Member Training – Information You Can Trust

Member training from July 22nd 2025.

This week, Ben emphasized that true independence begins with cultural unity, and without it, both political and economic independence are impossible. We discussed how the Founders were in perfect agreement on the powers of government—not divided as popular narratives claim—and how unity of purpose and values is essential for building Zion and resisting tyranny. Drawing on insights from Pufendorf, Orson Spencer, and Brigham Young, we explored the principle that people of like interests must separate from those of opposing interests to prevent moral and philosophical corruption. I then traced the history and controversy surrounding John Taylor’s 1886 revelation, showing how it was suppressed for decades, then quietly validated by the Church—demonstrating again that the information we share through Tree of Liberty Society is reliable and often ahead of the curve. We concluded with action steps toward cultural, economic, and political independence, and further vindication through newly revealed data connecting Epstein’s island to prominent Utah figures. As always, the goal is to equip each of us with truth we can trust to build a free, God-fearing society.

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors
https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/
https://www.dentistry4health.org
http://www.highercallingfirearms.com
http://www.americanappliancehvac.com
https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html

TRANSCRIPT

All right, just an eternal Father in heaven. We’re so grateful to this opportunity
to meet together. We ask that thy spirit be with us this evening. That the lesson
that is prepared will be
efficacious on our behalf and we’ll be able to Gleam on to the things we need to
do and actions we need to take as well as the spirit we need to have to build
Zion to build that kingdom we pray in the name of the worthy son, Jesus Christ,
amen.
– So independence, there’s different kinds of independence. It can be political, it
can be economic, but it can just be a lot of, there’s lots of different ways we
can be independent, but independence, true independence, starts with cultural
independence. That’s a very, very important part of building the other sections
because if you are not culturally independent, it will be virtually impossible,
if not totally impossible, to be politically and economically independent. Because if
the culture doesn’t match up to the ideals of the economic system or the political
system, you have the same problem of not being united and not being independent.
And so talking about that,
It’s a it’s a quote that I’ve given a lot in the trainings as well as in the
boot camps But I want to bring it up because it is so important for us to really
get instilled into us After he talks about you know why they build Government why
people come together to to form government. He says among those which join together
To form a government in a country. It is absolutely requisite.
So that means it’s absolutely required that there be a perfect consent and agreement
concerning the use of the means of government. So this is a lie that the conspiracy
tells us that the founding fathers got together and that they compromised on
principles. No, they were at a really a perfect consent. They were perfect agreement
on what the power of government was. The disagreement between the Federalists and the
anti -Federalists were that they believed that the door was being opened to violate
what they were agreed upon. And so to be able to be independent of tyranny and to
be able to have that cultural independence, it is necessary to have cultural unity.
And so we have one of that is to be united perfectly on the power of government.
He says if they do not agree with themselves, but are divided and separated in
their opinions, they will be divided into parties and will clash. That is this whole
book, the whole duty of man is a study on natural law, right? You throw something
up in the air, it’s going to fall down. If you form a government where the people
are not united on the power of government, we will see what we see today where you
have people that are in favor of, you know, full out communism versus people that
want fascism, you know, that’s the basic two -party system that we see today, and
they are clashing. And so we see this idea, you know, of course, as well between
those of us that want limited government and we want liberty and we want to be
able to protect those principles, we are in either a verbal clash or sometimes a
physical clash with those that think government should have all power. And so it is
essential that if we want to have peace, that we are united. And so how do you
get united? That’s an important thing. Like, I mean, sure, we might say, okay, that
sounds great, but here we are now and we’re not united. So now what? So in the
1840s,
we have what’s his name? Spencer, Orson Spencer. He is writing a letter to
Washington to get assistance, to get help, to get, you know, just to get the
government to leave them alone so they can separate themselves. He says that he’s
going to lay down the following principle which the friends to national union may do
well to consider. So I’m going to tell you a principle that you really need to
think about because this is important. The principle is this that men of congenial
interests should separate themselves from those of adverse of adverse interests and
pair off each to each. Okay, so congenial means friendly. Okay,
so those that people that are friendly interests together, they should separate and
pair off together away, right, separate themselves from those of adverse communists
should not, you know, mix together with people that believe in, in liberty,
they should separate all communists should gather together and they should do their
thing wherever they’re at and people that believe in liberty should go gather
somewhere else and be wherever they’re at. He says, “If you don’t do this,” he
says, “the promiscuous intermixture of heterogeneous bodies for the purpose of unity
and strength is like distant both from pure religion and sound philosophy.” So again,
the lie that we’re told today of the
is promiscuous, a .k .a. immoral, and it is something that,
as Pufendorf says, will lead to clashing. So if we want peace and we want our
cultural independence, we have to realize the importance of separating ourselves from
a culture and society that has adverse interests to us in what power government has
or in religion or in economics, whatever it is, that makes no sense for people that
are going to clash with one another to come together. And if they do,
what we have now is considered an immoral situation.
