James Madison's Bad Dream

 The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. –James Madison, Federalist No 46

Madison was a very smart man, but even he didn’t expect Americans ever to become as passive and slave-minded as they have become. Fortunately, he did have a remedy in case this “incoherent dream” should ever come to pass:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

In short, if America was ever a country free of tyranny, it was only because of her heavily armed civilian population and the rights of the states and counties to defy higher government bodies within their local jurisdictions.

PaRDeS and the Quadriga

The Jewish hermeneutical¹ system of PaRDeS is fairly well known in Torah-observant circles, but few people know where it came from. Even fewer know that a competing Christian system was developed and formalized at about the same time.

PaRDeS is a method of interpreting Scriptures in which every (or almost every) passage is assumed to have four levels of meaning:

• Peshat - the plain, literal meaning that the original author intended to convey to his original audience. It still requires some common sense and doesn't mean that everything written is literally true. For example, when David wrote, "YHWH is my shepherd; I shall not want," he didn't mean that God is literally a man guarding a herd of four-footed livestock and that he (David) was a one of those four-footed beasts and would never lack anything at all, especially grass to eat and a stream to drink from. Obviously, David meant for us to understand that God is like a shepherd and that he is like a sheep, and this metaphor is still part of the Peshat (also spelled P'shat) meaning.
• Remez - the allegorical meaning that is suggested by the text, but not spelled out. For example, Noah's ark and the basket that sheltered Moses on the Nile river are both coated with pitch and protect their contents from both drowning and wickedness. The word for pitch is related to the word for atonement, a spiritual covering. One Remez interpretation of these stories could be that God will provide those who are willing to trust him completely with a spiritual atonement--a Messiah--that will protect them from eternal destruction.
• Derash - the moral or ethical meaning derived from a passage. In the case of Noah's and Moses' arks, a Derash (also spelled Drash) interpretation would be that we should simply obey God's instructions in troubled times, and everything will work out for the best in the end, even if we can't see how.
• Sod - the mystical, esoteric meaning of a passage. Sod ascribes deep, hidden meanings to what seem to be straightforward statements. For example, it may employ numerology, "Hebrew word pictures", or "Equidistant Letter Sequencing" to find hidden codes in the Biblical text. Sod often asserts that the real meaning of the text is the opposite of the plain (Peshat) meaning. For example, in the story of the serpent tempting Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, one Peshat interpretation says that God actually wanted Adam and Eve to eat of it, despite telling them not to. He sent the serpent to urge them to rebel so that, through the experience of hardship and resistance to divine will, they could develop into the gods that the Creator planned for them to be all along.

Although the techniques of PaRDeS have a very long history, the hermeneutical system was formalized by Jewish mystics in the twelfth century. It also has some pretty clear problems. The Peshat level is common sense, and the Derash level can be helpful so long as it takes the whole Biblical text into account, but the Remez and Sod levels can get a person into a lot of theological trouble, especially the Sod which often makes a mockery of the Peshat.

The Quadriga, a parallel Christian hermeneutical system, was formalized at the same time that PaRDeS was first becoming popular among Jewish teachers. I suspect that both systems were developed in response to the other. Just as in PaRDeS, the Quadriga subjects every (or almost every) passage to four levels of meaning:

• Literal - the plain, literal meaning that the original author intended to convey to his original audience. Precisely the same meaning as Peshat.
• Allegorical - the allegorical meaning that is suggested by the text, but not spelled out. Essentially the same as Remez, but usually with an emphasis on Christological typology.
• Tropological - the moral or ethical meaning derived from a passage. Precisely the same meaning as Derash.
• Anagogical - the mystical or eschatological meaning of a passage. This is similar to Sod, but very rarely asserts any meaning that is opposed to the literal, at least not to how the interpreter understands the literal meaning, which can itself be flawed. The Anagogical interpretation deals with the unknowable nature of God, the ultimate fulfillment of prophecy, the spiritual realities that lie behind the physical and apparent universe, the fate of the dead, and existence beyond the Final Judgment.

Both systems are rooted in very ancient--and even common sense--methods of interpreting any religious text. Both systems also have the same basic flaws that make them prone to abuse by false teachers who want to impose their own ideas onto the text. Gnostics, Kabbalists, antinomians, and metanomians all live in the Sod/Anagogical level of interpretation and force the Peshat/Literal to conform to their mystical eisegesis².

The Bible is an organic text, a collection of works that were spoken and written by and to people in specific cultural, political, and linguistic circumstances. Each work was written for its own purposes and in its own style. Even as they were guided by the Holy Spirit in communicating their messages, each author wrote from his own perspective to people experiencing their own circumstances. It seems extraordinarily misguided to expect every passage of the Bible to fit into the same interpretive framework. Letters must be read as letters, histories as histories, etc., with each work and author adding metaphor, poetry, allusion, and apocalyptic imagery as God guided and his message required.

All systematic theologies eventually fail because the Bible wasn't written as a system. The message of the Bible is cohesive and consistent, but it is not a monolithic text of mystical philosophy.

¹ Hermeneutical - "of or pertaining to interpretation; exegetical; explanatory; as, hermeneutic theology, or the art of expounding the Scriptures" (Webster's 1913 English Dictionary)

² Eisegesis - "the introduction by an interpreter of his own ideas into a text under explication." (-Ologies & -Isms. (2008).)

See Tom Steele's more detailed discussion of PaRDeS at Truth Ignited.

Our New Post-American Mission

The hard truth is that it's good business for companies to pander to the rainbow mafia, at least in the medium term. They'll lose a bunch of money for a few months, but we know from the last few years that the righteous indignation of boycotters will fade and everyone will go back to buying Bud Light just like they continue to buy from Target, the NFL, and Harley Davidson.

