Member Training – Information You Can Trust

Member training from July 21st, 2025.

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

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

TRANSCRIPT

Our righteousness and eternal Father in heaven, we're so grateful for this opportunity to meet together. We ask that thy spirit be with us this evening, that the lesson that is prepared will be efficacious in our behalf, and we'll be able to gleam onto the things we need to do and the actions we need to take, as well as the spirit we need to have to build Zion, to build that kingdom. We pray in the name of thy worthy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

So independence, there's different kinds of independence. It can be political. It can be economic. But it can just be a lot of there's lots of different ways we can be independent. But independence, true independence starts with cultural independence. That's a very, very important part of building the other sections, because if you are not culturally independent, it will be virtually impossible. if not totally impossible, to be politically and economically independent. Because if the culture doesn't match up to the ideals of the economic system or the political system, you have the same problem of not being united and not being independent.

And so talking about that, Samuel Pufendorf, it's a quote that I've given a lot in the trainings as well as in the boot camps, but I want to bring it up because it is so important for us to really get instilled into us. After he talks about why they build government, why people come together to form government, he says, among those which join together to form a government in a country, it is absolutely requisite. So that means it's absolutely required that there be a perfect consent and agreement concerning the use of the means of government. So this is a lie that the conspiracy tells us that the founding fathers, got together and that they compromised on principles.

No, they were at a really a perfect consent. They were perfect agreement on what the power of government was. The disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were that they believed that the door was being opened to violate what they were agreed upon. And so to be able to be independent of tyranny and to be able to have that cultural independence, It is necessary to have cultural unity. And so one of that is to be united perfectly on the power of government. He says, if they do not agree with themselves, but are divided and separated in their opinions, they will be divided into parties and will clash. That is, this whole book, The Whole Duty of Man, is a study on natural law, right? You throw something up in the air, it's going to fall down. If you form a government where the people are not united on the power of government, we will see what we see today, where you have people that are in favor of, you know, full out communism versus people that want fascism.

You know, that's the basic two party system that we see today. And they are clashing. And so we see this idea, you know, of course, as well, between those of us that want limited government and we want liberty and we want to be able to protect those those principles. um we we are in a either a verbal clash or sometimes a physical clash with those that think government should have all power and so it is essential that if we want to have peace that we are united and that and and so how do you get united that's an important thing like i mean sure this we might say okay that sounds great but here we are now and we're not united so now what so in the 1840s um we have What's his name? Spencer, Orson Spencer.

He is writing a letter to Washington to get assistance, to get help, to get, you know, just to get the government to leave them alone so they can separate themselves. He says that he's going to lay down the following principle, which the friends to national union may do well to consider. So I'm going to tell you a principle that you really need to think about because this is important. The principle is this. that men of congenial interests should separate themselves from those of adverse, of adverse interests and pair off each to each. Okay, so congenial means friendly.

Okay, so those that, people that are, have friendly interests together, they should separate and pair off together away, right? Separate themselves from those of adverse. Communists should not, you know, mix together with uh people that believe in uh in in liberty they should separate all communists should gather together and they should do their thing wherever they're at and people that believe in liberty should go gather somewhere else and and be wherever they're at he says if you don't do this he says the promiscuous intermixture of heterogeneous bodies for the purpose of unity and strength is like distant both from pure religion and sound philosophy so Again, the lie that we're told today of the melting pot is promiscuous, a.k.a. immoral. And it is something that, as Puffendorf says, will lead to clashing.

So if we want peace and we want our cultural independence, we have to realize the importance of separating ourselves from a culture and society that has adverse interests. to us in what power government has or in religion or in economics, whatever it is that makes no sense for people that are going to clash with one another to come together. And if they do, what we have now is considered an immoral situation. And so we look, right? These are some key principles. All independence starts with cultural independence. For the same reason good behavior is assisted by good associations, right? So if you are intermixing, you know, if you're a teenager and you've got friends that are, you know, into drugs and alcohol and into crime, that is going to be a bad influence on you. You are more likely to be influenced to evil than you are to be an influence to them for good. And so you don't want to associate with people that have different interests than you because they will tear you down.

