Yesterday was a lovely Christmas season Saturday, with a smattering of early snow to add to the seasonal charm. Many people were busy about their tasks and errands related to the celebration of Christmas: shopping, craft making, decorating, parades, and performances. It was a joy to see worshiping, as hundreds of people were at the nearby Temple of God, participating in the Savior’s work of extending salvation to all who would receive it, both the living and the dead.
Yesterday I participated in ordinances through which families are united together throughout the eternities. Everything that the Savior Jesus Christ does, in the words of a wonderful teacher I met in Murcia, Spain, is para siempre, forever. While we live in the here and now, the here and now obtains meaning by being part of eternity. The Savior time and again and in many ways has sought to have us understand this.
The most important organization in the here and now, the family, is also the most important organization in heaven. The Savior would have our family relationships continue para siempre. So would most people I know.
That is the highest purpose of the Temples of the Lord, the eternal uniting of families. That means the uniting of families in the present, all across the family of man. The vows revealed by God Himself and administered in the present in the Lord’s Temples continue unbroken beyond the grave, as eternal as heaven.
Husband and wife and the children, too, are linked in that loving association forever. Through the linking of the children the generations are joined from the beginning of time until time becomes eternity. As the son of my parents I am linked to my father and mother. They each are linked to their parents, and on to the first parents. No one is forgotten or denied the opportunity to come to Christ and through Him to be united with all generations past, present, and future in one family of all who accept God as their Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, as their Savior.
Fundamentally, that is why Christ came to earth two thousand years ago, to save mankind, and especially to save us as families, literally part of the united family of God the Father. Yesterday hundreds were laboring in our local Temple, and around the world thousands in the other Temples of Christ, worshiping the Savior by continuing His work to unite and thereby save the family units of today and the past. That work will continue until the Savior Himself shall say, “It is done.” That is a lovely Christmas celebration.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Of Obama and Ethelred the Unready
Arguably the worst king of England was Ethelred the Unready. He was unready to rule his kingdom, he was unready to promote its prosperity, he was unready to repel the invader. The chief manifestation of his unreadiness was his inability or unwillingness to recognize reality. Reality eventually caught up with him—as it always does—and with his kingdom—as it always does for those subject to unready rulers.
The current President of the United States, Barack Obama, may be working hard to earn himself the title of Obama the Unready. The evidence is accumulating.
For months, the novice commander-in-chief has been at a loss to know how to respond to the urgent recommendations of the field commanders in Afghanistan. They have been pleading to increase the troop levels. The added troops are needed to respond to increased enemy activity. Unwilling to say yes or no, the President vacillates while American soldiers die because they are stretched too thin. He seems to have forgotten that American soldiers under President Clinton were similarly sacrificed in another poor corner of the world—Somalia—only because Clinton did not provide enough troops to do the job. Rather than decrease casualties, insufficient troop strength increases casualties, soldiers who would not die if given enough support to overwhelm the enemy. This week the White House announced that President Obama is still unready to decide on troop strengths for the mission in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Taliban is not waiting for him to make up his mind.
Also this week, President Obama gave a little speech about the economy. It was hard to miss the sense of frustration and perplexity in his remarks, made quickly as the Nobel laureate left town to seek more praise from his adoring foreign fans. He admitted that unemployment remains high, despite his economic program. He admitted that employers are reluctant to hire new people. He just does not seem to know why. His solution is to call a conference of economic talkers in December to talk about it. He remains unready to do something about his economic plans and government policies that are making it riskier for employers to take on more employees. Faced with half a trillion dollars in new taxes (many focused on small businesses), higher health care expenses from the trillion dollar “reform” program, new environmental plans to cool off the globe by cooling off economic growth, and dozens of other new plans to make it harder for businessmen to succeed, businessmen are reluctant to hire new people that they will later have to let go. All the while, the natural tendency for the economy to recover is weakened.
Consumer spending remains suppressed, while the Obama Administration and its friends in Congress pursue policies that make consumer credit more expensive and harder to get. Congress this year, with the Obama Administration cheering on, passed new credit card laws that make it difficult for lenders to have riskier borrowers pay higher rates. The result is that everyone gets to pay higher rates. Predictably, consumer credit declined by 15% in September and shows little sign of getting better. As we approach the holiday season, so important for the success of retailers, the Obama Administration and its Congressional allies are busily making it tougher for banks to run their debit card programs. Expect more debit cards denied at the checkout lines. Also expect the pace of store closures, already growing faster than swine flu, to continue to grow. Seen any empty storefronts at shopping centers lately? Be ready to see more, even as President Obama convenes his economic talk show in December.
Not to forget swine flu, the Obama Administration was eager all year to pump up the worry about a swine flu epidemic, in hopes that it might frighten people into supporting healthcare legislation. In the meantime, the Obama Administration’s health officials, who are heavily involved in development and distribution of vaccines (lawsuits that plague the medical industry have driven most vaccine manufacturers out of the business), were ready to promise but unready to deliver swine flu vaccine. Expect more of the same, of promises that do not meet actual needs as government becomes even more involved in regulating healthcare. Service and speed are what most people look for when they are sick, but service and speed are not what government programs are known to provide—any government program.
It should be no surprise that President Obama is not ready for the growing challenges of being President. Like Ethelred, Barack Obama had little training for the job. Governing has not gotten easier in the thousand years since Ethelred disgraced the throne of England. It is not getting any easier for Barack Obama. Fortunately for America, we do not invest all power in a king.
The current President of the United States, Barack Obama, may be working hard to earn himself the title of Obama the Unready. The evidence is accumulating.
For months, the novice commander-in-chief has been at a loss to know how to respond to the urgent recommendations of the field commanders in Afghanistan. They have been pleading to increase the troop levels. The added troops are needed to respond to increased enemy activity. Unwilling to say yes or no, the President vacillates while American soldiers die because they are stretched too thin. He seems to have forgotten that American soldiers under President Clinton were similarly sacrificed in another poor corner of the world—Somalia—only because Clinton did not provide enough troops to do the job. Rather than decrease casualties, insufficient troop strength increases casualties, soldiers who would not die if given enough support to overwhelm the enemy. This week the White House announced that President Obama is still unready to decide on troop strengths for the mission in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Taliban is not waiting for him to make up his mind.
Also this week, President Obama gave a little speech about the economy. It was hard to miss the sense of frustration and perplexity in his remarks, made quickly as the Nobel laureate left town to seek more praise from his adoring foreign fans. He admitted that unemployment remains high, despite his economic program. He admitted that employers are reluctant to hire new people. He just does not seem to know why. His solution is to call a conference of economic talkers in December to talk about it. He remains unready to do something about his economic plans and government policies that are making it riskier for employers to take on more employees. Faced with half a trillion dollars in new taxes (many focused on small businesses), higher health care expenses from the trillion dollar “reform” program, new environmental plans to cool off the globe by cooling off economic growth, and dozens of other new plans to make it harder for businessmen to succeed, businessmen are reluctant to hire new people that they will later have to let go. All the while, the natural tendency for the economy to recover is weakened.
Consumer spending remains suppressed, while the Obama Administration and its friends in Congress pursue policies that make consumer credit more expensive and harder to get. Congress this year, with the Obama Administration cheering on, passed new credit card laws that make it difficult for lenders to have riskier borrowers pay higher rates. The result is that everyone gets to pay higher rates. Predictably, consumer credit declined by 15% in September and shows little sign of getting better. As we approach the holiday season, so important for the success of retailers, the Obama Administration and its Congressional allies are busily making it tougher for banks to run their debit card programs. Expect more debit cards denied at the checkout lines. Also expect the pace of store closures, already growing faster than swine flu, to continue to grow. Seen any empty storefronts at shopping centers lately? Be ready to see more, even as President Obama convenes his economic talk show in December.
Not to forget swine flu, the Obama Administration was eager all year to pump up the worry about a swine flu epidemic, in hopes that it might frighten people into supporting healthcare legislation. In the meantime, the Obama Administration’s health officials, who are heavily involved in development and distribution of vaccines (lawsuits that plague the medical industry have driven most vaccine manufacturers out of the business), were ready to promise but unready to deliver swine flu vaccine. Expect more of the same, of promises that do not meet actual needs as government becomes even more involved in regulating healthcare. Service and speed are what most people look for when they are sick, but service and speed are not what government programs are known to provide—any government program.
It should be no surprise that President Obama is not ready for the growing challenges of being President. Like Ethelred, Barack Obama had little training for the job. Governing has not gotten easier in the thousand years since Ethelred disgraced the throne of England. It is not getting any easier for Barack Obama. Fortunately for America, we do not invest all power in a king.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Of Modern Apostles and Abundant Life
As a child I remember pondering how wonderful it would be to live on the earth in the days of the Apostles. I thought that it would be a great thing to know them, to see their pattern of life, to hear their witness of Jesus Christ, and through them to hear revelation directly from God.
So it was a personal thrill when I was a young teenager to learn that Apostles of Jesus Christ live and walk on the earth again, that we are their contemporaries, that we may associate with them, hear their clear and unequivocal witness of Jesus Christ, to learn directly through them what God would have us know and do.
I have since met several of these modern Apostles. They have the same authority and power directly from the Savior that Jesus extended anciently to Peter, James, John, Paul, and others of the Apostles whom the Savior chose to represent Him to the world.
While these messengers of the Christ cross the continents testifying of Him, twice a year they gather together in conference and proclaim their inspired messages for any and all who would hear. Here are a few gems from their most recent counsel and declarations. Heeding their words will lead to a richer, more abundant life.
The Apostle Richard G. Scott reminded us that, “Father in Heaven knew that you would face challenges and be required to make some decisions that would be beyond your own ability to decide correctly. In His plan of happiness, He included a provision for you to receive help with such challenges and decisions during your mortal life. That assistance will come to you through the Holy Ghost as spiritual guidance. It is a power, beyond your own capability, that a loving Heavenly Father wants you to use consistently for your peace and happiness.” He explained how to enhance our ability to receive that personal revelation.
The Apostle David A. Bednar emphasized the deep need for people today “to become more diligent and concerned at home by telling the people we love that we love them. Such expressions do not need to be flowery or lengthy. We simply should sincerely and frequently express love.” That may not be new counsel, but is there more important counsel for families today? If you could talk directly to God, would He not tell you to do that?
Another Apostle, Dallin H. Oaks, said, “The effect of God’s commandments and laws is not changed to accommodate popular behavior or desires. If anyone thinks that godly or parental love for an individual grants the loved one license to disobey the law, he or she does not understand either love or law.” He demonstrated how God’s laws are an expression of His love for us, guidance that shows us the way of lasting happiness.
The Apostle M. Russell Ballard had counsel for fathers and sons. To the sons, he counseled that they trust their father, take an interest in their father’s life, and that they ask their father for advice. To the fathers he counseled, listen to your sons, pray with and for your sons, and dare to have the “big talks” with your sons. Many of society’s ills today could be prevented by improving the communication between fathers and sons.
These and the other modern day Apostles of Jesus Christ said much more and gave further inspired counsel. You can find their complete remarks at this website:
http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1117,00.html
Perhaps their most important message was expressed by the Apostle Robert D. Hales:
So it was a personal thrill when I was a young teenager to learn that Apostles of Jesus Christ live and walk on the earth again, that we are their contemporaries, that we may associate with them, hear their clear and unequivocal witness of Jesus Christ, to learn directly through them what God would have us know and do.
I have since met several of these modern Apostles. They have the same authority and power directly from the Savior that Jesus extended anciently to Peter, James, John, Paul, and others of the Apostles whom the Savior chose to represent Him to the world.
While these messengers of the Christ cross the continents testifying of Him, twice a year they gather together in conference and proclaim their inspired messages for any and all who would hear. Here are a few gems from their most recent counsel and declarations. Heeding their words will lead to a richer, more abundant life.
The Apostle Richard G. Scott reminded us that, “Father in Heaven knew that you would face challenges and be required to make some decisions that would be beyond your own ability to decide correctly. In His plan of happiness, He included a provision for you to receive help with such challenges and decisions during your mortal life. That assistance will come to you through the Holy Ghost as spiritual guidance. It is a power, beyond your own capability, that a loving Heavenly Father wants you to use consistently for your peace and happiness.” He explained how to enhance our ability to receive that personal revelation.
The Apostle David A. Bednar emphasized the deep need for people today “to become more diligent and concerned at home by telling the people we love that we love them. Such expressions do not need to be flowery or lengthy. We simply should sincerely and frequently express love.” That may not be new counsel, but is there more important counsel for families today? If you could talk directly to God, would He not tell you to do that?
Another Apostle, Dallin H. Oaks, said, “The effect of God’s commandments and laws is not changed to accommodate popular behavior or desires. If anyone thinks that godly or parental love for an individual grants the loved one license to disobey the law, he or she does not understand either love or law.” He demonstrated how God’s laws are an expression of His love for us, guidance that shows us the way of lasting happiness.
The Apostle M. Russell Ballard had counsel for fathers and sons. To the sons, he counseled that they trust their father, take an interest in their father’s life, and that they ask their father for advice. To the fathers he counseled, listen to your sons, pray with and for your sons, and dare to have the “big talks” with your sons. Many of society’s ills today could be prevented by improving the communication between fathers and sons.
These and the other modern day Apostles of Jesus Christ said much more and gave further inspired counsel. You can find their complete remarks at this website:
http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1117,00.html
Perhaps their most important message was expressed by the Apostle Robert D. Hales:
As a special witness of the Only Begotten Son of our loving Heavenly Father, even Jesus Christ, I testify that God lives. I know He lives. I promise that if you and those you love will seek Him in all humility, sincerity, and diligence, you will know with a surety too. Your witness will come. And the blessings of knowing God will be yours and your family’s forever.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Of Life Before Life and the Offspring of God
One of the most ennobling and liberating teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ, restored in these latter days, is the knowledge that each of us lived before we were born. We lived in the presence of God as individuals who thought, learned, moved, spoke, and otherwise interacted with each other. We all lived as literal children of our Heavenly Father, members of the same eternal family. We did not yet have the physical bodies that we possess here in mortality, but we did have spirit bodies that are very much like physical bodies. These spirit bodies are currently united with our physical bodies and are an important part of what makes us “alive.” When our mortal bodies die, the spirit leaves the physical body and lives on, while our existence as thinking individuals continues.
This means many wonderful and beautiful things, among which is that the brotherhood of man is more than metaphorical. We actually are brothers and sisters in a very literal sense. It means that creation was not accidental but rather designed and carried out for our benefit. Even further, it means that our mortal life on this creation has a purpose related to our continued growing and becoming more than we have been.
On first encounter, the knowledge of our existence before this mortal life can seem incredible. It is generally rejected by many churches, even though it is plainly taught in the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments. The Lord said to the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jeremiah 1:5). Paul wrote to the Ephesians that the Lord “hath chosen us in him”, meaning in Christ, “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).
This teaching is echoed by modern prophets. In 1918, the prophet Joseph F. Smith recorded that the children of God, “Even before they were born . . . received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the own due time of the Lord” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:56).
This important truth upon reflection resonates with our hearts. There is an immortal spirit in man, which leaves the body at death and continues on. Where did that spirit come from? Did it suddenly come into being at our birth or somewhere between birth and conception? If so, how so? Were our mortal parents, who were the creators of our mortal bodies, somehow also the creators of our immortal spirits? There is no reason to believe that they have any such power. That which our mortal parents gave us is born of frailty and imperfection and has its end in the grave. If the spirit lives on beyond the grave—and scripture and personal revelation testify that it does—then its source must be from Him who is eternal. The eternal must find its source in the eternal.
Paul taught the Hebrews that God is the Father of our spirits just as in our flesh we are the offspring of our mortal parents (Hebrews 12:9). So if our spirits came from God, is it hard to believe that we spent some time with Him before we were sent to earth? It is pleasing to think that we did, and it serves to raise the nature of man and validate how different we are in nature from all other creatures under the sun. The love of God for us becomes less abstract and takes on the intensity of a family relationship, beginning from even before the beginning of the world.
This means many wonderful and beautiful things, among which is that the brotherhood of man is more than metaphorical. We actually are brothers and sisters in a very literal sense. It means that creation was not accidental but rather designed and carried out for our benefit. Even further, it means that our mortal life on this creation has a purpose related to our continued growing and becoming more than we have been.
