LDS Freedom Forum

what are YOU doing NOW to cultivate the material stewardship the Lord has given YOU to increase it's value, then give of that increase to the poor???

If you "Walked the walk" then maybe all that talking might mean something.

Regards,

George Clay

Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

Taken From The History of Money, Part 2, pp. 60-70

COMMUNISM

Niccolo Machiavelli

Communism is not at all hard to understand, if one only first understands what it is that they are talking about.

There was once a man who lived in Italy whose name was Niccolo Machiavelli. He lived there from 1469 to 1527. This was the time when the Turks took over the area that would allow them to walk right into Italy any time that they wanted to. This was a terribly disconcerting situation for everybody who lived in the area, but it worked with a particularly telling effect upon the mind of Niccolo Machiavelli.
He asked why Italy didn’t have mighty conquerors at their head like the Turks have. They used to have mighty warriors like Julius CAESAR. Now all that they had was a crazy German KAISER; and he was no great warrior; he and his predecessors for the last hundreds of years had just spent their time quibbling with the Popes over who really had the authority behind the Coinage of Europe.

Niccolo Machiavelli said that there was no more time. Time had run out. It was now imperative that Catholic Europe have a defender like the warriors of old to keep it from falling before the mercilessness of these unforgiving erstwhile opponents of Europe in the Crusades. The time had come for a real European fighting leader of the old stamp, and Niccolo was perceptive enough to see what had to be done to get one.

He hearkened the minds of his listeners back to the very beginning of European civilization. “What was that?” It was Aristotle’s concept of how the terribly energetic politician is in harmony with the Energy, that makes the One-spin spin, at that precise moment when he gets his correct hunch that makes him a great politician. “But let’s face it,” Machiavelli said, “What is it that this correct hunch gives him the impulse to do that is the power that in turn is the basis of European Civilization?” “Well, that is easy,” he said, “it is an impulse that impels him to just get up, go out, and GRAB that power.”

“This is the ultimate basis of our Civilization,” Machiavelli said, “a true leader who just goes out and GRABS THE POWER, far, far from just sitting around and quibbling about it.”

This made a most profound impression on the Pope and Kaiser, for they could see the uncontestable logic of his reasoning. However, though Niccolo flattered himself that he was a profound thinker on the subject of “statecraft” still and all be was only an “upper-middle rank” public official and wasn’t able in any way to be aware of all of the points at issue which the Pope and Kaiser could see.
These two traditional leaders of Europe did reconcile at that time. They did reconcile differences and did commit to a joint effort from then on. But, what Machiavelli was urging them to make their GRAB for was the very highest of stakes so it had to be done in just the right setting.

Just the right setting was the “Rebirth of Socrates” scenario wherein all of the Christian people of Europe were introduced to the heart of the statecraft by which they were governed.

The high, high “stakes,” of course, was the power to control the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of Western Europe, something which had long since slipped out of the control of their offices during those centuries of quibbling and into the control of the Gild System. It had to be taken back if there was ever to be any real “leader” in Europe again. Machiavelli had convinced them that the true way to get it was to GRAB it. So they tried. They failed.

Their Failure

When the Pope and Kaiser met entrenched resistance to their attempt to GRAB the power to control the credit-belief-faith of Europe, they said to the resistors, “How dare you try to stop us; we are the persons traditionally in control of the faith of Christian Europe; get out of our way.”

The answer to them was, “What did you ever have to do with the Gild System? Nothing. What do you at present have to do with the Gild System/Banks of Europe that control the credit of the people of Europe? Nothing. As far as we are concerned you are nothing more than another couple of potential bank robbers whom we will shoot on sight if you make a false move at our ‘banking resources.’” That was that; they failed.

With this specific separation of the two parties, that is, the Gild System from Catholicism (which, theoretically, had had the general authority over such things as the banking facilities of those times,) that separation is considered to be the cross-over from medieval to modern times. Many felt that there had to be some accommodation. The instance of events in England can show us one such accommodation.

England’s Problem

When the people of England reacted to treat the attempt by the Kaiser and the Pope to GRAB the power to control the credit resources of England as nothing but the attempt of another couple of bank robbers, they had to have someone to take their old places. They decided to let King Henry VIII do that.

Though this elevation of the English monarchy to that role did address the problem, it didn’t answer it at all. The problem still had to be answered.

Simply put, the problem was this: “Who has the right to exercise control over the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of England, given that the traditional claimants, the Easterlings’ Kaiser and the Pope don’t have that right? And, where and when did anyone that you do suggest get that right?”

This produced a little overdone monarchy adulation in England for a while, but England found that it was able to muddle its way through that period.

What really changed things was when the showdown war between the Kaiser and Pope on one side and the Hansa on the other side broke out in Germany in 1618.

The Hansa was being destroyed, the English people were being permanently alienated from the Kaiser and the Pope; and the question that had been put off before, now urgently needed attention. “Who has the right to exercise control over the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of England?” There were no answers that satisfied adequately. The members of Parliament quarreled and divided into factions. The Factions quarreled.

That faction in Parliament which stood for a continuation of total monarchy adulation, that is, that they continued saying that Henry III’s successors were the legitimate heirs to the claims of the Easterlings’ Kaisers and of the Popes to the power to control the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of England, lost first. This was the Episcopalian Party. Their leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, also, soon lost his head for pushing for this continuation.

The next party in Parliament that lost was that which pushed the rights of all of the priests of the religion of the people of England to administer the power to control the credit-belief-faith resources of the people of England. This was the Presbyterian Party. It lasted long enough to propose one grandiose plan before it collapsed.

The party that prevailed was that of the organized congregations of each of the townships of England; that was the Congregationalist Party. They beheaded the King (King Charles I) and ran England for a while like it was a “U.S.A. of England.” But, the leaders of these congregations of the Christian believers of England had NO suggestion for how to permanently manage the power that controlled the credit resource which the Christian belief of these people generated. When the very gifted military leader of the Congregationalists died, all of the people in Parliament were forced to come up with the idea that has managed that power ever since.

