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.

Take this one for example from “Mary’s Friend:”

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks, do we really need to pray about it?

That same sentiment is followed up by “Sean:”

In scripture it teaches “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Jason’s fruits are a house full of demons and frightened children, a friend who took his own life, and a British pop-opera singer whom I’m pretty sure will be filing a restraining order in the near future. Also, speaking of Ms. Brightman, a quick google search will show you that, without trying to be judgmental, Sarah’s lead a less than honorable life as far as morality is concerned. I’m pretty sure that if God needed a ‘Goddess of the Stars,’ there better candidates…

People don’t doubt the higher law because they’re close-minded. They doubt it because anyone with even the slightest gift of discernment knows utter nonsense when they are presented it, even if at this point it’s not fully “revealed.”Just as you don’t need to eat an entire cake to know that it’s good, you don’t need to drink an entire gallon of milk to know it’s gone bad.

Or how about this one from Alex:

[W]e do not need to wait until The Higher Law is published to know that what it will contain is NOT of God. There is nothing to ponder and pray about.

The same trend has continued here, on my own blog.  I won’t cite specifics in that case because they’re kind of long and more subtle, but can you spot the dysfunction?

If not, let me pose a question: Who has the devil?  The person who claims to be doing the work that God asked him to do, work that poses no threat to any belief system that isn’t false and no threat to anyone that isn’t interested in unrighteous tyranny, or the person who engages in prolonged attacks against that person without even knowing anything about it while refusing to pray about it?

Sean is quick to run to the scriptures with the oft quoted, “by their fruits ye shall know them.”  There’s nothing wrong with going to the scriptures, but sadly for Sean, the scriptures aren’t enough to know their fruits.  That’s why the scriptures are literally full of statements that practically beg for us to pray about such things: “ask and ye shall receive,” “…let him ask of God…and it shall be given him,” “ask God…if these things are not true.”

The amazing thing to me is how resistant to praying about it these people all are.  They are all quick to try to put their spiritual guidance on display by citing scriptures and such, but not a one of them can say that they have prayed to know whether or not it’s true.  In fact, in the case of “Mary’s Friend” (s)he goes as far as to effectively say that prayer isn’t necessary: “…do we really need to pray about it?”

Well let me cite a little scripture myself:

And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

So let me ask again: who has the devil, the person who prays constantly to do what the Lord asks or the one who refuses to pray to find out if it’s true?

Here’s another question for the “Mary’s Friend” types: there was a guy about 2000 years ago who claimed to be the Son of God and that he died and then came back to life.  His whole life people rejected him because he made these outrageous claims.  That guy had to be crazy, right?  I mean, coming back from the dead?  No one else has ever done that, science can’t prove it.  I heard he was even accosted by demons and even the devil himself once.  So hey, if it walks like a duck…

(Just watch, the argument is now going to turn into “Oh, so you’re comparing Jason to Jesus now?”  Classic misdirection to try to put me on the defensive and avoid facing the fact that pretty much everything relating to religion is pretty crazy if you think about it with purely secular perspective, i.e. without praying about it.)

In the comment, the author (who identifies him/herself only as Prime) says the following:

“Live life abundantly, god or no god, faith or no faith it matters not. The single most important thing is to treat your fellow humans with respect and kindness that is all. You do not need god to be good.”

So, here’s my question to Prime and all others who hold to this particular belief system: How can you have anything good without God?

Let me explain.

The concepts of “good” and “bad” are moral concepts and are entirely relative.  The real question is relative to what?  It’s only by defining what is “bad” that anything can be defined as “good” and vice-versa.

So who defines “bad?”

The historical answers to that question are as varied and the philosophies that have tried to answer it, but they all generally fall in to two camps.

In one camp, morality is determined by public opinion.  A thing is morally correct if the majority of citizens of a community agree that it is so (atheists typically pitch their tents in this camp).  In the other camp, morality is an expression of static, unchanging truth.  Only one of these camps can ever be correct.

If morality is subject to public opinion, then really anything goes.  There is no law at all under those circumstances, because there is no basis upon which law can be built.  For example, a law that ascribes illegality to murder on the presumption that murder is “bad” is only valid until such time as public opinion sways enough to say “murder is not bad” or maybe more subtly, “the termination of a life is agreed to be acceptable inasmuch as said life can be demonstrated to present undue inconvenience or stress on a qualified individual or society as a whole.”