On first encounter, the knowledge of our existence before this mortal life can seem incredible. It is generally rejected by many churches, even though it is plainly taught in the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments. The Lord said to the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jeremiah 1:5). Paul wrote to the Ephesians that the Lord “hath chosen us in him”, meaning in Christ, “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).
This teaching is echoed by modern prophets. In 1918, the prophet Joseph F. Smith recorded that the children of God, “Even before they were born . . . received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the own due time of the Lord” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:56).
This important truth upon reflection resonates with our hearts. There is an immortal spirit in man, which leaves the body at death and continues on. Where did that spirit come from? Did it suddenly come into being at our birth or somewhere between birth and conception? If so, how so? Were our mortal parents, who were the creators of our mortal bodies, somehow also the creators of our immortal spirits? There is no reason to believe that they have any such power. That which our mortal parents gave us is born of frailty and imperfection and has its end in the grave. If the spirit lives on beyond the grave—and scripture and personal revelation testify that it does—then its source must be from Him who is eternal. The eternal must find its source in the eternal.
Paul taught the Hebrews that God is the Father of our spirits just as in our flesh we are the offspring of our mortal parents (Hebrews 12:9). So if our spirits came from God, is it hard to believe that we spent some time with Him before we were sent to earth? It is pleasing to think that we did, and it serves to raise the nature of man and validate how different we are in nature from all other creatures under the sun. The love of God for us becomes less abstract and takes on the intensity of a family relationship, beginning from even before the beginning of the world.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Of Medicine Shows and Good Health
The nineteenth century offered a fertile field for the traveling salesman. As Americans spread across the continent, retailers stretched to keep up with them, and in many cases that was most efficiently done by peddling. Services and goods of all kinds were offered on the streets and in town squares by men just off the last train.
Most notorious of all of these salesmen was the one peddling the miracle cures, the snake oil salesman, the man with the medicine show. While for the most part the traveling salesman actually had a product with genuine utility (whether it was brushes, tools, or buttons), the wares of the medicine merchant rarely worked as advertised and often harmed the very people conned into buying. Frequently, the miracle potion was laced with opium, cocaine, or some other drug that gave a temporary euphoria while providing no cure. Dangerously, the magic elixir could lead to addiction.
Since these medicine showmen were unknown to their customers they had the tough task of gaining the interest and trust of their audience. They did their best to look good and sound good and entertain the crowd. Most of all, they needed to convince people that they had a problem, a big problem, a problem for which, luckily for the people of the town, the salesmen just happened to have the solution. The facts did not matter; assertions and promises were taken for facts. The trick was to get people worked up and then clinch the sale before the customers had time to give a second thought to what they were doing or a chance to look into the details. Bring phony testimonials onto the stage, but do not let potential customers talk with real people who had been “helped” before in this or some other town.
The medicine show seems back in style today, employing all of the advances of modern communications technology to play to an entire nation. Barack Obama, sounding good and looking good and giving a good performance, remains surprisingly unknown beyond his shallow stardom. With the help of a legion of shills, he is trying to overcome the thin trust he has with Americans and convince them that they are sick and getting much sicker. He tells the people that their healthcare system is broken, and his shills repeat the line in the media. He promises that the government—which has notoriously abused patients trapped in existing government-run healthcare programs like Medicare, military healthcare, and veterans health programs—can do better than the private system that most people choose and like. And he claims that the price is right, that this government healthcare will be better for less, that the new nationwide government programs will save money even by spending more.
In the crowd of every medicine show there is bound to be someone with the nerve to holler, “Quack!” The salesman will desperately try to divert the audience, urging listeners to pay no attention to the nay-sayers. If that does not work, then the salesman will try to get the crowd to drown out the contrary voices and start the medicine bottles moving. Congress has been incessantly urged by the White House to pass the new government program right away, first by August, and at least before the end of the year, because, well just because. The debate is over, we are told; it is now time to vote. The plan fans who do not want to debate anymore are eager to silence the critics who point to the obvious flaws, who ask how government’s failures with current healthcare programs qualify it to take on more, how spending trillions of dollars extra will reduce costs, how cutting half a trillion dollars from Medicare will not harm services. Do not slow down and think about what we are doing. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the great and powerful Oz has spoken.
In the 1800s, the medicine shows did their harm, but most people were not deceived. When the quacks were not chased out of town, their audiences at last just turned away.
Most notorious of all of these salesmen was the one peddling the miracle cures, the snake oil salesman, the man with the medicine show. While for the most part the traveling salesman actually had a product with genuine utility (whether it was brushes, tools, or buttons), the wares of the medicine merchant rarely worked as advertised and often harmed the very people conned into buying. Frequently, the miracle potion was laced with opium, cocaine, or some other drug that gave a temporary euphoria while providing no cure. Dangerously, the magic elixir could lead to addiction.
Since these medicine showmen were unknown to their customers they had the tough task of gaining the interest and trust of their audience. They did their best to look good and sound good and entertain the crowd. Most of all, they needed to convince people that they had a problem, a big problem, a problem for which, luckily for the people of the town, the salesmen just happened to have the solution. The facts did not matter; assertions and promises were taken for facts. The trick was to get people worked up and then clinch the sale before the customers had time to give a second thought to what they were doing or a chance to look into the details. Bring phony testimonials onto the stage, but do not let potential customers talk with real people who had been “helped” before in this or some other town.
The medicine show seems back in style today, employing all of the advances of modern communications technology to play to an entire nation. Barack Obama, sounding good and looking good and giving a good performance, remains surprisingly unknown beyond his shallow stardom. With the help of a legion of shills, he is trying to overcome the thin trust he has with Americans and convince them that they are sick and getting much sicker. He tells the people that their healthcare system is broken, and his shills repeat the line in the media. He promises that the government—which has notoriously abused patients trapped in existing government-run healthcare programs like Medicare, military healthcare, and veterans health programs—can do better than the private system that most people choose and like. And he claims that the price is right, that this government healthcare will be better for less, that the new nationwide government programs will save money even by spending more.
In the crowd of every medicine show there is bound to be someone with the nerve to holler, “Quack!” The salesman will desperately try to divert the audience, urging listeners to pay no attention to the nay-sayers. If that does not work, then the salesman will try to get the crowd to drown out the contrary voices and start the medicine bottles moving. Congress has been incessantly urged by the White House to pass the new government program right away, first by August, and at least before the end of the year, because, well just because. The debate is over, we are told; it is now time to vote. The plan fans who do not want to debate anymore are eager to silence the critics who point to the obvious flaws, who ask how government’s failures with current healthcare programs qualify it to take on more, how spending trillions of dollars extra will reduce costs, how cutting half a trillion dollars from Medicare will not harm services. Do not slow down and think about what we are doing. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the great and powerful Oz has spoken.
In the 1800s, the medicine shows did their harm, but most people were not deceived. When the quacks were not chased out of town, their audiences at last just turned away.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Of Discipline and Every Good Thing
God sent us to the earth to test us, to see whether we would do all things that He would require of us. Abraham recorded a vision he saw of the Father and the Son before the creation of the world as They discussed the purpose of the creation. It was clear that the world was made for the children of God. In that vision the Son, Jesus Christ, said to the Father, “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them” (Abraham 3:24,25).
The Father never commands us to do anything other than what is good for us. All of His commandments are designed to make us happy. Where is the test in responding to commandments like that? Here, do these things and you will be happy. Here is the earth and all its riches. Here is life in a physical body with the capacity to enjoy those riches. Here are family and friends with whom to enjoy all this goodness. Where is the test?
God made the test by making us aware of the goodness of things long before it would be good for us to have them. An important part of the test of life is waiting to partake of the good things of this creation until we are actually prepared to receive and enjoy that goodness. Dessert is after dinner. You can drive the car once you have learned and once you have earned a license. Sexual relations are reserved for marriage, when their riches are unlocked for you within the bonds of genuine love and within a family ready to receive and raise children surrounded by the security of loving and committed parents.
Taking of the good things of life too soon can often limit or destroy the value and the goodness, harvesting the grapes before they are ripe. You cannot put them back on the vine once you have discovered that they are still sour.
Passing these tests of life requires discipline. We learn to harness and control our appetites. It does not mean forsake the goodness of the earth; the discipline of God means to partake of that goodness in its fullness. Through the development of that discipline by faith in the goodness to which the commandments lead we become disciples. From the days of Adam and on into our day the disciples of Christ have been able to “lay hold upon every good thing” (Moroni 7:25).
The Father never commands us to do anything other than what is good for us. All of His commandments are designed to make us happy. Where is the test in responding to commandments like that? Here, do these things and you will be happy. Here is the earth and all its riches. Here is life in a physical body with the capacity to enjoy those riches. Here are family and friends with whom to enjoy all this goodness. Where is the test?
God made the test by making us aware of the goodness of things long before it would be good for us to have them. An important part of the test of life is waiting to partake of the good things of this creation until we are actually prepared to receive and enjoy that goodness. Dessert is after dinner. You can drive the car once you have learned and once you have earned a license. Sexual relations are reserved for marriage, when their riches are unlocked for you within the bonds of genuine love and within a family ready to receive and raise children surrounded by the security of loving and committed parents.
Taking of the good things of life too soon can often limit or destroy the value and the goodness, harvesting the grapes before they are ripe. You cannot put them back on the vine once you have discovered that they are still sour.
Passing these tests of life requires discipline. We learn to harness and control our appetites. It does not mean forsake the goodness of the earth; the discipline of God means to partake of that goodness in its fullness. Through the development of that discipline by faith in the goodness to which the commandments lead we become disciples. From the days of Adam and on into our day the disciples of Christ have been able to “lay hold upon every good thing” (Moroni 7:25).
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Of Doubt and Faith
Doubt in the word of God has no place in the righteous life. It is the antithesis of faith. Spirituality and doubt cannot rest comfortably in the same heart, for spirituality—which reaches its highest degree in the gift of charity—“believeth all things” (Moroni 7:45). Doubt, on the other hand, denies things and challenges them to be proven. Doubt withholds belief until adequate proof is presented. Faith extends belief until it is superseded by knowledge.
That is, by the way, why genuine faith can only be placed in something that is true. As the ancient American prophet, Alma, taught, “if ye have faith, ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” (Alma 32:21) Faith is a bridge of belief that carries the believer from one level of knowledge to an increased level of knowledge, therefore it has to reach something that is true.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is true. It is never on trial. Its very true nature places the individual on trial when he is exposed to truth. The individual is left to accept or reject the truth—to gain a knowledge of it through faith and then live it, or to doubt it or avoid it—but he cannot alter it, and the individual is blessed or condemned by what he does with regard to the truth.
The word of the Lord revealed through His messengers is true. Faith assumes the truth and leads the believer to act upon it, whether or not that truth is comprehended. Doubt takes the side of the devil and denies the truth until compelled to surrender pretense when recognition of truth is inescapable—and that recognition can be dexterously delayed for a long time.
The Lord continually urges us to gain knowledge, to search diligently, to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21). You do not have to doubt something in order to prove it. Exercising faith in an unconfirmed truth converts faith into the vehicle for gaining knowledge, for verification, since by acting in accordance with a truth is a sure way by which the reality of a truth is revealed. It is belief in the accuracy of a map that allows one to probe the charted course, at the end of which lies confirmation and assurance. Doubt discourages one from ever setting out on the road, and until some faith is exercised to overcome the doubt the journey is never begun.
Indeed, doubt always leads away from knowledge. The doubting mind is only ever brought to knowledge when somewhere along the road doubt in some degree is overcome by faith that is exercised in some truth. Faith is the connecting link that leads us from knowledge to knowledge. Thus, part of the gospel plan includes inquiry, questioning, but it is a questioning illumined by faith, not shaded by doubt.
That is, by the way, why genuine faith can only be placed in something that is true. As the ancient American prophet, Alma, taught, “if ye have faith, ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” (Alma 32:21) Faith is a bridge of belief that carries the believer from one level of knowledge to an increased level of knowledge, therefore it has to reach something that is true.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is true. It is never on trial. Its very true nature places the individual on trial when he is exposed to truth. The individual is left to accept or reject the truth—to gain a knowledge of it through faith and then live it, or to doubt it or avoid it—but he cannot alter it, and the individual is blessed or condemned by what he does with regard to the truth.
The word of the Lord revealed through His messengers is true. Faith assumes the truth and leads the believer to act upon it, whether or not that truth is comprehended. Doubt takes the side of the devil and denies the truth until compelled to surrender pretense when recognition of truth is inescapable—and that recognition can be dexterously delayed for a long time.
The Lord continually urges us to gain knowledge, to search diligently, to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21). You do not have to doubt something in order to prove it. Exercising faith in an unconfirmed truth converts faith into the vehicle for gaining knowledge, for verification, since by acting in accordance with a truth is a sure way by which the reality of a truth is revealed. It is belief in the accuracy of a map that allows one to probe the charted course, at the end of which lies confirmation and assurance. Doubt discourages one from ever setting out on the road, and until some faith is exercised to overcome the doubt the journey is never begun.
Indeed, doubt always leads away from knowledge. The doubting mind is only ever brought to knowledge when somewhere along the road doubt in some degree is overcome by faith that is exercised in some truth. Faith is the connecting link that leads us from knowledge to knowledge. Thus, part of the gospel plan includes inquiry, questioning, but it is a questioning illumined by faith, not shaded by doubt.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave
Each verse of our national anthem ends with the stirring phrase, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” For nearly two centuries—this fall will mark the 195th anniversary of the writing of the “Star Spangled Banner,” by Francis Scott Key—these words have stirred Americans on the battlefield, on the frontier, in their homes, at their work, at their places of worship, even in the halls of government, stirred them to great and bold and noble action for the freedom and independence of our people and as an example to the rest of the world.
In recent times, in more or less accelerating fashion from the New Deal of the 1930s to an even quicker pace since the first of the year, too many of our governmental leaders have been trying their best to turn our nation into the land of the safe and the home of the careful. From the little child wearing a monstrous bicycle helmet as she rides her tricycle, through the proliferation of warning labels on virtually everything we buy or use, to the politically correct speech codes at work and on campus, to the honey sweet invitations for people to surrender to government control their health care and financial choices, Americans are in danger of losing the core of what makes us Americans: our freedom and our courage.
Freedom is the ability to choose, to make our own lives, to make of ourselves who we are and who we will present to God at the last day. Courage is the drive to draw upon the best within us and make the best and right choices, in spite of the odds, in spite of ridicule, to overcome danger. Courage is the father of all of our virtues, without which no virtue is possible.
When I was a child—not too many decades ago—my playmates and I often defended our decisions with the phrase, “It’s a free country.” I do not hear children say that anymore. Is it because it is not a free country, or that the freedom is not apparent, or that our children are not taught about freedom being at the core of what made the United States the beacon of hope for the world?
This November we will mark another anniversary, seven score and six years ago, when Abraham Lincoln called upon a nation of the free and the brave to a greater and continued exertion, so that “this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Is that call any less relevant and important and stirring to Americans today?
In recent times, in more or less accelerating fashion from the New Deal of the 1930s to an even quicker pace since the first of the year, too many of our governmental leaders have been trying their best to turn our nation into the land of the safe and the home of the careful. From the little child wearing a monstrous bicycle helmet as she rides her tricycle, through the proliferation of warning labels on virtually everything we buy or use, to the politically correct speech codes at work and on campus, to the honey sweet invitations for people to surrender to government control their health care and financial choices, Americans are in danger of losing the core of what makes us Americans: our freedom and our courage.
Freedom is the ability to choose, to make our own lives, to make of ourselves who we are and who we will present to God at the last day. Courage is the drive to draw upon the best within us and make the best and right choices, in spite of the odds, in spite of ridicule, to overcome danger. Courage is the father of all of our virtues, without which no virtue is possible.
When I was a child—not too many decades ago—my playmates and I often defended our decisions with the phrase, “It’s a free country.” I do not hear children say that anymore. Is it because it is not a free country, or that the freedom is not apparent, or that our children are not taught about freedom being at the core of what made the United States the beacon of hope for the world?
