Why is it that so much of our history is distorted or downright incorrect? There is a constant battle between who is right and who is wrong. That is why this world is truly Satan’s until the Lord comes and establishes His perfect government. Like the Bible says, men today are, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Tim. 3:7
“I have come to believe that it is the tendency for many members of the Church who spend a great deal of time in academic research to begin to judge the Church, its doctrine, organization, and leadership, present and past, by the principles of their own profession. Ofttimes this is done unwittingly, and some of it, perhaps, is not harmful.” The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer
“This problem has affected some of those who have taught and have written about the history of the Church. These professors say of themselves that religious faith has little influence on Mormon scholars. They say this because, obviously, they are not simply Latter-day Saints but are also intellectuals trained, for the most part, in secular institutions. They would that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons.” The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer
Neptunism or Plutonism
Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817), a German geologist and is the founder of neptunism.
Neptunism is a superseded scientific theory of geology proposed by Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817) in the late 18th century, proposing that rocks formed from the crystallization of minerals in the early Earth’s oceans.
The theory took its name from Neptune, the ancient Roman god of the sea. There was considerable debate between its proponents (neptunists) and those favouring a rival theory known as plutonism which gave a significant role to volcanic origins, and which in modified form replaced neptunism in the early 19th century as the principle of uniformitarianism was shown to fit better with the geological facts as they became better known.” Source
“Although James Hutton was not the first to propose plutonism, he was the scientist responsible for expounding this theory to the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the general scientific community. Although plutonism would not come into favor until after Hutton’s death, he laid the foundation for the theory’s success. Charles Lyell would eventually synthesize the theories of plutonium and uniformitarianism into his textbook, Principles of Geology (published in 1830), allowing for its success in the 19th century.” Source
See my blog here called: New Books of 1830 Good and Evil
If you are a Universal Model proponent (UMer), which I am, you follow the fascinating new discoveries of Dean Sessions, Russ Barlow, and Rod Meldrum. If you are a Plutonist you favor the current theory of 90% of the scientists today, including the majority of BYU Professors who also believe Einstein’s Theory is factual. UMers believe Einstein’s theory is just that, a theory and not factual.
There is also a theory out there that this earth is billions of years old which is believed by most modern scientists today. UMer’s believe this earth was organized from material that is billions of years old, but the creation of the earth itself took thousands of years and Adam was placed on the earth in about 4,000 BC. Dinosaurs also lived with Adam on this earth and were wiped out with Noah’s world wide flood.
Each time I think about this new incredible UM science or the Heartland Model, or young creationism, I think of the following scripture. “How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.” D&C 121:33.
I have met some amazing people in the past 10 years that truly are being used as instruments of God to shed new light to use here on earth. Men and women like Rod Meldrum, Wayne May, James Stoddard, Hannah Stoddard, Tim Ballard, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Alex Boye, Amberli Nelson, Jonathan Neville, Dean Sessions, Ken Krogue, and many others.
Did you know that in the world of science there have been no new laws established in the world in over 100 years? All we get is new pet theories that people make up in order to get money and the praise of the world. Don’t believe me, read the Universal Model, pray about it and you may learn the truth. Purchase Left.
Modern geology acknowledges many different forms of rock formation, and explains the formation of sedimentary rock through processes very similar to those described by Neptunism. Wikepedia
Understanding the three-fifths compromise
What is the theory and what is the fact of the 3/5th Compromise?
“The U.S. Constitution is a document that evolves with the times. Constitutional inadequacies and societal injustices are challenged, and social progress is the result. Instead of reverence for this brilliant document that ensures our rights, it is attacked by some as a severely flawed and even a racist contract.
One of the most widely used means to defame the Constitution is to manipulate perception of the three-fifths compromise. Agenda-driven academicians and committed ideologues routinely state the U.S. Constitution only recognizes blacks as three-fifths of a person. No context is given. This often-repeated falsehood foments disrespect of the Constitution and contempt for the founders who authored it.
The U.S. Constitution does not relegate blacks to “three-fifths of a person” status. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” The “other Persons” were slaves.
The 1787 Constitutional Convention addressed the apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections based on a state’s population. The Southern states wanted to count the entire slave population. This would increase their number of members of Congress. The Northern delegates and others opposed to slavery wanted to count only free persons, including free blacks in the North and South.
Using the logic of the promoters of the “three-fifths of a person” interpretation, think of the constitutional ramification had the position of the Northern states and abolitionists prevailed. The three-fifths clause would have been omitted and possibly replaced with wording that stated “other Persons” would not be counted for apportionment. The Constitution, then, would be proclaiming slaves were not human at all (zero-fifths). This is an illogical conclusion and was certainly not the position of Northern delegates and abolitionists.
Counting the whole number of slaves benefited the Southern states and reinforced the institution of slavery. Minimizing the percentage of the slave population counted for apportionment reduced the political power of slaveholding states.
Denigration of the Constitution is not restricted to committed demagogues.
San Antonio’s U.S. District Judge Fred Biery addressed the Austin Bar Association on Law Day 2012. His speech focused on various social injustices in America’s past and how attorneys righted these wrongs. Biery used the example of then-recent Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III. The judge asserted that in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, Griffin’s “ancestors … were counted only as three-fifths of a human being.” Biery is alarmingly ignorant. Or worse, he is consumed with the need to promote and further a personal creed.
