The gospel of Shame

Shame is spoken of much in popular culture today, and I have become increasingly convinced that most of the rhetoric is the gospel of Satan. So to separate the wheat from the popular chaff, we should have a grounding of what the scriptures actually say about shame. They do say quite a lot, but the spirit tells me that we can perhaps learn the most by going straight to the beginning and relating from there outwards.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth, yada yada yada, and then created Adam and Eve. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." (Gen 2:25) Note here, that feeling no shame is the result of not knowing good from evil. (As we see later, feeling shame about our natural man state is natural.) The state of not feeling shame is returning in the latter days, but this time not from innocence, but instead from the confusion of people calling good things evil, and calling evil things good. As Zephaniah says (3:5) "the unjust knoweth no shame", in spite of the Lord, for "every morning doth he bring his judgment to light". 

The symbol of nakedness being shameful is repeated many times throughout scripture, in both literal and symbolic senses. And sometimes both simultaneously, as when the Israelites build the golden calf and proceed to revel in their new found god. "And when Moses saw that the people were naked (for Aaron had made them naked, to their shame among their enemies)" (Exo 32:25) The word naked here is sometimes translated as "unrestrained" or "out of control" or "had sinned", implying that they should have been ashamed of what they were doing, but were not, and their enemies could justly criticize them because of their behavior.

Here are other scriptures about the shame of being symbolically naked. Think about what it represents, i.e. perhaps ignorance of knowing what you are doing wrong.

Rev 3:17-18 "Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white rainment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

Rev 16:15 "Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."

Isa 20:2-4 "naked and barefoot three years for a sign ... upon Egypt ... so shall ... Assyria lead away the Egyptian prisoners ... naked and barefoot ... to the shame of Egypt"

Isa 47:3 "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen"

When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and began to know good from evil, they "knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." It it notable that being naked was not actually a sin here; the sin was partaking of the fruit against God's commandment. But being naked is symbolic (and literal in this case) of being inadequate before God, as expressed in Rev 3:17. We are all inadequate before God, and so a sense of shame at that is natural and appropriate. Think of the lesson God teaches Moroni, when Moroni feels his own inadequacy. 

"Wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear [i.e. feel shame] lest the Gentiles shall mock [i.e. cast shame] at our words. 
And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;
And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them." (Ether 12:25-27)

This is essentially the story of all our lives, and of Adam and Eve as well. Being embarrassed because of their nakedness, they make aprons and hide themselves from God. The temple ceremony expands on this, showing that it is Satan who shames them for being naked and suggests that they make aprons and hide. It is a natural (as in, natural man) reaction in all of us, when we realize our inadequacies and sins, to feel ashamed and want to hide from God. But this impulse to hide from God or feel that we cannot be saved is the message from Satan. The message from God is not to hide, but to come unto him. The satanic gospel of shame teaches that because shame makes us want to hide from God, therefore shame is bad and we should never feel it at all. But this would mean we also never notice our weakness or our nakedness, and never feel the need to come unto God for help. When we reject the satanic gospel of shame, we reject the false dichotomy of either hiding our shame or not feeling shame, and we see the true path, which is to feel the shame, and turn to God because of it.

And what happens when we come unto God? Well, the bad news is that he first shows unto us our real weaknesses, not merely the things we felt shame about. Just as with Adam and Eve, he wasn't really that concerned about them being naked, but more about what had brought about that knowledge. (Gen 3:11) "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded they that thou shouldest not eat?" Likewise when we first come unto Christ, it is not uncommon that we are made aware of what our actual sins are, and we find that we have much more to repent of than we thought. We may indeed feel shame at this, but this shame is to humble us, and if we humble ourselves before Christ, we will repent. Contrary to popular opinion of shame, we should be worried if we don't feel shame, because if we don't feel shame, we don't know what we should be repenting of.

But popular opinion of shame is not completely wrong, because there is also the shame of the world. Mocking fools, who like Satan, will cast shame at us for the wrong things. And yet, there is also a role for socially enforced morality. We do need to be told when we are actually being foolish and acting shamefully. But it can be difficult to tell the difference, especially in times of latter day confusion and precepts of men. Therefore, we must continually come unto Christ, and he will comfort us about the things fools might mock us about, and discomfort us about the things we still need to repent of.

Here are scriptures to ponder about correct and incorrect uses of shame.

1 Corinthians 1:27 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound [also translated as "shame"] the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound [shame] the things which are mighty;"

1 Cor 15:34 "Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame."

1 Peter 4:4 (about giving up your past sinful ways) "Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you."

Psalms 1:1 "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly."

1 Nephi 8:33 "And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not."

In the story of Adam and Eve we observe another natural reaction to shame. 

"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. ... And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Gen 3:12-13)

The urge to look for someone else to blame for our sins is a natural man reaction to feelings of shame and inadequacy before God. Even when such accusations are true, they put us in the role of Satan as accuser, and are an attempt to deny our own choice and responsibility in committing the sin. The amount of blame and shame being cast about in modern time is astounding, and is all part of this generation attempting to justify itself instead of recognizing their own nakedness and even filthiness.

Rev 12:10 "the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."

Prov 30:10 "Accuse not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty."

Prov 30:11-12 "There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness."

As the Lord himself teaches us through the Spirit what we should truly feel shame about, we will become more aware of when we are naked before him and when we are not. Many times I have personally felt shame and regret from a memory of something I have done in the past. I have learned that this shame is a signal to me that I need to repent of those things. Even if I have stopped doing that thing, the shame is telling me that my repentance is not complete. Often what I still lack for repentance is the coming unto God. If I simply come unto God, confess my sin, and ask for his forgiveness, I experience the miracle of forgiveness as my shame and regret is removed, and I no longer feel harrowed up in shame by that memory.

As we learn to trust our shame which comes from the promptings of the spirit, we will learn to ignore the shame which the world would try to cast at us. And we will also need to learn to endure the shame which we justly earn from our disobedience to God's commandments. Even though Adam and Eve confessed their sin of eating the fruit, God pronounces just punishments upon them.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children....
"Unto Adam he said ... cursed in the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it ... In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread."
(and to emphasize their humbled state)
"For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Gen 3:16-19)

God allows the natural consequences of our actions to take effect, and even enforces them. For example, in Gen 3:23-24, God drives out the man and woman from the garden of Eden and places Cherubim to prevent them from returning. See also D&C 136:31-33. 

But on the other hand, he also prepares the way that men should repent of their sins, and return to him. The natural state of man is shameful, which is represented physically by nakedness, but this is also symbolic of our spiritual nakedness, or behaviors which are shameful. So God creates garments to clothe Adam and Eve. 

