Please share, edit, improve, post yourself, make memes whatever...
"Feminism is an ideology, and is not synonymous with gender equality. Being against feminism, or even opposite to it, would just be opposition to the ideology, not gender equality. There is a reason why the women’s rights movement and feminism are separate movements.
Feminism as an ideology blames men for all of the world’s problems (“patriarchy”), [to clarify, this is a fundamental concept of feminism] opposes help for issues men face, and often even denies that they can face sexism, calling any attempt to address issues men face to be misogyny (as seen in the opposition of male abuse shelters, gender neutral rape definitions, and even in Cassie Jaye’s documentary, The Red Pill. [see my notes below]
The opposite of feminism would be a widely successful ideology that blames women for all of the world’s problems. All domestic violence is the woman’s fault. Crimes such as rape and domestic violence can only be committed by women by definition. Poorly made and clearly biased studies would be used to make men, and only men, victims of just about every issue. News networks and social media will have nothing but positive things to say about the movement while the members of the movement specifically state that women cannot face discrimination or sexism. Any attempt to advocate for women would be immediately shut down. Films about what women go through would be banned in entire countries, and “sexism” would not exist anymore. It would instead be replaced by “misandry” in all cases. People will make the ideology the standard, telling others that you either support it, or you don't care about gender equality. And of course, it would be different than the Men's rights movement, just as feminism is separate from the women’s rights movement. As an ideology, it would basically be more of a religion than a movement.
Have you started a group outlining serious issues that women face? Ha! It will just be called misandry and strongly opposed.
Don't like how the swapped version looks? then fight to make feminism better as an ideology. It is defined by the members and their actions, so start with that."
Please check out these two memes of quotes by women. Both splendid. The first one, WOW. She takes so many concepts, ideas, thoughts and then just encapsulates all of that into an answer that is few line long. That is one smart mojo:
https://www.reddit.com/Egalitarianism/comments/gdyth5/this_woman_below_comment_could_not_have_debunked/
Beautiful:
https://www.reddit.com/Egalitarianism/comments/gdyth5/this_woman_below_comment_could_not_have_debunked/

Trying to talk to a feminist about boys underperformance in school:

Karen Sraughan:
I did an interview with Saachi Khoul of Buzzfeed News yesterday. I talked about boys falling behind in education from the primary school level onward, including:
* teacher bias against boys exists (female elementary school teachers grade boys down compared to gender-blinded evaluators)
* boys are aware of this bias (when third grade boys were asked to wager money on how good a grade they expected to get on a project, they wagered less when they were told the teacher was female and would know they're a boy than when they were told the teacher was male or that the teacher wouldn't know they're a boy)
* both boys and girls agree that boys receive the bulk of negative attention from teachers in classrooms
* because school at the primary level is dominated by women, and because of the above issues, and because boys might not have their first male teacher until grade 8 math, they are likely to internalize the message that school is not for boys
Her response to that was to first ask if the boys were white. I was like, "Uh... this affects all boys, including minority boys." She then said, "But CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are overwhelmingly male."
I was like... WTF? So I say, "what does what's going on among 50 to 70 year olds in the top 1 tenth of 1% of the population have to do with how boys are doing in elementary school?"
She says, "well, men are still dominant." I said, "those male CEOs were boys in elementary school 40 to 60 years ago.
What does that have to do with what's happening now in elementary schools? You have to realize there's a bit of a lag at work here, and if you look at age cohorts from oldest to youngest, you find women and girls catching up and then surpassing men and boys as you track backwards from older to younger cohorts. Single women in their 20s in cities now earn 8% more than their male counterparts. Your entire argument here seems vindictive--like you're happy to see boys punished because men are still dominant in the top 1% at age 50."
"So MRAs are complaining about women catching up, is what you're saying."
I said, "women had parity in post secondary enrolment in the 1980s."
She comes back with me not being intersectional enough. "Yes, but women of color earn much less compared to white men."
I said, "Not to get all intersectional on you, but the gender gap favoring women in post-secondary attainment in the US is largest in the black community." T
he producer interrupts and tries to get us back on the topic of bias against primary school boys and asks her to clarify her counterargument. She replies that she thinks her point about the dominance of men at the top of Fortune 500 companies is an adequate rebuttal. (WTF!!!????)
Honestly, it was like talking to a brick wall.

FEMINIST'S LONG HISTORY OF BLOCKING GENDER EQUALITY ISSUES FOR MEN

As stated, what does he mean by feminism opposes mens rights and gender equality. Well lets look at Karen Straughan's reposes to a feminist when they said those feminists are not true feminists. True feminism is about equality:
Please note Karen only talks about feminist leaders and organisations here, and this is an old list. If she were to talk about feminists in general this list would be too big for a reddit post:

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".
You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."
You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."
You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.
And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
No...You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet. [LOL] - added the lol

Here is a bigger list going from 1st wave feminism all the way from the Pankhurst suffragettes to now:
http://archive.is/AWSEN
If we start adding random feminists to Karen's list instead of just leaders and organisation then we'd be here all year but here's 3 videos:
https://youtu.be/iARHCxAMAO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha2E5aQ7yb8

What is the opposite of a feminist? A masculinist? Is a MRA a masculinist?

ANSWER:
"Feminism is an ideology, and is not synonymous with gender equality. Being against feminism, or even opposite to it, would just be opposition to the ideology, not gender equality. There is a reason why the women’s rights movement and feminism are separate movements.
Feminism as an ideology blames men for all of the world’s problems (“patriarchy”), [to clarify, this is a fundamental concept of feminism] opposes help for issues men face, and often even denies that they can face sexism, calling any attempt to address issues men face to be misogyny (as seen in the opposition of male abuse shelters, gender neutral rape definitions, and even in Cassie Jaye’s documentary, The Red Pill. [see my notes below]
The opposite of feminism would be a widely successful ideology that blames women for all of the world’s problems. All domestic violence is the woman’s fault. Crimes such as rape and domestic violence can only be committed by women by definition. Poorly made and clearly biased studies would be used to make men, and only men, victims of just about every issue. News networks and social media will have nothing but positive things to say about the movement while the members of the movement specifically state that women cannot face discrimination or sexism. Any attempt to advocate for women would be immediately shut down. Films about what women go through would be banned in entire countries, and “sexism” would not exist anymore. It would instead be replaced by “misandry” in all cases. People will make the ideology the standard, telling others that you either support it, or you don't care about gender equality. And of course, it would be different than the Men's rights movement, just as feminism is separate from the women’s rights movement. As an ideology, it would basically be more of a religion than a movement.
Have you started a group outlining serious issues that women face? Ha! It will just be called misandry and strongly opposed.
Don't like how the swapped version looks? then fight to make feminism better as an ideology. It is defined by the members and their actions, so start with that."
Please check out these two memes of quotes by women. Both splendid. The first one, WOW. She takes so many concepts, ideas, thoughts and then just encapsulates all of that into an answer that is few line long. That is one smart mojo:
https://www.reddit.com/Egalitarianism/comments/gdyth5/this_woman_below_comment_could_not_have_debunked/
Beautiful:
https://www.reddit.com/Egalitarianism/comments/gdyth5/this_woman_below_comment_could_not_have_debunked/

Trying to talk to a feminist about boys underperformance in school:

FEMINIST'S LONG HISTORY OF BLOCKING GENDER EQUALITY ISSUES FOR MEN

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".
You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."
You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."
You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.
And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
No...You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet. [LOL] - added the lol

How many NTP server should we have?

Fighting Depression & Anxiety - Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Being an Ex-Mo.

We’re all in this together.

Hi all, long time lurker, first-time poster here. I figured I’d join the ranks and be counted among the many here who are all seeking solace and relief from TSCC.

This subreddit has been instrumental in my recovery from Mormonism, and has helped me heal in ways that therapy and anti-depressants alone could not do.

TL;DR – even as an inactive Mormon for much of my life growing up in the Bible Belt of the US, the culture still impacted me heavily. I fought heavy criticism, bullying, severe depression, my own tragedies, and other members of the Church. I re-activated for a while to get married in the temple, and stayed that way for a while. Once my shelf broke I felt the happiness, joy, and comfort that I was missing for much of my life.

This is me.

I was born into the Church, and grew up with a mom who was born into the church as well. My dad was a Catholic convert. My mom passed away suddenly 10 years ago, but my dad is thankfully still going strong. Dad and I have always been close, but now that I am married and have a family of my own, we have drawn even closer as we talk about my current struggles that mirror his just like when he was a man with a young family so long ago.

My Dad tells me of my mom who grew up a Utah Mormon, with a strong LDS family. They came from Pioneer stock, and my mom wanted to marry someone with her ideals – but first and foremost, she wanted to marry a pilot. She grew up fascinated with aviation, and dreamed of traveling the world as a flight attendant. But an abusive mother instilled in her that she was never good enough, not pretty enough, or smart enough to do so. However, the reality was quite the contrary.

As she moved on into young adulthood, she did travel and have adventures, which ultimately led her to meeting my dad – an Air Force pilot whom she fell in love with on their first date. They were married within a couple of years and moved across the country to my Dad’s next assignment.

The Church was never an issue – that is, until the honeymoon was over. Dad told me:

“Within the first week she put it on the table that I was going to have to convert.”

“She gave you an ultimatum right after you got married?”

“Yep, pretty much. It wasn’t even brought up while we dated.”

Eleven years later, he was baptized. I was 6 years old at the time, and still remember him bringing me to Sacrament meeting, and Primary. Mom was ward organist in every ward she’d ever been in, so my Sundays consisted of sitting with my Dad while we watched my mom play hymns. I enjoyed the time I spent with him. He kept me entertained by bringing a pad and pen with him for me to draw on. We’d have drawing competitions, or he’d help me draw something I had envisioned. I still remember the times when we’d stop for lunch at Burger King or McDonald’s after church on our way home. Those were the happy times for me.

Then I grew up.

Between being baptized at age 8, and on my way to becoming a young adult, the worthiness interviews with the bishop started. I still remember the bishop who interviewed me – a military man who came from another state, who saw our ward as another place to “whip into shape.” He proclaimed that they did things differently where he came from, “the right way”, and would instill those same principles in our ward. Nobody was a fan.

Two incidents with this bishop still stick with me – one public, and the other not so public.

The first one occurred while I gave a talk as a youth speaker in Sacrament. I was about 9 years old at the time, and had been asked to speak about Ezra Taft Benson. My talk was pretty substantial for a youth talk. Most youth are asked to speak for 2-5 minutes, but mine was maybe 8-10. In speaking about President Benson, I talked about some of his history, and also some of the most prominent faith-promoting stories from his mission to Europe in 1946.

I had about 3 minutes left, maybe a page or two to read – when, for some unknown reason to me (and everybody else), the bishop put his hand on my shoulder, and whispered into my ear that I was to end my talk and step down.

What had I done? What was wrong? I was beyond mortified. I quickly bore a very short testimony and went to go sit next to my mother by the organ.

It was nearly 20 years later when my Dad recalled the story and told me the details of the aftermath. As he described it:

“There was an outrage within the ward when the bishop pulled you off of the stand. Everybody was up in arms over it, when there was no reason for that to even happen.”

My parents were understandably upset. I think as a child, I had no idea of anything, but only felt embarrassment.

To appease my parents, the bishop had called both of them into his office. All of a sudden, they were getting “offered” higher callings – my mom was asked to be in the Relief Society Presidency, and my dad was asked to be in the Elders Quorum Presidency.

This was a bribe. And my parents knew it. They immediately turned him down, shocked at our bishop’s behavior, and walked out.

Now imagine how sinister the bishop got when he later got to interview 11-year old me, the son of parents with whom he clashed with.

As I was nearing 12 years old, it was time for my “worthiness” interview in preparation to receive the Aaronic Priesthood. I met with the bishop yet again, and he had no problem asking me explicit questions during the interview. I felt violated and scared. Not proud that I had passed the interview, but physically sick, on the verge of tears, and literally unable to speak. When we were done I rushed out of his office.

I walked into the chapel to meet my dad afterward. He could tell something was wrong.

How did it go?

I shook my head.

Are you OK?

I shook my head again.

He put his hand on my arm, and in a hushed urgency he asked me:

“DID HE HURT YOU?”

I shook my head again and held in my tears.

After church when we got home, my dad asked me again what happened in the interview. I was still quiet, and he became frustrated with me. I bawled my eyes out right there in the kitchen. I still couldn’t answer him. I am a grown man now and still have not told him. He will know soon though.

I stayed away from church the best I knew how by coming up with excuses to get my parents to leave me be. When I was actually at church, I was uncomfortable with the other boys I attended with. It was difficult to make friends since they all went to another school on the east side of town. I was the only Mormon in my elementary school on the west side of town.

In the earlier grades (K-3) I didn’t know that other people thought Mormonism was a cult. I didn’t understand how weird it came across when I’d talk to my friends about doing baptisms for the dead in the temple, or how I was sealed to my parents for time and all eternity. Word got out that I was the Mormon Kid.

From then on out (4th-9th grades) it was Hell on Earth. Once people found out my religion, the teasing started. Then came the bullying. Not just from kids, but teachers too. My 4th grade teacher would single me out and ridicule me the most for things that other kids would get away with. I still remember when we had a group project, and I was put with two other people, both of which had mental disabilities (which meant I had to do all the work). Several groups ahead of us were having issues getting their projects done on time, and they were told to finish and present later. However, when it got to be our turn to present in front of the class, she berated me in front of the entire 4th grade combined classes. Fuck you, Mrs. Goss, you heartless cunt.