And so if we want really an independent country, we have to be able to start to do that. If your culture allows for debauchery, debauchery will soon be the norm and liberty will decay. And so for more information on that, go back to the moral cultural base section. And to be successful, your society needs to have a, I spelled that wrong, I apologize, have a sense of unity in purpose and values. So not only, right? This goes beyond just what the unity is on the powers of government, but your purpose and the values of that culture need to be unified as well. And of course, the conspiracy, though, teaches that our strength is in our diversity. But we read in Jeremiah that the Lord says to remove out of the midst of Babylon, that we are not to be intertwined with those adverse interests. And so getting into economic independence.

So cultural unity, right? It's vital to begin. And then, but to be able to continue that, we need to expand that unity into economic and political independence are essential to maintain the whole, right? Yes. Rod. I just wanted to point out that diversity, literally the word, is the opposite of unity. Right. What was that? Say that again, Rod. The word diversity is literally the opposite of unity. Thank you. So the kingdom of God cannot rise, Brigham Young says, the kingdom of God cannot rise independent of the Gentile nations until we produce. manufacture and make every article of use convenience or necessity so they separated themselves right physically so they so from those that were of adverse interests and came to utah so they built first that cultural unity and then there's and then he's saying that if we are going to actually maintain this long term and we are not going to become slaves of the culture then we have to start to Get into the economic sphere of manufacturing what we need. Otherwise, we'll be dependent on them. And then we will be slaves to them. Simon, you're muted, Simon. Just FYI.

Sorry, I got to unmute myself. Sorry. I had a comment on Orson Spencer. I actually got in touch with one of the direct ancestors of Orson Spencer down where I live. She mentioned that his life story. He was injured as a young man and his community got together and paid for his education. He became one of the foremost advocates for liberty. I would highly recommend reading his books and his works and what he did. I'm glad that he was mentioned because he, in the early church history, was a very strong advocate for liberty. for some of these things and a highly intelligent individual. Absolutely. Thank you. Mark, I see your hand. Yes, I'm questioning whether you have these separate communities. And of course, communism, Marxism is also an economic system, not just cultural and a social system and a political system.

But can you, can it be limited? can you if you're teaching people that tyranny is good and we should have a tyrannical system here and then there's another community down the road uh that practices individual rights and the only rule government uh can with mobility especially can that somebody from that one system that has been uh practicing and supporting a tyrannical system uh be kept out of the other community i mean I'm thinking that, you know, when you say united in the role of government, if you're united, if you're separate, but you have the wrong role of government, it can contaminate the goods community. Any thoughts on that? Right. So eventually everybody in that system needs to be united on economics, culture, and the political form of government.

Otherwise you're going to have those problems. and contaminate the other or they get there's so um was it germanica or the german yeah germania by tacitus really delves into how germany was able to protect itself from those types of things from uh from rome and so they they had a lot of things set up to prevent that type of thing from happening and so a strong self-defense what are you talking about what's that What era or years are you talking about? Oh, so this is, we're talking like in the near the, yeah, during Caesar's time. So after Christ. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Roughly just under a hundred years after Christ. Okay. And so, yeah, it's essential. That's why, you know, we talk about, you know, we talk about borders for America. I think that each state should have borders to ensure that state of Utah or Nevada or Arizona. all have the ability to protect itself from those coming in with adverse interests. Well, you're talking like the founding fathers.

The federal government, as you know, was given no power to have any immigration laws at all. So we apply cultural and economic consequences and multiply them for political consequences. So if this is the situation that you have with economic disunity and if you are... meaning you're dependent upon others. You're not independent. You're dependent on others for your economic system. If you are dependent on others for your liberty, then the consequences are magnified tremendously. And so, right, effective application always starts with understanding. And so these are some things I'd like to recommend for us to read to build our understanding. Of course, the scriptures. Talk much about this, the look at ancient Israel and what they did to ensure that outside cultures did not influence them. Very, very important.

But then we go to The Whole Duty of Man by Pufendorf that I quoted from, Germania by Tacitus, The History of the Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford, The Administrative Record Council of 50 Minutes from the Joseph Smith Papers, and The Mormon Rebellion by David Bigler and Will Begley. Those are great records to be able to go through and to learn these principles. Highly, highly recommend. And then for actions, right? Not just learning, but these are a few steps that we can do to start. So this is the end. This is the beginning because of how far we are from what I'm talking about. This is how we get there, right? We first work to bring our neighbors into a place where they desire liberty and will behave in a way that allows them to have true liberty. You're helping to build the understanding of those that you decided to live among. You go to a place or if you're like, hey, that's a bit tall of a task. I live in Castro District in San Francisco.

