Three Pillars
Posted on February 15, 2010
Filed Under Economy, Intelligent Design, Politics, Reason, Religion | 20 Comments
This post is in response to some thought-provoking questions/comments posted by Mary regarding the translation of “The Three Pillars of Economics” on the Higher Law blog. I’m not trying to speak for the author of the blog, but I think Mary raises some interesting questions and makes some important observations. Since I’m never at a loss for words, I figured I’d write my own post rather than add long commentary to the original post.
The first question Mary asks is whether God has ever intervened in the monetary and economic control of society. While I think “control” may not be the right word, I understand the intent of the question, and the answer is yes. By inspiring the founding of the United States as a republic, God knew that it would result in a free market capitalist society. Any time a true republic is in place in a society, capitalism is the resulting economic system…that is, until we screw it up.
Capitalism has gotten a bad rap over generations by those who oppose it (those who, in my estimation, have nefarious intentions). We have been conditioned to associate capitalism with rampant greed and lawlessness; however, nothing could be further from the truth. I won’t go into long exposition of capitalism here, but suffice it to say that when the laws of a society are properly founded on truth—that is, when they recognize the supremacy of our creator and the nature of our creation as equal with one another—there can be no room for unbridled greed. Well, in fact greed can certainly still exist, but it cannot exist at the expense of the rights and liberties of individuals in society. So as long as an individual (a business person, let’s say) respects the equality of his fellow citizens and does not engage in practices that give him/her unjust advantage over them (i.e. making him/her superior to his fellow citizens), then (s)he can be as greedy as (s)he wants. It may not be the most Christian attitude, but we’re not talking about legislating Christianity, only equality.
So, in that sense, God has definitely intervened in monetary and economic “control” (influence is probably a better term), at least as much as He is able to exert and still respect the agency that is inherent to our intelligence (it can’t be taken away, even by God).
Mary’s comment that “we have the best economy in the world” couldn’t be more right in my mind, and that strength is a direct result of the constitution of our nation (meaning the establishment, not the document) as a proper republic. The founding fathers were inspired by our Creator in that constitution (as the resulting documents reflect), but they weren’t perfect, so they were incorrect in a few key definitions that have opened the door for attacks against our constitution. That’s why it’s necessary now to establish the kind of organization of which the Higher Law speaks. The “best economy in the world” is crumbling quickly under the weight of entitlement programs, special interest demands, back-room political dealings and other secret works that are all designed to set man unequal to man. They are programs and systems that cannot be sustained, and yet the infrastructure that imposes these systems on society is so deeply rooted and engrained and so secretive in its origins and intents that no normal political process can derail it. That system is what the scriptures refer to as “the Beast.”
Lastly, whether she knows it or not, Mary summarizes the purpose of the Higher Law beautifully:
I think it all comes down to being honest in your business, with others, and developing your talents so that you can provide for your family. It is within the family that we are able to grow and develop our talents. Teach your kids to work hard and within our society there are ways to succeed. The “beast” won’t have a chance if future generations are taught correct principles while they are young.
I couldn’t give a stronger “AMEN!” to any statement. Here’s the only problem…
It’s apparent that Mary is part of a community that still understands and believes the things she says. She has probably (I hate to make assumptions) grown up in a family that believes those things and taught her accordingly. Unfortunately, an ever growing majority of the world does not understand, embrace or even accept what Mary understands. Even right here in the United States the tide is turning against this way of thinking. The notions of “family,” “equality,” and “correct principles” are facing threat of extinction—some more perilously than others at present—if nothing is done about it.
God, in His infinite wisdom, knew this time would come. That’s exactly why He prepared the Higher Law, including the time and means of its advent, from the beginning, long before the establishment of the United States or even the creation of this world. So from that perspective, maybe it’s not so far-fetched to think that it could, in fact, be true. The Higher Law is not a message to LDS people, or Christian people, or even religious people; it’s a message to all people. And it’s not an LDS message to all people, or a Christian message to all people, or even a religious message to all people; it’s an equality message to all people, a message of truth to all people regarding economic and political institutions and practices. Such a message cannot come from a religion or religion in general because it simply would not be given objective consideration by the broad audience for which it was intended if it was associated with any one religion or religious creed.