This November we will mark another anniversary, seven score and six years ago, when Abraham Lincoln called upon a nation of the free and the brave to a greater and continued exertion, so that “this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Is that call any less relevant and important and stirring to Americans today?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Of Proposed Laws and Reading Them
Would you trust someone who presented you with an offer that sounded too good to be true, who showed you a contract several thousand pages long, and who said that you do not need to read it because he will explain it to you? Would you trust him with your life, and your way of life? The contract involves surrendering to him your responsibility for making many of the important decisions regarding your healthcare, your use of energy, and your choice of financial products, including checking and savings accounts, loan programs, and how you choose to pay for things. And, by the way, you need to make your decision right away, because, well because he says so, the sooner the better.
Sounds like a flim-flam artist to me. That is not the way that an upstanding businessman, genuinely confident in his product, would likely do business. Makes you wonder about the promises. Will they stand up to close inspection?
That is the deal that the Obama Administration, however, is offering to the nation, proposals that reach from decisions affecting health and life itself, to the details of how we live that life (anything that uses energy), and how we use and manage our own financial resources to pay for things of daily life and prepare of the future. Unfortunately, you do not get to decide whether you take that deal. Your congressman and senators will decide for you.
Here is a thought. Since they represent us, why not insist that the congressmen and senators read the proposals before they vote on them? I worked on Capitol Hill for twenty years, and I can tell you that few congressmen and senators read most of the laws they voted on, and some laws were never read by any of them. For months, now, the Republicans have challenged anyone in the House of Representatives or the Senate to admit to having read the $700+ billion stimulus law passed earlier this year, passed in a hurry because the President and congressional leadership said that it had to be passed in a hurry. No one has come forward.
It does not require a lot of words to make theft illegal. But it takes a lot of words for the government to decide when you get an operation and under what terms, to come up with a fee that someone (you) will have to pay for any appliance that uses energy, or for the government to design your checking account and instruct bankers what they must and must not tell you about the government-designed accounts.
Most people are convinced today that our tax laws have become too complicated. The tax laws got that way when taxes were passed not just to pay for the government but rather were used by smart people in Washington to guide the behavior of people throughout the country, to affect how we invest, what we buy, and to shift wealth from one group of people to another group.
So, how about before our congressmen and senators surrender our control over our lives and health, control over how we use and pay for energy, control over the features of our bank accounts, we insist that they personally read the proposals? I know what the response will be from legislators and their staff. Remember, I used to work there. They will say that most of that language is technical stuff, details, fine print. They are mostly right, and I think that this may be the point. If the laws have become so complicated, requiring hundreds of pages of fine print and details, maybe something is wrong. Maybe the government is trying to do too much.
Sounds like a flim-flam artist to me. That is not the way that an upstanding businessman, genuinely confident in his product, would likely do business. Makes you wonder about the promises. Will they stand up to close inspection?
That is the deal that the Obama Administration, however, is offering to the nation, proposals that reach from decisions affecting health and life itself, to the details of how we live that life (anything that uses energy), and how we use and manage our own financial resources to pay for things of daily life and prepare of the future. Unfortunately, you do not get to decide whether you take that deal. Your congressman and senators will decide for you.
Here is a thought. Since they represent us, why not insist that the congressmen and senators read the proposals before they vote on them? I worked on Capitol Hill for twenty years, and I can tell you that few congressmen and senators read most of the laws they voted on, and some laws were never read by any of them. For months, now, the Republicans have challenged anyone in the House of Representatives or the Senate to admit to having read the $700+ billion stimulus law passed earlier this year, passed in a hurry because the President and congressional leadership said that it had to be passed in a hurry. No one has come forward.
It does not require a lot of words to make theft illegal. But it takes a lot of words for the government to decide when you get an operation and under what terms, to come up with a fee that someone (you) will have to pay for any appliance that uses energy, or for the government to design your checking account and instruct bankers what they must and must not tell you about the government-designed accounts.
Most people are convinced today that our tax laws have become too complicated. The tax laws got that way when taxes were passed not just to pay for the government but rather were used by smart people in Washington to guide the behavior of people throughout the country, to affect how we invest, what we buy, and to shift wealth from one group of people to another group.
So, how about before our congressmen and senators surrender our control over our lives and health, control over how we use and pay for energy, control over the features of our bank accounts, we insist that they personally read the proposals? I know what the response will be from legislators and their staff. Remember, I used to work there. They will say that most of that language is technical stuff, details, fine print. They are mostly right, and I think that this may be the point. If the laws have become so complicated, requiring hundreds of pages of fine print and details, maybe something is wrong. Maybe the government is trying to do too much.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Of Freedom and the Bad Deal
Too many people in this country and elsewhere are making a Bad Deal with their government. Perhaps Americans have been slower to make the Bad Deal, because our nation was founded, and refounded with each new wave of immigrants, by people who were fleeing the Bad Deal in their own countries. The Bad Deal is, we surrender part of our freedom to our government in exchange for a promise that the government will remove from us some of the risks of our bad decisions.
Businessmen make good and bad decisions. With the good decisions, they provide a very popular good or service in exchange for which they make a lot of money. With the bad decisions, people either do not want the good or service or they can find it somewhere else cheaper. The businessman makes less money or may even go broke and lose his investment.
In most countries, that is considered too chaotic and disorganized. That is particularly so when it comes to big businesses. Even where such countries will let small businesses fail, they keep the big businesses propped up.
With the loss of the risk of failure, the benefits of successful risk taking grow anemic. The folks in the government providing the protection from failure demand a piece of the action. In the more clumsily corrupt countries, government officials take bribes or are directly invested in the protected business. In the more sophisticated countries, the process of “sharing” in the prosperity of the protected business is more camouflaged. There are special taxes and fees paid to the government, or the business is guided by the government into activities that benefit the current government leadership and its friends.
The housing loan giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are examples of that in our country. They were created by Congress and given special privileges that stifled competition and lowered their costs, allowing their businesses to expand until they became two of the largest companies in the United States. Investors lent them an unending supply of money at very low interest rates on the assumption that the government would never let the companies fail. In exchange, Fannie and Freddie had very elaborate programs for making Congressmen and Senators look good in their districts, with fancy press conferences where Fannie or Freddie officials bragged about all the mortgages supported in the district and how important the Congressman or Senator had been to Fannie’s or Freddie’s success.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave up significant freedom of decision in their business plans in order to get the government protection. Their experience, though, demonstrates a central problem of the Bad Deal: while the government promises to protect us from consequences of our bad decisions, it does not protect us from bad decisions by government. At last the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac house of cards tumbled down. It happened when the bad decisions urged on them by their government “friends” left the firms powerless to withstand the swirling winds from the air escaping out of the housing balloon. Fannie and Freddie helped puff up the balloon under government guidance together with other failed government programs. The firms failed, and the government had to take the companies over entirely.
Now the Obama Administration is offering to take over the consumer’s job of making his own financial decisions. They propose a new consumer regulator to stand in the consumer’s place, with the assignment to design all of the financial products that banks and other firms must offer to their customers. Normally customers and financial companies have figured this out among themselves in the market place. The Administration calls these new products (to be designed by a five-man board in Washington) “plain vanilla” products. The Obama Administration believes that simple is better. If you do not want plain vanilla, if you need a loan or a checking account or a savings account or a credit card with some extra features, good luck, because the new agency will be poised to pounce on any financial firm that dares offer it to you. It reminds me of the old Model T Ford. You could get it in any color you wanted, as long as the color was black. Thank goodness Chevrolet came along and offered blue, or we would never have had Mustangs.
Which again is the point: when government makes the decisions, there is little incentive for things to get better. In promising to eliminate your risk, the government does not want to risk some innovation going wrong.
Sure, businesses and consumers making their own decisions make mistakes. Then they learn from their mistakes, pick themselves up, and try again and usually do better. But Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the recent financial panic and the coming rise in interest rates and inflation, are a few near-term reminders of how government can make mistakes, real whoppers. Long experience over the centuries has shown that mistakes by the government are the bigger risk. When we accept the Bad Deal and surrender our freedom of action to the government, who will protect us from the government’s mistakes?
Businessmen make good and bad decisions. With the good decisions, they provide a very popular good or service in exchange for which they make a lot of money. With the bad decisions, people either do not want the good or service or they can find it somewhere else cheaper. The businessman makes less money or may even go broke and lose his investment.
In most countries, that is considered too chaotic and disorganized. That is particularly so when it comes to big businesses. Even where such countries will let small businesses fail, they keep the big businesses propped up.
With the loss of the risk of failure, the benefits of successful risk taking grow anemic. The folks in the government providing the protection from failure demand a piece of the action. In the more clumsily corrupt countries, government officials take bribes or are directly invested in the protected business. In the more sophisticated countries, the process of “sharing” in the prosperity of the protected business is more camouflaged. There are special taxes and fees paid to the government, or the business is guided by the government into activities that benefit the current government leadership and its friends.
The housing loan giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are examples of that in our country. They were created by Congress and given special privileges that stifled competition and lowered their costs, allowing their businesses to expand until they became two of the largest companies in the United States. Investors lent them an unending supply of money at very low interest rates on the assumption that the government would never let the companies fail. In exchange, Fannie and Freddie had very elaborate programs for making Congressmen and Senators look good in their districts, with fancy press conferences where Fannie or Freddie officials bragged about all the mortgages supported in the district and how important the Congressman or Senator had been to Fannie’s or Freddie’s success.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave up significant freedom of decision in their business plans in order to get the government protection. Their experience, though, demonstrates a central problem of the Bad Deal: while the government promises to protect us from consequences of our bad decisions, it does not protect us from bad decisions by government. At last the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac house of cards tumbled down. It happened when the bad decisions urged on them by their government “friends” left the firms powerless to withstand the swirling winds from the air escaping out of the housing balloon. Fannie and Freddie helped puff up the balloon under government guidance together with other failed government programs. The firms failed, and the government had to take the companies over entirely.
Now the Obama Administration is offering to take over the consumer’s job of making his own financial decisions. They propose a new consumer regulator to stand in the consumer’s place, with the assignment to design all of the financial products that banks and other firms must offer to their customers. Normally customers and financial companies have figured this out among themselves in the market place. The Administration calls these new products (to be designed by a five-man board in Washington) “plain vanilla” products. The Obama Administration believes that simple is better. If you do not want plain vanilla, if you need a loan or a checking account or a savings account or a credit card with some extra features, good luck, because the new agency will be poised to pounce on any financial firm that dares offer it to you. It reminds me of the old Model T Ford. You could get it in any color you wanted, as long as the color was black. Thank goodness Chevrolet came along and offered blue, or we would never have had Mustangs.
Which again is the point: when government makes the decisions, there is little incentive for things to get better. In promising to eliminate your risk, the government does not want to risk some innovation going wrong.
Sure, businesses and consumers making their own decisions make mistakes. Then they learn from their mistakes, pick themselves up, and try again and usually do better. But Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the recent financial panic and the coming rise in interest rates and inflation, are a few near-term reminders of how government can make mistakes, real whoppers. Long experience over the centuries has shown that mistakes by the government are the bigger risk. When we accept the Bad Deal and surrender our freedom of action to the government, who will protect us from the government’s mistakes?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Of Washington Poverty and Market Growth
We are now well into the new year and even farther into the economic recession, and it would be hard to find people who think that things are looking better. The best you can find are those who will say that things are looking like they may soon start to look better, at least a little bit.
Unemployment continues to grow, with the best predictions calling for a turn around in 2010. The economy continues to shrink. Trade—imports and exports—is contracting. The number of bank failures has been growing in recent weeks. The stock market, after a hope-led surge in the Spring, is languishing. And the great State of California is bankrupt, literally bankrupt. It cannot even borrow money. The state government is making payments with IOUs—as long as people will accept them, and patience is running very thin.
We are now into a full year of trying to run the economy from Washington—stretching back into last year’s failed economic policies under President Bush and continuing at an accelerated pace under President Obama. Things have gotten progressively worse. Maybe it is time to admit that Washington cannot run the economy, at least not if you measure success by economic growth, business expansion, and generation of good (rather than make-work) jobs.
After one year of trying everything, if government-directed, Washington-led economic control worked, you would think that we would see strong evidence by now. The evidence is just the opposite. The job creation engines—business and investment—seem to be on strike. Or maybe they are just frozen out by government programs trying to take their place. With efforts to control all aspects of the economy, from taxes that reach to anything that uses energy, to proposals for government to “compete” with the private sector for health care (you ever try to “compete” with the umpires in baseball?), to plans to have brand new government agencies control the banking system (protecting the “consumer” by making consumers’ banking decisions for them), how can investors figure out where to place their money? How can businessmen make plans for growing their businesses?
The problem is not that the people in Washington are not smart. They are smart. They are just not smart enough. No mortal is. The economy of a great nation like the United States is far too complex for any small group of people to run it. It is impossible for them to know enough or to do enough. These smart people desperately pull on a handful of economic levers and hope to run the entire economic machine, always overlooking myriads of other important economic matters, and mishandling the levers that they can pull.
It is best to let the markets run the economy, the markets that efficiently take the billions of freely-made economic decisions of the whole population every day, drawing upon the combined knowledge of everyone, and turn them into economic growth and expansion. The interference of the government policies got us into the current recession, and the increased interference has intensified it. Now it is time to back off, and let the people make their decisions, all of the people, and watch this economy soar. That formula has always worked.
Unemployment continues to grow, with the best predictions calling for a turn around in 2010. The economy continues to shrink. Trade—imports and exports—is contracting. The number of bank failures has been growing in recent weeks. The stock market, after a hope-led surge in the Spring, is languishing. And the great State of California is bankrupt, literally bankrupt. It cannot even borrow money. The state government is making payments with IOUs—as long as people will accept them, and patience is running very thin.
We are now into a full year of trying to run the economy from Washington—stretching back into last year’s failed economic policies under President Bush and continuing at an accelerated pace under President Obama. Things have gotten progressively worse. Maybe it is time to admit that Washington cannot run the economy, at least not if you measure success by economic growth, business expansion, and generation of good (rather than make-work) jobs.
After one year of trying everything, if government-directed, Washington-led economic control worked, you would think that we would see strong evidence by now. The evidence is just the opposite. The job creation engines—business and investment—seem to be on strike. Or maybe they are just frozen out by government programs trying to take their place. With efforts to control all aspects of the economy, from taxes that reach to anything that uses energy, to proposals for government to “compete” with the private sector for health care (you ever try to “compete” with the umpires in baseball?), to plans to have brand new government agencies control the banking system (protecting the “consumer” by making consumers’ banking decisions for them), how can investors figure out where to place their money? How can businessmen make plans for growing their businesses?
The problem is not that the people in Washington are not smart. They are smart. They are just not smart enough. No mortal is. The economy of a great nation like the United States is far too complex for any small group of people to run it. It is impossible for them to know enough or to do enough. These smart people desperately pull on a handful of economic levers and hope to run the entire economic machine, always overlooking myriads of other important economic matters, and mishandling the levers that they can pull.
It is best to let the markets run the economy, the markets that efficiently take the billions of freely-made economic decisions of the whole population every day, drawing upon the combined knowledge of everyone, and turn them into economic growth and expansion. The interference of the government policies got us into the current recession, and the increased interference has intensified it. Now it is time to back off, and let the people make their decisions, all of the people, and watch this economy soar. That formula has always worked.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Of Organized Religion and Self Worship
It is not uncommon in American society, and likely in others as well, to hear someone say that he, “does not believe in organized religion.” The statement is usually intended as a conversation stopper, at which it usually succeeds, because it is not clear what is meant by the phrase. It is hard to continue a conversation on that basis.
If it means anything more than, “Leave me alone, and let’s talk about something else,” that is, if it is to be taken as intelligent, meaningful communication, then it probably means one of two things. It may be worthwhile exploring in further conversation which of the two meanings the speaker actually intends.