This is not going to change. So let's go somewhere else. Let's find a people that are already of this mindset. And I'm going to go there and help them improve their efforts, what they're working on. or work to find others to establish such a geographic location and extract those from among you that would violate those common principles. So you find people amongst you that they might be at different geographic locations right now, but you're like, hey, we're all united on these principles. Let's go find a place that we can move to and we can start to build upon these principles. And then of course, extricate yourself of those that would go against those principles. And then another thing that even before maybe you get to those first three steps, the first thing you can do, economic independence, is, of course, getting as much of your food, the things that you need in your day-to-day life. You're growing yourself in one way or another. Also, get out of the Federal Reserve system.

Don't use credit. Don't even use Federal Reserve notes as much as possible. And use goldbacks or barter with people to get as many of your services as possible. And so, yes. Each of those by themselves aren't going to create this completely, but those are important first steps to get you used to. it to get you learning what works and what doesn't work and to make it so that the conspiracy has less power over you than it does right now and so those are the those are important first steps to get in that direction so look forward to your thoughts and questions next week but let's get into training and talking about how the tree of liberty society brings you information that you can trust because That's what we're doing is we're trying to build understanding and adherence to the principles that have built free nations, expose the satanic conspiracy, and build an effective resistance to that conspiracy. That is why we were here. And so you need to know that you can trust what it is that we're saying and that you can use that information to share with others because you're not going to lose your credibility with them because the information is trustworthy.

So some things happened recently in the news. that reference specifically information that was in the book Invasion. And I'm just going to quote from it. So this is in Invasion. And the page number, the source I'm going to give you at the end of it is the current combined edition reference. So just some background before we get to this is talking about how the government was going after the Latter-day Saints in Utah. And they were... persecuting them and prosecuting them and throwing them in jail. And then you had members of the church that were putting pressure on the leadership to get rid of the activities like plural marriage and the kingdom of God that was being used by the government to go after individuals. And so as a result of the opposition from within, a manifesto to abandon plural marriage was presented to President Taylor on September 26th.

According to witnesses, Taylor took the manifesto to the Lord, whereupon he received a revelation explaining, I the Lord am everlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment, and yet I have borne with them these many years because of the perilous times. And furthermore, it is pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in these matters. I have not revoked this law, nor will I. So that revelation to John Taylor is very controversial, not really well known amongst even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. Just a little bit of background that's important context. The Doctrine and Covenants is what most people, especially members of the church, are aware of, of where it's a compilation of revelations that were given to various leaders of the church, essentially from the 1820s till the 1910s.

But what a lot of people don't understand and don't realize is that there are dozens and dozens of thus saith the Lord revelations given to Joseph, given to Brigham Young, given to John Taylor, given to Wilford Woodruff. that were never canonized meaning the organization did not vote on it to add it to their canon of scripture and therefore was never included in the dnc so an example of that would be dnc 138 that was something that was given in 1918 but it wasn't voted on until 1978 and then included in the canon of scripture from that point forward okay So there are lots of examples of things that were given to church leaders that never became officially in the canon of scripture. And the 1886 revelation to John Taylor is an example of that. And as I'm going to get into that, that has been a point of controversy and has made it.

And so, you know, a lot of people have found it to not be something that. is you know something that is fringe or not reliable because it's not in the official canon and so i'm going to give the history uh what happened after uh september of 1886 and then what just happened recently something in the something just just happened very very recently in the past few weeks that is relevant to this as we have in the book okay so in the minutes of the apostles of the of the 12 apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we have recorded in November of 1886 in the First Presidency Office Journal. Feel free if anybody has comments or anything, questions. I want to make sure I'm not moving ahead too fast. A letter was received from Dr. John Cook of Benjamin, Utah, asking for a copy of the revelation given through President John Taylor in October 1886. So it was late September, so he's referring to September 1886. brother George Reynolds was requested to send him a copy so this is November so this is roughly a month and a half just under a month and a half after this is given to John Taylor and people are already asking for copies and members of the 12 are being requested to send individuals copies of the revelation and then just skip ahead a few years 1890 The manifesto comes out discontinuing plural marriage in the church. And during the first discussion of the 12 after that manifesto was published, so September of 1890, John W. Taylor, who was the son of John Taylor, brings up his father's 1886 revelation to the other members of the 12.

