What ever happened to imaginative play?
Click on the title above to read an eye-opening article about change in child's play over the past six decades and the connection to the social ills of today.
Families that Discuss together, stay together
Families that Discuss together, stay together
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
What Is More Important For An Economy—Liberty or Equality?
.
The desire for equality comes from within man, not his government. Every parent observes that each child wants to have either a larger portion or an equal piece of brownie. Although Human nature passionately desires liberty, it more diligently seeks and loves the idea of equality. Tocqueville penned the truth that the more equal men are; the more insatiable will be their longing for equality. Even a small degree of liberty will satisfy man, but no amount of equality will ever be enough. At first government will allow equality and later they promote it through special interest regulations under the seemingly harmless guise of socialism.
What do democracy and socialism have in common? “Equality,” says Tocqueville, “but while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Gradually, the coveted equality turns against a people as government intervenes at a continually increasing rate to grant equality at the price of liberty. In their book, Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman explore three levels of equality. These are equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The first two kinds of equalities did not limit freedoms, but expanded them to be greater than ever in the history of the world during our Nation’s founding and beyond. Since the early decades of the last century a new kind of equality has emerged that is destroying our freedoms—it is the equality of outcome. Let us explore deeper into the different levels of equality to understand their effect on the human race.
During the United States’ founding period it was the equality before God that was desperately sought to break free from an increasingly oppressive government. Inspired by John Locke and other great thinkers of the past, Thomas Jefferson composed the Declaration of Independence to proclaim that all men are created equal. The indicator to Jefferson’s intent is phrased in the famous preamble,“[that all men are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Man was given the liberty to shape his own life and serve his own purposes, provided he did not interfere with similar rights of others. Invading these God-given rights was to be prohibited; therefore, government was instituted to protect these rights.
Conflict between the Declaration of Independence and slavery took center stage until finally resolved by the Civil War. Jefferson agonized over the tyranny of slavery in his notebooks and correspondences. He pondered over solutions to eliminate it. Similarly many of us today agonize over the enslaving power of the welfare system and of its ineffectiveness and degradation of the human soul, but in like manner to Jefferson, we ponder the ways it could be eliminated and find that it seems virtually impossible. Terminating welfare immediately by legislation may cause a war, but could it be phased out gradually? Will we have another civil war? Not likely, however it is quite possible to have a great many statesmen who will rise up and lead us out of the quagmire.
Shortly after the Civil War greater opportunity for all men provided a new equality never before enjoyed by men of all races—it was the equality of opportunity. It would not be an equal opportunity of “identity” in the sense of an individual’s geographical location; whether there existed a careful or neglectful upbringing; or whether there were limitations of or lack of birth defects. Equal opportunities would mean that “no one should be prevented by arbitrary obstacles from using his capacities to pursue his own objectives… and from achieving those positions for which their talents fit them and which their values lead them to seek. Not birth, nationality, color, religion, sex, nor any other irrelevant characteristic should determine the opportunities that are open to a person—only his abilities” (Friedman). The “melting pot” of all races, religions and culture shows evidence of the vast equal opportunity available in the United States. After the Civil War an explosion of free market ideas promoted extraordinary expansion of free enterprise, competition and laissez-faire. Writes Friedman, “Everyone was to be free to go into any business, follow any occupation, buy any property, subject only to the agreement of the other parties to the transaction. Each was to have the opportunity to reap the benefits if he succeeded, to suffer the costs if he failed. There were to be no arbitrary obstacles. Performance, not birth, religion, or nationality, was the touchstone.” Wealth increased exponentially and charitable activity abounded with non-profit hospitals, charitable foundations and privately endowed colleges and universities.
Equality before God and equality of opportunity provided favorable conditions for freedom and liberty to prosper. We find that when liberty and freedom existed people were allowed to live according to the dictates of their conscience. The society would become a mixture of abundance and poverty, charity and unkindness, master and laborer, honest and dishonest. Not aware they were trading freedom for their security, the people went grappling to the government for security against the “appalling activities of the corrupted”. The security they desired was in the name of socialism. It would be a system that would promote the good of and for all people. Tocqueville feared that a democracy carried too far might undermine civic virtue and replace it with social servitude, "There is a manly and lawful passion for equality which incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.” No longer satisfied with the freedom and liberty of the first two levels of equality, the people desired a third equality that would threaten and destroy liberty, but that would ensure security. Just as the child desires an equal piece of brownie, the masses desired the security of having an equal outcome of everything. Tocqueville observed that the chief passion, which stirs men, is the love of equality of conditions.
In the last 60 years our nation has increasingly gravitated toward the security of equal outcome. “Everyone should have the same level of living or of income, [and] should finish the race at the same time.” write the Friedman’s. “As the Dodo said in Alice and Wonderland, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’” The goal today is the vague notion of fairness. There is a belief among many that some companies have an unfair hold on the market, that some children are unfairly abused, that some youth do not have the “fair” opportunity to go to college, or that some special interest group is not recognized fairly as it should be. Under this false notion of fairness the government must grow stronger and more comprehensive to make things more and more “fair” as the rapacious special interest groups grovel for more. “It becomes regularly necessary to qualify legal provisions increasingly by reference to what is ‘fair’ or ‘reasonable,’” says F. A. Hayek of increased government intervention. The Friedman’s continue, “’Fair shares for all’ is the modern slogan that has replaced Karl Marx’s, ‘To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.’” Who decides what is fair? Who is to give the prizes? The people, having given up the liberty to choose for the want of security, have now delegated this power to the state. The state can now divide up our land, income and possessions and give it as “prizes” to others who “deserve” it. Surrendering our freedoms over to the increasingly paternal government, we gain what seems to be an increasing equality of outcome, but in reality, the disparity between the rich and the poor becomes greater and will eventually destroy the middle class. Reality is more like George Orwell’s Animal Farm where, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Fearing anarchy, the masses tend toward socialism feeling that the socialist pathway is a recipe for “the good of all.” Yet, in the end the talented have lost the incentive to achieve and the mediocre have been rewarded—all are in a decadent decline towards destruction. Tocqueville warns that “anarchy is not the greatest of the ills to be feared in democratic nation, but the greatest of ills will be the careful downward path to servitude. As equality increases and is never quenched, slowly the freedom will be.”
