The Elohim War: Part 1

 

"All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually
the best solution" – Franciscan Friar William of Ockham

Today, Christians live on the front lines of a silent war against an adversary that nobody seems to know anything about. And, the adversary is so sophisticated and politically astute that speaking out against it only results in being branded intolerant, and smeared in retaliation by their secret police. This adversary would also be the 12th largest media company in America today if it was a “real” tax-paying entity, and being smeared in retaliation typically only happens if you know who the adversary is. I grew up believing in the Constitutional freedoms that most Americans take for granted, and I remember being taught in elementary school that in America “you are guilty until proven innocent”, and “every American has the right to face their accuser”. That’s why I wasn’t really too worried after I began hearing rumors that I was gay, a drug addict and mentally ill. I had always had a strong support group, and also knew that anybody who really knew me would also know these rumors were a lie. But, I still had to explain to my support group who was behind them and why, and at the same time I didn’t know every single person who heard these rumors, so I couldn’t stop them completely. The most incredible thing I discovered, however was that this adversary had the power to add such slanderous rumors to my “official records”, which are accessible by the police, my church and other “official” agencies.

The only thing more amazing than coming to the realization your adversary has that kind of power, lack of morality and lack of integrity is the further knowledge that this same adversary believes that God himself ceded them the power to act in this manner. Amazingly, this adversary believes their powers transcend not only the laws of mankind, but those of Moses as well; and all the while they claim to be Christians. The power I refer to is that of the restored holy Melchizedek Priesthood, which the Mormon religion believe elevates Mormon males to Godhood, and gives them the right to break the laws of Man and Moses, whenever they deem it to be necessary. The excerpt below is from one of the key theological underpinnings of Mormonism as documented in History of the Church, from the section entitled, The Gospel versus the Law:

Paul's great controversy with the Christian Jews was in relation to the superiority of the Gospel to the law of Moses.  Many of the Christian Jews while accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, still held to the law with something like superstitious reverence, and could not be persuaded that the Gospel superseded the law, and was, in fact, a fulfillment of all its types and symbols.

It turns out that Mormons believe their religion, just like Sharia law of Islam, is the law of the land. So, after obtaining a comprehensive understanding of Mormon theology, one is left with the rather stark realization that there is an organization inside the United States that believes it is not bound by the same Judeo-Christian laws that govern the rest of America. But, at the same time it claims to be a mainstream Christian religion.

The hierarchy of the Mormon religion has spent millions and millions of dollars creating the image that they are a “mainstream Christian” religion, and to cover-up their incredibly dark and unsavory past. What virtually no American living today has any idea of, is that this same religion has actually been at “war” with the United States for the past 178-years. The history of this religion includes 3-wars, and countless other conflagrations and conflicts since it was officially founded as a church in 1830. This conflict originally began in New York State around 1830, migrated to Ohio and Missouri between 1831 and 1839, and migrated again to Illinois where it smoldered and began raging in 1844. Then, in 1845, it left the United States altogether and migrated to the Utah Territory where Brigham Young eventually declared independence from the United States on September 15, 1857. But, as opposed to religious persecution, their conflict was rooted in two key issues. First, Mormonism taught that American was destined to become a “Mormon Kingdom of Zion”, by force if necessary, because Mormonism was the only true religion on earth. And second, Mormons owned slaves in the “northern territories” during a time when slavery was only allowed in states south of the Mason-Dixon line. Such is one of the strangest sagas in American History that virtually nobody today knows anything about, and which is slowly fading in the vacuum of time.

I was born and raised in Arizona, which was originally part of the sovereign Mormon nation of Deseret, a theocratic kingdom ruthlessly controlled by Brigham Young until the end of the “Utah War” in 1858. During the war the Mormon hierarchy even had a contingency plan to relocate the entire Church out of the Salt Lake Basin and into the White Mountains of northern Arizona. Because of this, Mormons originally founded most of the communities in Northern Arizona and still dominate the governance of these towns even today, and many of these communities were founded during the time Mormon polygamists began migrating south into Mexico to be free of US intervention. Interestingly, Mormons originally founded Deseret in July of 1847, after the “Illinois War” ended in 1845, when much of the American west was still owned by Mexico. But, when the Mexican/American war officially ended in March of 1848, with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, most of Mexico’s western territories were ceded to the United States. So, ironically, the Mormons once again found themselves under the protective custody of the United States. Undaunted by this, Brigham Young declared Deseret’s complete independence from the United States on September 15, 1857.

The Mormon Nation of Deseret – 1849 (1)



The “Utah War” created much consternation in Congress, but members of Congress also knew that the Utah Territory was surrounded by new states that were populated by American settlers who were loyal to the Union. Congress was also aware that Brigham Young’s desire to maintain control over his Kingdom of Deseret was egocentric in nature. Young, and the rest of the hierarchy of the Mormon religion, were taught that the very existence of Deseret itself and Young’s ascendance as “King of Zion” was the result of Mormon prophecy. At the same time, Young and the Mormon hierarchy were already extremely angry at the “Gentile” Kingdom of America and its Judeo-Christian Government, which they already despised because of the Missouri and Illinois wars between 1831 and 1845. After Mexico ceded the lands claimed by Deseret to America in 1848, Congress began “breaking- up” Deseret, which only made Young angrier. And, just as the Mormons felt during their previous wars with the American “Gentile”, they viewed the “Utah War” as just another despicable act by an overbearing and decadent foreign government. Further, throughout this history, rather then being taught the truth, members of the Mormon faith have always been taught that these conflicts were really due to “religious persecution” and the “intolerance” of the “gentile”. During the “Utah War” Brigham Young was even astute enough to try and create the appearance that the “Utah War” was an atrocity being perpetrated against an innocent and downtrodden people.

