This is another of my favorite topics to expound upon to my poor unsuspecting wife. This, to me, is one of the best "proofs" that Joseph Smith was inspired by God, because the law of Consecration is the closest thing to a Utopian ideal, if implemented correctly and followed faithfully, that has ever been postulated by modern man.
I got interested in this topic back in my freshman year of high school, ironically enough. One afternoon while playing Starcraft over the internet, a person I was playing with asked me if I was a Mormon (my screen name was LDS_MAN). When I responded in the affirmative, he proceeded to fill me in on everything I "believed," claiming that he knew the real truth behind Mormonism, etc. etc. Needless to say, I was unable to counter any of his arguments, and that bothered me quite a bit. Though that incident didn't cause me to reject any aspect of my religion, it did spur me into searching for the answers to the questions and concerns he raised- one of which was the claim that Mormons are in fact communists.
A brief delve into the basic tennets of communism, from my own non-professional understanding, should probably follow. For Marx, the natural order of the world was eventual overthrow of the capitalist system by the proletariat, or working class. After years of oppresion to the schemes and whims of the evil bourgeoisie, the downtodden proletariat would eventually overthrow their capitalist masters, establishing "communes," or abolshing private property in favor of common ownership of all goods. Lenin elaborated on the theory, explaining that in order to bring about this desired change faster, the proletariat would establish an authoritarian government to seize all capital in a given country, and after they had restructured the economy and replaced all social conventions with loyalty to the State (including the abolishment of religion, which Marx referred to famously as the "opiate of the masses"), they would relinquish power and everyone would live in harmony as goods and services were shared without price and without restrictions. I am fully aware of the extremely simplistic nature of this overview, but I believe I have hit the main points for the purposes of this discussion. Anyone with more knowledge then me is free to post a comment to address a possible problem.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and history knows how this scenario played out. Now, allow me to compare this to the law of consecration as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants and elaborated upon by the Prophet. It is worth mentioning that several times in the New Testament, the apostles reference that the early church had "all things in common," referring to their material goods. So, this was by no means a "new" thing that Joseph introduced, just another example of something lost to the ages after the early church fell apart.
The general idea behind the law of consecration is a seemless blend of the best things from communism and capitalism. Under communism, everyone became poor-- productivity fell to 10% in the Soviet Union, as no one had any real incentive to work harder or to better their situation. There was no chance for advancement, no higher salary, no reason to fear losing your job if you were not efficient- and no over-arching goal, no possible purpose to strive for, with the removal of God and religion from their lives. In consecration, the opposite effect happens. Though property is pooled together through the bishop, it is deeded out again as a "stewardship," with that person having direct accountability for that which they are deeded out. They legally own whatever the bishop gives back. Then, they are required to work, taking care of their stewardship with an eye single to God, desiring to bring about his kingdom. After a set time, after expenses and revenue have been calculated for each person, the surplus is gathered into the Bishop (surplus money, grain, products, etc) and it is then divided out to each persno according to need, and then according to wants. Productivity, theoretically, would actually stay the same, or perhaps increase- money still operates as a means of exchange, goods and services are still bought and sold according to a market. It is the most effcient means of allocating resources, though it does not always do so "morally," which is why the bishop allocating the surplus makes the difference. In this system, the exact opposite result of communism occurs- everyone becomes rich. After a time, everyone has everything, and there is an abundance of wealth. And everyone contributes to get what they are metted out- there are no "free-riders" in the law of consecration.
Lastly, and in my opinion most importantly, the law of consecration is purely voluntary. No one, not one person, is forced into joining and living according to a higher law. This allows for only the most committed to the system to join, and diminishes the problems associated with free-loaders mooching off the system. And if at any time a person wishes to opt out, they own the property that they are deeded back from the Bishop in the inital accounting, and are free to leave at any time (they would not be able to take back what they had given in the first place, as that would have been legally deeded over to the church in the beginning). No utopian system can be unilaterally imposed on a population that actually wants to work. Only through persuasion and devotion to a higher ideal can someone be truly committed to a cause as lofty as eliminating poverty- guns and tanks can only get you fear, not a person's heart. Without that, they will try and undermine you in any way they can, and the overall effect will be negative.
I am indeed grateful for the knowledge that I have of this wonderful system of government. I keep it in mind as often as I can to remind myself that riches mean very little in this world, inasmuch as I can provide for my family and life relatively comfortably. I plan to always be ready and committed to live the higher law at a moments notice, and gladly to do so- after all, I won't be able to take my condo with me when I die, right?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Anthropic Global Warming
Ok, I will post on this at the request of my wife (she said I should in the comment section of my last post). This will get sort of redundant, as I think she is the only one that is going to read this, but hey- I do what I am told lol.