Many are beginning to look at security, or equality of outcome, with increased apprehension. Have they sensed the reality that this level of equality is squelching our delicate freedoms? Has it been leading us down the path of socialism? Is the collectivist creed destroying our democracy? If so, where did we go wrong? What turned us down the path of servitude? Perhaps we find our answer at the beginning of this article. I commenced by stating that no amount of equality will be enough for man. Later in our study of the three levels of equality we saw that our passion for equality will increase infinitely until we have destroyed our freedoms. The solution is as simple as instilling knowledge to the child who wants an equal piece of brownie. Virtues and ethics are learned; character is built; patience, kindness and charity are impressed upon the young heart. People without the knowledge of what Thomas Jefferson truly meant about equality have interpreted it to mean equality of outcome. Lack of knowledge is perhaps the main cause for our economic catastrophe today. Tocqueville suggests that we seek our education from the classics, “All who have ambitions to literary excellence in democratic nations should ever refresh themselves at classical springs; that is the most wholesome medicine for the mind. Not that I hold the classics beyond criticism, but I think that they have special merits well calculated to counterbalance our peculiar defects. They provide a prop just where we are most likely to fall.” It may be easier to be trained for a career at the local university, but it is essential for our freedoms that we be immersed in a lifelong education in the liberal arts.
Above, I mentioned the possibility of Statesmen leading us out of the quagmire of the welfare state. Statesmen build their character upon the high moral virtues found in the ancient and modern classics. Some are formally educated in the universities and some are self-educated from the mentor/authors of the classics, but both learn to understand human nature and the history of cause and effect. They are empowered with the knowledge that restores and maintains freedoms. It is essential that we relearn our true history and understand human nature or continue on the path of servitude and ignorance. Whether we have the statesmen to lead us out of our predicament or not depends upon the reader. What is more important to you—Liberty or equality?
The desire for equality comes from within man, not his government. Every parent observes that each child wants to have either a larger portion or an equal piece of brownie. Although Human nature passionately desires liberty, it more diligently seeks and loves the idea of equality. Tocqueville penned the truth that the more equal men are; the more insatiable will be their longing for equality. Even a small degree of liberty will satisfy man, but no amount of equality will ever be enough. At first government will allow equality and later they promote it through special interest regulations under the seemingly harmless guise of socialism.
What do democracy and socialism have in common? “Equality,” says Tocqueville, “but while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Gradually, the coveted equality turns against a people as government intervenes at a continually increasing rate to grant equality at the price of liberty. In their book, Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman explore three levels of equality. These are equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The first two kinds of equalities did not limit freedoms, but expanded them to be greater than ever in the history of the world during our Nation’s founding and beyond. Since the early decades of the last century a new kind of equality has emerged that is destroying our freedoms—it is the equality of outcome. Let us explore deeper into the different levels of equality to understand their effect on the human race.
During the United States’ founding period it was the equality before God that was desperately sought to break free from an increasingly oppressive government. Inspired by John Locke and other great thinkers of the past, Thomas Jefferson composed the Declaration of Independence to proclaim that all men are created equal. The indicator to Jefferson’s intent is phrased in the famous preamble,“[that all men are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Man was given the liberty to shape his own life and serve his own purposes, provided he did not interfere with similar rights of others. Invading these God-given rights was to be prohibited; therefore, government was instituted to protect these rights.
Conflict between the Declaration of Independence and slavery took center stage until finally resolved by the Civil War. Jefferson agonized over the tyranny of slavery in his notebooks and correspondences. He pondered over solutions to eliminate it. Similarly many of us today agonize over the enslaving power of the welfare system and of its ineffectiveness and degradation of the human soul, but in like manner to Jefferson, we ponder the ways it could be eliminated and find that it seems virtually impossible. Terminating welfare immediately by legislation may cause a war, but could it be phased out gradually? Will we have another civil war? Not likely, however it is quite possible to have a great many statesmen who will rise up and lead us out of the quagmire.
Shortly after the Civil War greater opportunity for all men provided a new equality never before enjoyed by men of all races—it was the equality of opportunity. It would not be an equal opportunity of “identity” in the sense of an individual’s geographical location; whether there existed a careful or neglectful upbringing; or whether there were limitations of or lack of birth defects. Equal opportunities would mean that “no one should be prevented by arbitrary obstacles from using his capacities to pursue his own objectives… and from achieving those positions for which their talents fit them and which their values lead them to seek. Not birth, nationality, color, religion, sex, nor any other irrelevant characteristic should determine the opportunities that are open to a person—only his abilities” (Friedman). The “melting pot” of all races, religions and culture shows evidence of the vast equal opportunity available in the United States. After the Civil War an explosion of free market ideas promoted extraordinary expansion of free enterprise, competition and laissez-faire. Writes Friedman, “Everyone was to be free to go into any business, follow any occupation, buy any property, subject only to the agreement of the other parties to the transaction. Each was to have the opportunity to reap the benefits if he succeeded, to suffer the costs if he failed. There were to be no arbitrary obstacles. Performance, not birth, religion, or nationality, was the touchstone.” Wealth increased exponentially and charitable activity abounded with non-profit hospitals, charitable foundations and privately endowed colleges and universities.
Equality before God and equality of opportunity provided favorable conditions for freedom and liberty to prosper. We find that when liberty and freedom existed people were allowed to live according to the dictates of their conscience. The society would become a mixture of abundance and poverty, charity and unkindness, master and laborer, honest and dishonest. Not aware they were trading freedom for their security, the people went grappling to the government for security against the “appalling activities of the corrupted”. The security they desired was in the name of socialism. It would be a system that would promote the good of and for all people. Tocqueville feared that a democracy carried too far might undermine civic virtue and replace it with social servitude, "There is a manly and lawful passion for equality which incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.” No longer satisfied with the freedom and liberty of the first two levels of equality, the people desired a third equality that would threaten and destroy liberty, but that would ensure security. Just as the child desires an equal piece of brownie, the masses desired the security of having an equal outcome of everything. Tocqueville observed that the chief passion, which stirs men, is the love of equality of conditions.