My dad noticed a deep change in me. From that point forward, he told me, “My heart would break every time I saw you get off that school bus.” The tormenting continued through the end of elementary and followed me through junior high.

By 9th grade I had made a great friend. Purely out of not wanting to be alone and have a friend at church, I invited him to join me one Sunday, which he did. When word got out to other kids in the grade, he was shunned too. Even the teacher got in on the shunning. While passing out books to the class, he deliberately skipped me and my friend, and resumed passing them out to the rest of the kids. He fully deserved that middle finger I gave him on my last day of junior high.

A reprieve came when we moved from the Bible Belt to the so-called “land of Zion”, aka Utah. I was to start high school and begin life anew. A new place where nobody had ever known me. My dad was ready to move us to the East Coast, but at the last second decided to pursue building a home in Utah to appease my mom by bringing her back to where she grew up and would be happy. My parents also thought it would be better to get me into a better environment by surrounding me with others of my faith. For the most part, they were right and I made many friendships at school. However, I was still teased and taunted at church for being the fat kid from out of state. I didn’t mix well with the athletic kids who all wanted to play soccer, play church ball, or do sports conditioning for mutual night activity. It was hell for this introvert.

More worthiness interviews came. More sexually explicit questions, and more focus on pornography. I lied about some of them to get away from the embarrassment. My mom would warn me that if she ever caught me looking at porn, she’d disown me. There was also the physical and verbal abuse. I was also shamed for not wanting to go on a mission (again, introvert who also had ton of doubt). My mom blamed my dad for my failures.

“It’s your fault he didn’t go on a mission!”

I didn’t attend church for much of my teenage years and early twenties. My friends and I would sometimes attend singles wards together to try and reactivate ourselves. We were all struggling, but at least we were together. The singles wards didn’t work out, and we eventually just kept maintaining our friendships through work, hiking, camping, or road trips. Once we changed jobs and moved on with life we all kind of went our separate ways, but the memories are still there. Thanks for being there, guys. You’re missed.

During my dating years, the shame kept piling on. My relationship with the first girl I ever fell in love with about damn-near killed me. After we “made a few mistakes”, her guilt compelled her to visit the bishop’s office. She felt it would ease her guilt, but everything went haywire. The bishop demanded she go to a “court of love” for her misdeeds and demanded to know who my bishop was so he could rope me in and discipline me too. I wasn’t even active, and that drove me away even further.

Within the month, some elders randomly stopped by my house late at night to try and see how I was doing. I was working on my car in my garage with my friends, and I told these new uninvited guests to leave. I asked my dad if he knew who they could possibly be. He knew my feelings on TSCC and knew I had a right to privacy. While he didn’t know the details of me and my relationship with my girlfriend going ballistic, he still called bullshit on the church when he found out the elders came sniffing around. He met with the EQP face to face at church one day and told them flat out:

”YOU LEAVE MY SON ALONE.”

With all the shame, guilt, my girlfriend’s mental problems (diagnosed with bi-polar), our relationship ended chaotically. I strongly considered suicide. I fought for what seemed like eternity to climb out of “the pit of despair.”

Enter the catalyst.

From this point forward, I considered from here on out my transition to what I now feel as “my current life.” This was 10 years ago.

I left my IT job and went to work a manual labor job at the airport. I lost 60 lbs, and made friends at my work that I still talk with to this day many years later. I found comfort in their friendship and the new me that was being sculpted by hard work.

Finally, my mom was proud of me! Her son ended up on a news story while participating for a humanitarian mission to send relief overseas care of – you guessed it – the LDS church. I was just doing my job moving cargo. In the months preceding her death, she circulated emails to her group of friends and the ward how well her son was doing at his new job, and working with aircraft – something she admired and loved.

Our relationship was improving.

And then, without warning, she died from a brain aneurysm in her sleep. A third of our family wiped out in an instant. I hope the last thing she felt was a fond memory of better times as she drifted off to sleep that night, instead of having fought with my Dad before going to bed.

I was away at my second job 40 miles away from home when I received a phone call from the hospital, informing me my mom was admitted to the ER. I dashed out and never looked back. By the time I got on the road, she was already dead. I had no clue.

I met my dad at the hospital by the entrance. He embraced me.

She’s gone.

Oh, Jesus Christ.

Ironic words to say, now looking back upon it.

Our bishop met us at the ER. He was a kind man and great neighbor who helped us through these times. He was actually good one. I wish there were more like him, and I’m sure there are.

After leaving the hospital to come home to an empty house, we were met by the sherrif’s department who investigated us for any possible wrong doing because of the circumstances of my mother’s sudden death. Standard procedure. They also checked to see if my mom had any medications that might’ve interacted improperly. We were recorded on tape as to what happened and investigated thoroughly.

I reached out to anybody who could help me through this. I texted my recent ex, the girl I first fell in love with, who absolutely adored my mom. She was beyond shocked. At the time though, she had just gotten with a new boyfriend unbeknownst to me (while also stringing me along on the side with the possibility of getting back together). I was told she’d be right over to talk. That never happened. I texted her hours later to find out where she was. Suddenly, she told me she was ‘going camping’ with her new boyfriend and couldn’t help me in my time of need. I later found out on the day I buried my mom that my ex was now pregnant by her new boyfriend. That was the real reason she had abandoned me, and told me, “The world doesn’t revolve around you, you know!”

Words that still cut all these years later. She may have brought life into the world, but I had just lost it. It has taken me years to get past those words.

Maybe I should’ve ended it all months before this. Maybe I should’ve, since then I’d be with my mom “on the other side.” But then I’d have left my dad behind, too.

No. Live this. Feel this. This too, shall pass.

Funeral preparations. People coming by the house to offer condolences. Church members offering help. I wanted nothing to do with them.

Funeral planning. I picked out the casket. The temple dress she would be buried in. The songs that would be sung. #219 Because I Have Been Given Much. My favourite. I still cry when I hear it. At the funeral home we were visited by the sherrif’s office so they could deliver the news of how my mom died.

“Her autopsy reports came back. She had a brain aneurysm. It was too far advanced to be fixed with surgery and she would’ve died soon anyways. She must’ve had this problem for years. Did she ever have any impairment with the right side of her body…?” “Yes, she couldn’t raise her arm above her head.” “Ahh yes, that was it then. Well, sorry to bother you, we just thought you’d at least like to know what happened…”

Get the fuck out and don’t let the door hit you in the ass, you inconsiderate dickmouth. How dare you tell me this here.

The viewing was a few short days later. The last memory of my mom was hugging her at the dinner table, thanking her for a wonderful meal – spaghetti, my all-time favourite. Now I had to see her in a casket with temple clothes on. I had never seen them before, so this was quite foreign to me to see my mom dressed this way. Hundreds of people showed up for my mom’s viewing. Dad and I were overwhelmed. I had my best friend with me, who (still) is the closest thing I’ll have to a brother on this Earth. My dad had and I had each other’s backs. We’d get through this.

She’s not really gone. I know where she is. One day I’ll be there too. We’ll be OK.

The viewing before the funeral. My dad kissed his beloved goodbye, and lowered the temple veil over her face. The casket was closed and locked. A shimmering rose-colored metal box now held the woman who once held me.

My dad offered a prayer.

One day we’ll be reunited…

My dad and I proceeded in sync side-by-side into the chapel with our arms linked.

We’ll get through this, I know we will.

My mom’s absence from her church calling was immediately felt as the first note of the first hymn from the organ echoed through the chapel. The notes felt hollow and lacked feeling. There wasn’t a dry eye in the room among those who missed my mother’s music. My mother was a self-taught musician who also played the piano. You could feel her emotions reverberate through you as she played. I stared at her casket that lay ahead of me and wished I had taken more recordings of her playing.

Dad gave a wonderful eulogy. I had transcribed my grandmother’s eulogy 12 years prior and knew he would do well. I’ve always considered my dad a great public speaker – a man who overcame being introverted and could brief a room full of generals of the United States Air Force and lead men into battle. He did a very fitting tribute to my mom.

To see the Saints their rest obtain, Oh, how we'll make this chorus swell-- All is well! All is well!

No it wasn’t. Even then, I had my doubts.

The funeral procession was long enough for me to drift away to sleep for a few minutes in the back of the funeral home’s car that escorted us to the cemetery. I awoke bumping along a back-country road lined with homes. A man doing yard work stopped what he was doing – took off his hat, and put his hand over his heart in reverence towards the procession. Thank you, kind sir. Your sincere act has not left my soul.

We buried my mom on a hot summer morning. My dad and I would visit her grave site almost every day that followed to tend to the flowers and other ornaments we had laid there until a proper headstone could be put in place. I later picked out the headstone. It felt to be too much to ask of a 24 year-old, but I wanted to honor my mother. My anger at the whole situation crept out while at the monument company. My dad had to apologize for me.

It was his mother, so it’s an understandably difficult time right now…

I lost myself in my work. I was welcomed back with open arms by my co-workers, and asked with concern if I came back too soon the day after the funeral. People looked out for me and took care of me there.

No, I need to be here. I must be. I will endure.

My dad felt the same way, too. Soon, he was back travelling for work half a world away, devoting himself to his craft. A professional through and through. An aviator. We kept in touch over the phone. I sat at my mom’s grave while speaking to my dad in Chicago one summer evening as storms rolled in from the west. I felt so alone. There we were, the three of us, separated by time and space. At least I still had my dad.

I still worked at the airport then. At times I felt as if I could sense my mom’s presence. My favourite thing to do at the end of the night was marshal the aircraft out. I would walk under the wing tip of these giant aircraft and kept walking pace with them as they were pushed back out on to the taxiway. During these 1-2 minutes I would pray out loud amidst the roar of the jet engines starting up. I would talk to my mother. My words were lost to the unknown.

I’d marshal the aircraft out and bid goodbye to the flight crew with a snappy salute and a wave. My mom got a real kick out of watching me do that in the videos I had sent to her before she passed. My first dispatch after returning to work after my mother died was especially emotional.

How many men and women had I sent out into the darkness of night, with my face being the last they saw on the way out to their final destination? I always wished them safe travels and safe return to their loved ones.

This one’s for you, mom. Tell whoever’s in charge up there to watch over them, and also to watch over me and dad, please.

Days soon turned into weeks, then to months, then to a couple of years. The hurt faded. The nightmares and waking up screaming in an empty house eventually subsided. Rest. Peace. Hope.

Enough time passed to where I had healed to manageable point to move on with life. I met a fantastic and adorable sweet girl who would later become my wife. She helped me heal, and the healing process at the time involved going back to church. We got active and went to church together with her parents whose support was invaluable.

I still remember the first time we went together to her parents’ ward. It was a combined activity with the men and women (must have been a 5th Sunday) in which the focus was on the evils of pornography. Shock to the system! Here we are again, back in Mormon town and here comes the decree that must be shouted from the rooftops that porn is bad. So, business as usual?

The wife and I had our struggles while dating, but we loved each other enough to know that we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.

You ain’t going anywhere, cutie.

Then came the conditions. No civil marriage. Temple marriage or bust. I did what was needed to get ready for this and counseled with my bishop from my home ward, and my wife counseled with her bishop in her own ward. Both great men, and understanding. A rarity. Why couldn’t I have had this growing up? Yet, as most people do in the faith, we struggled through not consummating our relationship until we were officially married, but we succeeded. Barely.

Our wedding day was blissful. We were truly excited, and it showed. In fact, as we were there in the temple, several workers kept commenting on how happy we looked. Is this not a normal thing? I encountered several other men who were getting married that day, and they all looked terrified. For an introvert, I was actually chatty. My wife’s temple worker escort remarked to my escort, “Look how happy they are! Why, they could get translated right here!” (For those not knowing what that means, “being translated” is when someone does not physically die, but are somehow magically teleported to the Celestial Kingdom). I even cringed at that while in the moment and thought it was a bit much.

The first few years of marriage were great. Church was always a struggle, though. We went through several different wards while living on our own, and hated every single one of them. We ultimately moved in with my in-laws, so we could get me through school, save for a house, and get me into a career. We are doing very well now having succeeded in all we set out to do.

Holding callings was a bit rough. We kept being called to Primary. I hated teaching, but eventually came to like it for a brief moment when I had a good class of kids. After all, this was re-learning the gospel in a way that was simple. I was teaching kids – how hard could this be? But still, things didn’t make sense.

I would have to look up stories on Wikipedia just to comprehend what was going on. Those were my first introductions to questioning and doubt. I quickly got the information I needed and went about my way. The same things would happen when I got called to teach in Elders’ Quorum. I declined, but was guilted into doing it. “But I’m moving in 2 months. I’ll only teach twice.” They were desperate and obliged. I ended up teaching 3 times. My knowledge search kept bringing me to “anti” material, so I put things on my shelf and moved on.

We did end up moving. And, once again, I was called into Primary together with my wife. We had no social life, and managing people’s bratty kids on Sunday while dealing with our newborn baby was some sort of torture chamber designed to break one’s spirit and the will to live.

The wife and I ultimately went to therapy together for my depression and acting out. An LDS counselor, no less. He was understanding and helpful, but everything being church-oriented was a turn off. We wasted most of a year there. We’re doing alright now, though.

The wife and I experienced burn-out when our son was close to a year old. I stopped teaching Primary, and the wife picked up the slack temporarily. Soon, she was burned out too, and we asked for a release for both of us – rightfully so, having taught primary between 2 different wards for FOUR YEARS straight. Within the next two weeks of our release, the bishop’s wife got up in Sacrament and gave a talk about how we should accept and also honor our callings. I didn’t think it was coincidence at all.