England’s Idea

The idea they came up with to manage that power in the future was to take up the firm resolve that they would NEVER TALK ABOUT it any more. They would in fact keep on managing that power, but if forces in England jumped upon them too hard asking them where they thought that they got the authority from to control the Christian faith of the people they would motion to the monarch.

That would get those forces off of their backs for a breathing space — while those forces were pestering the monarch as to where he thought that he got that authority from — to figure out a way to get rid of them again when the monarch motioned back to the Parliament, after those forces had worn him out.

So, this was England’s idea for how to manage the power controlling the credit resource generated by the Christian faith of the people of England: to throw it back and forth between the Parliament and the Monarch like a “hot potato.”

Political Parties

Still, as anyone gets to know who witnesses this hot potato tossing in England for any length of time, the functional management of that power in question rests with the Parliament, just as it always has since the congregations from England’s townships had begun to run Parliament directly.

That brought up the solemn question of who it was who has the right to manage that power within Parliament or who, for that matter, has the power to manage Parliament.

This provoked the Earl of Shaftesbury to put on his thinking cap to come up with the answer that the whole world has had recourse to since. He hearkened the remembrance of his colleagues back to that time of the scrambling for power in Parliament between the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists. He wanted to organize them just like one of those groups to GRAB control over the whole Parliament.

“But,” one might say, “the ‘Episcopalians,’ ‘Presbyterians’ and ‘Congregationalists’ are churches (trying to be “the English Church” of the Magna Carta)!” “Well, maybe so,” the Earl of Shaftesbury said, “but all that I have in mind is the fitting vehicle with which to GRAB that power to control the credit-belief-faith of the people of England as it rests in Parliament on the ‘hot potato’ basis that it now does.”
That organization, so organized by the Earl of Shaftesbury to make that GRAB, was the world’s first POLITICAL PARTY, the “Whig Party.” ALL POLITICAL PARTIES trace their origin back to it.

Secularizing

This now brings us to the heart of this chapter on Communism.

“Essentially, what was it that lost out when the Kaiser and Pope listened to Machiavelli and made their GRAB to reestablish their right to manage the credit resources of Europe that had slipped from their control since the Crusades?” “What was it that lost out when the Earl of Shaftesbury came up with the concept of a ‘political party’ as the entity that would thereafter GRAB at that power?”

Let us see.

In the first place let us be forthright about a specific point. Although the word “Rebirth” (“Renaissance”) euphemistically may make some few people think about Christ’s “rebirth” doctrine, the Renaissance is NOT a glorification by the Kaiser and the Pope of Christ; it is a glorification by them of Socrates. It was Socrates that they wished to have “reborn” for contemplation by the people of Europe. According to Socrates they had the legitimate right to the power of control over the credit resources of the European people.

“Who lost in this shifting of the direction of what the people of Europe ought to contemplate?” Well, Christ lost in that.

Now let’s have a look at the church organizations that the Earl of Shaftesbury was going to make use of in his successful GRAB for that same power that the Kaiser and Pope had unsuccessfully just GRABBED for; let us look in particular at that church organization which had been most successful in the struggle of all of those organizations one with another in England, that of the Congregationalists.

“What was it that, from ‘immemorial time,’ the organizations of each of these congregations, that was made up of the Christian people of each of the townships of England, had been organized for?” The Catholic Church said that it was for the peoples’ custom to gather every week in their townships to take “the Lord’s Supper” called “the communion” by the Catholics; that was THE reason that the Catholics called these English townships, “communes.”

But, now here comes the Earl of Shaftesbury who just has a “restricted” use for this organization. ALL that he is going to need it for is just to serve as the most effective instrument coming to his mind with which to GRAB the power to control the credit resources of England — as that power rested in Parliament on the “hot potato” basis that it did.

This is an “open and shut case” of secularizing Jesus Christ out of something that had previously been considered to be exclusively devoted to Him. And, that brings up the next section which, in turn, will show us most clearly what Karl Marx and his Communists are talking about — that is, exactly what they take as their stand.

The “Enlightenment”

The Earl of Shaftesbury and those who thought like him in England and elsewhere, down to the time of the American Revolution, gave to History the turns of events in the mental orientation of the people in or from Europe that historians call, “The Enlightenment.”

The critical issue during this phase of history ― as it was before as well as after ― was this question of which we have been speaking: “Who has the right to the power controlling the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of Europe?”

THE ENTIRE CHANGE between what are called “medieval” and “modern” times was the Kaiser and Pope GRABBING at that power and using Socrates as their justification (instead of using Christ as their justification).

They failed. However their failure created the vacuum in the thinking of the people either in or from Europe that has created all thinking which we classify under the designation “modern.” It is the quandary of that question, “Well, if, as regards the traditional parties, the Easterlings’ Kaiser and the Pope, of whom, with lip-service, we have said since the Crusades that they have the right to control the credit resources of Europe, we now say that they don’t have that right, WHO CAN HAVE THAT RIGHT?”

The way out of that quandary was found by the thinking that has been called, “The Enlightenment.” Simply put they said, “The ultimate authority to which the Pope and the Kaiser appealed in Socrates’ sayings was just the idea to which Machiavelli pointed them — that ultimately the basis of power in Orthodoxy is that which goes to a politician just because he GRABS it. Now, we are going to have to rethink a few things. Instead of thinking of such things as the Parliament of England as the ‘general conference’ (as the term is used on the Wasatch Front) of the religion of the townships of England, we are going to have to start thinking of these ‘folk congresses’ of the people of Northern Europe as the Greek concept of ‘Politics.’ That done, that makes us leaders of these parliaments of Northern Europe, who find ourselves in this ‘quandary,’ into ‘politicians.’ That done, ‘What is the difference between us and the people to whom it used to be customary to restrict that title, i.e. the Easterlings’ Kaiser and the Pope?’ We are politicians also, so we can GRAB at that power too, just the same way that Machiavelli told the Pope and Kaiser to.”