It could be that the speaker means that he believes instead in disorganized religion. It would be worthwhile asking if this is what he means. That would lead to further questions and discussion. If the speaker in fact does believe in disorganized religion, then it would be fair to ask what he believes in other than in himself. If he believes in the religious views espoused by some other person, that very agreement becomes the first step of organization, the union of belief by more than one person. Every organization is an agreement of two or more people on something, a plan, a program, a belief system. So a true believer in disorganized religion has to have a religion by, for, and of himself, or his religion starts to become organized. I am reminded of the animated Christmas movie, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” in which Rudolph and a misfit elf agree to be “independent together.”
Alternatively, it may be that the speaker means to say that he believes in no religion at all, organized or otherwise. This view is in practice hardly credible. Few people if any have no belief about God and man’s relation to God. That includes those who assert either that God does not exist or that His existence cannot be known. Such a belief is a religious view about God and man, and one that involves reliance on some very fundamental theories that require more than evidence to believe. That is to say, for a thinking man, religious belief of some kind—some set of beliefs about God and one’s relationship to Him, pro or con—is inescapable. The question of the existence of God is fundamental. You either believe that He is or you do not, and that belief leads directly to a long set of follow-on beliefs extending throughout one’s approach to life. Sounds like religion to me. Atheism is a religion, and while atheists may assert that one cannot prove the existence of God (a claim I would firmly dispute) and therefore His existence can only be taken on faith, the atheist in turn fails to prove that God does not exist and can only support his belief in the nonexistence of God with something akin to what he would call faith.
The individual who says that he believes in no religion can seem to be very much like the one who believes in disorganized religion. He has his own religion by, for, and of himself—unless he belongs to some organization of other people holding similar beliefs about the non-existence of God, in which case he does believe in and belong to an organized religion after all.
Of course, the professed disbelief in organized religion could mean—and I suspect that it usually does mean—that the speaker does not prefer to affiliate with a group of people with similar beliefs if they have a formal or obvious system of organization. It is not really organization to which the person objects, but rather to particular forms of organization, to certain methods or formalities of organization.
If this is the case, then the speaker must fit into one situation or another. Either the speaker objects to more obvious organizational structures, because he prefers to be led along with as little perception of it on his part as possible—a kind of religious life with blinders on, involving some unadmitted surrender of freedom and will—or he prefers an organization that makes no demands on him, whether as to belief or conduct.
In the latter condition the person is once again little distinguishable from the believer in disorganized religion, choosing to be a god unto himself, a sole determiner of a religion by, for, and of himself. At this point I must add that how anyone can truly believe in a religion of his own creation is beyond my comprehension.
In some cases at least—and I think that these include the more part of the more honest in heart who claim disbelief in organized religion—those who say that they do not believe in organized religion may mean that they have yet to find an organized religion in which they can believe. This is a very different matter, and it is logically and religiously justifiable, if one does not cease looking before finding the truth.
This was the situation of the young boy, Joseph Smith, and of many others of his contemporaries. They held themselves apart from the various organized religions of their day, religions that claimed to worship a God whose teachings and commandments the religions did not follow and whose authority they did not possess. A fair analysis of the teachings and fruits of these religions could justifiably lead many an honest man to reject them and could cause hope to dim of ever finding the true and living God and His representatives on the earth.
To any such modern truth seekers I together with many others proclaim that God has revealed Himself to man, in modern times as in times of old. We announce that God has again called prophets and apostles authorized and empowered by Him, Jesus Christ, to endow all who will to enjoy the presence and influence of God and His full blessings. This God is a God of order, of peace, with all of His works and efforts organized for the blessing of His children in eternally meaningful activity in this life and in the life to come. This God is knowable, reachable by all who sincerely seek Him.
If it means anything more than, “Leave me alone, and let’s talk about something else,” that is, if it is to be taken as intelligent, meaningful communication, then it probably means one of two things. It may be worthwhile exploring in further conversation which of the two meanings the speaker actually intends.
It could be that the speaker means that he believes instead in disorganized religion. It would be worthwhile asking if this is what he means. That would lead to further questions and discussion. If the speaker in fact does believe in disorganized religion, then it would be fair to ask what he believes in other than in himself. If he believes in the religious views espoused by some other person, that very agreement becomes the first step of organization, the union of belief by more than one person. Every organization is an agreement of two or more people on something, a plan, a program, a belief system. So a true believer in disorganized religion has to have a religion by, for, and of himself, or his religion starts to become organized. I am reminded of the animated Christmas movie, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” in which Rudolph and a misfit elf agree to be “independent together.”
Alternatively, it may be that the speaker means to say that he believes in no religion at all, organized or otherwise. This view is in practice hardly credible. Few people if any have no belief about God and man’s relation to God. That includes those who assert either that God does not exist or that His existence cannot be known. Such a belief is a religious view about God and man, and one that involves reliance on some very fundamental theories that require more than evidence to believe. That is to say, for a thinking man, religious belief of some kind—some set of beliefs about God and one’s relationship to Him, pro or con—is inescapable. The question of the existence of God is fundamental. You either believe that He is or you do not, and that belief leads directly to a long set of follow-on beliefs extending throughout one’s approach to life. Sounds like religion to me. Atheism is a religion, and while atheists may assert that one cannot prove the existence of God (a claim I would firmly dispute) and therefore His existence can only be taken on faith, the atheist in turn fails to prove that God does not exist and can only support his belief in the nonexistence of God with something akin to what he would call faith.
The individual who says that he believes in no religion can seem to be very much like the one who believes in disorganized religion. He has his own religion by, for, and of himself—unless he belongs to some organization of other people holding similar beliefs about the non-existence of God, in which case he does believe in and belong to an organized religion after all.
Of course, the professed disbelief in organized religion could mean—and I suspect that it usually does mean—that the speaker does not prefer to affiliate with a group of people with similar beliefs if they have a formal or obvious system of organization. It is not really organization to which the person objects, but rather to particular forms of organization, to certain methods or formalities of organization.
If this is the case, then the speaker must fit into one situation or another. Either the speaker objects to more obvious organizational structures, because he prefers to be led along with as little perception of it on his part as possible—a kind of religious life with blinders on, involving some unadmitted surrender of freedom and will—or he prefers an organization that makes no demands on him, whether as to belief or conduct.
In the latter condition the person is once again little distinguishable from the believer in disorganized religion, choosing to be a god unto himself, a sole determiner of a religion by, for, and of himself. At this point I must add that how anyone can truly believe in a religion of his own creation is beyond my comprehension.
In some cases at least—and I think that these include the more part of the more honest in heart who claim disbelief in organized religion—those who say that they do not believe in organized religion may mean that they have yet to find an organized religion in which they can believe. This is a very different matter, and it is logically and religiously justifiable, if one does not cease looking before finding the truth.
This was the situation of the young boy, Joseph Smith, and of many others of his contemporaries. They held themselves apart from the various organized religions of their day, religions that claimed to worship a God whose teachings and commandments the religions did not follow and whose authority they did not possess. A fair analysis of the teachings and fruits of these religions could justifiably lead many an honest man to reject them and could cause hope to dim of ever finding the true and living God and His representatives on the earth.
To any such modern truth seekers I together with many others proclaim that God has revealed Himself to man, in modern times as in times of old. We announce that God has again called prophets and apostles authorized and empowered by Him, Jesus Christ, to endow all who will to enjoy the presence and influence of God and His full blessings. This God is a God of order, of peace, with all of His works and efforts organized for the blessing of His children in eternally meaningful activity in this life and in the life to come. This God is knowable, reachable by all who sincerely seek Him.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Of Recovery and Renewed Recession
The economic developments up to this early stage of the new year have reaffirmed the resilience of the American banking industry. After more than a year of recession, bank earnings are rebounding. Non-bank financial firms have dramatically declined or disappeared. Government bailout programs have come and gone in rapid succession doing little better than stimulating panic and sowing confusion among customers and investors—and wasting taxpayer funds. The vast majority of banks have survived all of that.
The early recovery of the banking industry this Spring was publicly interrupted by a set of phony stress tests, subjecting banks to evaluation under hypothetical future conditions that not even the Treasury officials who imposed the tests believed to be realistic. That is, they could not be expected to believe in the hypothetical conditions of the tests, since the conditions assumed that the Obama economic program not only would not work but would actually make things worse. For example, the hypothetical stress tests asked banks how they would do if loan losses became worse than at the deepest point in the Great Depression. We all must believe that the Treasury has better hopes than that for its own economic programs.
Even against those unrealistic measures the banking industry came off well. Despite the fear mongering of short sellers, the obtuseness of accounting standard setters, and the vivisection experiments of policymakers, the bank panic is over and the industry is poised for economic recovery.
The sky ahead, however, is not blue and cloudless. There are three major dangers on the horizon that could play havoc with the economy, the banking industry not excepted. The good news is, that all three are subject to government action. The bad news is that government leaders are showing little sign of even recognizing the dangers, let alone taking action to avoid them.
The three dangers are ballooning inflation, rising interest rates, and increased taxes. The three are related. Any one on its own could stifle recovery.
The Federal Reserve has pumped more than a trillion dollars into the economy, increasing the money supply dramatically. With fewer goods and services to buy with all that extra money we would be in a major inflation now if most people and businesses were not instead hoarding the money. Once coffers and savings accounts get full and people and businesses start spending again inflation can be avoided only if the Federal Reserve can mop up all that extra money and do so precisely as it comes gushing out into the economy. Success with such a delicate maneuver may not be impossible, but it would be astonishing.
The chief baggage from Federal Reserve efforts to reduce excess money supply is higher interest rates. High interest rates are both a tool for encouraging people to save their money rather than spend it, as well as a reflection that the program is succeeding in pulling money out of the system. But high interest rates also depress the economy, making business investment (think new machines and buildings) and consumer purchases (including houses and cars) more expensive.
Complicating this nearly impossible task for the Federal Reserve is the problem that the trillion dollar overspending by the Federal Government—well on its way to more than two trillion dollars—will be demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowing from the public just when the Federal Reserve may be wanting to reduce the money supply. Foreigners are showing reluctance to lend to the Treasury, so domestic savers will have to choose more and more among spending their money, lending it to business, or lending it to the Federal Government.
Treasury debt auctions have already been soft. Interest rates are creeping up to keep Treasury debt attractive. The Federal Reserve may soon be stepping in to buy Treasury debt to keep the auctions from collapsing. If the Federal Reserve did so, it would be pushing more dollars into the economy just when it needed to pull them back to hold off inflation. The Federal Reserve would be in a no-win situation, and so would the rest of the country.
We could overcome both inflationary and interest rate risks to the economy by dramatically reducing taxes, particularly taxes on capital gains—making investment and new business activity more attractive by letting people keep more of what they earn. Instead, the Obama administration is proposing a host of major new taxes. Some are hidden as part of new environmental and health care programs. Others are more overt, such as plans to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, the very sources of job creation and investment.
The Franklin Roosevelt administration well earned the condemnation of history by taking a deep economic recession and making it last for a decade—encouraging enemies of freedom all around the world. President Obama would do well to avoid that example.
The early recovery of the banking industry this Spring was publicly interrupted by a set of phony stress tests, subjecting banks to evaluation under hypothetical future conditions that not even the Treasury officials who imposed the tests believed to be realistic. That is, they could not be expected to believe in the hypothetical conditions of the tests, since the conditions assumed that the Obama economic program not only would not work but would actually make things worse. For example, the hypothetical stress tests asked banks how they would do if loan losses became worse than at the deepest point in the Great Depression. We all must believe that the Treasury has better hopes than that for its own economic programs.
Even against those unrealistic measures the banking industry came off well. Despite the fear mongering of short sellers, the obtuseness of accounting standard setters, and the vivisection experiments of policymakers, the bank panic is over and the industry is poised for economic recovery.
The sky ahead, however, is not blue and cloudless. There are three major dangers on the horizon that could play havoc with the economy, the banking industry not excepted. The good news is, that all three are subject to government action. The bad news is that government leaders are showing little sign of even recognizing the dangers, let alone taking action to avoid them.
The three dangers are ballooning inflation, rising interest rates, and increased taxes. The three are related. Any one on its own could stifle recovery.
The Federal Reserve has pumped more than a trillion dollars into the economy, increasing the money supply dramatically. With fewer goods and services to buy with all that extra money we would be in a major inflation now if most people and businesses were not instead hoarding the money. Once coffers and savings accounts get full and people and businesses start spending again inflation can be avoided only if the Federal Reserve can mop up all that extra money and do so precisely as it comes gushing out into the economy. Success with such a delicate maneuver may not be impossible, but it would be astonishing.
The chief baggage from Federal Reserve efforts to reduce excess money supply is higher interest rates. High interest rates are both a tool for encouraging people to save their money rather than spend it, as well as a reflection that the program is succeeding in pulling money out of the system. But high interest rates also depress the economy, making business investment (think new machines and buildings) and consumer purchases (including houses and cars) more expensive.
Complicating this nearly impossible task for the Federal Reserve is the problem that the trillion dollar overspending by the Federal Government—well on its way to more than two trillion dollars—will be demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowing from the public just when the Federal Reserve may be wanting to reduce the money supply. Foreigners are showing reluctance to lend to the Treasury, so domestic savers will have to choose more and more among spending their money, lending it to business, or lending it to the Federal Government.
Treasury debt auctions have already been soft. Interest rates are creeping up to keep Treasury debt attractive. The Federal Reserve may soon be stepping in to buy Treasury debt to keep the auctions from collapsing. If the Federal Reserve did so, it would be pushing more dollars into the economy just when it needed to pull them back to hold off inflation. The Federal Reserve would be in a no-win situation, and so would the rest of the country.
We could overcome both inflationary and interest rate risks to the economy by dramatically reducing taxes, particularly taxes on capital gains—making investment and new business activity more attractive by letting people keep more of what they earn. Instead, the Obama administration is proposing a host of major new taxes. Some are hidden as part of new environmental and health care programs. Others are more overt, such as plans to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, the very sources of job creation and investment.
The Franklin Roosevelt administration well earned the condemnation of history by taking a deep economic recession and making it last for a decade—encouraging enemies of freedom all around the world. President Obama would do well to avoid that example.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Of Bubbles and Treasury Debt
Over the last decade our economy has been buffeted by what appears to be an accelerating series of economic bubbles. It is more than coincidence that this has occurred while government interference in the economy has increased.
That is not to deny that free markets are fully capable of producing economic bubbles, as market participants miscalculate investment risks and rewards and copy-cat each other as they do so. These market participants, however, if left to their own devices will also pay the price for their mistakes. Knowledge that they are at risk acts as a moderator and corrector, limiting the degree of risk investors are willing to take in the first place (and the willingness of lenders to provide money to support the bubble), and leaving the way clear for other investors to come in and pick up the debris (at a profit) when the bubble bursts.
When government is involved non-economic factors are inserted into the calculation of risk, and they affect who pays for the risk. With the existence of federally-supported mortgage guaranties, investors paid very little attention to whether mortgage lenders verified the ability of borrowers to make payments. A government guaranty always means that risks will be undervalued and that someone else (usually the taxpayer) gets to pick up the tab for the miscalculation.
It is neither exaggeration nor hyperbole to recognize that for more than a year the government has been handing out guaranties at a rate never before seen in the history of mankind. That is to say, that mountains of financial risk miscalculations have been made and are being made every day, and the unavoidable consequences are accumulating.
Perhaps the most dangerous miscalculations are those involving the debt issued by the U.S. Treasury. Investors are mistakenly acting as if there is no risk in placing their money in Treasury securities. These investors overlook the risk that buying Treasury securities--with an effective interest rate of 4 one-hundredths of one percent (the rate last week for 1-month Treasuries)--puts investors at risk if interest rates rise even a little bit and exposes the investors to even mild inflation.
Inflation is unlikely to remain mild. Along with all those government guaranties there has been a mountainous accumulation of new money provided by the federal government. All that money has to go somewhere. Right now it is awaiting some slight shock to send it avalanching down on the economy. Much of that money is for the moment being hoarded by investors and businesses afraid to spend it or put it to work while economic prospects remain unsettled and policymakers keep confusing the markets with one economic policy, regulation, restriction, or plan after another. No one wants to play the game while the referees are adjusting the rules.
So the government money makers keep pushing more money out to fund investment even while they toy with new disincentives to investment. People park the money instead in bank deposits (which are growing at record levels) and Treasuries (driving Treasury interest rates down to almost nothing).