Consider the symbolic significance of God making garments for them. Adam and Eve had already clothed themselves with aprons. But their attempt to hide their shame was inadequate, so by making garments for them, he shows them the proper way to be clothed, and does the work for them. They merely have to wear the garments which have been prepared for them.

The clothing of Adam and Eve is followed by spiritual teaching, when God speaks to them and gives them commandments. (see Moses 5:4-5) The ten commandments we follow today are essentially a garment we wear (i.e. behave according to) in order that our shameful natural man behaviors and tendencies will not be exposed or expressed. 

The ten commandments summarize a myriad of lesser commandments, and are summarized by the two great commandments, to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and to love your neighbor as yourself. We learn to make our own garments to cover our physical nakedness after the manner shown to us when he made garments for us. And we also learn to make our own moral compasses, in order to better understand proper behavior. But these are always conforming to the patterns that God has given us by his commandments, even though we think we are explaining why those commandments are good.

To fully understand the symbolism of the garments which clothe our nakedness, we need to go to the end of the world instead of the beginning. We already saw white garments mentioned in Rev 3 above. The symbolism of white garments is explained in other places in Revelations:

Rev 7:13-14 What are these which are arrayed in white robes? ... These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

And a fuller description of the symbolism is in Alma 5.

Alma 5:21 ... for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins.
22 And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, [see Alma 36:15] if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you?
23 Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness?

Notice that your garments may either become stained with the filthiness of your sins, or they can be cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ. Even though the nakedness (inadequacy, shamefulness) of our natural man state is hidden by clothing, the things we all do in life will make us feel shame to stand before God, unless we have repented and had the stains washed away in the blood of the Lamb of God. Again, we have all sinned (see Romans 3:23) and have reason to feel ashamed because of what we have done. Satan tells us to hide from God, but God tells us to come unto him, confess your sins, and be forgiven. And when we fully commit to following God, we can be sanctified by the Holy Ghost and have our garments made white, pure, and spotless before God. God himself removes the shame of this world from us when we turn to him, just as he covered the shame of Adam and Eve's nakedness, when they confessed before him.

Prov 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

Alma 13:12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence;

Even though we have looked at the end of the world scriptures to better understand the symbolism of the garments, all this was taught to Adam from the beginning and freely taught to his children. See Moses 6:48-68 and in particular verses 58-60: "Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying: That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified."

Other scriptures to ponder about white garments:

1 Nephi 12:10 ... they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.
:11 ... three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me: These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.

Ether 13:10 And then cometh the New Jerusalem; and blessed are they who dwell therein, for it is they whose garments are white through the blood of the Lamb;

Rev 6:9,11 I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held.... And white robes were given unto every one of them; 

Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And, as I talked earlier about ignoring the shame of the world, here are some scriptural examples of how the righteous react to the shame of the world.

Acts 5:41 ... rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

1 Pet 4:6 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

1 Peter 3:16-17 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

D&C 136:31 he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.

2 Nephi 9:18 the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, ... they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God, ... and their joy shall be full forever.

Isaiah 54:4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

The righteous are willing to endure the shame cast upon them by the world and the worldly, and despise that shame. Or, as it is also translated, disregard that shame. Suffering through the shame of the world can be a liberating experience, since having survived the experience, we no longer need to fear it. The righteous do not hide from shame. They either ignore it, if it is from the world, or they feel it as a broken heart and contrite spirit and turn to God in repentance. Whenever we repeat the idea that shame makes us want to hide from God, we are reinforcing the lie that is taught by Satan from the beginning even until now. Instead of those lies, let us preach the words of Christ:

"And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost." (3 Nephi 9:20)

Hubris

Hubris is the type of pride that gods have to punish. But the real question is how do gods themselves avoid having pride or hubris?

Lucifer was an angel in high authority before God before his fall. 

"... an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved ... was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son....
And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!" (D&C 76:25-27)

He may have been equal with Jesus Christ, since they are both referred to as a morning star.

“How you have fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn!" (Isaiah 14:12, Gileadi translation)
"I Jesus ... am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16)

Lucifer fell because he became prideful. That he was in fact better than others, and knew better what they should do than they did. All of which was undoubtedly true, because he had indeed attained a high level of trust from God. But as soon as one takes that true but prideful attitude and actually applies it to control others, one is led into the errors for which Lucifer became Satan.

"because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power;" (Moses 4:3) 

"when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
... it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (D&C 121:37,39)

Thus we see how pride goes before a fall (Prov 16:18). But how does God and other angels avoid that trap? First, let us recognize that our agency is a gift from God (as stated above) which he will not take away except at the final judgment.

"And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given." (2 Nephi 2:26)

But notice that it is the law which punishes and not God. God has given that law, and it is just because it is the law by which he himself lives. He lives according to the golden rule, the second great commandment, and does unto others as he would have them do unto him. While wickedness invariably comes from treating others in ways you would not want them to treat you. And even at the great and last day of judgment, it is not necessary for him to act in order to punish people, for they will recognize his example and authority and accept his judgments upon them.

"Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them;" (Mosiah 27:31) 

Only a few will deny and defy God to his face and suffer God's wrath. But they will have shown by their own actions that they would and have tried to destroy the agency of others, so God is just in doing to them as they would do to others. 

"Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—
For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;
Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father," (D&C 76:31,33,35)

Thus the path to avoid hubris is in recognizing the agency of others. Allowing them to taste the bitter that they may learn to choose the good. (Moses 6:55) How far is God willing to allow people to choose evil before stopping them? Satan is the prime example of how far God is willing to let them exercise their agency wrongly. 

But God is just and wise and able to make everything right in the end (Rev 21:4). He exercises his power by speaking or commanding, and because we recognize his absolute goodness, we also recognize his absolute authority, and he need only watch until we obey. (Abraham 4:18) 

And we can follow God's example in our own lives. Instead of trying to control others, all we have to do is speak the truth, and watch what happens. We may suffer for doing so, but that is also according to God's example.

Hereditary Monarchy vs Kingdom of Heaven

We commonly accept that the kingdom of heaven is organized along familial hierarchies. In some sense, God is legitimately our God because he is our Heavenly Father. The priesthood authority is often passed from father to son. 

Likewise on earth, we have a tendency to organize ourselves into tribes which are often defined by descendancy from a patriarchal figure. The nation of Israel is all the descendants of Jacob/Israel. The tribe of Judah is all the descendants of Judah. The Edomites are all the descendants of Esau/Edom. The Nephites are all the descendants of Nephi. etc. But this tribal association is solely an earthly phenomenon, because the patriarch dies. In heaven, the patriarch is alive and can rule his tribe, but on earth he dies, and someone else needs to take the seat of authority, at least if we are not to devolve into very small familial units whenever a grandfather dies. 