In the last 60 years our nation has increasingly gravitated toward the security of equal outcome. “Everyone should have the same level of living or of income, [and] should finish the race at the same time.” write the Friedman’s. “As the Dodo said in Alice and Wonderland, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’” The goal today is the vague notion of fairness. There is a belief among many that some companies have an unfair hold on the market, that some children are unfairly abused, that some youth do not have the “fair” opportunity to go to college, or that some special interest group is not recognized fairly as it should be. Under this false notion of fairness the government must grow stronger and more comprehensive to make things more and more “fair” as the rapacious special interest groups grovel for more. “It becomes regularly necessary to qualify legal provisions increasingly by reference to what is ‘fair’ or ‘reasonable,’” says F. A. Hayek of increased government intervention. The Friedman’s continue, “’Fair shares for all’ is the modern slogan that has replaced Karl Marx’s, ‘To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.’” Who decides what is fair? Who is to give the prizes? The people, having given up the liberty to choose for the want of security, have now delegated this power to the state. The state can now divide up our land, income and possessions and give it as “prizes” to others who “deserve” it. Surrendering our freedoms over to the increasingly paternal government, we gain what seems to be an increasing equality of outcome, but in reality, the disparity between the rich and the poor becomes greater and will eventually destroy the middle class. Reality is more like George Orwell’s Animal Farm where, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Fearing anarchy, the masses tend toward socialism feeling that the socialist pathway is a recipe for “the good of all.” Yet, in the end the talented have lost the incentive to achieve and the mediocre have been rewarded—all are in a decadent decline towards destruction. Tocqueville warns that “anarchy is not the greatest of the ills to be feared in democratic nation, but the greatest of ills will be the careful downward path to servitude. As equality increases and is never quenched, slowly the freedom will be.”
Many are beginning to look at security, or equality of outcome, with increased apprehension. Have they sensed the reality that this level of equality is squelching our delicate freedoms? Has it been leading us down the path of socialism? Is the collectivist creed destroying our democracy? If so, where did we go wrong? What turned us down the path of servitude? Perhaps we find our answer at the beginning of this article. I commenced by stating that no amount of equality will be enough for man. Later in our study of the three levels of equality we saw that our passion for equality will increase infinitely until we have destroyed our freedoms. The solution is as simple as instilling knowledge to the child who wants an equal piece of brownie. Virtues and ethics are learned; character is built; patience, kindness and charity are impressed upon the young heart. People without the knowledge of what Thomas Jefferson truly meant about equality have interpreted it to mean equality of outcome. Lack of knowledge is perhaps the main cause for our economic catastrophe today. Tocqueville suggests that we seek our education from the classics, “All who have ambitions to literary excellence in democratic nations should ever refresh themselves at classical springs; that is the most wholesome medicine for the mind. Not that I hold the classics beyond criticism, but I think that they have special merits well calculated to counterbalance our peculiar defects. They provide a prop just where we are most likely to fall.” It may be easier to be trained for a career at the local university, but it is essential for our freedoms that we be immersed in a lifelong education in the liberal arts.
Above, I mentioned the possibility of Statesmen leading us out of the quagmire of the welfare state. Statesmen build their character upon the high moral virtues found in the ancient and modern classics. Some are formally educated in the universities and some are self-educated from the mentor/authors of the classics, but both learn to understand human nature and the history of cause and effect. They are empowered with the knowledge that restores and maintains freedoms. It is essential that we relearn our true history and understand human nature or continue on the path of servitude and ignorance. Whether we have the statesmen to lead us out of our predicament or not depends upon the reader. What is more important to you—Liberty or equality?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Unconditional Love has Converting Power
A talk given recently:
Some time ago I was in the Missionary Training Center preparing to serve God’s children in Argentina. I was thrilled for the opportunity to serve in the same country as my father had done before me. He had loved his mission and the people and the faith building experiences. I grew to love Argentina because of my father. But in the MTC I was surprised that we were being taught to pray with all the energy of our souls to love the people. “Why?” I asked, “wouldn’t that just come naturally?” Don’t I already love them because my father loved them? The next words from my MTC teacher would be repeated in my mind frequently for the next 21 years. He told us that we would need the Lord’s kind of love for these people. They would be of a different culture with different traditions and values than what I had been raised with. I would be teaching them truths that were hard to bare for many of them, but they would listen because they could feel God’s love emanating from me building trust in Him, the Savior, and many of them would want to make the commitments of membership. That day I learned a powerful truth that people will come unto Him more readily if we truly love them with this pure love of Christ, this unconditional love.
Jesus told his disciples opposite of what the world believed was love. He said in Matthew 5:43-44, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Christ’s love is not the same as the world’s love. It may seem much easier to love those who are nice, those who behave well, who are respected, and powerful, and influential. And we should love them, but that is only part of the equation—the easy part. The better part is to love those who do not seem to deserve it. King Benjamin knew that we would be tempted to not practice true unconditional love towards others and he warned us that “The natural man is an enemy to God,” he explained, “and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. . (Mosiah 3:19)
I found in my mission as well as when I became a wife and a mother that unconditional love was a powerful tool in healing hearts and bringing others to Christ.
A marriage that is built on a foundation of unconditional love in the covenant and oath of the Priesthood has the power to overcome the difficulties of this temporal world. Parents who teach and discipline with unconditional love see through the difficulties of childhood and young adulthood and recognize in their children all the gifts and talents the Lord has given them. Parenting becomes more joyful and more meaningful. Individuals who see their neighbors through the glasses of unconditional love will not be offended or angry and will be given the opportunity to lift another rather than condemn.
The disciples of the New Testament together with those of this continent in the Book of Mormon knew the converting power of unconditional love, thus they preached that it was the most desirable gift to possess and encouraged all to pray for it. Paul told us we are nothing if we do not have it. Nephi conversed with the angel who taught him about the tree of life and learned that unconditional love was “the most desirable above all things.” (1 Ne. 11:22) One of the last messages in the Book of Mormon is a discourse from Moroni who pleads with those in the latter days, “But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God.” (Moro. 7:47–48)
Over two decades have passed since I learned the converting power of unconditional love. It has not been a lesson that has changed me overnight, nor will it, but it has been a journey of learning, stretching and growing. It has been a journey of joy.