And so we look, right, these are some key principles. All independence starts with
cultural independence For the same reason good behavior is assisted by good
associations, right? So if you are intermixing, you know, if you’re a teenager and
you’ve got friends that are, you know, into drugs and alcohol and into crime That
is going to be a bad influence on you You were more likely to be influenced to
evil than you are to be an influence to them for good And so you don’t want to
associate with with people that have different interests than you because they will
tear you down. And so if we want really an independent country, we have to be able
to start to do that. If your culture allows for debauchery, debauchery will soon be
the norm and liberty will decay. And so for more information on that, go back to
the moral, cultural -based section. And to be successful, your society needs to have
a, I spelled that wrong, I apologize, have a sense of unity in purpose and values.
So not only, right,
this goes beyond just what the unity is on the powers of government,
but your purpose and the values of that culture need to be unified as well.
And of course, the conspiracy though teaches that our strength is in our diversity,
but we read in Jeremiah that the Lord says to remove out of the midst of Babylon,
that we are not to be intertwined with those adverse interests.
And so getting into economic independence, so cultural unity, right? It’s vital to
begin. And then but to be able to continue that, we need to expand that unity into
economic and political independence are essential to maintain the whole, right?
Yes,
Rod.
I just wanted to point out that diversity, literally, the word is the opposite of
unity. Right.
What was that? Say that again, Rod. The word diversity is literally the opposite of
unity.
Thank you, so
the kingdom of God cannot bring him young says the kingdom of God Cannot rise
independent of the Gentile nations until we produce Manufacture and make every article
of use convenience or necessity. So they separated themselves, right? physically So
they So from those that were of adverse interests and came to Utah, so they built
first that cultural unity and Then there’s in any saying that if we are going to
actually maintain this long term And we are not going to become slaves of the
culture then we have to start to Get into the economic sphere of manufacturing What
we need otherwise we’ll be dependent on them and then we will be slaves to them.
Simon.
You’re muted, Simon, just FYI.
Sorry, I’m going to unmute myself, sorry. I had a comment on Orson Spencer. I
actually got in touch with one of the direct ancestors of Orson Spencer Down where
I live She mentioned that his life story He was injured as a young man and his
community got together and paid for his education and he became one of the the most
the foremost
Advocates for for Liberty and I would highly recommend reading his books
his works and what he did. I’m glad that he was mentioned because he in the early
church history was a very strong advocate for some of these things and a highly
intelligent individual. Absolutely. Thank you. Mark,
I see your hand. Yes, I’m questioning whether you have these separate communities and
of course I mean, Marxism is also an economic system, not just cultural and social
system and a political system. But can you, can it be limited?
Can you, if you’re teaching people that tyranny is good and we should have a
tyrannical system here, and then there’s another community down the road that
practices individual rights and that they only rule government, can, With mobility
especially, can somebody from that one system that has been practicing and supporting
a tyrannical system be kept out of the other community? I mean, I’m thinking that,
you know, when you say united in the role of government, if you’re united, if
you’re separate but you have the wrong role of government, it can contaminate the
community. Uh, any thoughts on that? Right. So eventually everybody in that system
needs to be united on economics, culture, and, and, and the political form of
government. Otherwise it can leave and contaminate the other or they can act.
There’s so, um, was it Germanica? Yeah,
yeah, Germania By Tacitus really delves into how Germany was able to protect itself
from those types of things from from Rome And so they they had a lot of things
set up to prevent that type of thing from happening And so a self -defense here.
Are you talking about what year? What’s that? What year or years are you talking
about? Oh, so this is we’re talking like in the near the Yeah, during Caesar’s
time. So after Christ Right. Yeah, yeah,
hopefully just under a hundred years after Christ. Okay, and So yeah,
it’s essential. That’s why you know, we talk about You know talk about borders for
America I think that each state should have borders to ensure that state of Utah or
Nevada or Arizona I’ll have the ability to protect itself from those coming in with
adverse interests. Well, you’re talking like the Founding Fathers. That federal
government was, as you know, was given no power to have any immigration laws at
all.
So we need to, right, we apply cultural and economic consequences and multiply them
for political consequences. So If this is the situation that you have with economic
disunity and if you are meaning you’re dependent upon others,
you’re not independent, you’re dependent on others for your economic system, if you
are dependent on others for your liberty, then the consequences are magnified
tremendously.