As Laura well knows, I have a very STRONG opinion that the theory of AGW is complete bunk. I believe that it is another attempt by the left-wing environmentalists to impose socialism, this time not to save "the workers," but "the world." The "science" is all founded on mathematical models that assume an exponentially growing amount of CO2 in the air, when that assumption cannot be made, and then assumes that any warming is going to have catastrophic effects.
A few points against this- first, there has been NO WARMING SINCE THE LATE 1990s. That's right. None. It's actually gotten .25 degrees farenheit cooler, and this is as CO2 has continued to increase in concentration. AGW theorists say that their models expecting a 1 degree increase by now failed to take the oceans into account as a giant "carbon-sink," even though the exact opposite is true- the oceans actually produce a lot of CO2 from the volcanoes and other pheonomena they contain under their waters. Second- it was actually much warmer than it is now back in the middle-ages. This enabled the Viking sailors to actually settle and grow crops in Greenland, which is now a huge ice sheet. Which begs the question- warmer temperatures world wide actually increases the amount of food, which in turn increases the amount of animal life, and generally makes many basic needs more abundant. Why would that be a bad thing?
Another thing- now, the technical term for "global warming" is "climate change;" in true Orwellian fashion, this "newspeak" term now includes everything that doesn't conform to "normal" parameters, such as that China had the coldest winter on record last year. Oh, THAT is also due to climate change, sorry, it's not just warming. Fact of the matter is, as any paleontologist will tell you, is that the climate has always changed. It doesn't STOP changing. The fact that we drive an SUV cannot change climate one way or the other. There is growing evidence to support the fact that- and this is a novel idea- that huge, heat-producing thing we call the "sun" might have a lot to do with how the climate is here. Gee-whiz, that's amazing! Why didn't we think of that before?
For those interested, I can point you to a number of articles and books that deal with these and other issues much better then I can, or have. If you are a strong adherent to this theory, you will decry them as "biased" and "sponsored by the big-bad oil companies," though they aren't- at least any more "biased" that the largely political IPCC report is (and Al Gore, by the way, has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in companies that "fight" global warming. No wonder he wants to scare-monger some more- he laughs all the way to the bank).
Sorry, this has taken somewhat of a polemic form, but honestly this is something I feel strongly about. I do not want to wreck the progess that the modern industrial age has made, which has moved more people out of poverty than any other institution, to tilt at windmills. I do favor protecting the environment, don't get me wrong- and I know that you are going to laugh at that "throw-away" line at the end of this post- I don't want to squander natural resources and pollute to no end in the name of "progress." I just want that defense of the environment to be based on actual science, not the delusions that CO2 is going to kill us all.
As Laura well knows, I have a very STRONG opinion that the theory of AGW is complete bunk. I believe that it is another attempt by the left-wing environmentalists to impose socialism, this time not to save "the workers," but "the world." The "science" is all founded on mathematical models that assume an exponentially growing amount of CO2 in the air, when that assumption cannot be made, and then assumes that any warming is going to have catastrophic effects.
A few points against this- first, there has been NO WARMING SINCE THE LATE 1990s. That's right. None. It's actually gotten .25 degrees farenheit cooler, and this is as CO2 has continued to increase in concentration. AGW theorists say that their models expecting a 1 degree increase by now failed to take the oceans into account as a giant "carbon-sink," even though the exact opposite is true- the oceans actually produce a lot of CO2 from the volcanoes and other pheonomena they contain under their waters. Second- it was actually much warmer than it is now back in the middle-ages. This enabled the Viking sailors to actually settle and grow crops in Greenland, which is now a huge ice sheet. Which begs the question- warmer temperatures world wide actually increases the amount of food, which in turn increases the amount of animal life, and generally makes many basic needs more abundant. Why would that be a bad thing?
Another thing- now, the technical term for "global warming" is "climate change;" in true Orwellian fashion, this "newspeak" term now includes everything that doesn't conform to "normal" parameters, such as that China had the coldest winter on record last year. Oh, THAT is also due to climate change, sorry, it's not just warming. Fact of the matter is, as any paleontologist will tell you, is that the climate has always changed. It doesn't STOP changing. The fact that we drive an SUV cannot change climate one way or the other. There is growing evidence to support the fact that- and this is a novel idea- that huge, heat-producing thing we call the "sun" might have a lot to do with how the climate is here. Gee-whiz, that's amazing! Why didn't we think of that before?