This GRABBING by the parliamentary leadership of Europe gave to the world the Enlightenment. But, what we have said so far doesn’t yet introduce us to what Marx felt that he had to say.

In the GRABBING, this new breed of “politician” came upon the phenomenon that, just as the Kaiser and the Pope had found that they could justify their GRAB to control the credit generated by the Christian faith of the European people by removing Christ from the debate, so they also found success in controlling that self-same credit resource as they removed Christ from the center of things.

To be brief, then, all that the Enlightenment is, is the new breed of politicians of Europe who, in their GRAB to control the credit resources of the Christian people of Europe, say: “Look, what do you need Christ for in this particular thing or in that particular thing? We are specialists, scientists, professionals, experts, philosophers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, thinkers, poets, technicians in this or that particular area. Therefore what do you need Christ for, in this or that area? You have us!” This is the thinking of “the Enlightenment” that has, in general, characterized the thought of the English-speaking people in North America from about the year 1700. And, although it was good enough for most of the people there, it wasn’t good enough for Karl Marx.

Marxism

Interestingly enough, Marxism rests on the “casting in concrete” of the Enlightenment, into the Constitution of the U.S.A., by the adoption of the First Amendment — which thereafter has had the effect of almost totally secularizing thought in the U.S.A. Since, therefore, this “casting in concrete” has had such a profound effect we ought to spend a little time on its motivation.

In order to “slam shut” the door on any possibility that the black slaves of the American South (now that the U.S.A. part of North America was independent from the British Crown) would have any claim to the English freeholder rights held by all white Americans, which rights had been acquired by those white people through the initiation ceremonies into the Christian religion that had always been a part of the Gilds of English farmers, which ceremonies were instituted in the English colonies at their first founding, the principal thinker of the Big Slavery Party in the American South made the statement that those freeholder rights have nothing to do with Christianity.

That stand has effectually secularized the U.S.A. ever since.

That stand sparked the French Revolution.

That stand is the basis of Communism. Let us now see how that came to be.

If you really get the “new breed of Politician” down and press him as to where he thinks he gets the right to control the credit-faith of the Christian people of Europe (such as the “hot potato” throwing “politicians” of England), you eventually get out of them that they are just doing what Machiavelli told the medieval breed of politicians to do: “GRAB IT.”

The effectual means which they found to do this was to exclude Jesus Christ from the particular area of endeavor over which, at a given moment, they wanted to GRAB that power.

So, let’s be blunt. We are talking about “Banking.” “What is Banking?” It is the power to CREATE Credit. “How is it that this new breed of politicians of modern times CREATES credit, as they have made the modern institutions of Banking of which we have spoken in this Book?” “What is Banking?” “Where does it come from?” “What is the source of its power?” Bluntly put, Banking is the ability to “rip off” the FAITH which people have had in Christ by substituting Socrates’ BELIEF in politicians for it.

So Marx, a Ph.D. in History, gets his answer from this new breed — middle-class breed — of politicians of modern times (in contrast to the “upper class” politicians of medieval times to whom Machiavelli had addressed his remarks) that they get their authority to GRAB control of the credit resources of the Christian people of Northern Europe through Machiavelli from Socrates, just as the Kaiser and Pope had. Call that their “Machiavellianism of the Middle Classes.”

Marx has an answer. He says, “This is all crazy. The true group that has the right to GRAB the power to control the credit-belief-faith of the people of Europe are the ‘masses’ of those people, themselves.”

“Yes,” one answers, “but then how are they ever going to be able to organize to do such a thing — in the way that the Earl of Shaftesbury organized his medieval-English-church-without-Christ (his First Political Party in the World, the Whig Party) to grab that power?” He was able to use people who had experiences with real church organizations, to exclude Christ from this or that particular thing over which they wanted to GRAB the power at issue.”

“I’ll take care of that,” said Marx. “I’ll form a political party for them. And, for the experience part needed I’ll use the knowledge of such things that I have from reading my history books.”

“But, who’ll listen to you,” they said, “you would have to come up with such an incredibly stupefying statement, to be the point of this GRAB of yours for power, all of the way up from the very lowest sewer, your ‘Machiavellianism of the Masses,’ that it itself would be able to redo the entire thinking of Europe from its beginning?” “I can do that,” says Marx. “My history books tell me that the means that your ‘Machiavellianism of the Middle Classes’ has used to GRAB the power to control the credit resources of the people of Northern Europe —that exist because of the Good Faith in Jesus Christ which the rules of the Gild System require of them in order to deal one with another — is that means by which your Middle-Class Machiavellians remove Jesus Christ from this or that particular matter over which they wish to GRAB the power. The way that I and my Communists will GRAB ALL POWER over everyone on Earth, who has now picked up on that set of rules, is by exponging everything about Jesus Christ out of the heart of the life of Europe, as History has told it to us.”

“And just how will you do that?” “By telling the World that the ‘-ism,’ the credit-belief-faith, of the people of the ‘communes’ of Northern Europe — which North European townships Catholicism has from the beginning called ‘communes’ because of their basic function as the means whereby the people of Northern Europe could gather together every Sunday to take what they called ‘the Lord’s Supper’ but which Catholicism called ‘the Communion’ — has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘the Lord’ Jesus Christ.”

“The ‘-ism’ or the belief of the communes of Northern Europe has nothing at all to do with ‘belief in Jesus Christ,” says Marx. Though they have solemnly believed that from ‘immemorial time’ or not,” says Marx, “doesn’t matter; all that that feature of it was, was a trick played upon them by Catholicism.”