And so effective application always starts with understanding. And so these are some
things I’d like to recommend for us to read, to build our understanding. And of
course the scriptures talk much about this. You look at ancient Israel and what they
did to ensure that outside cultures did not influence them. Very, very important. But
then we go to the whole duty of man by Pufendorf that I quoted from, Germany, by
Tacitus, The History of the Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford. The Administrative
Record Council of 50 Minutes from the Jealous Smith Papers. And the Mormon Rebellion
by David Bigler and Will Bagley. Those are great records to be able to go through
and to learn these principles. I highly, highly recommend. And then for actions,
right? Not just learning, but these are a few steps that We can do to start so
this is the end. This is the beginning because of how far we are from what I’m
talking about This is how we get there, right? We we first work to bring our
neighbors into a place where they desire liberty and will behave in a way that
allows them to have true Liberty so you’re you’re helping to build the understanding
of those that you decided to live Among you go to a place or you know if you’re
like hey, this is it. That’s a That’s a bit tall of a task. I live in Castro
District in San Francisco. This is not going to change. So let’s go somewhere else.
Let’s find a people that are already of this mindset and I’m gonna go there and
help them improve their efforts, what they’re working on, or work to find others to
establish such a geographic location and extract those from among you that would
violate those common principles. So you find people amongst you that they might be
at different geographic locations right now, but you’re like, “Hey, we’re all united
on these principles. Let’s go find a place that we can move to and we can start
to build upon these principles.” And then, of course, extricate yourself of those
that would go against those principles. And then another thing that even before you
maybe you get those first three steps the first thing you can do economic
independence is of course getting as much of your food the things that you need in
your day -to -day life you’re growing yourself in one way or another also use to get
out of the federal reserve system don’t use credit don’t even use federal reserve
notes as much as possible and use goldbacks or barter with people to get as many
of your services as possible And so yes, each of those by themselves aren’t going
to create this completely, but those are important first steps to get you used to
it, to get you learning what works and what doesn’t work, and to make it so that
the conspiracy has less power over you than it does right now. And so those are
the, those are important first steps to get in that direction. So look forward to
your thoughts and questions next week, but let’s get into training and talking about
how the Tree of Liberty Society brings you information that you can trust because
that’s what we’re doing is we’re trying to build understanding and adherence to the
principles that have built free nations, expose the Satanic conspiracy and build an
effective resistance to that conspiracy. That is why we were here. And so you need
to know that you can trust what it is that we’re saying and that you can use that
information to share with others because they’re not you’re not going to lose your
credibility with them because the information is trustworthy. Okay. So some things
happened recently in the news that referenced specifically information that was in the
book Invasion and I’m just going to quote from it. So this is in invasion and I’m
the page number I’m going to the the source I’m going to give you at the end of
it is the current combined edition reference. So as we Just some background before
we get to this is talking about how the government was going after the Latter -day
Saints in Utah and they were persecuting them and prosecuting them and throwing them
in jail And then you had members of the church that were putting pressure on the
leadership to get rid of the activities like plural marriage That was and the
kingdom of God that was being used by the government to go after individuals And so
as a result of the opposition from within a manifesto to abandon plural marriage was
presented to President Taylor on September 26, 1886. According to witnesses,
Taylor took the manifesto to the Lord, whereupon he received a revelation explaining,
“I the Lord am everlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated, nor
done away with, yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the
observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment, And yet I have borne with
them these many years because of the perilous times. And furthermore, it is pleasing
to me that men should use their free agency in these matters. I have not revoked
this law, nor will I.
So that revelation to John Taylor is very controversial, not really well known
amongst even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, just a
little bit of background that’s important context. So the Doctrine and Covenants is
what most people, especially members of the Church, are aware of, of where it’s a
compilation of revelations that were given to various leaders of the Church,
essentially from the 1820s till the 1910s.
And so, but What a lot of people don’t understand and don’t realize is that there
are dozens and dozens of the say at the Lord revelations given to Joseph, given to
bring him young, given to John Taylor, given to Wilford Woodruff that were never
canonized, meaning the organization did not vote on it to add it to their canon of
scripture and therefore was never included in the DNC. So an example of that would
be see 138, that was something that was given in 1918, but it wasn’t voted on
until 1978 and then included in the Canon of Scripture from that point forward.
So there are lots of examples of things that were given to church leaders that
never became officially in the Canon of Scripture. And the 1886 revelation to John
Taylor is an example of that and as I’m going to get into that that has been a
point of controversy and has made it and so you know a lot of people have found
it to not be something that is you know something that is fringe or not reliable
because it’s not in the official canon and so I’m going to give the history what
happened after September of 1886, and then what just happened recently,
something just happened very, very recently in the past few weeks, that is relevant
to this as we have in the book. Okay, so in the minutes of the apostles,
of the total apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter -day Saints, we have
recorded in November of 1886 in the first pregnancy office journal.
