When Will Churches Be Empowered to Stop Tyranny? 

When Will Churches Be Empowered to Stop Tyranny? The simple answers is this: when they are willing to give up their tax-exempt status.

In 1954, then-senator Lyndon Baines Johnson sponsored and promoted legislation that added Section 501(c)(3) to the United States Internal Revenue code. By requiring churches to incorporate so that donations received are exempt from taxes (and so that donors may deduct donations to their churches at tax time) the government now essentially "licenses" churches. If a church is found in violation of any of the 501(c)(3) provisions it risks losing its tax-exempt status, incurring "excise taxes", and/or paying back taxes from which it was previously exempt.

The IRS website page entitled, Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) starts out with this leading paragraph:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. See link to IRS page.

In other words, a church's tax exempt status precludes the church from criticizing government policies or officials.

By incorporating and obtaining 501(c)(3) status, a church self-imposes a gag order. It is no longer free to advocate the will of God if God's will doesn't align with that of the government.

When will a church be free to criticize government policies, laws, and mandates? When will a church be able to resist unlawful mandates, unconstitutional laws, and immoral policies dictated by governmental bodies or officials? When will a church be free to advocate for policies that align with the Ten Commandments and fully worship God rather than the state?

Answer: Only when a church is willing to give up its tax exempt status and thereby become a pariah to the state. When that day comes, such a church will no doubt face major persecution at the hand of the government. But it will also then be able to draw down the unlimited, unconquerable powers of Heaven. What a glorious day of miracles that will be!

#     #     #

Chuck Baldwin weighs in. See link.

History of 501c3 Government Licensing of Churchs by David J Stewart

 Nullification & Secession: The Rechabite Principle as a Political Solution

Here is a link to an excellent article on why secession and nullification are indispensable rights and strategies when seeking to correct political injustice. The article includes this crucial declaration: "...the Constitution was ratified...with the understanding that the Court could not strike down State law."

But what recourse do the people have when the US Supreme Court strikes down state and local laws—or when any branch of the federal government creates unconstitutional laws, edicts, regulations, mandates, etc?

Answer: Nullification. And if that doesn't work, secession.

To illustrate the point that the Supreme Court cannot strike down state laws, Earl Starbuck, the author of the article linked above, says, "In other words, you have two options. Either you, the people of Vermont or California or Alabama or Tennessee, or whatever State you live in, write the laws by which you are governed (through your elected legislatures), or the Supreme Court writes your laws for you. Is that self-government? Is that liberty?"

By way of defining nullification, Earl Starbuck writes this:

Nullification. The doctrine of nullification is the idea that when the Federal government exceeds its constitutional authority, the State governments possess both the right and the duty to interpose their power and authority between the people and the tyrannical usurpation of the Federal government. As sovereign and equal members of a compact, nullifying laws, rulings and edicts which exceed the delegated authority of the Federal government is one of those things sovereign States may of right do. Moreover, because all just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, the right of nullification is reserved to the sovereign States by Amendments Nine and Ten.

So where does secession come in? Well, if after a state or states dutifully exercise the people's right to nullify any particular federal law (or edict, regulation, ruling, or mandate, etc.) the federal government still tries in any way to enforce the nullified law(s) then that state (or those states) have the God-given right to secede. 

The American colonies rightfully and successfully seceded from Great Britain in the late 1700s. Former Soviet republics rightfully and successfully seceded from the USSR in the 1990s. Americans recognize the rights of the American colonists and the "captive" Soviet republics to secede. 

The Southern States also had a right to peacefully secede from the United States of America if they found that being part of that union no longer preserved their rights to govern themselves—though they were not allowed to do that. How might America be different today if the Southern States were allowed to leave peacefully? No doubt slavery would have ended in a way that didn't cause the death of nearly 700,000 Americans. For what that war cost in treasure alone, every Southern slave owner could have been amply compensated for the loss of his slaves—as the US Constitution requires. Such was the plan of 1844 presidential candidate, Joseph Smith, Jr.—but he was assassinated before the November 1844 election.

Nullification and secession are inherently part of our natural, God-given rights to govern ourselves according to the dictates of our own consciences. 

Please take the time to read Earl Starbuck's lengthy and enlightening article. It is entitled, "Judicial Review? No. Nullification."