Even worse, the upcoming generations overwhelming support perversity and authoritarianism of every kind. Objective standards of morality--or even of reality!--are meaningless to most young people. Right and wrong and reason are whatever they feel at the moment, and they have been trained since birth to let other people control their feelings.

Eventually, of course, it will all collapse under the oppressive hate and pain created by the spirits behind all of this insanity, but stock owners and CFOs rarely care about real long term profits nor the costs of human suffering.

Whose fault is this? Yours, mine, and our parents' going back at least another 3 generations. We abdicated our responsibilities as parents to anti-moral entertainers and to an inhuman and anti-God government, and now we are seeing the entirely predictable results. 

The American dream is dead. It's been dead for decades. Trump, DeSantis, etc., are just postmortem twitches. Our real mission now isn't to Make America Great Again, because resurrections are acts of divine intervention. Our new mission is to prepare the ground for whatever comes next.

Who Was the First Jew?

Inspired by a question in the comments on this video...

Some people will say that Abraham was the first Jew, but that seems silly to me. Abraham was a Hebrew, but wasn't a Jew by any definition I've ever heard.

It really depends on what you mean by the word. It is derived from Judah (Yehudah in Hebrew), so in one sense, Judah would be the first Jew. After Israel was split into two kingdoms, citizens and residents of the southern kingdom could be called Jews (or Yehudim). During the Babylonian captivity, most people known to have descended from Israel became commonly known as Jews, no matter what tribe or kingdom their ancestors came from, and that usage continued through the Greek and Roman Empires.

In the New Testament, the term Jew could refer to anyone who was ethnically an Israelite, anyone who lived in the Roman province of Judea, anyone who had converted to one of the sects of Judaism, or to the Jewish religious leadership centered in Jerusalem, depending on the context.

Today, the term Jew usually refers to people in one of two categories:

1. People who are known or believed to be descended from one of the tribes of ancient Israel, no matter what tribe and no matter what religion they practice. Some bigoted people will claim that you can practice any religion and still be a Jew, unless that religion accepts Jesus (aka Yeshua) as the Messiah.
2. Anyone who practices one of the varieties of Judaism, no matter who they are descended from.

By definition #1, the first Jew could be Reuben. I think that's too anachronistic since the term comes from the name of Reuben's younger brother, Judah, so I would go with Judah instead.

By definition #2, the first identifiable Jew might be Nehemiah or Ezra, but I don't think we can point to a specific person. The religion evolved over time, and I'm certain that the religion of Nehemiah wouldn't have looked much like the religion of the Pharisees in Yeshua's day.

Regeneration, Volume One by J.D. King

Amazon Affiliate Link

I just finished reading the first of three volumes of J.D. King's Regeneration, a history of divine healing in the Christian Church. Volume One surveys faith healing from the first century to the first few decades of the twentieth. I was surprised at just how much evidence there is for healing throughout the Middle Ages, but documentation is sparse for obvious reasons. Until the invention of the printing press, there was no easy way for a commoner to tell us how his dysentery vanished when traveling missionary prayed for him. In the nineteenth century, printing became much more accessible; a ministry could pay to have books or periodicals printed and distributed around the world. King understandably uses a lot more of his own ink discussing the faith healing movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

This history of divine healing is both encouraging and discouraging. Every era of Christian history has had miracles and dramatic healings, but they come in waves. A new faith healing movement arises, sets the world on fire, and then burns out in controversy and scandal or fades away into institutionalized religion.

With so much evidence, it's hard to argue that miraculous healings don't happen, but it also leaves the reader with some serious questions. Why then and not now? Why him and not me? When God uses such imperfect people to perform miracles, how do we tell charlatans from legitimate people of faith? Should we expect miracles all the time or are they temporary measures that God uses to advance a cause or make a point, like wilderness experiences designed to move his people from here to there?

I'm looking forward to reading Volume Two, but Volume One wasn't light reading. It took me a couple of years and I expect the sequel to take as long.

Some Challenges of Reading the Bible in English

The Apostle Paul wrote,

For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
(Philippians 1:8 KJV)

What a curious thing to say. Paul wants Jesus to eat us all!

No, really. It says so right there.

Wait. That's not what Paul meant, you say?

Well, of course not. It doesn't make any sense. It's easy to see that the original intent isn't what it seems to be in plain English, so we know that Paul was using an expression that just didn't translate well. With a little thought, we can work out that he actually meant "with the heart/affection of Jesus".

Every language uses metaphors and colloquialisms that can be difficult to translate. In the case of Philippians 1:8, the King James translators used English words that people of the 17th century were likely to understand, but that have changed meaning over the centuries or fallen out of usage altogether.

When reading the King James Version and other older English Bibles, we need always to keep in mind that the original text must undergo two translations before it can be understood: Once from Greek and Hebrew into early Modern English, and once again from early Modern English into our own dialects.

Even more importantly, whenever we read *any* English Bible, we must always be aware that the text has already undergone one or more translations from the original, and if we sometimes need to pause in order to understand one another's English, how much more difficult is it to understand a foreign text separated from us by thousands of years and largely unknown cultural differences?

You don't need to be a linguist, anthropologist, or philologist to be able to understand the Bible, but you do need to be aware that the words you read are usually only a close approximation to the original intent, and sometimes they are only educated guesses. You also need to be aware that English words often have multiple meanings or implications that were never part of the original intent of the Biblical texts.

If you're interested in learning more about the Bible, its English translations, and how to study it, go over to Common Sense Bible Study at AmericanTorah.com.

The Weak and Worthless Elemental Principles of Pagan Rome

After a series of violent conflicts between Rome and the Jews in the late first and early second centuries, the gentile converts to the Jewish sect alternately known as the Way, the Nazarenes, and the Christians, pushed hard to distance themselves from the hated upstarts. Since most of the Empire couldn't tell the difference, it took a long while to make the break final. To put everyone's minds at ease, the gentile Christians decided to change all of their holidays so they could celebrate on the same days as the polytheistic Romans. Then they switched to a Sunday "sabbath" because only those dirty Jews kept God's seventh day Sabbath.

