George III in that he had no rights, by the Common Law of England, to change the terms of the freehold they had obtained to the North American Continent in their Colonial Charters.

It was in Samuel Adams’ letter to King George III, where this message that, “organized the American Revolution” is stated, that we come upon, that “word,” that we have spoken of. Let us now examine the letters of Samuel Adams, as the spokesman for the House of Representatives of the Colony of Massachusetts, to the leadership of the Government of England and to King George III.

Samuel Adams’ Letters

Some of the parties in England, to whom Samuel Adams wrote, in behalf of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, were: the Marquis of Rockingham (he had recently been the Prime Minister of England; but, now, that his party, the Whigs, were not in power, he was the leader of the opposition in Parliament), the Earl of Camden (earlier Chief Justice and at that time Lord Chancellor), the Earl of Shelbume, Field Marshall Conway, and the King. He also wrote in their behalf to the Speakers of the Houses of Representatives of the other Colonies. To those Speakers he wrote:

“... in all free States the Constitution is fixed. ... American Subjects ... have an equitable Claim to the full enjoyment of the fundamental Rules of the British Constitution ... it is an essential unalterable Right in nature, ingrafted into the British Constitution, as a fundamental Law & ever held sacred & irrevocable by the Subjects within the Realm, that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent ..."

He dwells on much the same subjects but delves into the theory behind them a little more as he wrote:

“... the constitution of the state ... is fixed ...
... It is the glory of the British Prince, and the happiness of all of his subjects, that their constitution hath its foundation in the immutable laws of nature ...
It is acknowledged to be an unalterable law in nature, that a man should have the free use and sole disposal of the fruit of his honest industry, subject to no control. The equity of this principle seems to have been too obvious to be misunderstood by those who framed the constitution; into which it is ingrafted as an established law. It is conceived that this principle gave rise in early time to a representation in parliament; where every individual in the realm has since been, and is still considered by acts of parliament as present by himself, or by his representative of his own free election: consequently, the aid afforded there to the sovereign is not of the nature of a tribute, but the free and voluntary gift of all.
... his Majesty’s royal predecessors were graciously pleased to constitute by charter a subordinate legislative in the province, as it is conceived, with a view of preserving to their remote subjects the unalienable right of a representation. By this charter the lands therein described are granted to the inhabitants in free and common soccage; and the general assembly is invested with the power of imposing and levying proportionable and reasonable assessments ...”

In that statement we came across our, word, once. Let us continue on with the letters of Samuel Adams till we come to the way that he presented that word to the King.

He wrote in another letter,
“In all free states, the constitution is fixed ...
It is the glory of the British constitution, that it has its foundation in the law of God, and nature. It is essentially a natural right, that a man shall quietly enjoy, and have the sole disposal of his own property. This right is ingrafted into the British
constitution ...”
To the Marquis of Rockingham he wrote:
“... in all free states, the constitution is fixed ...
... it is an essential right of a British subject, ingrafted into the constitution, or ... a sacred and unalienable, natural right, quietly to enjoy and have the sole disposal of his own property.
... a right, which those within the realm have ever held sacred, of being taxed only by representatives of their own free election.”

To the Earl of Camden, the Lord Chancellor, he wrote:
“... in all free states, the constitution is fixed ... it is an essential unalterable right in nature, ingrafted into the British constitution as a fundamental law, and ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects within the realm, that what is a man’s own is absolutely his own ...

The position, that taxation and representation are inseparable, is founded on the immutable laws of nature: but the Americans had no representation in the parliament, when they were taxed: are they not then unfortunate in these instances, in having that separated, which God, and nature have joined?

... legislative bodies in America ... that the inestimable right of being taxed only by representatives of their own free election might be preserved and secured to their subjects here.

... the great end of the British constitution is universal liberty ...”

In another letter he addresses the same topic which he presented to the King. Let us examine what he says in it, before proceeding on to his letter to the King. In this letter he speaks of the Massachusetts Charter.

“In this charter, the King, for himself, his heirs and successors, grants to the inhabitants all of the lands and territories therein described, in free and common soccage; as ample estate as the subjects can hold under the crown; together with all the rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities of his natural subjects born within the realm; of which the most essential is a power invested in the general assembly to levy proportionable and reasonable taxes on the estates and persons of the inhabitants ...”

In his letter to King George III Samuel Adams presents the King with the totally unanswerable prohibition, published by Blackstone, preventing the King and his associates from continuing in the course of action they had begun, with the Proclamation of 1763, to take back Massachusetts’ and Connecticut’s western lands.

Here is the message of Samuel Adam’s letter to King George III:

“Most Gracious Sovereign
Our Ancestors, the first settlers of this Country having with the Royal Consent ... at their own great Expence migrated from the mother kingdom, took the possession of this Land, at that time a Wilderness, the Right whereof they had purchased for a valueable Consideration of the Council established at Plymouth, to which it had been granted by your Majesty’s Royal Predecessor King James the first.
With Toil & Fatigue, perhaps not to be conceived by their Brethren & Fellow Subjects at home, & with the constant Peril of their Lives, from a numerous, savage & warlike Race of Men, they began their Settlement & God prospered them.
They obtained a Charter from King Charles the first, wherein his Majesty was pleased to grant to them & their Heirs & Assigns forever all of the Lands therein described, to hold of him & his Royal Successors in free & common socage, which we humbly conceive is as absolute an Estate as the Subject can hold under the Crown.”