You think my example is silly or unrealistic?  Ever heard of Sharia?  Obviously it doesn’t use such distinct “legalese” type language, but Sharia law recognizes such a thing as “honor killing.”  So obviously when a society degenerates far enough to accept the practice of murder, whatever the justification (including religion), according to the philosophies of camp one, it becomes morally acceptable, even “honorable.”  The most devastating scourges in the history of humanity have taken shelter in this camp.

The alternative is that morality is only valid inasmuch as it is based on truth.  Things are defined as “good” or “bad” relative to the static and unchanging truths of the universe.  Things that are good adhere to truth and are therefore qualified to endure, while things that are bad break one or more of the laws of the universe (truth) and are therefore immediately consigned to eventual but certain destruction—in time they will break down and cease to exist.

In the latter case, the definitions of “good” and “bad” are not subjective.  They are based on an absolute: truth.  Our obligation, then, is to discover truth and adhere to it.  We discover truth by appeal to the beings that have utterly mastered and become synonymous with truth: God.

In the interest of time, I have made a pretty big leap from truth to God (not really, but I can see where the arguments will come from and I’ll address them in future posts).  Regardless, my initial question to Prime and others of the same mindset still stands:

Without some kind of moral absoluteness, some static definition of “good” and “bad,” by what standard can a person know if they are being good?

My daily Book of Mormon reading is currently in the book of Helaman.  This morning I was effectively slapped in the face by one of the most obvious examples we have in scripture illustrating the difference between prophets who are called and given the gift of prophecy for the delivering of important instructions and messages, and prophets who are similarly called, but also have the mantle of ecclesiastical authority for the administration of the ordinances of salvation.  Granted, there is a thin line between them, which is why in the case of the former, the Lord always calls someone righteous and obedient enough not to overstep it.

Beginning in chapter 13, just prior to the chapter title, it reads as follows:

The prophecy of Samuel, the Lamanite, to the Nephites. Comprising chapters 13 through 15 inclusive.

Then, in the actual heading for chapter 13 it speaks of Samuel’s prophecies to the Nephites concerning their impending destruction if they do not repent.  The pursuant chapters tell the story of Samuel’s calling by God, the assignment he is given, his prophecies about the birth of the Savior, the destruction of the Nephites, and the subsequent reaction of the Nephites.

There is much to be learned from these chapters regarding the nature of the calling of prophets and God’s methods and order of delivering important messages to His children.

In the opening verses of Helaman 13, we learn that Samuel was already a righteous man because, as far as we know, he took it upon himself to preach repentance to the Nephites.  Being a Lamanite, he obviously had become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and was more than likely led by the Spirit to begin preaching repentance.  The point of all this is that Samuel was obviously a righteous man and obedient to the direction he was given by the Holy Ghost.  For a Lamanite to place himself, for the sake of preaching repentance, in such peril among those who were historically the sworn enemies of the Lamanites must have taken exceptional courage and faithfulness.  Surely he must have thought that his very life could be in danger, but he went anyway.

Meeting with no success in spiritually reaching the Nephites, however, he decides to return back to his own land; but the Lord has other plans for him.  In verse 3, the Lord speaks to him and tells him to return to the Nephites and prophesy according to the dictates of the Spirit.  Being obedient, Samuel returns.  He is turned away at the gate, so to speak, meaning that he isn’t even allowed to enter back into the city.

Samuel knows he was given a divine charge, however, so he doesn’t just give up and leave.  He climbs up on the wall of the city and shouts the message he is given by the Lord to the Nephites.  In the end, some of them believe him, but most of them get angry and actually try to kill him before he jumps down and flees, never to be heard from again as far as we know.

Now, this isn’t intended to be recounting of the story of Samuel, but rather an illustration of an important point of understanding.  The interesting thing to note here, at the end of Samuel’s part of the story (as we read in chapter 16) is that those of the Nephites who believe him seek to be baptized, but who do they seek out?  Not Samuel–the prophet who delivered the message that led to their conversion–but Nephi, the prophet who held the authority to perform the ordinances of salvation.

So this becomes a pretty obvious example (one of many, I would argue) that the Lord calls whomever He will when He needs them and by whatever means He deems necessary.  Their calling is always given explicitly, including the constraints and limits of their authority.  Though these chapters don’t explicitly record what the Lord said to Samuel in calling him, it’s safe to assume that either he was told very explicitly and those specific instructions were simply abridged out of the Book of Mormon record that we have (it is an abridgement after all, don’t forget), or at least that Samuel understood the nature of his own calling and the limits of his own authority.  These assumptions are safe to make because he at no time tries to gather followers to himself, he does not invite them to be baptized by him, and when the converts seek to be baptized, he is nowhere to be found (as far as the record shows).