Eventually, the Christians began to look so much like the Jovians that they kind of forgot what the big fuss was about. Peter took over the robes, halo, and statue of of Jupiter. Mary ousted Juno. And Joseph, poor Joseph... Well, Joseph faded into the shadows as an eternally cuckolded almost-husband of Juno...I mean Hera...I mean Mary.

Roman Catholicism is little more than a Latinized Jewish makeover of Roman paganism. Sure, it has lots of ancient traditions and cool hats, but it's missing a lot of Bible. Even more importantly, it's missing the one and only very Jewish Messiah.

It's time to finish the job that the original Protestant reformers began.

Keep the Sabbath, God's Sabbath. Keep the feast days, God's feast days, not the replacements foisted on the illiterate, superstitious masses by the Abomination of Desolation in Rome. Keep the commandments and reject the weak and worthless elementary principles of Rome, because as wise Solomon once wrote, to fear God and to keep His commandments is the whole duty of man.

The Symbolism of Rings in Scripture

Throughout history rings have been used to symbolize affinity, devotion, and authority, as well as stores of value. Hebrews gave earrings, nose rings, and bracelets as signs of betrothal. Egyptians and Canaanites both wore earrings and nose rings to symbolize devotion to their deities. Lifelong slaves wore earrings as symbols of their master’s authority. Tribes wore rings of various kinds to advertise their belonging. Rulers wore signet rings, crowns, and torques as statements of wealth and authority.

In the Bible, a nezem (earring or nose ring) can be functional as a store of value, ornamental, or symbolic. Some examples of symbolic uses of rings:

• Genesis 24:22 Eliezer gave Rebekah an earring and two bracelets as a sign of betrothal to Isaac.
• Exodus 32:2-3 Aaron told the Israelite men to surrender the earrings of their wives and children for use in the golden calf. He did not ask for idols, amulets, necklaces, or other jewelry which would have contained a much greater amount of gold.
• Judges 8:24-26 Gideon asked for the earrings of the slain Ishmaelites and used them to make an idol.
• Ezekiel 16:11-12 God gave bracelets, a nose ring, earrings, and a crown to his bride.
• Hosea 2:13 God used earrings in a double entendre to refer to the ornamentation of a harlot and the symbols of idolatry.
• Job 42:11 According to the Septuagint, each of Job’s friends gave him an “unstamped” gold earring. Most translations only say “earring.” I suspect the ancient translators of the Septuagint meant to emphasize that these were not religious tokens. The need for such an emphasis would be significant in itself.
• Proverbs 25:12 A wise authority figure is a carved earring in an obedient ear.

Yeshua Is More Real than Caesar

99.9% of all history is based on documentary evidence. You cannot reasonably claim to believe in a historical Julius Caesar based on historical documents and claim to disbelieve in a historical Jesus based on a lack of historical documents. There is more documentary historical evidence for the physical existence of Yeshua than for that of Julius Caesar, Senacharib, or Plato.

How To Destroy a Nation

1. Destroy the economy


2. Debase the currency


3. Destroy the family


4. Foment racial tension


5. Create class envy


6. Exacerbate religious disagreement


7. Invite mass immigration


8. Sabotage the productive class


9. Turn average citizens into criminals


10. Make arbitrary laws and applications


11. Denigrate traditions


12. Maleducate children


13. Overextend militarily


14. De-legitimize the government


15. Foment constant fear


16. Fail to prepare for adversity


17. Sow disinformation


18. Institute universal suffrage


19. Create masses of government dependents


20. Create large numbers of unemployed veterans

Did I miss anything?

The Caesars' Game

I've been listening Mike Duncan's The History of Rome padcast and have just made it to the ascension of Caligula. Having read most of Vox Day's comments on male hierarchy, I couldn't help but consider the early Caesars in that light. I have only a passing familiarity with these characters, so this is based only on Duncan's podcast and high school history classes.

Here are the ranks as Vox enumerates them:

• Alpha - Natural leaders. Confident, charismatic, and dominant. Usually run the show wherever they go.


• Beta - Natural semi-leaders. Confident, but maybe not as charismatic. They have to work at it and frequently play second-fiddle.


• Delta - The rank and file. Mostly passive. Stable, hard-working "family" men.


• Gamma - Weak, scared, passive-aggressive loners. Sycophants and complainers. They get little respect and usually don't deserve it.


• Omega - Creepy losers. Sociopaths.


• Sigma - Confident, charismatic, dominant men who don't naturally incline toward leading anything or even necessarily participating.

Julius Caesar was a Natural, a born Alpha. He was charismatic, reckless, brash, and stunningly successful in war, politics, and womanizing. People adored him or abhorred him, but everyone respected him.

Augustus Caesar (aka Octavius, etc.) was not an Alpha. As a young man, he was intelligent and thoughtful but sickly and possibly even a coward. Men didn't gravitate toward him or respect him. At best he was a Beta, but it's possible he was a Delta or even on the border of Gamma. Fortunately for him, he spent much of his teenage years at the side of Uncle Julius, absorbing some of his character and methods. By the time Julius died he had become a Beta, and over the following decade he transformed himself into an Alpha. His more timid roots kept him from becoming a complete clone of Julius, however. He didn't rule or conquer with the reckless abandon of his uncle, but remained a thoughtful and careful administrator. He relied very heavily on his even more intelligent capable advisor, Agrippa, whom I would call a strong Alpha if it weren't for his continual preference to remain in Augustus' shadow.

Tiberius began life as a Delta. He never wanted to be a leader, let alone an emperor. Circumstances forced him to adopt the behavior of an Alpha, but he always hated the role. The conflict between who he wanted to be and who he felt he was forced to be eventually broke him. He died an Omega.

