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).

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.