The wife and I could now attend Sunday School and our respective Relief Society and Elders Quorum meetings. Little did we know that we actually found comfort being with each other and our son while teaching in primary. Now we were sitting next to people without much chance to talk to them to get to know them before the lessons would start.

We were now strangers in a very strange land. The only social aspect came through forced friendships through home teachers, and home teaching itself. I cringed every time I would see my home teaching partners walk up to me. We didn’t associate for any reason at all, except for this. I had nothing in common with them, and here we were trying to teach a lesson to others. I would make it a point to duck out of sacrament as quick as possible as to avoid even making eye-contact during “that time of the month” – no, not PMS – it’s the last Sunday of the month, and home teaching is due.

Job pressure mounted up. I was working an immense amount of overtime (70-100 hours OT was common per month at that time of year), and I was beyond exhausted. The EQP come over to my house several times to ask if I could be Event Committee Member, and then ultimately Event Coordinator Chairman because the last chairman bailed because he had the same circumstances as me – no time or strength! I said, “I’m not even home most of the time. You know my schedule. Hell, I can barely keep my lawn mowed. You see all that out there out front? And you want me to organize events that I’ll most likely not go to? I don’t want to screw you guys, or me and my family over by accepting this. I really can’t. No thanks.” To their credit, they very understanding, thankfully. My EQP said, “I’ll tell you what the SP told me when I got my calling – ‘nothing comes before family.’ So I totally understand if you aren’t in a position right now to do so.” That was a rare thing to hear.

I was in constant fear of getting asked to do callings, or getting asked to speak in sacrament. I just couldn’t handle it. The shelf started to really creak then. It was already heavy with years of trauma, abuse, depression, guilt, shame, and so on and so forth.

How much more can I give? The wife was already pestering me because the demands of work were piling up and I was already working so much. The EQP now was hounding me. The yard was a mess. The cars were getting neglected. My weight was climbing. My sanity dwindling.

Can’t you just work less?

I punched a hole in the wall.

I went to a doctor and explained to him what I was going through. I’d been battling depression and anxiety for years. He prescribed an anti-depressant that did the trick for me. I no longer have violent mood swings, and my emotions have leveled out. I can handle things now. I no longer beat myself up for mistakes or doing things every once in a while that the Church deems is wrong.

Further relief came when my wife and I would skip church. The wife and I agreed on “family days” and “sanity days” together. This is what I’ve been missing. We’d enjoy a nice lunch, play with our son, lounge around and watch movies. Much better than wrangling a toddler and listening to drivel in uncomfortable clothes with strange people. This is what life should be like. I could actually have a weekend and be with my family to decompress.

The wife was happy too. I’ve barely gotten to see you! I’ve missed you!

I missed you too, babe.

Remember my dad? He eventually got remarried in a civil ceremony to a wonderful woman. She was LDS too, and had experienced the pain of losing a spouse. It was hard getting used to her, but the way she takes care of my dad is invaluable for both him, and for me. Dad took my mom’s death very hard, and rightfully so. He ultimately got back into church and went full TBM, even getting his temple recommend back, doing a service mission, and serving a brief stint as a temple worker. I sense his primary motivation is to return honorably to his beloved.

” I’m not trying to replace your mother, but she and I love each other very much. I still love your mom too, and miss her very, very much. I feel like I’m betraying her, but I know she’d want me to be happy. I want you to be happy too though, and I hope you understand. Are you OK with this?”

I agreed.

That heavy shelf of mine bowed and buckled when my dad and step-mom got sealed a few years ago in a temple ceremony. The situation had changed when it was found out that somehow her sealing to her first husband was annulled without her knowledge.

“She has nobody on the other side to be sealed to. I know I said we’d be married only for this life, but she now has nobody else. Would you be OK if we got sealed? It’s OK if you don’t come to the sealing. I completely understand. Just know how much I love you and I don’t want to hurt you.”

I hesitatingly said yes, but did not attend. My dad was indeed understanding, but it did cause a rift between us for a brief time. I confided in my wife my doubts about how a man being married to two women worked, and didn’t agree with it one bit. My dad was confused by it as well, and didn’t fully agree, but felt it was the right thing to do.

Last fall I kept seeing /exmormon pop up on my Popular feed, and the posts and selfies got my attention. How great it was to find the CES Letter and other resources at my disposal. As I read the letter, my shelf came down in a glorious cacophony mixed in with gasoline, jet fuel, high explosives and a dash of atomic waste. God, it was beautiful.

All those years spent in the church. All that hurt, confusion, effort, and struggle. For what? For this? For this con-man who started it all? For this church built upon lies? This great and spacious building built upon the sand? A quote from a 1974 episode of Dr. Who summed it up perfectly:

I REJECT YOUR REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN!

So you mean I’m not the only one that feels these things and wants these questions answered?

What did all this mean for me? Many things actually.

Suddenly, I didn’t have to feel guilty about the mistakes I had made. Previously, I would physically hurt myself any time I slipped up, and that got old. Bruises on my chest or legs. Sprained wrists. Marks on my face. All because I couldn’t control my emotions because I couldn’t control myself to submit to the church’s definition of ‘worthy’, I thought. Maybe physically hurting myself would provide enough pain to focus on to keep from sinning. Nope! This revelation opened my eyes to an even brighter future.

All that shame melted away.

My step-mom, who at some points I had felt replaced my mom and that I’d now have to be sealed with for all Eternity alongside my mom? Not even going to happen. My view of her improved instantly, and I see her for what she really is – not a threat to my family or my mom’s memory – but a real, kind, caring human being that loves my dad and who my dad loves in return.

All that anger melted away.

The ridicule and torment I suffered all for the church was immense. I don’t feel like my life was totally wasted, but I’m glad I found out when I did. I don’t necessarily forgive or forget all those people who hurt me, but I can begin to see some sort of understanding of their motives and why they acted the way they did.

Live and let live.

I came out to my wife as non-believing shortly after reading the letter, but it did not go well. Many tears were shed, much disappointment was shown and our future lay in question. I tried to get her to read it, and Letter For My Wife, but she is not ready for any of it. We are going through the slow-fade right now, and she is gradually coming around to respecting my wishes while she wants to stay in as a TBM.

My weekends are now more open and I can properly decompress and handle the rigors of my job. I was promoted to a higher level over the winter, and got a nice raise. While I did fight with my wife over paying tithing at the end of last year in one lump sum (OUCHY!), I eventually won the battle. No more tithing will be paid on my income. We’ll be able to afford a few things we desperately need now.

I spend more time with my family. My dad will be visiting us more often now that he’s retiring from work for good. He’ll be able to spend time with his grandkids. I take each day one step at a time and tell people how I feel about them (for good, and for bad) because life is too damn short. It really is. I no longer look at things from an “eternal perspective”, but rather a “we don’t have much time” point of view. I feel like I’m on an upswing and am stepping back in to Getting Shit Done Mode now that I’ve freed myself of so many shackles that kept me bound for far too long.

I am proud to be a dad. I recognize that I feel the same with my son as my dad must feel towards me. I protect my son with the same ferocity my dad did (and still does) with me. Even as a TBM, he’s been very understanding and concerned for my emotional well-being as a person, not as a church member. He has always been, and still remains, my hero.

We all hurt. We all love, and want love in return. We all want to understand, and to be understood. How great it is to come here and find strength among so many people who are all going through the same thing.

All in all, these trials shaped who I am. I may not get a chance to re-do this life, or live in the eternities, but no matter.

The man I am today is because of who I was yesterday. I’m even happier with who I am now because of my trajectory out of the church to head towards bigger and better things. And I’m just fine with that.

I thank those who have read any of this. I commend anybody who has gotten through all of it. You deserve a medal for bravery. Even if nobody reads this “book” I just wrote, it was good to at least get it off my chest.

See you all around, and good luck in your respective journeys.

The Unresolved Mysteries Surrounding Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln's Engagement and Marriage: Part 2

Sorry that this has taken forever - the more I look into some of this, the more questions I have. I feel like some things deserve more analysis, but it would take so long that I’m trying not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

ETA: Forgot links to earlier parts - sorry!

Introduction: https://www.reddit.com/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/9rhmzi/the_unsolved_mystery_surrounding_abraham_and_mary/

Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/9s0d7g/the_unresolved_mysteries_surrounding_abraham_and/

Mary Owens Recap

Looking at my last post, I feel like the Mary Owens letters need further scrutiny. They have been subjected to detailed analysis by other scholars, but I still wonder about some things.

What exactly is going on with Lincoln? Did he feel he couldn’t say no to her sister because he had little prospects for finding another possible wife? Or because he felt he couldn’t insult her by saying no? Exactly how desperate was he? Is he in fact repelled by her and trying to force a rejection, as he later claimed? Is he just really awkward and doesn’t know what to make of the situation? Is he interested or hopeful but just really afraid of screwing it up? Is he sure that she will be miserable in the marriage and resent him and the guilt will ruin his life?

Why does he suddenly write to Mrs. Browning, with no other information about his life? My guess on that is because he had spoken to her about marriage and found it cathartic to tell the story and neutralize the embarrassment.

His fixation on his resolutions will be relevant in future posts, so I’m trying to figure out what exactly he told her. It seems they had far deeper conversations that I think most scholars have acknowledged, but it’s impossible to reconstruct. They’d spoke of her moving to Springfield, yet he says her interest may have been a “jest” or misunderstood by him. He doesn’t reference her responses in his own letters, or much else after the first political update - it’s all a monologue. Yet he does ask her to write to him.

He speaks of their “late meeting” and seeing her “lately.” Did they have just one meeting when he visited New Salem? Had he perhaps seen her in public several times but in private only one time? And then they apparently engaged only in small talk? Or did she actually make a trip to Springfield to see him? Why was Mary Owens even going along at this point? If she was interested or desperate to marry, did she try to calm his fears and profess that she was in fact interested and believed she would be happy with him? His letters don’t address such responses. He seems completely uncertain as to where he stands — she was not described as meek, so you’d think the situation would have been a bit clearer at this point. But women were supposed to be rather coy in these matters, so maybe she thought she was being modest. Then after that last awkward letter, she clearly didn’t reject him or even indicate disinterest, because he met and repeatedly proposed to her. When in the fall did this happen? Did he go to New Salem, or did she go to Springfield? I’ll make a note here that by now he had a group of good Springfield friends who remained lifelong friends. They never mentioned this relationship in later years. Perhaps Lincoln kept it very quiet.

Most importantly, I feel like the letters show that he takes marriage very, very seriously, and he wants his wife to be completely certain she is making the right decision and knows what she is getting into. He is not going to try and “get” or “charm” a woman in a way that might compromise her rationality. And he even goes so far as to say that his wife’s happiness would be enough to make him happy, and his greatest fear would be her unhappiness. He makes no demands on her, but also no promises, or even recognition of the fact that there would be expectations of love or affection or anything. Yet it doesn’t seem like it was a mere transaction, an economic arrangement - they were in no rush, and she rejected him. I don’t really get the sense that he’s merely trying to scare her off, although he certainly could be — but he seems to be in earnest about his thoughts on marriage. If he really wanted to get out of the engagement, he was a clever enough person that I think he could have figured out a way to make her lose interest in him in a relatively short period of time. The letters radiate crippling low self-esteem — is this an act to scare her off? Or is he this tormented? And if he is, how much of it is fear of getting attached to anyone who might resent living in poverty and whose unhappiness would destroy his peace of mind?

The letters are also relevant because his fixation on keeping his word and making sure a potential wife is aware of what she’s getting into will come up later, and it seems quite odd to me that one year after the break up with Mary Owens, he could have rashly made the same mistake, without even the complications of having made a promise to a friend and inducing Mary Owens, who he viewed as having few prospects for marriage, to move to another village. With his apparently low self-esteem and terror of romantic interactions, if it was not an act, you’d think he’d almost be terrified of approaching any woman unless he was enraptured.

I know many readers are interested in Lincoln’s sexuality. You could interpret this as a man not interested in women. But you could also interpret it as a man who is interested in women but does not know how to deal with them, causing awkwardness and anxiety and basically self-sabotaging in an effort to blunt the effect of anticipated rejection. If he wanted a wife because it was expected of a politician and, to a lesser extent, the community, it seems like he would have been able to do this in a rather transactional, drama-free way. I wanted to get these thoughts down, but now I will move to the main story. Most of the quotes are from the analysis of the timeline in Douglas L. Wilson’s Honor's Voice: The Transformation of Abraham Lincoln, which was written a while ago. While the book is excellent, I don't completely agree with his timeline and interpretation.

Contemporary Evidence

Mary’s first biographer, Ruth Painter Randall, also the source of some of this, made a very crucial point: “One ounce of contemporary evidence is worth a pound of reminiscence.” This section attempts to plot out a timeline with as few assumptions as possible, and independent of later explanations of events. I think it is very important to get this straight first.

The Dray Incident

Mary had made a best friend, Mercy Levering, in the winter of 1840. Mercy was her companion in the shingle-over-the-mud adventure mentioned in a previous post. But Mercy had declined to ride on the dray driven by Hart — too unladylike — and had made her way through the thick mud to go home. Mary was bolder and more resourceful.