So to revisit Mary’s initial question, the answer is actually “yes, but…” God indeed has intervened in monetary and economic systems of the world throughout history, or has at least tried to as much as the citizens have allowed Him to; however (a fancy “but”), most important isn’t a look back at history, but at the present and to the future. God’s involvement hasn’t been as apparent, perhaps, in the past because, according to His own designs and plans, it simply wasn’t yet time for it.
The Higher Law is evidence that that time is now.
Comments
20 Responses to “Three Pillars”
Leave a Reply
RWP,
I understand your argument that the Higher Law is not a religion. If this were actually true then it would be much easier to accept the ideas and concepts. However, it is obvious to me and many others that you have finely crafted this argument to fit within a model that clearly does not exist. The model I am referring to is one the Higher Law is a stand-alone organization or a movement. Clearly, this is not so. For a while now you have been reading the history of the Higher Law and how these so-called “truths” have come to be made known or “revealed” as it were to the author Jason. It must be obvious to you by now that Jason claims to have supernatural powers, many of which you have never experienced. He has seen angels and messengers from heaven; he hears and speaks the words of God; he is given specific commandments that he must obey, etc. Clearly, whether he will admit it or not, he is privy to a line of communication with God that you are not. Do you really believe that he is an instrument in the hands of God? If so, then you have faith in HIM. It is this faith in a person–someone with a direct line of authority from God–that constitutes a religion. As an LDS person, I have faith that Joseph Smith told the truth about his experiences. I have faith that Jesus performed miracles as the Bible describes. I do not have faith in the supernatural experiences that are spoken of in the Higher Law, and it is not because I am close minded. It is obvious that all of these experiences are coming from a very distressed family situation.
Ed,
You make a couple of incorrect conclusions here:
1) How do you know that I have not had similar experiences as Jason? Just because I don’t talk about them? You can’t really know from my posts what my line of communication with God is.
2) If you think that, being an LDS person, you have faith in Joseph Smith or any other human, you aren’t paying attention to the first principle of the gospel: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe Jason has had the experiences that he claims, not because I have faith in him, but because I have faith in God. I have faith that God can talk to whomever He chooses and by whatever means He chooses (as any LDS person should). I have faith that I can address my questions directly to God and find out if Jason is telling the truth. That’s what I have done, many times. My faith is not in Jason, nor is Jason asking anyone to have faith in him.
I’m a little confused by your seeming self-contradiction as well. On one hand you say you believe the experiences of Joseph Smith, but when it comes to the “supernatural powers” described by Jason, you suddenly find it impossible. Nothing in the Higher Law blog or in any of my arguments has pointed to special powers any more supernatural than those described by Joseph Smith, George Washington, Christopher Columbus and many others, both LDS and non-LDS alike. So I’m afraid I have to contradict you: you are indeed closed-minded if you think that one person can have direct experience with God but not another. There’s no evidence to support such belief, and there is a wealth of evidence against it. The only barrier is your own limited vision.
I don’t say any of that to be condescending or insulting. I’m just pointing to evidence and stating it plainly. Feel free to elaborate on your position and how you come to your conclusions.
To address your points:
1. You’re absolutely right, I don’t know whether or not you have had similar experiences as Jason. For sake of your argument, I’ll assume that you have. My point is that the experiences Jason describe are uniquely personal. For instance, he has a brother in law that claims to have been inspired to build rock formations. Have you ever heard of someone translating rock formations? To believe that God would reveal the meaning of a rock formation to an individual does not fit with any of my previous experiences of reading the scriptures or any LDS doctrine that I am aware of. Therefore, for me or anyone else to believe this requires faith in Jason. My faith in God and in Jesus Christ is a different matter. That faith has been developed by personal experience, study and prayer. Sure, God can speak to anyone, anywhere, but the revelations that Jason point to him as the annointed leader of a movement, an organization, and dare I say a religion?