So Karl Marx founded his “political party” on the incredibly stupefying message to the people of Northern Europe that the belief of their fathers, back through ‘immemorial time,’ in Jesus Christ as the center and origin of the Good Faith which created the credit resource by which Northern Europe had recently taken over the Earth, was nothing but a trick upon them by Catholicism. That Good Faith that had become that credit resource was just the surviving legacy of the Gild System which never had anything at all to do with Catholicism nor the concept of Jesus Christ that Catholicism had introduced to Europe. And, all that the Gild System was, was the remnant of the folkways of Northern Europe, nothing more. In substantiation of this Marx merely pointed to his History books.

This incredibly stupefying message to the people of Europe has had an effect. It has created a number of States in Europe and elsewhere which have operated upon that idea just discussed. And, the idea producing that message has been the basis of power for a most effective GRAB of control over the credit resources of the people living in Russia as well as elsewhere. But it does have a weakness.

That weakness is that if, in fact, Jesus Christ does have something to do with the origin of the Good Faith of the townships of Northern Europe, the basis of power of Marx’s idea vanishes. It would, so to speak, just “evaporate.” With its vanishing Marx’s Communist Party in the Soviet Union has no theory for its GRAB of the control of the credit resources of that country other than that it is just the last successful bank robber to have come along; and there is no way that it can continue to function, by its own law structure, under that theory.

So the basis of power of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would just evaporate, as would that basis of the other Communist countries around the world, if, in fact, the Lord Jesus Christ did have something to do with the origin of the townships or communes of Northern Europe which were the basis of the Gild System, directed until late History by the Hansa.

It would take no bombs to do this, no missiles, no submarines, no massive armies, spy-systems etc., no trillion-dollar defense budgets, just a simple “yes” or “no.”

GOOD FAITH

Value

Regardless of what side of the world’s political fence one might choose to stand on, in the year 1982, either the “Free Enterprise” side or the Communist side, there is only one entity of value for the control of which the highest of powers on either one of those sides is GRABBING.

That single entity of value is the resource of the credit-belief-faith of people somehow operating under those rules of the medieval Gild System that the English-speaking people call “the Law Merchant.”

This single entity of value is at once the most valuable and useful thing which mankind has ever discovered. The “Good Faith” of the people of Northern Europe, which is the basis of the Law Merchant, is the one thing that mankind has ever discovered that is so much more valuable and useful than gold or silver ever were, as circulating exchange media, that the disappearance of both of the latter as circulating exchange media, is scarcely missed.

There are a number of different ways that the sociologist could identify this single entity which mankind has found to be the most valuable and useful thing which it has ever come upon. They could call it, “the survival of the ancient folkways of the North European people,” “the surviving portion of the Gild System,” “the organizational features of the Hansa that have been resuscitated by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice” or “the international customs that are evidence of general practices accepted as law” which are recognized by those latter two organizations. Or one could get general and call it such a thing as, “the perceptible structures of the Protestant Ethic.” One could even get so imprecise and general as to call it, “the reaction of Northern Europe to the attempted GRAB by the Kaiser and Pope for the credit resources of that area, i.e. Protestantism.”

The Answer

In view of these things, there is an answer to the observations of Socrates at the beginning of Part One of this Book, that “money is the most precious treasure that the human race owns” and that “money is nothing other than an unwavering faith of people in their politicians.” It is indeed true that all of the instrumentalities of the Good Faith of the people who transmitted the rules of the Law Merchant to us, are called, “money.” But that is where the identification ends. Today it is feasible that all true money, coins, could be totally done away with and not missed at all.

However, just as politics wishes people to use the term “money” and does not like to go into the specifics of the history of money, as it has been covered in these Books, nor the specifics of the origins of the Law Merchant as they have been covered in this Book, we have gone into those specifics.

So to Socrates we can now answer that the most useful and valuable thing that the human race has ever come upon, the Good Faith of the people of the townships of Northern Europe, is far more valuable and useful than money. And not only does that Good Faith not have anything at all to do with his invention of money, it has nothing to do with his concepts of Orthodoxy, Politics and his System for Learning. And, most of all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with him.

Robert Sinclair wrote:Darren sorry but that is not my words you posted. ♡ ♡

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... p?lang=eng
Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

Taken From The History of Money, Part 2, pp. 60-70

COMMUNISM

Niccolo Machiavelli

Communism is not at all hard to understand, if one only first understands what it is that they are talking about.

There was once a man who lived in Italy whose name was Niccolo Machiavelli. He lived there from 1469 to 1527. This was the time when the Turks took over the area that would allow them to walk right into Italy any time that they wanted to. This was a terribly disconcerting situation for everybody who lived in the area, but it worked with a particularly telling effect upon the mind of Niccolo Machiavelli.
He asked why Italy didn’t have mighty conquerors at their head like the Turks have. They used to have mighty warriors like Julius CAESAR. Now all that they had was a crazy German KAISER; and he was no great warrior; he and his predecessors for the last hundreds of years had just spent their time quibbling with the Popes over who really had the authority behind the Coinage of Europe.

Niccolo Machiavelli said that there was no more time. Time had run out. It was now imperative that Catholic Europe have a defender like the warriors of old to keep it from falling before the mercilessness of these unforgiving erstwhile opponents of Europe in the Crusades. The time had come for a real European fighting leader of the old stamp, and Niccolo was perceptive enough to see what had to be done to get one.

He hearkened the minds of his listeners back to the very beginning of European civilization. “What was that?” It was Aristotle’s concept of how the terribly energetic politician is in harmony with the Energy, that makes the One-spin spin, at that precise moment when he gets his correct hunch that makes him a great politician. “But let’s face it,” Machiavelli said, “What is it that this correct hunch gives him the impulse to do that is the power that in turn is the basis of European Civilization?” “Well, that is easy,” he said, “it is an impulse that impels him to just get up, go out, and GRAB that power.”