There is a heavenly order when the patriarch rules over his direct descendants, but what legitimacy is there for an uncle to rule over his brother's descendants, or for one who is distantly (if at all) related to the members of a tribe to rule, and moreover, to pass the authority to rule over those he is not related to down to his sons and heirs? We see many instances of the ruler taking on the name of the patriarch, in order to put on the air of the heavenly order or things, as when the kings of the Nephites are all called Nephi (Jacob 1:11), the rulers of Egypt are all called Pharaoh after the father of that nation (Abr 1:25-26), and even in Rome all the emperors were called Caesar after the founder of the empire. In the middle ages hereditary succession and primogeniture were called the divine right of kings. 

But all this putting on airs of the heavenly order is merely a counterfeit of the heavenly order, and because it is a counterfeit, it is easily perverted into an evil practice. These issues are carefully considered in Mosiah chapter 29, and he concludes, "because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you." (Mosiah 29:16) A famous historical example of the failure of hereditary rule is the five good emperors of Rome, when Rome had five good emperors in a row, which is so difficult to accomplish because hereditary succession tends to hand authority from one who has worked hard to earn it down to one who has been raised in privilege and who often abuses his unearned authority. The first four of the five good emperors (Neva, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius), kept the form of hereditary succession while actually placing a good and worthy successor on the throne, by formally adopting the chosen successor, so that he could be the son legally even if he was not truly a hereditary son. When the fifth and most famous emperor, Marcus Aurelius, broke with this legalistic fiction of hereditary succession, and let his real son, Commodus, take the throne, the result was unspeakably bad.

If we consider that hereditary succession might not be a legitimate ordering of earthly authority, can we find any scriptural support for doubting it? Certainly for the most common form of hereditary succession, primogeniture or passing authority to the firstborn son, there are many counter-examples in the scriptures, such as Jacob, Joseph, Nephi, Saul, David, Solomon, etc. So even if primogeniture is a pattern in heaven, since Jesus Christ is the firstborn of the Father, it is not therefore to be blindly copied in earthly succession. 

What about hereditary succession in general? Is it just for only one descendant of the patriarch to have rule over the entire tribe after the patriarch's death? To answer this question, I will go to the most fundamental doctrine of Christ and Christianity, and observe the pattern we find there. In John 3, Christ himself teaches, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." As we said at the beginning, God rules us because he is our Father. What happens when we are born again? We become the children of Christ. 

"And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters." (Mosiah 5:7)

Christ is King of kings, and Lord of Lords, but kings exert their authority through power, violence, and force, usually over their enemies. In like manner Christ will need to exert authority over those who decide to be his enemies. "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Cor 15:25-26) Christ will subdue all things, but we seek not to be his enemy, nor even his servant, but to be born again as his sons and daughters. And when he has subdued all things, then he can cease to reign, because the heavenly order is restored. "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." But then Christ is both the father and the son (Mosiah 15:2-4), being the son of heavenly father, and also the spiritual father of all those in the kingdom of heaven.

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." (1 Cor 15:24)

The whole purpose of Christ being king is for him to put down all earthly authority. In this respect no earthly system can be considered to have the mandate of heaven. God may choose kings such as Cyrus or David to bring about his will on earth, but he is clear that we should have no king other than him.  Moses and Mosiah instituted a minimalist government, with no executive, traditional laws which required no legislature, and only judges to resolve disputes. When the Israelites wanted a king instead of judges for their government, this is what God said about it. "And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." (1 Sam 8:7) 

When the need for all rule and authority and power is over, what remains? The only ruling power left is the love and respect between parent and child. And when Christ no longer needs to reign as king, what does he do? That is, a kings reigns, but what verb do we use to describe what fathers do? We do not choose our parents or our children on earth, so your father is your father simply because he is your father. Perhaps this is why the Father states, "I am" (your father).

Refuting the Gospel of Inclusion

In church meetings, many of the comments use the words of the enemy. Words like "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion". These are words invented by the enemy and used to subvert well-meaning Christians into believing in their works. They work so well at that task because of the conservative mind-set, which is all about conserving the status quo, or in other words, whatever the progressives were able to convince us to do last year. They convince us by subverting our language, and using words which sound good to advocate for perverse and sinful things. And they are effective at this because few conservatives understand their own morality well enough to be able to form a rational line of thought which can refute the perverseness of the language.

"No unclean thing can enter his kingdom." (3 Nephi 27:19, Alma 11:37, 1 Nephi 15:33, Alma 40:26, 1 Nephi 10:21, Alma 7:21, Moses 6:57, Rev 21:27) This is an extremely exclusionary statement, which is repeated many time in the scriptures. How do we reconcile this with the popular notion of "Let us all come unto Christ"? (e.g. Benson, April 1988) I call this a popular notion, because it is never stated unqualified in the scriptures. Instead, he says, "Come unto me, all that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Or "repent and come unto me" (2 Nephi 28:32). It is certainly true that the invitation to come unto Christ is extended to all:

"Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you." (Alma 5:33)

But the "all" is always qualified as those who are willing to repent and change themselves, for if they come and are not willing to repent, they will not be received. "Repent, and I will receive you." (ibid) 

One of the most inclusive sounding scriptures is 2 Nephi 26:24-28.

24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.
25 Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price.
26 Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.
27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.
28 Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.

This sounds very inclusive. But again the "come unto me" is qualified with the symbolic buying of milk and honey without money. Does he say unto any, "Depart from me?" Actually, he does.

Matt 7:23 "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity"
Matt 25:41 "Depart from me, ye cursed"

He does not command any that they should depart from the synagogues, but he does blot the names of those who will not repent out of the church and out of the book of life. "Whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people." (Alma 26:32, but the whole chapter is important to understand both the inclusionary and exclusionary nature of the doctrine of Christ.)

The first principles of the gospel are faith and repentance. Repentance means changing who you are and putting off your sinful nature. We all have sinful natures we need to put off. And repentance comes before the principle of baptism, which is the ordinance whereby we make you a member of the church. Those who do not repent are not to be received into the church, and those members of the church who sin and repent not are to be excommunicated.