And in April of 1892, so two years after that, at another meeting of the 12, John W. Taylor again refers... to his father's 1886 revelation to the other members of the 12. So we have several instances where the 12 were notified of this revelation being given and its contents. In 1909, church historian Joseph Fielding Smith then makes a typewritten copy of the revelation. So in 1909, he was a member of the 12, but also a... the historian for the church, and he typed up a copy based on the handwritten revelation. Now we have John W. Taylor in 1905. He is removed from the Quorum of the Twelve due to pressure from the Reed-Smoot hearings to show the government that the church would submit to its laws regarding plural marriage. So because John W. Taylor and another one, there was two that were removed in 1905 from the Twelve. The other one is Matthias Cowley. And it was because, so Reed Smoot, just in case I'm going over everybody's head, Reed Smoot was a member of the 12 that was elected by the state legislature because it was prior to the 70th Amendment to the U.S. Senate.

And in the Constitution, right, the Senate is authorized to decide if they are going to seat a senator. And so they had hearings because they're like, okay, Are the people of Utah, right, even though this is about a decade after we've become a state, are the people of Utah, are they just a bunch of renegade lawbreakers? Can we trust them to send one of their people, especially a leader of their church, to the Senate to pass laws and vote on laws? And so it caused a lot of controversy because there was still two church leaders. that were continuing to enter into plural marriages. And so they entered a, also at this time, they did a second manifesto saying we really mean it this time. And they get rid of these two members of the 12. And then in 1911, the Quorum of the 12 hold a excommunication trial for former apostle John W. Taylor for his continued practice of plural marriage after the 1890 and 1904 manifestos. Any questions? All making sense? We got Mark, yes.

Yeah, some questions. So apparently they just tell to the feds, was there any effort to argue that there were outlaws by trying to impose statute laws that are null and void because there is no authority in the Constitution for them to be imposing any kind of restrictions on... Do you know if that was ever argued by the church? Oh, absolutely. There were several court cases. And so what had happened was... Well, you said several court cases. Are you talking about federal court? Yes. Oh, well, that's the first mistake. Exactly. Well, and so that's what happened was there were several because they were a territory. And so what they were saying was, well, we have the right to... make rules for territories because you're not a state and so that's one of the ways that they uh you know basically that is a sticky wicket when it's a territory but what once it was a state uh then they are there's and so that's and i cover that a little bit in the book was that was what they did to become a state so in 1890 so that way by 1895 they've already gotten rid of it so they're like okay we've gotten rid of it now you'll let us become a state and then because they were They were told that if you become a state, then you can make your own rules. But by that point, everyone had already moved.

They'd already said, okay, we're not. The church had already said, we're not doing that. We gave in already. We're not doing that anymore. So we're not going to bring it back now that we're a state. Yeah. Because they were forced. The church gave in because that deal was null and void. It was under duress. It was an invalid contract. And the state constitution, they were forced to become a state. They were forced to say that plural marriage was forever prohibited within the state of Utah. Yeah, but that's still statute in violation of the Constitution. So that whole agreement was null and void. You can call it an extortion agreement. Yes. And so the Supreme Court in 1887, if I remember correctly, with George Reynolds' case, ruled, ruled, right, in quotations, that the First Amendment protected your belief but not your exercise not your not not how you practice your belief so that the government could not control what you believe they can only control how you practice that belief and so that's that was what now is you know the precedent or the standard that the government has set for religion they can believe whatever you want you just can't practice Yeah, you can argue that argument, and they're wrong there too, but that should be the argument.

You have no authority over marriage at all. You have no authority over a church. You have no authority according to the Constitution, and that argument can still happen today. But, of course, the church buckled under, and today's church, I'm sure they won't change. But it's still a valid argument today that they are outlaws, the federal government's outlaw, to outlaw that from the church, and the church should be ashamed of buckling under to nullified statute law or court rulings. Okay. Simon. Sorry, I had to take it off mute. So let me get this straight. The Congress shall make no lot establishing or basically prohibiting religion. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's what the First Amendment says. Yeah, that's what I'm getting. Or the exercise thereof. And yet they ruled it doesn't mean the exercise thereof. Right, yeah. It's nonsensical. Yeah.

