Bastiat on redistributionism

I've been seeing a lot of vile and irrational things going around the Mormon blogs lately, even ignoring all the post-Proposition 8 business. One blog takes a few humorous jabs at the some of it. But as I said in my previous post, the principles in question are fatally serious. A quote from Bastiat seems appropriate at this time:

See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law - which may be an isolated case - is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

Prophetic.

Capitalism

I have some less political topics I've been meaning to write about, but I think this also deserves an official blog post. From the comments:

The debate^* between capitalism and socialism is, in my estimation, the most important moral question of our time. It is nothing less than the War in Heaven, rehashed on Earth in modern times.

* "Debate" is a misleading term. On the scientific side, it has been known with certainty for many decades now that the free market is the only sustainable economic situation. On the moral side, the wickedness of anticapitalism should be readily evident to anyone with a knowledge of the restored truth of our purpose on Earth.

Interesting news

You should know that Google is based in California and owns Blogger (who hosts this blog, for which I'm grateful). Apparently, Google is opposed to Proposition 8.

Update 11/9/08: The link above is now dead, as that blog has moved to another host.

Mass confusion at TempleStudy.com

See the blog entry and comments here. I wanted to post the following, but Bryce had already closed the comments by the time I even noticed the entry:

Bryce, you believe it's wrong "when the government takes money from one group of people to give it to another," but you also believe that "The government has every right to mandate a tax"? This seems contradictory to me. What else are taxes used for, but to forcibly transfer wealth from some people to others?

I'm with you and President Benson on Obama, but the same applies to every other candidate (including the "third parties"). They are all evil men with devilish purposes.

The comments there are a case study in latter-day apostasy, with many of the most popular LDS fallacies being expressed at one point or another. Bryce seems to grant Ezra Taft Benson papal infallibility. Austin claims that there's nothing wrong with voting for a Democrat, because after all, our leaders said so. Rameumptom gives some extensive and frankly disgusting quotes from Dallin Oaks about our supposed duty to pay taxes and even serve in the military. Much of this essentially amounts to law-worship, a rampant problem in the modern Church. Oddly, Bryce, Chris, and others seem to think that Hugh Nibley's political opinions matter. Brad cites President Benson's oft-quoted claim that "the living prophets always take precedence," an arbitrary and manifestly self-serving doctrine. He later equates voluntary charity with theft, before descending completely into several appeals to authority and personal attacks.

One commenter, Ben, seems to get it right, but I can only imagine he'll be voting for a lesser evil anyway. "Follow the Prophet" and all that.

The Correctness of Atheism: Talking Heads

Everyone is trying to get to the bar.
The name of the bar – the bar is called Heaven.
The band in Heaven, they play my favorite song.
Play it once again. Play it all night long.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

There is a party. Everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
could be so exciting – could be so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over, it will start again.
It will not be any different; it will be exactly the same.
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
could be so exciting – could be this much fun.

Yeah, Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

– "Heaven" by the Talking Heads

As a child, before joining the Church, I was always depressed by the concept of Heaven. When I hear this song, it brings back those memories, along with an appreciation for restored truths about the afterlife.

Proposition 8

I used to live in California, so Proposition 8 is of some interest to me.

There is a diversity of arguments floating around the Internet in favor of Proposition 8. One argument, of course, is that homosexuality is sinful and therefore laws against it are legitimate. I hope that the satanic nature of the argument "if X is immoral then X should be illegal" is clear to most readers.

Among arguments that aren't blatantly authoritarian, there is the idea that, if gay marriage is recognized by the state, then the Church will be forced to recognize it (link, link). Many of the proponents of this argument recognize that the root problem with state-licensed gay marriage is the state licensing. But they still support Proposition 8. This position seems dishonest to me. If you want to defend traditional marriage with state violence, then write a law that affirms your right to discriminate. This I would support wholeheartedly, even to the point of voting for it. But the nature of the movement to avoid state-recognized gay marriage indicates to me that its members do not have good intentions.