“This is the ultimate basis of our Civilization,” Machiavelli said, “a true leader who just goes out and GRABS THE POWER, far, far from just sitting around and quibbling about it.”

This made a most profound impression on the Pope and Kaiser, for they could see the uncontestable logic of his reasoning. However, though Niccolo flattered himself that he was a profound thinker on the subject of “statecraft” still and all be was only an “upper-middle rank” public official and wasn’t able in any way to be aware of all of the points at issue which the Pope and Kaiser could see.
These two traditional leaders of Europe did reconcile at that time. They did reconcile differences and did commit to a joint effort from then on. But, what Machiavelli was urging them to make their GRAB for was the very highest of stakes so it had to be done in just the right setting.

Just the right setting was the “Rebirth of Socrates” scenario wherein all of the Christian people of Europe were introduced to the heart of the statecraft by which they were governed.

The high, high “stakes,” of course, was the power to control the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of Western Europe, something which had long since slipped out of the control of their offices during those centuries of quibbling and into the control of the Gild System. It had to be taken back if there was ever to be any real “leader” in Europe again. Machiavelli had convinced them that the true way to get it was to GRAB it. So they tried. They failed.

Their Failure

When the Pope and Kaiser met entrenched resistance to their attempt to GRAB the power to control the credit-belief-faith of Europe, they said to the resistors, “How dare you try to stop us; we are the persons traditionally in control of the faith of Christian Europe; get out of our way.”

The answer to them was, “What did you ever have to do with the Gild System? Nothing. What do you at present have to do with the Gild System/Banks of Europe that control the credit of the people of Europe? Nothing. As far as we are concerned you are nothing more than another couple of potential bank robbers whom we will shoot on sight if you make a false move at our ‘banking resources.’” That was that; they failed.

With this specific separation of the two parties, that is, the Gild System from Catholicism (which, theoretically, had had the general authority over such things as the banking facilities of those times,) that separation is considered to be the cross-over from medieval to modern times. Many felt that there had to be some accommodation. The instance of events in England can show us one such accommodation.

England’s Problem

When the people of England reacted to treat the attempt by the Kaiser and the Pope to GRAB the power to control the credit resources of England as nothing but the attempt of another couple of bank robbers, they had to have someone to take their old places. They decided to let King Henry VIII do that.

Though this elevation of the English monarchy to that role did address the problem, it didn’t answer it at all. The problem still had to be answered.

Simply put, the problem was this: “Who has the right to exercise control over the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of England, given that the traditional claimants, the Easterlings’ Kaiser and the Pope don’t have that right? And, where and when did anyone that you do suggest get that right?”

This produced a little overdone monarchy adulation in England for a while, but England found that it was able to muddle its way through that period.

What really changed things was when the showdown war between the Kaiser and Pope on one side and the Hansa on the other side broke out in Germany in 1618.

The Hansa was being destroyed, the English people were being permanently alienated from the Kaiser and the Pope; and the question that had been put off before, now urgently needed attention. “Who has the right to exercise control over the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of England?” There were no answers that satisfied adequately. The members of Parliament quarreled and divided into factions. The Factions quarreled.

That faction in Parliament which stood for a continuation of total monarchy adulation, that is, that they continued saying that Henry III’s successors were the legitimate heirs to the claims of the Easterlings’ Kaisers and of the Popes to the power to control the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of England, lost first. This was the Episcopalian Party. Their leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, also, soon lost his head for pushing for this continuation.

The next party in Parliament that lost was that which pushed the rights of all of the priests of the religion of the people of England to administer the power to control the credit-belief-faith resources of the people of England. This was the Presbyterian Party. It lasted long enough to propose one grandiose plan before it collapsed.

The party that prevailed was that of the organized congregations of each of the townships of England; that was the Congregationalist Party. They beheaded the King (King Charles I) and ran England for a while like it was a “U.S.A. of England.” But, the leaders of these congregations of the Christian believers of England had NO suggestion for how to permanently manage the power that controlled the credit resource which the Christian belief of these people generated. When the very gifted military leader of the Congregationalists died, all of the people in Parliament were forced to come up with the idea that has managed that power ever since.

England’s Idea

The idea they came up with to manage that power in the future was to take up the firm resolve that they would NEVER TALK ABOUT it any more. They would in fact keep on managing that power, but if forces in England jumped upon them too hard asking them where they thought that they got the authority from to control the Christian faith of the people they would motion to the monarch.

That would get those forces off of their backs for a breathing space — while those forces were pestering the monarch as to where he thought that he got that authority from — to figure out a way to get rid of them again when the monarch motioned back to the Parliament, after those forces had worn him out.

So, this was England’s idea for how to manage the power controlling the credit resource generated by the Christian faith of the people of England: to throw it back and forth between the Parliament and the Monarch like a “hot potato.”

Political Parties

Still, as anyone gets to know who witnesses this hot potato tossing in England for any length of time, the functional management of that power in question rests with the Parliament, just as it always has since the congregations from England’s townships had begun to run Parliament directly.

That brought up the solemn question of who it was who has the right to manage that power within Parliament or who, for that matter, has the power to manage Parliament.

This provoked the Earl of Shaftesbury to put on his thinking cap to come up with the answer that the whole world has had recourse to since. He hearkened the remembrance of his colleagues back to that time of the scrambling for power in Parliament between the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists. He wanted to organize them just like one of those groups to GRAB control over the whole Parliament.