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—February 25, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 

 

 

 

 

Nine Rechabite Migrations
of Latter-day Saints

Hugh Nibley claimed that many Rechabite migrations occurred in ancient times. He included Adam & Eve’s Adam exodus from the Garden of Eden to Adam-Ondi-Ahman (even though that migration clearly was not a case of fleeing from a corrupt society).

Abraham and Sarah’s sojourn fits the Rechabite ideal of fleeing corruption to establish a righteous society in the wilderness. In fact, Abraham’s entire life was a quest for refuge from the fallen and corrupted world.

The exodus of the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt—first to the desert wilderness of Sinai and then to Canaan—is the greatest and most miraculous Rechabite migration to date. Right up to our own time the Exodus from Egypt has served as a reminder of what great things God has done for our ancestors.

I can count at least nine Rechabite migrations of Latter-day Saints in modern times:

1.  The young Church flees western New York in the early 1830s.

2.  The Church flees Kirtland, Ohio in the late 1830s.

3.  The Saints are driven from northwestern Missouri and flee to the Illinois banks of the Mississippi River in 1838 and 1839.

4.  Saints in the British Isles, Scandinavia, Polynesia and other far-flung areas gather to the main body of Saints during much of the 19^th Century.

5.  Some 20,000 Saints flee Nauvoo in 1846. Russell M. Nelson gave a speech entitled "The Exodus Repeated" at Brigham Young University on September 7, 1997 regarding the many remarkable similarities between the ancient exodus from Egypt and "the exodus from the United States". https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/07/the-exodus-repeated?lang=eng

6. In 1885, hundreds of polygamous Latter-day Saints flee the American west to found towns in Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico rather than being imprisoned for violating new federal mandates. 

7. In 1886, polygamous Latter-day Saints left the American west and founded Cardston and other towns in Southern Alberta, Canada for the same reason.

8. 4,000-5,000 Saints in Mexico flee to El Paso, Texas during the days of Poncho Via and the Mexican Revolution of 1912.

9. Are we not already experiencing a sort of Rechabite exodus from Bablyon? How this “migration” plays out will prove to be one of the greatest historical migrations of all time. Whether it will include flights out of worldly cities to remote mountain or desert places of resort is yet to be seen. But one thing is certain: there will come a separation between those who choose to fix their fate with the evolving globalist society and those who choose to free themselves from both the lure and tyranny of Babylon.   

Regarding yet-future migrations, prophets have said that events prior to the Second Coming of the Savior will include so many grand miracles that the miracles in the days of Moses will pale by comparison. Of the Latter-day Saint exodus from Nauvoo to the Rocky Mountains, Nibley says, “As a witness against the sins and follies of the human race, you go out by yourself. People try that all the time. The Saints were driven whether they wanted to or not. The Mormons didn’t stage it. As George Albert Smith, Sr., said, “We came out here of our own free will because they made us.”

The shutting down of freedom and righteousness by globalist conspirators as spoken of in Ether chapter 8 will trigger phase after phase of the exits  from Babylon the Great—which is now entering its final throes of death. Valiant, righteous, Christ-worshipping and liberty-loving modern Rechabites in days ahead will likely say, “We came out here of our own free will because they made us.”

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—February 1, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 Seven Rechabite Migrations
Recorded in The Book of Mormon

Two of the main themes of The Book of Mormon are (1) that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Redeemer of all mankind, and (2) the scattered House of Israel will be gathered in the latter days. But how did the House of Israel become scattered? Much of the scattering occurred as people whose inclination was to live righteously had their prayers answered and were led to new lands of safety. As I stated in my last two articles, Hugh Nibley called this the Rechabite principle.

The Book of Mormon recounts some of the migrations that caused Israel to become scattered. At least seven migrations are recorded in this volume of scripture.

1. The Jaredites flee Babylonian society. Sometime after the flood, the supremely ambitious and conniving Nimrod strove to establish a new world order—one that wasn’t based humankind achieving salvation by willingly living the principles of salvation, but rather one that was built the idea of “salvation through legislation” by a ruling class. Nimrod believed that he was wise and powerful enough to establish laws that would force all creation to behave in ways that would ultimately achieve the perfect society. He believed he could control even the elements and thereby prevent future calamaties including any future flood—if only people could be forced to obey his dictates. His Tower of Babel was to form the administrative capitol of the world. His quest drove him mad. Achieving his goals required him to come out in open defiance of God. Apocryphal accounts say that at the end he ascended to the very top of his tower and, having usurped the title of “mighty hunter”, even shot arrows into the sky in an attempt to kill God.