I would not vote for Proposition 8, even if I could. I only vote in self-defense.

Our Duty to the Government

I've danced around this topic here in the past, but let me put it bluntly now. We have no duty to the U.S. government as it now operates.

2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life...

4. We believe... that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments...

- D&C 134

Argumentum ad misericordiam

As stated on Wikipedia,

An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam) is a logical fallacy in which someone tries to win support for their argument or idea by exploiting her or his opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.

There is a great temptation for Mormons, given our history of incredible hardship, to resort to this kind of fallacious argument. "True to the truth for which martyrs have perished," right? One recent and somewhat more trivial example is evident in this thread on the Word of Wisdom*, in which one commenter states:

For those who drink green tea and feel it is okay, I'd like to see you justify that to a very dedicated and active Japanese saint. Green tea isn't just something that some people drink in Japan, it is cultural. EVERYONE drinks it! It is something very difficult for investigators to give up and it requires a lot of faith to do so.

The problem with using an appeal to pity in support of the Church (or in defense of any particular religious idea) is that there are innumerable religious traditions in the world that cause or encourage suffering, or have attracted persecution. Are we to take any of this as evidence in their favor?

* I know I often reference Mormanity; there are a number of reasons for this. It is one of the few LDS-themed blogs I visit regularly, largely because of the quality of many of Jeff's posts. But also, the nature of its content seems to draw out a pretty representative cross-section of Church membership, and so in many ways it is a microcosm of thought in the Church.

The Correctness of Atheism: Atlas Shrugged

From Ayn Rand's famous novel:

Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not...

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge — he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil — he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor — he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire — he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy — all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was — that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love — he was not man.

Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain — and they point at the torture rack to which they've tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.

They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth — and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.

They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost — yet such is their image of man's nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable exists...

What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say — and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge — God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body...

Scripture

A central fact about the scriptures (in this post I limit the use of the term "scripture" to the Standard Works) that is often overlooked or not appreciated is that they are narratives. That is, the scriptures are first- or third-person accounts. This is almost universally true; only in the Book of Mormon is the modern reader ever addressed (see Mormon 8:35 for example).

A reasonable working definition of "scripture," for my purposes here, is an account of a religious nature. For simplicity, we will assume at present that the scriptures are accurate accounts. Then what is the proper role of the scriptures in our lives?

It may be best to begin by observing their improper use. The scriptures are not a handbook for good living, nor do they contain one. As observed before, the writings of Paul are often misconstrued as universal instructions. This is no doubt largely due to the fact that they are written in the second-person; that is, they are addressed to the reader. But the reader in question belonged to a very specific group that existed millennia ago. Paul's letters were never intended to be universal. Another example is the Doctrine and Covenants, which is much less narrative than other works and is full of instructions for specific individuals that are often extended to whole groups or the entire Church membership today. The dangers of the practice are probably much lower in this case than with Paul's writings, in part because the historical context of each section of the D&C is very clear.

While there are some few scriptures that seem to contain universal guidelines (see for example the teachings of Matthew 5, though many of these are very open to interpretation), the vast majority of scripture is simply an account of the relationship of God with man. As such, the best use of scripture is to shed light on the details of that relationship.

And not only can the scriptures teach us how God interacts with man, but also how man tends to interact with God, and the consequences. It is generally accepted in the Church that the abridgement of the Book of Mormon, from a far more extensive historical record, was guided by a foreknowledge of modern conditions. Mormon 8:35, mentioned before, is often cited in support of this:

Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

In any case, all the true scriptures in the Standard Works are immensely valuable for the purpose of understanding God and how he operates, and studying them and applying that understanding consistently is the first step toward knowing him. Notice that I did not say to obey the scriptures, or follow them, or live according to them. To use an example from an earlier post, if I lived according to 1 Nephi 4, I would probably end up killing someone. But one of the understandings I've gained from that scripture is about the relationship between preparation and revelation.