He ends his letter saying that the people of Massachusetts ask the King to take into his consideration their present unhappy circumstances while they remain …
“... in full Dependance on the royal Declarations of the Charter of this province ...”

That letter legally stopped the King from continuing on to take back the western lands of the Americans by the course of action he and his associates had begun. The “word” that stopped him, in that letter, was a word that had recently been made a subject of intense national pride in England by Blackstone. The word is, “SOCAGE.”

Next we will investigate Blackstone’s writings, to see in some detail the reason why Samuel Adams was able to organize the American Revolution by that word.

But for now we all need a break,
God Bless,
Darren

President McKay and Us

1. Up until a few months after David O. McKay turned 22 years old the people among whom he lived and worked were able to, socially, follow the Instruction given to Church Members, in D&C 86, to “continue in my (the Lord’s) goodness” in the way we “worked together” — which was the way that the New England Forefathers of the First Members of the Church had worked together, as “American Free Men,” which was the way that their Forefathers had worked together, for over a millennium, as the “London Free Men” of the Guild System of the Commonwealth of London, which Commonwealth they had founded in 450 AD.

In D&C 86:8–11, the Lord told Joseph Smith and the other early Members of the Church:

“Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers — For ye are lawful heirs of the priesthood, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God — Therefore, your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken of by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. Therefore, blessed are ye if ye continue in my goodness, a light unto the Gentiles, and through this priesthood, a savior unto my people, Israel. The Lord hath said it. Amen.”

This superior, “Anglo-Saxon” way of working together, according to the Oaths which each man takes in their Temple, in London, since the Founders of England built their Temple, there in London, beginning in 450 AD — by adhering to which Oaths the Manhood of London get to retain their Rights to “work together,” as the Craftsmen of the Craftsmen’s Guilds of that Commonwealth, as the “Free Men” of London, who, doing this, have always had the Highest Technology in the World, and the Highest Standard of Living in the World, that went along with that — has remained “the highest level of social organization in the World,” till this time, which has made it so that the “London Bond Market,” that is operated by the, currently, about, 500,000 London Free Men of the Guilds of London’s Commonwealth, today, is the basis of the operations of virtually all of the World’s Central Banks, making that Commonwealth of theirs, “the Financial Capital of the World.”

The “American Free Men” of Connecticut were prohibited from continuing to work together by their Oaths — which they had taken (in a continuation of the way that their London Free Men “fathers” had done that in London’s Temple) in their Township Church Meeting House on “Law Sunday,” the First Sunday of the Month — by the Challenge to them by their “Political Opponents” (after the Victory of their Townships’ Yeomanry, that became the US Army, in the Revolutionary War, and the writing by the Connecticut Delegation to the Constitutional Convention of the Constitution of the USA, as a “copy” of Connecticut’s Constitution, the World’s First Written Constitution and model for all subsequent ones) that they were now unable to “legally explain” what the relationship was between their “religious opinions,” which they and London Free Men gave as their “Oaths,” and the “Rights” which they got to “Work Together” by those Oaths, after taking them in their Township Church Meetinghouse on “Law Sunday.”

The explanation which the Lord gave for that, in the 86th Section of the D&C, is a very good explanation of that to reasonable people. However, those Political Opponents were not reasonable; and they drove the Members of the Restored Church from one place to another for “continuing in the Lord’s goodness” and working together by His Law, until the Church was finally driven out to Utah.

That “prohibition” (of the First Amendment) against the American Free Men of Connecticut and against their Connecticut Congregational Church, went into effect against them in 1818. The sociological repercussions of that, which ended the Connecticut Congregational Church and made it so that its Ministers, that graduated from Connecticut’s Yale University’s Graduate School of Divinity, could no longer be the traditional Religious Leadership for New Englanders living in Upstate New York, were repercussions in Upstate New York at that time that characterized the Religious Chaos that had young Joseph Smith, Jr. begin seeking for what could be the True Church.

For those people who joined the Restored Church, there in New York, then in Ohio, then when it moved to Missouri and then to Illinois, Heavenly Father’s Instructions to them, in the 86th Section, was part of the Truth which they accepted as the wisdom to keep working together by the obviously superior “Anglo-Saxon” way that was followed by their Forefathers.

However, after Political Opponents, primarily in the Slavery South, had organized what might have been thought of as their Political “Warfare” against that Superior “religious” way of working together of Northerners, those Political Opponents etc. organized the opposition that eventually made it so that the Church was “driven out, D&C 136:34,” of the USA of the 1840’s, as this Country was organized at that time.

So the Church’s Membership became the Pioneers who traveled to and established Utah. And, continuing according to the Lord’s Instructions, to “continue in my goodness,” the way that they “Worked Together By The Law” made so much sense in “continuing” in their Forefathers’ obviously superior, Anglo-Saxon, Christian way of Working Together, that the descriptive words of the Top Historian on this Subject would be that, “In Salt Lake City the United Order of Tanners and the United Order of Tailors was just a continuation of the English Guild System.”