But the Jaredites would have not of that. In faith and humility they gathered like-minded family and friends and fled into the unknown wilderness. In Ether 1:38 we read, “And it came to pass that Jared spake again unto his brother, saying: Go and inquire of the Lord whether he will drive us out of the land, and if he will drive us out of the land, cry unto him whither we shall go. And who knoweth but the Lord will carry us forth into a land which is choice above all the earth? And if it so be, let us be faithful unto the Lord, that we may receive it for our inheritance.”

The Book of Ether, contained within The Book of Mormon, recounts their history.

2. Lehi and his family take Ishmael and his family and flee Jerusalem into the wilderness. This account starts on page 1 of The Book of Mormon (around 600 BC) and ends in the final pages amidst great destruction (about 421 AD). See 1 Nephi chapter 1 through 2 Nephi chapter 4.

3. After arriving in the promised land, Nephi and those who followed him flee his corrupt brothers, Laman and Lemuel and their followers. These “Nephites” flee northward into a land they call “the land of Nephi”. See 2 Nephi chapter 5.

4. The Nephite King Mosiah flees the land of Nephi with his people to the land of Zarahemla. See Omni verse 12.

5. The people of Mulek, the only son of Jerusalem’s King Zedekiah to have survived the great Babylonian onslaught, flee Jerusalem and are led to the promised land. They settle in an area further north than where Lehi and his people landed. Eventually these two major groups intermingle. See Helaman chapters 6 and 8.

6. Alma the elder and his followers flee the reign of wicked King Noah and the land of Lehi-Nephi. See Mosiah chapters 17, 18, 23, and 24.

7. The converted Lamanites (who become known as the “People of Ammon” or the “Anti-Nephi-Lehies”) flee Lamanite society and settle in the land Jershon. See Alma chapters 21 through 27.

Clearly the Rechabite principle, though not mentioned by that name, is evident throughout the entire Book of Mormon.

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—January 27, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 Who Were the Rechabites?

We can read of the Rechabites in Jeremiah chapter 35. They lived as a people apart even when living in the city Jerusalem.

1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,

2 Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.

3 Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites;

4 And I brought them into the house of the Lord, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door:

5 And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine.

6 But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever:

7 Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers.

8 Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters;

9 Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed:

10 But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.

But when the Rechabites couldn't live according to their own manner while dwelling in Jerusalem they fled to the wilderness. This is a pattern we see among more pious groups of people from the days of Adam right up to our own time. When you can't stand the heat, you get out of the kitchen. 

The great Latter-day Saint scholar, Hugh Nibley, says, "This is the Rechabite doctrine. When Israel or Jerusalem becomes wicked, the pious go off and live by themselves in the desert and wait for God to give them more revelation."

Nibley further explains, "We are told in Jeremiah 35 that Jonadab ben Rechab and his son were righteous, and they were so blessed. They were the only people that were not corrupt in Jerusalem. They were blessed by having special offices in the temple forever after that. They went out to live in the desert by themselves. They would not live in houses of stone, and they would not even cultivate the ground. They would live as John the Baptist lived." ~See Nibley’s Commentary On The Book of Mormon, Lecture 58—A Review of Book of Mormon Themes, pages 25, 26.

Who were some of the contemporaries the Jeremiah and Jonadab and the rest of the Rechabites in Jerusalem about 600 B.C.? Besides Daniel and Ezekiel there were Lehi & Sariah, and their first four sons, and Ishmael & his wife and their offspring, and let's not forget Laban and Zoram.

What are the chances that Lehi was well acquainted with the Rechabites?

The Rechabites lived aloof from society whether living in the city of Jerusalem or alone out in the wilderness—as did Lehi and his family. They chose to live the commandments of God and to be guided by divine revelation—as did Lehi and his family. As a group they fled into the desert and lived in remote areas east of the Jordan and south of Jerusalem—the same areas that Lehi and his followers passed through on an epic journey to their promised land. The Rechabites were experts in metal working—as at least Nephi seemed to be. They lived in tents—as did Lehi and his party. They were a temple-oriented society—as the Nephites also proved to be. And when they could no longer live peaceably amongst a wicked society, they fled.