Elias H. Merryman, a friend of Lincoln’s, apparently wrote a poem about this incident, though it was made public by his descendants much later and I suppose could have been fabricated, but I doubt it. The incident definitely happened. At the time, it was a joke among friends. Writing poems and skits like this was common - they didn’t have TV. In part:

Up flew windows, out popped heads,
To see this Lady gay
In silken cloak and feathers white
A riding on a dray. At length arrived at Edwards' gate Hart backed the usual way And taking out the iron pin
He rolled her off the dray

Randall commented, “The last line is another case of jesting about Mary's plumpness,” which other biographers echo. To me, that is not clear, and seems to be the product of later comments distorting everything prior, which is a major problem analysis of this issue and in historical writing in general. It sounds like he pulled the pin to “dump the cargo,” allowing her to slide out without climbing over the sides. I mean, it could be a reference to her weight, but I don’t think it is obvious, as the tone of the poem is not really unflattering or disparaging, just ridiculous. The proper thing for Hart to do would have been to help her out, but this was probably part of the joke of riding in a dray.

Newspapers

Mary spent the summer of 1840 traveling to visit family, including in Columbia, Missouri. While there, in July, she wrote to Mercy. Always full of energy, she describes attending all night dance parties with her cousin. She mentions that a grandson of Patrick Henry seemed interested, but says that his family connections are not enough. “I love him not, & my hand will never be given, where my heart is not.” She indicates lots of men are calling on her, which would have been common. She was visiting well-positioned family connections, and part of the point of such trips was to find suitable spouses. Mary was always an exuberant, interesting letter writer, but the letters to Mercy are very flowery. The next set of her letters in existence is not until many years later, and she sounds less over-the-top by that time. I think she was imitating the period’s idea of girlish enthusiasm or playfulness. Quoting fictional works was common, and Mary was well-read - that’s what some of her more cryptic sayings refer to. Apparently it wasn’t her thing to discuss suitors in any open way - she did it all poetically and weirdly, like she knew we’d be looking at them some day. Presumably Mercy understood her references. These literary references do not appear to have been looked at very closely by scholars, although my research on this point has not been particularly enlightening. One biographer noted that her letters "have an authentic ring that defies duplication . . . It is difficult, if not impossible, for another to convey quite the impression of buoyancy, of fine-drawn temperament, that her own early letters carry." I find this to be true of almost all her letters - it would be extremely hard to pass off a convincing forgery.

But she follows that up with the interesting comment that “A life on the river to me has always had a charm, so much excitement, and this you have deemed necessary to my well being; every day experience impresses me more fully with the belief." She also indicates that Mercy took her aside one day and gave her advice: "Would it were in my power to follow your kind advice, my ever dear Merce and turn my thoughts from earthly vanities, to one higher than us all."

Every week since I left Springfield, have had the felicity of receiving various numbers of their interesting papers, Old Soldiers, Journals & even the Hickory Club, has crossed my vision. This latter, rather astonished your friend, there I had deemed myself forgotten.--When I mention some letters, I have received since leaving S— you will be somewhat surprised, as I must confess they were entirely unlooked for. this is between ourselves, my dearest, but of this more anon; every day I am convinced this is a stranger world we live in, the past as the future is to me a mystery.”

Italicized words were underlined in the actual letters.

This has been frequently assumed to be a reference to Lincoln. There’s no great evidence for this, only that they were engaged within months, and that she seems surprised. Lincoln was probably less likely to write letters to absent women than other men in the town, as he was never much of a letter writer in general. I’m not sure if Mercy could have understood this reference, or why Mary would have kept it such a secret. Women were supposed to be “refined,” but plenty of them weren’t this vague. It is possible that Mercy got rid of more revealing letters.

An editorial aside for context (slightly political):

She is referring to Springfield newspapers. 19th century people were unbelievably obsessed with newspapers, and it was like everyone had their own. Journalists seem often to have been the most independent, courageous people around. Abolitionist newspaper editors were frequently attacked and had their printing presses thrown into the river. Many would immediately purchase a new one and publish until they were killed. Some published multiple papers daily. The popularity of Garrison’s abolitionist Liberator seems beyond comprehension today. His first edition (of course published in Boston) in 1831 began as follows:

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen;— but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest— I will not equivocate— I will not excuse— I will not retreat a single inch— AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

Somehow, Garrison was not assassinated, but editors like him make it clear why the Civil War was inevitable - the country was full of people who spoke with such articulate conviction, north and south (the north had more of them, since the south wasn’t big on free speech when it threatened social stability), about slavery and other issues. The leading figures in society were bold, earnest, and effective (though we erroneously think of people in this era “couldn’t have imagined” the issues they discussed with shocking clarity), and at the time they made evasion impossible, even if most people tried it. They were too influential and too eloquent. There’s a lot more to say on this topic, but the dominance of newspaper culture, and the fact that most people had personal ties to a paper, has to be understood.

The big city editors were often extreme eccentrics and radical independents who would never have ceded control to any corporate influence. The papers were more partisan and personal than today, but also way funnier and intelligent. They combined levity and earnestness in a way I find appealing, and were a huge source of entertainment.

Mary's Summer of 1840 Letters

The papers mentioned were local and campaign-centered, so they weren’t particularly impressive. But the Old Soldier was a paper Lincoln edited with some friends. The Hickory Club was democratic - this may have been sent by Stephen Douglas or one of his friends. In any event, Mary sees the papers expressions of romantic interest, and the Springfield men clearly think she will be interested in the latest political news. She doesn’t come across as difficult, calculating, or even ambitious in these letters. They are upbeat and almost fanciful.

She makes the cryptic comment that “my beaux have always been hard bargains at any rate.” We generally use this term when we take about “driving a hard bargain.” The way she uses this term, and other uses from the time period, seem to indicate that a “hard bargain” was something that no one really wanted, like a defective product you tried to force on a buyer.

Mary's Return to Springfield

In late September, Mercy’s suitor or fiancé, James Conkling, wrote Mercy that Mary was back in Springfield. (Mercy was traveling.) Lincoln was away giving political speeches. Because Mary was Mercy’s best friend, Conkling gave her several updates. Mary was hanging around the main newspaper office (also connected to Lincoln) for a “singing club” performance promoting the candidacy of William Henry Harrison. At the time, Illinois and some other states became really big on involving women in campaign activities; hence singalongs. Conkling explains that he and Mary were the (seemingly only) witnesses at a wedding of their friend, but makes no mention of Mary being involved with Lincoln or anyone else. He says that he had heard rumors that this friend, Martha Jane, might be getting married, but he hadn't believed them. A few hours later, he found out it was true, and the marriage happened the next day, after which they left immediately for a honeymoon. This illustrates how secretly and quickly marriages could happen, and how small and simple they could be.

Now Mary’s weight comes into play, and tends to become a huge part of the narrative because of the timeless obsession with women’s appearances. While the following extract of Conkling's letter clearly indicates that the weight gain was a recent and unusual thing, it was somehow was extrapolated back to the dray incident that would have happened nearly a year before. There was also some perceived connection between gaining weight and being in better health, probably because there were so many diseases that caused women to waste away, and people with consumption-type illnesses were believed to benefit from traveling around the west.

Verily, I believe the further West a young lady goes the better her health becomes. If she comes here she is sure to grow – if she visits Missouri she will soon grow out of our recollection and if she should visit the Rocky Mountains I know not what would become of her. Miss Todd certainly does improve astonishingly and soon bids fair to rival Mrs. Glenn if she does not exceed old Father Lambert. She regrets your absence very much and feels quite lonesome. And now Martha Jane has goes as well as yourself I do not doubt but she is quite solitary and were it not that Dr. Todd's daughter has returned from Kentucky she must feel the change very sensibly. She is the very creature of excitement you know and never enjoys herself more than when in society and surrounded by a company of merry friends.”

Some scholars have seized on Mary's weight as the obvious reason for Lincoln’s second thoughts. Subjecting this to close analysis seems silly, but just in case it is relevant, I will do so. It sounds like there may have been some humorous exaggeration going on in Conkling’s letter, as she had not been gone long enough to be unrecognizable. But she was short (estimates range from 5’ to 5’6” and I think she was closer to 5’), so it may have shown more. Lincoln had also claimed that he knew Mary Owens were “over-size” when he agreed to marry her, though he had his limits. It seems unlikely that Mary had gone past these limits. Lincoln was probably home briefly in late September, and likely saw her enough to notice any weight gain. Then he spent 6 weeks stumping for Harrison and doing legal work.

As a brief aside, "Dr. Todd's daughter" was likely a cousin she was close to for life, known as Lizzie. There is some possibility that some of the future references to "Miss Todd" could be references to her and scholars somehow missed this. I think this is unlikely, but it is a possibility.

A month later, on October 24, Conkling reported that “she did not appear as merry and joyous as usual. It appeared she looked around for former friends and asked ‘Where are they?’” It’s not clear who this refers to. This has been suggested to refer to Lincoln, who apparently visited in late September. It is possible that many of her friends got married and either stayed home or moved away, and that summer visitors left. This seems more likely, as the letter describes the small wedding of Conkling's close friend - Mary was the only female guest not related to the family. So apparently she was into weddings. But he makes no reference to any of Mary's plans in this way.

Again, I am sticking as much as possible to contemporary evidence for this section, so I’m trying to bring in very little retrospective testimony, even if it could provide a lot of context. That will come in later, after we have the record firmly established to the extent that we can. Most scholars have tended to work backwards from the accepted narrative and make earlier pieces fit, and that can be a dangerous game. Speed’s comments that I am about to address came 25 years after the events and his memories could well have been influenced by many factors. I include them because I think they help highlight the timeline and possible inconsistencies.

After Lincoln’s death, Speed told Herndon that this is around the time when Lincoln wrote her, at which point, as Herndon noted based on their conversation, “She darted after him,” responding with apparent enthusiasm. It’s not clear why he would have suddenly initiated correspondence, but it seems he may have seen her briefly while in Springfield. I’ve always found the “darted after him” comment weird. Herndon was good about taking down interviews literally, so I assume this was Speed’s actual wording, but it was many years later. I mean, Lincoln wrote her, and apparently kept responding, and he was out of town so she couldn’t have been following him around. Maybe he didn’t know how to let her down gently, being lonely and wishing to talk politics with someone who was interested, and not expecting such a response. But I just find the comment odd, as no one has ever been able to explain exactly when they got engaged or how that happened. But Speed’s comments suggest it happened in October (by letter) or early November (when he returned from the campaign trail).

At the least, they had some sort of “understanding,” as he had with Mary Owens before his attempts at actually proposing. Who they told is unclear, as is when they planned to marry. It is unclear how Ninian and Elizabeth felt about it. They may have thought him beneath her, but not necessarily. He’d been allowed to call on ladies at their house and generally socialize, and to write to Mary. He was friends with Ninian and was her cousin’s law partner. They definitely liked him on a personal level. He doesn’t appear to have been completely off-limits. He was, however, still very poor, despite increasing political influence, and the Todds and Edwardses took great pride in their ancestry. Evidently Mary didn’t care so much about it.

Matilda Edwards

In mid-November, a relative of Ninian’s, Mathilda Edwards, came to visit. She was 18, graceful, and beautiful, supposedly receiving 20 marriage proposals during her visit to Springfield. She was apparently very pleasant and religious, and ultimately married an older man who had driven her to Springfield, to everyone else’s disappointment. She stayed with Mary, perhaps even sleeping in her bed. They seemed to get along well.

On November 30, Mathilda wrote home to her brother. She mentioned Joseph Gillespie, who became a good friend of Lincoln, and who a scholar says at that time was “her father’s protege and traveling companion.” He had “found a second Caroline in Miss Mary Todd. She is a very lovely and sprightly girl.” I don’t know who Caroline is, but she was probably a girl he liked. She could be saying they just got along well as pals, but this seems to indicate that Mary was not known to be engaged to anyone.

Signs of Trouble?

By late November, Lincoln’s remarks in the legislature seemed rather testy and sarcastic (unusual for him), and also kind of obsessive and personal. He seemed to be constantly suspicious that people were calling his essential honesty or motives into question. Some of this was happening, but most of the comments he objected to were about his party or county in general, and were probably typical of political debate. But this may have been nothing more than a reflection of the especially major and contentious issues before the legislature.

Lincoln is thought to have been pretty stressed by this point. He’d been speaking for months on the road. His party, the Whigs, had lost Illinois. He was now in the middle of a special session of the legislature. Wilson explained his situation:

The Sangamon Circuit Court opened on November 9, a day or two after he arrived, and its sessions overlapped the beginning of the special session of the legislature two weeks later, when Lincoln was expected to lead the Whigs in the House of Representatives. The governor had called the special session – to be held two weeks before the start of the regular session – to deal with the problem of a dangerously accelerating state debt, caused by the improvident system of internal improvements that Lincoln and his fellow legislators had rashly put through in 1837. The reversal of these actions, which were bankrupting the state, must have caused Lincoln real pain and embarrassment, as did the Whigs’ futile efforts to save the State Bank. It was in the service of this doomed cause that Lincoln committed committed an act of folly for which he suffered instant ridicule and humiliation, the memory of which pained him the rest of his life.

Wilson then explained what happened on December 5th: “This was his infamous leap out the window of the Second Presbyterian Church.”