“But,” one might say, “the ‘Episcopalians,’ ‘Presbyterians’ and ‘Congregationalists’ are churches (trying to be “the English Church” of the Magna Carta)!” “Well, maybe so,” the Earl of Shaftesbury said, “but all that I have in mind is the fitting vehicle with which to GRAB that power to control the credit-belief-faith of the people of England as it rests in Parliament on the ‘hot potato’ basis that it now does.”
That organization, so organized by the Earl of Shaftesbury to make that GRAB, was the world’s first POLITICAL PARTY, the “Whig Party.” ALL POLITICAL PARTIES trace their origin back to it.

Secularizing

This now brings us to the heart of this chapter on Communism.

“Essentially, what was it that lost out when the Kaiser and Pope listened to Machiavelli and made their GRAB to reestablish their right to manage the credit resources of Europe that had slipped from their control since the Crusades?” “What was it that lost out when the Earl of Shaftesbury came up with the concept of a ‘political party’ as the entity that would thereafter GRAB at that power?”

Let us see.

In the first place let us be forthright about a specific point. Although the word “Rebirth” (“Renaissance”) euphemistically may make some few people think about Christ’s “rebirth” doctrine, the Renaissance is NOT a glorification by the Kaiser and the Pope of Christ; it is a glorification by them of Socrates. It was Socrates that they wished to have “reborn” for contemplation by the people of Europe. According to Socrates they had the legitimate right to the power of control over the credit resources of the European people.

“Who lost in this shifting of the direction of what the people of Europe ought to contemplate?” Well, Christ lost in that.

Now let’s have a look at the church organizations that the Earl of Shaftesbury was going to make use of in his successful GRAB for that same power that the Kaiser and Pope had unsuccessfully just GRABBED for; let us look in particular at that church organization which had been most successful in the struggle of all of those organizations one with another in England, that of the Congregationalists.

“What was it that, from ‘immemorial time,’ the organizations of each of these congregations, that was made up of the Christian people of each of the townships of England, had been organized for?” The Catholic Church said that it was for the peoples’ custom to gather every week in their townships to take “the Lord’s Supper” called “the communion” by the Catholics; that was THE reason that the Catholics called these English townships, “communes.”

But, now here comes the Earl of Shaftesbury who just has a “restricted” use for this organization. ALL that he is going to need it for is just to serve as the most effective instrument coming to his mind with which to GRAB the power to control the credit resources of England — as that power rested in Parliament on the “hot potato” basis that it did.

This is an “open and shut case” of secularizing Jesus Christ out of something that had previously been considered to be exclusively devoted to Him. And, that brings up the next section which, in turn, will show us most clearly what Karl Marx and his Communists are talking about — that is, exactly what they take as their stand.

The “Enlightenment”

The Earl of Shaftesbury and those who thought like him in England and elsewhere, down to the time of the American Revolution, gave to History the turns of events in the mental orientation of the people in or from Europe that historians call, “The Enlightenment.”

The critical issue during this phase of history ― as it was before as well as after ― was this question of which we have been speaking: “Who has the right to the power controlling the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of Europe?”

THE ENTIRE CHANGE between what are called “medieval” and “modern” times was the Kaiser and Pope GRABBING at that power and using Socrates as their justification (instead of using Christ as their justification).

They failed. However their failure created the vacuum in the thinking of the people either in or from Europe that has created all thinking which we classify under the designation “modern.” It is the quandary of that question, “Well, if, as regards the traditional parties, the Easterlings’ Kaiser and the Pope, of whom, with lip-service, we have said since the Crusades that they have the right to control the credit resources of Europe, we now say that they don’t have that right, WHO CAN HAVE THAT RIGHT?”

The way out of that quandary was found by the thinking that has been called, “The Enlightenment.” Simply put they said, “The ultimate authority to which the Pope and the Kaiser appealed in Socrates’ sayings was just the idea to which Machiavelli pointed them — that ultimately the basis of power in Orthodoxy is that which goes to a politician just because he GRABS it. Now, we are going to have to rethink a few things. Instead of thinking of such things as the Parliament of England as the ‘general conference’ (as the term is used on the Wasatch Front) of the religion of the townships of England, we are going to have to start thinking of these ‘folk congresses’ of the people of Northern Europe as the Greek concept of ‘Politics.’ That done, that makes us leaders of these parliaments of Northern Europe, who find ourselves in this ‘quandary,’ into ‘politicians.’ That done, ‘What is the difference between us and the people to whom it used to be customary to restrict that title, i.e. the Easterlings’ Kaiser and the Pope?’ We are politicians also, so we can GRAB at that power too, just the same way that Machiavelli told the Pope and Kaiser to.”

This GRABBING by the parliamentary leadership of Europe gave to the world the Enlightenment. But, what we have said so far doesn’t yet introduce us to what Marx felt that he had to say.

In the GRABBING, this new breed of “politician” came upon the phenomenon that, just as the Kaiser and the Pope had found that they could justify their GRAB to control the credit generated by the Christian faith of the European people by removing Christ from the debate, so they also found success in controlling that self-same credit resource as they removed Christ from the center of things.

To be brief, then, all that the Enlightenment is, is the new breed of politicians of Europe who, in their GRAB to control the credit resources of the Christian people of Europe, say: “Look, what do you need Christ for in this particular thing or in that particular thing? We are specialists, scientists, professionals, experts, philosophers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, thinkers, poets, technicians in this or that particular area. Therefore what do you need Christ for, in this or that area? You have us!” This is the thinking of “the Enlightenment” that has, in general, characterized the thought of the English-speaking people in North America from about the year 1700. And, although it was good enough for most of the people there, it wasn’t good enough for Karl Marx.

Marxism

Interestingly enough, Marxism rests on the “casting in concrete” of the Enlightenment, into the Constitution of the U.S.A., by the adoption of the First Amendment — which thereafter has had the effect of almost totally secularizing thought in the U.S.A. Since, therefore, this “casting in concrete” has had such a profound effect we ought to spend a little time on its motivation.