So what do we learn from this story?

At this particular time in history, there were at least two prophets: Samuel and Nephi.  Only one of them—Nephi—had authority to baptize and administer the ordinances of the gospel.  Samuel understood this.  Still, Samuel’s calling was as a prophet.  He was specifically called and given authority to deliver a message to the world (specifically the Nephites).  This is not a case of someone receiving the gift of prophecy for their own benefit; this is a very obvious case of someone being given a stewardship that pertains to a broader collection of God’s children, but is still limited in scope not to include religious ordinances.

Now, it’s pretty apparent that Samuel’s message was very much “religious” in nature.  He prophesied specifically about repentance and the birth of the Savior.  So this doesn’t exactly match up perfectly with the movement of The Higher Law and those who have been called to start it—or does it?

Much of the fear and objection being directed at the movement and the author of the blog is that it claims to be non-religious while dealing with religious things (like visions, revelations, facsimile 2, etc.); and yet, apart from the source of the movement, which is claimed to be from translation of facsimile 2, and the experiences that are part of translation (according to the author), there is no religious instruction whatsoever in any portion of the messages on the blog.  There is no call for “followers,” there is no claim of religious authority, there is no evidence of what would normally be associated with apostate or sectarian movements (i.e. subjugation of followers to the “new prophet,” calls for sacrificial offerings of money, property, etc.) , and there is nothing in the messages that detracts or changes the core doctrines of the LDS church in the least.   The author is very adamant that his calling is non-religious, by design, for the purpose of uniting the people of the Earth as much as possible in a common goal, which is more the opposition of political and economic tyranny than anything religious.  In fact, the notion of religion—or at least any one religion—is conspicuously absent from the messages except whatever connections we make ourselves.

On the contrary, consider Samuel.  The prophet of the church in his day was Nephi (or as close an equation as one can make in those circumstances); yet he was called as a prophet to deliver an expressly religious message, unbeknownst to Nephi (as far as we know).  Even if Nephi was aware of Samuel (and I wouldn’t doubt it), he made no comment of it and Samuel’s calling was not given through Nephi, but by God directly to Samuel for a specific, limited purpose; but that purpose was still very much “religious.”  (I quote that term because the reality is our historical human compartmentalizing of religion, science, etc. is actually very myopic and narrow-minded).  So in comparison, according to the objections being raised on The Higher Law, Samuel actually would have to be considered to have been more dangerous than the author of the blog.  He would have been the one on the road to apostasy (not if, but when see comment #8), because he was claiming prophetic authority that stretched into the realm of religion.

The point of all this should be clear: While there is only one prophet, seer and revelator for the Church on the Earth at any given time, by no means does that preclude the possibility of other prophetic and divine callings with specific intention and limitations, for specific purposes that apply to a community or the world at large (not just the individual).  Further, considering the consistent and overt specificity of the author in expressing non-religious intent and scope, I would think that he would be considered even less of a danger to anything pertaining to the LDS church, including personal testimony of it.

The author’s position, however, is that the movement being started, by God’s direction, is not a religious movement.  It is a movement founded and directed by God, but it is intended to unite the people of the Earth under a common set of core truths, most of which are reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: that God exists, that He created us, and that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.  (For those who didn’t know, property was originally in the Declaration as well, but was removed at the last minute by the founders for fear of misinterpretation regarding slavery.)

This post aims to dismantle the arguments and accusations being leveled by these LDS people.  They are correct in their assertion that the Prophet of the Church is still the Prophet of the Church.  No one is claiming otherwise; however, their claim that only the Prophet of the Church can receive this kind of revelation is completely misguided.

First and foremost, it really doesn’t matter what anyone believes about the movement of The Higher Law.  In the end, belief amounts to nothing.  The Lord does not expect us to believe; He expects us to know.  That’s what prayer and pondering are for, with scriptures as a guide in obtaining the proper spirit in order to be instructed, not by the scriptures, but by the Spirit.  As anyone who has been a missionary will tell you, scriptures don’t convert, missionaries don’t convert, even prophets don’t convert; only the Holy Ghost converts, but only when the receiver allows the Holy Ghost to do the teaching.

Now, don’t get me wrong: the scriptures are a powerful tool for conversion, inasmuch as they put us in the proper frame of mind and heart in which the Spirit can teach us.  So, I’m going to use the scriptures to make a point.