In 1858, at the very brink of armed conflict, as the US Cavalry prepared its final march into the Salt Lake Valley, Brigham Young wisely capitulated to the United States. At the same time, he vehemently declared that his power in the Utah Territory would not be diminished one single bit, either. Young also knew what few, if any, people in Congress knew, or anyone else in America knew for that matter, which was that he had required every Mormon leaving Illinois with him to take the Mormon “Oath of Vengeance” against America in 1845. The “Oath of Vengeance” was a promise that the vile acts of “gentile” America would be taught to every Mormon for up to four generations, and would never be forgotten. Mormon prophecy also taught that the “elders of Zion” would one-day rise-up to avenge the terrible acts perpetrated by the “gentile”, and “save the constitution”. At the same time, other Mormon prophecies taught that America would one day become a “Mormon Kingdom of Zion”, and Joseph Smith proclaimed the choice for doing so would be, “the church or the sword”. So, in accordance with the Mormon Prophesies of “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days” and “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread”, Young and the Mormons believed America would one day be “brought to its knees”, and the “Elders of Zion” would be left “holding up Constitution of the United States for the rest of the world to see”.

Because of what I learned by accident in 1978 when I was a junior in college, and everything I’ve learned since, my life has been threatened on three different occasions. At the same time, my constitutional rights have been, and still are, routinely violated with impunity by members of this so-called religion. I can’t help but think how ironic and strange it is that the perpetrator of all of this claims to be a “mainstream Christian religion”, and espouses to be the only “true” religion in America and the world today. I also can’t help but wonder if this is what the founding fathers actually intended as they contemplated their “Great Experiment” in American freedom, and drafted the Constitution and its Bill-of-Rights, which ironically gives the Mormon religion their very right to exist. And, as I began researching Mormon history anew in 2000, after a 23-year hiatus, the Mormon Church must have been quite concerned about my ongoing activities because soon thereafter I began being harassed in a much more frantic manner than was normal, even for them. Interestingly, the Mormon religion has made subjugation and intimidation an art form, which is how the Mormon Kingdom of Zion maintains such tight control over its “subjects”. The veritable cornucopia of control and intimidation tactics that have been refined by this religion history includes castration, beheading, dismemberment, murder, ex-communication, rumormongering, banishment, loss of employment, theft of personal and real property and “leaving one severely alone”. So, I guess it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise when it is revealed that Jay Bybee, a Mormon and BYU Law graduate, drafted Bush’s “torture policy” in 2002.

Other little known facts about this religion are that it would be the nations 12th largest media entity if it were a real tax-paying corporation today. And, the Mormon religion loves to trumpet its deep reverence for the Constitution of the United States, which it claims is God’s divine work (not man’s). In the past, Church leaders have even acknowledged that Mormonism probably wouldn’t have even survived had it been founded in any other country but America. But, when the actions of this religion are scrutinized further, they don’t really seem to correspond to the wonderful sentiments this religion makes so publicly. Could it be possible that after years of open-warfare with the decadent Judeo-Christian American culture between 1830 and 1858, the Mormon religion adopted another less violent tack as a means of conquering the kingdom of America? The duplicitous nature of this religion’s claimed reverence for the Constitution seems to unravel when one takes a look beneath the Church’s attractive veneer, further analyzes the Church’s actions and compares them to their public media statements. For example, it’s not widely known that is was only after the Mormon Church lost a Supreme Court decision in 1890, which upheld the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act, that the Mormons finally agreed to live in accordance with the Judeo-Christian laws of America. It should also be noted that the Edmunds-Tucker Act provided for the disincorporation of the Mormon Church. Faced with this, not only did the Mormons appear to transform themselves into model citizens, they even evolved into a veritable “poster-boy” for God and Country.

J. Reuben Clark, The Church and the Constitution

Every since Joseph Smith officially organized the Mormon religion as a church in 1830, it has been at war with “gentile” America. Smith prophesied that America would become a “Mormon Kingdom of Zion”, he attempted to overthrow the Federal Government militarily in 1843 and he declared his intent to run for President of United States in 1844 as a means of gaining legitimate control over the U.S. Government. Consequently, the change in image and demeanor of the Mormon religion beginning in 1890 that was characterized by the shaving of beards, the wearing of suits, camaraderie with the “gentiles”, the ostensible cessation of polygamy and the granting of individual political and religious freedom (that were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution), was a significant about-face. This period was also mentioned in Charles Wood’s book, The Mormon Conspiracy, and lasted for approximately the next 70-years, until around 1960 (see fn1, Chapter 1). Incredibly, this same period in Mormon history seems to coincide exactly with the life and times of J. Reuben Clark who was born into the Mormon faith on September 1, 1871, in the little farming town of Grantsville, Utah and died on October 6, 1961. During his life, not only did Clark make significant contributions to the Mormon religion, he also became an icon of the Church. And, in 1973, the largest Church-owned institution of higher learning in the United States, Brigham Young University, even named their law school after him.