In order to “slam shut” the door on any possibility that the black slaves of the American South (now that the U.S.A. part of North America was independent from the British Crown) would have any claim to the English freeholder rights held by all white Americans, which rights had been acquired by those white people through the initiation ceremonies into the Christian religion that had always been a part of the Gilds of English farmers, which ceremonies were instituted in the English colonies at their first founding, the principal thinker of the Big Slavery Party in the American South made the statement that those freeholder rights have nothing to do with Christianity.

That stand has effectually secularized the U.S.A. ever since.

That stand sparked the French Revolution.

That stand is the basis of Communism. Let us now see how that came to be.

If you really get the “new breed of Politician” down and press him as to where he thinks he gets the right to control the credit-faith of the Christian people of Europe (such as the “hot potato” throwing “politicians” of England), you eventually get out of them that they are just doing what Machiavelli told the medieval breed of politicians to do: “GRAB IT.”

The effectual means which they found to do this was to exclude Jesus Christ from the particular area of endeavor over which, at a given moment, they wanted to GRAB that power.

So, let’s be blunt. We are talking about “Banking.” “What is Banking?” It is the power to CREATE Credit. “How is it that this new breed of politicians of modern times CREATES credit, as they have made the modern institutions of Banking of which we have spoken in this Book?” “What is Banking?” “Where does it come from?” “What is the source of its power?” Bluntly put, Banking is the ability to “rip off” the FAITH which people have had in Christ by substituting Socrates’ BELIEF in politicians for it.

So Marx, a Ph.D. in History, gets his answer from this new breed — middle-class breed — of politicians of modern times (in contrast to the “upper class” politicians of medieval times to whom Machiavelli had addressed his remarks) that they get their authority to GRAB control of the credit resources of the Christian people of Northern Europe through Machiavelli from Socrates, just as the Kaiser and Pope had. Call that their “Machiavellianism of the Middle Classes.”

Marx has an answer. He says, “This is all crazy. The true group that has the right to GRAB the power to control the credit-belief-faith of the people of Europe are the ‘masses’ of those people, themselves.”

“Yes,” one answers, “but then how are they ever going to be able to organize to do such a thing — in the way that the Earl of Shaftesbury organized his medieval-English-church-without-Christ (his First Political Party in the World, the Whig Party) to grab that power?” He was able to use people who had experiences with real church organizations, to exclude Christ from this or that particular thing over which they wanted to GRAB the power at issue.”

“I’ll take care of that,” said Marx. “I’ll form a political party for them. And, for the experience part needed I’ll use the knowledge of such things that I have from reading my history books.”

“But, who’ll listen to you,” they said, “you would have to come up with such an incredibly stupefying statement, to be the point of this GRAB of yours for power, all of the way up from the very lowest sewer, your ‘Machiavellianism of the Masses,’ that it itself would be able to redo the entire thinking of Europe from its beginning?” “I can do that,” says Marx. “My history books tell me that the means that your ‘Machiavellianism of the Middle Classes’ has used to GRAB the power to control the credit resources of the people of Northern Europe —that exist because of the Good Faith in Jesus Christ which the rules of the Gild System require of them in order to deal one with another — is that means by which your Middle-Class Machiavellians remove Jesus Christ from this or that particular matter over which they wish to GRAB the power. The way that I and my Communists will GRAB ALL POWER over everyone on Earth, who has now picked up on that set of rules, is by exponging everything about Jesus Christ out of the heart of the life of Europe, as History has told it to us.”

“And just how will you do that?” “By telling the World that the ‘-ism,’ the credit-belief-faith, of the people of the ‘communes’ of Northern Europe — which North European townships Catholicism has from the beginning called ‘communes’ because of their basic function as the means whereby the people of Northern Europe could gather together every Sunday to take what they called ‘the Lord’s Supper’ but which Catholicism called ‘the Communion’ — has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘the Lord’ Jesus Christ.”

“The ‘-ism’ or the belief of the communes of Northern Europe has nothing at all to do with ‘belief in Jesus Christ,” says Marx. Though they have solemnly believed that from ‘immemorial time’ or not,” says Marx, “doesn’t matter; all that that feature of it was, was a trick played upon them by Catholicism.”

So Karl Marx founded his “political party” on the incredibly stupefying message to the people of Northern Europe that the belief of their fathers, back through ‘immemorial time,’ in Jesus Christ as the center and origin of the Good Faith which created the credit resource by which Northern Europe had recently taken over the Earth, was nothing but a trick upon them by Catholicism. That Good Faith that had become that credit resource was just the surviving legacy of the Gild System which never had anything at all to do with Catholicism nor the concept of Jesus Christ that Catholicism had introduced to Europe. And, all that the Gild System was, was the remnant of the folkways of Northern Europe, nothing more. In substantiation of this Marx merely pointed to his History books.

This incredibly stupefying message to the people of Europe has had an effect. It has created a number of States in Europe and elsewhere which have operated upon that idea just discussed. And, the idea producing that message has been the basis of power for a most effective GRAB of control over the credit resources of the people living in Russia as well as elsewhere. But it does have a weakness.

That weakness is that if, in fact, Jesus Christ does have something to do with the origin of the Good Faith of the townships of Northern Europe, the basis of power of Marx’s idea vanishes. It would, so to speak, just “evaporate.” With its vanishing Marx’s Communist Party in the Soviet Union has no theory for its GRAB of the control of the credit resources of that country other than that it is just the last successful bank robber to have come along; and there is no way that it can continue to function, by its own law structure, under that theory.

So the basis of power of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would just evaporate, as would that basis of the other Communist countries around the world, if, in fact, the Lord Jesus Christ did have something to do with the origin of the townships or communes of Northern Europe which were the basis of the Gild System, directed until late History by the Hansa.