That will not continue. At some point, the willingness of investors to hold dollars in accounts earning practically nothing will have played out. They will get their fill of Treasury securities. Foreign investors are already there, in recent weeks reducing their holdings of U.S. Treasury debt. Treasury interest rates will have to rise to attract investors, but as Treasury interest rates rise those who invested in Treasuries at very low interest rates will be on the losing side of their investment. They will start unloading their Treasury investments, further driving Treasury prices down and interest rates up, causing even more losses to those who invested in recent months in the Treasury bubble.
The spiral will be hard to stop, particularly as the Administration will be desperately trying to borrow more money, unheard of new amounts of money, to fund their planned multi-trillion dollar deficits. Interest rates will have to go up very high very fast in order to fund that voracious new appetite of the government for debt. The high interest rates will choke off many new sparks of economic recovery, leaving a lot of money around chasing after fewer goods and services for sale.
The Treasury bubble will likely end in a race that we have not seen for more than a quarter century. The race will be on for which will go higher, inflation or interest rates.
That is not to deny that free markets are fully capable of producing economic bubbles, as market participants miscalculate investment risks and rewards and copy-cat each other as they do so. These market participants, however, if left to their own devices will also pay the price for their mistakes. Knowledge that they are at risk acts as a moderator and corrector, limiting the degree of risk investors are willing to take in the first place (and the willingness of lenders to provide money to support the bubble), and leaving the way clear for other investors to come in and pick up the debris (at a profit) when the bubble bursts.
When government is involved non-economic factors are inserted into the calculation of risk, and they affect who pays for the risk. With the existence of federally-supported mortgage guaranties, investors paid very little attention to whether mortgage lenders verified the ability of borrowers to make payments. A government guaranty always means that risks will be undervalued and that someone else (usually the taxpayer) gets to pick up the tab for the miscalculation.
It is neither exaggeration nor hyperbole to recognize that for more than a year the government has been handing out guaranties at a rate never before seen in the history of mankind. That is to say, that mountains of financial risk miscalculations have been made and are being made every day, and the unavoidable consequences are accumulating.
Perhaps the most dangerous miscalculations are those involving the debt issued by the U.S. Treasury. Investors are mistakenly acting as if there is no risk in placing their money in Treasury securities. These investors overlook the risk that buying Treasury securities--with an effective interest rate of 4 one-hundredths of one percent (the rate last week for 1-month Treasuries)--puts investors at risk if interest rates rise even a little bit and exposes the investors to even mild inflation.
Inflation is unlikely to remain mild. Along with all those government guaranties there has been a mountainous accumulation of new money provided by the federal government. All that money has to go somewhere. Right now it is awaiting some slight shock to send it avalanching down on the economy. Much of that money is for the moment being hoarded by investors and businesses afraid to spend it or put it to work while economic prospects remain unsettled and policymakers keep confusing the markets with one economic policy, regulation, restriction, or plan after another. No one wants to play the game while the referees are adjusting the rules.
So the government money makers keep pushing more money out to fund investment even while they toy with new disincentives to investment. People park the money instead in bank deposits (which are growing at record levels) and Treasuries (driving Treasury interest rates down to almost nothing).
That will not continue. At some point, the willingness of investors to hold dollars in accounts earning practically nothing will have played out. They will get their fill of Treasury securities. Foreign investors are already there, in recent weeks reducing their holdings of U.S. Treasury debt. Treasury interest rates will have to rise to attract investors, but as Treasury interest rates rise those who invested in Treasuries at very low interest rates will be on the losing side of their investment. They will start unloading their Treasury investments, further driving Treasury prices down and interest rates up, causing even more losses to those who invested in recent months in the Treasury bubble.
The spiral will be hard to stop, particularly as the Administration will be desperately trying to borrow more money, unheard of new amounts of money, to fund their planned multi-trillion dollar deficits. Interest rates will have to go up very high very fast in order to fund that voracious new appetite of the government for debt. The high interest rates will choke off many new sparks of economic recovery, leaving a lot of money around chasing after fewer goods and services for sale.
The Treasury bubble will likely end in a race that we have not seen for more than a quarter century. The race will be on for which will go higher, inflation or interest rates.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Of Life and Resurrection
Recently I had some quiet time to enjoy a beautiful day, the kind of day that makes Spring famous. As I sat on my backyard patio, the sun was bright, the temperature cool. There was a gentle breeze. The air was fresh and alive. The early Spring flowers were blooming, the daffodils and the jonquils.
In the neighborhood the cherry trees and pear trees were in full bloom. Almost all the other trees were budding with the tender Spring green of their new leaves. The mix of scents from the trees, plants, and grass was pleasant and lively. The grass was greening from the Winter brown. I could hear the sounds of the songbirds as they seemed to vie with each other for lead solo in the wildlife choir. All was pleasant, charming, lively, as I sat taking it in while munching on some strawberries.
I should hate to give it up—the whole experience, the sight, the sound, the smell, the taste, the touch, not just the strawberries.
We live in a very physical world. God intended it that way. God went to a lot of trouble to create a very physical world. He took great pains to make it beautiful and lovely. As the Lord revealed to Moses, “And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. (Moses 3:9) . . . And I, God, saw everything that I had made, and behold, all things which I had made were very good” (Moses 2:31).
In the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 59, we read,
Did God make all these things, all the beauties of this earth, to be used by us only for life’s short day, to be laid aside forever when our bodies are placed in the grave? Once we die, are our senses never to be filled again? Is John Denver never to sing again? Will Helen Keller never see a sunset or hear a waterfall? Will little children who die in their infancy never run in the grass?
Apparently so, were we to rely for our light upon the religions of man. In the teachings of the religions of the world, the things of this physical world are temporary at best, frauds, a distraction from reality. In not a few teachings, this physical world is the sign of evil itself, wherein all things embodied are evil, and life is a quest to cast aside all things material and physical. For in the teachings of the world, God Himself is supposed to be without body, parts, or passions, a great nothingness to which we should all aspire.
Alone and apart from the religions of men and of the world, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that God was not lying when He declared that His creation and all things He made “were very good.” As members of the Church of Christ, we announce that all that God does is eternal.
It would seem odd, indeed, for God to spend so much time and effort to create the world and the worlds—and all of their details and beauties—if they were not very important. In fact, the Lord emphasized just how important the material world is when He explained in the Doctrine and Covenants something about Himself and physical elements. God declared that, “The elements are the tabernacle of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:35), something that young Joseph Smith saw for himself with his own eyes, when the Father and the Son appeared to him in that First Vision in 1820.
Through the Prophet Joseph Smith the Lord further revealed, “The elements are eternal, and spirit and element inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:33, 34) So it was that the Lord explained to Lehi, the prophet, “men are that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men” (2 Nephi 2:25, 26).
It is true that we shall all die, that we shall not only be touched by death but shall experience it, personally. A couple of years ago my son and I drove by a cemetery with what seemed to me an unusual sight. Lined up along the back were dozens of burial vaults, all waiting for their occupants, some day, sooner or later. Not one of us knows who will be the next occupant, but we cannot deny that we all will go there. There’s a place for us. But it is not the final place.
Those of us who have placed a loved one in the tomb, and have faced this one of life’s most real experiences, know that as we have faced this experience with the bright testimony of the Savior’s resurrection, the sting of death is removed. The sadness is one of parting, not the hopeless despair of irretrievable loss. With the Apostle Paul, we proclaim, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? . . . Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:55, 57)
The resurrection and all the good things of life that come with it are real. It is death that is temporary and fleeting.
So, for baseball games and walks in the woods, for ice cream and for spaghetti, for flying through the air and swimming in the sea, for symphonies and chirping birds, for soft warm blankets and cool smooth silk, for fast cars and slow buggies, for fireworks and handshakes, for the scents of the sea and the perfumes of the gardens I thank the Risen Lord and praise my Savior, for making all of these available forever.
We sing praise with the hymnist, Folliott S. Pierpoint:
In the neighborhood the cherry trees and pear trees were in full bloom. Almost all the other trees were budding with the tender Spring green of their new leaves. The mix of scents from the trees, plants, and grass was pleasant and lively. The grass was greening from the Winter brown. I could hear the sounds of the songbirds as they seemed to vie with each other for lead solo in the wildlife choir. All was pleasant, charming, lively, as I sat taking it in while munching on some strawberries.
I should hate to give it up—the whole experience, the sight, the sound, the smell, the taste, the touch, not just the strawberries.
We live in a very physical world. God intended it that way. God went to a lot of trouble to create a very physical world. He took great pains to make it beautiful and lovely. As the Lord revealed to Moses, “And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. (Moses 3:9) . . . And I, God, saw everything that I had made, and behold, all things which I had made were very good” (Moses 2:31).
In the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 59, we read,
Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;I am reminded of a song that was sung at our wedding reception, sung by one of my wife's college friends. Written and made famous by John Denver, it is called “Annie’s Song,” and it says in part,
Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.
And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used. . . (Doctrine and Covenants 59:18-20).
You fill up my sensesThe Lord meant to fill up our senses, and He called it very good.
Like a night in the forest
Like the mountains in springtime
Like a walk in the rain
Like a storm in the desert
Like a sleepy blue ocean
Did God make all these things, all the beauties of this earth, to be used by us only for life’s short day, to be laid aside forever when our bodies are placed in the grave? Once we die, are our senses never to be filled again? Is John Denver never to sing again? Will Helen Keller never see a sunset or hear a waterfall? Will little children who die in their infancy never run in the grass?
Apparently so, were we to rely for our light upon the religions of man. In the teachings of the religions of the world, the things of this physical world are temporary at best, frauds, a distraction from reality. In not a few teachings, this physical world is the sign of evil itself, wherein all things embodied are evil, and life is a quest to cast aside all things material and physical. For in the teachings of the world, God Himself is supposed to be without body, parts, or passions, a great nothingness to which we should all aspire.
Alone and apart from the religions of men and of the world, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that God was not lying when He declared that His creation and all things He made “were very good.” As members of the Church of Christ, we announce that all that God does is eternal.
It would seem odd, indeed, for God to spend so much time and effort to create the world and the worlds—and all of their details and beauties—if they were not very important. In fact, the Lord emphasized just how important the material world is when He explained in the Doctrine and Covenants something about Himself and physical elements. God declared that, “The elements are the tabernacle of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:35), something that young Joseph Smith saw for himself with his own eyes, when the Father and the Son appeared to him in that First Vision in 1820.
Through the Prophet Joseph Smith the Lord further revealed, “The elements are eternal, and spirit and element inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:33, 34) So it was that the Lord explained to Lehi, the prophet, “men are that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men” (2 Nephi 2:25, 26).
It is true that we shall all die, that we shall not only be touched by death but shall experience it, personally. A couple of years ago my son and I drove by a cemetery with what seemed to me an unusual sight. Lined up along the back were dozens of burial vaults, all waiting for their occupants, some day, sooner or later. Not one of us knows who will be the next occupant, but we cannot deny that we all will go there. There’s a place for us. But it is not the final place.
Those of us who have placed a loved one in the tomb, and have faced this one of life’s most real experiences, know that as we have faced this experience with the bright testimony of the Savior’s resurrection, the sting of death is removed. The sadness is one of parting, not the hopeless despair of irretrievable loss. With the Apostle Paul, we proclaim, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? . . . Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:55, 57)
The resurrection and all the good things of life that come with it are real. It is death that is temporary and fleeting.
So, for baseball games and walks in the woods, for ice cream and for spaghetti, for flying through the air and swimming in the sea, for symphonies and chirping birds, for soft warm blankets and cool smooth silk, for fast cars and slow buggies, for fireworks and handshakes, for the scents of the sea and the perfumes of the gardens I thank the Risen Lord and praise my Savior, for making all of these available forever.
We sing praise with the hymnist, Folliott S. Pierpoint:
For the beauty of the earth,To which I add my own witness of the Living Christ. I have stood in the tomb. It was empty, for Christ is risen, as He said. And all good things by and through Him are saved.
For the beauty of the skies,
For the love which from our birth
Over and around us lies,
For the beauty of each hour
Of the day and of the night,
Hill and vale, and tree and flow’r,
Sun and moon, and stars of light,
For the joy of human love,
Brother, sister, parent, child,
Friends on earth, and friends above,
For all gentle thoughts and mild,
Lord of all, to thee we raise
This our hymn of grateful praise.
(Hymn 92)
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Of Prophets and Revelation
One of the more bizarre notions found in religious discourse is the one that holds that the heavens are closed, that God who for thousands of years spoke through prophets does not do so anymore. If God ever spoke through prophets anciently--and the record and evidence are strong that He did-- then why would He be silent today?
Three arguments are offered:
1. He has said enough, and nothing more needs saying, at least not from a direct Divine Source.
2. The prophets were intended to prepare the way for Christ, and after His mortal ministry and atonement the mission of the prophets had been accomplished.
3. We all are prophets (or can and should be)--God speaks to everyone without any prophet needed to stand in between man and his God.
Those who hold to the first argument carry the burden of demonstrating that man would not benefit from more of the word of God. If man could be helped by new revelation from God, then the love of God would surely provide it. The new and perplexing challenges to human happiness in our day suggest a deep need for continuing revelation.
In ancient times mankind was perplexed by many challenges to happiness--and the Lord spoke through prophets to help His children overcome those challenges. The fact that the human condition is no different (unless even worse) would seem to argue for a continuation of the same help from God. Moreover, the enormous--and often angry--disagreement over what God said and meant in the past would suggest a great need for God (who loves His children enough to be clear in His messages to them) to continue to speak to man with the clarity of contemporary language and modern relevance.
Regarding the second argument, it may be true that there is less of a need for a prophet while the Savior personally dwells on the earth. The Savior need not speak through anyone when He can do so directly. Speaking through prophets is what the Lord did prior to His mortal ministry, but what did He do after He ascended to heaven? Did He close the heavenly door behind Him and speak no more to man? If the risen Lord were to continue to speak to man from the heavens, He would speak through someone who would share it. That man would be a prophet. The record is clear that He continued to speak through His apostles and prophets after He returned to the presence of the Father. The Apostle Paul was converted long after the Savior's resurrection and ascension, and the word of God was spoken powerfully through Paul. In the ancient Americas there were many prophets who continued to transmit the word of God after the Savior's earthly ministry. Clearly the work of God did not end when the Savior returned to Heaven. It continues and will continue even until He returns to earth, and He will speak to guide those engaged in His work.
The third argument is a partial truth. The Lord wishes and intends for us all to be prophets. The concept of continuing revelation is not reserved for just one man on earth at a time. Moses, thousands of years ago, was confronted by this misconception when the man who would succeed him in leading Israel, Joshua, urged Moses to forbid others in the camp of Israel from prophesying. Rather than express any jealousy of his rights to revelation, Moses taught Joshua an important lesson about revelation, responding,
Having established this principle, however, it must be understood that God is a God of order. Each person--man, woman, child--is privileged to receive revelation for his or her own sphere of responsibility. Parents may receive revelation for themselves and also for their family. It would be absurd and chaotic to suppose, though, that God would reveal to them His will for someone else or for another family. The Lord wants us all to be prophets, to be possessed of His spirit to receive direct revelation for our own walk of life. He has never meant for all of His children to receive revelation for each other or for the whole world.
As an orderly God, for matters involving the whole world the Lord speaks through someone whom He has called to receive revelation for the world. Moses was the one chosen by God to lead all Israel, and Moses had no fear that his responsibility for leading Israel would be diminished were all to receive revelation for their own individual conduct. As the Lord chose Moses to speak for all Israel in his day, the Lord has chosen men today through whom He speaks to all the world.
The first weekend in April, the Lord's prophet spoke to all the world, as he regularly does. His message was broadcast throughout the world. You can find the message on the Internet, at this link:
http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,49-1-1032,00.html
It could be that, while God speaks through a prophet today, men's attention is just as distracted now as it was when God spoke in the days of the ancient prophets. Now, just as then, those who pay attention will find the way to a happier and more successful life. Do we need guidance from God any less today than did the early Christians in the days of the Roman Empire? Fortunately God still speaks through prophets, as always.