Feel free. Anybody has comments or anything questions. I want to make sure I’m not
moving head too fast. A letter was received from Dr. John Cook of Benjamin, Utah,
asking for a copy of the revelation given through President John Taylor in October
1886. So it was late September. So he’s referring to September 1886.
Brother George Reynolds was requested to send him a copy. So This is November. So
this is roughly a month and a half just under a month and a half after this is
given to John Taylor and people are already asking for copies and members of the 12
are being requested so to send individuals copies of the revelation and Then just
skip ahead a few years, 1890, the manifesto comes out discontinuing plural marriage
in the church, and during the first discussion, the 12 after that manifesto was
published. So September of 1890, John W. Taylor, who was the son of John Taylor,
brings up his father’s 1886 revelation to the other members of the 12.
And in April of 1892, so two years after that, at another meeting of the 12, John
W. Taylor again refers to his father’s 1886 revelation to the other members of the
12. So we have several instances where the 12 were notified of this revelation being
given and its contents. In 1909, Church historian Joseph Fielding Smith,
then makes a typewritten copy of the revelation. So in 1909 he was a member of the
12 but also a the historian for the church and he typed up a copy based on the
handwritten revelation.
Now we have John W. Taylor in 1905. He is removed from the quorum of the 12 due
to pressure from the Reed -Smoot hearings to show the government that the church
would submit to its laws regarding plural marriage. So because read because John W.
Taylor and another one, there was two that were moved in 1905 from the 12, the
other one is Matthias Cowley. And it was because so Reed Smoot, just in case I’m
going over everybody’s head. Reed Smoot was a member of the 12 that was elected by
the state legislature because it was prior to the 70th Amendment to the U .S.
Senate. And in the Constitution, the Senate is authorized to decide if they are
going to seat a Senator.
And so they had hearings because they’re like, okay, are the people of Utah, right?
Even though this is about a decade after we’ve become a state, are the people of
Utah, are they just a bunch of renegade lawbreakers? Can we trust them send a one
of their people, especially a leader of their church, to the Senate to pass laws
and vote on laws. And so it caused a lot of controversy because there was two
still two church leaders that were continuing to enter into plural marriages.
And so they entered a also this time they did a second manifesto saying we really
mean it this time, and they get rid of these two members of the 12. And then in
1911, the quorum of the 12 hold a excommunication trial for former Apostle John W.
Taylor for his continued practice of plural marriage after the 1890 and 1904
manifestos. Any questions?
I’ll make a sense.
We got mark. Yes. Yeah, some questions. Um, so apparently they just count down to
the beds. Was there any effort to argue that there were outlaws by trying to
impose. Statue laws that are null and void because there’s no authority in the in
the Constitution for them to be imposing. any kind of restrictions on marriage,
do you know if that was ever argued by the church? Oh, absolutely. There were
several court cases. And so what had happened was… Well, you said several court
cases. Are you talking about federal court? Yes. Oh, well, that’s the first mistake.
That’s exact. Well, and so that’s what happened was there were several because they
were a a territory. And so what they were saying was, “Well, we have the right to
make rules for territories because you’re not a state.” And so that’s one of the
ways that they, you know, basically… And that is a sticky wicked one, is the
territory. But once it was a state, then there’s… And so that’s,
and I cover that a little bit in the book, was that was what they did to become
a state. So in 1890s so that way by 1895 They’ve already gotten rid of it.
So they’re like, okay, we’ve gotten rid of it now You’ll let us become a state and
then because they were they were told that if you become a state Then you can make
your own rules, but by that point Everyone had already moved they’d already said,
okay, we’re not the church had already said we’re not doing that We gave in
already. We’re not doing that anymore. So we’re not gonna like bring it back now
that we’re a state Yeah, because they were forced church came in because that deal
was null and void they had It was under duress. It was an invalid contract and the
state constitution. They were forced to become a state They were forced to say that
they wouldn’t it was for that plural marriage was forever prohibited within the state
of utah Yeah, but that’s still statute and violation of constitution. So that
agreement was null and void Or it You can call it an extortion agreement. – Yes.
And so the Supreme Court in 1880, that happened if I remember correctly, with George
Reynolds case ruled, ruled, right, in quotations, that the First Amendment protected
your belief, but not your exercise, not how you practice your belief.
So that the government could not control what you believe. They can only control how
you practice that belief. And so that was what now is the precedent or the standard
that the government has set for religion. They can believe whatever you want. You
just can’t practice. Yeah, you can argue that argument and that wrong there too. But
that should be the argument. You have no authority over marriage. You have no
authority over
you know, according to the Constitution. And that’s it. And that argument can still
happen today. But of course, the church buckles under, and today’s church,
I’m sure they won’t change. But there’s still a valid argument today that they are
outlaws, the federal government’s outlaw, to outlaw that from the church. And the
church should be ashamed buckling under
a null and void statutes or court rulings. >> Yeah. Okay.
Simon.