This was “intelligent” social organization to young David O. McKay, up until the time when he went on his Mission. However, when he returned and began studying and working in Utah, it was no longer in the Territory of Utah, where the people had been able to “continue in” the Lord’s “goodness,” and work together in their Superior, Ancestral United Order/Guild System way of working together.

He studied to become a College Teacher and worked as one. “What did he come upon constantly fighting this ‘Intelligent, Successful, Ancestral’ Way of Working Together, that had been the Working Environment of Utah during his boyhood and young manhood?” It was political grasping at advantages over people. It was a most “anti-intelligent,” “anti-successful,” grasping, from a most unwelcomed “alienness,” that had made its way into the Society that he had grown up in.

2. Then, after Utah had been a State for ten years, David O. McKay, at age 32, was called to be a Member of the Quorum of the Twelve. As a young Member of the Quorum of the Twelve he was asked to spend some years as the President over the European Missions, operating from the Headquarters of that Presidency in London.

Being there for years he witnessed the Great Intelligence of the Ancient Customs of London for its Free Men to Work Together By The Law. This was so much like the previous Superior Working Environment that had been in Utah, during his Childhood and Youth. As a very insightful College Teacher, he came to understand that London had been there as the HEADQUARTERS for this Superior Way of “Working Together By The Law.” “What was that Headquarters?” It is London’s Ancient “Temple,” and the Four Inns of Temple.

There are Two Ways that Courts work in the English-speaking World. One is by Ancestral Anglo-Saxon Twelve-man Juries. That is what is meant by the English word, “Law.” The other is operated by a single person, sitting alone, in the Robe of a Roman Catholic Monk, administering the Roman concept of Courts, which is called by the Roman name, “Equity.”

If a person wants to become qualified to be able to practice Law in a Court, before a Twelve-man Jury in England and in Wales, TODAY, that person has to have an association with one of the Four “Inns of Temple,” there in London. Two of those Inns are at the location of the pre-Crusades Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn. The other two are in the Building that has served as the Temple since the Crusades. They are: The Inn of Inner Temple and the Inn of Middle Temple.

These Four “Law Schools” have been the location where the “INTELLIGENCE,” that characterizes the Law of the English-speaking People, has been studied since the Anglo-Saxons first brought this “highest quality” approach to living together and working together to England when they first established England and London in 450 AD.

As the very intelligent and successful College Teacher that he was, and now an Apostle of the Lord, David O. McKay had a unique, clear “vision” of how this “Treasure” of the English-speaking People, The LAW that the Free Men of London had been Working Together By for so many Centuries, can be treasured in the way that it can be preserved, for the benefit of God’s people, and for all of Mankind.

Now that our break is over we will get back to our study of the word "socage" and the constitution of the Constitution.

Darren

THE MEANING OF THE WORD, “SOCAGE”

Unanswered Questions

In order to aid us to understand the true meaning of the word, “Socage,” and thereby have some answer to the otherwise unchallenged statement of the Tobacco-grower, and to the unimpeded way that Greco-Roman Government just comes rolling into our lives, crushing everything in sight, behind that unchallenged statement, let us have a closer look at some of the items that have appeared to this point, but have gone unanswered.

These include:

What kind of a Government do we really have in the U.S.A.?

What did people call U.S. "civil rights" before they were called that?

Did the Continental Congress really think that it was only temporary?

What was the "purpose" of the corporations who both summoned the Continental Congress and wrote the Constitution?

What do we know of the origins of the Common Law of England. and The Liberties of the Gospel?

When Civil War began raging in Old England, in the early 1640’s, the Puritan settlements in New England knew that they needed to unite for their mutual protection. Accordingly, they wrote and brought into effect, on May 19, 1643, “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual League of the United Colonies of New England.”

The preamble to that “Constitution” reads:
“Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; ...”

That is what our ancestors used to call these, “English freeholder rights,” that nobody can take away from you, except twelve men, acting like the twelve Apostles, in unison: “THE LIBERTIES OF THE GOSPEL.”

Hey, where did these guys get off calling, our civil rights, the liberties of the Gospel?

We will get to that quite quickly now. But, before we do, let us consider what “the same end and aim” or “purpose” of these successful New England business corporations was.

The “Purpose” of the New England Corporations

The wording of the “Purpose” of the “Corporation” of Connecticut is almost the exact same as that of Massachusetts. The following are the words of the Purpose of the Colony of Connecticut, in the, “Charter of the Colony of Connecticut”:

“... as their good life and orderly Conversacon may wynn and invite the Natives of the Country to the knowledge and obedience of the onely true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in … the Adventurers free profession is the onely and principall end of this Plantacon; ...”

The Business Corporation of Connecticut continued to use this purpose as the formal business purpose of the Corporation, throughout the rest of the colonial period, from the year 1662, when they obtained the Charter containing this Purpose, down to the Revolution under the Continental Congress, and then they continued using it, as one of the United States, down until 1818, when Connecticut wrote the Constitution that was in force until 1965.


The “Commonwealth”

“Was this ‘Business Corporation,’ with its formal Purpose some aspect of advancing the ‘kingdom of the Son of God,’ the exception or the rule among Englishmen at this time?”

