About Truth and Religion

ABOUT TRUTH

2

and

TOPICAL GUIDE

Part I This anthology, section 212.1, is excerpted from M. H. DeYoung’s document, the central research of which is about Social Security.

DeYoung entitled his research Our Federal Savings Plan.

By M. H. DeYoung All rights reserved

Whatever we are acquainted with must be something: we may draw wrong inference from our acquaintance, but the acquaintance itself cannot be deceptive. Thus, there is ‘no dualism’ as regards acquaintance. But as regards ‘knowledge’ of truths, there is ‘dualism.’ We may ‘believe’ what is false as well as what is true.1 Bertrand Russell

PREFACE Section 212.1: About TRUTH and RELIGION FOREWORD: a personal Testimonial knowledge’ best foundation is strict logical science necessity made antecedence logically essential religion’s foundation is belief Science look-a-likes have to worry about being ‘true’ Critical essence of human life: ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ F. A. Wolf explains Plato’s importance Tautology Ontologism Emerere, meaning of Plato’s Divided Line physis and nomos deontology and teleology natural evidences for axiomatic faith ‘Divine rights’ dogma is older than Babylon King Solomon lived before Greek gods’ legends Mormonism began with Joseph Smith The Lord’s house LOGOS is not a respecter of persons Contingent Truth Sarah Pratt rebuffed Joseph Smith Dr. Read’s lesson Reasoned Truth is hard to find in Joseph Smith’s religion Tolstoy Followers of the Gospel of Thomas philosophical pertinence Liar Paradox Fawn Brodie’s views Jack Anderson C. Darrow Thomas’ writings

4 69 72 74 75 75 75 75 75 79 90 92 93 94 94 96 102 103 105 107 108 108 109 139 140 140 141 143 144 146 147 147 147

3 TOPICAL GUIDE contd.

D. L. Lythgoe (The Church’s changing image) Paul Gunn Z. A. McGee the ‘golden ratio’ and G. P. Brockway analysis of economist, J. Schumperter Moses was Israel’s prophet? belief-based truth (of opinion) is always tentative there shall no sign be given Robert Herold’s commentary the complete Joseph Smith saga

ideal of uniting church and state John L Brooke’s book, The Refiners Fire forged Hofmann letters revealed Smith spirit and matter . . . hermetic theology paradox . . . Mormons against American state in 1850s deflating popular expectations 1860 council: keep away from controversy suppress countervailing voices Morrisite schism and Godbeites J. Taylor: rejection of Adam-God About Joseph Smith’s character “Mysteries of the kingdom” Revision of Genesis “Hard Determinism” (a result of believed materialism) ENDNOTES

151 151 153 156 157 164 166 167 169 178 179 181 183 185 186 186 187 187 187 188 190 191 191 192196

4

PREFACE

H. G. Wells observed the metamorphism of realism’s meaning: 2

The ‘modern realist’ is one who insists on materialist details; the ‘mediaeval realist’ was far nearer what nowadays we should call an Idealist.

As Wells observed, realism’s meaning changed relative to ‘materialist details.’ And because neither realism nor idealism’s meaning remained constant, ‘materialist details’ have failed to compel pure (i.e., real) truth?

When seeking pure reason-based, instead of belief-based truth, Bertrand Russell expelled ‘positive’ materialism from his reasoning: 3

If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no room for falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may be called “facts,” it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements; hence a world of mere matter [i.e., ‘positive’ unitary materialism], since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood.

So, until ‘positively real’ or ‘ideal’ imaginings hold sway over time, which can not be expected, rational meanings deduced from materialism must fail to exist because essence is simply expelled or denied by the materialist belief? : More probably, therefore, both realism and idealism, which Wells observed, results in irrationalism, as M. Heidegger’s Metaphysics observed?

Truth in life, therefore, confronts and continually must resolve the dualismbased paradox inherent of belief-based “rationalism-irrationalism” : 4

Here begins the contest between “rationalism and irrationalism” that has been in progress to this day in every conceivable disguise and under the most contradictory titles. Irrationalism is only the weakness and failure of rationalism and hence itself a kind of rationalism. Irrationalism is a way out of rationalism, an escape [by nihilist or positivist conflations of rational essence to forms of unitary materialism], which does not lead into the open but merely entangles us more in rationalism, because it gives rise to the [falseness of]

PREFACE

5

opinion that we can overcome rationalism by merely saying no to it, whereas this makes its machinations more dangerous by hiding them.