Clark was born in the small farming community of Grantsville, Utah, about 30-miles south of Salt Lake City. About the time he was 10-years of age, he began his formal education at the family home after his mother began home-schooling him. And, even though he never attended high school, he still managed to be accepted into the University of Utah’s bachelor’s program where he proved to be a prodigious student. By 1898, not only did Clark complete the educational requirements needed for his high school diploma, he completed his bachelor’s degree as well. Shortly thereafter, he married is sweetheart in the Salt Lake Temple, and in 1903 moved to New York to attend the Columbia University School of Law. At Columbia, Clark excelled and was named to the editorial board of the Columbia Law Review; and, by the end of his second-year of law school, he was already admitted as a member of the New York Bar Association. Three-months after graduating from law-school in 1906, he received an appointment from Elihu Root as Assistant Solicitor of the State Department in Theodore Roosevelt’s administration. Around this time, Clark also became an assistant professor at the George Washington University School of Law, and by 1910 he was elevated to the position of Solicitor of the State Department under President Taft.

In 1913, Clark left the State Department to start his own law practice that specialized in municipal and international law. Clark’s firm gained such notable clients as the Japanese Embassy, the Cuban Diplomatic Mission and Equitable Life, a company founded by Mormons. Later, as World War I began in Europe, Clark accepted a commission as Major in the Judge Advocate Generals Officers’ Reserve Corps where he assisted in drafting the nation’s very first selective service laws. Coincidentally, Clark’s imprint on these new laws created the launching pad for the Mormon Church’s aggressive worldwide missionary program, which has become a lasting testament to missionaries of all religions, between the ages of nineteen and twenty-two, who receive military deferments while on their Church missions. During this time, Clark was assigned to active duty by the U.S. Attorney’s office where he prepared a very important treatise entitled, “Emergency Legislation and War Powers of the President” for which he was later awarded the Distinguished Service Medal. Clark’s treatise also seems to have been a watershed event in his life. In 1928, Clark was appointed Under Secretary of State by Calvin Coolidge, and soon thereafter published his insightful treatise on the Monroe Doctrine entitled the “Clark Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine,” which has been referred to as a “monument of erudition” and a “masterly treatise.” Finally, in 1930, Clark was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, which marked the beginning of the end of his prodigious service to the Kingdom of America.

Clark served as Mexican Ambassador for about 2 ½ years before he finally received his “highest calling”, which ultimately led to his resignation from the State Department in 1933. Consequently, 1933 marks the end of Clark’s enormous contributions to the Kingdom of America, and the official beginnings of his service to the Mormon religion as a member of President Heber J. Grant’s “First Presidency”. Clark was 62-years old when he received this important calling, and it was in his new capacity as “President Clark” that he became the leading advocate of the Church’s welfare program, became instrumental in implementing the Mormon Church’s first budgetary processes (8) and initiated the transformation of the Church’s management policies from what was previously characterized as “back-room discussions by the good old boys” to its current system of modern and sophisticated management techniques. But, probably the most lasting testament to Clark’s tenure in the religion’s “First Presidency” was spearheading of the use of the media as a primary new tool of the Church, because he distrusted American propaganda. Ironically, the lasting contributions that Clark so generously made to the Mormon religion were garnered from the education, experiences and insights that Judeo-Christian America provided to him during his “non-Church” years.

Clark’s biography is very impressive, and it appears obvious that few men within his peer group might ever contemplate eclipsing such accomplishments. It’s also clear that the character of the man being described is that of a deeply reverent and loyal man; dedicated to God and Country. But, after a deeper investigation, one discovers some interesting addendums to Clark’s impeccable biography, which also seem a bit incongruous after matching them with his impressive biography. Clark is said to have been a military enthusiast during most of his life, but after receiving the Distinguished Service Medal, Clark apparently had a change of mind and came-out fiercely against the war. Around the same time, Clark is said to have referred to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an act of barbarism, and felt the United States no longer had any right to speak with moral authority in international affairs. This becomes an even more interesting insight when one also considers that the Japanese Government was a client of Clark’s law firm. Clark is also alleged to have been sympathetic to National Socialism (Nazism), and distrusted the American propaganda that was routinely disseminated by the U.S. Media. And, also ingrained in Clark was Mormonism’s fundamental view on race; Clark was partially responsible for implementing a policy that segregating the blood of “whites” and “negroes” at the LDS hospital in Salt Lake City. However, it should also be noted that Clark supposedly took an early stance on allowing blacks to hold the priesthood (7).

