- Joseph Smith, Jr.

Much of what I will write here further supports the position I have taken in previous writings, which hopefully anyone can see above all is about the pursuit of truth.  I have intentionally kept my name off this blog and other writings I have produced not to protect my identity necessarily, but rather to try to illustrate that I’m not interested in self-promotion or self-aggrandizement.  I don’t care to build a following of readers or devotees, I don’t care to monetize my thinking on these matters (hence no Google or other ads on this blog).  On the contrary, I am adamant that everyone think for themselves and discover for themselves what is true and what is not.  That includes what is and is not true in my writing.

The tricky part of that process is sometimes found in the discernment of truth from the midst of falsehood.  It’s really a matter of eternal vigilance and never taking any claim for granted or at face value.  Above all, I hope that’s the thing that any reader will gain from reading here: the ability, or at least the desire to sift through thoughts and information, capturing and clinging to what is true, and disregarding what is not.  It takes a fair amount of mental and spiritual discipline and a high degree of personal integrity—all traits that I am certainly still working to improve, being admittedly far from mastery myself.  But that’s why we engage in this experience together, so we can help each other in that discernment by discussion, consideration, some civil debate and most importantly, prayer.  Emotion must be tempered by reason and humility.  There’s no room for visceral knee-jerk reactions or defensiveness from anyone.  Sometimes life throws you twists, for good or for bad, and the measure of character is how well you can bend to absorb them.

Speaking of twists, back to the story.

I have to begin by illustrating a case of what I can only describe as divine serendipity.  For a combination of reasons (illness and such) I haven’t been to my Gospel Doctrine class in about four weeks.  That is until today when I was finally able to make it back.  I was glad to be there; I missed it.  This year the course of study is focused on the Old Testament.  It was during this class today, taught by a man who works at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University, that I was introduced to the story of Balaam.

I say “introduced” to reiterate my point from the beginning that sometimes the true depth and importance of scriptures are only revealed when the reader is in a circumstance befitting the revelation.  I had actually heard the story of Balaam before on many occasions, and never once did it hold much impactful meaning for me other than to be a kind of weird story of passing interest about a guy and his talking donkey.  (I’m probably over-stating my ho-hum and maybe a little irreverent attitude about it; in truth I just never paid it much attention.) Today, however, it meant a lot.

You can do your own research, including reading Elder McConkie’s article, which I highly recommend, to find out more about who Balaam was, but the short version is that he was a prophet, as Elder McConkie says, “in some respects a very great prophet.”  This isn’t to be construed as some alternative definition of the word “prophet,” like maybe he was a self-proclaimed prophet, or a false prophet or anything of the kind.  No, he was a legitimate prophet, an individual blessed with an exceptional gift of prophecy and revelation, who had great experiences in receiving instruction from God, and who showed remarkable commitment to doing only what the Lord instructed him to do, nothing more, nothing less.

Still, in spite of that commitment and his diligence in that respect, he still was just a man, with human frailty as any other man (or woman) has.  In his case, he had strong desires for wealth and accolades of men.  This was to be his ultimate undoing.

I won’t go into great detail about the story.  You can read a much better treatment of it than I could produce in Elder McConkie’s article.  In summary, however, Balaam was asked by Balak, the king of the Moabites, to curse the armies of Israelites who were moving in vast numbers across the land and who had already destroyed the Amorites.  (Side note: if you know who the Moabites and Amorites are, you’re ahead of me, because I still don’t really know who they were.)   In return for the cursing, Balak promises to “promote [Balaam] unto very great honor,” and to do whatever Balaam says for him.  So he entices him with honor and (presumably) riches.

On several occasions, both at his home and after he has agreed to go to Balak, Balaam “importunes” the Lord to be allowed to curse the Israelites, and on each occasion he is instead told to bless them.  To his credit, he does as instructed and ends up blessing the Israelites three times, much to the anger of Balak.

In the end, however, even though Balaam was faithful to the instructions he received from the Lord, his incessant pestering of the Lord to be allowed to curse the Israelites and thereby receive the promised stature and position results in his death by the sword of the Israelite warriors who ultimately were commanded by the Lord through Moses to go to war against the Midianites (Midian being the land where Balaam came from).

So why was this story so significant to me today?

First, it’s yet another instance of multiple prophets on the Earth at the same time; in this case, Balaam and Moses.  No one can deny that Moses was the Lord’s prophet and according to Elder McConkie and the book of Numbers, no one can deny that Balaam was also the Lord’s prophet.  Both had direct interaction with the Lord and his messengers.  Both received instructions directly from God for other people.