Yeah, that's what I was just trying to clarify. Yep. Rod. I just want to answer Mark's question as well, which is, or just to mention that there's actually a lot more to the story that there's not time to go into today as far as backstory on why the church buckled under and things like that. So why they gave into this. There's actually a lot more to the story. Yeah, thank you. Ben's got a lot of stuff that's really relevant just to the discussion tonight, but there's a lot more that's left out. There was no effort to go to the state courts, right? Because at that point, all of the state, under the Utah so-called peace agreement, the federal government prohibited the Mormons from having their own governor and from having their own judges. They were all federal appointees. And this is after Utah was a state? No, no, no, no. This is before. This is while they're a territory. Right. And so after they became a state, it was already a moot point. They had already given up and they had no desire to go back.

And that includes the state legislature and the state courts. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Sounds a lot like today, America. So in that trial where John W. Taylor's membership was being put to question, you have this. Apostle on the left in the transcription of the trial, Hiram M. Smith says, in view of the fact that the church has taken a very emphatic stand against this thing, meaning plural marriage, and said that it cannot be done, and still some of the people have assumed to perform and encourage these marriages in the face of this position, do you think they are justified in this? So he's asking John W. Taylor, are they justified? in still continuing to enter into plural marriages. Good question. What's that? Good question. So John W. Taylor responds, I do not want to discuss my own case. It is up to you and the brethren to pass upon that. My father received a revelation, which, however, was never presented to the church. And I refer to this not because it is a revelation to my father.

I don't think a revelation because it came through him was any greater than one received through any other president of the church. but because it seems to pertain to this question. And then the revelation was read aloud to the entire quorum. Okay, so we've got several instances where you have all of the 12 are aware of the revelation. They've had it read to them. It is not a secret to them. They've written it down. They've typewritten it, written it, right? And so now we go to the 1910s to the 1930s and photocopies of the revelation begin to circulate more broadly. okay this is a scan of that as it was um was distributed during this time period well i don't know how they did photocopies back then but some kind of a stereotype or whatever you would call back then and then just made sure but i mean i don't know how they distributed like this I don't because this is like this is a negative a negative of the thing was was given so what started to be passed around and so that of course caused controversy because people are saying well look what this says compared to what is going on and so lots of different questions were being asked and it was causing a lot of consternation and and troubles for the church and so in 1933 An official statement from the first presidency of the church was issued. It was published in the in the Deseret News, and it was distributed to all of the wards and stakes in the church to be read in sacrament meeting. So everyone read this and had it read to them if they were members of the church. And so it reads in part. Right. This is 17th of June, 1933.

And I quote some relevant things to what we've talked about already. Right. says that it is alleged that on September 26th and 27th, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given in publication circulated apparently by or at the instance of this same organization. As to this pretended revelation, it should be said that the archives of the church contain no such revelation. The archives contain no record of any such revelation. Wow. Okay. So. Completely denying that it existed, even though they were all at meetings where it was discussed several times and that they were told to send out copies to and that you have especially Joseph Fielding Smith typewriting a copy of it. Simon, and then we'll go to Mark. So I guess in my life I'm realizing that you can't BS a BSer. And I'm realizing so many loopholes in this statement. nor even any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given from the personal knowledge of some of us. There's a loophole in that statement. It's like, oh yeah, not all of us have this. So some of us don't have it. So it's a loophole.

Maybe, but I think the intent is clear. And it says from the absence in the church archives, which is clearly false because they at least had typewritten copies of it. Right. It's just to me, there seems to be some definite lawyering. Yes. I didn't get that. What did Simon say? And then you responded just now. Oh, that. So Simon basically said that they were lawyering. They were using some wiggle room language where they're like, you know, they were, of course, implying one thing. But if they were to be called on it later on, they would have an out. And then I said, well, the rest of it, the context is obviously, I don't think there's a lot of wiggle room with the rest of the sentence. I would say that he's right when it says some of us, but when you get to the rest of the sentence, I don't think there's any wiggle room. Thank you. Micah. I just think it should be accepted as fact that they were lying and they know that they were lying. And so the question is why? Sure. Mark, go ahead.