To state the matter shortly, the doctrine of Christ is not about who you are now. It is about who you are willing to become. If you are coming in order to be a gay follower of Christ, or a trans follower of Christ, or a golfer (insert your hobby here) follower of Christ, you are cleaving to your sinful ways, and you will be rejected by Christ and should be rejected by the church. Indeed, those who call themselves"Gay Christians", or something similar, are quite literally putting their own sins before Christ. They are not Christians at all, but like wolves in sheep's clothing, are gays who are come into the flock to corrupt the gospel of Christ. 

On the other hand, those Christians who just happen to be gay, would recognize their sins as a weakness to be repented of, rather than flaunted and placed before their status as Christians. They would be one with Christians, rather than creating a division based on their personal habits. Those who come unto Christ must lay everything they are on the altar, and simply be a follower of Christ, becoming whatever he tells them to be. You can come as you are, but don't expect to stay that way. (e.g. Holland, April 2017)

What is a "little horn"

In Daniel 8, a beast (kingdom) is described as a he-goat with a single notable horn (king) which defeats a previous great kingdom, and when grown strong, is broken (dies) and is replaced by four notable horns toward the four winds. If you know your history at all, this is a clear allegory for the kingdom of Alexander the Great. He came from the west (Greece) and conquered the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. Then at the height of his power, he suddenly took sick and died, leaving his kingdom to "the strongest". His generals fought over the succession and eventually stabilized into four kingdoms: Ptolemy ruled Egypt in the south, Seleucus ruled Persia and everything east, Antigonus ruled Greece in the west, and Cassander ruled in the north over Thracia and parts of Asia minor.

While the allegory is clearly depicting ancient events (to us; they were still in Daniel's future), the angel tells Daniel "at the time of the end shall be the vision." This is a pattern in Hebrew revelation, in which events in old times are also types for events in end times. Thus the vision refers to multiple events at different times, and by studying the past events we know about, we can learn more about the characteristics of future events.

The next thing in Daniel's vision is a little horn which comes out of (is a descendant of) one of the four, and takes away the daily sacrifice. We might think of notable descendents such as Demetrius or Pyrrhus, but these people did not attack Jerusalem. And the horn is "little" instead of "notable" like the four horns. The person who fits the description of the little horn is Antiochus, king of the Seleucid empire, and his wars with the Jews are described in the books of the Maccabees. He is a wicked and prideful man, and caused the temple to be desecrated, forced Jews to eat pork, and many other things which I will not recount. He did not win great battles, even though he called himself a god. Basically, he was a weak man who came to power by inheritance, who boasted much, and accomplished little other than wicked deeds. This is the character of a "little horn".

I conclude by quoting Jordan Peterson, "And if you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of."

Why I did not join "The People Restored" Private Membership Community

First, The People Restored is a group with a very excellent statement of principles. In fact, I heartily endorse all the principles in the preamble to their agreement. The are strongly worded, and I think many other organizations would benefit from adopting their principles and even their specific wording of those principles. 

A few examples are: 

• "We see natural rights as immutable and protect them in our community."
  
  
• "We live lives according to objective morality and we acknowledge our dependence on that Creator. We speak openly of faith."
  
  
• "we believe that restrictions, regulations, and taxation on markets should be minimized and removed where possible."
  
  
• "We believe that the traditional family—father, mother, son, and daughter—is the fountainhead from which community, commerce, and civilization spring."
  
  
• "In our community, a family household is seen as a member unit."

There are many other great principle in the preamble, which I live by, and none which I object to. So why would I not want to join with them? Well, the devil is in the details, or the implementation.

The most obvious objection I have to their implementation is their monocorporate fascination with Goldbacks and the company which produces this private currency. Their selling spiel includes the assertion that all members agree to be partially paid in Goldbacks, and they assert that this provides a protection against a government imposition of some future currency we might object to. 

I find this requirement personally objectionable, because I believe in the freedoms they espouse in their preamble. It would be foolish of me to tie myself to one particular corporation who could go out of business at any time, and render my ability to keep the agreement null and void. It would be more in line with conservative values, and free-market economics, to require partial payment in gold or silver, which could be standardized coins issued by a government or a private organization. Those who buy and sell gold and silver coins already deal in both types. Goldbacks could also be a recognized alternative under such a rule. Such a rule also has the advantage of agreeing with the constitution when  it specifically names gold and silver as legal tender, and with current Utah law, which recognizes gold and silver as legal tender, and exempts them from sales taxes. Unfortunately, Goldbacks are not exempted from sales tax, because they do not contain at least 50% gold or silver.

But furthermore, if one actually reads their full membership agreement, the requirement to use Goldbacks is not actually there. In this way, their marketing is in conflict with the actually agreement. The only thing regarding currency in the agreement is the phrase in section 3 (Principles and Requirements of the Community): "Accepting, at least partially, approved local currency as a payment for services." There is no definition of what "approved local currency" actually means, and no advocacy for the use of precious metals as currency. Since the contract gives all power to the three board members to make any and all changes to the contract, without any approval by the members, the definition of "approved local currency", which seems to currently be Goldbacks, if we believe the marketing, could be changed at any time at the whim of the board members. If we accept what they say on their website, "All of our members accept and use Goldbacks," then we must also accept that if they change their minds and say that all of our members must accept and use a CBDC, then they can do that at any time without changing the contract (which would at least require notification to the membership). There are no limits in the contract stopping them from doing that, nor any limitations on what they say their "approved local currency" could be.

Personally, I do not think the same people who wrote the preamble would change their "approved local currency" to a government mandated CBDC. But I do find it disingenuous that they would so strongly and prominently state that members are required to use Goldbacks, when the contract does not actually require that. And while I don't believe they would do such a thing, nothing in the contract actually prevents them from doing such a thing, and accepting their assertion that members are required to use Goldbacks sets a dangerous precedent for interpreting the contract in exactly such a manner.

While that is my biggest personal objection to their membership contract, I also found a couple other disturbing clauses when I read through the entire contract. I don't think that anyone should sign a contract without actually reading the entire document, and I'm surprised that other people would not notice and object to these clauses.

In section 12 (Privacy), we find this clause:

"All Members agree that the Community is not obligated to keep any Members’ conduct confidential from appropriate or compelled government reviews and that the Community may respond as appropriate or necessary to government inquiries or demands."

I am disturbed that an organization which claims to regard privacy highly would so easily abandon that privacy to government in their fine print. This clause contradicts their own principle (quoted from section 3): "Respect privacy and data privacy of Members in the Community, only utilizing data obtained in business as necessary for the business purposes."