>> Sorry, I had to take it off mute. So let me get this straight. The Congress
shall make no law establishing
respect, or basically prohibiting religion, or prohibiting the free exercise they’re
of. That’s what the First Amendment says. Yeah, that’s what I’m getting, or the
exercise they’re of, and yet they ruled it doesn’t mean the exercise they’re of.
Right, yeah, it’s nonsensical, yeah. Yeah, that’s what I was just trying to clarify.
Yep. Rod.
I just want to answer Mark’s question as well, which is or just to mention that
there’s actually a lot more to the story that there’s not time to go into today as
far as back story on why the church buckled under and things like that. So why
they why they gave into this, there’s actually a lot more to the story. So, yeah,
Ben’s got a lot of stuff that’s really relevant just to the discussion tonight. But
there’s a lot more that’s left out. There’s no effort to go to the state courts,
right? Because at that point, all of the state, the under the Utah so -called peace
agreement, the federal government prohibited the Mormons from having their own governor
and from having their own judges. They were all federal appointees. And this is
after Utah was a state. No, no, no, no, this is before this is why we’re while
they’re a territory Right, but once after they came a state. It was already a mood
point They had already given up and they didn’t they had no desire to go back and
then and that includes the state legislature and the state courts Yeah, wow Yeah
Sounds a lot like today America
So in So, in that trial where John W.
Taylor’s membership was being put to question, you have this apostle on the left in
the transcription of the trial, Hiram M. Smith says, “In view of the fact that the
church has taken a very emphatic stand against this thing,” meaning plural marriage,
“and said that it cannot be done. And still some of the people have assumed to
perform and encourage these marriages. And in the face of this position, do you
think they are justified in this? Okay, do they? So he’s asking, John W.
Taylor, are they justified in still continuing to enter into plural marriages? Good
question. What’s that? Good question. So John W. Taylor responds, I do not want to
discuss my own case. It is up to you and the brethren to pass upon that.
“My father received a revelation, which, however, was never presented to the church.”
And I refer to this not because it is a revelation to my father. I don’t think a
revelation because it came through him was any greater than one received through any
other president of the church, but because it seems to pertain to this question. And
then the revelation was read aloud to the entire quorum. Okay, so we’ve got several
instances where you have all of the twelve are aware of the revelation, they’ve had
it read to them, it is not a secret to them, they’ve written it down, they’ve type
-ridden it, written it, right? And so now we go to the 1910s to the 1930s and
photocopies of the revelation begin to circulate more broadly. Okay,
this is a scan scan of that as it was distributed during this time period.
I don’t know how they did photocopies back then, but some kind of a stereotype or
whatever you would call back then,
and then just make
sure. But I mean, I don’t know how they distribute it like this. I don’t, because
this is like, this is a negative, a negative of the thing was given so was started
to be passed around and so that of course caused controversy because people are
saying well look what this says compared to what is going on and so lots of
different questions were being asked and it was causing a lot of consternation and
troubles for the church and so in 1933 an official statement from the first
presidency of the church was issued It was published in the desert news and it was
distributed to all of the wards and stakes in the church to be read in sacrament
meeting. So everyone read this and had it read to them if they were members of the
church. And so it reads in part, right? This is 17th of June 1933. I’m going to
quote some relevant things to what we’ve talked about already, right? Right? Says
that it is alleged that on September 26 and 27 1886 President John Taylor received
a revelation from the Lord the purported text of which is given in publications
circulated apparently by or at the instance of this same organization as To this
pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the church contain it.
No such revelation The archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any
evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given. From the
personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the
presiding quorums of the church, meaning the twelve, from the absence in the church
archives of any evidence whatsoever, justifying any belief that such a revelation was
given, We are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.
Wow. Okay.
So completely denying that it existed, even though they were all at meetings where
it was discussed several times and that they were, you know,
told to send out copies to and and they that you have, especially John, I mean,
Joseph Fielding I’m writing a copy of it Simon and then we’ll go to Mark.
So I guess like in my life I’m realizing that you can’t be as a BS or and I’m
realizing so many loopholes in this statement
Nor even any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given
From the personal knowledge of some of us.
There’s a loophole in that statement.
It’s like, “Oh, yeah, not all of us have this, so some of us don’t have it, so
it’s a loophole.” Maybe, but I think the intent is clear and it says from the
absence in the church archives, which is clearly false because they at least had
typewritten copies of it. Right, it’s just to me – There seems to be some definite
dissent.
– I didn’t get that. I didn’t get that. What did Simon say? And then you responded
just now. – Oh, so Simon basically said that they were lawyering. They were using
some wiggle room language where they’re like, you know, they were of course implying
one thing, but if they were to be called on it later on, they would have an out.
And then I said, well, the rest of it, the context is obviously, I don’t think
there’s a lot of wiggle room with the rest of the sentence, I would say that he’s
right when it says some of us, but when you get to the rest of the sentence, I
don’t think there’s any wiggle room.