2. You say that your faith is in Jesus Christ and not in any human. I don’t see how that is possible. At some point you have had to accept that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about the First Vision and other experiences despite his other personal failings. Your faith Jesus Christ has helped you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, but you could still just as easily have faith in Jesus Christ and believe that Jimmy Swaggart or Billy Graham was a prophet or annointed from God. You still have to have faith or trust in a person that he/she is telling the truth.
Nothing I have said is contradictory, but you have brought up unrelated points to make it seem so. For instance, I never said that one person is entitled to revelation but not another. I was just pointing out the error in your assertion that the Higher Law is not a religion. Do you really think that God would send messengers such as Elijah and Moses to an individual unless that person were privy to some information that you were not?
1. Prior to Joseph Smith, had anyone else ever heard of translating ancient characters through use of a rock? Did that fit with any previous experiences of reading the scriptures or Christian, Jewish or any other doctrine? Whether you’ve heard of or read of something or not is irrelevant. The only question is whether or not it’s true. That doesn’t require faith in Jason, only faith that God will answer prayers on the matter. You’re suggesting that it requires faith in Jason, as if he has anything to do with whether or not it’s true. It could just as well have been Jimmy Swaggart or Billy Graham, if that’s what God wanted. It wouldn’t change the truth of it and I don’t have to have faith in any of them, only in God. Your description of developing faith in God and Jesus Christ is exactly the point: personal experience, study and prayer. So far, I haven’t read or heard anything that suggests or indicates that Jason is the “anointed leader” of anything. Founder (one of many) maybe, but unless you can point to something you’ve read that sets him up as the leader, called and sustained by some body of citizens, that’s simply another false conclusion. Even if he was the leader, the movement can’t be called a religion. First of all, it invites people of all religions or no religion to participate, which doesn’t make a lot of sense for a religion. Second, there is no hierarchical leadership structure, no “priesthood” as it were. Finally, and most conspicuously absent, there are no ordinances–no baptism, no sacraments, etc.
2. “You still have to have faith or trust in a person that he/she is telling the truth.” This is simply not true. What you’re describing is faith in the “arm of flesh,” so to speak. No one is ever expected or asked to have faith in a person. Trust about whether or not someone is telling the truth is a matter of asking God for confirmation, letting the Spirit tell us whether or not something is true. So your faith is not in the person, it’s in God. I’m the biggest skeptic on the planet when it comes to other people’s opinions (as you can surely tell). I think we’re all expected to be total skeptics, especially when it comes to claims as “loony” as Jason’s and those involved. We’re not supposed to have faith in the people, we’re supposed to ask God about them, and once an answer is received, we have knowledge about them. Even if knowledge is a little slower in coming, our increased faith isn’t in the person, it’s in God and the fact that we trust that God is telling us the truth. If you ever find yourself having faith in an individual or an organization without asking God about it, you’re setting yourself up to be misled.
You may not have intended it, but your comments are most certainly self-contradictory. On one hand you speak of Joseph Smith’s experience, which you believe to be legitimate, and then you characterize Jason’s experiences as “supernatural powers” that you don’t believe in. So you are suggesting that it’s possible for Joseph Smith to have experiences exactly like Jason describes, but it’s impossible for Jason or anyone else who isn’t the President of the LDS Church to have those experiences. That’s a contradiction. Ironically, the reason it is a contradiction is actually the core of your argument: your faith in people. By your own admission, you have faith in Joseph Smith, but not in Jason. I don’t have faith in either one of them, but I have faith in God and I have asked specifically about both of those people and have received many confirmations in various, undeniable forms that both of them are/were telling the truth, both are/were inspired, both are/were instruments in the hands of God (like we all are or will be if we’ll make ourselves available to the Lord) although for very different purposes.
Your final statement is the most confusing of them all: “Do you really think that God would send messengers such as Elijah and Moses to an individual unless that person were privy to some information that you were not?”