In section 13 (Indemnification and Release), we find this clause:

"each Member agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Community and its other Members from conduct or wrongdoing (including without limitation negligence, reckless behavior, willful misconduct, criminal actions, actions that breach agreements, or actions that otherwise violate the law) of the Member that harms or causes liability to accrue to the Community or its other Members"

I don't think merely "disturbing" is enough to describe this clause. Do we really want to hold the community harmless against criminal action, breach of contract, and other actions which violate the law? Not only do I not want to do that, they don't want me to either. Later in the same section is this clause:

"Each Member releases the Community of any legal or other liability, and each Member agrees to not pursue claims or actions against other Members unless such claims or actions arise from breach of contract between the Members, willful or intentional misconduct, or criminal conduct."

So which is it? The contract requires me to hold members harmless for criminal actions and breach of agreements, and also, it explicitly allows me to pursue actions against other members for criminal actions and breach of contract. This is an explicitly self-contradictory contract. 

And that is beside the fact (which could possibly be excused as standardized boilerplate legalistic nonsense), that it contradicts their own statements of principles and requirement for members (quoted from section 3 again): "Being honest and acting with integrity in dealings with others, both within the community and without."

This leads me to distrust, to at least a small extent, that the leaders of this organization are living up to the noble principles declared in the preamble. Of course none of us are perfect, and we all sometimes fail to live up to the highest principles we aspire to. But, this organization has a contract which does not live up the principles it sets forth in its own preamble. It violates those principles in the actual statement  of the contract, and in their published methods of implementing the contract. And because I agree with its principles, I cannot in good conscience sign such a contract. 

Nephi was justified in killing Laban

Brother Renlund recently brought up the topic of Nephi slaying Laban, and stated, “No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory.” [Renlund, Oct 2022 General Conference, A Framework for Personal Revelation] Since the brethren themselves are not aware of the simple and clear scriptural answer to this issue, I feel inspired to publish it, so that we need not continue philosophizing and agonizing over that which the Lord has already explained in excruciating detail.

The context of Renlund's quote is "Some might point out that Nephi violated a commandment when he slew Laban. However, this exception does not negate the rule—the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God’s commandments. No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory, but let me highlight some aspects." He apparently considers this episode an exception from following God's commandments. So, at a minimum, a completely satisfactory explanation would have show that Nephi's actions were in fact in harmony with God's commandments. This is what I will show.

The scriptural explanation of the law under which Nephi was acting is laid out in D&C section 98. There are many treasures of knowledge in this section, but the treasure we are studying begins in verse 23, where the Lord says, “Now, I speak unto you concerning your families…” As we shall see, these passages of scripture concern issues of self defense and and the protection of our own lives and our family’s lives, including securing our physical safety, and the safety of our possessions. We begin with the condition, “if men will smite you, or your families.” My opinion is that we are justified in defending ourselves and our families to the best of our abilities at all times, so the word “smite” here implies to me that men have overcome our attempt to defend ourselves and succeeded in doing some sort of violent harm to us or our families. This could include murder, assault, beating, rape, theft, or other violent crimes.

You may disagree with me on the extent one can or should use violence in self-defense, and that is fine, because the main issue which the Lord addresses in these scriptures is not self-defense, but instead he is addressing the topic of revenge. In other words, the condition is that violent harm has been done to you or your family, overcoming any attempts to resist, and the question is, what do you do next in response? And the Lord answers, “if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded”. The Lord affirms that we should not seek revenge for offenses committed against us, but that we should bear it patiently, and even forgive the enemies who commit such offenses against us. Vengeance is something the Lord reserves for himself, as the Righteous Judge, whose omniscience allows him to know all the circumstances by which men are led to commit such wickedness. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” [Romans 12:19] “But of you it is required to forgive all men.” [D&C 64:10]

There are many scriptures exhorting us to love and forgive our enemies. For example, Romans 12:20-21 tells us, “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” And D&C 64:11 says, “Ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds,” which hearkens back to instances in the Old Testament where people actually speak those words to their enemies (1 Sam 24:12).

But I think the most remarkable condemnation of revenge is the next verse in D&C 98, verse 24, “But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.” This is a truly incredible statement from the Lord. If you are the sort of person who seeks revenge on your offender, then whatever was done to you is accounted (retroactively!) as a just measure for the violence you commit in seeking revenge. We should all ponder on the the implications of this verse, especially when we are feeling grudges and resentment for wrongs committed against us.

I will add my personal opinion again, that this does not mean that justice should not be carried out. We have a justice system which removes the need for retributive violence from the individual and assigns that responsibility to officials who do not have a personal stake in the crime. This allows them to be more fair in their judgments and punishments, and prevents cycles of revenge and retribution which can go on for generations in societies which do not have such an organized system of justice. Indeed, it can even make it easier for us to forgive, if we know that others will take care of seeing that justice is carried out. It is not your responsibility to see justice done for offenses against you, or even to imagine what sort of justice should be done. That is the responsibility of God, or of relatively unbiased people in the civil justice system. You are free to work on personal healing, forgiveness, and even showing mercy to your offenders, knowing that others have the responsibility for doing the justice and punishment. Anyone who escapes civil justice will face the justice of God when all men are judged according to their works.

Returning to D&C 98, consider again verse 23. We are to bear the first offense patiently, not even reviling in words against them. The word “revile” means “to criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.” Bearing it patiently does not imply keeping silent. It seems just to me to declare the crime, especially to the offender himself. Many non-violent offenses cause lasting harm and grudges without the offender even being aware that he has said or done something wrong. Therefore we should declare when we have been offended rather that harboring silent grudges, and give the offender a chance to consider that someone has been offended by his actions. But if they do not repent, we should bear it patiently, forgive, and in the case of non-violent offenses, even consider whether we are too eager in taking offense. To angrily revile would risk starting a cycle of insults and accusations back and forth which will add bitterness, resentment, and other psychological damage on top of the damage from the initial crime.

Verse 23 contains the word “once.” In 25 and 26, we see that we should also bear the second and the third offense patiently, without reviling. “And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundred-fold. And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold.” That is a lot of rewards. When the Lord says “I will repay,” he means he will recompense those who forgive for the offenses against them, as well as repaying the offender for his crimes. Skipping ahead slightly, in verse 30, we read that if you continue to spare your enemy when he commits further offenses, God says, “And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” The only other scripture I can think of which promises such great rewards is the promise for paying tithing in Malachi 3. “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” If you want to live a blessed life, paying tithing and forgiving others would be very good things to do.

But something different happens after the third offense in D&C 98. Verses 27-28 say, “And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out. And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” After three offenses, if he has not been punished by the Lord (or by the justice system), you are justified in warning your enemy that you will be patient no longer. Of course this would be in a non-reviling, non-angry, non-insulting manner. And after all that, the Lord will apparently help us against our enemy, if he continues to offend.