Yeah, blatant phoniness. That should have been the issue is how dishonest this representative or the church is. Not only when they're saying, well, some of us didn't believe that. The other part, they were saying, if it's not in our records, the revelation never occurred. What kind of an argument is that? Whoever wrote that or whoever that represents, the 12 or whoever at the top of the church. They should be executed for their character, dishonesty. One other last point. For me, the biggest issue, not the revelation, is that when you allow government, in principle, in ideology, to be able to regulate, to control marriage. then you've invited in principle, in precedent, in principle, them to completely control marriage in whatever way they want to. They can have homosexual marriages. They can have those, what was it called in Braveheart? They can force the bride to rape them on the night of their weddings and things like that. So that's the biggest issue is that the church, because mainly the church, but the state government as well, they basically said, you decide whether our brides are going to be raped, you're going to decide who we're going to have sex with, you know, all those kinds of things, in principle, have been turned over to government. Don't you agree that that's arguably the biggest issue of all? Yeah, it's the abrogation of a religious right. has far-reaching implications that are troubling.

Well, it's a religious right, but it's an individual and nameable right to decide. An individual is religious, yes, for their religion, yes. But yeah, it's religious, but it's beyond just religious. Yeah, not institutional, but I didn't mean institutional for sure. And then we fast forward to the 19, I think it was 70s, and you have Marky Peterson in a book. He says to justify their own, meaning Mormon fundamentalists, justify their own rebellion. I can't, this is a new word I had to look up today, but it's basically rebellious. Recalcitrant. Recalcitrant. Basically means rebellious. These rebel, or not, I'm sorry, they were like argumentative. They were basically rubble rousers. Refuse to change. Brethren devised a scheme which they hoped would frustrate the stand of the church on plural marriage. They concocted a false revelation allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886 in which pretended secret authority was given to continue plural marriages. So he says he charges them of concocting and making up something, the document. And that it was pretend that pretended things were to continue. Plural marriage was given. So.

They're trying to, they're hoping to frustrate people. They're trying to hurt people's emotions. I mean, this guy is so phony. He should be star impeded and sent out of town. It's concocted and false is what he says. Okay. And so, but then we have here in just last, about just over a month ago. The church on their church history catalog releases an official high resolution scan of the original handwritten revelation that they previously stated was concocted or pretend. And in the description, right, you can see right there, it says John Taylor revelation. And so what they went from being concocted and pretend is now. they've quietly stated was given. And then just a few weeks, a couple of weeks ago, just this month, July, in a statement to KUER, the church says, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently cataloged, digitized, and made publicly available a private writing by President John Taylor on September 22, 1886, which has been termed a revelation in contrast with the 1890 Manifesto, which ended plural marriage. This private writing was never presented to the leadership or members of the church and thus has never qualified and been treated as authoritative. Its current release is part of the church history department's efforts to more consistently release the historical records of past general authorities.

Okay, so what we have, you know, just as a brief rundown of the history of the occurrence of the revelation. the distribution of the revelation the response to the revelation and then now today the acceptance of it as being legitimately from john taylor and so um as i wrote in invasion you know that it was legitimate because we have the scans of it it was already tested even though that they continued until just this year when it was written it was controversial um but we just as further evidence of it, that we work hard to ensure that readers and viewers of the Tree of Liberty Society purview provide you with the most accurate information that you can use to come to your own conclusions. When the establishment says something that we say isn't reliable, that we say, and they call what we say unreliable, you can rest assured that we have done everything we can to assure its validity. And our information, of course, once again, has been vindicated. Mark and then Simon.

Yeah, so they're willing to expose the conspiracy, but they discount it by calling it history. It's all implicitly saying there will be no political change because of this revelation at this late date. And we are to only consider it history, but we are not to allow it to justice regarding it according to our laws. And everybody should look at it as only history and not. anything that should lead a political action right yeah and no statement you know saying when we call those people liars we you know we were wrong to do so any nothing like that you could change uh go right back to plural marriages uh based on that but they're saying no we won't do that we'll just consider it history all right simon well mark just said what i was going to say exactly what i was going to say so thanks yeah you can okay All righty. So a little bit of a shift change, but still along the lines of us, again, being vindicated and that our information is trustworthy. We have Jeffrey Epstein and John Huntsman.