Caligula could have been another Julius. He was born an Alpha, but he was twisted into Omega behavior under the murderous, perverted tutelage of his adopted grandfather.

Draw what conclusions you will. I strongly believe that men can become something to which they were not born. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.

The Means of Vexation and Oppression

The situation of the inferior gentry, or Franklins, as they were called, who, by the law and spirit of the English constitution, were entitled to hold themselves independent of feudal tyranny, became now unusually precarious. If, as was most generally the case, they placed themselves under the protection of any of the petty kings in their vicinity, accepted of feudal offices in his household, or bound themselves by mutual treaties of alliance and protection to support him in his enterprises, they might indeed purchase temporary repose; but it must be with the sacrifice of that independence which was so dear to every English bosom, and at the certain hazard of being involved as a party in whatever rash expedition the ambition of their protector might lead him to undertake. On the other hand, such and so multiplied were the means of vexation and oppression possessed by the great Barons, that they never wanted the pretext, and seldom the will, to harass and pursue, even to the very edge of destruction, any of their less powerful neighbours who attempted to separate themselves from their authority, and to trust for their protection, during the dangers of the times, to their own inoffensive conduct, and to the laws of the land.
-Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

Sound familiar? Nothing has changed except the technology of oppression. The "great Barons" of today still protect each other while they pretend to be enemies. They still use the Franklins at the EPA and the IRS to ride the backs of the common man. Minding one's own business–even minding the law–is no protection against thugs. They believe that, since they write the laws, they are free to ignore them whenever it suits. You cannot live through a single day without breaking some law, without tripping over one of the many blocks placed for that very purpose.

Losing by Winning

This is an interesting phenomenon of history, politics, & culture. If you want to introduce large portions of a completely foreign culture into your own, start a war.

After the Greeks conquered Judah, Jews scattered all over the Greek-ruled territories carrying their culture and learning with them.

After the Romans persecuted Christians, the empire became Christian.

After Europeans began conquering and colonizing the rest of the world, they learned about tea, coffee, chocolate, tobacco, maize, and turkey. Then all the Pakistanis became London cab drivers.

After fighting over large portions of North Africa, killing lots of people, and then running away, the French experienced a huge wave of immigration and cultural importation from Africa.

After pounding Vietnam half way to oblivion, killing lots of people, and then running away, the United States experienced a huge wave of immigration and cultural importation from Southeast Asia.

After invading several Middle-Eastern countries, killing lots of people, and then threatening to run away, the United States is experiencing a huge wave of immigration and cultural importation from the Middle East.

Not overhauling the culture fast enough? Just send more troops!

It’s almost like there’s a pattern.

The Ancient Roots of Palestine and Palestinians

Someone recently asked, “If ‘Palestine’ is such an ancient country why is it not mentioned in ancient history?”

Actually it is. The same word is found all through the Old Testament, so obviously it was mentioned in the histories of at least one ancient people. Palestine is an English corruption of a Latin corruption of Pilishti, which we more commonly know from the Bible as Philistine.

That kind of corruption happens with words all the time. Think of Jesus, which came from Iesus, which came from Yeshua. Or Jay, which came from Jayco, which came from Iago, which came from Yaakov.

The Philistines (not the Palestinians) would have a prior claim to part of the land of Israel, if it weren’t for that inconvenient thing about God taking the land away from the Philistines and Canaanites and giving it to the Israelites. The modern Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to live within a political boundary once bearing that name, and are not actually related to the ancient Philistines at all.

Once upon a time, Jews, who lived in the territory known as Palestine before it became the State of Israel, were known as Palestinians, but few of the people we now call Palestinians would claim them as ancestors.

There doesn’t appear to be an actual ethnic group of people that anyone can accurately call “Palestinians.” It’s a little like claiming to be of the Pennsylvanian race. There are Pennsylvanians, but they’re only called that because they live in Pennsylvania, not because they’re really a distinctive race of people

Interview with Stanley Shepp

Recently the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stanley Shepp’s right to talk to his own daughter about his religious beliefs. This is a huge victory in the midst of a culture that seems to be rushing head-long into institutionalized misandry. Groups such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, and Tapestry Against Polygamy have fought relentlessly to erase all meaningful paternal rights. Mr. Shepp kept fighting despite early rulings against him, and we all owe him our gratitude for his perseverence. His win has been a win for all parents.

While Mr. Shepp has declined other media interviews, he has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us. Here are the questions and answers, completely unedited. Some of what he has to say was discouraging. For example, the willingness of some news outlets and courts to uncritically accept the claims of those with whom they already agree. However, most of what he says is very encouraging. Some courts and many regular Americans still believe in freedom of religion and keeping out of their neighbor’s business.


Jay: Where did you live when this fight began?
Stanley M Shepp: York, PA

Jay: How did your community and church there react?
Stanley M Shepp: I was excommunicated from the LDS church.

Jay: Where do you live now?
Stanley M Shepp: St. George, Utah.

Jay: How has that community and church reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: The LDS church here does not allow me to attend any activities. I currently attend meetings with a Mormon Fundamentalist Group.

Jay: How has your extended family reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: My family generally supports and loves me. They may not agree with my beliefs, but they know that I would never do anything to harm my daughter.

Jay: How have those reactions affected your personal life?
Stanley M Shepp: Minimally.

Jay: Do you (or did you) work for another company?
Stanley M Shepp: I changed jobs when I left Pennsylvania and came to Utah.

Jay: How has this fight affected your work environment?
Stanley M Shepp: My work environment is fine. Some people know and some people do not. Those who know have been supportive.

Jay: How has this fight affected your relationship with your daughter?
Stanley M Shepp: For the past 4 years, it has allowed others to discuss with her their views of my religious beliefs – while denying my right to correct any misstatements. While my ex-wife denies badmouthing me or my beliefs to my daughter, she has also stated that my daughter is afraid that I will marry her off to some old man now that she is 13. My daughter should have no such fear.