It is unclear that this incident pained him for the rest of his life - it sounds more like it pained the writer because it didn’t go with Lincoln’s presidential image. Lincoln was a performer (one scholar made the under-recognized point that Lincoln and Mary got along because they were “both hams”) - it seems clear he would have liked to be on stage or in the arts, but that wasn’t really an option, so politics was as close as he got, and he made it an art form. He incorporated dramatic acts when he felt like it, and probably more often when he was desperate. Springfield men seemed to behave like overgrown boys for their entire lives, but in a mostly good sense, enjoying fun and antics and joking around while still being principled and productive. Wilson explains further:

On the last day of the special session, as part of a desperate move to keep the members of the Democratic majority from passing an antibank measure by denying them a quorum, Whig members refused to appear at the church, which was serving as temporary quarters for the House of Representatives. Lincoln and two other Whig members attended to make sure that the ayes and nays were called and that the absence of a quorum was duly observed. This worked for a time, but to their astonishment, after they had demanded another roll call and been counted present, the tally showed that the sergeant at arms had managed to round up enough members to produce a quorum. Barred from absenting themselves by the doors, the panicked Whigs opened a window and scrambled out. This, of course, availed them nothing as far as the quorum was concerned, for there were no Whigs left to demand another roll call, but its resounding effect was to make Lincoln a laughingstock.

Wilson quotes a paper that competed with Lincoln’s own and different politically, and therefore was going to view the incident from that position.

Mr. Lincoln, of Sangamon, who was present during the whole scene, and who appeared to enjoy the embarrassment of the House, suddenly looked very grave after the Speaker announced that a quorum was present. The conspiracy having failed, Mr. Lincoln, came under great excitement, and having attempted and failed to get out the door, very unceremoniously raised the window and jumped out, followed by one or two other members. This gymnastic performance of Mr. Lincoln and his flying brethren did not occur until after they had voted and consequently the House did not interfere with their extraordinary feat. We have not learned whether these flying members got hurt in their adventure, and we think it probable that at least one of them came off without damage, as it was noticed that his legs reached nearly from the window to the ground!

It’s hard to tell if this was just a joke or playful surrender, or if it indicated the beginning of a mental collapse on Lincoln’s part, as it was a serious political disaster he’d tried hard to avoid. That others jumped with him indicates it might be the former, but Lincoln’s magnetic leadership ability may have led them to follow unquestioningly.

Speed much later recalled to Herndon that Lincoln and Mary broke up during this special session, which ran from November 23—December 5. He also claimed, as many did, that Lincoln, like all the others, had fallen for Mathilda (it is unlikely he acted on this feeling or the it was reciprocated), and this had been the cause. But that would have had to happen very shortly after Mathilda’s letter on the 30th, which indicated no problems, and seems to conflict with the widely accepted January 1st date of the breakup, which I will get into later. Again, I’m trying to keep the focus in this part on purely contemporary evidence, because the later accounts may just be wrong, due to distorted memory or other motivations. But Speed should be a reliable source, so I’m at least including his claims for context.

The special session had ended on the 5th, and on December 7th, the regular session began. That day, Lincoln wrote to his law partner and Mary’s cousin, John T. Stuart, who had been elected to congress and was in D.C. It was normal political news.

At some point in December, Mary wrote Mercy that she had become “quite a politician, rather an unladylike profession, yet at such a crisis, whose heart could remain untouched while the energies of all were in question?” No mention of Lincoln or any controversy. As Randall (known for being obviously defensive of her subject, but who did excellent work) notes: “But, of course, much could have happened between the time that letter was written and the first of January.” In the same letter, Mary spoke of her weight, "in her own poetic way": “I still am the same ruddy pineknot, only not quite as great an exuberance of flesh, as it once was my lot to contend with, although quite a sufficiency.”

This letter probably was written in the middle of December. As Wilson wrote:

Almost as if written in anticipation of our curiosity, Mary’s letter to Mercy Ann Levering in Baltimore talks about all the things we are interested in: Lincoln, Speed, who is being attentive to whom, who is engaged and about to commit “the crime of matrimony,” and even an appraisal of the new girl, Matilda Edwards. Here is the passage in Mary’s letter that introduces her:

Mr Edwards has a cousin from Alton spending the winter with us, a most interesting young lady, her fascinations, have drawn a concourse of beaux & company round us, occasionally, I feel as Miss Whitney [Wilson lists this person as unidentified, but I suspect it is a literary reference], we have too much of such useless commodities, you know it takes some time for habit to render us familiar with what we are not greatly accustomed to – Could you step in upon us some evenings in these “western wilds,” you would be astonished at the change, time has wrought on the hill, I would my Dearest, you now were with us, be assured your name is most frequently mentioned in our circle, words of mine are not necessary to assure you of the loss I have sustained in your society, on my return from Missouri, my time passed most heavily, I feel quite made up, in my present companion, a congenial spirit I assure you. I know you would be pleased with Matilda Edwards, a lovelier girl I never saw. Mr Speed’s ever changing heart I suspect is about offering its young affections at her shrine, with some others, there is considerable acquisition in our society of marriagable gentlemen, unfortunately only “birds of passage.” Mr Webb, a widower of modest merit, last winter is our principal lion, dances attendance very frequently, we expect a very gay winter, …”

What about Lincoln, who, according to most biographers, was at this time either engaged or very nearly engaged to the writer of this letter? He is mentioned by name twice, though it is far from clear what the first reference means. . .

Speed’s ‘grey suit’ has gone the way of all flesh, an interesting suit of Harrison blues have replaced his sober livery, Lincoln’s, lincoln green have gone to dust, Mr Webb sports a mourning p[in] by way of reminding us damsels, that we ‘cannot come it.’

The other reference to Lincoln concerns an excursion that is in preparation:

we have a pleasant jaunt in contemplation, to Jacksonville, next week there to spend a day or two, Mr Hardin & Browning are our leaders the van brought up by Miss E[dwards] my humble self, Webb, Lincoln & two or three others whom you know not, we are watching the clouds most anxiously trusting it may snow, so we may have a sleigh ride – Will it not be pleasant?

I believe much of these odd references are also literary. I have no idea why this needed to be so cryptic and poetic. Possibly both she and Mercy were facing family disapproval for romances and hoped to be discreet, as she also refers to Mercy’s love interest by a literary pseudonym. Or maybe Mary just enjoyed the creative exercise. Months later, a visiting relative wrote to a cousin (who happened to be Matilda’s brother) that Mary “told me to give you much love when I wrote with all kinds of pretty messages which I cannot recollect.” So this was apparently her style. I’m hoping that someone really into pre-1841 literature can identify some of this.

“Lincoln green” had been a popular color of dye, associated with Robin Hood. I briefly looked into this and found an interesting reference on Wikipedia.

Michael Drayton provided a sidenote in his Poly-Olbion (published 1612): "Lincoln anciently dyed the best green in England." Cloth of Lincoln green was more pleasing than undyed shepherd's gray cloth: "When they were clothed in Lyncolne grene they kest away their gray", according to A Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode, ca 1510, and Lincoln green betokened an old-fashioned forester. . .

The quote given associates it with a “woodman,” which sounds like it may be a good reference for Lincoln.

Harrison could somehow be a reference to William Henry Harrison — perhaps that Speed was perked up by his election? But the Wikipedia reference suggests there may be another connection - that his metaphorical gray suit is being contrasted with the more lively Lincoln green, which has now “gone to dust.” That phrase is common and easy to understand, but I have not been able to figure out where it has originated, and it is probably literary, given the quotes. I suspect more light may be shone by studying Robin Hood tales or The Faerie Queen, which contain such references, but I haven’t done that. In any event, it implies Speed is either perking up or getting worse, if blue refers to low mood. But Lincoln is almost certainly worse off.

On December 19th, Lincoln seemed fixated on a mostly procedural issue involving an investigating committee. Whether he was trying to protect his party, as his opponents claimed, make some sort of political maneuver, or, as he claimed, trying to correct a possible wrong against the public, is unclear. He pushed this issue several times, and repeatedly referred to his honest motives, saying that the members who knew him would know better than to accept the charge as made by a member he did not know well. What the result was is not clear.

On December 21, Lincoln spoke of how one member had alleged that some of his constituents had engaged in widespread fraud relating to controversy over the bank and currency. He conceded that one of his constituents had allegedly lied under oath, but that it didn’t go beyond that. Others accused him of throwing that one man under the bus because he was a Democrat and likely not to have voted for Lincoln. Lincoln repeatedly brought up the issue, and said that he “did not know whether Mr. D. voted for him or not---he presumed he did not. If there were those in this House who thought this fact would have any influence on his conduct in regard to this bill, he should not stop to enlighten them as to his motives; he was careless of the opinion of such.” He did not seem to be in a very good mood, and almost like he was looking for a fight or being petulant.

Matilda’s father wrote a letter home, dated only December 1840. From the context, Wilson concluded it almost certainly referred to the Christmas weekend, which seems likely. I don’t think Christmas was as significant then.

Your Sister [Matilda] started with Miss Todd for Jacksonville on Thursday morning under the protection of Mr Hardin, accompanied by Gillespie, Lincoln, Webb and Brown of Vermilion. They will return on Monday. We miss them very much.

They are believed to have returned on December 28th, and Lincoln was reportedly in the legislature the next day.

This has turned out to be so lengthy that I'm going to have to split it up. Part 3 will be posted shortly.

the female Illuminati and other secret societies

The Female Illuminati and Other Secret Societies A Brief Introduction

There are numbers of these mystic Brotherhoods which have naught to do with "civilized" countries, and it is in their unknown communities that are concealed the skeletons of the past.

These "adepts" could, if they chose, lay claim to strange ancestry. H. P. Blavatsky
People establish and join secret societies because they seek power.
Once they've achieved great power as well as wealth, they sometimes want to brag about it and let others know about their special status. To further this desire, members of secret societies - from Jesuits to Satanists - make use of the media. Highly financed movies are made to communicate to us on a non-verbal level.
These movies are often ostensibly based on the books of commissioned writers, themselves lower-level agents of powerful secret societies.
Hollywood movies occasionally provide us with keyhole visions into what's going on behind the scenes; although not enough for laymen and symbolically illiterate people to decipher and understand. That's why so many people remain ignorant about secret societies and their ways. However if we do a little serious research, it becomes easier to see what is going on.
This process is occasionally helped by whistle-blowing movies from Hollywood and other media orgs, movies such as,

Brotherhood of the Bell To the Devil a Daughter The Devil Rides Out The Omen Bladerunner Freejack Judge Dread Fifth Element Tombraider The Formula James Bond The Da Vinci Code National Treasure Skulls Eyes Wide Shut Ninth Gate,

...and so on.
As I said, perhaps we are deliberately BEING TOLD what is going on by the elites themselves. It's an intriguing thought.
Of course the serious researcher does not simply base his work on media extravaganzas. My own work on secret societies is based on sources, and I strengthen my ideas with numerous statements and quotes from insiders and those who have made a deep study of secret society symbolism.
In other words, the existence of secret fraternities is documented fact. Happily, if paradoxically, secret societies publish their own works which provide us with key insights into their origins and agendas.
After reading and studying material of this kind I eventually gained greater knowledge about the workings of the world's major secret societies,

the Freemasons Knights Templar Rosicrucians Knights of Malta Jesuits Illuminati, etc.

Additionally, the artwork I decipher is that which hangs in their own clubs and lodges, and in famous shrines such as the House of the Temple in Washington DC.
Interesting artwork is to be found in plenty throughout the world's many Masonic halls that stand in almost every major town and city casually passed and ignored by most people as they go about their business.
A study of the friezes and reliefs outside Masonic structures also furnished me with insight into the subtle manner in which insiders nonverbally communicate with us.
I learned to go even further, and observe the many clock towers, statues, fountains, murals, floors and obelisks, etc, which exist in major towns and cities. I discovered that most cities are ritually laid out and have a more esoteric purpose than one might guess.
As to the power of secret societies, we must accept that it is considerable. After doing nearly thirty years of research into these matters, I realized the extent of their sociopolitical power. I also realized that most of their operations would not receive public approval. This is partly why they prefer anonymity.
Although their identities may not be secret, their rites, behavior and designs for world control are kept in the dark and out of sight to ordinary men and women.
They make good use of hierarchies and fixed degree ceremonies to ensure that only the "right" kind of person gets to be an insider. Their recruiting fraternities are found in every major university and college. Their lower and higher members surround us in every school, university, corporation, livery company and charity.
To uncover their existence you must not wait for them to come out into the open.
You must go into your streets with open eyes and ask yourself,

Who built Bath? Who built London? Who built Washington DC, Cologne and Paris?

You might not understand completely all the secrets of these fraternities, but you can eventually realize that something strange has been going from the year dot.
You'll realize the tremendous financial power that exists, out of reach of the common man. And you'll realize the time it took to attain such power. In the end you'll be more aware of the presence and prestige of the equestrian and chivalric orders that infest our world.
You'll understand how their many lower-level branches and fraternities work to filter out moral men and promote immoral and amoral ones.
Ask questions such as:

How can a small country like England, since the 16th century, successfully get its predatory talons into so many other far off lands, conquering, colonizing and "ruling the waves?"

How did a predatory exploitative organization like the Vatican (which is more than the center of the Roman Catholic religion) gain so much power?
Why does it still exist after the heinous historical crimes of which it is guilty - more than 500 years of the persecution of so called "witches," who were just ordinary women doing their thing - healing, learning about nature's ways, knowing the secrets of herbalism and agriculture?,
...etc.
We are talking about nearly nine million victims of total deliberate slaughter.
And that series of atrocities is just a single instance of the pestilence of this Roman branch of the ancient Atonist "Black Lodge" that I expose throughout my works.
To get away with it, and remain above the law, takes considerable power doesn't it? Right! So what's different when it comes to the existence of even more elusive and deadly orders?
The Vatican is allied with numerous secret orders, such as the Knights of Malta, Knights of Columbus, Order of Christ, Knights of St. John, Opus Dei, and of course the Knights Templar - one of the most powerful organizations in the world.
Some of the top degrees of what we know to be Freemasonry are Templar degrees.
This is because agents of pro-Templar factions within the College of Cardinals have long taken over most Freemasonic orders throughout the world. Warnings about this surreptitious takeover went out from men in the know during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Observant insiders, such as Nicolas de Bonneville, Samuel Pritchard, Abbe Barruel and others, believed that ostensibly Protestant orders of Masonry had been completely undermined by Templar factions within the Italian Ring.
There is no doubt in my mind that the same is the case for the ostensibly Protestant Rosicrucian Order created in the seventeenth century. Suggestively, some chief Rosicrucian symbols, such as the cross and rose, are to be found on earlier Templar (Catholic) architecture and in their traditions.
Moreover, in Catholic dominated lodges, such as those of Grand Orient Masonry, degrees known as "Rose Cross" exist, clearly an impossibility if the Rosicrucians were truly a Protestant breakaway sect.