Thank you, Micah. I just think it should be accepted as fact that they were lying
and they know that they were lying. And so the question is why? – Sure. Mark,
go ahead. – Yeah, but late in phoning us, that should have been the issue is how
dishonest this representative or the church is. Not only when they’re saying,
well, some of us didn’t believe that, the other part, they were saying, if it’s not
in our records, the revelation never occurred. What kind of an argument is that?
Whoever wrote that or whoever that represents, the 12 or whoever at the top of the
church, they should be executed for their character dishonesty.
One other last point, for me, the biggest issue, not the revelation, is that when
you allow government in principle and ideology to be able to regulate,
to control marriage, then you’ve invited, in principle, and precedent,
in principle, them to completely control marriage at whatever way they want to. They
can have homosexual marriages. They can have those, what was it called in Braveheart?
– Ramanaka. – Ramanaka, they can force they uh to rape them on the night of their
uh uh you know their uh weddings and things like that so that’s the biggest issue
is the state of these the church because of mainly the church but the state
government as well they basically said you decide uh whether our bids are going to
be raped you’re going to decide who we’re going to have to sex with uh you know
all those kinds of things in principle have been turned over to government that
don’t you Don’t you agree that that’s arguably the biggest issue of all? Yeah,
it’s the abrogation of a religious right as far -reaching implications that are
troubling. Well, it’s a religious right, but it’s an individual and a naval right to
decide. An individual religious yes for the religion yes but but yeah it’s religious
but it’s beyond religious just religious yeah not institutional but I didn’t yeah I
didn’t mean institutional for sure
so and then we fast forward to the 1970s and you have Markey Peterson in a book
he says to justify their own meaning Mormon fundamentalists justify their own
rebellion.
This is a new word I had to look up today, but it’s basically rebellious.
Recalcitrant. Recalcitrant. Basically means rebellious. These rebel, or not,
I’m sorry, they were like argumentative. They were basic rubberousers. They used to
change. Brethren devised a scheme which they hoped would frustrate the stand of the
church on plural marriage. They concocted a false revelation allegedly given to
President John Taylor in 1886 in which pretended secret authority was given to
continue plural marriages. So he says he charges them of concocting and making up
something, the document, and that it was pretend that pretended things were,
you know, to continue, floor marriage was given. So can argument, they’re trying to,
they’re hoping to frustrate people. They’re trying to hurt people’s emotions. I mean,
this guy is so funny. He should be starved and petted and set out town.
It’s concocted and false is what he says. Okay. And so but then we have here in
just last about just Over a month ago, the church on their church history catalog
releases an official high resolution scan of the original handwritten revelation that
they previously stated was concocted or pretend. And in the description,
right? You can see right there, it says John Taylor Revelation. And so what they
went from being concocted and pretend is now They’ve quietly stated is was was given
and then just a few weeks couple of weeks ago Just this month July and a statement
to Kuerr. The church says the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints Recently
catalog digitized and made publicly available a private writing by President John
Taylor on September 22nd 1886 which has been termed a revelation in contrast with
the 1890 manifesto, which ended plural marriage. This private writing was never
presented to the leadership or members of the church, and thus has never qualified
and been treated as authoritative. Its current release is part of the church history
department’s efforts to more consistently release the historical records of past
general authorities, okay? So what we have, you know, just as a brief down of the
history of the occurrence of the revelation, the distribution of the revelation,
the response to the revelation, and then now today the acceptance of it as being
legitimately from John Taylor. And so as I wrote in Invasion,
you know, that it was legitimate because we have the scans of it, it was already
tested, even though that they continued until just this year when it was written,
it was controversial. But we just, as further evidence of it,
that we work hard to ensure that readers and viewers of the Tree of Liberty Society
provide you with the most accurate information that you can use to come to your own
conclusions. When the establishment says something
that we say isn’t reliable, that we say, and they call what we say unreliable, you
can rest assured that we have done everything we can to assure it’s validity. And
our information, of course, once again, has been vindicated. So Mark and then Simon.
– Yeah, so they’re willing to expose the conspiracy, but they discounted by calling
it history. It’s all implicitly saying there will be no political change because of
this revelation at this late date and we are to only consider the history but we
are not to allow it to justice regarding it according to our laws and everybody
should look at it as only history and not anything that should lead to political
action. Yeah and no statement you know saying when we call those people liars we,
you know, we were wrong to do so, anything like that. – You could change, go right
back to plural marriages based on that. But they’re saying, no, we won’t do that,
we’ll just consider it history. – All right, Simon. – Well,
Mark just said what I was gonna say, exactly what I was gonna say, so thanks.