More excuses

I have been in various stages of moving over the past month or two, and while I had hoped to minimize the effects of this process on my writing, internet providers being as they are, this was not possible. But the moving process is now largely over.

To be honest, I have been strongly discouraged from what I have been trying to do here by many factors. Among these is the constant disappointment I feel with so many in the Church being willing to invent doctrine to support their internally inconsistent worldviews. On that note, I again invite anyone able to provide support for the idea that so-called personal revelation must not be shared.

On Monday I will return to the regular schedule with a subject that I have been wanting to discuss for a long time.

The Correctness of Atheism: Human Action

As I mentioned in my first two posts, I have a great deal of respect for rational atheism, given the vast majority of arguments put forth by those who hold religious beliefs. Attentive Mormons would do well to note that the most eloquent works containing attacks on the belief in God usually reveal the fact that the authors arrived at their atheism in reaction to religious dogmas explicitly denounced by prophets like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

One such work is Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises. (Incidentally, I hold this book as the greatest and most important work ever written in the secular realm, and those who are confused as to the true meaning of capitalism/voluntaryism would do well to read it.) I quote below a section of the text, and leave it to you to examine Mises' objections in the light of LDS doctrine.

Scholastic philosophers and theologians and likewise Theists and Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being, and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke. An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty. If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent. For an all-powerful being there is no pressure to choose between various states of uneasiness; he is not under the necessity of acquiescing in the lesser evil. Omnipotence would mean the power to achieve everything and to enjoy full satisfaction without being restrained by any limitations. But this is incompatible with the very concept of action. For an almighty being the categories of ends and means do not exist. He is above all human comprehension, concepts, and understanding. For the almighty being every "means" renders unlimited services, he can apply every "means" for the attainment of any ends, he can achieve every end without the employment of any means...

Are omnipotence and omniscience compatible? Omniscience presupposes that all future happenings are already unalterably determined. If there is omniscience, omnipotence is inconceivable. Impotence to change anything in the predetermined course of events would restrict the power of any agent.

Action is a display of potency and control that are limited. It is a manifestation of man who is restrained by the circumscribed powers of his mind, the physiological nature of his body, the vicissitudes of his environment, and the scarcity of the external factors on which his welfare depends... The very idea of absolute perfection is in every way self-contradictory. The state of absolute perfection must be conceived as complete, final, and not exposed to any change. Change could only impair its perfection and transform it into a less perfect state; the mere possibility that a change can occur is incompatible with the concept of absolute perfection. But the absence of change — i.e., perfect immutability, rigidity and immobility — is tantamount to the absence of life. Life and perfection are incompatible, but so are death and perfection.

Where have I been (again)?

To put it briefly (and maintain my quasi-anonymity), I have been very busy, hopefully for the last time this year. But I have also been pondering, and searching for an answer to, a question regarding "personal" revelation.

Jeff Lindsay recently wrote about

...inappropriate claims of divine guidance for matters relevant to the whole Church...

and in a similar vein, a commenter here wrote that

...a person may receive revelation about the future or even about someone else over whom they don't have spiritual stewardship, but they have to keep it to themselves.

I am trying to determine exactly where these ideas come from. So any supporting material for the belief that "personal" revelation must not be shared would be appreciated.

Humility

Humility is the quality or condition of being humble, which is defined as

Thinking lowly of one's self; claiming little for one's self... thinking one's self ill-deserving or unworthy, when judged by the demands of God; lowly; weak; modest.

As noted in the link above, the word humble comes "from Latin humilis on the ground, low."

Humility, defined in this way, is not an absolute virtue. The principle behind humility, and the truly absolute virtue, could be described better as accurate self-valuation. In other words, if I have goals on a grander scale than my immediate personal needs, it is vital to see those needs and other aspects of myself in the proper perspective. At the same time, if I am vital in some way to those grand goals, I must keep that in mind as well. This second point is the reason that the word humility is inadequate to describe the principle in question.