Three arguments are offered:
1. He has said enough, and nothing more needs saying, at least not from a direct Divine Source.
2. The prophets were intended to prepare the way for Christ, and after His mortal ministry and atonement the mission of the prophets had been accomplished.
3. We all are prophets (or can and should be)--God speaks to everyone without any prophet needed to stand in between man and his God.
Those who hold to the first argument carry the burden of demonstrating that man would not benefit from more of the word of God. If man could be helped by new revelation from God, then the love of God would surely provide it. The new and perplexing challenges to human happiness in our day suggest a deep need for continuing revelation.
In ancient times mankind was perplexed by many challenges to happiness--and the Lord spoke through prophets to help His children overcome those challenges. The fact that the human condition is no different (unless even worse) would seem to argue for a continuation of the same help from God. Moreover, the enormous--and often angry--disagreement over what God said and meant in the past would suggest a great need for God (who loves His children enough to be clear in His messages to them) to continue to speak to man with the clarity of contemporary language and modern relevance.
Regarding the second argument, it may be true that there is less of a need for a prophet while the Savior personally dwells on the earth. The Savior need not speak through anyone when He can do so directly. Speaking through prophets is what the Lord did prior to His mortal ministry, but what did He do after He ascended to heaven? Did He close the heavenly door behind Him and speak no more to man? If the risen Lord were to continue to speak to man from the heavens, He would speak through someone who would share it. That man would be a prophet. The record is clear that He continued to speak through His apostles and prophets after He returned to the presence of the Father. The Apostle Paul was converted long after the Savior's resurrection and ascension, and the word of God was spoken powerfully through Paul. In the ancient Americas there were many prophets who continued to transmit the word of God after the Savior's earthly ministry. Clearly the work of God did not end when the Savior returned to Heaven. It continues and will continue even until He returns to earth, and He will speak to guide those engaged in His work.
The third argument is a partial truth. The Lord wishes and intends for us all to be prophets. The concept of continuing revelation is not reserved for just one man on earth at a time. Moses, thousands of years ago, was confronted by this misconception when the man who would succeed him in leading Israel, Joshua, urged Moses to forbid others in the camp of Israel from prophesying. Rather than express any jealousy of his rights to revelation, Moses taught Joshua an important lesson about revelation, responding,
Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! (Numbers 11:29)
Having established this principle, however, it must be understood that God is a God of order. Each person--man, woman, child--is privileged to receive revelation for his or her own sphere of responsibility. Parents may receive revelation for themselves and also for their family. It would be absurd and chaotic to suppose, though, that God would reveal to them His will for someone else or for another family. The Lord wants us all to be prophets, to be possessed of His spirit to receive direct revelation for our own walk of life. He has never meant for all of His children to receive revelation for each other or for the whole world.
As an orderly God, for matters involving the whole world the Lord speaks through someone whom He has called to receive revelation for the world. Moses was the one chosen by God to lead all Israel, and Moses had no fear that his responsibility for leading Israel would be diminished were all to receive revelation for their own individual conduct. As the Lord chose Moses to speak for all Israel in his day, the Lord has chosen men today through whom He speaks to all the world.
The first weekend in April, the Lord's prophet spoke to all the world, as he regularly does. His message was broadcast throughout the world. You can find the message on the Internet, at this link:
http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,49-1-1032,00.html
It could be that, while God speaks through a prophet today, men's attention is just as distracted now as it was when God spoke in the days of the ancient prophets. Now, just as then, those who pay attention will find the way to a happier and more successful life. Do we need guidance from God any less today than did the early Christians in the days of the Roman Empire? Fortunately God still speaks through prophets, as always.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Of Temples and Homes
In a few weeks I will witness the marriage of my youngest daughter. The simple but sacred ceremony will be held in a Latter-day Saint Temple, where she and her husband will be united forever, never to be separated, not even by death. Our Heavenly Father desires our families to be forever and has arranged for the family associations to continue throughout the eternities. The union of a man and woman in the bonds of eternal marriage is the most sacred ceremony (or sacrament) performed on earth. The consequences have enormous importance (despite the efforts of popular culture and other loud voices to cheapen marriage and the marital relationship), and for that reason the Lord has asked for the building of sacred places away from the ordinary walks of life, where these ceremonies can be held in a setting befitting their importance.
A Temple is a holy place. As such it is designed to encourage people to aspire to live and act so as to be holy themselves in order to enter. A Temple is set apart to be a place of peace were God can seem nearer and heaven a closer reality. Careful efforts are made to keep the mundane, the crass, the vulgar, and even the ordinary outside of the Temple’s walls. Anyone may enter a Temple who makes promises and demonstrates in his walk of life a commitment to living a higher set of standards. These promises include dedication to Jesus Christ and a discipleship revealed in service, obedience to the Ten Commandments and other commandments from God, chastity, honesty, and a willingness to make self-improvement a constant way of life.
In a world where evil masquerades as good, where truth is taught to be a dangerous concept, where the contemporary culture applauds instant gratification that cheapens all things of value, a Temple stands as a beacon of truth, a preserver of value, and an encouragement to all who would seek to approach God. It is a refuge where the kind, the good, and the gentle can find rest, and where the temporary merges into and becomes part of the eternal.
Such a place provides the perfect setting for a man and a woman to begin their partnership that extends beyond this life and into the eternities. And it becomes a place where they may often return and find a model of the conditions to promote in their own homes as they make their homes sacred places.
When the Savior gave instructions for building His first Temple in modern times, He called for it to be “a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:119). So the Temples are, and so can our homes become.
A Temple is a holy place. As such it is designed to encourage people to aspire to live and act so as to be holy themselves in order to enter. A Temple is set apart to be a place of peace were God can seem nearer and heaven a closer reality. Careful efforts are made to keep the mundane, the crass, the vulgar, and even the ordinary outside of the Temple’s walls. Anyone may enter a Temple who makes promises and demonstrates in his walk of life a commitment to living a higher set of standards. These promises include dedication to Jesus Christ and a discipleship revealed in service, obedience to the Ten Commandments and other commandments from God, chastity, honesty, and a willingness to make self-improvement a constant way of life.
In a world where evil masquerades as good, where truth is taught to be a dangerous concept, where the contemporary culture applauds instant gratification that cheapens all things of value, a Temple stands as a beacon of truth, a preserver of value, and an encouragement to all who would seek to approach God. It is a refuge where the kind, the good, and the gentle can find rest, and where the temporary merges into and becomes part of the eternal.
Such a place provides the perfect setting for a man and a woman to begin their partnership that extends beyond this life and into the eternities. And it becomes a place where they may often return and find a model of the conditions to promote in their own homes as they make their homes sacred places.
When the Savior gave instructions for building His first Temple in modern times, He called for it to be “a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:119). So the Temples are, and so can our homes become.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Of Watermelons and Conservationists
Notice how the prescriptions of the radical environmentalists trend in the same direction: more government controls over private life. Certainly the global warming agenda is all about how government needs to control numerous aspects of our lives, from the way we travel (cars bad, public transportation good), what we eat (meat bad, vegetables good), the comfort in our homes (warm bad, cold good—except in the summer, when it is the other way around), to family size (three children bad, no children good).
If these people just limited themselves to preaching their ideas we could debate them and let people make a choice—which invites the risk that these proposals would be exposed as being irrelevant or even counterproductive to the achievement of the environmental purposes in which they are wrapped—but instead these environmentalists loudly call for elaborate government programs to force compliance with their schemes. It seems that it is the solution, the governmental mandates and controls, that matters far more than the real environmental issues. The enviro-advocates routinely reject better solutions that do not involve government intrusion. For good reason such state controllers in environmental clothing have earned the nickname, “Watermelons”: green on the outside, but red on the inside. These are not seedless Watermelons, as I would add that the Watermelons’ solutions rest on the seedy old notion that government knows best—the monarchist worldview that the American Revolution resisted and that the American experiment has in practice so often refuted.
I suppose that these environmentalists are eager to rely upon the force of government, because they seek to inhibit some very basic human endeavors, such as earning a living, bearing children, and breathing. The radical enviro agenda destroys jobs, sees people (and their offspring) as the source of all environmental problems, and has named the chief gas people exhale as they breathe—carbon dioxide—public pollutant number one. Only the coercive powers of government could hope to curb action that is such a natural part of life and living.
This Watermelon formula is no accident. The more common the activity that must be controlled, the more sweeping the governmental controls that are called for. And, the more undefined—or even indefinable—the problem, the easier it is to justify nearly any governmental action served up as a solution. Global warming serves the pro-government agenda of the Watermelons very well.
This is by no means an argument to ignore the environment. Care for the environment is as old as the Garden of Eden. It was one of the first commandments given to our first parents. “And I, the Lord God, took the man, and put him in the Garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it.” (Moses 3:15) Such counsel has been echoed through modern prophets. In 1833 the Lord revealed that the earth’s resources are “to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:11)
This was not, however, man-is-the-problem environmentalism. Man is the focal point of the world, the reason for its creation. The Lord’s counsel is make the most of the earth and do not pollute your nest. This concept lies at the heart of what has been called conservation. Conservationists recognize that the world is a stewardship entrusted to man to be used for man’s best advantage. Again, as the Lord has revealed to modern prophets,
The difference is that to the Watermelons, people are a problem, and the fewer the better. The conservationist sees the environment as a treasure house to be managed for the benefit of man, and when subjected to the creativity and wisdom of the mind of man can become an inexhaustible source of increasing wealth and benefit.
The Malthusians and their modern disciples have been predicting the environmental doom of mankind for centuries, and those unlucky enough to have followed their prescriptions have found doom and destruction. Whenever we have trusted instead to the creed of the conservationists who would manage the world’s resources in line with human incentives and martial them for human benefit, the result has been increasing wealth and welfare, just as God intended for His children.
If these people just limited themselves to preaching their ideas we could debate them and let people make a choice—which invites the risk that these proposals would be exposed as being irrelevant or even counterproductive to the achievement of the environmental purposes in which they are wrapped—but instead these environmentalists loudly call for elaborate government programs to force compliance with their schemes. It seems that it is the solution, the governmental mandates and controls, that matters far more than the real environmental issues. The enviro-advocates routinely reject better solutions that do not involve government intrusion. For good reason such state controllers in environmental clothing have earned the nickname, “Watermelons”: green on the outside, but red on the inside. These are not seedless Watermelons, as I would add that the Watermelons’ solutions rest on the seedy old notion that government knows best—the monarchist worldview that the American Revolution resisted and that the American experiment has in practice so often refuted.
I suppose that these environmentalists are eager to rely upon the force of government, because they seek to inhibit some very basic human endeavors, such as earning a living, bearing children, and breathing. The radical enviro agenda destroys jobs, sees people (and their offspring) as the source of all environmental problems, and has named the chief gas people exhale as they breathe—carbon dioxide—public pollutant number one. Only the coercive powers of government could hope to curb action that is such a natural part of life and living.
This Watermelon formula is no accident. The more common the activity that must be controlled, the more sweeping the governmental controls that are called for. And, the more undefined—or even indefinable—the problem, the easier it is to justify nearly any governmental action served up as a solution. Global warming serves the pro-government agenda of the Watermelons very well.
This is by no means an argument to ignore the environment. Care for the environment is as old as the Garden of Eden. It was one of the first commandments given to our first parents. “And I, the Lord God, took the man, and put him in the Garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it.” (Moses 3:15) Such counsel has been echoed through modern prophets. In 1833 the Lord revealed that the earth’s resources are “to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:11)
This was not, however, man-is-the-problem environmentalism. Man is the focal point of the world, the reason for its creation. The Lord’s counsel is make the most of the earth and do not pollute your nest. This concept lies at the heart of what has been called conservation. Conservationists recognize that the world is a stewardship entrusted to man to be used for man’s best advantage. Again, as the Lord has revealed to modern prophets,
all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion. (Doctrine and Covenants 59:18-20)
The difference is that to the Watermelons, people are a problem, and the fewer the better. The conservationist sees the environment as a treasure house to be managed for the benefit of man, and when subjected to the creativity and wisdom of the mind of man can become an inexhaustible source of increasing wealth and benefit.
The Malthusians and their modern disciples have been predicting the environmental doom of mankind for centuries, and those unlucky enough to have followed their prescriptions have found doom and destruction. Whenever we have trusted instead to the creed of the conservationists who would manage the world’s resources in line with human incentives and martial them for human benefit, the result has been increasing wealth and welfare, just as God intended for His children.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Of Commandments and Happiness
We sing a hymn, “How Gentle God’s Commands,” the first two lines of which proclaim—
I suppose that the Ruler and Creator of the world, who offers us all that He has, eternal life (“the greatest of all the gifts of God”—Doctrine and Covenants 14:7), could require from us anything in return. What He asks of us is that we be happy, and He shows us how. Every commandment of God (here I speak of God’s commandments, not the commandments of men) is calculated to promote our happiness and guide us away from unhappiness.
Let us examine a few to illustrate. The Lord commands that intimate sexual relations be reserved for a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony. This commandment, much disparaged by popular voices, would if followed virtually end all forms of venereal diseases, including the modern scourge of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and the heartbreaking and life-ending consequences they bring. Abortion would also nearly end, since the vast majority of abortions are performed on unwed women. The social and economic trauma of children being born into one-parent households would similarly be dramatically reduced. And the deadened emotional wasteland caused by promiscuity would be avoided.
The Lord has commanded that we observe the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. The Sabbath is a day to gather with fellow believers in the worship of God. It is also a day to refrain from usual activities we would call work and focus instead on rest and acts of service to one another. Perhaps less observed today than ever before by the world in general, this commandment is particularly suitable for modern times. Increasingly, people are cut off from one another, associations reduced to momentary casual encounters. The Sabbath brings people together in pleasant association and sharing, with a focus on what uplifts one another. Furthermore, it offers a pause from the daily routine, giving opportunity for mental rest and perspective, a time for pondering, meditation, and preparation for renewed and more thoughtful endeavor.
A third example I would choose is the law of the tithe. The Lord commands the saints to donate one-tenth of their income. At first view, this commandment might seem all loss. Is not a person better off with 100% of his income than he is with 90% of his income? The answer to that is undeniably yes, particularly if that income were forcefully taken away, as in excess taxes. The tithe, however, is purely voluntary. The Lord requires it, but He does not take it. You still have all of your income, for it is by your free choice that you make a donation or not, much as with any other way in which you would choose to dispose of your income. That is important, for by making a freewill donation, you give of yourself and receive all of the moral benefit that comes from such a voluntary gift. That gift is not diminished if you, like I, have noticed that you have always received more back in services and blessings than you have ever given. After all, you could choose to be a free rider and never contribute a dime. Moreover, the law of the tithe is eminently fair. All are asked to donate 10%, rich or poor. Those who earn more contribute more, those who earn less donate less, but all are subject to the same rate. Through the tithe—together with the voluntary labor of the membership of a church without a paid, professional clergy—all have full opportunity and satisfaction of participation in the most important work and activity in the world today: sustaining the work of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
These are but three examples of many. I chose them, because they are among the commandments that some today might consider onerous. These, like all of God’s commands are rich and generous in their benefits. I have merely touched the surface of the benefits from observance of each of these commandments. God loves us, and His commandments are a bounteous example of that love.
How gentle God’s commands!
How kind his precepts are!
I suppose that the Ruler and Creator of the world, who offers us all that He has, eternal life (“the greatest of all the gifts of God”—Doctrine and Covenants 14:7), could require from us anything in return. What He asks of us is that we be happy, and He shows us how. Every commandment of God (here I speak of God’s commandments, not the commandments of men) is calculated to promote our happiness and guide us away from unhappiness.
Let us examine a few to illustrate. The Lord commands that intimate sexual relations be reserved for a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony. This commandment, much disparaged by popular voices, would if followed virtually end all forms of venereal diseases, including the modern scourge of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and the heartbreaking and life-ending consequences they bring. Abortion would also nearly end, since the vast majority of abortions are performed on unwed women. The social and economic trauma of children being born into one-parent households would similarly be dramatically reduced. And the deadened emotional wasteland caused by promiscuity would be avoided.