For those interested, I can point you to a number of articles and books that deal with these and other issues much better then I can, or have. If you are a strong adherent to this theory, you will decry them as "biased" and "sponsored by the big-bad oil companies," though they aren't- at least any more "biased" that the largely political IPCC report is (and Al Gore, by the way, has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in companies that "fight" global warming. No wonder he wants to scare-monger some more- he laughs all the way to the bank).
Sorry, this has taken somewhat of a polemic form, but honestly this is something I feel strongly about. I do not want to wreck the progess that the modern industrial age has made, which has moved more people out of poverty than any other institution, to tilt at windmills. I do favor protecting the environment, don't get me wrong- and I know that you are going to laugh at that "throw-away" line at the end of this post- I don't want to squander natural resources and pollute to no end in the name of "progress." I just want that defense of the environment to be based on actual science, not the delusions that CO2 is going to kill us all.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
On Purpose and Meaning
My first rambling comes from a conversation I recently had with my mom and sister Kristin. We talked a lot about the nature of God, sin, justice, salvation, etc.- not at all an unusual topic in our family, but still one that peaked my interest and got me thinking quite a bit (a sign of a good conversation, in my opinion). I have had for some time now my theory explaining the purpose of life, the nature of good and evil, and our ultimate purpose, and I wanted to put it in writing as best as I could so as to organize my own thoughts about the subject, as well as provide some insight into what I believe, and more importantly, why I believe it.
To me, the plan of salvation, as it is often referred to by Mormons, is the single greatest teaching revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is so transcendent in explaining and revealing the nature of life, of God, and of our purpose here, that I take it as one of the definite proofs that Joseph was indeed a prophet. The assumption among Christians in his day (in varying degrees of absolutism) was that God, 6,000 years ago, made the world and everything in it, including Adam and Eve. Before that, there was only empty space, and God, who is both everything and nothing (mimicking the Platonic philosophy that seeped in around 400 AD). Joseph’s account was radically different- before the world, there was an existence much like the paradisiacal Garden. In it, we progressed in knowledge and in our ability to act as a moral agent. Our intelligence, though somewhat a vague concept, even pre-dates our “spirit birth,” having always existed. Therefore, we have always, in some capacity, existed, though the quality of our existence has changed and will forever change. This exonerates God from the “problem of evil” that is widely used as a proof that God does not exist. God, following eternal laws, cannot violate one eternal principle- that of moral agency. We, having always existed, have always had the right to choose our own path. It was in this context that we decided to choose to come to this mortal existence. Now, as to whether we knew exactly what status or position we would enter into in this life I do not know, suffice to say that I believe God met all “informed consent” standard that we would apply. Thus any problem or difficulty, pain or sorrow, happiness or misery that we experience in this life is a result not of a fiat act of God, but of our conscious choice to improve upon our situation from the pre-mortal life. This notion flew in the face of traditional Christianity and was ridiculed at the time, but I can find no other rational way to make sense of the disparity of life and ever present evil that surrounds the world- to say that God created it along with everything else is ludicrous to the extreme.
Now, the argument against what I said is fairly simple- it wasn’t God, some would argue, who created evil in the world, but Adam and Eve who brought it here by taking the forbidden fruit. But the counter argument is equally as simple- why in the world did God allow for the fruit to be in the garden in the first place? If he was creating everything from scratch, why not just make a perfect Heaven environment for all to enjoy? What, in essence, is the purpose of life? Why did God create the world in the first place? All of these questions remain the “mystery” behind God, something that he chose not to reveal. But I cannot imagine a loving Father that would just let us float here in space for no reason, and then if there was a reason, not tell us. Enter the Prophet Joseph. Though blasphemous to any other religion, the belief that man can become a god (always under our God, the Father), and eventually become perfect just as he is perfect, and do and create and he does, is transcendent and powerful. Through, and only though, the Atonement of Christ, we can become perfect. Now, as pertaining to the discussion that I had with Mom and Kristin, I have no idea exactly how that takes place, save that it does require our hearts. Our actions are tokens of what we truly desire, be it Christ and forgiveness or Satan and misery. Regardless, the knowledge that there is an eternal reward greater then that of the life that we lived before offers the most comfort that I can take away from Mormon doctrine, for in it lies the sum and whole of God’s work and our purpose- to continue to bring about the immortality and eternal lives of Man, to continue to do the work of a god, to continue to bring life and order to a universe otherwise in chaos. This is the only thing that can make sense. Without progression, there can be no purpose; without purpose, there can be no meaning; and without meaning, there can be no God, for it would not be possible to have faith in a God who arbitrarily makes rules and life without any semblance consistency.