Second, and more importantly, it’s a stunning illustration of the incorrect belief in the infallibility of prophets.  Never in history has the Lord called a prophet who was incapable of falling victim to his own human weakness.  Satan’s strategy for mankind involves, above all, preying on the weaknesses that are already present in our personalities by virtue of both our nature and our experiences.  He doesn’t bother trying to introduce new weaknesses.  For example, he’s doesn’t bother trying to coerce me into taking a drink or two on occasion, because he knows there is simply not the slightest inkling of desire in me for booze.  I like thinking and deliberately impairing that ability seems pretty stupid to me.  Satan knows that as he knows pretty well each of our actual weaknesses.  That’s where he focuses his attention.  All it takes is the slightest of openings, the narrowest crack in the armor, and he can begin to work on us and introduce trouble by whispers and ignorance.

The most important lesson in all this for me is this: just because someone has been right about something in the past, doesn’t guarantee they will be right in the future.  That includes prophets and those of exceptional spiritual gifts.  The inverse, however, is also true: just because someone can be proven to be incorrect now doesn’t mean that they have always been.  In more spiritual terms, as the story of Balaam shows us, just because someone is a true prophet now, does not mean they will always be; likewise, just because a prophet may have fallen does not mean his entire legacy of testimony must be discounted.  We can thank the flawed court system for giving us the false positive (or negative) of character witnesses.  In ugly court battles, often the first line of attack for both sides is impeachment of the witnesses of the opposing side.  It’s a sad state of affairs when the validity of a testimony somehow hinges on the credibility of the witness.  In a court of law, as in all matters, shouldn’t truth be of supreme concern regardless of who’s delivering it?  The trick, then, is to be able to discern what is and is not true in every case, in every statement, in every claim.  Truth is truth, regardless of where it’s found.

In the end, ours is the responsibility to seek and accept all truth, even if sometimes it may come from the most unlikely and inconsistent of sources.  Thankfully, there are many aids available to us—gifts, sometimes of “curious workmanship,” that the Lord provides to aid in the pursuit.  We must remain open-minded and without guile and loyal only to the truth, not to those who may deliver it.  After all, “cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.”

Thanks Balaam.  I needed that.

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?

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.

One of the great contributions that Newton provided for the world of science–the world in general, really–was the presentation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.  The second of these laws deals with entropy, specifically stating that the amount of entropy of systems tends to increase over time, and that the more complex a system is, the stronger this tendency is, due to the amount of useful energy required to maintain the complexity of the system.  In other words, the longer a system operates, the more it tends to break down, and the more complex the system is, the faster it will tend to break down.

Entropy increase is caused by the tendency of heat (energy) to disperse, spreading from the point of origin out to the cold regions surrounding it, thereby warming the colder regions, and cooling the warmer regions until the system reaches a point of energetic equilibrium, or in effect, status quo.  At this point, the system still has energy (see the first Law of Thermodynamics dealing with the conservation of energy), but absent the dynamic tension provided by the disparate temperatures (hot and cold), the energy of the system becomes increasingly useless, that is, not useful for actual production (work).  The system becomes stagnant and begins to decay and die.

The concept of entropy is not unique to physics.  Information theory, mathematics, medicine, and sociology all identify the phenomenon of entropy within the context of their respective disciplines.  It’s reasonable to deduce that entropy is not simply a characteristic of physical or social systems, but is the description of a characteristic of immutable natural law that applies to all levels of organization.

Given that sociology recognizes the inevitability of social entropy, we should examine all social constructs to understand the energies that power them, and thereby be prepared and able to overcome the inevitability of entropic decay.  One such social construct is economics.

Economics has as its “fundamental concern…the material standard of living of society as a whole and how that is affected by particular decisions made by individuals and institutions” (Sowell, 2007).  So, if we are to understand what makes economies strong or weak, grow or recede, work or not work, we have to examine the decisions being made by those in positions of economic influence, bearing the tendecies of systemic decay–entropy–always in mind.

So, how does entropy apply to economy? First, we have to identify the systems involved.

Despite the foul-crying of liberals and socialists (which cries are deceptions meant only to hide their true intent, but we’ll come back to that), the systems of economy are the classes of society.  Much debate can be waged over definitions of classes and the thresholds that separate one class from another, but for the purposes of this argument, we’ll identify only two, separated by an age-old standard: the haves, and the have-nots.  Obviously this is also grossly oversimplified, because depending on perspective and the specifics of what (i.e. have what, or have not what), anyone could rightly be identified in either class.  That being understood and conceded, regardless of the what, there is in human society always a division between those who have and those who have not.