The Lord has commanded that we observe the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. The Sabbath is a day to gather with fellow believers in the worship of God. It is also a day to refrain from usual activities we would call work and focus instead on rest and acts of service to one another. Perhaps less observed today than ever before by the world in general, this commandment is particularly suitable for modern times. Increasingly, people are cut off from one another, associations reduced to momentary casual encounters. The Sabbath brings people together in pleasant association and sharing, with a focus on what uplifts one another. Furthermore, it offers a pause from the daily routine, giving opportunity for mental rest and perspective, a time for pondering, meditation, and preparation for renewed and more thoughtful endeavor.
A third example I would choose is the law of the tithe. The Lord commands the saints to donate one-tenth of their income. At first view, this commandment might seem all loss. Is not a person better off with 100% of his income than he is with 90% of his income? The answer to that is undeniably yes, particularly if that income were forcefully taken away, as in excess taxes. The tithe, however, is purely voluntary. The Lord requires it, but He does not take it. You still have all of your income, for it is by your free choice that you make a donation or not, much as with any other way in which you would choose to dispose of your income. That is important, for by making a freewill donation, you give of yourself and receive all of the moral benefit that comes from such a voluntary gift. That gift is not diminished if you, like I, have noticed that you have always received more back in services and blessings than you have ever given. After all, you could choose to be a free rider and never contribute a dime. Moreover, the law of the tithe is eminently fair. All are asked to donate 10%, rich or poor. Those who earn more contribute more, those who earn less donate less, but all are subject to the same rate. Through the tithe—together with the voluntary labor of the membership of a church without a paid, professional clergy—all have full opportunity and satisfaction of participation in the most important work and activity in the world today: sustaining the work of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
These are but three examples of many. I chose them, because they are among the commandments that some today might consider onerous. These, like all of God’s commands are rich and generous in their benefits. I have merely touched the surface of the benefits from observance of each of these commandments. God loves us, and His commandments are a bounteous example of that love.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Of Easter and the Resurrection of Christ
As we approach the Easter season, it may be valuable to reflect on the meaning of the season. It is, after all, Easter that gives meaning to Christmas, and the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ give meaning to Easter.
Few if any events of ancient history are as well attested as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. His rising from the tomb after His death at the hands of the Roman executioners is a hard fact. It is a particularly hard fact to grapple with if one is of the mind that religious phenomena are “spiritual”—by which critics mean “unverifiable.” Their efforts for nearly two thousand years have been to try to change the subject or impugn the witnesses or make the reality appear somehow merely symbolic, allegorical, or fabulous. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains as startlingly real today as it was to the Greco-Roman world of 34 A.D. The emergence in the 1830s of powerful new evidence of the Savior’s resurrection from the dead makes objections to its reality impossible to sustain.
The list of witnesses of the resurrected and immortal Christ is a long one, spanning continents, ages, and sexes. It begins with Mary Magdalene, in Jerusalem, who went to the tomb early on Sunday morning after Jesus’ execution, expecting anything but to see Jesus alive once more. She was there to finish the process of anointing the body, which she and others could only hastily begin on Friday evening. To her wonderment and sorrow the tomb was empty. Rather than expecting that the dead was alive once more, her one thought was to find where the body now was. To a joy that none but she could describe, Mary was told by Jesus Himself that He was risen from the dead. Mary also became the first to testify of the Savior’s resurrection, as she quickly reported her experience to the disciples (John 20:1-18).
The record reports how later, in the evening, the resurrected Christ appeared to these disciples, who included at least ten of His apostles in company with others of Jesus’ followers. As if to answer future skeptics, Jesus made a point of the physical reality of the resurrection from the dead. First, to attest to the death, he had those present handle the mortal wounds in hands, feet, and side (the last inflicted by the Roman soldiers to assure the death of Jesus before they removed His body from the cross), as He declared to them, “handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:36-40; John 20:19-21) Next, to demonstrate the full functionality of a resurrected body, Jesus ate a piece of broiled fish and part of a honeycomb (Luke 24:41-43). This is tangible evidence, intentionally offered by the Savior to emphasize the fact of His physical resurrection, with a very physical body.
Sometime that same day Jesus walked for an extended time with two disciples as they journeyed to the nearby village of Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). A week later the apostle Thomas, who had been absent the week before, was added to the list of physical witnesses, as he in turn was shown the mortal wounds of the risen Christ (John 20:26-29). Again in Galilee Jesus met His disciples for a meal of fish and bread and then taught them about charitable service while sitting with them around the fire. To these and other interactions of the mortal disciples with the immortal, risen Christ, is the record in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that “above five hundred brethren at once” saw the resurrected Christ, to which Paul adds his own personal witness (1 Corinthians 15:6-8).
The Book of Mormon, first published in 1830, is another witness, from a separate people on another continent, of the Christ who had lived, died, and been resurrected far away in Jerusalem. Across the ocean, in ancient America, Jesus Christ appeared to 2,500 more disciples who became personal witnesses of their resurrected Savior. “And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom was written by the prophets, that should come.” (3 Nephi 11:15)
To these ancient testimonies, the list grows with modern day witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Add the names of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery, “That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:22,23; see also Doctrine and Covenants 110:1-10).
The testimony is sure. You can accept it or not, but you cannot change the fact that Jesus, once dead, rose again from the dead, as He and the prophets foretold and as He and the prophets since have reported. With that knowledge, Easter becomes more than a quaint relic of just another “faith tradition”. It becomes a celebration of the greatest event in the history of the world.
Few if any events of ancient history are as well attested as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. His rising from the tomb after His death at the hands of the Roman executioners is a hard fact. It is a particularly hard fact to grapple with if one is of the mind that religious phenomena are “spiritual”—by which critics mean “unverifiable.” Their efforts for nearly two thousand years have been to try to change the subject or impugn the witnesses or make the reality appear somehow merely symbolic, allegorical, or fabulous. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains as startlingly real today as it was to the Greco-Roman world of 34 A.D. The emergence in the 1830s of powerful new evidence of the Savior’s resurrection from the dead makes objections to its reality impossible to sustain.
The list of witnesses of the resurrected and immortal Christ is a long one, spanning continents, ages, and sexes. It begins with Mary Magdalene, in Jerusalem, who went to the tomb early on Sunday morning after Jesus’ execution, expecting anything but to see Jesus alive once more. She was there to finish the process of anointing the body, which she and others could only hastily begin on Friday evening. To her wonderment and sorrow the tomb was empty. Rather than expecting that the dead was alive once more, her one thought was to find where the body now was. To a joy that none but she could describe, Mary was told by Jesus Himself that He was risen from the dead. Mary also became the first to testify of the Savior’s resurrection, as she quickly reported her experience to the disciples (John 20:1-18).
The record reports how later, in the evening, the resurrected Christ appeared to these disciples, who included at least ten of His apostles in company with others of Jesus’ followers. As if to answer future skeptics, Jesus made a point of the physical reality of the resurrection from the dead. First, to attest to the death, he had those present handle the mortal wounds in hands, feet, and side (the last inflicted by the Roman soldiers to assure the death of Jesus before they removed His body from the cross), as He declared to them, “handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:36-40; John 20:19-21) Next, to demonstrate the full functionality of a resurrected body, Jesus ate a piece of broiled fish and part of a honeycomb (Luke 24:41-43). This is tangible evidence, intentionally offered by the Savior to emphasize the fact of His physical resurrection, with a very physical body.
Sometime that same day Jesus walked for an extended time with two disciples as they journeyed to the nearby village of Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). A week later the apostle Thomas, who had been absent the week before, was added to the list of physical witnesses, as he in turn was shown the mortal wounds of the risen Christ (John 20:26-29). Again in Galilee Jesus met His disciples for a meal of fish and bread and then taught them about charitable service while sitting with them around the fire. To these and other interactions of the mortal disciples with the immortal, risen Christ, is the record in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that “above five hundred brethren at once” saw the resurrected Christ, to which Paul adds his own personal witness (1 Corinthians 15:6-8).
The Book of Mormon, first published in 1830, is another witness, from a separate people on another continent, of the Christ who had lived, died, and been resurrected far away in Jerusalem. Across the ocean, in ancient America, Jesus Christ appeared to 2,500 more disciples who became personal witnesses of their resurrected Savior. “And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom was written by the prophets, that should come.” (3 Nephi 11:15)
To these ancient testimonies, the list grows with modern day witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Add the names of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery, “That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:22,23; see also Doctrine and Covenants 110:1-10).
The testimony is sure. You can accept it or not, but you cannot change the fact that Jesus, once dead, rose again from the dead, as He and the prophets foretold and as He and the prophets since have reported. With that knowledge, Easter becomes more than a quaint relic of just another “faith tradition”. It becomes a celebration of the greatest event in the history of the world.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Of Jesus Christ and The Joseph Smith Papers
It is hard to praise too much The Joseph Smith Papers project. This is one of those rare endeavors that will grow in value as it proceeds and as time goes by. Preserving and disseminating the early documents connected with the rise of the Church of Jesus Christ in these last days—before they are lost page by page to the aggressive corrosions of time and the environment—is worthy of every support and encouragement. The dissemination of Volume 1 being a great success, many eagerly await Volume 2.
With Volume 2 and succeeding volumes, the editors would be wise to resist the natural impulse to contribute their own thoughts and observations. Instead, they should get right on to the documents. In Volume 1 it takes nearly 70 pages before you actually reach the documents. In something that suggests editorial excess, the actual Papers are preceded by a “Preface,” a very abbreviated “Timeline,” a basic map, a “General Introduction” that runs for some 25 pages, a “Series Introduction,” a “Volume 1 Introduction,” a section on “Editorial Method,” and a “Source Note” that runs for about 5 pages more. Sensing the monumental value of the underlying work, it is as if the editors would like to linger for some pictures alongside the monument.
Some of this prefatory material is valuable and needed. A few words on what this is all about, the sources of the documents, and the editorial methods used are called for. The value of the rest of the introductory materials is not as apparent. Of course, many will choose to skip the introductory materials. Others will read them in the fear of missing something important. I read them, and having done so I can report that it is safe to skip them. Read them if you wish, but you need not fear that you need to do so in order to understand the documents. If you feel compelled to read any of them, then go ahead and read the section on “Editorial Method” so you can understand the various markings and typefaces that the editors employ in presenting the documents.
Yet, for all of their length there is something disturbingly missing from the extended prefatory sections of Volume 1. Perhaps I should more precisely say, Someone is missing. Read these sections carefully, and you will discover that the editors forgot to include Jesus Christ in the story. This is a curious omission for an introduction to a set of works intended to present the central documents—and many peripheral documents—relating to the founding and the founder of a major religious organization. I would have thought that what really gives these papers lasting worth is the presence of God in the work.
Do not forget that these papers have transcendental value—what makes them more than a collection of historical curios—because they are the papers of someone who unabashedly claimed to have been working under the immediate and constant direction of Jesus Christ, a claim supported by many evidences—evidences found in these papers and elsewhere. It seems to me inexcusably negligent not to include Christ in the story, for in documenting the work of His Prophet we look to see the hand of God and understand how God achieves His purposes through very mortal and fallible people.
You cannot tell the history correctly, fully, of Christ’s work on the earth while leaving Christ out of the picture. It seems to me worse than telling the history of the American Revolution while slighting the role of George Washington. Leaving the role of God to the side while attempting to tell the story of the Restoration results in a thin caricature, which is what the editors have produced in their essays. For example, their flippant treatment of the fall of such great church leaders as Oliver Cowdery and the treachery of Orson Hyde and Thomas Marsh take amazingly poignant and instructive real life tragedies and make them appear as inexplicable personal vendettas. Instead of a rich, insightful history that joins all of the sources of knowledge and information available, the editors have produced a crippled outline that too often does not rise above the level of silly.
The editors could have done so much better. Hopefully, their faithful preservation work will rise far above this error and save the materials to be used by themselves and other historians who will not fear to include spiritual information and truths along with all of the other valuable information to record a full and insightful history of God’s marvelous interaction with man in recent centuries. It is a rich treasury of history worth telling. You cannot understand Joseph Smith and his work without looking through him to the real Author of that work who inspired and supported and sustained the prophet Joseph (and those who followed in the years afterward), Jesus Christ Himself.
With Volume 2 and succeeding volumes, the editors would be wise to resist the natural impulse to contribute their own thoughts and observations. Instead, they should get right on to the documents. In Volume 1 it takes nearly 70 pages before you actually reach the documents. In something that suggests editorial excess, the actual Papers are preceded by a “Preface,” a very abbreviated “Timeline,” a basic map, a “General Introduction” that runs for some 25 pages, a “Series Introduction,” a “Volume 1 Introduction,” a section on “Editorial Method,” and a “Source Note” that runs for about 5 pages more. Sensing the monumental value of the underlying work, it is as if the editors would like to linger for some pictures alongside the monument.
Some of this prefatory material is valuable and needed. A few words on what this is all about, the sources of the documents, and the editorial methods used are called for. The value of the rest of the introductory materials is not as apparent. Of course, many will choose to skip the introductory materials. Others will read them in the fear of missing something important. I read them, and having done so I can report that it is safe to skip them. Read them if you wish, but you need not fear that you need to do so in order to understand the documents. If you feel compelled to read any of them, then go ahead and read the section on “Editorial Method” so you can understand the various markings and typefaces that the editors employ in presenting the documents.
Yet, for all of their length there is something disturbingly missing from the extended prefatory sections of Volume 1. Perhaps I should more precisely say, Someone is missing. Read these sections carefully, and you will discover that the editors forgot to include Jesus Christ in the story. This is a curious omission for an introduction to a set of works intended to present the central documents—and many peripheral documents—relating to the founding and the founder of a major religious organization. I would have thought that what really gives these papers lasting worth is the presence of God in the work.
Do not forget that these papers have transcendental value—what makes them more than a collection of historical curios—because they are the papers of someone who unabashedly claimed to have been working under the immediate and constant direction of Jesus Christ, a claim supported by many evidences—evidences found in these papers and elsewhere. It seems to me inexcusably negligent not to include Christ in the story, for in documenting the work of His Prophet we look to see the hand of God and understand how God achieves His purposes through very mortal and fallible people.
You cannot tell the history correctly, fully, of Christ’s work on the earth while leaving Christ out of the picture. It seems to me worse than telling the history of the American Revolution while slighting the role of George Washington. Leaving the role of God to the side while attempting to tell the story of the Restoration results in a thin caricature, which is what the editors have produced in their essays. For example, their flippant treatment of the fall of such great church leaders as Oliver Cowdery and the treachery of Orson Hyde and Thomas Marsh take amazingly poignant and instructive real life tragedies and make them appear as inexplicable personal vendettas. Instead of a rich, insightful history that joins all of the sources of knowledge and information available, the editors have produced a crippled outline that too often does not rise above the level of silly.
The editors could have done so much better. Hopefully, their faithful preservation work will rise far above this error and save the materials to be used by themselves and other historians who will not fear to include spiritual information and truths along with all of the other valuable information to record a full and insightful history of God’s marvelous interaction with man in recent centuries. It is a rich treasury of history worth telling. You cannot understand Joseph Smith and his work without looking through him to the real Author of that work who inspired and supported and sustained the prophet Joseph (and those who followed in the years afterward), Jesus Christ Himself.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Of Incentives and Jobs
Weird things happen when we decide by law who should have jobs and who should not and we order how people and businesses should spend money. I am not referring to the legality of telling people who receive money from the government how to live their lives and run their businesses. I am referring to the wisdom of it. And by "weird" I really mean "bad."
On Friday a press release came across my desk, issued by seven travel-meeting-event industry trade associations. Their basic message was that the public beating up of companies over the meetings they hold and the incentive programs that they have for employees is killing the travel, tourism, and meeting industry and the people who work in it. They estimate that 200,000 jobs were lost in that industry in 2008, and a larger number of job losses are predicted for 2009.
Even the old communist governments figured out that workers respond to incentives. Under the power of incentives people work harder, smarter, and more creatively. They may even enjoy their work more. Sometimes incentives that take the employee out of the normal routine can be very powerful. If left to their own devices, businesses will experiment with different packages of incentives to guide their employees into the most efficient ways to accomplish company goals and objectives. Will they get it right? Often they will not. When they get it wrong, they try something else.