Jay: Was your ex-wife motivated more by concern for what you might actually do or by a gut reaction against the very idea of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: A woman named Carmen Thompson motivated my ex-wife. Ms. Thompson is an anti-polygamy activist who is affiliated with Tapestry Against Polygamy. Ms. Thompson moved from Utah to York, Co. PA and did everything that she could to stir up a contentious environment with mine and my wife’s ex-spouses.

Jay: Do you think your ex-wife will appeal?
Stanley M Shepp: I doubt it. The ruling was 5-1 in my favor. There were two different arguments in my favor. She would have an extremely difficult case and I doubt that the US Supreme Court would even hear it.

Jay: What was the most frightening aspect and moment of all of this?
Stanley M Shepp: The fear that the judge would believe my ex-step-daughter’s stories.

Jay: How did judges and others in the court system react to your patriarchal beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: Some seemed repulsed, some seemed supportive, some seemed understanding. The Supreme Court Judge that I felt was obviously repulsed, was the woman who wrote the majority opinion in my favor. So I might not be a very good judge of how their reactions appeared. I assume now that she was repulsed that the lower court ever wrote an opinion that would trample a man’s freedom of religion and his freedom of speech all in one ruling.

Jay: Did you attempt to downplay your more controversial beliefs in court?
Stanley M Shepp: Surely we did. My religious beliefs are not that big of a deal. While they are deeply held, they are not harmful to anyone – and as such, were insignificant to the custody case. My ex-wife’s continuous accusations that I wanted to “marry her off” to some old man were preposterous and based on Carmen Thompson’s fear mongering.
I do acknowledge that her fears are real, like a child who is afraid of the monster under the bed. The fear is real, but it is not based on reality.

Jay: Did you ever have problems with child protective services or similar agencies?
Stanley M Shepp: They interviewed me based on my ex-step-daughter’s accusations. The interview took about 3 minutes. Apparently, the investigator had already concluded, from her interviews with that step-daughter, that her stories were fabricated and that the agency was going to being used for leverage in a custody case.

Jay: Has there been a lot of publicity around your fight?
Stanley M Shepp: Only when we talk to the press. My ex-wife interviewing with Montel Williams after the Superior Court ruling, and with Geraldo Rivera after this ruling were only scrapped after I refused to interview with them. I am of the opinion that the publicity is not good for my daughter. My ex-wife apparently believes that it is good for her, since she has repeatedly invited these people into her home and allowed them to interview my daughter.

Jay: What kind of publicity did you have around the adverse lower court rulings?
Stanley M Shepp: It was in newspapers around the free world. The Abramms report called, Montel Williams called. My ex-wife thrived on the publicity. I was lured in to interviewing with the AP and the local newspaper. I learned that they were not necessarily after the truth, but they were out to sell newspapers.

Jay: How much did the fight cost you?
Stanley M Shepp: The cost is immeasurable. Financially, an exact number could be placed on it, but I do not know exactly how much. I would say over $10,000, less than $20,000. Emotionally, the cost was extensive. The constant emotional stress proved to be too much for my current wife. The loss of that relationship was largely due to the constant attacks by My ex-wife and her ex-husband.

Jay: Have you received financial, legal, or other help from anyone?
Stanley M Shepp: My attorney believed in the importance of this case and the ruling and did much of the research and writing of the appeals pro bono.

Jay: How do you think this judgement will relate to cases involving homosexual parents or parents with any other controversial lifestyles or beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: I believe that it will allow them to discuss their beliefs and lifestyles with their children.

Jay: You wrote, “This case, in my mind, was about the rights of *every* Pennsylvania parent to discuss their religious beliefs with their children.” What would you say to people who object that your arguments could be used to allow a Satanist or pedophile to teach his beliefs to his children?
Stanley M Shepp: While I might disagree with Satanists, it is not illegal to be a Satanist. Pedophilia is certainly a crime, but it should not be illegal for a parent to discuss those things with their children. What if someone is a pedophile, knows it, and is doing their best to not act on those impulses. They may feel that it would be wise for them to explain that to their child at some point. “Janey, we cannot have your friends stay the night at our house. I suffer from an extreme and often uncontrollable attraction to young girls. It would be better for you to spend the night at their house instead.”

Jay: You wrote, “I do not look forward to the court case that will be generated by my desire to have [my daughter] come [to Utah].” What court case is that?
Stanley M Shepp: I am required to give a two week written notice of my intent to take my daughter out of the state. I was already found guilty of contempt of court for taking her to Maryland – after obtaining her mother’s verbal approval. I am sure that when I give written notice, that they will file for a hearing and a judge will have to decide if I can bring her to Utah or not.

Jay: How will this ruling affect the cases of other fathers in Utah, Texas, or any other state who might want to teach their children about the acceptability of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: I am not a legal expert, but my understanding is that an attorney in another state could use my case as the basis of their argument. The judges in other states would not be bound by that ruling, because the jurisdiction does not overlap. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court – and they refuse to listen to it or they side with me, then it would be more binding on other states.

Jay: What was the most damaging argument against you?
Stanley M Shepp: My ex-step-daughter’s testimony that I touched her inappropriately and proposed to her. Her argument was less damaging in the second case (my wife’s case with her ex-husband over custody of their children) The testimony in that case was elevated to another level. The accusations were worse and the testimony was intended to be more damaging. Our attorney presented the first testimony and questioned why the two stories were not consistent with each other. The girl was obviously at a loss for an answer – and in essence caught in her lies. The judge in that case put much less emphasis on her testimony.
When we heard her testimony at the end of my case – my attorney asked if there was anything else that I wanted to have offered as testimony, and I said that I wanted an opportunity to deny those accusations under oath. He advised against it, but I insisted. It was a good thing that I answered them. On one point that I did not offer counter testimony, one of the judges later commented that such-and-such an accusation was not denied – indicating that it was quite likely true. It was more a case of my attorney not asking me about it and so I did not have the opportunity to respond to it.