After learning about Clark’s views on National Socialism, Blacks and American propaganda, his views on Mormonism and democracy only cause more surprise. During a semi-annual Church General Conference in 1945, Clark stated, "We are democratic in our concepts of the Church, but we are not a democracy; we are a kingdom, the Church and kingdom of God on earth (2)". Clark further expounded on this concept at a later missionary meeting where he stated, "I hope Brother [Mark E.] Petersen will pardon me, but this is not a democracy; this is not a republic; this is a kingdom of God. The President of the Church is his premier, if you will, his agent, his possessor of the keys. Our free agency, which we have, does not make us any more nor less than subjects of the Kingdom and subjects we are, not citizens, Brother Mark” (3). The rather amazing statements that Clark made are important for two reasons. First, they were made after Clark underwent a crisis of faith in the 1920’s, which almost led him to adopt atheism, and did ultimately cause him to distrust those he referred to as “Mormon intellectuals” who attempted to rationalize the complexities of the Mormon religion. Second, Clark’s comments evidenced an intimate understanding of the secret Mormon prophecies of “Daniel”, and the “Council of the Fifty”, which form the underlying theological foundation of how America is to become a “Mormon Kingdom of Zion”. Because of this, Clark also came to believe that only the President of the Church, "has the right to rationalize (4)", about the Mormon religion, or "has any right to change or modify or extend any revelation of the Lord”(5).

During another of the Church’s General Conferences, on April 6, 1957, Clark gave a stirring presentation on “The Constitution”, to loyal subjects of the Church who were in attendance that day. And, Clark could not have been more qualified due to his extensive legal career in the U.S. Justice Department where he had arguably become an expert on Constitutional Law. Interestingly, Clark’s presentation coincides with another watershed event in Mormon history; the end of the Church’s golden period of “Mormon Freedom”, which began around 1890. And coincidentally, Clark gave his presentation on “The Constitution” exactly 100-years after the Mountain Meadow Massacre and Brigham Young’s declaration of independence from the United States, which occurred on September 11, 1857 and September 15, 1857 respectively. Acknowledging the Judeo-Christian origins of the U.S. Constitution has always created a bit of a conundrum that needed to be addressed and rationalized by the Mormon hierarchy. The question that arose was how the decadent Judeo-Christian society could have sired something as inspirational and pervasive as the Constitution of the United States, which ironically gives the Mormons the right to practice their own brand of religion in America in the first place. But, this dilemma was easily dispensed with after the Mormon hierarchy declared the U.S. Constitution a divine work from God, and began a very public embrace of it.

Ostensibly, Clark’s message appears to trumpet and reinforce the notion that Mormonism is the veritable “poster-boy” for God and Country. But, Clark’s presentation is unique in that it merges Mormon theology and prophecy with the underlying Judeo-Christian principles of America and the Constitution. It should also be kept in mind that Mormon prophecy teaches that the “Christian dispensation of religion” (Christian Church) will ultimately be replaced by the “Mormon dispensation of religion” (Mormon Church) because the Christian Church is decadent and corrupt, and has forsaken what Mormons refer to as God’s doctrine of, “The Gospel versus the Law”, which teaches that Mormon law, not Man’s law, is the supreme law of the land. Consequently, after scrutinizing Clark’s presentation more closely, unparalleled insights into the dark psyche of Mormonism, and the men responsible for leading this religion seem to be revealed. Gentiles should also be aware that Mormon theology has taught their God is different from the Christian God, and that their form of Government is different as well; it’s a Monarchy rather than a Democracy. The novice reader should also bear in mind that the person making the presentation was sympathetic to National Socialism (Nazism), didn’t trust American propaganda, believed the Mormon Church is a Kingdom and not a democracy, believed that Mormons are subjects of the Kingdom of Zion and belonged to an organization that had been at war with the United States for 28-years, between 1830 and 1858.

Clark also belonged to an organization that required its members to pledge the Mormon “Oath of Vengeance” against America until 1927, and only ceased this requirement after losing a lawsuit with the U.S. Government. In fact, it’s likely that Clark himself pledged this “Oath of Vengeance” because he passed through the temple endowment ceremony prior to 1927. Because of all of these contradictions, it shouldn’t be too surprising to learn that Clark’s presentation of “The Constitution” is also rife with Mormon symbology that has been secretly been imbedded throughout. Readers without a comprehensive understanding of Mormon symbology won’t otherwise be able to distinguish this symbology from the more ostensible patriotic theme of the presentation, either. However, this is a common trick that has been used for hundreds of years by venerable secret societies that desire to propagate messages, which don’t necessarily mirror the views of mainstream society. This trick is also commonly referred to as “hiding in plain site”. Clark’s presentation of “The Constitution” is also very insightful in that it simplifies and interprets the Judeo-Christian philosophy and Constitutional principles of Democracy for a Mormon audience, which had been indoctrinated their entire lives with Mormon theocratic concepts of politics and Government. Because of the duality of Clark’s presentation, Clark’s presentation is presented in its unedited form so readers may ascertain the true essence of the treatise themselves. An analysis of the symbology is explained below:

THE CONSTITUTION, by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY
(Delivered at the Saturday morning session, April 6, 1957)

MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, contrary to my usual custom and practice, I intend to read what I have to say today. I assure you I have tried to prepare it under the influence of our Heavenly Father, and I humbly pray that it will carry the message, which I had hoped for.

I plan to say something today about the Constitution of the United States of America -- its Framers and some of its essential principles -- America, the land choice above all other lands -- for our great and priceless liberties, including the security of our homes and property, our freedom of speech and of the press, freedom Of religion and the free exercise thereof, indeed freedom itself and its liberties, as our fathers knew and enjoyed, as also ourselves, depend upon its preservation. As there is much detail and as I wish to be as accurate as I may be, I have written out what I wish to say.