Oh, the absolute RULE, but not only for England, for all of Northern Europe, generally. “What do you call this type of an organization?”
A “Commonwealth.” So many of the original thirteen states call themselves “Commonwealths.” Connecticut has, throughout its membership in the Union. In Massachusetts it is, “bad usage,” to call it, a “STATE”; it is formally, “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

Well, what does the word ‘commonwealth’ mean?”

We have an example in the name of the government of a neighboring island to England, in the North Atlantic: the island of Iceland.
The name of that government, in the language of Iceland, is “Lydhveldidh Islands”: “The Commonwealth of Iceland.”

The language of Iceland, a first cousin to English, is a tremendous historical curiosity. Whereas the language of England has changed so much in the last thousand year’s that Medieval English is now a totally foreign language, the language of Iceland has remained the same.

What their word for “commonwealth,” “lydhveldidh,” means is that the country of Iceland is a, “Lewd-wealth.” “Lewd” is the Old English word for “people,” as in the name “Ludgate.” We can see what “wealth” means by these Old English derivations.

In Old English, if you “heal,” you get “health”; if you “steal” through the shadows, you get “stealth”; if you “weal,” you get “wealth.” In all Germanic-language countries the word for “vote” is, “weal.” So a North European “Commonwealth,” such as Iceland or Finland or England is, a “people-vote country.”

This type of a government is the typical North European, Germanic Government. When the Crusader trade cities of North Italy were organized according to the rules of the North European Gild-system, along these lines of all of the people having the right to vote, the monks of Italy did not know what to call them. Differing from the Goths and Lombards, who lived this way, these Crusaders were coming to take over everything for good. So, they had to invent a name for them. They thought that the Italian word “re-publica” “the peoples’ thing” (the same as “cosa nostra,” “our thing”) might be used, because that word de-emphasized the Roman deification of the Caesars, as these gild-organized Crusaders certainly did.

There was NEVER a time when all Romans VOTED, though, so the term “republic,” as a replacement for the idea of a “commonwealth,” is inadequate.

However, because the Tobacco-growers of Virginia had “bought” to their very souls the story of the Humanists, of the Rennaissance, in the Enlightenment’s version of education, that they received, these Tobacco-growers skipped right over the Middle Ages, in their studies about the Greeks and the Romans, to Socrates “reborn” in the Rennaissance.

To the Tobacco-growers, “republic” was the only word that they could understand, that explained what the New Englanders had done by summoning the Continental Congress.

To get “scientific” about what one would call the proposition of all people actually voting, the Tobacco-growers went even further back, to the Greeks.

In Ancient Greece more than half of the people were slaves. The situation was the same in the Tobacco-growers’ own Virginia and the Carolinas; they identified with the Greeks. They would call this idea of all people voting, that was being foisted on them by the New Englanders, being “democratic.”

So all that Modern Americans know, to identify their country by, is the Roman word, “republic” and the Greek word, “democracy.” Though the idea of a land where all of the people voted would be as foreign to the Romans and Greeks as being in China, thanks to the Tobacco-growers, Washington D.C. and most State Capitals are architectural attempts to perpetuate the idea that all of our governmental concepts come straight from the Greeks and the Romans, which perhaps 99% or more of Americans believe as they do that the Sun shines.


“Perpetual” Union

As has been said, when Civil War began to rage in England, the Puritan colonies of New England banded together to draft and adopt, on May 19, 1643, “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual League of the United Colonies of New England.

They were probably motivated to use the word “United” by the example of, “The United Provinces of the Netherlands.” That they felt that their union was to be “perpetual” is seen from the fact that their commissioners continued to meet until 1684, when a most inimical King in England took such ferocious steps in both England and New England, to squelch such foes of absolute monarchy, as what lingering Puritanism there was around, that he was driven out of England by force. Before he went, though, he did bring a forcible end to the “perpetual” league of the Puritan New England colonies.

When the Continental Congress voted that the Colonies be free and independent States, on July 2, 1776, the leadership of the New England States drafted for the Continental Congress “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of the United States of America.”

The Continental Congress adopted those articles in 1777 and sent them to the new States to be ratified. When victory over England drew near, in 1781, the last State, Maryland, finally ratified them, on March 1, 1781, thus making them the official Constitution of the U.S.A.

They were meant to be “perpetual,” and the plot, by the Tobacco-growers, to destroy their implicit Puritanism which divided up the public land into Puritan communes, was treason.


Puritan Communes

That brings up the subject of these Puritan communes, whose organizational strength the Tobacco-growers so effectively axed that in the U.S. Mid-west they are very impotent, compared to those of which they were intended to be the copies, in New England.

The original Puritan communes, or Townships, of New England, are still most vigorous down to this day. But, the Tobacco-growers were so effective against their organizational strength elsewhere that they are comparatively impotent organizationally, in the U.S. Mid-west, and not even organized, in the U.S. South and Far-west. There they are only used to serve for surveying freeholds.

The quarrel of the Tobacco-growers with the Puritans really does come down to what the REAL role of those communes is in the Common Law of England, doesn’t it?

Yes.

What is that role?

It is what the word “common” (or “commune” to be Norman French) means in the expression, “the Common Law of England.”