The U.S. Constitution was in its designing stage, when in Europe the principal Idealists (Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel) had philosophized unitary materialist irrationalism, about which C. Thomas wrote this:5 [In] pre national Prussia under Frederick the Great, Christian theology assumed [a conflated unitary materialist] merger with the divine after this life; Hegel posits such a merger here on earth [Kant’s dualism, i.e., essence and materiality, is not to be confused with Russell’s dualism of acquaintance, i.e., Whatever we are acquainted with must be something: we may draw wrong inference from our acquaintance, but the acquaintance itself cannot be deceptive. Thus, there is no dualism as regards acquaintance. But as regards knowledge of truths, there is dualism. We may believe what is false as well as what is true.] -- with

history and the collectivity he terms the state.

C. Thomas also wrote this about Idealists’ influence on Hegel’s belief conflated unitary materialist finding, called dialectical materialism:

The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought, above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind all appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient] systemizers, assuming that there could be discovered some essential explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between [the essence of] self and the world, which [they, in a positivist belief in unitary materialism, irrationally contended that] for Kant could be no more than a world of appearances. [Here is seen the metamorphism of meaning that H. G. Wells had observed: the materialist experience beguiles the human reason-based reality.] To achieve the healing of [Kant’s] dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory

6

PREFACE

most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato, Descartes, . . .] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own image. [These principal idealists irrationalism had conflated God’s antecedence, to which Nietzsche astutely cried out, “we have killed God!”.]

As Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of 1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of non-philosophical response to an understanding of the world. . . .

Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced.

[Which came first, the egg or the chicken (?), is of no consequence to this unitary materialist idealism that compounds the rational issue rather than seeking truthful answers to the above question the dogmatic focus is on irrationalism’s neatness?]

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve the categorical imperative [as ‘Christ’s ‘do unto others . . . , ‘, i.e., removing all concupiscence-based expedience] in making any moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their [asserted, as

PREFACE

7

if] essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority.

[Note how conflated unitary materialist ‘Idealism‘ is blameworthy for the expediently beneficial mechanist materialist conservative’ irrationalism.]

Human religious development is not nearly as old as the human genetic origin. H. G. Wells account of this is both concise and incisive: 6

Many people, with a rather materialistic theology in their minds, have been disagreeably impressed by the massed and accumulating evidences of man’s animal descent. Even if that be true they think it highly demoralizing. . . . There was no way of evading or satisfying these demands. . . . (Ref. 104) A queer development of the later Paleolithic and Neolithic Ages [clearly before the dawn of civilization] was self-mutilation. Men began to cut themselves about, to excise noses, ears, fingers, teeth and the like, and to attach all sorts of superstitious ideas to these acts. . . . This, too, has left its trace in the rite of circumcision, upon the religions of Judaism and Islam. . . . [which now often is also a Christian rite] (Ref. 426-7) Consider the tone of this extract from the writings of a Chinaman, Mo Ti, who lived some when in the fourth century B.C., when the doctrines of Confucius and of Lao Tse prevailed in China, before the advent of Buddhism to that Country, and note how “Nazarene” it is. 7 The mutual attacks of state on state; the mutual usurpations of family on family; the mutual robberies of man on man; the want of kindness on the part of the sovereign and of loyalty on the part of the minister; the want of tenderness and filial duty between father and son -- these and such as these, are the things injurious to the empire. All this has arisen from want of mutual love. If but that one virtue could be made universal, the princes loving one another would have no battle-fields;

8

PREFACE

the chiefs of families would attempt no usurpations. Men would commit no robberies; rulers and ministers would be gracious and loyal; fathers and sons would be kind and filial; brothers would be harmonious and easily reconciled. Men in general loving one another, the strong would not make prey of the weak; the many would not plunder the few, the rich would not insult the poor, the noble would not be insolent to the mean; and the deceitful would not impose upon the simple.

This is extraordinarily like the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth cast into political terms. The thoughts of MoTi came close to the Kingdom of Heaven [i.e., is Categorical Imperative, as do unto others . . .].