When Moses was called to be a prophet, he was too humble (Exodus 4), for which he was reprimanded. An attitude of humility ("thinking lowly of one's self") would be counterproductive for someone in Moses' position. However, it seems that the principle I am referring to is often described as humility in the scriptures. Jesus declared himself to be the Son of God and spoke of his power (see for example Matthew 26), but he, and even God the Father, are called humble.

The fact is that, for the vast majority of people, the principle of accurate self-valuation is synonymous with humility because that is the direction they need to move in order to valuate themselves accurately. On the other hand, on rare occasions too much humility could lead to incorrect and even dangerous decisions.

Update on the Heller case

(as mentioned before.)

Like the previous one, this post is "extra" since it is outside the domain of issues I want to address in the regular posts. But I think this is interesting enough to mention:

The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias. (source)

This is rather unexpected good news. I heard from a reliable source that NBC correspondent Pete Williams said "This is the first time in American history that the United States Supreme Court has said what the Second Amendment means."

No, they are still far from the mark. But it seems that the slide into totalitarianism will be slowed for a while. Instead, the current level of injustice, with regard to gun rights, will hold while the oppressors rework their strategies.

A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

This statement can only be explained by blatant dishonesty, or a degree of historical ignorance that even I find surprising from a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Is Charles Key a Mormon?

This story makes me wonder. Does anyone happen to know? Some relevant excerpts:

Joint House Resolution 1089, passed by an overwhelming 92-3 margin, reasserts Oklahoma's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution's own language, is "serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."...

Charles Key, the Republican state representative who authored the resolution, told WND that he introduced it because he believes the federal government's overstepping of its bounds has put our constitutional form of government in danger.

"The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time," he said. "The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread."

By my standards, the thread snapped more than a few decades ago. And unfortunately, Mr. Key and his colleagues have a pretty disgusting motivation for challenging the federal government at this particular moment:

[Oklahoma] became a hotbed of federal vs. state authority clashes earlier this month when a federal judge blocked a portion of Oklahoma's tough immigration laws, ruling that plaintiffs would likely establish that the state mandates preempted federal immigration laws.

Oklahoma's immigration statute, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, originated as House Bill 1804 (co-authored, incidentally, by Key). It has been characterized by USA Today as "arguably the nation's toughest state law targeting illegal immigration."

Prepare for Revelation

Revelation will likely be a central topic of this blog. I particularly refer to so-called "personal" (i.e. non-authoritative or individual) revelation. One of the most useful ways to prepare to receive revelation is to be prepared to act on that knowledge if it comes. For example, if someone who is acquainting himself with the Church (usually called an "investigator" by missionaries and others) wishes to receive a real answer as to whether it is true, he should understand the consequences of a positive answer. In other words, he should be willing to be baptized if he receives such a confirmation.

In many cases, such as the one just described, we know what knowledge we seek and can therefore prepare ourselves appropriately. At other times, God may prepare us for an instruction we wouldn't have sought. For example, Nephi was told:

Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart. And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands. (1 Nephi 2)

Some time later, Nephi learned that this knowledge had prepared him for further instruction:

6 And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do.
7 Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.
8 And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.
9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.
10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword. (1 Nephi 4, see 1 Nephi 3 for full background)

Perhaps even Nephi would not have been willing to kill Laban if he didn't understand the consequences of that refusal.

When we prepare ourselves, we are ready to do what is necessary – if we learn that it is. In essence, we commit ourselves ahead of time. If we can't make that commitment, we may not be ready to receive the knowledge we think we want. If doing what is right would cost us more than we are willing to give, we may never learn what is right. One example of this is in testing the counsel of the leaders of the Church. As true latter-day saints, we must seek individual spiritual confirmation of every instruction we receive. To fully prepare for that, we must acknowledge the possibility that such a confirmation might not be given.

What then?

No post this week

Too busy. Busy, busy. Next week.

Update 6/23/2008: It turned out to be a very busy month, but I'm back.