So in the book, again, on page 102, we talk about John Huntsman being in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book of clients. Little scan. And then we also have... the entire black, unredacted black book in the membership portal on the website that you can download and look through yourself. Just a couple of weeks ago, a video put out by Wired came out that gives us some things to also give us additional background on that I'm going to share. So I apologize. We're going to go a little bit over, but I think it's important. So I'm going to show this. And if you have to go, I understand. Here, I spearheaded a wired investigation that uncovered the data of almost 200 mobile phones belonging to visitors to his infamous pedophile island. The data was so precise, we were able to map the paths of these visitors to within centimeters, including their neighborhoods, buildings of origin, and the paths they took to get to the island. These digital trails document the numerous trips of wealthy and influential individuals seemingly undeterred by Epstein's status as a convicted sex vendor.

Wired's analysis of the data is ongoing and it raises profound questions about privacy and surveillance. It's worth noting that the data reveals a regular flow of traffic to and from Little St. James between 2016 and 2019. A lot of people were visiting the island even after Epstein had pleaded guilty in 2008 and served jail time for procuring a minor for prostitution. If we keep following the data trail and we widen our view, we'll see that the tracking in visitors continues once they have left the island and presumably gone back home. The near-intelligence data we uncovered pinpoints 166 locations throughout the United States in 80 cities across 26 states. Okay, so just a short clip of it, but as you look at this map, you can see the dots in the United States. So you have several states having multiple dots. Some of them having larger, which means there's more than one person from that city. And so that was an important thing for us to look at.

But if you look at Utah, it's got just one small little dot. So what I wanted to do was to look at cities or states with only one visitor tracked and then correlating that with Epstein's black book and say there's only one person from that state that is in his book. Because then you can narrow it down. from that right of who went there and so um but what i found was that the only the only place that had that was utah all the other examples had multiple either um either they didn't have anybody from that state listed in the black book or they had multiple people from that state in the black book and so narrowing it down that much is going to be you know it's going to be very revealing so Again, we have John Huntsman and his wife, Mary, in the Black Book, as well as only one name from Utah and only one dot covering the state of Utah.

Nice work of inductive reasoning. And so, yeah, so we can deduce what that might mean, but it seems pretty blatantly obvious what that would mean. Ben? Yes? Do you have the ability to take that to Illinois? And see if there is a red dot in the very center of the state. So those dots, well, I don't know how general those dots were because it was, you know, it's not like going over his city. But you have Illinois right there and there's no dots. I can't see it very well, but do you see any red dots? There are no dots within the state of Illinois. And so if there's anybody in Illinois that's associated with Epstein, they traveled from a different location. Okay. Thank you. On the earlier map, I noticed the biggest area of red was down where Trump lives. In Florida. On the previous map. In New York. In Florida. In this map, but it was on the previous map.

It was the greatest concentration of red. Yep. So we want to make sure that we can trust everything that we share because... I know how important it is because the stuff that we talk about is very serious. And so I want to, you know, I want my reputation to be secure. And so I'm not going to share anything that is not something that can be verified. And so just kind of going through those two examples, the history I felt was really important on the. 1886 because of the controversial nature behind it and the emotional nature of it and of that topic. It was important to give that background and the history that is public record and easily accessible to be able to get that information.

And so I wanted to go over that so that we could have that for you and so that we can have these examples of things that have been said by you know the establishment that are false that we now know are true and that we were ahead of the game and that the information that we had was accurate from the very beginning so mark yes yeah we could be very much set up that they're gonna release some files and they're all gonna you know It may be a little bit more than they reported already. And that'll be it. And it'll show that they are the good guys. We finally released the file. Because every single file could be doctored, just like the Kennedy murders and so forth, assassination. And this is a common tactic of the conspiracy disinformation tactic. They'll focus on an individual. They won't focus on the mass tyranny that's being imposed on America and the world. But they'll focus on an individual and get us to make a big deal. One example of this was the Hammonds up in, what was that? Oregon.

Yeah, where he pardoned them. And what happens is that one person... terms of the conspiracy, achieving its goals is nothing, but it's a way of getting political mileage for the politician that does that. In the meantime, they don't talk at all about Rob Bogovich, one of the most leftist governors, gun control governors, that was selling the state off and extorting and fraud and everything, and he was the most liberal Democrat governor, and yet... You hear hardly anything about Trump giving him a pardon. Yeah. So in the comments, there's a question, is it possible that polygamy will become legal in the future? Not very. In the state of Utah, especially because of the process, you'd have to get the legislature approval and then it would have to go through an initiative on the ballot and get the votes there.