I would like to share an experience with you about growth through finding unconditional love for an enemy. Some years ago my mother brought into her home a person who had lost her way. She had joined the church as a young adult, had gone on a mission and had become engaged to a nice active member. When things did not work out as intended, she became sad and lost her way. She turned to the vices that she had known before joining the church and was in this state when my mother took her in. Over the years, I have listened more to the adversary than to the Spirit and began letting judgments on her character build inside me. At times I would repent, but not fully. Had I practiced unconditional love I would have seen who she really was as a child of God. It wasn’t until last summer when President Sagers asked us to clear up any poor relationships in order to be prepared to go to the Twin Falls Temple. Through fasting and prayer I prayed diligently and with all the energy of my heart to have that pure love of Christ. Gradually it came and it seemed that my whole being was transforming, that each cell was rebuilding on this new realm of love. I felt a charity for her that I had never felt before and it continues today and she has responded to me more kindly. I testify that this love converts individuals to Christ; both the giver and the receiver.
This Christmas season will be more meaningful to you and to me as we plead to Heavenly Father for this love; the pure love of Christ. As you do He will bless you with gradual amounts of love and you will feel the power come over you to love even your most troublesome enemy and you will feel your capacity to love grow boundless.
Jesus Christ is the author of love. He lives and loves each of us with unconditional love. It was that love that gave him the omnipotent power to atone for our sins. This is His Church. We are his children. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen
Some time ago I was in the Missionary Training Center preparing to serve God’s children in Argentina. I was thrilled for the opportunity to serve in the same country as my father had done before me. He had loved his mission and the people and the faith building experiences. I grew to love Argentina because of my father. But in the MTC I was surprised that we were being taught to pray with all the energy of our souls to love the people. “Why?” I asked, “wouldn’t that just come naturally?” Don’t I already love them because my father loved them? The next words from my MTC teacher would be repeated in my mind frequently for the next 21 years. He told us that we would need the Lord’s kind of love for these people. They would be of a different culture with different traditions and values than what I had been raised with. I would be teaching them truths that were hard to bare for many of them, but they would listen because they could feel God’s love emanating from me building trust in Him, the Savior, and many of them would want to make the commitments of membership. That day I learned a powerful truth that people will come unto Him more readily if we truly love them with this pure love of Christ, this unconditional love.
Jesus told his disciples opposite of what the world believed was love. He said in Matthew 5:43-44, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Christ’s love is not the same as the world’s love. It may seem much easier to love those who are nice, those who behave well, who are respected, and powerful, and influential. And we should love them, but that is only part of the equation—the easy part. The better part is to love those who do not seem to deserve it. King Benjamin knew that we would be tempted to not practice true unconditional love towards others and he warned us that “The natural man is an enemy to God,” he explained, “and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. . (Mosiah 3:19)
I found in my mission as well as when I became a wife and a mother that unconditional love was a powerful tool in healing hearts and bringing others to Christ.
A marriage that is built on a foundation of unconditional love in the covenant and oath of the Priesthood has the power to overcome the difficulties of this temporal world. Parents who teach and discipline with unconditional love see through the difficulties of childhood and young adulthood and recognize in their children all the gifts and talents the Lord has given them. Parenting becomes more joyful and more meaningful. Individuals who see their neighbors through the glasses of unconditional love will not be offended or angry and will be given the opportunity to lift another rather than condemn.
The disciples of the New Testament together with those of this continent in the Book of Mormon knew the converting power of unconditional love, thus they preached that it was the most desirable gift to possess and encouraged all to pray for it. Paul told us we are nothing if we do not have it. Nephi conversed with the angel who taught him about the tree of life and learned that unconditional love was “the most desirable above all things.” (1 Ne. 11:22) One of the last messages in the Book of Mormon is a discourse from Moroni who pleads with those in the latter days, “But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God.” (Moro. 7:47–48)
Over two decades have passed since I learned the converting power of unconditional love. It has not been a lesson that has changed me overnight, nor will it, but it has been a journey of learning, stretching and growing. It has been a journey of joy.
I would like to share an experience with you about growth through finding unconditional love for an enemy. Some years ago my mother brought into her home a person who had lost her way. She had joined the church as a young adult, had gone on a mission and had become engaged to a nice active member. When things did not work out as intended, she became sad and lost her way. She turned to the vices that she had known before joining the church and was in this state when my mother took her in. Over the years, I have listened more to the adversary than to the Spirit and began letting judgments on her character build inside me. At times I would repent, but not fully. Had I practiced unconditional love I would have seen who she really was as a child of God. It wasn’t until last summer when President Sagers asked us to clear up any poor relationships in order to be prepared to go to the Twin Falls Temple. Through fasting and prayer I prayed diligently and with all the energy of my heart to have that pure love of Christ. Gradually it came and it seemed that my whole being was transforming, that each cell was rebuilding on this new realm of love. I felt a charity for her that I had never felt before and it continues today and she has responded to me more kindly. I testify that this love converts individuals to Christ; both the giver and the receiver.
This Christmas season will be more meaningful to you and to me as we plead to Heavenly Father for this love; the pure love of Christ. As you do He will bless you with gradual amounts of love and you will feel the power come over you to love even your most troublesome enemy and you will feel your capacity to love grow boundless.
Jesus Christ is the author of love. He lives and loves each of us with unconditional love. It was that love that gave him the omnipotent power to atone for our sins. This is His Church. We are his children. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen
The Importance of a Liberal Arts Education
A response to Hayek's, The Road to Serfdom:
The pilgrims, wishing to worship how they pleased, commenced the beginning of a free society in the newly discovered North America. Over the span of almost two centuries a very large body of people came to believe in a set of principles for politics, economics and education. A corpus of fundamental principles was written in an unprecedented constitution. Over the decades since the founding, our nation became the world’s power center in science, medicine and technology; it lead in politics and education; the free market produced advances in trade and industry. Why was America such a great success? Among many things, the people believed in a certain order of values that guided them in their families and communities, in their vocation, and in their politics. They were educated in the liberal arts that gave them a broad base of knowledge in human nature, politics and literature. F. A. Hayek explains in his book, The Road to Serfdom, how a great nation could unknowingly make choices that would lead them in the opposite direction of the liberty and great bounty we have enjoyed.