The Imperative of Personal Revelation

About a week and a half ago, I was directed to write about a certain well-known passage from 1 Nephi 15. By way of background for those who aren't familiar with it, it is an experience related by Nephi. Nephi was the son of Lehi, a self-described "visionary man." Without getting into too many specifics, on one occasion, Lehi had spoken rather cryptically to Nephi and his other sons. Nephi took Lehi's inspired words very seriously and asked God for greater understanding, upon which he was given a spectacular vision. Meanwhile, Nephi's brothers argued amongst themselves about the meaning of Lehi's words. As Nephi tells it,

...I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts? Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said? – If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.

It is the right and duty of each of us to receive knowledge directly from God. Just as Nephi's brothers were not justified in merely being instructed by their father, a prophet and their legitimate leader, we too must go beyond mere scripture study and following our leaders, and embrace the privilege – and even necessity – of personal revelation. By this I mean revelation on the level of prophecies and visions; these are attainable by every person with pure heart, regardless of position.

The Pendulum

Modern religion is plagued by the overcompensating swing of the pendulum. When the early Church was struggling out of the old ways of Judaism and the Law of Moses, with its many specifics and tight focus on actions (i.e. works), Paul wrote to those who clung to the old ways, downplaying the importance of works and emphasizing the saving grace of the atonement. Today, much of mainstream Christianity proclaims "sola fide," applying the teachings of Paul completely out of context and erring in the opposite direction.

It was a regular occurrence, from Moses' time down to Jesus Christ, for the Israelites to venerate their ancient (dead) prophets while rejecting and even stoning the equally valid modern (living) ones. While this practice continues in mainstream Christianity, in the LDS Church we have swung over to err in the opposite direction; the living President is considered by most to take precedence over all past prophets, to the point that irreconcilable contradictions – even on points of doctrine – are automatically judged in favor of the modern leader.

In these ways and others, Satan causes great confusion through man's tendency to oscillate.

Sin 2

The second category is sins against oneself. Perhaps most prominent in this category are sexual sins (other than adultery, which is against one's spouse).

This kind of sin hinders one's eternal progress – the Challenge to Become – or demonstrates one's lack of progress. The equivalence between these functions of second-category sin underlies Jesus' teachings on thoughts and actions. Note that this does not apply to sin against others per se; however, all sins against others are also sins against oneself, as diagrammed very simply below.



In a sense, you can look at these "categories" of sins also as the external and internal components of any given sin. For example, theft has obvious external effects, and also the internal corrupting consequences. From an eternal perspective, however, it is the internal component of sin – the consequences for the sinner – that is generally the more important. Observing this fact is vital to understanding the relative severity of sins. Only upon reflecting on our central goal, to become like our Heavenly Father in every way, does it make sense to classify some consensual (that is, purely second-category) sins such as homosexuality almost on a par with murder.

Sin 1

It occurred to me some time ago that a useful way to think about sins is to sort them into two categories.

The first category is sins against others. These should be obvious; if you physically harm someone, you have sinned against him. If you lie to someone to his detriment, frustrate his goals without cause, or steal from him, you have sinned against him.

More subtly, if you deny someone his agency, even with the intent to protect him, you have sinned against him. This is the injustice of drug, gambling, and prostitution laws, social programs, etc. Taken to its logical conclusion -- planned on an absolute and universal basis -- this was the sin that caused Satan to be expelled with those who followed him.

Addendum

JayFlow22 asks,

Where do we draw the line on making laws to govern our society with and "denying agency with the intent to protect"?

This is a topic I expected to address more deeply later. In the mean time, I'll quote from a great speech by Ezra Taft Benson, given as a former Cabinet member:

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government...

[T]he proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator...

An important test I use in passing judgement upon an act of government is this: If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so? Since my conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he has failed to do something which I have a moral right to require of him to do, I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government, to do this on my behalf...