There are states, there are other states where it is. decriminalized and so it's i would say that it's something that i you know that you would you know that's already decriminalized in several states if it being decriminalized state of utah it would have to be a constitutional amendment so i find it very unlikely um rod okay well wouldn't utah also have to have the input of the federal government isn't that also what it says in the constitution no it just says forever prohibited it was one of the requirements to become a state But once you become a state, there's an example of this in Arizona. They had the initiative process in their state constitution. And the federal government said you had to take that out if we're going to approve your statehood. So they took it out. They became a state. And then their first session after becoming a state added the initiative process back into their state constitution. Yeah, Rob, I don't know if you know for sure, but any federal laws, whether it's a case law. or whether it's statute law all null and void according to our founding fathers they have no authority at all so it doesn't matter whether they have any state uh federal laws saying they can't have we can't have uh polygamy in this state because according to our founders uh and the section that we reviewed last week on nullification they they're completely illegal, unlawful, and according to our founder and fathers, Nolan Boyd.

No, you're 100% correct. It's just that we don't live under constitutional government anymore. So, you know, there's the ridiculous game. But I wanted to address something that you were asking about earlier. I think you may be onto something as far as why they released these documents. But Ben didn't really mention how it was done. The church didn't publicly release it. It was the church historical department just quietly adding it to their website with their archives. They didn't say anything. And I feel like that was so that the church wouldn't have to come out and release an official statement. It would just quietly be out there and possibly for the purposes that you said. But they didn't say anything. But there are a lot of people that actually monitor the files that get added to that site. And so people noticed. And there's been a lot of discussion. And all that's been stated by the church was, as far as I know, was that teeny little blurb that Ben read earlier tonight.

So pretty interesting the way that they did it. They were very public about denouncing it in the past. But then they very quietly admitted to its reality just a couple weeks ago. This is one of their MOs for a historical event that was a conspiracy at the time. 20 years, 30 years, 40, 50 years later, they reveal it at a point where, and how they reveal it, that there'll be no political mileage that'll lead to any change. And then by doing that, it's no longer a conspiracy. See, we came out, but you came out in such a way. that no justice is going to occur. We see that with Pearl Harbor to some extent. The conspiracy that, you know, our government with Churchill killed our, you know, almost 3,000 of our mainly naval sailors. And we see it in other ways, too. Federal Reserve, years later, a bunch of those coming out, but it was at a point where they could just say, this is history and nothing's... Nothing to look at here. Moving on. Don't worry about it anymore. And no justice is going to occur. Simon, go ahead.

Same thing as Trump. Yeah, very much agree with what Mark's saying about that. And I also feel like this is a distraction because how often have I heard, like, even from people who are like, I'm very aware of and was good friends with Cody Brown when he was, before he went public on TLC, and he talked very often about how if we just legalize plural marriage, then it would take away morality problems like the Tiger Woods issue and how it's very much in line with this woke. They're trying to make it woke rather than sacred. I just feel like it would be an absolute mockery of its intention if it was even legalized or decriminalized. It's like I'd just stay out of it for the government to stay out of it. Yeah. Okay. Mark. Yeah, I don't think the discussion here is at all. I think we should know that about whether we like polygamy or not. It's irrelevant. all about the corruption. It's about the violation of the law. It's about principle and these checks and balances falling one after another to tyranny. These are the bigger issues. It's not whether we like polygamy. or not. Do you agree or disagree? Yeah, plug me.

That's an irrelevant part of this issue. And just like in the book, that was just the context around it, not relevant to the larger picture. Well, let's go ahead and wrap up. I appreciate everybody staying on and appreciate your patience. I hope this was beneficial and of interest to you. We can go into more questions or comments on this if you'd like afterwards. Or we can just get into other topics, which would be fantastic in the open forum. Let's go ahead and close up and we'll have a closing prayer. Rod, would you say the closing prayer for us? Yeah, of course. Thanks.

Heavenly Father, we're thankful once again to be able to meet tonight. We're grateful for the information that Ben has been putting together for us. And we're thankful once again to see these things vindicated. And we pray that... we'll be able to get this information out to more people and help them to understand and to see the bigger picture so they can understand what is going on around them and not be deceived. We pray for thy spirit to be with us in all that we do going forward. Be with all those who are not able to join us tonight, that they may do so in the future. And please bless our efforts to bring more people to this organization. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.