“What does the word ‘common’ mean in the expression the Common Law of England’?”

With that we will take another break.
Darren

The Meaning of The Word “Common” in “The Common Law”

The Common Law of England is the Law of the “Business Corporation” of England. Because of the Magna Carta we have a record of the “Bylaws” passed by its “Board of Directors” since 1189, but its original “Charter,” with its “Purpose” written down on it, is missing.

Still, as those “By-laws” were passed, in the same tradition as England had operated before the Magna Carta, a picture slowly formed of what the organization of England must have been that was spelled out in its original Charter.

As has been said many times, this Business Corporation of England was divided into Shires which were divided into little “Counties” which were divided down into Communes.

The way that you became a member of the Business Corporation of England, became “free” as far as England was concerned, that is an “English Free Man,” or possessor of those “our civil rights” that the Tobacco-grower spoke of, was to become a member of one of the communes of England.

THE COMMUNE WAS THE LOCAL DIVISION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. BY PARTICIPATING IN THE ORDINANCES OF THE “GOSPEL,” THAT IS BAPTISM AND CONFIRMATION AND TAKING AN “OATH” TO LIVE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL A MAN JOINED HIS COMMUNE AND THEREBY WAS OR COULD BE FREE.”

As an English “Free Man” he could be or became a “Freeholder.” As a “Freeholder” he has the English “Freeholder Rights” that were called “our civil rights,” by the Tobacco-growers.

And the ONLY way that one could get those Rights was by taking an “Oath” that he would “hold” to the Principles of the Gospel of the Son of God with all of his strength.

That is, THOSE FREEHOLDER RIGHTS WERE 100% TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON NOTHING ELSE BUT “OUR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS” ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST.

They had NOTHING to do with any Greco-Roman STATE (that is, nothing to do with the word “Civil”).

Every three months all of the people living in the Communes of a specific “County” would get together at a meeting conducted by the leader of the county, the Alderman, and his council of twelve men who assisted him. If any of the Free Men in the Communes of that County had done anything that was against the Law of all of the people of the Corporation he would be tried and either convicted or acquitted by those twelve men. If he was convicted he was put outside the protection of the Law. He became an “Outlaw.” And, the protection afforded by the law officers of that County was considerable because, as each of those Counties was called a “Weapontake,” in the populous eastern Shires of England, called “the Danelaw,” it was at this County level that the Free Sokemen of England took up their arms to defend the Rights of the people.

In times of War all of the Free Sokemen from the Communes of a particular Weapontake would be led by the Earl of the Shire, to which the Weapontakes belonged. He was a regional representative of the general officers of the whole Corporation of England. As occasion would demand, he would conduct “mini-parliaments” for the Free Sokemen of his Shire, to attend to the business of the Shire.

At Easter time in the Spring and again at All-hallows in the Fall the Leader of each of the Communes of England (along with the Aldermen of the Weapontakes) would gather to a “House of Communes” to listen to the Leaders of the Corporation of England speak to them. These Leaders included the Lord High Steward of England, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, the Supreme Jury and the many other general authorities of the Corporation. These were called, “the House of Lords.” They also had a “patriarch” of the kin-dred of England, the first born of that great extended family, who was called the “kin-ing” or the “King.”

The Lord High Steward would speak to both assembled houses about what they should do for the coming year or half year. (This is the model followed later by the monarchs who said that they “parie-d,” “spoke,” to both of those houses. That is why both of those houses are called the “Parliament.”

This is the model also followed by the President of the U.S.A. when he delivers his “State of the Union” message to both houses of Congress assembled together.) When the Lord High Steward presents something to both houses and this assembled leadership votes upon it in the affirmative that then becomes part of the “Law” of the Corporation of England.

Of course many of the Communes represented, as well as many of the Aldermen, are from the boroughs (the cities) of England rather than from the farmlands.

The segment of a borough presided over by an Alderman contains all of the gild members in that city that belong to a particular craft gild: the Merchants, Fish-sellers, Grocers, Masons etc.

The farmers, under a particular Alderman in the countryside, are all members of a gild as well, the largest gild, the gild of England’s farmers.

All of these gild members are encouraged to attend the Temples of the Gilds, as well as Church meetings on Sunday.

Because in many parts of England wood is less available than stone, many of these Temples are built of stone, by the Masons’ gild. Inside of these Temples the Free Sokemen of England are taught all of the details of the ORIGINAL CHARTER of England. However, because of its ultimately important character it is not to be talked about outside of these Temples built, most often, by the Masons.

As the Free Sokeman of England learns the details of this Original Charter better and better he better understands the PURPOSE of the Corporation of England. As he learns that he better understands how to work, suggest ideas, lead and participate in the Townsmeetings in his Commune, wherein everything is settled by all of the people by VOTING. As a matter of fact, EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE CORPORATION OF ENGLAND IS DECIDED BY VOTING OR ELECTIONS, just as everything in the Township or Commune is.

What do you call such an organization as this?

A “people-vote,” a “lydhveldidh,” a “Commonwealth.”

Say maybe we are getting a little carried away with this Icelandic "people vote," "‘lydhveldidh" idea. If they do call themselves, a “commonwealth,” it would really appear that they are just copying their mighty neighbor to the southeast, England.