What is the best set of incentives, and should the incentives include travel and recreation programs? I do not know, and neither do you. No one has enough information, smarts, or involvement to know. You may know what works for you, but are you willing to say that others should be offered the same rewards or that you should be given the same incentive program designed by someone somewhere else or in some other line of work? Everyone meeting company goals gets a set of golf clubs. That may work fine for Harry, but how about for you?
While it may be lots of fun to rant about businesses sending employees to Florida for a weekend, do we have any idea how that might figure into the incentive programs in those businesses? If you take that option away, what other option will work as well or as efficiently? Again, I do not know, and neither do you.
Up until recently, I did not have to know or pretend to know. We left it for businesses and their employees to figure out. In view of the efficiency of our businesses--which efficiency continued to improve and lead the world even in 2008--American businesses have been getting the incentives much more right than wrong. When we decide to make those decisions for other people, especially when we try do so through government force, we can be pretty sure we will get it wrong. Who wants to explain to the 200,000 travel and tourism industry people who are in danger of losing their jobs why businesses should not be holding meetings in Williamsburg or San Antonio or Nashville? Step up now; a frozen turkey if you get it right.
On Friday a press release came across my desk, issued by seven travel-meeting-event industry trade associations. Their basic message was that the public beating up of companies over the meetings they hold and the incentive programs that they have for employees is killing the travel, tourism, and meeting industry and the people who work in it. They estimate that 200,000 jobs were lost in that industry in 2008, and a larger number of job losses are predicted for 2009.
Even the old communist governments figured out that workers respond to incentives. Under the power of incentives people work harder, smarter, and more creatively. They may even enjoy their work more. Sometimes incentives that take the employee out of the normal routine can be very powerful. If left to their own devices, businesses will experiment with different packages of incentives to guide their employees into the most efficient ways to accomplish company goals and objectives. Will they get it right? Often they will not. When they get it wrong, they try something else.
What is the best set of incentives, and should the incentives include travel and recreation programs? I do not know, and neither do you. No one has enough information, smarts, or involvement to know. You may know what works for you, but are you willing to say that others should be offered the same rewards or that you should be given the same incentive program designed by someone somewhere else or in some other line of work? Everyone meeting company goals gets a set of golf clubs. That may work fine for Harry, but how about for you?
While it may be lots of fun to rant about businesses sending employees to Florida for a weekend, do we have any idea how that might figure into the incentive programs in those businesses? If you take that option away, what other option will work as well or as efficiently? Again, I do not know, and neither do you.
Up until recently, I did not have to know or pretend to know. We left it for businesses and their employees to figure out. In view of the efficiency of our businesses--which efficiency continued to improve and lead the world even in 2008--American businesses have been getting the incentives much more right than wrong. When we decide to make those decisions for other people, especially when we try do so through government force, we can be pretty sure we will get it wrong. Who wants to explain to the 200,000 travel and tourism industry people who are in danger of losing their jobs why businesses should not be holding meetings in Williamsburg or San Antonio or Nashville? Step up now; a frozen turkey if you get it right.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Of Local Elections and Local Prosperity
What a politician does not say can be as important as what he says. An excellent example is served up by the special February 3 election for Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia. The county is facing an astonishing $650 million shortfall between planned expenditures and expected revenues. This is clearly the most important issue before the county government this year, and probably for the next two or three years. Candidate Sharon Bulova gives the deficit short shrift on her campaign website. Actually, ignoring the issue would be a better description. That is despite the fact—or maybe because of the fact—that she has been chairman of the county budget committee for the past 17 years. Sharon Bulova is not talking.
In days of mind-numbing expected trillion dollar federal deficits, some perspective may be needed to understand how astonishing the Fairfax County shortfall is. There are approximately 1 million residents of Fairfax County. The shortfall, using basic math, therefore amounts to $650 for every man, woman, and child in the county. Another way of looking at the problem, the shortfall is more than the combined county budgets for police and sheriff, fire and rescue, parks and health departments, and libraries.
It is common to hear people blame such shortfalls on tax cuts, despite the lengthy evidence showing that tax cuts can actually increase revenue by stimulating economic growth and reducing tax avoidance. Sharon Bulova herself likes to brag that tax rates have been reduced by her in recent years. This is, of course, the sleight of hand that local governments around the country use to try to fool their constituents. When home prices are going up by ten and twenty percent each year, it is easy enough to reduce rates by 5% while increasing actual taxes paid. That is why tax rates have been reduced by Sharon Bulova and her friends while homeowners actually pay twice as much in property taxes as they did in 2000. If you have been living in Fairfax County during that time, ask yourself if you feel that county services—including schools—are twice as good today.
Now that housing values are in decline and businesses increasingly find Loudoun, Fauquier, and Prince William Counties attractive alternatives to Fairfax, a gaping hole has opened in the fabric of the county budget. Sharon Bulova does not offer a clue as to how she would address it. If she mentions it on her website, it is hard to find.
In contrast, challenger Pat Herrity has made addressing the shortfall the central issue in his campaign for Chairman of the County Board. The problem is huge, and the solution is not easy, but Herrity’s plan has the right elements. First of all, he intends to focus on the amount of taxes actually paid—not the tax rate—and he pledges to reduce the family property tax bill regardless of whether rates go up or down. Raising taxes in the teeth of a recession is foolish, unless you want more and deeper recession. He recognizes that back in the heyday of economic prosperity in Fairfax County a much larger share of county funding came from businesses because businesses were attracted to Fairfax County rather than avoided it. Making the county business friendly again is long overdue and will boost the prosperity of the county, its residents, and add to tax revenues. Herrity also calls for a restoration of budgetary discipline, asking what is needed, what is not, and how we can economize—normal budgetary practices that have become atrophied in recent years. In other words, Herrity seems to suspect that there may be more fat in the county budget than there is in the family budget.
Special local elections are notorious for bringing out few voters. If you like the idea of voting for your leadership and want your vote to count, it will likely count more in the February 3 election for Fairfax County Chairman than in many others. For people who plan to remain in Fairfax County, this could be one of the most important times for their votes to count.
In days of mind-numbing expected trillion dollar federal deficits, some perspective may be needed to understand how astonishing the Fairfax County shortfall is. There are approximately 1 million residents of Fairfax County. The shortfall, using basic math, therefore amounts to $650 for every man, woman, and child in the county. Another way of looking at the problem, the shortfall is more than the combined county budgets for police and sheriff, fire and rescue, parks and health departments, and libraries.
It is common to hear people blame such shortfalls on tax cuts, despite the lengthy evidence showing that tax cuts can actually increase revenue by stimulating economic growth and reducing tax avoidance. Sharon Bulova herself likes to brag that tax rates have been reduced by her in recent years. This is, of course, the sleight of hand that local governments around the country use to try to fool their constituents. When home prices are going up by ten and twenty percent each year, it is easy enough to reduce rates by 5% while increasing actual taxes paid. That is why tax rates have been reduced by Sharon Bulova and her friends while homeowners actually pay twice as much in property taxes as they did in 2000. If you have been living in Fairfax County during that time, ask yourself if you feel that county services—including schools—are twice as good today.
Now that housing values are in decline and businesses increasingly find Loudoun, Fauquier, and Prince William Counties attractive alternatives to Fairfax, a gaping hole has opened in the fabric of the county budget. Sharon Bulova does not offer a clue as to how she would address it. If she mentions it on her website, it is hard to find.
In contrast, challenger Pat Herrity has made addressing the shortfall the central issue in his campaign for Chairman of the County Board. The problem is huge, and the solution is not easy, but Herrity’s plan has the right elements. First of all, he intends to focus on the amount of taxes actually paid—not the tax rate—and he pledges to reduce the family property tax bill regardless of whether rates go up or down. Raising taxes in the teeth of a recession is foolish, unless you want more and deeper recession. He recognizes that back in the heyday of economic prosperity in Fairfax County a much larger share of county funding came from businesses because businesses were attracted to Fairfax County rather than avoided it. Making the county business friendly again is long overdue and will boost the prosperity of the county, its residents, and add to tax revenues. Herrity also calls for a restoration of budgetary discipline, asking what is needed, what is not, and how we can economize—normal budgetary practices that have become atrophied in recent years. In other words, Herrity seems to suspect that there may be more fat in the county budget than there is in the family budget.
Special local elections are notorious for bringing out few voters. If you like the idea of voting for your leadership and want your vote to count, it will likely count more in the February 3 election for Fairfax County Chairman than in many others. For people who plan to remain in Fairfax County, this could be one of the most important times for their votes to count.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Of Faith and Repentance
I received an electronic message the other day from someone trying to persuade me that, in essence, repentance is not necessary as long as one has faith. Such a concept is nonsense and little worth commenting on, were it not so popular. There are several ways to address this absurdity. I will present a couple.
Perhaps the first is to ask, faith in what or whom? If one means faith in Christ, then I would ask how would one have faith in Christ without repenting of the sinful way of life and embracing the commandments that Christ has given us? Can you be said to have faith in Christ and yet reject the walk of life that He commanded us to follow? Following that way of life is repentance.
Second, advocating that faith is enough, without repentance, is to use the concept of faith to avoid repentance. It is using the concept of faith to avoid doing what Christ commanded us to do, to avoid living the way of life He set out for us. It is to invoke faith in order to doubt what He said. I do not remember the Savior or His prophets ever teaching that. It is a Satanic doctrine that destroys both repentance and faith--and dishonors the Christ who gave us His commandments.
Again, repentance means changing your lifestyle, turning away from following your own faulty and rebellious whims and following the way of abundant life that Christ has outlined in His commandments. The doctrine of faith without repentance ignores the commandments of Christ. Faith means that you believe Him and trust Him. Men's actions derive directly from their faith in what will bring them what they seek. That is why James declares, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18) Faith in Christ cannot mean disregard of His commandments. That would be faith in something or someone other than Christ.
I know of only one commandment of Christ repeated more often in the scriptures than the commandment to repent, namely the commandment to seek Christ. Jesus Christ has promised us that if we seek Him, we shall find Him. What do we do once we find Him? We believe Him and follow Him and embrace His way of living. That is faith in Christ. That is repentance, and that is life eternal. As Jesus said in prayer to the Father, the night before the crucifixion, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent." (John 17:3)
Perhaps the first is to ask, faith in what or whom? If one means faith in Christ, then I would ask how would one have faith in Christ without repenting of the sinful way of life and embracing the commandments that Christ has given us? Can you be said to have faith in Christ and yet reject the walk of life that He commanded us to follow? Following that way of life is repentance.
Second, advocating that faith is enough, without repentance, is to use the concept of faith to avoid repentance. It is using the concept of faith to avoid doing what Christ commanded us to do, to avoid living the way of life He set out for us. It is to invoke faith in order to doubt what He said. I do not remember the Savior or His prophets ever teaching that. It is a Satanic doctrine that destroys both repentance and faith--and dishonors the Christ who gave us His commandments.
Again, repentance means changing your lifestyle, turning away from following your own faulty and rebellious whims and following the way of abundant life that Christ has outlined in His commandments. The doctrine of faith without repentance ignores the commandments of Christ. Faith means that you believe Him and trust Him. Men's actions derive directly from their faith in what will bring them what they seek. That is why James declares, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18) Faith in Christ cannot mean disregard of His commandments. That would be faith in something or someone other than Christ.
I know of only one commandment of Christ repeated more often in the scriptures than the commandment to repent, namely the commandment to seek Christ. Jesus Christ has promised us that if we seek Him, we shall find Him. What do we do once we find Him? We believe Him and follow Him and embrace His way of living. That is faith in Christ. That is repentance, and that is life eternal. As Jesus said in prayer to the Father, the night before the crucifixion, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent." (John 17:3)
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Of Christ and Christmas Trees
In a few days we will take down our Christmas tree. We will remove the ornaments, the lights, the strings of silver beads. We will remove the angel ornament that stands now and each year of many years has stood atop the tree. As we do, we will retain the reflections on what the Christmas tree symbolizes for us. It may be the most powerful symbol that decorates our Christmas celebration.
The symbolism of the evergreen tree may be familiar to many, a reminder that Christ is the author of immortality and eternal life for man. The conical shape of the tree points the mind heavenward, like the spires of a Temple.
After bringing the tree into the house each season the first thing that I place on the tree, and the last that I remove, is the figure of an angel sounding a trumpet and holding a book. He reminds us of the prophecy of John, fulfilled in modern days: “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and unto every nation, kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 14:6,7)
The second thing that I do is cover the tree in lights. In my mind I am seeking to create a reminder of the stars in the sky, representing the creations of God that extend beyond this world throughout the universe, a universe filled with the children of God. As the modern-day prophet, Joseph Smith, heard the Heavenly Voice proclaim, by and through Jesus Christ “the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:24)
I like to think that the strings of silver beads, reflecting the light of the tree, represent the sons and daughters of God joined together in their faith in and acceptance of the Savior, reflecting His light, resting on His strength.
On our Christmas tree, like many trees of many families, we have a wide number and wide variety of ornaments. There are cartoon characters, seashells, ballerinas, birds, pianos and other musical instruments, fruits and candies. Each year, high on the tree, is an ornament with a silhouette of the Washington Temple. Nearby is a small, crystal oyster shell with a pearl inside—a reminder of the pearl of great price that the Savior taught in a parable was the gospel of life, that a man sold all he had to possess. There are boats, bells, animals, and fairy tale figures. There are symbols of our free nation, the Senate, the Congress, the President, all elected to represent the people and preserve the freedoms of our nation. There are reminders of family and friends, gifts from grandparents, children, and neighbors.
These ornaments may be the most significant Christmas symbols of all. As diverse as they may seem, they are all part of the same message. From the Testimony of John we have this record of the Savior’s words, describing His mission to the children of God: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10) Similarly, the ancient American prophet, Mormon, testified two centuries later, that “in Christ there should come every good thing. And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ” (Moroni 7:22,24). And so we fill our Christmas tree with memories of the good things that we have received—material and immaterial, intellectual, spiritual, and physical—all through Jesus Christ. Even while we put away our tree and its trimmings for another year, we set about gathering all the good things of that abundant life that Christ promised to all who would follow Him.
The symbolism of the evergreen tree may be familiar to many, a reminder that Christ is the author of immortality and eternal life for man. The conical shape of the tree points the mind heavenward, like the spires of a Temple.
After bringing the tree into the house each season the first thing that I place on the tree, and the last that I remove, is the figure of an angel sounding a trumpet and holding a book. He reminds us of the prophecy of John, fulfilled in modern days: “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and unto every nation, kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 14:6,7)
The second thing that I do is cover the tree in lights. In my mind I am seeking to create a reminder of the stars in the sky, representing the creations of God that extend beyond this world throughout the universe, a universe filled with the children of God. As the modern-day prophet, Joseph Smith, heard the Heavenly Voice proclaim, by and through Jesus Christ “the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:24)
I like to think that the strings of silver beads, reflecting the light of the tree, represent the sons and daughters of God joined together in their faith in and acceptance of the Savior, reflecting His light, resting on His strength.
On our Christmas tree, like many trees of many families, we have a wide number and wide variety of ornaments. There are cartoon characters, seashells, ballerinas, birds, pianos and other musical instruments, fruits and candies. Each year, high on the tree, is an ornament with a silhouette of the Washington Temple. Nearby is a small, crystal oyster shell with a pearl inside—a reminder of the pearl of great price that the Savior taught in a parable was the gospel of life, that a man sold all he had to possess. There are boats, bells, animals, and fairy tale figures. There are symbols of our free nation, the Senate, the Congress, the President, all elected to represent the people and preserve the freedoms of our nation. There are reminders of family and friends, gifts from grandparents, children, and neighbors.
These ornaments may be the most significant Christmas symbols of all. As diverse as they may seem, they are all part of the same message. From the Testimony of John we have this record of the Savior’s words, describing His mission to the children of God: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10) Similarly, the ancient American prophet, Mormon, testified two centuries later, that “in Christ there should come every good thing. And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ” (Moroni 7:22,24). And so we fill our Christmas tree with memories of the good things that we have received—material and immaterial, intellectual, spiritual, and physical—all through Jesus Christ. Even while we put away our tree and its trimmings for another year, we set about gathering all the good things of that abundant life that Christ promised to all who would follow Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)