Around 1530, more than eighty years before the publication of the first manifesto, the association of cross and rose already existed in Portugal in the Convent of the Order of Christ, home of the Knights Templar, later renamed Order of Christ.

Three bocetes were, and still are, on the vault of the initiation room. The rose can clearly be seen at the center of the cross. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia (Entry on Roscicrucianism) Documents available in France today contend that an Order of the Rosy Cross was founded in 1188 by a pre-Masonic Templar named Jean de Gisors, vassal of English King Henry II and the first independent grand master of the Order of Sion. Jim Marrs (Rule by Secrecy)
The Order of the Illuminati appears as an accessory to Freemasonry. It is in the Lodges of Freemasons that the Minervals are found, and there they are prepared for Illumination. They must have previously obtained the three English degrees. The founder says more.
He says that his doctrines are the only true Freemasonry. He was the chief promoter of the Eclectic System.
This he urged as the best method of getting information of all the explanations which have been given of the Masonic Mysteries. He was also a Strict Observance and an adept Rosicrucian. John Robinson (Born in Blood) The Rosy Cross derived from the Red Cross of the Templars.
Mirabeau, who as a Freemason and an Illuminatus, was in a position to discover many facts about the secret societies of Germany during his stay in the country, definitely asserts that, "the Rose Croix Masons of the seventeenth century were only the ancient Order of the Templars secretly perpetuated". Nesta Webster (quoting from Count Mirabeau's Histoire de la Monarchie Prussienne)
In France the Knights [Templar] who left the Order, henceforth hidden, and so to speak unknown, formed the Order of the Flaming Star and of the Rose-Croix, which in the fifteenth century spread itself in Bohemia and Silesia. Lecouteulx de Canteleu Templar graves have been found in several sites in Palestine which contain a carved effigy of a warrior's sword, which itself is a cruciform shape, around which are entwined roses. Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe (The Warriors and the Bankers)
Clearly the Rosicrucians served as yet one more cover society behind which cunning, far-seeing Templars managed to conceal themselves.
The symbol of the red cross was bestowed on the Templars by Pope Eugenius III, but the symbol predates modern times. It was originally employed by the Arya. It is a goddess symbol par excellence. In Greek mythology the god of beauty, Adonis, was transformed into a rose by the goddess Venus.
The red color of the flower was thereby caused by his blood.
Venus is the tutelary deity of the Sisterhood. In this instance the rose symbolizes the power of the female goddess over the male acolyte who sacrificially offers his phallus (and sometimes his life) to her. It was in twelfth century, during the reign of King Stephen, that the Templar red cross first appeared as the chief heraldic emblem of England.
These largely Templaresque chivalric or equestrian orders own immense wealth and command titanic power.
They are the Alpha Lodges that don't accept you and I or any common man.
They are headed by extremely privileged individuals such as,

King Juan Carlos of Spain the Duke of Kent Queen Beatrix of Holland Queen Elizabeth of England,

...as well as those she appoints to her so-called Privy Council,

Order of St. Michael and St. George Knights of the Garter

Men from these illustrious bodies commission other important societies around the world, both secret and open, for the recruitment of loyal members whose job it is to interface with the "unwashed" masses.
These recruits come from the Catholic world as much as from the Protestant, which should have alerted interested parties long ago.
The various British, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese elite counsels serve even higher, more elusive concerns which I refer to as the "Black Lodge." This term refers to the superior counsel of Atonists whose own origins trace back to the time of Pharaoh Akhenaton, the Biblical Moses.
The all-powerful Atonist Black Lodge in turn authorizes the various societies and counsels mentioned above to vet and select the many other less-informed lieutenants who get to run the governments, institutes and think-tanks of countries throughout the world. These lower-level pawns are the common duplicitous politicians and functionaries we are all too familiar with.
These "opposames" certainly do not serve you or I. Nowadays, because of the unceasing work of researchers such as myself, many intelligent people realize this fact.
Indeed, the main reason why we tend to doubt the existence and power of secret societies is simply because we are not members of the club. It all goes on in the shadows and periphery of vision. You have to make a detailed lifelong study to uncover the roots of this pestilence.
You must learn to endure the ridicule of almost everyone you attempt to awaken on these controversial matters. You must also be able to keep track of the seismic changes and dynastic rivalries that have occurred within the world of secret societies.
Some of these feuds and purges are known to the public while others have been kept secret for centuries.
The role of women in regards the world's most powerful secret societies is one area neglected by mainstream historians, and for good reason. The Female Illuminati is second to none in authority, and their senior members have seen to it that knowledge of their existence does not leak out.
Most people are inclined to believe that women play no part whatsoever in Masonry or Templarism.
As I show in my Female Illuminati program, nothing could be further from the truth.
Not only did women birth, raise and marry male demagogues the world over, those who apparently established infamous secret societies, but women were in many cases top members of these societies.

Dudley Wright said in his book Women and Freemasonry, that, "there is evidence in days gone by that women were admitted into the Order of the Knights Templar," substantiated by the recent discovery of Templar gravestones for women. Tony Bushby (Secret in the Bible)

As to the origin of the Illuminati, you can look to two interesting men to gain understanding.
One is Ignatius Loyola of Spain and the other Adam Weishaupt of Germany.
Ignatius Loyola was the founder of the infamous Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuit Order. He was their first "General" or "Black Pope."
Curiously, the Jesuit Order (the only Catholic order ever to be officially suppressed and penalized) was temporarily abolished in the year 1773. Pope Clement XIV finally, with some reluctance, issued a Papal Brief (order) completely abolishing the Jesuit Order, supposedly for all time.
Now we ask,

are we to accept it as a coincidence that the Illuminati (under Weishaupt) come online, as it were, in the year 1776?

The Jesuits had been in trouble with numerous powerful monarchs in Europe and South America for over ten years before the ban was issued.
So they were well and truly aware of what was in store for them and their nefarious order.
Before the hammer came down in 1773, the Jesuits anticipated their dire predicament and fomented plans for a clandestine resurgence. In fact the Jesuits were already experienced at creating satellite orders throughout the world for their members to conceal themselves behind during times when local suppression occurred.
So it was easy for them to resurface under a new guise when the situation demanded it. After their worldwide ban, their new organ of concealment, infiltration and destruction, was in my opinion undoubtedly the Bavarian Illuminati.
But what further proof do we have other than the coinciding dates?
Well, the name "Illuminati" itself takes us straight to the door of Ignatius Loyola. As a young man in Spain he had been arrested and charged with membership and support of the notorious sect known as the Alumbrados, which may have originated in the 1490s.
Loyola was arrested, charged with heresy and imprisoned due to his affiliation with the sect. He lost his university position and was under strict surveillance for some time because of his open affiliation with the secretive illegal society. Suggestively, the Alumbrados were also known as "The Illuminati."
They referred to themselves as the Brothers of Light or Shining Ones.
So do we take it as a coincidence that the later Bavarian Illuminists just happened to adopt this title from the selfsame order favored by the founder and head of the Jesuits?
The rhetoric and propaganda released by the Illuminati and their agents, concocted to distance themselves from the Jesuits - and to give the appearance of being anti-monarchist - does not change the facts.
Adam Weishaupt was himself a Jesuit and in our opinion he remained so until the end. He was not anti-monarchy because some of his closest compatriots, such as Baron von Knigge, were nobles related to illustrious dynasties such as Stuart, Hesse, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Hapsburg, Bourbon, Lorraine, and others.
Moreover, Weishaupt languished in the homes of the nobility for the last forty years of his life, even receiving a lifelong pension from Ernest II, the Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, himself an Illuminati member.
Apparently the Lutheran Duke did not mind working alongside Catholic members such as the Count de Mirabeau and Duc d'Orleans, etc.
Another confederate and co-creator of the Bavarian Illuminati was Prince William of Hesse-Kassel, from the family which employed the Rothschilds as treasurers and investors.
Prince William's brother Karl was both an elite Mason and an Illuminist.
The merger of the Illuminati and the Masons occurred at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad, in 1777, at a cozy retreat owned by Prince William.

The Weishaupt documents are incontestably authentic; the Bavarian government unwittingly forestalled any attempt to cry "Forgery" (in the manner made familiar in our century) by inviting any who were interested to inspect the original documents in the archives at Munich. Douglas Reed (Controversy of Zion)

The Duke of Brunswick (Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand), himself a senior Mason, sounded a worldwide warning about the subversive agenda of the Templar-Jesuit-Illuminati.
His address of 1794 informed the world as to the danger of the Illuminist infiltration of Masonry.
During his speech, the Duke warned:

A great sect arose, which taking for its motto the good and the happiness of man, worked in the darkness of the conspiracy to make the happiness of humanity a prey for itself.

This sect is known to everyone; its brothers are known no less than its name.
The Duke referred to the infiltrators and corrupters as a "Sun Order."
In our opinion this intriguing reference describes and leads us to the door of the ancient Atonist Order of Zadok or Melchizedek, that is of Pharaoh Akhenaton and his ideological descendants, i.e.,

the Knights Templar Strict Observance Grand Orient Jesuits,

...and other clandestine orders.

Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity - an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect... the one visible and the other invisible.

The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of 'free and accepted' men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic and humanitarian concerns.
The invisible society is a secret and most august fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of an... Arcanum Arcandrum (sacred secret) M. P. Hall
Weishaupt's order was partly financed by the Jewish Rothschild dynasty, but all is revealed when we remember that the Rothschilds were, and still are, Papal Knights.
In other words they are Templar-Luciferian-Masons directed by the Templar factions of the Vatican, such as the Knights of Malta, a super-wealthy order directly descended from the Templars and Hospitallers of old.
Indeed the Templars and Jesuits indulged in banking and tax-collecting before the Jews.
The Rothschilds began banking enterprises in the eighteenth century, whereas the Templars were involved in banking in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

...the Templars became bankers to every throne in Europe.

They lent money to hard-up monarchs at low interest rates and transferred money for merchant bankers.
Through a system of promissory notes they allowed money deposited in one city to be drawn in another. They became money-changers and powerful capitalists who conducted diplomacy between monarchs.
In England the Master of the Temple was soon given precedence over all other priors and abbots. Nicholas Hagger (Secret History of the West)
The Templars eventually became so rich that the monarchs of some of the kingdoms within which they operated were wholly dependent on their support.
Several kings of England actually lodged the treasury of the realm at the Templar headquarters in London, as surety against the massive debts they ran up with the order. This gave the Templars great power to influence decision-making, and they regularly acted as arbiters for warring monarchs. Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe (The Knights Templar Revealed)
By the beginning of the thirteenth century the Templars had become the international bankers of Europe and were appointed treasurers to the French royal family and the Vatican. Michael Howard (Occult Conspiracy)
The Rothschilds, for all their colossal power and wealth, were and are servants of the more secretive and illustrious Gaonim or Order of Melchizedek that merely expanded its ancient order into what we know as the Templars and Bavarian Illuminati.
Once this is understood a lot of missing pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

The Jews have historically been used as a hidden order of the Catholic Church. They do the things that the Catholic Church does not like to be seen doing. Jews are perfect for the job…

As long as people rail at the Jews, and as long as they rail back at their attackers, no one will look beyond the Jews - and that is where the body is buried. Richard Kelley Hoskins (In the Beginning: The Story of the International Trade Cartel)
The Jews appear as abject servants of the Catholic Church...
To the 'Alpha Jews' the door of the Church corporation stands wide open. There are countless Jewish priests, scores of Jewish cardinals and bishops, and some like Anaclet II, Gregory VI and Gregory VII became Popes. ibid
...you hear of the Rothschilds in the world of finance.
They are not the originators of the control over finance and the practices therein. But they have been given a franchise to control the money aspect of the people of the world.
In return for their exercising this control and keeping their mouth shut they are given handsome privileges of money manipulation and of course increase their money wealth by leaps and bounds. Norman Dodd (Reese Commission Research Director)
📷

The Jewish Illuminists not only included members of the infamous Rothschild family - agents of the Templar-Luciferians - but also Moses Mendelssohn, one of the five original members of the Illuminati.

Loyola, Francis Xavier, and other early Jesuits wrote that they were intentionally organizing their fledgling society along the lines of the Knights Templar, the renegade once Catholic order suppressed by the Church in the fourteen century.
So why would the situation have been different in the eighteenth century when the curtain was temporarily brought down on the Jesuits by higher authority?
I do not think it was different. I think the Jesuits simply adopted the structure of their parent order - the Templars.
I also believe it was Templar agents within the Vatican who, during the reign of Pope Pius VII, worked to overturn Pope Clement's ban and restore the Jesuits legally to their original prominent station.
📷

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) and Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830).