It might seem that way, but the “Althing” of Iceland is the oldest Parliament of regularly returned representatives of the people on Earth. It has a history of practically 300 years before the English Parliament had reliable records; after the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 A.D. The records of the Althing are in good order from its founding in 930 A.D. and of its twelve-man juries for long before that.

Oh. But, then, what does that word "common" in the "Common Law of England" mean?”

We can see that by seeing what the Magna Carta is all about.

What is the Magna Carta ALL ABOUT?

It starts out: “in the first place the English Church shall be free.” That meant: “IT (the English Church) shall have ITS LAW INTACT.” That meant: “It shall continue to have freedom of elections, which are considered most important and necessary to the English Church.”

What does the word "Commune" or "Common" mean, in the expression, "the Common Law of England," this Law where everything decided in England is decided by the "voting" or "elections" of the Free Sokemen of England, made free by virtue of their having taken the COMMUNion of the English Church in their COMMUNE?

Well, that doesn’t take too much imagination, does it?

The word “common” means “commune”; the word “commune” means the “church” wherein you take the “communion” of the Son of God.
The expression “The Common Law,” found in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America, or more fully, “The Common Law of England,” means “the CHURCH Law ― of England.”

These rights of the Church Law of England, called “the liberties of the Gospel,” in the Articles of Confederation of the New England Puritans, which one has access to ONLY after taking the “communion” of one of the “Communes” of the English Church, whose Law was kept “intact” by the Magna Carta, are the Rights which the Tobacco-planter said “have no dependence upon our religious opinions.”

Here we will take a break again. How are we doing so far? We still have much further to go.
Later,
Darren

Not to step into your path here, but what is your mission statement with this thread? I agree that man's inherent rights given of God are thereby directly attributable to just religeon. That is not to say that if the tabacco farmers don't think so that they don't have rights. Are you saying all of this to make the point that our rights come from God or some other purpose. I like a good thesis statement. Whether that's a weakness of mine is anybody's guess, but it is a lot to read with no clear purpose or incentive to read it aside from a rambling curiousity!

To all,

Thanks to Brian (web master of latterdayconservitive.com) I can present to you the source materials that I have been basing my message on to you.

http://s98822910.onlinehome.us/thousandyears/

Please bookmark the above website and visit it often.

There are approximately 2,000 pages of research on that web site that I helped my good friend and a world renowned professional linguist/inventor with, as we put this together under his pen-name Snorri Sturlusson, a ghost writer for W. Cleon Skousen.

My friend, speaks and professionally translates 12 languages, has spent years in Europe and all over, more than 49 years of research he has done in studying the military (non-catholic) history of Europe, (the people who lived by the law) and the histories of the tribes of Israel that have lived in northern Europe since about 600 BC. Including the visit to them by the leaders of the ancient Christian church at about 40 A.D., and their conversion to Christianity long before the Romans.

Cleon once told my friend, “…you speak every language in Europe. I only speak English and can only research in English. And much of that is propaganda.” After reviewing his information for The Majesty of God’s Law, Cleon said to my friend, “This is Strawberries and Cream. You and me, we are going to write ‘The Fifth Thousand Years’!”

A dentist friend of ours that has known my friend for 50 years says that he believes my friend to be partially Autistic. Regardless he is a genius, and remembers perfectly everything he studies in every language. He has an amazing ability to bring a perspective to history that others would be unable to do. He is also an inventor, in the late 70s he invented the Human Language Technology that is part of the computer products you use today, you will find this heavily referenced throughout his works. My friend should be a billionaire but he has been humbly serving mankind with his purpose of life.

One note: I once asked my friend why he wrote paragraph long sentences (something I knew that many would have problems with). He said to me that it is the German style. So be warned that the writing style can be hard to read at times, much focus, and very deep.

I personally typed or scanned in most of the materials from his original manuscripts, I created or found the graphics, and I worked side by side as an assistant as he edited the content. He and I have both decided to make these works available to our friends over the Internet.

I will now come to this message board to answer your questions related to these books available at this website.

Good luck with your study, and God Bless,
Darren

The following messages are questions and answers exchanged after members visited http://s98822910.onlinehome.us/thousandyears/

I am sharing some questions I was just recently asked in a message.

Thank you for your message, I will try to answer all of your questions, I also am going to post this on my introduction link for others to read. You ask some very important questions that others may also have.

I am really at a loss in regards to this subject. I have read the Kybernion, and am not a historian so I cannot comment on the historical narrative. The conclusions seem to rely on information that is completely lacking from the document and do not to me really represent "what everyone wants."

I understand your feelings. The information unfortunately does not lend itself well to the average reader and there is more to it than just history. I am not at liberty to make major editing to my friend’s books, although I do understand them being the person who holds the manuscripts and having converted most of them into digital medium for my friend. I am at your service anytime you have a question.

I do not pretend to know the history and background of anyone’s attempts at an interpreting machine (except my retired USAF fathers work on it), nor do I have any knowledge on the background work done in reference to making the Internet possible.

Here again this is all the focus of my friend, he was involved in an amazing work in Provo in the late 1970’s and these books are part of his focus.