Verse 29 reads, “And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands.” This is a direct link to the story of Nephi and Laban. Consider 1 Nephi 4:11, “And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.” The words “delivered him into thy hands” are used in both of these scriptures, showing that Nephi was aware of the Lord’s standard for justice. Nephi even counts three offenses in this verse. Laban sought to kill him. Actually he did that twice, having tried to kill his brothers (his family) as well. Laban did not hearken to the commandments of the Lord. This could imply that Nephi delivered a warning to Laban at some point. And Laban stole all his treasures. Of course, Nephi is also following the voice of the Spirit, just as Brother Renlund preaches in the talk referenced earlier. “And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands.” [1 Nephi 4:12]

In such cases, after three offenses, we have the choice to spare our enemy and receive the great blessings mentioned in verse 30, or to take justice into our own hands and reward our enemy according to his works, as stated in verse 31. “Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.” This is the Lord’s standard for justice, and though it may be a hard saying, it does justify killing in self-defense, if your life or your families lives have been endangered.

But if we have any doubt that Nephi was following the Lord’s standard of justice, as set forth in D&C 98, then just read the next verse (D&C 98:32) “Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi.” How could the Lord make this any more obvious? I think D&C 98 is a completely satisfactory explanation of the justice in the episode of Nephi and Laban.

The only thing I find slightly unsatisfactory, is that Nephi relates only two actual incidents of violence from Laban. The first incident is in 1 Nephi chapter 3, verses 11-14, when he tries to kill Nephi’s brother Laman. The second incident is in chapter 3, verses 22-27, when Laban tries to kill Nephi and all his brothers and steals their stuff. I usually count two attempted murders and one theft to get three offenses, but Nephi really only relates two incidences.

One possible way to harmonize this, is to consider another time in the Book of Mormon, where other Nephites speak of this same law and standard of justice. In Alma 43:46, this same standard of justice is briefly stated. “For the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.” This scriptures shows that this law was well known among the Nephites and taught from generation to generation. But it is possible that the version given to Nephi and the Nephites was a “two strikes and you are out of patience” instead of the “three strikes” given in D&C 98. However you interpret the events, it is clear that Nephi had lived up to the Lord’s standard of justice in slaying Laban.

If you continue reading D&C 98, verses 33-38 teach that this same standard of justice applies between nations, just as it applies between individuals. We should read again the remarkable statement in verse 24, and ponder about what the Lord thinks of the wars of retribution our own nation has recently waged against its enemies. Indeed, we are told that we should not go out to battle until the Lord commands it, and if we obey his commands, the Lord will fight our battles. [D&C 98:36-37, D&C 105:14]

The rest of section 98 repeats this standard of justice a third time, this time adding what we should do if the enemy repents of his trespass, which is to forgive him each time (until seventy times seven).

When I finally found this explanation in D&C 98 and the clear declarations from the Lord that this applies directly to Nephi, frankly I was amazed that church members, including myself, have agonized for so long, and continue to agonize, over the justice of Nephi killing Laban. And then I wonder how many other great truths are clearly stated in the scriptures, but our minds are too darkened to see them?

British Slavery Compensation debt

The Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished the slave trade in the United Kingdom and British Empire. The fines imposed were not enough to deter all trading, so the Slave Trade Felony Act 1811 made the crime a felony. Since slavery was still legal, it became necessary to distinguish between legal slaves who were imported before 1807 from slaves who were imported illegally after that Act. This incited British colonies to register slaves, and in 1819 a centralised Office for the Registry of Colonial Slaves was established in London.

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery in the British Empire. (After a 6-year apprenticeship period, and except in certain colonies controlled by the East India company, where slavery was abolished int 1843.) Presumably to make this politically feasible, the act allowed for 20 million pounds to be paid in compensation to slave owners. The payments were managed by the Slave Compensation Commission, and their records form a complete census of slave ownership in the British Empire in the 1830s.

The records from the commission and previous registrations are kept at the Legacies of British Slave-ownership site and at the National Archives) Another source for information is the book “The Price of Emancipation” by Nicholas Draper.

The National Archives site includes this description in their summary of the data:

“In 1834 slavery was abolished in British colonies under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. This Act also provided for a sum of £20 million to compensate slave proprietors. Its distribution was entrusted to a Slave Compensation Commission which began to meet in October 1833 and included representatives of the Colonial Office and the slave registry. It worked on data collected by assistant colonial boards of compensation nominated by the governor in each colony, and compensation was allowed on slaves appearing on the books of the slave registry on 1 July 1835. Actual payment of the claims was made by the National Debt Office. 

The commission was terminated at the end of 1842, but one of the commissioners was appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon outstanding claims. At the end of 1845 all money unappropriated reverted to the public purse. The registry continued in existence until 1848.

(Note: according to the Legacies for British Slaveownership organization, £18.7M had been awarded by the end of 1837, and with expected in the intervening years, so it is unlikely there was much, if any, to revert to the public purse in 1845.)

Why do people care? 

In February 2018 the British Treasury published a tweet saying the debt for the £20 million was not paid off until 2015. The tweet was later deleted, but memorialized and quoted in articles such as this.

“Millions of you helped end the slave trade through your taxes” 

“Did you know? In 1833, Britain used £20 million, 40% of its national budget, to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire. The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn’t paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade.”

What does it actually mean for a 1833 debt to be paid off in 2015? Can we follow the money for nearly 200 years? Much of the hype since the tweet has been bemoaning that the money was paid to slave owners, rather that as reparations to slaves themselves. We can chalk that up to unfortunate political expediency at that time. But how and why were we continuing to pay off a debt for that until 2015, and who were we paying all that money to?

FOI question on the payoff in 2015

A 2018 Freedom of Information request asked “Is it true in 1833 Britain used 40% if it budget to buy freedom for slaves in the Empire? Can you confirm that the borrowed money for the Abolition Act was only paid off in 2014?”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/680456/FOI2018-00186_-_Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833_-_pdf_for_disclosure_log__003_.pdf

The Slavery Abolition Act (1835) Loan was rolled over into the Government’s gilt programme, ultimately into an undated gilt, the 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after). 

The term ‘undated’ refers to the fact that this gilt was issued with an earliest potential redemption date of 1957, but it was not compulsory for the gilt to be redeemed at this date. The 4% Consolidated Loan was redeemed on 1 February 2015, as part of the Government’s decision to modernise the gilt portfolio by redeeming all remaining undated gilts.