Jay: What was the most important argument in your favor?
Stanley M Shepp: The most important argument on our side was the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and supported in the Yoder v. Wisconsin US Supreme Court ruling. One of the PA Supreme Court Justices, during our oral arguments, asked my ex-wife’s attorney the following question: “In the Yoder v. Wisconsin case, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling, would it have been illegal for the Yoder parents to discuss home schooling with the Yoder children?” The attorney answered, “Well, no.” The Supreme Court Justice sat back in his chair and said, “Well, if there is a difference between that case and this case, I would like to know what it is.” My ex-wife’s attorney stuttered and stammered – “Well, this is about polygamy, not home schooling.” It was apparent to me that this justice’s mind was already made up.

Roman Generals and German Mercenaries in Lebanon

This is just about the most bizarre bit of history repeating itself that I have ever read before eight o'clock in the morning:

An Italian coalition leader said Rome would be willing to lead the military peace mission in Lebanon should the United Nations ask it to, while Germany’s chancellor said Monday she is confident that Europe will contribute ground troops.

Rome leading a military peace mission using German mercenaries? Pax Romana? If the AP had been around, they could just about have written this paragraph in 150 AD.

King Sears: Isaac Sears in the American Revolution

Compared to George Washington, Thomas Gage, and some others, Isaac Sears was a minor player in the Revolution. The lives and activities of these seeming "extras" can offer an informative and entertaining glimpse into facets of the Revolution that you don't normally see in history textbooks. The following actual newspaper articles are excerpted from Diary of the American Revolution, volumes I & II.

---

Captain Sears and John Case

Rivington's Royal Gazette, January 12, 1775

JANUARY 3--THIS morning, Mr. John Case, an old man of near sixty years of age, from Long Island, was entreated by an acquaintance of his to go to the house of Jasper Drake, tavern-keeper near Beckman’s Slip, where he was told Captain [Alexander] Mac Dougall, Captain [Isaac] Sears,¹ and others wanted to converse with him on politics. He went, and soon entered into conversation with Captain [Alexander] Mac Dougall, who attempted to convince him that he was in an error, but not being able to effect it, politely left him. Captain Sears, with several other persons, then attacked him with the force of their eloquence and noise, but Case said he was an unlearned man, and but of few words, that he could not reply to above one. That he judged, however, the fairest way to come at the truth would be to recur to the origin of the present contest between Great Britain and the Colonies, and to trace from the time of the stamp act, the encroachments of ministerial power, and the increasing demands for provincial privileges. This was objected to by Captain Sears, as it would require too much time and attention to discuss. He said that he would question him a little, and asked Case whether the king had not violated his coronation oath? Mr. Case replied, that he thought he had not, and reasoned on this and other matters in as cool a manner as possible, in order not to irritate Captain Sears, who, however, soon grew warm, and branded Case with the appellation of Tory, and told him that if he was in Connecticut government he would be put to death. Sears then demanded of Case whether, if the Bostonians were to take up arms, he would fight for the king? Case answered, that if he fought on either side, he would certainly fight for no one else, as he conceived King George to be his lawful sovereign, for the minister a few days before prayed for our rightful sovereign Lord King George the Third, on which Sears replied he was sorry that he had turned churchman, where such prayers were used; Case replied, these expressions were delivered the preceding Sunday by Dr. Rodgers² at the Presbyterian meeting, for he himself was a Presbyterian. After a few more queries and replies of a similar nature, Sears told him that he would not suffer, a Tory to sit in company with gentlemen, placed a chair in the chimney corner, caught Case by the arm, and forced him into it. He then called for a negro boy, who belonged to the house, and ordered him to sit along with him; for that he (Case) was only fit to sit in company with slaves; but the negro had too much understanding to comply. Mr. Case then called for some wine, and offered it to the company, but Sears refused to accept of it, pushed him down in the chair where he before had placed him, and ordered the rest not to drink with a Tory; and further, that whoever spoke to Case, should forfeit a bowl of toddy, which was exacted by him from two persons who happened to disobey his mandates. Sears then told Case that his age protected him, for if he was a young man, he would have placed him on a red-hot gridiron; and after he had detained this old man as long as he thought proper, he dismissed him.<sup>3

1</sup> Afterwards called by the loyalists, King Sears.
² John Rodgers, D. D., pastor of the Wall street church.
³ This account was published in Rivington’s Gazette, Jan. 12, in the form of a deposition, witnessed by Mr. Case. The Royal Gazette was a loyalist newspaper throughout the war.

---

Rivington's Press Destroyed

Pennsylvania Journal, December 6, 1775

NOVEMBER 29--ON the twentieth of this month, sixteen respectable inhabitants of New Haven, Connecticut, in company with Captain Sears, set out from that place to East and West Chester, in the province of New York, to disarm the principal Tories there, and secure the persons of Parson Seabury,¹ Judge Fowler, and Lord Underhill.² On their way thither they were joined by Captains Richards, Sillick, and Mead, with about eighty men. At Mamaroneck they burnt a small sloop, which was purchased by government, for the purpose of carrying provisions on board the "ASIA." At East Chester they seized Judge Fowler, then repaired to West Chester and secured Seabury and Underhill. Having possessed themselves of these three caitiffs, they sent them to Connecticut under a strong guard. The main body, consisting of seventy-five, then proceeded to New York, where they entered at noonday on horseback, bayonets fixed, in the greatest regularity, went down the main street, and drew up in close order before the printing office of the infamous James Rivington. A small detachment entered it, and in about three-quarters of an hour brought off the principal part of his types, for which they offered to give an order on Lord Dunmore.³ They then faced and wheeled to the left, and marched out of town to the tune of Yankee Doodle. A vast concourse of people assembled at the Coffee House, on their leaving the ground, and gave them three very hearty cheers.