Maybe I’m misreading it, but that sounds like you’re saying that someone has to be privy to certain information in order to receive angelic visitation. So let me ask you this? How can you have faith, as you say, in Joseph Smith? Do you really think that God Himself and Jesus Christ Himself would visit a fourteen year old boy unless he was privy to some sort of information that you and everyone else were not?
Perhaps the core of our disagreement is whether or not I am contradicting myself by saying that Joseph Smith was entitled to spiritual manifestations while Jason is not. I have never said that. You are creating that argument out of thin air and then telling me that is what I am saying. Sure, prior to Joseph Smith no one had started a new religion that included the use of seer stones to translate ancient text. Prior to Jason, no one that I have heard of has ever translated the meaning of pebble formations. So, if you are suggesting that God works in mysterious ways, I have no problem with that. The question is how do I find out if Jason is telling the truth? I could just pray about it and seek for confirmation and not put my trust in the “arm of flesh” as you say. You must have a more clear channel of communication with the heavens than I do. You must be able to receive confirmation for every piece of information that you come across, line upon line, precept upon precept. So far, very little if anything I have read about the Higher Law has been new information except for the personal spiritual experiences and tribulations of Jason. If you really believe that you or anyone else can receive the same angelic manifestations that Jason describes, then there is no point in arguing that. If Moses, Elijah and Josephus could just have easily visited Jason as they did Joseph Smith (sans Josephus) and God himself has given him power to translate rock formations and ancient papyri, then who am I to stand in his way. Only a few people in the history of the world have had that kind of relationship with God. Please, by all means, go forward in faith.
Hmm…I guess you’re right, Ed. In reading back over your comments a little more closely, I guess you never did actually say that Jason was not entitled to receive spiritual manifestations. Apparently I made that assumption based on the fact that I couldn’t determine exactly why you could not believe Jason but you believe Joseph Smith. It sounds like we have identified the reason, though, through course of conversation.
I think you hit the nail on the head, though: “I could just pray about it and seek confirmation…” If I have a clearer channel of communication with the heavens than you do, it’s only because I’m doing just that (more so than you might believe). It’s not that I’m more special or more worthy than anyone else, except that I’ve been trying to take Joseph Smith’s advice about receiving answers to prayers: “Weary the Lord until He blesses you.” I think receiving confirmation for “every piece of information that you come across” is exactly the point of the instruction given in Moroni 10: 3 – 5, not to mention many other passages.
You’re also right that nothing you’ve read so far is probably all that new. I’m actually working on an entire post on this subject, because for many people (especially LDS people), much of what the Higher Law addresses is not (or at least should not be) all that new. There will be much that can inspire new perspective and much that goes deeper than what most of us normally are accustomed to thinking, and hopefully a “big picture” of universal truth will begin to take shape as more comes out. We just have to keep in mind the fact that we tend to take for granted the knowledge that we have, but the message of the Higher Law is meant for the entire world, most of whom don’t have the framework of understanding that many Americans and LDS people have.
Well, you are assuming that at some point the Higher Law will have a message that is separate from the personal spiritual experiences that Jason has described. So far I haven’t seen any of that. So far I don’t really know what I could pray about, other than to know if Jason is telling the truth about his spiritual manifestations and if God is talking to him or not. I guess I could just as easily pray to God to know if he is talking to you as well. What do you suggest that I ask God, if not “Is Jason telling the truth that he has been visited by heavenly messengers and is translating Egyptian characters and pebble formations?” Otherwise, what is there to pray about? I don’t even understand what this so-called “Higher Law” is? We’ve already been given the greatest of all commandments, that is, to love God and thy neighbor. I’ll think I’ll focus my energies on living that law instead.
Thank you for the time you have taken to help me and others better understand the message of The Higher Law. Your writings are always very thorough and complete and I’m sure many are benefiting from your sincere efforts. Keep up the good work!
Are you Jason’s dad?
Uh…no. But that’s pretty funny.
We already established on the Higher Law blog that I have no known familial relationship with Jason by blood or marriage or any other way.
Ed,
Man are you on the right track.