Both men were Jesuits and "Illuminists."
Loyola and his order were obsessively dedicated to the Virgin Mary while the members of the Illuminati referred to themselves as "Minervals," after the goddess Minerva.
One of Minerva's mascots was the owl, the bird that hunts at night and sees what is invisible to those who dwell in the light of day.
Mary and Minerva are both "virginal" icons. This is a reference not to sex but to the female Dragon Court behind the more conspicuous male orders.
Minerva is a "rebel" goddess who assisted Prometheus to steal the heavenly fire. Her origin lies with the most ancient Egyptian goddess Neith, the "Red Queen."
The red shield and arrows that appear on the Rothschild family crest allude to Neith, who was transmogrified into Pallas-Athena or Minerva.
The single eye is also a prime goddess symbol.
The Frankfurt branch of the Illuminati was entitled the "All Seeing Eye" lodge, once headed by the notorious Jacob Frank, head of the dionysian order of Frankists.
It is interesting and suggestive that both Loyola and Weishaupt were Jesuits. They may also have had Jewish ancestry. In any case, it is significant that they were Roman Catholics before they founded their secretive cabals.
This tells us that, after becoming Masons in their younger days, they were later recruited and indoctrinated by Templar agents.

As never before since our alienation, this battle for freedom can now be fought by all Germans, and virtuously ended in the clear perception of our enemies: Jews, Freemasons, Jesuits and the Roman Pope. General Erich Ludendorff (Destruction of Freemasonry)

Not only does the fraternity (Freemasonry) owe its existence to Templarism, the fraternity seems to loudly proclaim it in a number of ways. Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe
I have shown from authentic documents that, from its introduction into France by monks until the advent of the reign of James I of England, British Masonry was purely Roman Catholic, and that its Grand Masters, of whom I have provided the official list, were drawn exclusively from the Court, the Nobility or the Prelacy…
Despite the birth of the distinctive Masonry of William of Orange in 1694, the ancient British Masonry preserved its ancient statutes under the Protestant King and remained Roman Catholic: proof of this is to be found in the precious Masonic documents which I propose to publish, and which escaped the mad orgy of destruction at the hands of the innovators of modern Masonry in 1747. Brother Teder (L'irregularite du Grand Orient de France, 1909)
It is claimed that before his execution the last Grand Master of the Templars, Jacques de Molay, assigned Hugo von Salm, a canon of Mainz, the mission of smuggling important Templar documents into Scotland.
De Molay's hope was that the Templars could be reactivated there under another name. That name, according to the tradition, is Freemasonry. Strict Observance Masonry incorporated references to the Templars into its rites and degrees. Glenn Magee (Hegel & the Hermetic Tradition)
As your study continues you'll find that there are many lies told about these men and their orgs.
Adam Weishaupt's group is erroneously considered to have been anti-royalist. This assertion is blatantly false. Adam Weishaupt received additional support and funding from various nobles and royals, such as Baron von Knigge, and more significantly from Charles de Lorraine and the Duke de Orleans, that is by members of the Stuart, Hapsburg, Bourbon, Lorraine, Capet, and other powerful European dynasties.
Members of these royal families were seniors within other powerful secret societies such as the Rosicrucians, Strict Observance and Scottish Rite, etc.
Some sources believe it was Charles de Lorraine (working under the pseudonym Kolmer) who divulged esoteric secrets to Weishaupt and commissioned him to establish the Illuminati.
And the elusive Charles was no commoner. He was a true blue blood. So the idea that the Illuminati were against monarchy is laughable.
The only monarchs and nobles they were against were those not under their control and not members of their perfidious Brotherhood. Interestingly the highest grade attainable within the Illuminati bore the title REX meaning "King."
A strange title to bestow upon the highest initiate of a supposedly anti-royalist cabal, right?
It makes sense if your order is based on the Templar tradition, in which case the "King" in question is Lucifer, Lord of Light.

The man who is good for nothing better remains a Scottish Knight. If he is, however, a particularly industrious coordinator, observer, worker, he becomes a Priest...

If there are among these (Priests) high speculative intellects, they become Magi. These collect and put in order the higher philosophical system and work at the People's Religion, which the Order will next give to the world.
Should these high geniuses also be able to rule the world, they will become regents. Adam Weishaupt
Yes, by Weishaupt's own words we see that it is a matter of "ruling" the world, not "helping" the world. Nice that he was so explicit.
The Templar-Illuminists merely adopted an anti-royalist stance because it was an expedient ruse. It got them where they wanted to go. Societies of this kind are very chameleon-like. They know their enemies and how to subvert them. They know how to lure and win favor.
They know how to create and sustain faux rival groups to prevent authentic rival groups from moving against them.
This tactic has served the powers-that-be no end. The propaganda they dished out in the eighteenth century was cunningly designed to attract rebellious young men of wealth and intelligence from all over the world. After all, you don't want your secret society full of idiots.
The idea was to attract such men in order to prevent them forming or joining authentic opposition movements which were sprouting up throughout Europe and the Middle East.
In order to seduce the young idealistic freedom-loving sons of wealthy royals and nobles, the Illuminati cunningly professed to be politically progressive and morally libertine. New recruits inevitably fell under the control of their puppeteers. Susceptible types were successfully indoctrinated, whereas overly suspicious radicals who sensed they were being misled were professionally or even physically assassinated.
After generations of Machiavellian scheming, the Illuminati's agents ensconced themselves in every religious, political and corporate organization and institution, intent on changing the direction of world events to suit their sinister agendas.
It is only in relatively recent times that humanity has been made aware of these machinations, and there's still a ways to go before we can successfully subvert these blood-soaked crime lords and architects of control.
One of the biggest lies told about the Jesuits is that they are indelibly liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth. They adopted a liberal facade in the twentieth century to fool moderns. A study of their vile history shows how ultra-conservative or ultramontanist they are beneath the surface.
One reason for the facade has to do with their intention of moving the governments of Europe and America toward the creation of multinational organizations such as the United Nations, an impossible task until they adopted a more humanitarian and benign guise.
In any case, regardless of the Templar-Jesuit connection, it is not right to think that the perfidious Order of the Illuminati began in the 1700s. Nor is it correct to think of Masonry starting in the 17th and 18th centuries.
As we said, the Alumbrados date from the fifteenth century, and there are other orders that preceded them, such as the Templars, Hospitallers and Rosicrucians, etc.
Churches and monuments in France dating to the 5th century display Masonic emblems, and scholars have found Masonic symbols in the artwork and architecture of ancient Egypt.
Masonic-style aprons were certainly worn by early pharaohs and Phoenicians. Templar-like crosses can be seen on the regalia of Sumerian and Babylonian kings.
Moreover, there are many eminent Masonic writers who have emphasized their society's antiquity.
More importantly, the multifaceted symbolism employed by these societies - the coffin, triangle, pyramid, pentagram, hexagram, twin pillars, checked floor, compass, letter G, etc - is undoubtedly ancient.
This idiosyncratic symbolism conceals the "mysteries" to be uncovered and understood, mysteries that lead back to ancient Egypt and beyond.

Smith, in his chapter on the antiquity of Masonry in Britain, says that "notwithstanding the obscurity which envelopes Masonic history in that country, various circumstances contribute to prove that Freemasonry was introduced into Britain about 1030 years before Christ". Thomas Paine (The Origins of Freemasonry)

...it is seen that Freemasonry also existed in the 1300s, as shown by documents that are still in existence. These include the Regius and Cooke documents. Sanford Holst (Sworn in Secret)
The symbols of Freemasonry reflect much of its heritage, and reach back far into antiquity. ibid
...any person who has looked at the issues carefully must first come to the conclusions that not only did the Knights Templar, in one form or another, very definitely survive beyond 1307, but that Freemasonry, on one form or another, significantly predates the 18th century. Butler and Dafoe (The Knights Templar Revealed)
It is also important to realize that the Illuminati is not an exclusively Western phenomenon.
Some researchers believe the Templars were heavily influenced by Middle-Eastern and Oriental occult societies and traditions, so much so that they willingly, if secretly, renounced Christianity.
According to some sources this accounts for why their parent order, the Priory de Sion, excommunicated the Templars in the year 1188.
It is also the reason the Templars were officially suppressed in 1314 by the reigning Pope and King of France. I prefer to believe that it was after their coffers were seized and their leaders arrested and tortured that the Templars became apostates.
The Eastern Illuminati include societies such as the,

Druze Ishmalis Assassins Sabbateans Seveners,

...themselves branches of the super-secret Order of Melchizedek (discussed in Chapter 6 of The Stargate Conspiracy) or Atonist Black Lodge that goes back to ancient Egypt.
Although the Sabbateans and Seveners (like later Frankists) were officially founded by Jewish and crypto-Jewish occultists, their true origins lie in ancient times with the elusive Gaonim or Gaonate.
Significantly, the Gaonim - themselves high-degree Atonists - referred to themselves as Exilarchs or Princes of Light. They and their many agents constitute the male family tree of the all too real Illumined Ones or Illuminati.
The famous letter "G" seen on Masonic emblems (and several corporate logos) signifies not only this illustrious patriarchal cadre, but the even more elusive and peculiar quorum they serve, those I refer to as the Serpent or Dragon Sisterhood, or Female Illuminati. (The lower case "g" signifies the serpent or dragon.)

The time I played Stephen Colbert at church: Sustaining church leaders, Handcart trek, Use of reason.