A discussion of how and why I believe what I believe will be forthcoming, but suffice it to say this knowledge is of great comfort to me, despite the goal being a very, very long way off. Thank you for reading, and your comments are welcome.
To me, the plan of salvation, as it is often referred to by Mormons, is the single greatest teaching revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is so transcendent in explaining and revealing the nature of life, of God, and of our purpose here, that I take it as one of the definite proofs that Joseph was indeed a prophet. The assumption among Christians in his day (in varying degrees of absolutism) was that God, 6,000 years ago, made the world and everything in it, including Adam and Eve. Before that, there was only empty space, and God, who is both everything and nothing (mimicking the Platonic philosophy that seeped in around 400 AD). Joseph’s account was radically different- before the world, there was an existence much like the paradisiacal Garden. In it, we progressed in knowledge and in our ability to act as a moral agent. Our intelligence, though somewhat a vague concept, even pre-dates our “spirit birth,” having always existed. Therefore, we have always, in some capacity, existed, though the quality of our existence has changed and will forever change. This exonerates God from the “problem of evil” that is widely used as a proof that God does not exist. God, following eternal laws, cannot violate one eternal principle- that of moral agency. We, having always existed, have always had the right to choose our own path. It was in this context that we decided to choose to come to this mortal existence. Now, as to whether we knew exactly what status or position we would enter into in this life I do not know, suffice to say that I believe God met all “informed consent” standard that we would apply. Thus any problem or difficulty, pain or sorrow, happiness or misery that we experience in this life is a result not of a fiat act of God, but of our conscious choice to improve upon our situation from the pre-mortal life. This notion flew in the face of traditional Christianity and was ridiculed at the time, but I can find no other rational way to make sense of the disparity of life and ever present evil that surrounds the world- to say that God created it along with everything else is ludicrous to the extreme.
Now, the argument against what I said is fairly simple- it wasn’t God, some would argue, who created evil in the world, but Adam and Eve who brought it here by taking the forbidden fruit. But the counter argument is equally as simple- why in the world did God allow for the fruit to be in the garden in the first place? If he was creating everything from scratch, why not just make a perfect Heaven environment for all to enjoy? What, in essence, is the purpose of life? Why did God create the world in the first place? All of these questions remain the “mystery” behind God, something that he chose not to reveal. But I cannot imagine a loving Father that would just let us float here in space for no reason, and then if there was a reason, not tell us. Enter the Prophet Joseph. Though blasphemous to any other religion, the belief that man can become a god (always under our God, the Father), and eventually become perfect just as he is perfect, and do and create and he does, is transcendent and powerful. Through, and only though, the Atonement of Christ, we can become perfect. Now, as pertaining to the discussion that I had with Mom and Kristin, I have no idea exactly how that takes place, save that it does require our hearts. Our actions are tokens of what we truly desire, be it Christ and forgiveness or Satan and misery. Regardless, the knowledge that there is an eternal reward greater then that of the life that we lived before offers the most comfort that I can take away from Mormon doctrine, for in it lies the sum and whole of God’s work and our purpose- to continue to bring about the immortality and eternal lives of Man, to continue to do the work of a god, to continue to bring life and order to a universe otherwise in chaos. This is the only thing that can make sense. Without progression, there can be no purpose; without purpose, there can be no meaning; and without meaning, there can be no God, for it would not be possible to have faith in a God who arbitrarily makes rules and life without any semblance consistency.
A discussion of how and why I believe what I believe will be forthcoming, but suffice it to say this knowledge is of great comfort to me, despite the goal being a very, very long way off. Thank you for reading, and your comments are welcome.
Monday, July 7, 2008
By way of introduction
My name is Steve Clark. I am planning on using this blog as an outlet for my commentary on life as I see it, take it for what it's worth- I will be musing on the presidential campaign, various movie reviews, and my take on the economic and social scene. All of this will probably be used against me when I run for office when I am 60, but hey- that's the risk we run in our society when anything we say or do can be recorded. Anyway, look soon for my review of Wall-E, the latest Pixar movie, and my take on the Drill, Drill, Drill campaign posited by Senator Gingrich. Comments are welcome and appreciated, and I will try to answer any and all questions regarding my views and thoughts on any given subjects- please, keep comments respectful and profanity-free. Welcome to RandomRavingRamblings!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)