FOI question on interest paid on the 1835 loan.

Another FOI question asked for more details on the loan, including the interest rate and amount of interest paid on it.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_paid_per_year_to_repay_sl

The 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after) redeemed on 1 Feb 2015. Its redemption value was ₤218M. This does not include any previous interest payments.

While the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) load was ultimately repaid through the redemption of the 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after), between 1833 and 1927 (when the 4% Consolidated Loan was first issued), the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan would have been converted into new stock. At this point, holders of the original loan would have been offered a choice of redeeming their holdings or converting it into the new stock. However, we do not hold records of their decisions, so it is not clear how many holders, if any chose to convert their holdings in to the new stock. For this reason, it is not possible for HM Treasury to determine how much of the 4% Consolidated Loan was made up of Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan, or how much was left on the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan in 2015. It is therefore not possible for us to provide the total sum required to repay the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan. 

HM Treasury does not hold any detailed information on the structure or amounts of repayments made under the original Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan; however it is likely that this would have been through twice-yearly interest payments, similar to the current structure of gilts. HM Treasury does not hold information on the total interest paid on the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan.

What was included in the 4% Consolidated Loan?

https://www.history.com/news/6-longstanding-debts-from-history

In 2014, the British government announced plans to pay down a chunk of debt dating all the way back to the early 18th century. The bills existed in the form of perpetual bonds left over from the “Four Percent Consolidated Loan,” which Prime Minister Winston Churchill had issued in 1927 to refinance national war bonds from World War I. These “4% Consols,” however, included more than just World War I debt. Thanks to decades of government refinancing and consolidation, the stew of old bills also contained borrowing from the Napoleonic and Crimean Wars, an 1847 loan to assist Ireland during its Great Famine, and even money paid to compensate slaveholders when Britain’s Slavery Abolition Act was passed in 1835. By far the oldest debt was from a government bailout that followed the so-called South Sea Bubble, a 1720 financial panic caused by rampant stock speculation in Britain’s South Sea Company. In a 2014 press release, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were over 11,000 bondholders still collecting interest on the centuries-old debt. At the time, the government had not made an effort to redeem any of its perpetual bonds for 67 years.

(The other debts described in this article are also interesting to read about.)

What we know about the original loan

We do know (according to wikipedia) that the British government provided £5 million, and got a loan in 1835 for £15 million from bankers Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore. Wikipedia says “£20 million amounted to 40% of the Treasury's annual income or approximately 5% of the British GDP.”

We can surmise from their inclusion in the 4% Consolidated Loan, that the gilts issued in 1835 were perpetual bonds, with no maturity date. We don’t know the interest rate originally negotiated, but since being included with the Consolidation Loan in 1927 it was 4%.

The Rothchilds were bankers, practicing fractional reserve finances, so there is no need to assume they actually had that much money to lend. They just have to issue bank notes promising to pay up if anyone asks for the money.

More on consols

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/07/consols-the-never-ending-bonds/

Consols are bonds without a maturity date. “Consols were first introduced in 1751 at 3.5% and have been in circulation ever since, although interest rates have varied. In 2015, the British government decided to redeem all consols in circulation.” (The FRED site above has information on the interest rates of consols over the years.)

Effects of the loan

https://www.bondvigilantes.com/blog/2017/09/06/2nd-largest-bailout-british-history-economic-effects/

This research shows that the slavery compensation payouts resulted in, among other things, 10% inflation in 1836, about 4% in 1837-1839. Economically, this means that while the slave owners were being paid a windfall to invest in various industries (some are listed in the article), the people who did not own slaves paid for that windfall in lost buying power. Adding 5% to the the GDP resulted in 10% inflation.

A very rough guess at an answer

So in answer the question of how much was paid in interest and to whom, we can only guess with a very rough estimate. A 4% annual payout on £15M (£600k/year) from 1834 to 2014 (180 years) is £108M. That is aside from the principle amount of £15M, which was repaid in 2014 unless it was specifically requested to be redeemed at some earlier time by the debt holder. The principle receivers of this money were the Rothchilds and their banking heirs. They could have sold off some of their shares in this debt to others, of course, but they receive their compensation from that in the price of the sale.

Violence against the womb

Big Ocean Women speak of violence against women in these terms: "our first natural environment of the womb has become abused, violated, neglected, and ignored ... and we must acknowledge it."

Framing violence against women as violence against the womb brings the violent act of abortion into the picture, so I was curious about comparing abortion with the usual violent act against women, rape.

Here is a graph of the abortion rate (source)

Here is a graph of the rate rape (source)

The interesting thing here is that abortions are reported as rate per 1000, while rapes are reported at rapes per 100,000. They need completely different scales to talk about the rates.

Put in rather stark terms, then, the rate of self-inflicted violence against the womb is approximately 50 times higher than the rate of other-inflicted violence. In other words, if we compare frequency, there are 50 abortions for every 1 rape.

I think Big Ocean Women recognizes this reality when say, shortly afterward, that they are seeking to "safeguard the womb ... to protect it from objectification and violence, whether committed by others or self-inflicted." But even they do not point out the full scale of the violence.

Protracted Warfare

There is an important lesson our leaders have failed to learn about warfare. It is a lesson known to all successful conquerors, but not to those who lead empires to destruction. It is often the cause of the fall of their empire.

Protracted warfare is not war at all. It is training for your enemies.

The Spartans were the most powerful of all the Greek city-states, and defeated the up-and-coming Athenians in the Pelopponesian War. But they were eventually upset by the Thebans. This quote explains how that came about.

[Agesilaus] waived the exemption by law which he had formerly claimed in the matter of the expedition, and presently led an incursion into Boeotia himself, where he inflicted damage upon the Thebans, and in his turn met with reverses, so that one day when he was wounded, Antalcidas said to him: "Indeed, this is a fine tuition-fee which thou art getting from the Thebans, for teaching them how to fight when they did not wish to do it, and did not even know how." For the Thebans are said to have been really more warlike at this time than ever before, owing to the many expeditions which the Lacedaemonians made against them, by which they were virtually schooled in arms. And Lycurgus of old, in one of his three so‑called "rhetras," forbade his people to make frequent expeditions against the same foes, in order that those foes might not learn how to make war.  -- Plutarch, Life of Agesilaus

Sun Tzu warns of the dangers of prolonged warfare in "The Art of War".

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. 

Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.
When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.
With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War, book 2 

Mao Tse-tung also understood the dangers of protracted warfare, but he used them to his advantage when he was in a weak position. He espoused protracted warfare because he needed time to build up his strength against the stronger Japanese and Chinese Nationalist forces. And when he was strong enough, he went for the quick, decisive victory.