There are other troubling aspects of the lifetime judge’s declaration. Biery’s speech was published in San Antonio Lawyer after he addressed the bar association. Didn’t any of the attorneys at the meeting who actually understood the meaning of that portion of the Constitution advise Biery of his misrepresentation?
David Gans is the director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and law firm. The Express-News published a column by him on constitutional requirements in the past year (“Count all people, as Constitution requires, March 10) in which he stated that “someone who was enslaved would be counted as three-fifths of a person” for the purpose of determining representation in Congress.
The magnitude of this constitutional illiteracy is not restricted to those on the political left. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice routinely stated in her speeches, “In the original U.S. Constitution, I was only three-fifths of a person.”
In 1787, the founders were attempting to form a union and preserve the nascent United States. This imperfect compromise allowed for preservation of the republic while also confronting the moral and systemic evils of slavery. Erroneous and distorted interpretations of the Constitution only intensify the societal divide in America.” Constitutional Accountability Center
Three-Fifths Compromise
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Delegates disputed whether and how slaves would be counted when determining a state’s total population, as this population number would determine a state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people, giving the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787.
Impact before the Civil War
By including three-fifths of slaves (who had no voting rights) in the legislative apportionment, the Three-Fifths Compromise provided additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 seats but would have had 33 had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 seats out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 seats out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had additional influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court until the American Civil War.[17] In addition, the Southern states’ insistence on equal numbers of slave and free states, which was maintained until 1850, safeguarded the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.
Historian Garry Wills has speculated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800. Also, “slavery would have been excluded from Missouri … Jackson’s Indian removal policy would have failed … the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico … the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed.” While the Three-Fifths Compromise could be seen to favor Southern states because of their large slave populations, for example, the Connecticut Compromise tended to favor the Northern states (which were generally smaller). Support for the new Constitution rested on the balance of these sectional interests.[18]
After the Civil War
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and explicitly repealed the compromise. It provides that “representatives shall be apportioned … counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” A later provision of the same clause reduced the Congressional representation of states who denied the right to vote to adult male citizens, but this provision was never effectively enforced. (The Thirteenth Amendment, passed in 1865, had already eliminated almost all persons from the original clause’s jurisdiction by banning slavery; the only remaining persons subject to it were those sentenced for a crime to penal servitude, which the amendment excluded from the ban.)
After the Reconstruction Era came to an end in 1877, however, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using various strategies to disenfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. These measures effectively gave white Southerners even greater voting power than they had in the antebellum era, inflating the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the president.
The disenfranchisement of black citizens eventually attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1900 some members proposed stripping the South of seats, related to the number of people who were barred from voting.[20] In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment, largely because of the power of the Southern bloc. The Southern bloc comprised Southern Democrats voted into office by white voters and constituted a powerful voting bloc in Congress until the 1960s. Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, controlled numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses on the basis of seniority, giving them control over rules, budgets and important patronage projects, among other issues. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South,[21] until overcome by the civil rights movement. Wikipedia
Three-Fifths Clause
The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:
“It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.” (emphasis added)
“It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of ‘two-fifths’ of political power to free over slave States. . . . it still leans to freedom.” In order to follow the tortured route that the three-fifths clause took on its way to adoption into the Constitution, follow the votes taken in: (Paragraphs 458, 461, 1229, 1251, 1260, 1289, 1293, 1314, 2078, 2092, and 2702).
Reference: Frederick Douglass, “The Constitution,” in The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass, ed. Philip S Foner 472
*The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
While there were a few Founding Fathers who were pro-slavery, the truth is that it was the Founders who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This is a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
America’s Exceptional History of Anti-Slavery
“Recently the idea of American Exceptionalism has been ridiculed in academic and political circles with entire books dedicated to the purpose of tearing down any thought of an ethical America. Much of this recent shift centers around America’s record on slavery. For instance, organizations such as the New York Times have started initiatives declaring that the “true founding” was not until the introduction of slavery 1619 and that the “founding ideals were false” due to the existence of slavery.
The shift to a negative perspective of America largely stems from the revisionist school of history beginning in the 1960’s and culminating with Howard Zinn’s monumental 1980 People’s History of the United States. This book popularized the historiographical approach of doing “history from the bottom up,” which means telling the story of America through the interpretive lens of oppression. A fellow activist historian of Zinn’s, Staughton Lynd explains the fundamental premises underlying this approach in his Doing History from the Bottom Up. In their interpretive model, “was founded on crimes against humanity directed at…enslaved African Americans,” and therefore must be evil.
Such anti-American revisionism forgets that America’s record on slavery actually is exceptional compared to the rest of the world. Rarely do revisionists remember that over half of the American states had passed laws abolishing slavery by 1804, nearly thirty years before William Wilberforce effected the similar results in England. This wide-scale abolitionism was planted by the Biblical beliefs of several early colonies, was watered by the advocacy and action of the patriots during the American Revolution, and finally brought forth fruit through the establishment of a Constitutional Republic designed to advance liberty and defend the ideals of the Declaration.
A careful review of the colonial anti-slavery context, the development of abolitionist thought during the War for Independence, and the staunch leadership of the pro-freedom Founding Fathers reveals how America led the way in abolishing slavery. Instead of the modern academic narrative which attempts to debunk American exceptionalism, history shows that America was exceptional in their struggle for emancipation.” Wallbuilders