It seems wise to remind ourselves of these matters because some people belittle that great document and its fundamental principles, sometimes to the point of derision. Sometimes we forget it.

Constitution "Outmoded"
These defamers say that the Constitution, and our government under it, are outmoded; not responsive to present-day conditions of life and living; not sufficient to meet and solve present-day problems; and that we need a modern, up-to-date system of government. They let us know what should be done to meet their ideas and plans, which seem always to run to despotism.

I have observed that numbers of these defamers take advantage to the utmost of every liberty and freedom created and protected by the Constitution in order to destroy it and its guarantees, so to make easy the setting up of a tyranny that would deprive the common man of his freedom and liberties under it, so permitting these defamers to set up a government that would give place, power, and privilege to them in a despotism to be imposed upon the mass of mankind. We have witnessed this very despotism. There would be a Kremlin in every country on the globe, all under the super-Kremlin in Moscow.

Ten Commandments "Outmoded"
One class of these defamers are the same persons who declare the Ten Commandments, the basic law of the civilized world, to be outmoded, although these Commandments still speak with their divine power and authority against the same evils existing today, each one of them, not one missing, even as they existed in the days of Moses; Commandments that proclaim righteous principles that are as valid and applicable today as when, on Mt. Sinai, they were written on slabs of stone by the finger of God. Sinners would get rid of the divine rebukes and penalties prescribed for their wickedness and would treat as naught the promised rewards for that righteous life that would rob them of the fleshly pleasures of sin.

Sermon on the Mount "Outmoded"
The same people declare the Sermon on the Mount to be outmoded, irresponsive to the needs of the people of today. The divine truths of the Sermon, its surpassing loveliness, indeed the sublimity of its ethical teachings, do not, say they, harmonize with their modern life where we see greed, ambition, selfishness, dishonesty, deceit, falsehood, and licentiousness thrive and on which they live and riot. We have noted this experiment also.

If all that God and his Only Begotten taught that will lead us to the immortality and eternal life that is God's declared glory, could be wiped out and forgotten, leaving only Satan and his work, the followers of Satan would, in their ignorance, have reached a Satanic heaven.

Organization of Constitutional Convention
The Constitution of the United States was framed in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, May 14, 1787, to September 17, 1787. The Framers were delegates sent thereto by "the Thirteen Colonies. Seventy-four were appointed; fifty-five reported at the Convention; nineteen did not attend; thirty-nine signed the Constitution. Representatives signed from each of the Colonies except Rhode Island.

Bill of Rights
The Constitution as signed lacked a Bill of Rights, though these rights were discussed in the Convention. As the Colonies voted to ratify the Constitution, each proposed amendments to remedy the omission. Over one hundred amendments were proposed. Some forty to fifty were eliminated as duplications. Seventeen were finally approved by the House of the First Congress; the Senate reduced the number to twelve, which were sent to the various legislatures for ratification. The, final returns showed that ten had been ratified.

Historical Experience of Framers
The Framers and their fathers had in the preceding seventy-five years, fought through four purely European wars -- in America between the British and her colonists on one side, and the French and her Indian allies on the other. The colonists had little, if any, concern in the European issues. They fought because the homelands fought. In the first three of these wars the colonists lost much, suffered massacres. Yet at the end of each war, each European government returned, each to the other, the gains either had made in America. The colonists had heavy losses, had no gains except the experience that builded up over the decades, experience that aided them, first, in winning their independence, and, thereafter, in establishing this Government.

No wonder Washington in his Farewell Address counseled against foreign entanglements. He stated the reasons drawn from colonial experience. The French and Indian War, the last of the four, broke the French foothold on the Continent. Washington participated in that war as an officer and suffered in Braddock's defeat at Fort Duquesne. During a part of this whole period, the colonial legislatures had been fighting against royal representatives; in the earlier decade the fathers of the Framers carried on these contests; in the latter years, many of the Framers were themselves involved.

Movement for Independence
The movement for independence began soon after the close of the French and Indian War; for example, the Committees of Correspondence. Some of the very best minds and ablest men in the Colonies participated. Framers served on these earlier revolutionary bodies. Many Framers were members of the Continental Congress. When the Revolution came, they had the experiences, bitter as to both men and money that came to that Congress in raising troops and materials of war. They had knowledge. Some were experienced in, the actual problems of conducting a war. One at least, Franklin, had seen distinguished service in the diplomatic field and continued so to serve.

Characters of Framers
The Framers were men of affairs in their own right. Some were distinguished financiers. More than half of them were university men, some educated in the leading American colleges --Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, William and Mary; others in the great colleges of Great Britain -- Oxford, Glasgow, Edinburgh. Washington and Franklin were among those who had no college education. Altogether there were seventy-four delegates appointed; fifty-five who reported at the Convention, "all of them," it has been said, "respectable for family and for personal qualities." Of these fifty-five, only thirty-nine were present at the signing. Nineteen failed to attend. They were men of varied political beliefs. Some were Federalists; some anti-Federalists. Some seemed favorable to a mere revamping of the Articles of Confederation.

The amazing thing is that there was not in all the world's history a government organization even among confederacies that could be taken by the Framers as a preliminary blueprint for building the political structure they were to build. Franklin declared:

"We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances."