TL:DR, I a closeted non-believing member taught about natural law and attempted to use subtle satire to enlighten the congregation.
Sorry this is so long. Since General Conference is coming up I thought I would offer my own talk which was given some time ago. I vowed to myself that it will be the last I ever give. They asked me to give this talk because I had gotten into a little bit of trouble in EQ by questioning teachings of prophets, specifically Ezra Benson. It does seem to be an awkward talk. I would prefer to just speak my mind honestly, but since any fall-out would negatively affect my relationship with my wife I resorted to satire. I know that the bishopric assigned me this talk as a way to put me in line for comments I had made. The day I was assigned the EQP talked all nice to me and he never talks to me. Anyway, the talk clocked in at about 21 minutes. My wife had me remove the quote from Packer about LGBT being a threat to the church, thus proving John Larsen right that words of profits can't stand for more than 25 years or whatever. I wasn't too sad about removing it because I suspect that there is at least one or two LGBT members in the congregation. No one from the bishopric thanked me afterwards. I did get several positive comments from members, most were from people who likely did not get the gist of what I was actually saying. One guy congratulated me and said it was very good. I suspect he is likely NOM.
Sustaining Church Leaders
Good morning brothers and sisters. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to be able to speak today. I’ve been assigned the topic “Sustaining church leaders.” I will attempt to cover what that means to sustain both prophets and to a lesser extent local leaders. First I would like to compare and contrast so that our beliefs can come into greater focus. There are two manners in the world today in which people believe that divine laws reach mankind. In other faith traditions there is a strong belief in what is called Natural Law.
“Natural law proponents consistently make four claims in regard to natural law: 1) there are unchanging principles of law that exist in “nature” (are part of the natural realm) that define for man what is right, just, and good, and which ought to govern his actions; 2) these principles of law are accessible to all men and are discovered by the right use of reason; 3) these principles of law apply to all men at all times and in all circumstances; 4) man-made laws (e.g., those promulgated by the state) are just and authoritative only insofar as they are derivable from the principles of law in nature.
The natural law theory is based on the belief that certain principles of law are inherent in the very nature of things and that men can discern these by means of reason. There is a natural moral order in the universe; a metaphysical realm reached through reason, not the senses. Hence, natural law standards are beyond empirical proof:
Unprovable though these principles are, however, they can be known by man because they are self-evident. They are, so to speak, laws that nature has inscribed upon the heart of man. . . . “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” said the authors of the American Declaration of Independence; the advocates of the natural-law theory take this to be the status of all the fundamental principles of right and justice.
Self-evident truth propositions must serve as their own evidence — if they are true they must be self-evident because no evidence can be gathered from the senses or experience to establish them. Hence, natural law is not perceived through sensory experience, but is intuitively grasped as being true and right by the mind and conscience.
Since natural law is part of the nature of things the knowledge of it is accessible to all men through reason apart from any supernatural revelation. God may be the source of natural law, but he has inscribed his moral law in nature and in man (who is a part of nature); hence, there is no need for any further revelation outside of nature itself for the knowledge of the moral law. The natural law theory holds to the sufficiency of nature and man’s intellect (reason) to establish a “just” ethical system for man and society.”
To us as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it should be self-evident that we do not believe in Natural Law. Our beliefs do not conform to manmade beliefs. It should be obvious that we do not believe that we have been endowed by our Heavenly Father with divine reason, however popular that notion was to the early Christian fathers. For we read in Mosiah 3:19 “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever.” There is nothing innate about human nature that allows us to discover eternal truths by ourselves.
This brings me to where we as members learn eternal truths. We cannot rely on worldly reason, that should be apparent enough. God forever has established the correct way when he said “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” This is the order that we must follow to learn divine truths. It would be nonsense to rely on our own reason. We should never attempt to rely on the arm of flesh. We should be trusting and supportive of our church leaders. President Gordon B. Hinckley said the following “I give you my testimony that the happiness of the Latter-day Saints, the peace of the Latter-day Saints, the progress of the Latter-day Saints, the prosperity of the Latter-day Saints, and the eternal salvation and exaltation of this people lie in walking in obedience to the counsels of the priesthood of God.” On LDS.org it says the following about sustaining our leaders: “Raising our hands to sustain someone is not like voting that person into office. The person has already been called by the Lord to serve in that calling by one who has the priesthood authority to extend such a calling. Our sustaining is a vote of confidence in the person, because we recognize that he or she has been called of God through priesthood leaders we sustain.”
Consequently, since our leaders have been chosen by God, we should never criticize them. No less than N. Eldon Tanner in General Conference stated that “When the Prophet speaks the debate is over,” further echoing the sage advice which was given to home teachers that “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan- it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."
Brigham Young stated “The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.” We should never believe that we know more than the leaders and attempt to steady the ark as it were. Bruce R. McConkie stated that “No true Latter-day Saint will ever take a stand that is in opposition to what the Lord has revealed to those who direct the affairs of his earthly kingdom. No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith.”
There may also be the tendency for those that use their own human reasoning to apply that to the world’s problems and try to project their own definitions of what is just onto the church. Elder Boyd K. Packer said in conference in 1993 “There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. I chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems reasonable and right.
“The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals. Our local leaders must deal with all three of them with ever increasingly frequency. In each case, the members who are hurting have the conviction that the Church somehow is doing something wrong to members or that the Church is not doing enough for them.” In 1992 Packer stated “Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.”
Also putting us in danger of losing the safety that the prophet’s counsel gives us is when we attempt to interpret historical events without seeing God’s hand at work. Elder Packer said “There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work... There is a temptation... to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith-promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful... In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary... In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it... The fact that something is already in print or available from another source is no excuse for using potentially damaging materials in writing, speaking, or teaching: ‘Do not spread disease germs!'” Elder Dallin H. Oaks reiterated the same divine truth when he stated that “Some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate. Readers of history and biography should ponder that moral reality as part of their effort to understand the significance of what they read.” We should be grateful that these prophets and seers have warned us of the peril of studying true things that are designed to harm our testimonies.
With regard to our leaders we should keep in mind what the divine law of common consent means. There is a story told by President Henry B. Eyring which illustrates the real meaning very well. He starts out by telling about a young man that wanted an interview when Eyring was a young bishop. As they met this is what occurred in President Eyring’s words “He began his prayer with a testimony that he knew the bishop was called of God. He asked God to tell me what he should do in a matter of great spiritual consequence. The young man told God he was sure the bishop already knew his needs and would be given the counsel he needed to hear.
"That young man, one year in the Church, taught by example what God can do with a leader as he is sustained by the faith and prayers of those he is called to lead. That young man demonstrated for me the power of the law of common consent in the Church (see D&C 26:2). Even though the Lord calls His servants by revelation, they can function only after being sustained by those they are called to serve.” Living the law of common consent does not consist in raising our hands as if voting for our leaders; it consists in being humble and recognizing that the leaders have been called by God and being submissive to accept whatever counsel is given as the Lord’s counsel.
We would all do well to remember the counsel that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave to the Saints as found in Church History Volume 5: " That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."
"God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation." I believe that this divine counsel puts into perspective how we should never give in to trust our own reason or the world’s. Their understanding of morality is so flawed. We need to follow the prophets who receive revelation for the church.
Let me share a story that is more personal to me to help illustrate these principles. In late 1856 the 4th and 5th handcart companies to cross the plains were late getting a start at Iowa City, Iowa. Heading out so late and even though they headed out as fast as they could they did not reach Great Salt Lake City before the weather turned bad. The Martin and Willie handcart companies did encounter tragedy, with at least 213 deaths between the two companies. Travelling with the Martin handcart company was my Great, Great, Great, Great grandmother Ann Aldred Williamson, from Lancashire, England, along with her six children, Ellen, Elizabeth, Mary, William, John, and Betsy. Her husband was already living in Southern Utah for a few years while the rest of the family saved enough money. While making the trek the family had to tie a bell around 3 year old Betsy so they would know if she had wandered away.
Now many people, not acquainted with the divine designs of the Lord, often treat the whole ordeal as something avoidable. If the Martin and Willie companies had simply waited until the next year and gotten an early start then they could have avoided so many deaths. Such reasoning entirely misses the mark. The Saints in these two companies were warned. Travelling with the Saints was the recently returned missionary Levi Savage who knew the country well which the immigrants would be traversing. Savage said the following about a meeting the Saints had before leaving Florence, Nebraska “Today we commenced preparing for our journey and ascertaining who wishes to go on this fall and who wishes to remain here. Many are going to stop. Others are faltering and I myself am not in favor of, but much opposed to, taking women and children through when they are destitute of clothing, when we all know that we are bound to be caught in the snow and severe cold weather long before we reach the valley. When asked by President Willie to share his thoughts with the company on leaving so late in the year Savage (again in his own words from his personal journal) said on August 13th: Brother Willey exhorted the Saints to go forward regardless of suffering even to death. After he had spoken, he gave me the opportunity of speaking. I said to him that if I spoke I must speak my mind, let it cut where it would. He said certainly to do so. I then related to the Saints the hardships that we should have to endure. I said that we were liable to have to wade in snow up to our knees and shovel at night, lay ourselves in a thin blanket and lie on the frozen ground without a bed. I said that it was not like having a wagon that we could go into and wrap ourselves in as much as we like and lay down. “No,” said I, “we are without wagons, destitute of clothing and could not carry it if we had it. We must go as we are. The handcart system I do not condemn. I think t preferable to unbroken oxen and experienced teamsters. The lateness of the season was my only objection to leaving this point for the mountains at this time. I spoke warmly upon the subject, but spoke truth, and the people, judging from appearance and expressions, felt the force of it. (However, the most of them determined to go forward, if the authorities say so.) Elder Willey then spoke again in reply to what I had said, evidently dissatisfied. He said that the God that he served was a God that was able to save to the utermost. He said that was the God that he served, and he wanted no Job’s comforters with him. I then said that what I had said was the truth, and if Elder Willey did not want me to act in the place where I am, he is at full liberty to place another man in my stead. I would not think hard of him for it, But, I did not care what he said about Job’s comforters, I had spoken nothing but the truth and he knew it. Elder Atwood then spoke mildly and to the purpose. He said that he had been listening to what had been said. He exhorted the Saints to pray to God and get a revelation and know for themselves whether they should go or stay, for it was their privilege to know for themselves.”
Was Levi Savage justified in making his remarks that he did not agree that making the journey was the right thing to do so late in the season? Detractors of the church imply that other factors were at play which made the Saints decide to go ahead with the journey even when the proper use of reason would indicate that it was not a wise idea. Savage, whether improperly or not, intimates that the members would go along with whatever their leadership said not matter what, when he said “However, the most of them determined to go forward, if the authorities say so.”
The answer to this question rests upon the principles that we have discussed today. As the handcart companies pushed forward into Nebraska, Apostle Franklin D. Richards who was in charge of handcart migration, passed the companies in his wagon on his way to Salt Lake. He did make a stop to visit with the immigrants and to assure them that they would be resupplied at Ft. Laramie Wyoming. He also was impressed to give a talk to the Saints where he, together with Capt. Willie gave Levi Savage a severe reprimand for his language that he had used at Florence in which he warned the Saints of the trouble which lie ahead. Perhaps Savage did not know what these men knew. Brigham Young had blessed the handcart plan as a way to bring members to Utah in a faster and cheaper fashion. Although many members wanted to stay in New York City, or wherever and save money to buy a team of oxen and a wagon to make the journey, Young and Apostle Franklin D. Richards wanted the immigrants to all make it to Utah that year. Savage was not understanding that it was not his place to persuade the Saints to not make the journey since the plan was Brigham Young’s and was therefore the will of the Lord. Savage further didn’t understand that the people believed in the Law of Common Consent and to comply with what they needed to do to follow the law they had to live by faith and they knew that whatever their leaders asked was God’s will since the leaders were called by God. Furthermore, the Saints had prayed about the issue and felt that they should follow their leaders.
Savage had not learned that he should not follow his own reason. He should have faithfully sustained his leaders, following the law of common consent. For those that follow the erroneous Natural Law, it may be okay to believe that it is a natural right, even righteous, to seek to preserve our own lives at all costs (except by injuring others). They would see in the natural order of things that it is good for mankind to seek his survival. When one has an eternal view of things, the perspective changes and so do one’s goals. Brigham Young offered a prescient statement concerning the handcart treks and what was really at stake. He said “To have to walk a thousand miles?—Those who get into the Celestial kingdom will count this a very light task in the end, and if they have to walk thousands of miles they will feel themselves happy for the privilege, that they may know how to enjoy celestial glory.” We can then gather that the death of the body is the least of our worries. What we must worry about is weather we are doing God’s will by following his divinely mandated leaders. We would do well to leave our thinking at home and practice the law of common consent and be faithful and know that whatever our leaders ask of us is God’s will. Lastly I would just like to quickly repeat the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet:

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I leave you these things, bearing my testimony that I believe in Jesus Christ and God our Eternal Father and everything that they have given to mankind in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

quorum definition in company law video

Individuals forming a quorum possess common/vested interest that is to bring about profit to the company or we can say the common interest of the betterment of the company. A meeting is considered to be as valid only and only if Quorum is present else is declared to be null and void. A quorum normally consists of a group that is considered as large as possible to be depended on to attend all corporate meetings, which is a qualitative assessment. The plural of a quorum is... Quorum means a simple majority of the membership of a public body, unless otherwise defined by applicable law. Quorum Has a Legal History. In Latin, quorum means "of whom" and is itself the genitive plural of qui, meaning "who." At one time, Latin quorum was used in the wording of the commissions issued to justices of the peace in England. SECTION 103. QUORUM FOR MEETINGS [Effective from 12th September, 2013] EXEMPTIONS Section 103 shall apply to a private company unless otherwise specified in respective sections or the articles of the company provide otherwise, vide Notification No. 464(E) dated 5th June, 2015. The above mentioned exception shall be applicable to a private company which has not… Quorum Definition. A quorum is the minimum number of people having a vested interest in an organization required to ensure the validity of a meetings proceedings under the corporate charter. This makes sure that adequate individuals are available in the meeting prior to the board makes any changes or alterations. A quorum is the minimum number of people who must be present to pass a law, make a judgment, or conduct business. Quorum requirements typically are found in a court, legislative assembly, or corporation (where those attending might be directors or stockholders). In some cases, the law requires more people than a simple majority to form a quorum. (1) In the case of a company limited by shares or guarantee and having only one member, one qualifying person present at a meeting is a quorum. (2) In any other case, subject to the provisions of the company's articles, two qualifying persons present at a meeting are a quorum, unless- A quorum is necessary to do business and a majority of the members of each house is considered as a quorum. Hallowed Heritage: The Life of Virginia Dorothy M. Torpey The governor was further to have the initiative of all measures proposed in the council, five of whom were required for a quorum . A quorum is a minimum number of members who must be present for any decisions of a meeting to be binding or valid. Societies, assemblies, associations, businesses, parliaments, and other organizations often have a quorum. Especially when they want to change rules, regulations, or make policy decisions.

quorum definition in company law top

What is company meeting? Types of company meeting 2020 ...

Hey Guys,Here we are again with the 6th part of this amazing chapter on Company Law - Management and Administration it covers almost 40% of your exam paper a... Hello All, Here is the new definition of a small Company as per the Companies Act 2013, As per the latest amendments, the updated definition of Small Company... CA (Final) Law - Quorum for BM (S 174) - Demo - By CA CS Munish Bhandari - For May 2021For buying Google Drive / Pen Drive Lectures, please visit www.bestwor... This video is of 11th standard secretarial practice chapter company meeting in this video I explained about the meaning of resolution & types of resolution a... Corporate governance is all about how companies are run by directors in order to meet their duties to shareholders. This short revision video introduces and... hi guysin today's video we started meeting chapter this is first part and other part will be avilable soon in our playlist.in this video we talk about meanin... To Buy video Lectures in Pendrive, DVD, online, Android, Books, Test Series please visit our website https://sanyogvyaslawclasses.com/ http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is QUORUM? What does QUORUM mean? QUORUM meaning - QUORUM pronunciation - QUORUM definition - QUORUM explanatio... #commerceps #commerce #bcom #companylaw #2019 #Companymeeting #shareholdersmeeting #directorsmeeting #creditorsmeeting #debtormeeting #statutorymeeting #annu... Thanks For Watching Subscribe to become a part of #Gyanpost Like, Comment, Share and Enjoy the videos. We are on a mission of providing a Free, World-class E...

Section 103 of Companies Act, 2013 – Quorum for Meetings ...

quorum definition in company law

quorum definition in company law - win

GREAT ANSWER: Is the opposite of feminism, masculinism? Is an MRA one?

Trying to talk to a feminist about boys underperformance in school:

FEMINIST'S LONG HISTORY OF BLOCKING GENDER EQUALITY ISSUES FOR MEN

What is the opposite of a feminist? A masculinist? Is a MRA a masculinist?

Trying to talk to a feminist about boys underperformance in school:

FEMINIST'S LONG HISTORY OF BLOCKING GENDER EQUALITY ISSUES FOR MEN

How many NTP server should we have?

Fighting Depression & Anxiety - Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Being an Ex-Mo.

The Unresolved Mysteries Surrounding Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln's Engagement and Marriage: Part 2

Mary Owens Recap

Contemporary Evidence

The Dray Incident

Newspapers

Mary's Summer of 1840 Letters

Mary's Return to Springfield

Matilda Edwards

Signs of Trouble?

the female Illuminati and other secret societies

The time I played Stephen Colbert at church: Sustaining church leaders, Handcart trek, Use of reason.

quorum definition in company law video

quorum definition in company law top

What is company meeting? Types of company meeting 2020 ...