Socialism comes in many forms, he writes, but the end is always the same: totalitarianism. Good people lead and thinking that they are doing good things, they plan for ways to help the poor and the suffering by providing programs. What are the outcomes? Never what was expected, in fact, the good leaders would be opposed if they knew the end product beforehand. Virtues lost in a socialist environment include independence, self-reliance, initiative, and responsibility. Fascism, and Communism become the ultimate ends of any socialist state. I wish to influence the reader in understanding that it has been a lack of education that has prompted us down the road to socialism.
The more education received and the more intelligent the individual, the more varied are his interests. He will be less likely to follow the crowd or to agree on a single order of uniform values dictated by a government. If we want to find “a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail.” This set of values, the lower and baser, is what will lead a nation. Hayek doesn’t mean “that the majority of people have low moral standards; [he] merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards. It is, as it were,” he concludes, “the lowest common denominator, which unites the largest number of people.”
In the above situation, who leads? It is the potential dictator who can project these low moral standards and recruit more of the masses to support them. Hayek suggests that “it will be those who form the ‘mass’ in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind [the dictator’s] particular ideals.” Hayek describes how this dictator will surround himself with people and groups of people who can devise propaganda and programs to push their value system. The followers in this situation are “the docile and gullible,” writes Hayek, “who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.”
How can you, dear reader, and I help to combat the low, base, primitive ideals that would eventually destroy freedom? It will have to begin with our own education. There will be others who will be frontrunners in reforming education to include broad liberal arts in addition to social education. What is the difference between the two, you ask? An education in the liberal arts is expanding breadth and depth of general knowledge as a foundation to build upon. It includes reading, writing, discussing and debating the Great Conversation as is found in the classics, ancient and modern. A social education is a technical or professional training for a preferred vocation. Both are necessary, but only one can maintain freedom—an education in the liberal arts. When I say liberal I do not mean the modern sense of liberal as in the progressive movement, but in the root meaning of the word liber, which means, “free.”
Many scholars including Hayek advocate a broad education as essential for resisting propaganda and remaining free. “Even the most intelligent and independent people,” says Hayek, “cannot entirely escape that influence [of political propaganda] if they are long isolated from all other sources of information.” The choice to change our educational system from one of liberal arts to a social education and training has been one of those choices that has isolated us from the liberating principles of freedom and may surely lead us down the road to serfdom. There is still time and there are still classics sitting on the shelves of our libraries waiting for us to pick up and read, allowing us to join the Great Conversation. It is a choice that will lead us to freedom one individual at a time.
The pilgrims, wishing to worship how they pleased, commenced the beginning of a free society in the newly discovered North America. Over the span of almost two centuries a very large body of people came to believe in a set of principles for politics, economics and education. A corpus of fundamental principles was written in an unprecedented constitution. Over the decades since the founding, our nation became the world’s power center in science, medicine and technology; it lead in politics and education; the free market produced advances in trade and industry. Why was America such a great success? Among many things, the people believed in a certain order of values that guided them in their families and communities, in their vocation, and in their politics. They were educated in the liberal arts that gave them a broad base of knowledge in human nature, politics and literature. F. A. Hayek explains in his book, The Road to Serfdom, how a great nation could unknowingly make choices that would lead them in the opposite direction of the liberty and great bounty we have enjoyed.
Socialism comes in many forms, he writes, but the end is always the same: totalitarianism. Good people lead and thinking that they are doing good things, they plan for ways to help the poor and the suffering by providing programs. What are the outcomes? Never what was expected, in fact, the good leaders would be opposed if they knew the end product beforehand. Virtues lost in a socialist environment include independence, self-reliance, initiative, and responsibility. Fascism, and Communism become the ultimate ends of any socialist state. I wish to influence the reader in understanding that it has been a lack of education that has prompted us down the road to socialism.
The more education received and the more intelligent the individual, the more varied are his interests. He will be less likely to follow the crowd or to agree on a single order of uniform values dictated by a government. If we want to find “a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail.” This set of values, the lower and baser, is what will lead a nation. Hayek doesn’t mean “that the majority of people have low moral standards; [he] merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards. It is, as it were,” he concludes, “the lowest common denominator, which unites the largest number of people.”
In the above situation, who leads? It is the potential dictator who can project these low moral standards and recruit more of the masses to support them. Hayek suggests that “it will be those who form the ‘mass’ in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind [the dictator’s] particular ideals.” Hayek describes how this dictator will surround himself with people and groups of people who can devise propaganda and programs to push their value system. The followers in this situation are “the docile and gullible,” writes Hayek, “who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.”
How can you, dear reader, and I help to combat the low, base, primitive ideals that would eventually destroy freedom? It will have to begin with our own education. There will be others who will be frontrunners in reforming education to include broad liberal arts in addition to social education. What is the difference between the two, you ask? An education in the liberal arts is expanding breadth and depth of general knowledge as a foundation to build upon. It includes reading, writing, discussing and debating the Great Conversation as is found in the classics, ancient and modern. A social education is a technical or professional training for a preferred vocation. Both are necessary, but only one can maintain freedom—an education in the liberal arts. When I say liberal I do not mean the modern sense of liberal as in the progressive movement, but in the root meaning of the word liber, which means, “free.”
Many scholars including Hayek advocate a broad education as essential for resisting propaganda and remaining free. “Even the most intelligent and independent people,” says Hayek, “cannot entirely escape that influence [of political propaganda] if they are long isolated from all other sources of information.” The choice to change our educational system from one of liberal arts to a social education and training has been one of those choices that has isolated us from the liberating principles of freedom and may surely lead us down the road to serfdom. There is still time and there are still classics sitting on the shelves of our libraries waiting for us to pick up and read, allowing us to join the Great Conversation. It is a choice that will lead us to freedom one individual at a time.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
History Teaches...
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
--C.S. Lewis
--C.S. Lewis
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
What is Truth?
Good things come to those who discuss:
While arguing Rothbard’s ideas with Dave we chose to be offended for our own reasons. He and I were not agreeing about the Free Market bringing abundance to all participants as stated by Rothbard and Bastiat. He believed that the impoverished soul who chooses not to work is more abundantly taken care of in a welfare state and I believed that in any level of a free market economy that all participants are blessed with more abundance each at their level of wealth, continually progressing further towards more abundance. It is okay to disagree, but we were angry about it and one of us wanted to stop the discussion—Period, the end!