I don’t quite follow why you say I’m assuming the Higher Law will be separate from Jason’s personal experiences, but praying to know of Jason is telling the truth about his experiences is not only valid, it’s what God expects of us in every situation. Yes, we need to use our brains as much as we can, but in the end, we’re expected to seek guidance and confirmation. Our tendency, however, is to take things much too much for granted one way or the other. Still, praying to know if Jason is telling the truth doesn’t require faith in Jason, only faith in God.
By all means, focus on those two greatest commandments. Study them, apply them, all of the above. I don’t have to tell you that, obviously. Just remember that it is a specifically Christian message, and though in principle is universally applicable, most of the non-Christian world won’t accept it as stated, not to mention the poor job that Christianity at large does at accepting and applying it. So while you’re asking God about all this (if you so choose), ask this question: WHY are those the great commandments?
(Here’s a hint)
Lets lay this out so that it can’t be misunderstood or twisted around. You claim to be LDS. So then you obviously believe in the Articles of Faith. Lets pull one out, say #5.
“We belive that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.” You must also believe in temples and the process of being able to attend the temples. Lets take a look at the temple recommend questions. #7
“Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”
Now, I think its safe to say that Jason DOES NOT meet the criteria stated in the 5th Article of Faith and claiming to translate modern scripture without the proper authority is completely contrary to the beliefs of the LDS faith(if I am wrong please correct me and explain where his authority came from). And please don’t try and say that it doesn’t aply because “The Higher Law” is non-religous. The prophet of the LDS church receives revelation reguarding non-religous matters(i.e. the Perpetual Education Fund, humanitarian aid, etc). Also, Translating scripture=religion.
This wouldn’t be a problem if he wasn’t claiming to be called of God and professing to translate, through the power of God, a document found in modern LDS scripture.
So, please explain to us how you can claim to have received a ‘testimony’ from God of the truthfulness of Jason’s words and not be in direct violation of the LDS principles you profess to uphold.
This isn’t about Jason or his claims. Its about being deceived and leading people astray.
First of all: “…to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.”
Jason isn’t preaching the Gospel, and as I’ve pointed out over and over, there are no ordinances involved in what Jason is doing. You don’t need to be ordained to be able to receive revelation or to have communication with God. That’s the difference you all seem to be ignoring. The authority of the church is for the church. The prophet will be the first one to tell you that he has no authority outside his responsibility as the president of the church. That doesn’t mean that the Prophet’s calling doesn’t apply to the whole world, of course it does, as the bishop’s calling applies to the entire ward including those who are not members of the church. The whole world is invited to come and be baptized as members of the church and all humanitarian efforts engaged in by the church for ultimately for that end. BUT…at no time in history has the Prophet or any bishop or church leader of any kind been authorized to do anything officially in the name of God or the church that relates to economics or politics. They can’t express any official position on such matters. So naturally if God wanted to start the process of building an economic and political organization that would stand in direct opposition to the evil on the rise in the world of economics and politics, He would not be able to do so through His chosen religious leaders.
Second, if Jason is in violation of any of the church’s standards, beliefs, commandments, etc. then why hasn’t he been appropriately disciplined? I’ve extended this challenge to pretty much everyone else, I’ll extend it to you: can you point to a single instance in anything on the Higher Law blog that is in opposition to anything that church believes? Anything that could be considered apostasy?
Third, you want me to try to explain this without saying it’s non-religious, but that’s just the point. If there was anything in the Higher Law pertaining to commandments, ordinances, the gospel, etc. then it would be crossing the boundaries into the realm of religion. In simplistic terms, religion = ordinances. Translation of characters isn’t necessarily a religious thing. That ability is nothing more than a gift from God that He can give to whomever He wants and for whatever purposes He wants.
I’ve addressed all this here.
