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.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)