In the time of the Old Testament, between the periods of about 640 BC and 598 BC, there were numerous prophets, including Nahum, Jeremiah, Daniel, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Obadiah, Ezekiel, and a prophetess named Huldah.  Anyone familiar with the Old Testament will recognize the names of many of these prophets as the names of books from the Old Testament.  The chronology of their lives was such that many of them overlapped.  It was a time when there were literally many prophets in the old world at the same time.

During this same period—about 600 BC—another prophet was called by God to take his family and flee from their home and everything they knew and loved to avoid the impending destruction of Jerusalem.  This prophet and his family were guided, by divine messengers and aids, to the New World.  Obviously (for those familiar with it), that prophet was Lehi and the result of his obedience to his calling can’t be denied (i.e. the Book of Mormon).

I don’t mean to sound condescending to readers, but I’m making an important point, and it is NOT that the author of The Higher Law blog is another prophet called to lead a new branch of the Church.  The point I’m making is that God calls people to do certain things at certain times according to His will, and He communicates with them in whatever ways He sees fit, regardless of who the current prophet of the Church is.

History, even Church history, is full of, and I would say even founded on evidence of continuing revelation, the founding of this Nation being one stark example of that.  Who are we to dictate to God how that revelation will take place and to whom?  Obviously, through Joseph Smith the Church was founded as the order of revelation and direction for the Church.  That does not mean that only the current prophet of the Church is entitled to revelation and angelic visitation (if that were true, Joseph Smith would not have ever been visited).

With all that in mind, here’s the most important thing to understand about the author and the movement (the author has been very clear about this): It is not a “religious” movement.  The author makes no claims whatsoever of religious authority, which is to say authority to dictate God’s will as it pertains to the affairs of the church and the ordinances of salvation.  That is the sole stewardship and responsibility of the President of the Church, currently Thomas S. Monson (who, incidentally I fully sustain as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and the only man on earth who holds and exercises all the priesthood keys).

Read closely this quote by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

“Against such times as come in our modern day, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are commissioned by God and sustained by you as prophets, seers, and revelators, with the President of the Church sustained as the prophet, seer, and revelator, the senior Apostle, and as such the only man authorized to exercise all of the revelatory and administrative keys for the Church (emphasis added).”

The same can be said of the account of Hiram Page in Doctrine & Covenants.  Again, in this case, he was claiming to receive revelation pertaining to the “order of the Church.”  Section 28 instructs that only Joseph Smith (and by extension the current Prophet) receives revelation for the Church (see section headings).

You also have to recognize what it means to be a prophet and what it means to be a seer (see section 2-C, question “What is a seer?”).

We in the Church tend to automatically assume that these gifts of prophecy and seership are reserved only for the President of the Church.  That’s just not true.  It is absolutely true that the President of the Church is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church and the only one authorized to receive revelation and commandments for the Church and the only one who holds and exercises all the keys pertaining to the ordinances of salvation; but that does not mean that God does not and will not grant those gifts of prophecy and seership to others, within specific constraints and for specific purposes.  In this case, those constraints are non-religious by design for the purpose of starting something that can be immediately appealing to a much broader audience than religion can reach in today’s world, or at least any one specific religion.

We’re kidding ourselves if we believe that the Church will be able to fill the whole Earth and that everyone will have adequate opportunity to be exposed to the fullness of the Gospel if left only up to the Church’s formal missionary efforts.   It has to move faster than that, and the fact that the work to be accomplished during the Millenium will be undertaken in large measure by people who are NOT members of the Church has been given much commentary by many Church leaders, including Brigham Young.  How else would the Lord prepare the rest of His children to receive the gospel if not by creating a movement of socio-economic and political origin and intent that can unite people under a common banner that is not religious (do your homework on the difference between the Church of God and the Kingdom of God)?  To my mind, it makes perfect sense:  Get people united so they can begin to talk openly about and jointly explore such concepts as truth, right and correctness as they pertain to unalienable rights, the nature and order of law, the pillars of economics, etc.  The natural progression, for those of sincere heart, would be to seek after all truth regardless of where it’s found (and yes, there is truth in other religions as well as science and other non-religious disciplines), which inevitably leads to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  But on a mass scale, in our current world, as fast as things are falling into disorder and degradation, this kind of movement cannot begin with religion, even if it inevitably ends there.