Now, given these two classes, lets examine the decisions that might be made by those in governing positions relative to each of these classes.

In the first case, we’ll look at socialism, which has as one of its defining characteristics the redistribution of wealth. In other words, socialists believe that the natural separation between haves and have-nots is actually not natural, or if it is natural, that it is not fair to the have-nots.  So, in the interest of balancing this inequity, they feel they are justified in taking some portion of the what from those who have and giving it freely to the have-nots.  Now, no matter how much of the what is given to the have-nots, there will always be something that they have not : they have not earned that which they now have.  They did not work to produce it, it was simply taken from those who have and given to them.

And thus begins the decay.

Economic energy–heat–originates with those who produce.  Their having is directly correspondent to their production.  Given that any individual, no matter how productive, is still only one person, there is an inherent physical limit on that person’s productivity, and therefore a cap on how much they can earn (have).  If the person hopes to break beyond that limit, he/she must involve others who are also productive, and hopefully create a synergy, in which the output of their combined productivity is greater than the sum of the parts, and they can all share in the fruits of their production and have together.  All are benefited, their productivity (work or useful energy) grows, and with it increases the “material standard of living” of those involved.  As long as they remain productive, and continue to increase productivity, they will remain a source of economic energy, an economic “hot spot,” so to speak.

If, however, socialist policy is in place, this growth cannot take place.  In these circumstances, as soon as the haves have grown beyond a certain threshold (as defined by the socialists, of course), the fruits of their productivity are no longer their reward, but are removed from them and become the reward of those who are not producing on their own, i.e. those in economic freeze.  The socialist belief (so they say) is that by “spreading the wealth around,” those who are in economic freeze will thaw and become productive and begin to create their own warmth.  This may be true in some cases, but only on the smallest of scales.  The new-found what that the have-nots have been given may provide means for them to acquire goods that they would not have had if left to their own ambitions (or lack thereof), and that infusion of capital into the market may provide some small measure of warmth; but as with the ice melting in a glass in a warm room, the cold of the ice does emanate outwards from the glass, but only for a matter of moments and centimeters–an imperceptible amount in a room even as small as a few square feet.

Economic entropy increases.

Heat is removed from its place of origin and infused into the cold regions, slightly warming the cold and cooling the hot until the entire system is “equal” (the proclaimed but fraudulent goal of socialism).  Never mind that the system which was once hot and dynamic and growing is now stagnant, useless and at best, lukewarm…and gradually cooling.

This won’t matter to the socialist governors who were the originators of this decay to begin with, because they will now be at the top of the social food chain as they reap the fruits of what they have sown, extracting increasingly more in “administrative fees” (i.e. taxes) for distributing the wealth of an ever decreasing productivity base.

This is the socialist agenda, and this is the inevitable result.  It matters little if the socialist is truly motivated by power-greed, laziness, or is simply misled by hyper-emotional blindness, the end is the same.  The only difference being that the lazy and misled ultimately end up under the thumb of the power-greedy that they voted for.  The division between the haves and have-nots is still intact, only now its insurmountable–a formidable wall of concrete and barbed wire. Some might call it an Iron Curtain.

One need only study the socialist societies of the past to see that the result is always the same.  There has never been a socialist regime in any form that has endured.  They have either stagnated and died, been overthrown by revolution, or degenerated into fascism, totalitarianism and ultimately, destruction.  In point of fact, they are all on this same continuum, only differing in the measure of their decay, which as we now know, even in economics, has a name:

Entropy.

References

Sowell, Thomas. (2007). Basic Economics: A common sense guide to the economy (third edition). New York:Basic Books

This is what happens when a culture of people are conditioned, by religion or politics or other, to devalue human life on a regular and systematic basis.  In this case, and the case of Islam as a whole (and don’t kid yourself for a second that this has nothing to do with religion), Sharia Law allows for and even demands the complete disregard for the sanctity of human life to the point that men are expected, excused and even extolled for murdering their own wives and daughters if they should break faith in any way (to be judged, of course, by the same primitive cowards that throw the stones and light the fires).

Unbelievable…because the kid didn’t finish his homework.

P.S. What other group devalues human life on a regular and systematic basis?  Liberals.  (See abortion)

* I’m not actually quoting a specific source, just the general apologetic commentary that we keep hearing from media and cowardly political leaders who won’t call a spade a spade for fear of escalation or (worse for them) vote loss.