– Yeah, you can. – No, good. All right, so a little bit of a shift change,
but still along the lines of us, again, being vindicated, and that our information
is trustworthy. We have Jeffrey Epstein and John Huntsman. So in the book,
again, on page 102, we talk about John Huntsman being in Jeffrey Epstein’s little
black book of clients. Little scan, and then we also have the entire black
unredacted black book in the membership portal on the website that you can download
and look through yourself. Just a couple of weeks ago, a video put out by Wired
came out that gives us some things to also give us additional background on that
I’m going to share. So I apologize. We’re going to go a little bit over, but I
think it’s important. So I’m going to show this. And then if you have to go I
understand.” Here I spearheaded a wired investigation that uncovered the data of
almost 200 mobile phones belonging to visitors to his infamous pedophile island. The
data was so precise we were able to map the paths of these visitors to within
centimeters including their neighborhoods, buildings of origin, and the paths they took
to get to the island. These digital trails document the numerous trips of wealthy
and influential individuals, seemingly undeterred by Epstein’s status as a convicted
sex vendor. Wired’s analysis of the data is ongoing and it raises profound questions
about privacy and surveillance. It’s worth noting that the data reveals a regular
flow of traffic to and from Little St. James between 2016 and 2019. A lot of
people were visiting the island even after Epstein had pleaded guilty in 2008 and
served jail time for procuring a minor for prostitution. If we keep following the
data trail and we widen our view, we’ll see that the tracking of visitors continues
once they have left the island and presumably gone back home. The near -intelligence
data we uncovered pinpoints 166 locations throughout the United States in 80 cities
across 26 states.
Okay, so just a short clip of it, but as you look at this map, you can see at
the dots in the United States. So you have lots of, you know, several states having
multiple dots, some of them having larger, which means there’s more than one person
from that city. And so that was an important thing for us to look at. But if you
look at Utah, it’s got just one small little dot. So what I wanted to do was to
look at cities or states with only one visitor tracked And then correlating that
with Epstein’s black book and say, there’s only one person from that state that is
in his book, because then you can narrow it down from that right of who went there
and so. But what I found was that the only the only place that had that was Utah.
All of the other examples had multiple either, either they didn’t have anybody from
that state listed in the black book, or they had multiple people from that state in
the black book and so narrowing it down that much is going to be, you know, that’s
going to be very revealing. So, again, we have John Huntsman and his wife,
Mary in the black book, as well as only one only one name from Utah, and only one
dot covering the state of Utah
nice work of inductive reasoning and so yeah so we can we can we can deduce what
that might mean but it seems pretty blatantly obvious what that would what that
would mean
yes yes you have the ability to take that to Illinois and see if there is a red
dot in the very center of the state? So those dots, well, I don’t know how general
those dots were because it was, you know, it’s not like going over his city, but
you have Illinois right there and there’s no dots. I can’t see it very well,
but do you see any? There are no dots within the state of Illinois. And so if
there’s anybody in Illinois that’s associated with Epstein, They traveled from a
different location.
Okay, thank you. On the earlier map, I noticed the biggest area of red was down
where Trump lives. Florida on the previous map, you can see Florida. And this map,
but it was on the previous map. It was the greatest conservation red. Yep.
So it’s, we want to make sure that you can trust everything that we share because
I know how important it is because the stuff that we talk about is very serious.
And so I want to, you know, I want my reputation to be secure and so I’m not
going to share anything that is not something that can be verified. And so just
kind of going through those two examples. The history I felt was really important on
the 1886 because of the controversial nature behind it and the emotional nature of
it and of that topic. It was important to give that background and the history that
is public record and easily accessible to be able to get that information.
And so I wanted to go over that so that we could have that for you and so that
we can have these examples of things that have been said by, you know, the
establishment that are false that we now know are true and that we were ahead of
the game and that the information that we had was accurate from the very beginning.
So Mark, yes. Yeah, we could be very much set up that they’re going to release
some files and they’re all going to, you know, it may be a little bit more than
they reported already, and that’ll be it, and it’ll show that they are the good
guys. We finally released the file, because every single file could be doctored, just
like the Kennedy murders and so on, assassination. And this is a common tactic of
the conspiracy disinformation information tactic. They’ll focus on an individual. They
won’t focus on the mass tyranny that’s been imposed on America and the world.
But they’ll focus on an individual, and he can get us to make a big deal. One
example, this was the Hammons up in, what was that? Oregon. Yeah,
where he pardoned them. And what happens is that one person,
in terms of the conspiracy, achieving its goals is nothing, but it’s a way of
getting political mileage for the politician that does that. In the meantime, they
don’t talk at all about Rob Bogovic, one of the most leftist governors,
gun control governors that was selling the state off and extorting and fraud and
everything. And he was a must liberal Democrat governor and yet, you hear hardly
anything about Trump giving him a pardon. Yep. So in the in the comments is a
question is it possible that plug and me will become legal in the future. Not very.