Another important factor to consider—a hint if you will—is the origin of the facsimile number 2.   Unlike the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants and even the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham was not received by divine messengers or by revelation; it was purchased by the Church.  I don’t want to try to read too much into this, but I have experienced enough to know that almost nothing happens by chance in these matters and the manner by which the book came into Joseph Smith’s hands was, in my opinion, by design to help fortify the barrier that must exist between the message inscribed in the facsimile and the LDS Church.  Although the Church owns it and Joseph interpreted a portion of it, the message of it is specifically and intentionally NOT meant to be associated specifically with the LDS church.  If it had been given by revelation, it would be easier for opponents to claim association with the Church and pass it off as fraud or fiction; but, if it was purchased by the Church (as it could have been by any other person or organization), and if its translation was facilitated by someone not officially acting for the Church, then its overall intent as an invitation to the entire world to recognize God’s hand in all aspects of their lives becomes much less objectionable.  After all, any church or person could have bought the facsimile and any person could have been called to translate it.  It just so happens that a member of the Church is most likely to 1) be very accustomed to the idea of God’s interest in our lives at all levels, 2) be somewhat accustomed to the idea of revelation and communication from God and to seek it out with sincerity and real intent, 3) have some familiarity with the facsimile, and 4) be pure enough in desire and intent to do whatever God asks without nefarious motivation.  The combination of those things makes a member of the Church a most likely candidate by virtue of spiritual preparation, but not necessarily by virtue of membership in the Church.

Finally, a question: why not? Why can’t God call whomever He wants to do whatever is necessary according to His wisdom and designs?  Obviously, He can.  The only real question on the subject is, has He?  In the end, all the evidence, testimony and scriptures in the world can’t convince anyone whether it is true or not.  That determination is between God and the individual, and the responsibility is on that individual to throw aside all preconceptions and prejudices and be sincere in their appeal to God to know if it is true.  I will never know if you have been able to achieve that level of completely open sincerity, only you can know that.  All I can do is tell you that it’s true.  Don’t take my word for it, though.  Even if you can’t take my word for the truth of it all (and I am adamant that you should not just take my word for it), at least give the possibility of it sincere, honest consideration and prayer (after having shed your fears and preconceptions).  Don’t just dismiss it off-hand, certainly not until you’ve had a chance to read the actual translations once they are published.

There really isn’t much else to say on the matter.  Whether or not you discover the truth of it is of little importance to me except that I would hate to see anyone miss out on the great events about to take place because of something as petty and preventable as closed-mindedness.  Your belief will do little to fortify my conviction, nor will your doubt weaken it.  I can only testify, as I have, that it’s true.  The rest is up to you.

P.S. If by some chance the Prophet comes out with any direct comment in opposition to this movement or the author of the blog, I will be the first to abandon the whole thing and do as the primary children and follow the Prophet.  I promise, though, that will not happen.

‘Nuff said.

I had expected to have it ready by now, but I’ve decided to go big with it, so in conjunction with the author of thylibertyinlaw.com, I’ve decided to produce some multimedia to go with the challenge.  So it might take longer than I first thought.  Nevertheless, it will be posted, so keep watching.  Best bet is to subscribe to my RSS feed (and don’t worry…I produce about 1 post per year, so you certainly won’t be over-loaded with crap from me.)

* I use the term “friend” here somewhat loosely, as Craig and I are not “friends,” per se.  In fact, I don’t know him at all and our only interaction has been more adversarial than friendly; but I don’t hate him and he kept his debate civil, so I’ll consider him a friendly opponent rather than an enemy.

I do understand the intent of Aristotle’s assertion, however: simply that law is not prejudiced, or at least is not intended to be, and should not be subject to the erratic mood swings of unbridled passion. In that sense, he is correct, though he did not go far enough in his commitment to his own idea. Law is beyond passion, and by that same notion is also beyond reason. Law is truth, and truth is constant and universal and exists regardless of any human reasoning however passionate or dispassionate. Instead, our reasoning, driven by our passion for truth, should lead us to understand, accept and ultimately obey truth as it is–law–and not to try to shape law to fit our present passions. Given sufficient time and honest pursuit, with passion that burns ever hotter on a course constantly corrected by reason, we eventually learn to live in harmony with all truth, thereby becoming one with truth. In essence, we become truth. We become the law. The law does not bend to us, but rather we take on its characteristics and nature.

So where Aristotle claimed that law is “reason free from passion,” the truth is that law is reason eternally joined with passion in perfect balance and harmony.