Seriosly, how can translating modern scripture not be directly related to religion? And how can claiming to do that without the proper authority NOT be in opposition to LDS beliefs? Jason, and you for that matter, can say what ever you want for the “world” and claim whatever you want, but as soon as you involve MODERN SCRIPTURE you cross the line. It isn’t about “preaching the gospel” its about the AUTHORITY! As for discipline, its coming(not like we’ll hear about it anyway). I think we just figured out why you wont give your name.
O ya, if the church has never or ever will take a stand or get involved with politcs, please explain to us the whole Proposition 8 issue. Sure seems like the Church expressed an official position on that matter.
No one said it’s not “related” to religion, it’s just not specifically religious, meaning that it’s not revelation of new gospel or new ordinances or new church organizations, etc. Of course it’s related to religion, but the movement itself is non-religious (doesn’t belong to or endorse any one religion). Authority is exactly that: authorization from God. If Jason has indeed been given the gift to be able to translate, then obviously the proper authority exists by virtue of that gift. Do you think that God would allow it to be translated by someone who isn’t authorized? The question is has he actually been given that gift by God? That’s for you to figure out.
Now, speaking of authority, by what authority do you say that discipline is coming? Are you the new prophet? Are you Jason’s bishop? By what authority do you pass such judgments? (You don’t think you’ll hear about someone being disciplined for claiming to translate facsimile 2? You don’t think that word would get around?)
What is it with you people and my name? Why does my name have anything to do with any of this? Those who need to know my name know it. My name is irrelevant to you, so try to insult me all you want. I’m impervious.
As for Prop 8, the church expresses official positions on moral issues all the time, which often bleed into political considerations. But it does not officially engage in endorsements of “political candidates or platforms” and cannot do so or it risks losing its non-profit status (including property like churches and temples).
I never meant to insult, just concerned. I apologize for wasting you time.
No worries, I never consider it a waste of my time. I’m game for debate any time and like I said, I don’t get insulted. Just be careful the assumptions and implications you make when you really don’t know (like suggesting that I’m hiding my identity to keep myself safe from some kind of recourse, which is simply not true).
ADMIN NOTE: The following comment was made by someone who thinks they know who I am. They tried to use individuals’ names, which I have removed for the sake of privacy. Ironically, this person doesn’t use his/her own name, nor provide any kind of proof as to how (s)he would know who I am or what this “good reason not to believe what [I] say” is. Funny, I thought I had been pretty adamant that you not believe what I say. Belief doesn’t matter. You have to know. Who I am is irrelevant to whether or not what I say is true.
[Name omitted], you continue to display your talents and skill in debate (feeling pretty good about yourself arent you?) Everyone, who has read your post/comments on this site or the higher law site have definitely seen your continued arrogance, self righteousness, and hidden desperation. Many of us that do know you personally have good reason not to believe what you say at all due to your works (lack of work/results), which have shown a work ethic that cannot be trusted. So here we are watching you defending and clinging to the “Higher Law” like you need justification and a belonging for the way that you live your life and lie to everyone around you in some crafty and educated manner. Once again, as on the other site, I call you out and dare you to post this so that everyone who reads it can say “yep, that is exactly what we have been thinking and know about you” Where does your credibility come from? As for [the author of the Higher Law blog], he is an extremely nice person, but all of the trust and love that he had built up and tried to capitalize on as long as he could is gone. Once more he and you are prolonging another huge failure of a project. How long will it take? And what will you drain out of every soul that you mezmorize and lead away/astray will you build up and false claims?
what’s up? no posts from you, jason or nate lately. did you all enjoy conference?
Yeah, there are a couple of reasons why I haven’t been very active lately. Mostly I just feel that I’ve kind of made my point. I don’t know how I can make it much clearer. That said, I do have some drafts of new posts I’m working on. It’s just taken a lower priority for the time being.
As for conference, loved it, as always. President Uchtdorf has quickly become maybe my favorite speaker. That’s not to play favorites or say that any of the other talks were less valuable, there’s just something special about his perspective and delivery that really speaks to me. President Monson was funny and endearing and, as always, a stellar example of Christ-like love and service. I think my favorite talk, though, on pure substance was Elder Christofferson’s.
Anyone wanna venture a guess why?