This essential identity is the most important historical aspect of these great world religions. They were in their beginnings quite unlike the priest, altar and temple cults, those cults for the worship of definite gods that played so great and so essential a part in the earlier stages of man’s development between 15,000 B. C. These new world religions, from 600 B.C., onward, were essentially religions of the heart and of the universal sky. They swept away all those various and limited gods that had served the turn of human needs since the first communities were welded together by fear and hope. And presently when we come to Islam we shall find that for a third time the same fundamental new doctrine of the need of a universal devotion of all men to one Will reappears. Warned by these Christian experiences, Muhammad was very emphatic in insisting that he himself was merely a man, and so saved his teaching from corruption and misrepresentation. [and cultist members of Islam seldom recognize that their religious origin was of Muhammad, a man; and isn’t this illogical fallacy generally an orthodox irrational human malady?] . . .But to the white truth in each [rival religion] being burnt free from its [dogmatic] dross, and becoming manifestly the same

truth -- namely, that the hearts of men, and therewith all the lives and

PREFACE

9

institutions of men, must be subdued to one common Will ruling them all. “St. Paul,” says Dean Inge in one of his ‘Outspoken Essays,’ “understood what most Christians never realize, namely, that the Gospel of Christ is not a religion [as became organically practiced by dogma and cult], but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance.” . . . [As in Islamic fallacy, dogma and cult restated Christian Categorical Imperative, in which Christ provided the example of living it.]

Buddha had died within a generation’s time (about 483 BC) when in 469 BC, Socrates was born. While Greek civilization had developed in language and science, as India also had, it was temporally burdened with tradition and mythological orthodoxy (many orthodox gods and dogmatic traditions then existed in each place). Socrates’ death sentence came about because he would not teach the Greek dogmatic idealism. And only in private conversation did his inner thoughts, which showed his new found devotion to the enlightenments of truth and light, privately express this predicament of seeking pure rational truth while also favoring the then Greek democratic civil authority, which condemned his contempt of mythology: when Crito had arranged for his escape, Socrates rejected his friend’s offer, declaring, without definition or explanation, that he would follow his reasoned spiritual God’s lead of him without regard for his life. Buddha’s experience with his outspoken rejection of Hindu Vedas, was the reason of his religious banishment from India. With other great philosophers of this time, like Buddha, Socrates teachings provided foundation to the logical practice of pursuing truth and knowledge by means of logical philosophy that has become known as the ‘scientific method’ (in which rational men, as Descartes, became the philosophical origin of Western Civilization’s religious truth, while in thoughtful men as Buddha, reasoning remained to be based on inference as Moses described in ‘The Song of Moses.’ ).

When Ludowich Allison introduced the Bible translation, arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates, he wrote this:8

That [King James] message reverberates . . . Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to make himself into God. (His

10

PREFACE

second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else.) . . .: the great covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ.

That message reverberates on many different levels throughout Western thought. It enables us to comprehend the mystery of life as a part of a larger story of sin and redemption. Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to make himself into God. (His second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else.) This is the great Biblical motif that runs from Genesis and the Fall through the impieties and failures of Israel to the final consummation of the Old Testament in the New. It is the tension between man’s aspirations and man’s inadequacies, and it gives rise to the idea of hope. The Bible tells us man’s stories are more than fables, and his oldest myths are more than legends; they are intricately inlaid into the very foundation of the cosmos, and further-more, into a cosmology that plays itself out in the processes of each individual soul.

In this, the Bible is the definitive epic of the West. King David had been dead two hundred years when the great Homeric verses of the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’ were first set down. The Biblical epic of which he is a central character was only halfway to completion.

This epic moves us from Exodus to Job, from the tribal and collective experience to the individual, which in its singularity is universal in a way the narrowly tribal cannot be. And while this revelation is unfolding, another is moving parallel in the opposite direction: the great Covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ, so that we move from the individual through the tribe to the universal.

[King Solomon was King David’s son and had also been dead more than a century before Homeric verses and legends of the Greek

PREFACE

11

myths and gods were written, which Socrates, centuries later, would not teach and for this was made to drink the hemlock.]

Since evidence that other Gospel versions existed and overtly were excluded from the Bible, particularly the recent finding of St. Thomas’ Gospel should be of interest: the following excerpt discloses the passion that embroiled the overt selection of Bible texts worthy to be published, which passion existed among principal actors some three centuries following Christ’s Crucifixion: the gospel of Thomas particularly, was about Gnosticism’s embrace of liberalism and democracy, which the authoritative materialist orthodoxy of the “Dark Age” had absolutely suppressed: 9

Followers of the Gospel of Thomas The gnostics . . . felt that only a faction of humans were capable of their kind of salvation -- but among themselves they were democratic, abandoning titles like bishop or deacon for a kind of commonwealth of individual inspiration. . . . This irked critics who were building a church with the hierarchy and discipline to withstand Roman persecution. Attendees at Gnostic services “all have access equally,” grumbled Tertullian, a church father who helped consolidate the Christianity we know today. “They pray equally . . . they share the kiss of peace with all, for they do not care how differently they treat topics -- All offer you gnosis!” [i.e., spiritual knowledge] Ideology’s definition is significant to the differences between the irrational untruths of orthodoxy and truth’s rational enlightenments: 10

Ideology 1. A set of doctrines; body of opinions: The majority of teachers and professors do not teach any ideology (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists). 2. The combined doctrines, assertions, and intentions of a social or political movement: communist ideology. 3. Abstract speculation of a visionary of impractical nature. 4. The science of the origin and nature of ideas. 5. A system of philosophy that derives all ideas exclusively from sensation.