I have no right to stop you from using marijuana in your home, or hiring a prostitute, or playing cards for money. In short, I have no right to stop you from doing anything that does not physically harm me. Nor do I have the right to force your children to attend school, or force you to pay for mine. Therefore my agent has no such rights.

To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient. If I could only force the ignorant to provide for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn?

The President of the Church

He is called of God, like Jonah. He receives divine instructions in order to lead the Church, like Moses. By virtue of his office and by the power of the Holy Spirit, he may prophecy, like Caiaphas. He guides the people according to their needs and desires, like Moses and Samuel. Lastly, he is our legitimate leader and, however righteous we may be, we should seek his guidance, following Nephi's example.

Guns and Butter

A possible news item from next year:

MORMON COUPLE INDICTED FOR FOOD HOARDING

Couple Invested Heavily to Forestall Any Food Shortage

WASHINGTON - Indictments were returned by a Federal Grand Jury here today against Medical Director Francis Smith Nash, and his wife, Caroline Nash, charging them with violation of Section 6 of the Food Control act in having large quantities of flour, rice, and other foodstuffs in their possession, to the value of $1,923.36.

In a statement issued by the Food Administration it was alleged that the food hoarded was sufficient to maintain the family for more than a year and hence far in excess of the requirements for thirty days, the period recognized by Food Administrator Hoover as a "reasonable one" for residents of cities.

This is the first indictment for individual food hoarding, it was said at the Food Administration, that has been brought since the food control law was enacted.

The case attracted much interest here because of the prominence of Dr. and Mrs. Nash in the local community. The only comment of the Food Administration was that its officers were ready at all times to proceed against hoarders, regardless of their social standing, and that the charge would be followed to the end.

Dr. and Mrs. Nash have a beautiful home at 1723 Q Street, Northwest. It was said that when officials of the Food Administration visited it they found conditions which seemed to indicate that it had been turned into a storehouse for many foodstuffs which Food Administrator Hoover had believed might run short because of the economic conditions.

In connection with the raid, which was conducted by local Administrator Wilson, the Food Administrator issued an official statement which said:

"The Medical Director has admitted his violation. With his knowledge of probable conditions that would follow a prolonged recession, he foresaw a scarcity of food. So, since the first sign of economic trouble, he has been investing his money in foodstuffs, storing them in his house against possible years of great food shortage."

Actually, I copied this, with small changes, from a true news item published in 1918. As others have noted, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the food storage the latter-day saints have been told for so long to maintain may become vitally necessary to many of them in the near future. Beyond the obvious economic warning signs, the above story and other historical facts outline another important reason to be prepared: the federal government can and will remove our freedoms at the drop of a hat. The outcry against "hoarding" and the related act of "price gouging" in the wake of Hurricane Katrina make it painfully clear that the philosophical climate in the U.S. today would present little opposition to another Food Control Act.

But beyond food storage, I would highly recommend that every functional family should be in possession of at least a few firearms in the coming months. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the case that challenges the D.C. gun ban. Best-case scenario: handguns are (legally) reintroduced to a city that desperately needs them. Worst-case: the Supreme Court decides that gun ownership is a "collective right," and cities around the country begin confiscation.

If you've been paying attention, you should know that the fact that "collective right" is a contradiction in terms is not enough to guarantee the correct ruling. It should also be clear, even if the case is decided rightly, that eventual nationwide disarmament of the populace is almost inevitable.

The tragic mistake that Dr. Nash made was to let it be known to someone outside his family that he had illegal quantities of food. Now, the time will come when, in order to live safely, we must break the law. Indeed, while

We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society,

it is also true that

no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life

(D&C 134:1-2). The conditions under which we are obliged to the government are given in even more clear language in verse 5:

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments...

We will not long be protected in those rights, if it can even be said that we are now. So the time will come to ignore the law, but it would not be wise to provoke it. When prudence is again made illegal, be prudent in secret. When the gun registration lists are used as a guide for confiscation, do not register. When obedience is death, disobey and live.

The Keystone of Our Religion

Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it.

- Ezra Taft Benson

More than once in the past week I have heard the troubling idea that, if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith and all of his successors down to Thomas Monson are true prophets. This thinking is not only illogical, but dangerous. Certainly if the Book of Mormon is false, then the presidents of the Church from Joseph Smith on lose all credibility. But if the Book of Mormon is true, nothing can be inferred about those who came after Joseph Smith.

Going further, even if the presidents of the Church are what they claim (that is, they hold the priesthood keys and the authority to receive revelation for the Church), that's no guarantee for the truth of their every statement. This is something that I wish to write about much more in the near future, but this week I am short on time.

Obedience to God

It has been my experience that God's knowledge and understanding are perfect, or at least indistinguishable from perfection when compared to mine, and his intentions are impeccable, so his advice (or "commandments" or whatever you want to call it) is valuable and should be followed. I share God’s goals and don’t have an issue with them as far as I understand them, which I think is pretty well.

The word "obedience" is a (usually inadequate) shortcut for describing my relationship with God. It is the kind of obedience you would render to a trusted advisor: willing and self-interested. More accurately, my attitude toward God's will is informed trust.

God's Existence

Until I met and married my wife, my best friend was an agnostic. In general, I have long identified much more with agnostics and other atheists than with members of any religion, including my own, even to this day. I think this is because I understand and respect atheists as largely rational thinkers, whereas a belief in the existence of God that I vaguely share with others, but for very different reasons, is not enough to bind my affections to them.

In some questions, there is a shortcut to reasonable belief that is often useful or even necessary. That shortcut is to borrow the knowledge of others. For example, Wikipedia is a wonderful resource to learn facts about nearly any conceivable subject, and for most subjects its content is roughly governed by the knowledge of people who are better-informed than I am. I think I am right to assume, when reading an article about Victorian England, that I can trust its contents. In fact, I have few viable means of learning about Victorian England other than consulting with others who claim to know.

As for the question at hand, the majority of people, or at least Americans, believe that God exists. While many people lazily borrow that supposed knowledge, Atheists recognize the fact that those believers never offer a rational explanation of their belief or knowledge. Instead, an assortment of justifications are given, ranging from absurd (eg. "the Bible says so, and there's plenty of evidence for the Bible") or anti-intellectual (eg. "if we had proof, we wouldn't need faith") to pseudoscientific (eg. "the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution").

It is understandable that a rational person would discard a belief put forth on irrational grounds – even, more to his credit, if put forth by the majority of people. Borrowing such beliefs is simply unacceptable, and I too would be an atheist if that were my only option. But the fact is that there is a means by which to learn of God's existence, and it is by asking him.

Over the course of history, quite a few people have claimed to have had meaningful two-way communication with God. Clearly, it is impossible to fully verify these claims, but it is possible to try to reproduce them. In fact, the most intellectually honest of these claims are paired with an invitation. I wish to do the same now. I have communicated with God. I have heard his voice, and he has proven his existence to me. I know that God exists, and because I was willing to talk to him, he answered me and I am beginning to understand things that I otherwise never could have. If you talk to him, in all honesty, he will respond. Try it.

I want to write about this, and its implications, in more detail in the coming weeks. Until then.

Rational Mormonism

My intentions with this blog are to encourage and celebrate the use of reason in the understanding of religious subjects; to encourage thinking people, who happen to be Mormon, to be rational in evaluating their thoughts and actions; and to explain to people who, like myself, strive to think logically, and who understandably do not believe in God, how I know what I do.

Too often, Mormons identify with other self-proclaimed Christians, people who overwhelmingly – and often overtly – shun reason. Too often agnostics, reaching their conclusions through an honest process, overlook Mormon reasoning because our beliefs are disguised as just another Christian "faith." True Mormonism, as brought forth by Joseph Smith, demands rational thought in evaluating its claims, a kind of rational thought that is rejected all too often, even by lifelong LDS Church members, much to their harm. Such are the issues I wish to address.