Obviously such a state of existence does not occur in the span of mortality. Thankfully, there is a perfectly designed, perfectly reasonable path that arrives at just such a state.

On one hand we have Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection.  I need not get into specifics about this theory; it has been posited in schools world wide for decades, so I’ll assume that most are generally familiar with it. A summary of the theory will suffice for our purposes here.

Darwinism is built on the assumption that, due to apparent similarities among the species of Earth, the origins of species can be traced back to a single ancestor, specifically a single-celled organism that spontaneously sprung to life through some unknown process in some sort of indefinable “primordial soup.”  Over the course of millions of years, and for no apparent reason given thus far by “science,” this single-celled organism evolved into increasingly more developed and complex organisms, eventually finding its way out of the soup and onto land, through amphibious and reptilian stages and finally into its primate stage.  In simplistic terms, according to evolutionary theory, man is the highest form of primate, having evolved from apes.

The evidence to support this theory is weak at best.  There is certainly scientific evidence of evolution over time within a given species; but, after all the years of evolutionary study, there is yet to be uncovered even a single shred of scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution across species, that is, evolution from one species into another.

The genesis of life is still unknown to evolutionary biologists, theorists and other scientists.  Also unknown is any reason why our supposed single-celled ancestor would have needed to evolve at all.  What was the impetus for evolution?  As far as the pro-Darwinist scientific community can explain, our single-celled parent sparked to life with a serious java jones and began evolving in hopeful anticipation of getting to the nearest Starbuck’s a few short millions of years down the road. 

Equally unknown is how one species evolves into another.  With no evidence to examine, science doesn’t have any idea how one species knows what to evolve into or how to evolve into it.  Development of tissues, organs, etc. is all based on instructions provided by DNA.  So how a species knows to overcome its own DNA and instruct its own development is as yet unexplained.

All of this says nothing about the collection of conditions required to create, support and sustain life, whether or not it evolves as Darwin purports.  The best explanation that science can come up with, so far, is randomness.  (Don’t get me started on the impossibility of randomness, that’s for another post).

On the other hand we have God.  Not God as defined by most religions–i.e. the unknowable, nebulous super-being whose relationship to man is the subject of endless speculation and debate–but God as He really is.  A perfectly evolved being who was once as man is now.

Is this definition of God so hard to swallow?  Look at it this way: Man has existed for generations spanning at least thousands of years.  During that time–a relatively short span relative to the age of the universe–man has progressed in discovery and innovation in tremendous, even miraculous ways, and this with limited resources and brain function (which science still can’t explain, by the way).  Now project man a hundred million years into the future.  Is it not reasonable to assume that such progress would continue?  Is it not reasonable to assume that man’s understanding of the laws of nature and universe would continue to purify, allowing him to overcome many of the limitations that we now face?  Now suppose that progress continued eternally.  Suppose that man’s intelligence and identity continued eternally, not only man’s, but a man’s, each human’s intelligence and identity.  Suppose life continues in some form or another after the life that we understand and observe as mortal life.  If each individual’s life continued for eternity, would it not be reasonable to assume that, given an endless amount of time to continue learning and progressing, man would achieve a state of existence so elevated that to humans such as us, such a being would appear in every way divine?

How is this difficult to accept?  On the first hand we are expected to accept the notion of cross-species evolution.  Why, then, would not the end (or at least the future) of that evolution for mankind be something akin to godhood?

If, then, it is true that the simple answer is better or more reliable than the alternatives, why would science be more than happy to jump to the conclusion that man has evolved from an ultra simple single-celled organism into a highly complex species? If nature tends towards simplicity, why would natural selection and evolution move a species from super simple high efficiency to super complicated high maintenance?

Further, why would life have evolved into separate sexes, male and female, if certainly the simplest and most efficient method of reproduction is asexual? It could be fairly argued that the dynamics of human male-female interrelations are among the most complicated in nature, and yet that is how “nature” has designed the species, and according to Darwinists, per natural selection and evolution, this complicated way is superior to the alternatives; otherwise it would not have survived the generations of evolution, much less been the result of the generations of evolution.

So either science is completely wrong about the principle of Ockham’s Razor and they cling to it out of complete lack of anything else of substance from which to base observational conclusions; or science is completely wrong about evolution.

Don’t get me wrong: Science is not bad or inherently evil. But the science being pimped in the press and institutions of the world is obviously grossly lacking in power and substance.

Maybe it’s finally time to admit that science as the solitary pursuer and provider of truth is not, as they say, a perfect science.