They had been in session for about a month (June 26, 1787) when Madison declared:

". . . as it was more than probable we were now digesting a plan which in its operation would decide forever the fate of Republican Government we ought not only to provide every guard to liberty that its preservation could require, but be equally careful to supply the defects which our own experience had particularly pointed out."

Who the Framers Were
A little further detail about the thirty-nine Framers who actually signed the document will be useful. Of those thirty-nine signers, twenty-six had seen service in the Continental Congress. They knew legislative processes and problems. Thirteen had served both in the Continental Congress and in the Army. What a wealth of experience they had obtained in both legislative and executive duties! Of the nineteen who served in the Army, seventeen had served as officers -- they knew the problems of armed forces in the field; and of these seventeen, four had served on Washington's staff.

Let us go down the roll: Washington, the "Father of his Country," and Madison, sometimes called the "Father of the Constitution," were later Presidents of the United States. Hamilton (a financial genius) was Secretary of the Treasury under Washington. McHenry (Maryland) was Secretary of War under Washington. Randolph (Virginia) acted as Attorney General for Washington and later as his Secretary of State. Rutledge (South Carolina), a distinguished jurist, was later Chief Justice in the United States Supreme Court. Oliver Ellsworth (absent when the Constitution was signed) was also later a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Blair, Paterson, and Wilson were later Justices of the Supreme Court. (Wilson had been on the Board of War and Ordnance in the Second Continental Congress.)

Benjamin Franklin, a philosopher and scientist, had behind him years of most distinguished and successful diplomatic service. King (Massachusetts) was later a Senator and thereafter Minister to Great Britain. Charles Pinckney (South Carolina) was Minister to Spain. Dickinson (Delaware) founded Dickinson College, and Johnson (Connecticut) was President of Columbia College. Gerry (Massachusetts) was later Vice President of the United States, and Ingersoll (Pennsylvania) a candidate for the Vice-Presidency.

Gorham (Massachusetts) and Mifflin (Pennsylvania) had been Presidents of the Continental Congress; Clymer (Pennsylvania), Continental Treasurer; Robert Morris (Pennsylvania), Superintendent of Finances; Sherman (Connecticut), a member of the Board of War and Ordnance, all in the Continental Congress.

We might add, as among the most distinguished of this group, the other Morris (Governor) from Pennsylvania, and the other Pinckney (Charles Cotesworth) from South Carolina.

There were many other distinguished men. They were distinguished before the time of the Convention; they won great distinction after. Men of affairs and influence, they were in their respective Colonies, later States. They were all seasoned patriots of loftiest patriotism. They were not backwoodsmen from the far-off frontiers, not one of them.

What a group of men of surpassing abilities, attainments, experience, and achievements! There has not been another such group of men in all the one hundred seventy years of our history, no group that even challenged the supremacy of this group. Gladstone solemnly declared:

"The American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."

When God Plows His Furrow
When God puts his hand to the plow, his furrow is deep and straight, clear to the end. God gave us the heritage; ours is the duty to cherish and protect it. We have, as a people, a special relationship to these men and their work.

In a revelation to Joseph at Kirtland at the time of some of the darkest days in Missouri (December 16, 1833), when there seemed to be no protection for the Saints from the civil authorities, the Lord spoke. He told the people to continue to "importune for redress.

"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

"Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."(D&C 101:77-80.)

A little time before this, the Lord declared that the constitutional "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me," and that the people should "renounce war and proclaim peace." (August 6, 1833, ibid., 98:5, 16.)

When (1833) the Lord gave these approving revelations, the Constitution with its coterminous Bill of Rights, was almost fifty years old. Two amendments only had then been made; one (1798) concerned the Federal judicial power, the other (1804) the election of President and Vice President. Some thirty years later (1865, 1868) came the next two amendments terminating slavery and guaranteeing citizenship and its protection, so meeting the principle declared by the Lord in 1833 regarding bondage of men, one to another.

In the prayer of dedication of the Kirtland Temple, the Prophet prayed: ". . . may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever." (Ibid., 109:54, March 27, 1836.)

In 1835 (August 17), at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, a far-reaching "Declaration of Belief regarding Governments and Laws in general" was adopted by the Saints. (Ibid., 134.)

These Framers of the Constitution were the men whom the Lord "raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood," making it ready for the blessings proclaimed for all.

Preparation of Framers
No more clearly does it appear that Moses was so trained in the royal Egyptian courts that he could lead ancient Israel out of bondage, or that Brother Brigham was so trained, in directing the exodus of the Saints from Missouri to Nauvoo, that he could lead modern Israel from the mobbings and persecutions of the East to the freedom of the mountain fastnesses of the West; neither one was more clearly trained for his work than these Framers were trained for theirs -- rich in intellectual endowment and ripened in experience. They were equally as the others in God's hands; he guided them in their epoch-making deliberations in Independence Hall.

The Framers were deeply read in the facts of history; they were learned in the forms and practices and systems of the governments of the world, past and present; they were, in matters political, equally at home in Rome, in Athens, in Paris, and in London; they had a long, varied, and intense experience in the work of governing their various Colonies; they were among the leaders of a weak and poor people that had successfully fought a revolution against one of the great Powers of the earth; there were among them some of the ablest, most experienced and seasoned military leaders of the world.