And the state of Utah, especially because of the process, you’d have to get the
legislature approval and then it would have to go through a initiative on the ballot
and get the votes there. There are states, there are other states whether it is
decriminalized. And so it’s, I would say that it’s something that I, you know, that
you would, you know, that’s already decriminalized in several states. If it being
decriminalized in the state of Utah, it would have to be the constitutional
amendment. So I find it
Rod.
Thank you. Well, wouldn’t Utah also have to have the input of the federal
government? Isn’t that also what it says in the Constitution? No, it just says
forever prohibited. It was one of the requirements to become a state. But once you
become a state, there’s an example of this in Arizona. They had the initiative
process in their state constitution and the federal government said you to take that
out if we’re going to approve your statehood, so they took it out, they became a
state, and then their first session after becoming a state added the initiative
process back into their state constitution. Yeah, Rob, I don’t know if you know for
sure, but any federal laws, whether it’s case law or whether it’s statute law,
all know and void according to our founding fathers. They have no authority at all,
so it doesn’t matter whether they have any state federal laws saying we can’t have
polygamy in this state, because according to our founders and the section that we
reviewed last week on nullification, they’re completely illegal, unlawful,
and according to our founders and fathers, null and void. No, you’re 100 % correct.
It’s just that we don’t live under constitutional government anymore so you know
there’s a ridiculous game but I wanted to address something that you were asking
about earlier I wanted to apply I think you may be on to something as far as why
they they released these documents but um we didn’t Ben didn’t really mention how it
was done and the church didn’t publicly release it it was the church historical
department just quietly adding it to their website with their archives they didn’t
say anything and I feel like that was so that the church wouldn’t have to come out
and release an official statement it would just quietly be out there and possibly
for the purposes that you said but they didn’t say anything but there are a lot of
people that actually monitor the the files that get added to that site. And so
people noticed and there’s been a lot of discussion and all that’s been stated by
the church was, as far as I know, was that teeny little blurb that Ben read
earlier tonight. So pretty interesting the way that they did it. They were very
public about denouncing it in the past, but then they very quietly admitted to its
reality just just a couple weeks ago. This is one of their MOs for something
historical event that was a conspiracy at the time. 20 years,
30 years, 40, 50 years later, they reveal it at a point and how they reveal it,
that there’ll be no political mileage that will lead to any change. And then by
doing that, it’s no longer a conspiracy. See, we came out, but you came out in
such of way that no justice is going to occur. We see that with Pearl Harbor to
some extent, the conspiracy that, you know, our government with Churchill killed our,
you know, almost 3 ,000 of our mainly naval sailors.
And we see it in other ways, too. A federal reserve years later,
a bunch of was coming out, but it was at a point where they could just say, this
is history. Nothing to look at here. We’re not going to do anything. And nobody,
no justice is going to occur. Simon, go ahead. Same thing as Trump.
Yeah, yeah, very much what agree with what Mark’s saying about that. But I also
feel like this is a, this is a distraction because How often have I heard,
like, even from people who are like, I’m very aware of and was good friends with
Cody Brown when he was before he got went public on TLC and he talked very often
about how if we just legalize plural marriage, then it would take away morality
problems like like the Tiger Woods issue and how it’s very much in line with this
woke, they’re trying to make it woke rather than sacred and I just feel like it
would be an absolute mockery of its intention if it was even legalized or
decriminalized. It’s like I just stay out of it, for the government to stay out of
it. – Yeah.
Okay. Mark. – Yeah, I don’t think the discussion here is at all. I think we should
know that about whether we like polygamy or not. The discussion is all about the
corruption. It’s about the violation of the law. It’s
And and and these checks and balances falling one after another to tyranny These are
the bigger issues. It’s not whether we like Fligamy or not That is you you do you
agree or disagree here? Yeah, it plug me that that’s an irrelevant part of this
issue It’s and just like in the book. It was in that was that was just the
context around it not relevant to the larger picture
So So, let’s go ahead and wrap up. I appreciate everybody staying on and appreciate
your patience. I hope this was beneficial and of interest to you. We can go into
more questions or comments on this if you’d like afterwards, but. Or we just get
into other topics, which would be fantastic in the open forum. Let’s go and close
up and we’ll have a closing prayer. Rod, would you say the closing prayer for us?
Yeah, of course. Thanks, Heavenly Father. We’re thankful once again to be able to
meet tonight. We’re grateful for the information that Ben has been putting together
for us and we’re thankful once again to see these things vindicated and we pray
that we’ll be able to get this information out to more people and help them to
understand and to see the bigger picture so they can understand what is going on
around them and not be deceived. We pray for thy spirit to be with us in all that
we do. Going forward, be with all those who are not able to join us tonight, that
they may do so in the future. And please bless our efforts to bring more people to
this organization. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.