I explained to him that I am not arguing for the sake of being right and “showing off”, but was truly wanting to practice verbalizing in the Socratic method. Learning comes better for me if I can discuss, explain, question and listen. I was frustrated that the dialog would come to an end for that very reason. I began doing what women do best—analyze. Why do we angrily argue about ideas? What is it that offends us? How can we get to the bottom of this if we cannot discuss? What is the “bottom of this” I asked myself? The bottom of this is truth. Whose truth? God’s truth. If it is God’s truth, why are we arguing? Isn’t His truth always constant and unchanging and unquestionably the way it is? Aha, an epiphany arose in my mind that might be the cause of the arduous argument. Are we arguing because we wish to have ownership in the truth we are seeking? Do we want to be the possessor of the truth that ensures that we are “right”? “Was that the cause?”, we discussed together. A sudden relief swept over me as I realized that yes we were “hoarding” the truth for the sake of being the “right” one. There is power in that you know. But, obviously not a power of happiness or peace.
The thought came to me that this idea is huge. Is there anything more huge? Absolutely not. Everything that comes from God is truth. All humankind are in search of it in their own way, but when we hoard it by arguing over it we are in essence taking possession of what is already His. He gives truth to us. All that we seek for is ours, not to hoard, but to share. The essence of why we must learn, discuss and ponder is to search for His truth.
While arguing Rothbard’s ideas with Dave we chose to be offended for our own reasons. He and I were not agreeing about the Free Market bringing abundance to all participants as stated by Rothbard and Bastiat. He believed that the impoverished soul who chooses not to work is more abundantly taken care of in a welfare state and I believed that in any level of a free market economy that all participants are blessed with more abundance each at their level of wealth, continually progressing further towards more abundance. It is okay to disagree, but we were angry about it and one of us wanted to stop the discussion—Period, the end!
I explained to him that I am not arguing for the sake of being right and “showing off”, but was truly wanting to practice verbalizing in the Socratic method. Learning comes better for me if I can discuss, explain, question and listen. I was frustrated that the dialog would come to an end for that very reason. I began doing what women do best—analyze. Why do we angrily argue about ideas? What is it that offends us? How can we get to the bottom of this if we cannot discuss? What is the “bottom of this” I asked myself? The bottom of this is truth. Whose truth? God’s truth. If it is God’s truth, why are we arguing? Isn’t His truth always constant and unchanging and unquestionably the way it is? Aha, an epiphany arose in my mind that might be the cause of the arduous argument. Are we arguing because we wish to have ownership in the truth we are seeking? Do we want to be the possessor of the truth that ensures that we are “right”? “Was that the cause?”, we discussed together. A sudden relief swept over me as I realized that yes we were “hoarding” the truth for the sake of being the “right” one. There is power in that you know. But, obviously not a power of happiness or peace.
The thought came to me that this idea is huge. Is there anything more huge? Absolutely not. Everything that comes from God is truth. All humankind are in search of it in their own way, but when we hoard it by arguing over it we are in essence taking possession of what is already His. He gives truth to us. All that we seek for is ours, not to hoard, but to share. The essence of why we must learn, discuss and ponder is to search for His truth.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Center for Social Leadership Youth
My son, Andrew, and his friends at Williamsburg Academy have put together an inspiring and educational site for youth. On the front page they say, "At CSLYouth we are preparing ourselves so that we can provide the solutions to the coming style of life and leadership. Our mission is to become better connected with youth across the Nation and World, and preparing them for tomorrow by using the technology of today."
Who are the authors of the site and what do they believe?
We are students, youth, and leaders. We come from different backgrounds, races, religions, ethnicities, and places.
We part ways with the stereotypical teenager, who is commonly viewed as lazy, overly dramatic, ignorant, incompetent and egotistical.
At CSL Youth, we are young men and women who are educating ourselves for leadership, who value virtue, wisdom, diplomacy, and courage. It is clear to us that humanity is experiencing dramatic changes. The type of leadership in our parents’ world is broken. Instead of letting big business and big government have all the power, our generation is breaking that power up so each individual can make their own unique contributions. As we unite, we are making a new power system which is more service-oriented, where we can choose to serve instead of being forced by government. And can we just say, technology rocks! Our mission is to prepare ourselves to be the leaders who make sure this new power system--which is coming--values faith, family and freedom. At CSL Youth, we dedicate ourselves to improving our own lives and society regardless of our social standing, wealth, privilege and especially age. We are young, but we can create beauty, lift our vision of mankind, educate ourselves and each other, and deepen our life experience. We can prepare for leadership. We will lead in all parts of society, including business, government, education, media, religion, family and community to protect our freedom and the freedom of our children. Our parents’ generation has left us with a huge national debt, landfills full of Coke bottles we didn't drink from, and a broken educational system that pretty much stinks. Society is suffering. Institutions are crumbling. We have lost our faith in government and corporations. Yesterday’s leadership is lacking, even broken. And it is up to us to step up and act. We are preparing ourselves so that we can provide the solutions. Have you asked yourself, What is the highest and best use of my talents and passions? What can I do that will have the most positive impact on society? How will the world be better because of my life and contribution? What was I born to do ? At CSL Youth, we believe that we can make a difference. WE can inspire each other. WE can help each other. WE can teach each other. WE can do it. Who are we? We are… Students. Youth. Leaders. Will you join us?
Who are the authors of the site and what do they believe?
We are students, youth, and leaders. We come from different backgrounds, races, religions, ethnicities, and places.
We part ways with the stereotypical teenager, who is commonly viewed as lazy, overly dramatic, ignorant, incompetent and egotistical.