Nibley goes on to say, "So the ancestor of Ephraim is Egyptus. Don't worry about that. But that gives a terrific mixture because the Eqyptians were already a mixture of at least seven different lines. Asenath had at least seven. Remember they [Lehi's family] were half Manasseh. They were on the other side of the Jordan. They were desert Arabs. They all had Arab names, as you find in the Book of Mormon. [Lehi's family] marries up with Ishmael. A Jew isn't going to be called Ishmael because Ishmael was the enemy of Jacob. Ishmael was the father and hero of the Arabs. He [the Ishmael in the Book of Mormon] had his daughters marry the sons of Lehi. You can be sure they were Ishmaelites because Lehi himself was a desert man. He was a merchant who traveled in the desert. [Ishmael] would be his cousin and an Ishmaelite."

The Book of Mormon reads like a string of Rechabite events with the more pious continually fleeing out into one new wilderness after another as the societies around them inevitably grew corrupt. It isn't difficult to understand that the propensity for wandering was in their blood.

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—January 26, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 The Rechabite Principle
in a Nutshell 

When I lived in Houston in the early 1980s I had a good friend named June ("JU-nee"). June had immigrated to Texas from Korea in his early 20s.

One day the topic of Tae Kwon Do came up. June said that he had learned Tae Kwon Do when serving in the Korean military—as all military recruits must. I asked him, "Do you remember it?" 

"No, I forget just about everything. But I remember the most important thing."

"What's the most important thing?"

"If you can't beat your adversary, run away."

I laughed.

"It's not funny. It's the real truth. If you can't beat your adversary, what is smarter than running away? It's better than the American philosophy."

"What is the American philosophy?"

"Don't Americans say, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?"

I think I probably laughed again. "That's certainly an expression but I don't think we usually mean it as a philosophy of life," I told June. "I wonder if any other nationalities have a different philosophy."

"Oh, yes." said June. "The Japanese."

"What's the Japanese idea?"

"If you can't beat your enemy, kill yourself."

Knowing of the age-old rivalry between the Koreans and the Japanese, I took June's words with a grain of salt. June, was, in fact what you call a salt-of-the-earth kind of guy. 

He named another philosophy: fight to the death even if your chances of winning seem to be zero.

Though June wasn't the sort to be prejudicial against individuals because of their ethnicity, religion, or philosophies, there was a grain of truth in the ideas he was expressing—namely that there are different ideas that people may subscribe to, consciously or subconsciously, as individuals, as part of a society, or as a society taken as a whole. 

And so, to recap, there are different philosophies on how to deal with an unconquerable adversary. Four key philosophies are:

1. Run away. "Get out of Dodge"...as another American expression goes.

2. Adapt to the adversary's terms. "Go with the flow." Or, "Go along to get along" as a couple more American expressions go.

3. Refuse to let your enemy gain the upper hand by sacrificing your own life. "Saving face," perhaps?

4. Fight to the death, even though your own death is the surest outcome. "Remember the Alamo," anyone?

It seems to me that whether we're talking about Americans, or the rest of human societies on planet Earth, that the most popular ideas are to adapt to the adversary's terms or to fight to the death. 

The "Rechabite" philosophy is based on the idea that if you can't conquer your adversaries—or convert them to your views—then you should distance yourself from them. In such a situation, what is smarter than divorcing yourself from that society and fleeing so far away that that society has no influence over you?

And yet, how infrequently do people choose that wisest course? Hardly ever. When they do those people are following what scholar Hugh Nibley calls the Rechabite principle.

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—January 25, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 

 

 

Are There Dogs in Heaven?

Years ago, Kristin and her husband made the decision to have their 15-year-old German Shepherd put to sleep.

Their two boys were aged three and five at the time. The younger boy kept telling everyone, “Our dog died and now he’s up in Heaven with Jesus.”

After several days Kristin’s five year old grew exasperated. He asked Kristin, “Mommy, why can’t Jesus just get his own dog and send ours back?”

Are there dogs in Heaven? Of course, there are. And Jesus makes sure they're all taken good care of. Just ask any child. 

 #     #     #

Orem, Utah—January 22, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben