Some Choice!!!

Yesterday, a die-hard, grass-roots conservative said to me, “If I had to choose between government corruption and corporate corruption, I would choose the corporate.” He does not seem aware that much of the current government corruption is “purchased” by huge corporations in order to enhance and protect their own (not just national, but) global profits and devastations. He has bought into the Libertarian idea that government regulation is the root of (unfortunate) free-market and social evils. He, like most of his ideological mates, is utterly naïve about the true nemesis of a Zion society.

Babylon is happy to point her engorged finger at government. She is delighted to deflect attention from her abuses. She is thrilled to shift blame. She spends millions attempting to silence voices of warning. And more millions to produce enough pop, porn, paraphernalia, and propaganda to keep people sufficiently sick, addicted, debt-ridden, and deceived that the voices go unheard. Voices like:

The Future of Food ¹
Inside Job ²
You, Me & the SPP ³
The World According to Monsanto ⁴
Toxic Sludge is Good for You! ⁵
Sweet Remedy: Adulterated Food Supply ⁶
Corporate Crime and Violence ⁷

This is but a miniscule sample of the voices crying in the latter-day wilderness. Perhaps we could take an hour or two a day for ONE week and listen. Would it make a difference? Would we finally clue in that the (déjà vu) “natural man”⁸ operating in the artificial form of a faux-person has become an insatiable, collectivized, rampaging beast?

---------------------------/
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Food ; http://www.thefutureoffood.com/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film) ; http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/inside-job/
3. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/trading-democracy-for-corporate-rule/ http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/you-me-and-the-spp-trading-democracy-for-corporate-rule-video_06d2f63f7.html ;
4. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
5. http://www.prwatch.org/tsigfy.html ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaMh8KGfkTM
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUubCJz2d8U or http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sweet-remedy/
7. by Russell Mokhiber. Read his 1988 book entitled, Corporate Crime and Violence: Big Business Power and the Abuse of the Public Trust. Things have not improved. http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/editorial.html
8. (Old Testament Ecclesiastes 9:3) … the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, … ; (Old Testament Jeremiah 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? ; (New Testament Romans 8:7) … the carnal mind is enmity against God: …. ; (Book of Mormon Mosiah 3:19) For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

“If it were possible …”

There seems to be a certain complacency amongst some of my fellow Christians that in the last days, “the very elect” will not be deceived because it will be impossible to deceive them. They count on the Lord’s words:

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (New Testament Matthew 24:24)

Some seem to think “the very elect” are immune to deception because they know the truth; they have the gift of discernment; they are in tune to the things of God. Others take comfort in the backup alternative that “very elect,” trusted leaders will never be deceived. Thus, they think, the rank-and-file should not be unduly concerned. If they themselves are not “elect” enough, their leaders are. Therefore, the safe and sure course is to “Follow the Leader.”

But what if the signs and wonders are so GREAT that EVERYONE would be deceived—even the very elect—were it not for direct, personal revelation from God exposing the deceptions? In other words, full-scale deception will not be possible ONLY because God will intervene.

We might think this creates but two categories: 1) deceived followers of false Christs and false prophets; and 2) “the very elect” who are not deceived (and who reject the false Christs and false prophets) because they are able and willing to receive personal revelation. But what if there is a third group constituting an unsuspected peril for the rank-and-file Christian? What if there are some “very elect” who, with their eyes opened to the deceptions, choose, for whatever reason, to side with the false Christs and false prophets? Or seek to become one?

Is that why we have been counseled innumerable times not to trust in the arm of flesh? Why we are tutored, often in painful ways, to learn how to recognize and listen to the voice of the Spirit? Is that what the gift of the Holy Ghost is largely about?

Offspring (or something less)?

“Just thinking.” “Let my people think.” These are watchwords of an organization of powerful and thoughtful Christians (RZIM) who are striving to make a positive difference in the world. But, like almost every soul who has ever lived, have they attached themselves to assumptions that are stalling further enlightenment? How often do we all carry forward the mindsets of our families, cultures, religious beliefs, secular understandings, etc. to the point of being unable to think or even reason beyond them? Can we not take a lesson from the Apostle Peter and his vision of the clean and the unclean?^[1] Shouldn’t we be open to the entire scriptural texts as well as enlightenments of the spirit? Do we not sometimes need to rethink our assumptions—test our presumed knowledge?

I ask these questions because of recent publicity and comment relating to Mormon teachings about the identity and destiny of man. So much criticism have been levied without apparent awareness of text and history supporting the Mormon view that man is the offspring of God; that his mortal identity and destiny have revealing parallels to his eternal identity and destiny.

I intended, when time allowed, to research and write an apologia of the Mormon view, but today I encountered a devotional address that says it all far better than I could have done. Here then, for the inquiring mind, is the reason why Mormons believe that identity and destiny are eternal concepts.

Devotional address given at Brigham Young University on August 14, 2012 by Tad R. Callister, entitled, “Our Identity and Our Destiny” found at

http://byutv.org/watch/796f060f-dd2a-4e47-b350-da6ec6e214e0/byu-devotional-elder-tad-r-callister-81412

-------------------------/
[1] New Testament Acts 10 & 11

Suffering in Silence

Where is the tipping point between silence and open questioning?

In listening to a recent TED talk* (“Dare to Disagree”), I wondered about our churches. I wondered whether the faithful (on all levels, in all faiths) do a disservice to themselves and their congregations by silent acceptance and obedience to things/decisions/practices that distress their spirit. How many faithful have found continued affiliation so painful or dissonant that their only recourse seemed to be to withdraw? If we spoke our concerns, would we find them shared? Would it make a difference?

In the 30s A.D., were there faithful Scribes, Sadducees, Pharisees (and common folk, too) who kept silent because potential conflict was to untenable in their culture of hierarchy and submission? Was Nicodemus one of those?** Is the choice between silence and conflict one of the persistent déjà vus of this life experience? What choices are we making? Are they for the best?

 -------------------------/
* http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_dare_to_disagree.html
** Like Joseph of Arimathaea (New Testament John 19:38; see also 12:42)

Ayn-alyzing ~ (3)

(More reflections on Ayn Rand for Christian consideration)

IF the history of mankind, as recorded in Scripture, is a déjà vu litany of man’s delusions of grandeur, as in this small sampling:
(CAPITAL emphasis has been added in all quotes below.):

And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. (Old Testament Deuteronomy 8:17-18)

They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their OWN WAY, and be filled with their own devices. (Old Testament Proverbs 1:30-31)

Woe unto them that are wise in their OWN EYES, and prudent in their OWN SIGHT! (Old Testament Isaiah 5:21)

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his OWN WAY; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Old Testament Isaiah 53:6)

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their OWN WAY, every one for his gain, from his quarter. (Old Testament Isaiah 56:11)

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine OWN WAYS, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: (Old Testament Isaiah 58:13)

Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their OWN WAY have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD. (Old Testament Ezekiel 22:31)

… the more part of them had turned out of the way of righteousness, and did trample under their feet the commandments of God, and did turn unto their OWN WAYS, and did build up unto themselves idols of their gold and their silver. (Book of Mormon Helaman 6:31)

They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his OWN WAY, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. (Doctrine and Covenants Section 1:16)

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my people—you have many things to do and to repent of; for behold, your sins have come up unto me, and are not pardoned, because you seek to counsel in your OWN WAYS. (Doctrine and Covenants Section 56:14)

And the anger of God kindleth against the inhabitants of the earth; and none doeth good, for all have gone OUT OF THE WAY. (Doctrine and Covenants Section 82:6)

WHY THEN, do we not recognize that Ayn’s “new, original” philosophy is neither new nor original? All her heroes are obsessed with pursuing THEIR OWN WAY according to their own “rational” judgments. But then so are her despised anti-heroes—the ones who abuse and misuse power in pursuing distorted, corrupted visions of “social justice.”

Of course there are unending reasons to complain about mankind’s failings. And Ayn does plenty of that because in her worlds (real and fictional), reliable, competent creators and employees are so despairingly scarce. Her heroes are the exceptional, rational, incredible few that everyone else is trying to use or destroy.

Here are a few quotes from (or about) her heroes in Atlas Shrugged:

Dagny Taggart: “There was no flattered pleasure in his voice, and no modesty. This, she knew, was a tribute to her, that rarest one person could pay another: the tribute of feeling free to acknowledge one’s own greatness, knowing that it is understood” (p. 86). “I think that only if one feels immensely important can one feel truly light” (p. 150, 236).

Hank Rearden: “We haven’t any spiritual goals or qualities. All we’re after is material things. That’s all we care for. … whatever we are, it’s we who move the world and it’s we who’ll pull it through” (pp. 87-88). [To Dagny] “It’s I who produced that wealth and it’s I who am going to let it buy for me every kind of pleasure I want—including the pleasure of seeing how much I’m able to pay for—including the preposterous feat of turning you into a luxury object” (p. 371). “I work for nothing but my own profit. I earn it” (p. 480).

Francisco d’Anconia: “We are the only aristocracy left in the world—the aristocracy of money. … It’s the only real aristocracy, if people understood what it means, which they don’t” (p. 90). “The code of competence is the only system of morality that’s on a gold standard” (p. 100).

John Galt: “By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose” (p. 1014).

About herself, Ayn writes: “my life purpose is the creation of the kind of world (people and events) that I like—that is, that represents human perfection” (p. xvi).

Yes, Ayn and her heroes do expound many powerful truths about the dismal state of mortal affairs, but:

IF God is right that … “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:7-8); and

IF we are in the middle of a three-act play,^[1] without memory of the 1st Act and subject to revelation^[2] (by a more advanced Being/Director) on how to play the 2nd in preparation for the 3rd,

then maybe Ayn’s rational, “my way” achievement isn’t going to achieve what she and her devotees think. What if, “my way” cuts off further achievement in Act Three because gifts and mercy were rejected by the perfect man’s preference for 2nd-Act earnings and justice?

Ayn seems to reject any concept of a third act, having become fixated with achievements in Act Two. If there is a third act, maybe it transcends (but includes) rational. What if trans-rational seems irrational only because from our present view, we can’t (or prefer not to) tell the difference?

---------------------/
1. 1) Pre-mortal; 2) Mortal; 3) Post-mortal.
2. Or the “mystical, irrational,” as Ayn would call it.

Ayn-alyzing ~ (2)

(More reflections on Ayn Rand for Christian consideration.)

On the last pages of the 35th anniversary edition (Plume Book, 1992) of Atlas Shrugged, in a section entitled “About the Author,” we read:

“My personal life,” says Ayn Rand, “is a postscript to my novels: it consists of the sentence: ‘And I mean it.’ I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books—and it has worked for me, as it works for my characters. …” (p. 1170).

She describes her characters, heroes, (and self) thus:

It is proper for a creator to have an unlimited confidence in himself and his ability, to feel certain that he can get anything he wishes out of life, that he can accomplish anything he decides to accomplish, and that it up to him to do it. (He feels it because he is a man of reason …) … [But he must] not place his wish primarily within others and does not attempt or desire anything that is of a collective nature, anything that concerns others primarily or requires primarily the exercise of the will of others. (This would be an immoral desire or attempt, contrary to his nature as a creator.) If he attempts that, he is out of a creator’s province and in that of the collectivist and the second-hander (p. xii).

The trouble with Ayn however, (and her enthusiasts) is at least twofold. Firstly, the “over-optimism” and “over-confidence” in “man as heroic being”—i.e., in the creators, prime-movers, “ideal men” of her philosophy. About such men she wrote:

“I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don’t exist. That this book has been written—and published—is my proof that they do” (p. 1171).

[Wow! What a formula! “To write and publish = proof.”]

But back to “over-confidence” and “over-optimism.”

Ayn critiques her heroine Dagny for:

Over-optimism—in that she thinks men [second-handers, i.e. non-creators] are better than they are, she doesn’t really understand them and is generous about it.
Over-confidence—in that she thinks she can do more than an individual actually can [i.e., work with second-handers on a rational basis or as their motivator] (p. xi).

The parallel between the error-afflicted Dagny and the optimistic, idealistic Ayn might be written thus (= my proof!?)

Over-optimism—in that [Ayn] thinks men [“creators”] are better than they are, she doesn’t really understand them and is generous about it.
Over-confidence—in that she thinks she can do more than an individual actually can [i.e., accomplish many things of great import without some large element of the dreaded collective—like building/running a railroad, a steel mill, an oil refinery, a factory, etc., etc.]

All of which brings us to the second “trouble”: Ayn’s apparent inability to see inverse and parallels. She seems to have no awareness of “on the other hand.” Let’s take a small portion of John Galt’s radio address. He accuses the world he has abandoned:

… You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty (p. 1010).

In our corrupted, fallen world, some of that may be, too frequently, true, but what if we take the inverse? Might Christians not say to Ayn/John:

YOU [in your Objective/Subjective? style) have sacrificed mercy to [your sense of] justice. You have sacrificed unity to independence. You have sacrificed faith to reason. You have sacrificed need to wealth. You have sacrificed self-denial to self-esteem. You have sacrificed duty to happiness.

And might we not add? When is anything so cut and dried—so either/or? Isn’t most of life a synthesis? Justice AND mercy. Independence AND unity. Reason AND faith. Wealth AND need. Self-esteem AND self-denial. Happiness AND duty.

As admitted, Ayn profiles some unfortunate truths because our world is a revolving, recycling mess. And why is that? Is it not, in large measure, because too many of us are committed to having things/ ideas/ expectations/ rewards/ compensations/ relationships, etc. on OUR terms, in OUR way, according to OUR reason and nature, without acknowledging limited vision, comprehension, maturity, etc.—not to mention, our neighbor?

Ayn’s fictional elitists are convinced the world cannot exist without their “minds”—without their way of doing things. In short, Ayn is just one more in a long line of passionate, déjà vu advocates for “having it, doing it MY way.” Except, with her (God-given!) gifts, she has created epic, sympathetic anti-heroes—which leads us to a third “trouble.”

The third “trouble” is that Ayn’s deftness in comparing the worst corruptions of religion, society, and government to the superlative imaginations of “ideal man” has led many a good Christian down the garden path, past the tree of knowledge and into that twilight where John Galt “traced in space the sign of the dollar” (p. 1168).

----------------------/
For thoughts about another Ayn enthusiast who was also inverse-/parallel-challenged, see: http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2010/03/if-how-what.html

Ayn-alyzing ~ (1)

(Reflections on Ayn Rand*)

This year 2012 marks the 30th anniversary of the death of Ayn Rand—the controversial author/philosopher. Here is a fascinating quote from Wikipedia about her influence on our contemporary world:

In 1991, a survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club asked club members what the most influential book in the respondent’s life was. Rand’s Atlas Shrugged was the second most popular choice, after the Bible.^[1]

The more fascinating thing is how many Bible readers are also Ayn Rand devotees without any apparent awareness of the incongruities. These devotees cannot be accused of halting between two opinions,^[2] for they seem able to champion both simultaneously without discomfort. On the assumption that most religious folk have an evolving intellectual and practical understanding of faith, hope, and charity, here are a few more Wikipedia quotes with which to juxtapose Biblical values.

In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion. In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic, and reason, which she described as “the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.” She rejected all claims of non-perceptual or a priori knowledge, including “‘instinct,’ ‘intuition,’ ‘revelation,’ or any form of ‘just knowing.’”

In ethics, Rand argued for rational egoism (rational self-interest), as the guiding moral principle. She said the individual should “exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” She referred to egoism as “the virtue of selfishness” in her book of that title, in which she presented her solution to the is-ought problem by describing a meta-ethical theory that based morality in the needs of “man’s survival qua man”. ^[3]

In the brief “Introduction to the 35th Anniversary Edition”^[4] of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, we read in Ayn’s own words how she considered herself to be “creating a new, original abstraction and translating it through new, original means. This, as far as I know, is only me—my kind of fiction writing. May God forgive me (Metaphor!) if this is mistaken conceit! As near as I can now see it, it isn’t.”

She saw this as demonstrating “a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest.” And “in an interview with Mike Wallace, Rand declared herself ‘the most creative thinker alive.’”^[5]

The chief problem is: history does not substantiate her claims to originality. Her “new” ideas are really translations of “an old (known) abstraction (theme or thesis) … .” ^[6] And considering the universality of self-interest (often combined with self-focus), she and her creation, John Galt, are not the first self-anointed prime movers to feel unappreciated and persecuted. Nor the first to withdraw in strike (or sulk^[7], as the case may be)—to establish a more perfect union of devotees (in ironic imitation of Ayn’s dreaded collective). She scorned old ideas recycled, especially “through the medium of old fiction means”^[8]), yet her recycling of one of the oldest ideas (self-interest—even rational self-interest) and her sense of self-importance as a “prime mover” are as old as the Garden, if not older.

For readers of the Book of Mormon, Ayn is pretty much déjà vu Korihor. And Korihor, but déjà vu the lofty oaks and cedars of Isaiah and Zechariah:

And this Anti–Christ, whose name was Korihor, … began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying: O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. … Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so. And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that … every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime. …And Korihor said …: Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. (Book of Mormon Alma 30:12-18, 23-24; underlined emphasis added.)

For Korihor, rules, regulations, and religious beliefs were bondage. Freedom was the liberty to do, see, pursue, and manage things in a personal, rational way—to be a law unto himself. For Ayn and her “Objectivism” (i.e., subjectivism in sheep’s clothing!?), it is “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”^[9]

But for Christian believers particularly, shouldn’t the question be: How does this recycled philosophy jive with the tenets of the Gospel? And a second question: Is not the pursuit of rational self-interest (blind and deaf to “the great commandment[s] in the law”^[10]), the recurring (déjà vu) offense that God and His prophets so repeatedly castigate?

They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. (Doctrine and Covenants Section 1:16)

If the BIG test^[11] in this phase of existence is between

□ GOD’S will (higher ways and thoughts)^[12]
AND
□ MY will (lower ways and thoughts)

which selection does Ayn commend? And how does reason, intelligence, and growth ever expand in those imprisoned in Flatland^[13] because they can’t (won’t?) see or fathom “cubic”?

Considering that Ayn’s “biographer Jennifer Burns referred to her as “the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right”^[14] perhaps the right needs to do a lot more honest and forthright Ayn-alyzing!

----------------/
* For a previous reflection on Ayn Rand, see http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2009/11/romance-of-ayn-rand.html

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand under “Popular Interest” subheading.
[2] “And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.” (Old Testament 1 Kings 18:21)
[3] Wikipedia at footnote 1 under “Philosophy” subheading.
[4] Introduction written by Leonard Peikoff (September 1991), quote at p. xv.
[5] Wikipedia at footnote 1 under “Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism” subheading.
[6] See reference in footnote 4.
[7] Possible differentiation: Strike—when those of lesser power and income withhold their work and talents from those of greater power and income (usually their employers) in order to bargain for greater equity and fairness. Sulk—when those of great creativity, egoism, and self-confidence withdraw their resources and talents (God-given gifts?) from society as a whole—and second-handers, in particular—because they feel unappreciated, unacknowledged, and offended.
[8] See reference in footnote 4.
[9] Wikipedia at footnote 1 under “Philosophy” subheading.
[10] “Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (New Testament Matthew 22:36-40)
[11] For example, see this blogger’s discourse on WILL in 3 parts found at http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2011/10/will-we-ever-get-it-part-1.html ; http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2011/10/will-we-ever-get-it-part-2.html ; and http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2011/10/will-we-ever-get-it-part-3.html
[12] “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Old Testament Isaiah 55:9)
[13] Read Edwin A. Abbott’s, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions (pub. 1884).
[14] Wikipedia at footnote 1 under “Political Influence” subheading.