Before I dedicate the time to read the 1000 pages I would kind of like to know what is not mentioned.

Again, I am here to help.

I understand that there is not sufficient gold to have a gold coin currency globally, perhaps with the prophesied destruction that will one day change. I notice however that no answer other than some vague reference to an electronic system.

Here is my the off the cuff answer. Gold is a commodity and in demand worldwide but it is not the medium of exchange of the ancient north Europeans or the world today. The medium of exchange that has always been the main medium of exchange for the world is the wealth of stocks and bonds of the north Europeans, the example is in London.

When you understand where we get the world’s value medium it may shock you. It is based on the ancient tribes of Israel in north Europe working by their temple oaths to this day. Stocks are township or Gild wealth and Bonds are the believable commitments of those organizations.

The conditions around the English Civil War were the corruptions of the use of money to control that ancient north European system. Gold itself is not evil nor is trade in units of gold. But put the face of the Orthodox man on coins and promote that he is our means to the divine and you have money. And that is evil!

Going into the millennium I believe that we will dump money and again use stocks and bonds as notes evidencing the values of wealth, as the medium of trade, and that includes digital equivalences on an electronic system.

Is there any way to summarize the main points in order to better understand where this is all going? It reads (no offense) like the beginnings of a multi-level (pyramid scheme) marketing brochure. I say that because of the vague allusions that never materialize into anything firm even after a couple hours of reading!

Unfortunately your observations are right on. These books are not just a discourse on history. A lot of the information promotes the work of my friend, in him trying to get people to begin to work together by the principles he is sharing and through his new learning language analysis. This endeavor of his has occupied most of his adult life as he has felt that his system is what was prophesied as part of Cleon Skousen’s charge from President David O. McKay to show our people how to work together by the law.

I have asked my friend to lend his works out to being edited, but he would not, he is a package deal. My suggestion is to realize the complexity of his message and try to get past the, come on board marketing campaign that is in there.

The main points in his works include:
· The lost 10 tribes of Israel moved to northern Europe.
· Christ and his disciples went to them and set up the Church.
· They worked together by the law.
· Some of them moved to England in 450 AD.
· The workings of their living by the law are still evident in London to this day.
· Our puritan New England for fathers brought that system of how to work by the law with them to New England.
· 2 years after that system stopped working in New England (The New England Congregational Church), Joseph Smith was among the commotion of the collapse of that system and prayed to God.
· He was told to continue in that system as reveled to the ancient tribes of Israel and as lived by his for fathers.
· By living by that systems Mormons were kicked out of the United States.
· When Utah became a state the Mormons had to quit living by the law in the United States except over the border in Mexico.
· Bruce Wydner tried to begin working by the law in the 1970’s when he met Cleon Skousen.
· In 1980 efforts failed as Bruce’s friends abandoned him for the money opportunities available to them.
· Bruce Wydner to this day is still trying to lead us into these principles, which are these books available to you today.

I do not disbelieve any of it any more than I believe it. I simply need more information, but am reluctant to keep up these marathon reading sessions without the promise of something tangible as the reward for such.

The reward is that you get a perspective of a genius mind, of how we are to base our entrance into the millennial Zion, on the foundations of an ancient system of our for fathers, of how to work together by the Law. And that explains my main motivation in this.

I understand that the current banking system sucks, but what is proposed to supersede it? A Mormon version of the same complete with its own fiat currency?

Money is to be replaced by the stocks of townships and gilds and the performance bonds of an honest people.

Is there any literature that describes the United Order Operation and Consecration efforts in the settlements in Mexico referenced?

All I know is that my friend lived in the Mormon Colonies and he said that the stake president and the high counsel basically ran all aspects of the town. The stake president and the high counsel have been the local authorities there, very much like the way the Congregational Church ran Connecticut before 1818.

Sorry to inundate you with these questions, and feel free to forward them to any appropriate parties, just trying to learn and increase in understanding of how we might effect a meaningful change.

My pleasure to be of service to you.
God Bless,
Darren

"in him trying to get people to begin to work together by the principles he is sharing"

"Bruce Wydner to this day is still trying to lead us into these principles, which are these books available to you today."

"how we are to base our entrance into the millennial Zion, on the foundations of an ancient system of our for fathers, of how to work together by the Law"

I must confess that I am interested in more information about the colonies and what specifically a body does to work together but cannot find more detail in his 5th and 6th ousand years etc...Is there any place else or any specific passages that illustrate the system better than the vague allusions scattered throughout the works?

"All I know is that my friend lived in the Mormon Colonies and he said that the stake president and the high counsel basically ran all aspects of the town"

Do you know what the name of the colony is?

"Money is to be replaced by the stocks of townships and gilds and the performance bonds of an honest people."

I agree that titles to property (money, credit, stocks, bonds, etc...) need to be issued by an accountable body composed in a manner consistant with the Lords pattern for judgement of and by twelve just men. Wether by appointment by those in authority higher (high council by a stake president) or lower (voice of the members represented, wards guilds whatever) I do not yet know.

An interesting point to be made here is the establishment of this system beginning with a full consecration giving all possesion back into the hands of the Lord through His servants. Thus the legal justification for a change in system as the Lord deems proper to represent His property to man. In other words once we give it all back He can coin against it in whatever manner he chooses without taking an ounce of agency from anyone in the process.