At CSL Youth, we are young men and women who are educating ourselves for leadership, who value virtue, wisdom, diplomacy, and courage. It is clear to us that humanity is experiencing dramatic changes. The type of leadership in our parents’ world is broken. Instead of letting big business and big government have all the power, our generation is breaking that power up so each individual can make their own unique contributions. As we unite, we are making a new power system which is more service-oriented, where we can choose to serve instead of being forced by government. And can we just say, technology rocks! Our mission is to prepare ourselves to be the leaders who make sure this new power system--which is coming--values faith, family and freedom. At CSL Youth, we dedicate ourselves to improving our own lives and society regardless of our social standing, wealth, privilege and especially age. We are young, but we can create beauty, lift our vision of mankind, educate ourselves and each other, and deepen our life experience. We can prepare for leadership. We will lead in all parts of society, including business, government, education, media, religion, family and community to protect our freedom and the freedom of our children. Our parents’ generation has left us with a huge national debt, landfills full of Coke bottles we didn't drink from, and a broken educational system that pretty much stinks. Society is suffering. Institutions are crumbling. We have lost our faith in government and corporations. Yesterday’s leadership is lacking, even broken. And it is up to us to step up and act. We are preparing ourselves so that we can provide the solutions. Have you asked yourself, What is the highest and best use of my talents and passions? What can I do that will have the most positive impact on society? How will the world be better because of my life and contribution? What was I born to do ? At CSL Youth, we believe that we can make a difference. WE can inspire each other. WE can help each other. WE can teach each other. WE can do it. Who are we? We are… Students. Youth. Leaders. Will you join us?
Free To Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman
My Summary and Response to the Book:
In their book, Free To Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman write to the common person why a moderate free market system is the best mode of government. They tout that a free market with limited government regulation far surpasses the rate of financial progress for all classes, verses a stagnant socialist system that destroys incentive and growth. Societies that do not permit the free market have huge gaps between the rich and the poor. The socialists believe that the fault lies in the man and not in the system so they continually make the system bigger and more comprehensive to fix the “faulty man”. A free market grows wealth by allowing the individual to do what he does best in his own way within the law. The difference is that with socialism, massive amounts of energy and spending is focused on coercive measures of conformity whereas in the free market most of the energy is focused on innovation and production.
They recommend that the government be limited and that power should never be used to provide benefits. They harmonize with the words of John Stuart Mill, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Welfare programs are coercive. “New Deal” programs have proven to be very inefficient. Resolving to teach solutions to the ordinary person, the Friedman’s give solutions for reducing and eventually phasing out Social Security and other “cradle to grave” programs. They advise putting education back into the parents’ hands where it belongs.
Three equalities are explored—equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. During the United States’ Founding period it was the equality before God that was sought. Shortly after the Civil War greater opportunity for all men provided a new equality never before enjoyed by all men of all races—it was the equality of opportunity. Both equalities did not limit freedoms, but expanded them. Since the early decades of the last century a new kind of equality has emerged that is destroying our freedoms—it is the equality of outcome. “Everyone should have the same level of living or of income,” write the authors, “[and] should finish the race at the same time. As the Dodo said in Alice and Wonderland, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’” The goal is fairness, a very vague notion. In the end the talented lose the incentive to achieve and the mediocre are rewarded—all are in a decadent decline towards destruction. Under this false notion of fairness the government must grow stronger and more comprehensive to make things more and more “fair” as the rapacious special interest groups grovel for more.
In their book, Free To Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman write to the common person why a moderate free market system is the best mode of government. They tout that a free market with limited government regulation far surpasses the rate of financial progress for all classes, verses a stagnant socialist system that destroys incentive and growth. Societies that do not permit the free market have huge gaps between the rich and the poor. The socialists believe that the fault lies in the man and not in the system so they continually make the system bigger and more comprehensive to fix the “faulty man”. A free market grows wealth by allowing the individual to do what he does best in his own way within the law. The difference is that with socialism, massive amounts of energy and spending is focused on coercive measures of conformity whereas in the free market most of the energy is focused on innovation and production.
They recommend that the government be limited and that power should never be used to provide benefits. They harmonize with the words of John Stuart Mill, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Welfare programs are coercive. “New Deal” programs have proven to be very inefficient. Resolving to teach solutions to the ordinary person, the Friedman’s give solutions for reducing and eventually phasing out Social Security and other “cradle to grave” programs. They advise putting education back into the parents’ hands where it belongs.
Three equalities are explored—equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. During the United States’ Founding period it was the equality before God that was sought. Shortly after the Civil War greater opportunity for all men provided a new equality never before enjoyed by all men of all races—it was the equality of opportunity. Both equalities did not limit freedoms, but expanded them. Since the early decades of the last century a new kind of equality has emerged that is destroying our freedoms—it is the equality of outcome. “Everyone should have the same level of living or of income,” write the authors, “[and] should finish the race at the same time. As the Dodo said in Alice and Wonderland, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’” The goal is fairness, a very vague notion. In the end the talented lose the incentive to achieve and the mediocre are rewarded—all are in a decadent decline towards destruction. Under this false notion of fairness the government must grow stronger and more comprehensive to make things more and more “fair” as the rapacious special interest groups grovel for more.
My Response to Approaching Zion, Hugh Nibley
What is the use of studying economics through the scholars of Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat and F. A. Hayek when the Lord says the opposite? I just spent several weeks pouring over Wealth of Nations, Economic Harmonies and The Road to Serfdom mingled with selected works of Karl Marx and theories of John Maynard Keynes. What did it teach me? I learned that the free market works and that regulated economies lead to totalitarianism; that faith in the “invisible hand” leads to individual wealth as well as national wealth and that following one’s self-interest leads to a more abundant and wealthy people. Before reading Hugh Nibley’s Approaching Zion, I was convinced that the free-market is the ultimate way and that anything else means destruction to liberty. Confused am I now as I contemplate the Lord’s economy taught in Nibley’s book, which dictates that we must be completely equal with no poor among us. As much as I hated Marx’s philosophy I was tormented to think that the Lord wants us to live similar to Marx’s utopia. It could not be so. Relieved, I realized that Marx’s utopia is obtained by force in an immoral world called communism. Zion, the other utopia, is achieved by individual choice in a pure and moral world. The difference is morality and virtue as opposed to immoral behavior and vice.
Excuses and justifications for immoral actions are the desire of today. Darwinism and Marxism fulfill those desires and become the justification for much of our societal living. It is the lack of spiritual teachings that promote the moral decay leading to an environment where communism can be possible. With such a dark prospect, it is no wonder why many still fight for a free market economy—an economy that allows free choice and prosperity. But on a higher level, God wishes us to not be concerned with money and becoming wealthy—He commands that we be completely obedient and full of compassion to the point that there is “no poor among us.” He teaches us His economy and the proper way to work in His kingdom, which is to study the scriptures, preach the Gospel, and work the land. There is no “self-interest” in the way that Adam Smith teaches, but only the interest in God’s kingdom and the focused preparation that must take place for Zion to prosper.