On their way home they disarmed all the Tories that lay on their route, and yesterday arrived at New Haven, escorted by a great number of gentlemen from the westward, the whole making a very grand procession. Upon their entrance into town they were saluted with the discharge of two cannon, and received by the inhabitants with every mark of approbation and respect. The company divided into two parts, and concluded the day in festivity and innocent mirth. Captain Sears returned in company with the other gentlemen, and proposes to spend the winter at New Haven, unless public business should require his presence at New York. Seabury, Underhill, and Fowler, three of the dastardly protesters against the proceedings of the Continental Congress, and who it is believed had concerted a plan for kidnapping Captain Sears, and conveying him on board the ASIA man-of-war, are (with the types and arms) safely lodged in New Haven, where it is expected Lord Underhill will have leisure to form the scheme of a lucrative lottery, the tickets of which cannot be counterfeited; and Parson Seabury sufficient time to compose sermons for the next Continental fast.<sup>4

1</sup> Samuel Seabury, D. D., first Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States. He was born in 1728; graduated at Yale College in 1751, and visited England to study medicine, but relinquished that study for that of the ministry. He was first settled at Brunswick, (New Jersey,) then at Jamaica, on Long Island, and afterwards in Westchester, New York. After the commencement of the war, he fled to New York City, where he remained until the declaration of peace. In November, 1784, he was consecrated as bishop of the Episcopal Church of Connecticut, and for many years after discharged the duties of the office at New London, in Connecticut. He died in 1796.
² Nathaniel Underhill, Mayor of Westchester.
³ See account of the seizure of Holt’s types, &c., at Virginia; October 7, 1775 (Volume I, Chapter III).
⁴ Pennsylvania Journal, December 6: --The following recantation of Judge Fowler is printed in the same paper: --Whereas I, Jonathan Fowler, Esq., one of his Majesty’s Judges of the Inferior Court for the County of Westchester, in the Province of New York, did some time ago sign a protest against the Honorable Continental Congress, which inconsiderate conduct I am heartily sorry for, and do hereby promise for the future not to transgress in the view of the people of this continent, nor in any sense to oppose the measures taken by the Continental Congress.I do also certify, that some time past being at Court at the White Plains, I heard a person say, whom several people present believed to be a lieutenant or midshipman of the Asia, man-of-war, that the captain of the Asia intended to take Captain Sears up, and that there soon would be delivered (gratis) from on board the man-of-war, great quantities of paper money in imitation of Continental currency, which would be printed with the types taken from Mr. Holt, of Virginia. As witness my hand, JONATHAN FOWLER.

---

General Lee’s Oath

Middlesex Journal, February 15, 1776

LAST Monday, General Lee arrived from Cambridge, at Newport, Rhode Island, attended by his guard, a party of riflemen, and the cadet company of Providence. While there he called before him a number of obnoxious persons, to whom he tendered an oath, of fidelity to the country, which was taken by all of them excepting Colonel Joseph Warton, Jr., Nicholas Lechmere, and Richard Beale, the two last custom-house officers, who refused taking it; upon which, they were put under guard and sent to Providence.¹

The following copy of the oath imposed by General Lee, is submitted to the public, who will judge how far it is consistent with that liberty, independence, and right of private judgment, which the Americans pretend they are contending for:

"I, .., here, in the presence of Almighty God, as I hope for ease, honor, and comfort in this world, and happiness in the world to come, most earnestly, devoutly, and religiously do swear, that I will neither directly nor indirectly assist the wicked instruments of ministerial tyranny and villany, commonly called the king’s troops and navy, by furnishing them with provisions and refreshments of any kind, unless authorized by the Continental Congress or Legislature, at present established in this particular colony of Rhode Island. I do also swear, by the tremendous and Almighty God, that I will neither directly nor indirectly convey any intelligence, nor give any advice to the aforesaid enemies described; and that I pledge myself, if I should by any accident get knowledge of such treasons, to inform immediately the committee of safety. And, as it is justly allowed that when the rights and sacred liberties of a nation or community are invaded, neutrality is not less base and criminal than open and avowed hostility, I do further swear and pledge myself, as I hope for eternal salvation, that I will, whenever called upon by the voice of the Continental Congress, or by the Legislature of this particular colony under their direction, take up arms, and subject myself to military discipline in defence of the common rights and liberties of America. So help me God."<sup>2

1</sup> Pennsylvania Evening Post, January 16.
² GENERAL LEE, on his arrival at New York, despatched Isaac Sears to Long Island, to administer the oath to the Tories residing there. The following first report made by Sears to Lee, is taken from George H. Moore’s work on the "Treason of Major-General Charles Lee," now in course of preparation:JAMAICA, March 17th, 1776.
SIR, --It is a duty that I owe to my Comman^r to aquaint him of my proceedings in executg the order he gave me. Yesterday afternoon I arived at Newtown, and tendered the oath to four of the grate Torries, which they swallowed as hard as if it was a four pound shot, that they ware trying to git down. On this day at 11 o’clock, I came here, whare I sent out scouting parties, and have ben able to ketch but five Torries, and they of the first rank, which swallowed the oath. The houses are so scatering it is impossible to ketch many without hosses to rid after thim. But I shall exert myself to ketch the gratest part of the ringledors, and beleve I shell effect it, but not less then five days from this time. I can asure your honor they are a set of villins in this country, and beleve the better half of them are wateing for soport and intend to take up arms against us. And it is my oppinion nothing else will do but removeing the ringledors to a place of secuerty.
From your most ob^t Hum^le Sir^t
ISAAC SEARS.