Parrington wrote this about idealist religious dogma called ‘divine

12

PREFACE

right’ and mechanism: i.e, ‘economic determinism.’ 11

The three parties that emerged from the theological disputes, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Independent, followed, in the main, political divisions of Tory, Whig, and Democrat.

---The first stoutly upheld the absolutist principle in church and state. It stood for Bishop and King. Numbering probably a large majority of the English people, and led by the hereditary masters of England, it was dominated by the feudal spirit of corporate unity. It believed that social order, the loyal subjection of subject to ruler, was possible only through a coalescence of church and state. The subjectcitizen was born into the one as he was born into the other, and owed allegiance both to his spiritual and temporal overlords. Authority, whether in church or state, was of divine origin, and Bishop and King were the Lord’s appointed, answerable for their stewardship only to God. ---The second party was a compromise between aristocracy and democracy. It substituted the principle of elected stewardship for divine right. Rejecting the absolutism of the hierarchy, it turned to the system newly brought over from Geneva, a system that retained the principle of a state church, but which yielded control of the parish to the eldership, a select body of the best and wisest chosen by the laity, with final authority in doctrine and discipline vested in the synod. It drew its support largely from the London burgesses, but with a considerable following of country gentlemen. As the party developed it tended to merge with the nascent capitalism, restricted the doctrine of natural rights to property rights, and prepared the way for the later WHIGGERY of Pitt, or capitalistic imperialism.

---The third party was more or less consciously democratic in spirit and purpose, the expression of the newly-awakened aspirations of the social underling. Numbers of rebellious individualists appeared

PREFACE

13

who wanted to be ruled neither by bishop nor elder, but who preferred to club with the like-minded and set up an independent church on a local, self-governed basis. They took literally the command of Paul, ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.’ That was the true church, they asserted, which withdrew from all communion with sinners and rejected the authority of a sinful state; and so they call themselves Separatists. . .

It was the doctrines of Separatism, quite as much as the principle of the independency of the congregation, that aroused the fierce antagonism of Presbyterians equally with Anglicans. In the main those doctrines did not derive from John Calvin; they go back rather to Wittenberg than to Geneva, to the principles of Luther and certain German sects. . . . The Quaker was a mystic, sprung from the New Testament, who denied the Scriptural validity of the Hebraized Calvinism and a hireling priesthood, and accepted the Holy Spirit as the sole guide to his feet. The Seeker, on the other hand, who may perhaps be regarded as the completest expression of Puritan radicalism, was an open-minded questioner who professed to have found no satisfactory answer to his inquiry concerning the nature of the true church, and was awaiting further light. The Seekers were individuals rather than a sect, few in numbers yet greatly influential, men like Roger Williams, Sir Harry Vane, Cromwell, and perhaps Milton, outstanding figures of a great age, who embodied the final results of Puritan idealism before it was submerged into Restoration.

[These individuals were seekers in the sense of Socrates, Plato, Thomas, Descartes, and Kant]

During the long years of rule by divine right under the first Stuarts, the Anglicans held the Puritan unrest in strict control.

Nevertheless a hundred years of debate and changing economic conditions had rendered the attempt to erect in England a

14

PREFACE

counterpart of the French centralized state, no better than an anachronism. The Presbyterian opposition grew rapidly in numbers and prestige, and the early years of the Long Parliament marked the culmination of Presbyterian power. The bishops were overthrown and the elders were in a fair way to seize control of England. But unfortunately for Presbyterian hopes, the radical sects thrown up out of war clashed with the moderates and finally broke with them; whereupon followed the “root and branch” revolution that had been long preparing. The left-wing Independents secured control of the army and set about the work of erecting a government that should be a real commonwealth of free citizens. The voice of the underling, for the first time in England history, was listened to in the national councils, for the excellent reason that his sword was drawn to enforce his demands. But they were too small a minority to leaven the sodden mass of a people long subject to absolutist rule. The psychology of custom was against them. They could strike down their armed enemies in the field, but they could not liberate the minds of men unfit to be free. Militant Puritanism was overthrown and its idealisms became the jest of every drunken tapster in London. But fortunately, not before its political principles, long obstructed by theology, were sufficiently clarified to be laid open to the common understanding of Englishmen. Out of the debates around the camp fires of the army had come a new philosophy that rested on the principle that the individual, both as Christian and citizen, derives from nature certain inalienable rights which every church and every state is bound to respect. This far reaching doctrine of natural rights, to the formulation of which many thinkers had contributed and which received later its classic form from the pen of Locke, was the suggestive contribution of Puritanism to political theory, with the aid of which later liberals were to carry forward the struggle.