So my question in the beginning was why study Smith, Bastiat and Hayek when God’s economy is so different? I can only guess that before we can begin living, as God desires we must take strides apart from the slavery-loving Marxists and the compulsory planned economies of Keynes. The free-market is only a step in the right direction. The next step must be a liberal education. And in our education will we studying the subject of how to earn a living and get rich or will we study those revered subjects that will make us better men? All the while a spiritual education must be pursued according to ancient scripture and modern revelation in order to understand and prepare us for God’s economy.
Excuses and justifications for immoral actions are the desire of today. Darwinism and Marxism fulfill those desires and become the justification for much of our societal living. It is the lack of spiritual teachings that promote the moral decay leading to an environment where communism can be possible. With such a dark prospect, it is no wonder why many still fight for a free market economy—an economy that allows free choice and prosperity. But on a higher level, God wishes us to not be concerned with money and becoming wealthy—He commands that we be completely obedient and full of compassion to the point that there is “no poor among us.” He teaches us His economy and the proper way to work in His kingdom, which is to study the scriptures, preach the Gospel, and work the land. There is no “self-interest” in the way that Adam Smith teaches, but only the interest in God’s kingdom and the focused preparation that must take place for Zion to prosper.
So my question in the beginning was why study Smith, Bastiat and Hayek when God’s economy is so different? I can only guess that before we can begin living, as God desires we must take strides apart from the slavery-loving Marxists and the compulsory planned economies of Keynes. The free-market is only a step in the right direction. The next step must be a liberal education. And in our education will we studying the subject of how to earn a living and get rich or will we study those revered subjects that will make us better men? All the while a spiritual education must be pursued according to ancient scripture and modern revelation in order to understand and prepare us for God’s economy.
My Summary of Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley
Hugh Nibley sums up the ultimate utopia in his book, Approaching Zion, as explained by ancient Israel, ancient American Book of Mormon prophets and early prophets of the Latter-Day dispensation. If one has read any of the writings of Karl Marx he may find that the two works seem to be similar. They both tout equality with no rich and no poor among them. The difference, however, is significant and immensely opposite. Marx’s utopia is obtained by force in an immoral world called communism. Zion, the other utopia, is achieved by individual choice in a pure and moral world. Shedding light on Zion, the prophet Brigham Young elucidates that it will never be achieved until “this inequality shall cease on the earth.” How is equality attained? Nibley describes the process in a series of lectures that comprise Approaching Zion. The people must prepare to receive Zion by obedience to and by becoming pure unto God. The mental attitude should be the belief that everything comes from God; that we do not earn anything from God and that because all comes from Him, everyone has a right to what he needs to sustain him, even that of the stranger who harvests a needed apple off another’s tree to maintain his life as he walks on his merry way.
Nibley writes of the zealous, but uneducated individuals who strive in vain to prepare for Zion. “Zeal,” he writes, “makes us loyal and unflinching, but God wants more than that.” He wants us to obtain knowledge and learn to do our own thinking in addition to having zeal. With many essential truths having been removed from its classrooms, the modern education of today is an education without spirituality and does not educate the whole man. Being humble and teachable is the key to receive the required knowledge that creates the whole man who is prepared to receive Zion. Writes Nibley, “True knowledge never shuts the door on more knowledge, but zeal often does.” He cautions us to become liberally educated equal to our zeal.
There is no middle ground when it comes to preparing for Zion. The masses want to have both the blessings from heaven and the excitement of the world. Zion can only be built on true religion, which is obedience to every principle and doctrine. It is a separation of worldly dogma. Nibley reiterates the truth in Matthew 6:19-20, “You cannot lay up treasures both on earth and in heaven—you cannot divide your heart between them; for to one master or the other you must give your whole and undivided devotion.” Devotion to God reduces corruption. Educating our families away from the middle ground to the saving principles of Zion is paramount to begin the preparation for the Lord to bring Zion to earth. Nibley exclaims that we must preach it, live it, study it and discuss Zion in our families so that they will know how to bring it to the earth!
Nibley writes of the zealous, but uneducated individuals who strive in vain to prepare for Zion. “Zeal,” he writes, “makes us loyal and unflinching, but God wants more than that.” He wants us to obtain knowledge and learn to do our own thinking in addition to having zeal. With many essential truths having been removed from its classrooms, the modern education of today is an education without spirituality and does not educate the whole man. Being humble and teachable is the key to receive the required knowledge that creates the whole man who is prepared to receive Zion. Writes Nibley, “True knowledge never shuts the door on more knowledge, but zeal often does.” He cautions us to become liberally educated equal to our zeal.
There is no middle ground when it comes to preparing for Zion. The masses want to have both the blessings from heaven and the excitement of the world. Zion can only be built on true religion, which is obedience to every principle and doctrine. It is a separation of worldly dogma. Nibley reiterates the truth in Matthew 6:19-20, “You cannot lay up treasures both on earth and in heaven—you cannot divide your heart between them; for to one master or the other you must give your whole and undivided devotion.” Devotion to God reduces corruption. Educating our families away from the middle ground to the saving principles of Zion is paramount to begin the preparation for the Lord to bring Zion to earth. Nibley exclaims that we must preach it, live it, study it and discuss Zion in our families so that they will know how to bring it to the earth!
F. A. Hayek's Road To Serfdom—A Summary
In his book, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich A. Hayek, touts classical liberalism and free market economics as the best way to build a happy wealthy nation. He recounts the history leading up to Nazi Germany through the rise of socialism. He demonstrates that democratic planning requires propaganda and coercion and is best implemented in an ignorant society. Hayek sought to find the true commonalities in the many sides of socialism. Fascism and communism are similar in that the end of either become totalitarian systems, but they differ when they exist in a capitalist system—one being a conservative party and the other a modern liberal party. Either way they both share the path of constant expansion of a centralized government. Hayek warns us in his book that unless we change our present course of collectivism we will be headed down the road to serfdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)