---

New York Records Restored

October 3, 1781

Rivington, in the Royal Gazette of to-day, congratulates the public, and especially the inhabitants of the province of New York, upon the King's gracious restoration of those important records, which General Tryon's care and vigilance secured on board of the ship Duchess of Gordon, in the month of November, 1775. The general, then governor, was apprised of the wicked design to seize that inestimable treasure in the Secretary's office, (for the loss of which no money could compensate,) and to convey it to New England. And that it was upon the point of being carried into execution, by a party of the mob, headed by Sears, who has since profited so much by his plunders.

General Tryon caused such of the books to be selected as put it out of the power of almost every landholder without recourse to them, to give evidence in a court of law of the title to his estate; and these were brought off in strong boxes under locks and seals. They were earned home to England, in 1778, and lately sent back in one of the king's ships to their ancient deposit.

The residue, or general mass of papers, are among the rebels, having been first conveyed by order of the provincial Congress to Kingston, in Ulster county. Mr. Bayard, the deputy secretary, was with them, and watched over them, till the violence of the times wrested them from his hands and consigned them to others above three years ago; since which, they have been exposed to a perilous transportation from one place to another in carts.

It is impossible to say where the mischiefs would have stopped, had Sear's project succeeded, or to describe the wild confusion in property, consequent upon the access of designing villains to these records, in which all the inhabitants of this colony may find the chief links in chain of titles to their lands. It must therefore, be grateful to people of all ranks and classes, to know that these records are safe, and that due care will be taken to prevent their ever falling into the hands of the usurpers, who have already involved this country in so much misery.

Terms of Biblical Sexuality

Very few people seem to understand the meaning of these words. I think a brief dictionary of Biblical sexuality is in order. The definitions here are based on Biblical usage, and these words may be defined differently in law or other texts. Most of the words in this list are not used in the Bible at all, but I have included them anyway, because they are useful in discussing Biblical topics.

Adultery - Any sexual act between a married woman and a man who is not her husband. Every use of the Hebrew and Greek terms for adultery refers to a man with another man's wife. It might be immoral for a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman, but it is not adultery according to Biblical usage.

Bestiality - Any sexual act between a person and an animal. Biblical law requires the death of both the person and the animal.

Betrothal - Agreement to a future marriage. In the Bible a betrothal is as binding as marriage. The rapist of a betrothed woman receives the same punishment as the rapist of a married woman: death. The rapist of an unbetrothed virgin receives a heavy financial penalty.

Bill of Divorcement - A document given by a husband to a divorced wife to prove that she has been lawfully divorced.

Bride-price - Something of value usually given to the father or family of a woman in exchange for her marriage. Sometimes the bride-price might be given to the woman. In ancient Hebrew culture, if a bride-price is given without receiving a dowry, then the woman would become a concubine. She would be a wife, but would also have been purchased, making her a slave. See dowry.

Consanguinogamy - Marriage to relatives who are not Biblically forbidden. Cousin and uncle/niece marriages are consanguinogamous.

Divorce - The dissolution of a marriage by repudiation or abandonment. See putting away and bill of divorcement.

Dowry - Something of value brought into a marriage by a woman. Usually it consisted of property given to the husband by the bride's family. It might be reserved for use by the woman and might return to her family if she is divorced. See bride-price.

Endogamy - Marriage within one's own social group, clan, or tribe.

Exogamy - Marriage outside of one's own social group, clan, or tribe.

Fornication - Any sexually immoral act. Fornication includes adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, prostitution, incest, etc.

Harlotry - Prostitution or sex for pay.

Homosexuality - See lesbianism and sodomy.

Incest - Sexual relations with a close relative. Sexual relations with any of the following persons would be incest: parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, nephews. Marriage to cousins, uncles, and nieces might be considered incestuous in modern, Western cultures, but they are not forbidden in the Bible.

Lesbianism - Female homosexuality. Alluded to once by Paul, but otherwise is not specifically addressed in the Bible.

Levirate - The practice of a surviving male relative--usually a brother--marrying the childless widow of the deceased. The purpose was to ensure the continuity of inheritance by providing the deceased with an heir in the firstborn of the new marriage. If a man had several wives and at least one of them had children, then the law of the levirate would not apply.

Marriage - A permanent union between a man and a woman, consummated by sexual relations. I do not believe that the sexual union in itself constitutes marriage. It must be accompanied by an agreement of permanency between the marrying individuals, and the consent, whether implicit or explicit, of the woman's guardian if she is not a widow or divorcee.

Onanism - Male masturbation or "pulling out" to prevent conception. Named for Onan, the son of Judah, because he was killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground to avoid giving his deceased brother an heir according to the levirate. I believe that the term is misnamed and misapplied, because Onan was not killed for spilling his seed, but for denying his brother an heir. It might be more appropriate to apply the term to the modern aversion to the levirate and to onerous inheritance taxes.

Polyandry - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one woman and more than one man. A form of polygamy that is not allowed by Biblical laws.

Polygamy - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one person and multiple persons of the opposite sex. Bigamy (one person with only two persons of the opposite sex), polyandry (one woman with multiple men), and polygyny (one man with multiple women) are sub-categories of polygamy.

Polygyny - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one man and more than one woman. A form of polygamy that is allowed by Biblical laws.

Putting Away - Repudiation and physical removal of a spouse, almost always of a wife by her husband. See divorce.

Sodomy - Male homosexuality, especially homosexual prostitution or ritual homosexuality. All male sodomy is clearly condemned in the Bible, which prescribes the death penalty for all sodomites.

Sororal Polygyny - The marriage of one man to two sisters, as in the case of Jacob with Leah and Rachel. Prohibited by Leviticus 18:18, but the prohibition might be limited to situations in which the second marriage is likely to cause a great deal of strain on the first, for example if the sisters are already hostile or very competitive toward one another. Could also be called "sororal polygamy."

Whoredom - Pretty much the same as fornication. Whoredom might imply prostitution or illicit heterosexual activity as opposed to other forms of fornication.