Russia fought a 10 year war in Afghanistan, which they were unable to win. This was demoralizing to the Soviet army.

Due to its length it has sometimes been referred to as the "Soviet Union's Vietnam War" or the "Bear Trap" by the Western media, and thought to be a contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union. -- Wikipedia, Soviet–Afghan War

The United States is now involved in a war in Afghanistan that started in 2001 and a war in Iraq and Syria which started in 2003. Wars of this length are always harmful, if not outright disastrous, to the empire who attempts to wage them. We are training our enemies, ruining our own economy, and patiently waiting for the consequences that must ensue.

Hiking Solo

On my last hike, I was walking on the trail, and I passed at least 5 men hiking alone, just like me.

I thought about how unusual that was. Not that men like to hike alone; that's quite common, I think. The unusual part was that I was on the trail where I could count them.

Men can self-identify as women, but whites cannot self-identify as blacks.

The liberal tunnel-vision of acceptable opinions has narrowed to a new myopic low with this story.

A woman named Rachel Dolezal wishes to identify as a black person, regardless of her actual DNA. But the liberals think this is a travesty. The New York Times writes, "Some people have pointed to this strange case as an illustration that race is malleable. I submit that Ms. Dolezal is a reminder that it is not. Racial identity cannot be fluid as long as the definition of whiteness is fixed." The Washington Post writes, "To adopt this identity under false pretenses is akin to faking a serious illness or childhood abuse to join a support group. Deeply felt empathy is not an entitlement to inclusion via false history."

Can you just imagine their reactions to such statements if black/white were replaced with male/female?

They claim that Rachel cannot be black because she does not qualify based on genetic history. And yet when making gender identity claims, no biological considerations are allowed any more. Consider this definition for example: "Transgender – or trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity or expression is different from those typically associated with the sex assigned to them at birth (e.g., the sex listed on their birth certificate)." There is no mention of biology at all, as if the doctor rolled a dice and assigned the baby a sex completely arbitrarily.

The contrast and hypocrisy is really quite impressive.

Who hates your freedoms?

I am remembering that speech by George Bush, where he gives us a simple explanation of the motives of terrorists: "They hate our freedoms". George Bush is also the president who signed the Patriot Act, which actually does take away your freedoms.

So when you hear this kind of talk of presidents and congressmen, you should ask yourself, "Who hates my freedoms more? The ones they say hate my freedoms, or the ones actually taking my freedoms away?"

School of the Americas

I thought this quote from a Democracy Now interview today was interesting.

Another is a general named Sjafrie, who’s been implicated in massacres in Aceh, in the repression in Jakarta in '98 and in Timor in ’99. Sjafrie got five U.S. Special Forces courses in the U.S., and he said, after one of them, that he had been trained by U.S. Special Forces just back from Peru, and they had trained him in "how to create terror." 

We can confidently conclude that these are the courses taught at the former School of the Americas. (Now renamed as "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation".)

Who is working hardest to spread terror in the world? Who are the real terrorists?

Elections in Hong Kong and Haiti

Citizens of Hong Kong are currently engaging in mass protests because of the Chinese government's interference with free and open elections in Hong Kong.

The protesters want an open vote, but China’s plan would only allow candidates approved by Beijing.

As Boss Tweed famously said, “I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." Whoever controls the primaries limits the choices in the general election to approved candidates, whether it is through direct vetting of candidate, super-delegates, or access to media.

And while these Hong Kong protests are going on, Democracy Now uses the death of "Baby Doc" Duvalier to remind of an eerily similar situation with with different actors, closer to home.

The [Haitian] elections that were being organized in 2010, 2011, were all controlled by the United States and the Organization of American States, and they had already established that the most popular party could not participate, Fanmi Lavalas of Aristide. So, there were only two right-wing candidates who were allowed to go into the second round of elections by Hillary Clinton, who went in Haiti personally to decide who can go into the second round.

Is it comforting to know that we are not above using the same tactics as communist China?

Has Ukraine happened before?

What would happen if we got involved militarily in the Ukraine? I think it's safe to say the same thing as would happen if the Russians got involved militarily in a country on our border. And we don't need to imagine that. It was called the Cuban missile crisis, and it is the closest we have ever come to nuclear war. 

Wouldn't it be insane to expect the Russians to act differently than we would in the same situation?

The symbolism of Cory Remsburg

In Obama's State of the Union address, he brought out a wounded soldier, Cory Remsburg, at the end of the speak to exemplify how America does not quit or give up. It was a very symbolic gesture.

Like Cory's ten tours in combat, we have been in Afghanistan much too long, over ten years.

Like Cory's disabling wounds, we have suffered disabling wounds to our freedom. He struggles on his left side, like we struggle to board a plane without being physically violated or questioned based on charges which are kept secret from us.

He is blind in one eye. We are partially blind in both eyes when we think that giving up our freedom, our privacy, and our right to know what the government is doing, will someone make us safer.

He had shrapnel in his brain, which required many surgeries to remove. We will require many painful surgeries to remove the cancer which has infested our highest centers of government.

It is sad indeed to see our leaders take pride in the incredible suffering their unjust wars have caused, both to Americans and to the people in the countries they have invaded.

Only crimes can take place in darkness

Found a good quote today:

"Only crimes could take place in darkness. Punishment had to be done in the light."  -- Samuel Vimes 

Guantanamo Bay's secret trials, black sites, secret kill lists for unmanned drones, NSA's secret surveillance programs, and "National Security Letters" (requiring libraries and communications providers to turn over records under a gag order).  These are all done in secrecy and darkness.  They are not punishments, and they cannot lead to punishments.  They are crimes.

 

US foreign policy toward Iran revealed

CIA documents recently declassified state:

"The military coup that overthrew Mossadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."

Just another acknowledgement of the role the US plays in overthrowing elected governments, and installing military dictatorships in their places.

Do a people have a right to be a nation?

On Nov 18, Pres. Obama stated, "There is no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on from outside its borders. We are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend its borders."

On Dec 3, UN Ambassador Susan Rice stated, "This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state, ... nor does passing any resolution create a state where none indeed exists or change the reality on the ground."

So the U.S. position on Palestine is that they are neither part of Israel nor an independent state, thus denying them any status at all as an organized nation or an organized people.  According to the Declaration of Independence, "to secure these rights [i.e. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men."  So denying the Palestinian people the right to be a part of any government also denies them the right to secure life, liberty, and pursue happiness. 

What should a people appropriately do when placed in that situation?