I must confess that I am interested in more information about the colonies and what specifically a body does to work together but cannot find more detail in his 5th and 6th tousand years etc...Is there any place else or any specific passages that illustrate the system better than the vague allusions scattered throughout the works?

I haven’t done an exhaustive search but here are a few links to get you started:
http://www.cslib.org/cts4ch.htm
http://www.connecticutsar.org/articles/scarlet_no9.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregationalist_polityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_polity

If you are looking for “what specifically a body does to work together “ you will find plenty by looking on the Internet. And my friend is full of specific references if you know where to look, the thousands of documents that I have of his research. If we really need specifics like that I’ll dig them up. We need to remember that it is all good and well to make a personal study of living by the united order but it is up to the Prophet to introduce this as a church program. If the Prophet said today that our wards and stakes should mirror the way that the LDS Mexican Colonies have been running their communities then it would be done. And it would be well to be supportive of that program, the question is, “Are we ready?”.

"All I know is that my friend lived in the Mormon Colonies and he said that the stake president and the high counsel basically ran all aspects of the town"

Do you know what the name of the colony is?

Colonia Juárez, and they have a very nice temple there that President Hinkley dedicated. When President Hinkley dedicated that temple in that small community he told them that the reason they got their temple is that there have been more general authorities come from that stake than from any other stake in the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_Ju%C3%A1rez

"Money is to be replaced by the stocks of townships and gilds and the performance bonds of an honest people."

I agree that titles to property (money, credit, stocks, bonds, etc...) need to be issued by an accountable body composed in a manner consistant with the Lords pattern for judgement of and by twelve just men. Wether by appointment by those in authority higher (high council by a stake president) or lower (voice of the members represented, wards guilds whatever) I do not yet know.

An interesting point to be made here is the establishment of this system beginning with a full consecration giving all possesion back into the hands of the Lord through His servants. Thus the legal justification for a change in system as the Lord deems proper to represent His property to man. In other words once we give it all back He can coin against it in whatever manner he chooses without taking an ounce of agency from anyone in the process.

I agree and thank you for your questions.
At your service.
Darren

Daren - I am intrigued with the information, and enjoy studying history. Like others, I ask, 'what's the point today', or 'what is the conclusion you are trying to lead us to'? I wouldn't pretend to have sufficient knowledge to challenge the history, but some of the conclusions seem stretched.

As a side note, your use of Finland as an example of Germanic languages is severely flawed. It isn't Germanic nor does it have any Germanic roots. It uses a Latin alphabet only because they had no written language until they had been conquered by Europeans. Their original verbal history does talk of them being visited and taught by God as a chosen people.

I've studied the ancient British history enough to concur that the gospel was established and taught there, several times, and several of the ten lost tribes did settled Europe, but I would contend that the pure gospel was established first in the sixth century BC, then restored in the first century, but I see no evidence it was restored in the fifth century.

Remnants remained in the fifth century, but by then much of the higher order had been lost in the beginnings of the feudal system that perverted the pure law. Studying the writings of the Roman conquerors reveals insights into pure doctrine that they twisted in order to request additional funding. To attempt to go back to a denigrated system would be futile and useless.

I believe we have done the same in our day. The founding fathers were not misled but indeed established the best they could, by the hand of the Lord. Instead of resolving in righteousness the loose ends they left us, we again apostatized from the proper form of government. Had we built on that foundation we could have and perhaps would have been able to live the higher law in peace.

The main points in his works include:
· The lost 10 tribes of Israel moved to northern Europe.
· Christ and his disciples went to them and set up the Church.
· They worked together by the law.
· Some of them moved to England in 450 AD.
· The workings of their living by the law are still evident in London to this day.
· Our puritan New England for fathers brought that system of how to work by the law with them to New England.
· 2 years after that system stopped working in New England (The New England Congregational Church), Joseph Smith was among the commotion of the collapse of that system and prayed to God.
· He was told to continue in that system as reveled to the ancient tribes of Israel and as lived by his for fathers.
· By living by that systems Mormons were kicked out of the United States.
· When Utah became a state the Mormons had to quit living by the law in the United States except over the border in Mexico.
· Bruce Wydner tried to begin working by the law in the 1970’s when he met Cleon Skousen.
· In 1980 efforts failed as Bruce’s friends abandoned him for the money opportunities available to them.
· Bruce Wydner to this day is still trying to lead us into these principles, which are these books available to you today.

Having never met, read, or studied the works of Wydner I ask a question. I followed the list till the time of Joseph Smith. What evidence do you have that "that system" is other than the gospel of Jesus Christ, as restored through Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the United States. The law of witness' requires more than assumptions.

We as individuals covenant to live the law of consecration today, right now. We will be judged on how we do that. I understand that we as a people are under condemnation for failing to live the United Order as a people, and that it was taken away for a period, but do you infer or teach that we have been misled by latter-day prophets because we didn't all move to the Mexican Colonies and continue in the united order?

In the end, do you teach or infer that because of these historical rights of freemen we are not obligated to abide by the law of the the land? Is that a correct analysis of your posts or thread?