It would take no bombs to do this, no missiles, no submarines, no massive armies, spy-systems etc., no trillion-dollar defense budgets, just a simple “yes” or “no.”

GOOD FAITH

Value

Regardless of what side of the world’s political fence one might choose to stand on, in the year 1982, either the “Free Enterprise” side or the Communist side, there is only one entity of value for the control of which the highest of powers on either one of those sides is GRABBING.

That single entity of value is the resource of the credit-belief-faith of people somehow operating under those rules of the medieval Gild System that the English-speaking people call “the Law Merchant.”

This single entity of value is at once the most valuable and useful thing which mankind has ever discovered. The “Good Faith” of the people of Northern Europe, which is the basis of the Law Merchant, is the one thing that mankind has ever discovered that is so much more valuable and useful than gold or silver ever were, as circulating exchange media, that the disappearance of both of the latter as circulating exchange media, is scarcely missed.

There are a number of different ways that the sociologist could identify this single entity which mankind has found to be the most valuable and useful thing which it has ever come upon. They could call it, “the survival of the ancient folkways of the North European people,” “the surviving portion of the Gild System,” “the organizational features of the Hansa that have been resuscitated by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice” or “the international customs that are evidence of general practices accepted as law” which are recognized by those latter two organizations. Or one could get general and call it such a thing as, “the perceptible structures of the Protestant Ethic.” One could even get so imprecise and general as to call it, “the reaction of Northern Europe to the attempted GRAB by the Kaiser and Pope for the credit resources of that area, i.e. Protestantism.”

The Answer

In view of these things, there is an answer to the observations of Socrates at the beginning of Part One of this Book, that “money is the most precious treasure that the human race owns” and that “money is nothing other than an unwavering faith of people in their politicians.” It is indeed true that all of the instrumentalities of the Good Faith of the people who transmitted the rules of the Law Merchant to us, are called, “money.” But that is where the identification ends. Today it is feasible that all true money, coins, could be totally done away with and not missed at all.

However, just as politics wishes people to use the term “money” and does not like to go into the specifics of the history of money, as it has been covered in these Books, nor the specifics of the origins of the Law Merchant as they have been covered in this Book, we have gone into those specifics.

So to Socrates we can now answer that the most useful and valuable thing that the human race has ever come upon, the Good Faith of the people of the townships of Northern Europe, is far more valuable and useful than money. And not only does that Good Faith not have anything at all to do with his invention of money, it has nothing to do with his concepts of Orthodoxy, Politics and his System for Learning. And, most of all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with him.

I hope you do not feel I am picking on you personally when I repeat the words I see written of Enoch or Micah or Joel or Jeremiah or the very Eternal Father in Heaven that commanded that Jesus Christ say unto us about the great and wonderful "if" written and given the fullness be returned to, we can be numbered among his people.

This not to harm the House of Ephraim but to help awaken from slumber as God has said.

And George, well have you said that I have pride that needs to be humbled to the dust

If you feel George that I have ill will towards any of the latter day prophets or apostles or seventy, this is a mistake

Not to tear down these leaders but to awaken them from the sleep placed upon them by the Scriptures written. All these things must needs to have happened and others yet to happen as in Hosea's words that Ephraim shall say finally "What have I to do anymore with idols?" "I have heard him" this is yet to be fulfilled soon. ♡

Go and read the words of Joel that Moroni told Joseph Smith three times was not yet but soon to be.

What he has asked of the brethren is to be ashamed and return to keep the commandment of God and to bring the bride out of the closet.

The next time any of the quorum of the twelve gives a talk or the prophet gives a talk and says "keep the commandments" I would hope they acknowledge "all" the commandments of Jesus Christ and especially when they take the sacrament to their lips and partake covenanting to always remember him. That the commandment given of Jesus Christ to see that the poor are given a covenant and a deed that cannot be broken is acknowledged.

KMCopeland wrote:Mormons have a terrible time accepting the idea that communism and the United Order spring from the same impulse: the impulse to be sure no one does without while his neighbors enjoy plenty. They can be counted on to freak out at the suggestion that there's anything good about communism or socialism even in their mere philosophical forms. You just can't talk to them about it without the words "evil" and "Satan's plan" turning up. It's as reliable as the sunrise. It has nothing to do anything actually objectionable about those two philosophies. You just can't discuss it. They go nuts. Well, most of them do.

The reluctance stems too, from a sort of morphing the politics of so many members has undergone over the years. Early saints were anti-slavery, and pretty progressive politically. Now your testimony is questioned if you're a even a Democrat, much less a liberal one.

It's a grave loss.

deep water wrote:The law of consecration, united order, done correctly, all things in common, Zion does not differ from the idea of true Communism. The fake Communism that is practiced in this world is not Communism in the true sense. The difference being; there is a rule making class determining and living off the agency of others. They make the rules that others have to live by, not God. Think of this. All laws that we live now, even in Church, will go away in Zion, or (Heaven). All decisions will be made based upon love. Love will be the governing factor, not rules or laws. A love that you, in your present state can not even begin to understand or believe in. Those who get to the point that they believe in God and Christ, will become like them. They will have no need for ownership, because they believe in God. They live in the rest of God, believing that all things are for their benefit. Even things they would not necessarily desire. Even Christ ask if the cup might be removed. A tally of how much earthly things you can produce will not even enter the minds of the people of Zion. A Zion person will wear out his life seeking someone to take his excess. Christ was offered a Kingdom in this world and turned it down, shouldn't those who profess to believe in him learn to follow his example?

Ezra wrote: But the United order done correctly isant all things in common. It's stewardship based. It's the tallents. If one person wants to be a rancher his stewardship will be a larger price of property then someone who wants to be a doctor. If that rancher is really good at what he dose and produced better quality of meat then another neighboring rancher he might be given part of that neighboring ranch to add into his stewardship.