As to all matters under consideration by the Convention, the history of the world was combed for applicable experiences and precedents.

The whole training and experiences of the colonists had been in the Common Law, with its freedoms and liberties even under their kings. They knew the functions of legislative, executive, and judicial arms of government.

Some Constitutional Principles
Time is not available now to consider in detail the work of the Convention, nor the Constitution that was framed. A very few principles only, and they among the basic ones, may be mentioned. You all know them; they are now merely recalled to your minds. Sometimes we miss the import of them.

Three Independent Branches
First--The Constitution provided for three departments of government -- tide legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

These departments are mutually independent the one from the other.
Each department was endowed with all the powers and authority that the people through the Constitution conferred upon that branch of government --the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, respectively.

No Encroachment by One Branch Upon Another
No branch of the government might encroach upon the powers conferred upon another branch of government. In order to forestall foreseeable encroachments, the Convention provided in the Constitution itself for a very few invasions by one or the other, into one of the other departments, to make sure that one department should not absorb the functions of the other or encroach thereon, or gain an overbalancing power and authority against the other. These have been termed "checks and balances."

Non-delegation of Powers
A third principle that was inherent in all the provisions of the Constitution was that none of the departments could delegate its powers to the others. The courts of the country have from the first insisted upon the operation of this principle. There have been some fancy near-approaches to such an attempted delegation, particularly in recent years, and some unique justifying reasoning therefore but the courts have consistently insisted upon the basic principle, which is still operative.

An examination of the records of the Convention will show how anxiously earnest the Framers were to set up these and other principles of free government.

No Kings in America
The Convention seems to have experienced no really serious difficulty in setting up a judiciary department, nor, in certain aspects, the legislative department with its powers, until it came to those powers, which dealt with matters that in some governments had been regarded as belonging to the executive. You will recollect that practically all of these Framers had suffered under George III and his Minister, Lord North. So they abandoned the British model, for, as Randolph said, ". . . the fixt genius of the people of America required a different form of Government." This ruled out royalty.

It might be noted that Washington, as the Revolution closed, had definitively scotched at Newburgh, the kingship idea.

Kings and America
Of course, the Framers did not know (no living mortal then knew) that centuries before a prophet of the Lord had declared as to America:

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

Nor did the Framers know (again, no living mortal then knew) that centuries after this prophecy, but still centuries before the Framers met, another prophet had declared:

"And this land shall, be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles." (2 Nephi 10:11.)

The unhappy, short-lived experiences of the Dom Pedros in Brazil and of Maximilian in Mexico seem the exceptions that prove the rule. The Spirit of the Lord was leading.

The National Executive
In providing for the executive department, there was considerable discussion as to whether the executive department should be one person or several. Commenting upon a proposal for three, Randolph said their unity would be "as the foetus of monarchy."

Who should choose, elect, or appoint (the terms were used almost interchangeably) the Chief Executive was exhaustively debated; so was the problem of the length of his term, from one year, to Hamilton's during "good behaviour," including the question whether he should be ineligible for re-election; and whether he should be subject to impeachment.

Power to Declare War
But one of their most searching examinations related to the war powers of government, including the power to declare war. It became clear very early in the debates that as Chief Executive, the President should execute the laws passed by Congress. But he was also made Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the State Militia when called into the service of the United States. The delegates were fearfully anxious over this function of government. There was one suggestion that the Commander in Chief should not personally go into the field with the troops, so fearful were they of his power.

Where War Powers Rest
But in whom should rest the so-called war powers? This was the urgent problem. It soon became clear that the Convention was unalterably opposed to endowing the President with these war powers; it was conceded he should have the power to repel invasions, but not to commence war, which meant he could not declare war.

Chief Executives Conceived as Plain Human Beings
Some of the arguments made in this connection, involving the possibility of a military usurper, remind one of the potential calamities pictured by Lincoln in his prophetic Lyceum Address, where he sketched what an ambitious, fame-and-power-seeking executive might do.

Various other potential actions by the executive were explored. Future Presidents of the Republic were conceived as including men capable of doing the things that ambitious men in power had done over the ages. Men were still human, had the same urges and ambitions. The earnest effort was to make as nearly impossible as could be, the malfeasances of the past by men in high executive office in the future; and seemingly perhaps beyond everything else as a practical matter, to prevent the President from taking us into war of his own volition. The Framers therefore provided that the war powers, including the declaration of war, should rest exclusively in the Congress, both by express provisions, and, as the record shows, by the conscious intent of the Framers.

The Net Position of the National Executive
The net result may be stated thus: as Chief Executive the President was to enforce the laws passed by Congress, including those passed by Congress in the exercise of the war powers that were explicitly and exclusively possessed by Congress; as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of the States when called into the actual service of the United States, he was to direct the military operations thereof in the field, with the powers incident thereto.

These principles should never be forgotten by any free, liberty-loving American, the kind of American the Constitution and the Bill of Rights make of us, and in which they were designed to protect us.

The People Are Sovereign
Furthermore, under our form of government, we the people of the United States, as the Preamble to the Constitution declares, formed this government. We alone are sovereign. We are wholly free to exercise our sovereign will in the way we prescribe. The sovereignty is not personal, as under the Civil Law. The Constitution expressly provides the only way in which we may change our Constitution.

We may well repeat again: We the people have all the powers, we have not delegated away to our government, and the institutions of government have such powers and those only as we have given to them. The total residuum of powers, including all rights and liberties not given up by us to Federal or State Governments, is still in us, to remain so till we constitutionally provide otherwise. Under the Civil Law that basically governs Continental Europe, the people have only such rights as a personal sovereign or his equivalent bestows, the residuum remaining in him or them. Wherever and whenever powers are exercised by any person or branch of our government that are not, granted by the Constitution, such powers are to that extent usurpations.

The Constitution and Ourselves
Will not each of you ask yourself this question: What would probably have happened if Joseph Smith had been born and had attempted to carry on his work of the Restoration of the Gospel and the Holy Priesthood, if he had been born and had sought to go forward in any other country in the world?

Must we go far to seek why God set up this people and their government, the only government on the face of the earth, since the Master was here, that God has formally declared was set up at the hands of men whom he raised up for that very purpose, and the fundamental principles of which he has expressly approved?

Constitution Is Part of My Religion
Having in mind what the Lord has said about the Constitution and its Framers, that the Constitution should be "established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh," that it was for the protection of the moral agency, free agency, God gave us, that its "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind," all of which point to the destiny of the free government our Constitution provides, unless thrown away by the nations-having in mind all this, with its implications, speaking for myself, I declare that the divine sanction thus repeatedly given by the Lord himself to the Constitution of the United States as it came from the hands of the Framers with its coterminous Bill of Rights, makes of the principles of that document an integral part of my religious faith. It is a revelation from the Lord. I believe and reverence its God-inspired provisions. My faith, my knowledge, my testimony of the Restored Gospel, based on the divine principle of continuous revelation, compel me so to believe. Thus has the Lord approved of our political system, an approval, so far as I know, such as he has given to no other political system of any other people in the world since the time of Jesus.

The Constitution, as approved by the Lord, is still the, same great vanguard of liberty and freedom in human government that it was the day it was written. No other human system of government, affording equal protection for human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, has yet been devised or vouchsafed to man. Its great principles are as applicable, efficient, and sufficient to bring today the greatest good to the greatest number, as they were the day the Constitution was signed. Our Constitution and our Government under it were designed by God as an instrumentality for righteousness through peace, not war.

Our Constitutional Destiny
Speaking of the destiny that the Lord has offered to mankind in his declarations regarding the scope and efficacy of the Constitution and its principles, we may note that already the Lord has moved upon many nations of the earth so to go forward. The Latin American countries have followed our lead and adopted our constitutional form of government, adapted to their legal concepts, without compulsion or restraint from us. Likewise, the people of Canada in the British North America Act have embodied great principles that are basic to our Constitution. The people of Australia have likewise followed along our governmental footpath. In Canada and in Australia, the great constitutional decisions of John Marshall and his associates are quoted in their courts and followed in their adjudications. I repeat, none of this has come because of force of arms. The Constitution will never reach its destiny through force. God's principles are taken by men because they are eternal and true and touch the divine spirit in men. This is the only true way to permanent world peace, the aspiration of men since the beginning. God never planted his Spirit, his truth, in the hearts of men from the point of a bayonet.

The Framers had their dark days, in their work. There were discouragement’s, there were hours of near hopelessness for some. Yet, as they were engaged in God's work, and he was at the helm, we know it was as certain as the day dawn that Satan would be there also, with his thwarting designs.

But I see in their divers views, their different concepts, even the promotion of their different local interests, not the confusion which challenged Franklin, but a searching, almost meticulous study and examination of the fundamental principles involved, and the final adoption of the wisest and best of it all I see the winnowing of the wheat, the blowing away of the chaff.

Franklin's Prayer
On one of these dark days, the venerable Franklin, ripe in years and in experience, arose and spoke to the Convention (June 28, 1787). Said he:

"The small progress we have, made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other – our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is me-thinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

"In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend, or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest." So spoke Franklin.

My Witness
Out of more years, but of far, far less wisdom and experience, I echo Franklin's testimony "that God governs in the affairs of men," and that without his concurring aid we shall build in vain, and "our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and, bye word down to future ages."

I bear my testimony that without God's aid, we shall not preserve our political heritage neither to our own blessing, nor to the blessing of our posterity, nor to the blessing of the downtrodden peoples of the world.

In broad outline, the Lord has declared through our Constitution his form for human government. Our Own prophets have declared in our day the responsibility of the Elders of Zion in the preservation of the Constitution. We cannot, guiltless, escape that responsibility. We cannot be laggards, nor can we be deserters.

On the back of the chair in which Washington sat as President during the Convention, was carved a half-hidden sun, showing just above a range of hills. As the signing of the Constitution was about over, Franklin observed to some fellow delegates:

"I have often and often, in the course of the session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that (sun) behind the President, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to know that it is a rising, and not a setting sun."

Such was the prophecy that marked the closing of the greatest political convention of all time for the Lord was there working out his purposes in a system he could endorse.

God give us the power, each of us, to enshrine in our hearts the eternal truths of our Constitution; that come what may, we shall never desert these truths, but work always and unceasingly that, as Lincoln said, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Such is my prayer, and I ask it in, the name of Jesus. Amen (9)