PREFACE

15

The far-reaching liberalisms implicit in the rejection of a hierarchical organization of the church were to discover no allies in the major premises of the system of theology accepted generally by the English Puritans, and by them transported to New England.

Calvinism was no friend of equalitarianism. It was rooted too deeply in the Old Testament for that, was too rigidly aristocratic. It saw too little good in human nature to trust the multitude of the unregenerate; and this lack of faith was to entail grave consequences upon the development of New England. That the immigrant Puritans brought in their intellectual luggage the system of Calvin rather than of Luther must be reckoned a misfortune, out of which flowed many of the bickerings and much of the intolerance that left a strain on the pages of early New England history.

Two divergent systems of theology, it will be remembered, were spreading through northern Europe during the years of the Reformation, systems that inevitably differentiated in consequence of certain variations of emphasis in the teachings of Luther and Calvin.

Both thinkers accepted the adequacy of the Scriptures to all temporal needs, but Luther was at once more mystical and more practical than Calvin, deriving his inspiration chiefly from the New Testament, discovering the creative source of the Christian line in the spiritual union of the soul with Christ, and inclining to tolerance of differences of opinion amongst believers; whereas Calvin was ardently Hebraic, exalting righteousness above love, seeking the law in the Old Testament and laying emphasis on an authoritarian system. The one was implicitly individualistic, the other hierarchical in creative influence. The teachings of Luther, erected on the major principle of justification by faith, conducted straight to political liberty, and he refused to compromise or turn away from pursuing the direct path. If one accepts the doctrine of the priesthood of all

16

PREFACE

believers, one can scarcely refrain from following Luther in his conception of Christian liberty. If the mystical union of the soul with Christ has superseded all lesser loyalties by a higher and more sacred, the enjoyment of spiritual freedom must be reckoned the inalienable right of every child of God. Neither the political state nor the official hierarchy can justly coerce the individual conscience. ‘One thing and one thing only,’ said Luther in his ‘Treatise on Christian Liberty,’ ‘is necessary for Christian life, righteousness and liberty.’ And from this he deduced the conclusion that ‘neither pope nor bishop nor any other man has the right to impose a single syllable of law upon a Christian man without his consent; and if he does, it is done in the spirit of tyranny.’ 12 Clearly, this is the spirit of uncompromising individualism that would eventually espouse the principle of democracy in church and state; and it was their native sympathy with such liberalism that led the radical Separatists to turn more naturally to Luther than to Calvin. Many of the differences that set Roger Williams so greatly apart from the New England brethren must be traced to the Lutheran origins of his thinking.

There was scant room in the rigid system of John Calvin for such Christian liberty. The Genevan thinker was a logician [who deduced irrationally from an ideal absolutism] rather than a philosopher, a rigorous system-maker and dogmatist who knotted every argument and tied every strand securely into its fellow [to the presumed causal ‘mechanism’ which dogmatically is based on temporal substance called ‘materialism’], til there was no escape from the net unless one broke

through the mesh. The formalist who demanded an exact system, and to the timid who feared free speculation, the logical consistency of Calvinism made irresistible appeal; and this perhaps suffices to explain its extraordinary hold on the rank and file of middle-class Presbyterians. More original minds might break with it -- men like

PREFACE

17

Richard Hooker and Roger Williams and Vane and Milton -- but academic thinkers and schoolmen, men whom the free spaces of thought frightened and who felt safe only behind secure fences, theologians like John Cotton and his fellows, made a virtue of [dogmatized idealistic] necessity and fell to declaiming on the excellence of those chains wherewith they were bound. How narrow and cold was their prison they seem never to have realized; but that fact only aggravated the misfortunes that New England was to suffer from the spiritual guidance of such teachers [Parrington’s description of mechanist deterministic ‘chains’ and ‘prison’ is reminiscent of Plato’s Allegory of The Cave.]. In seeking for an explanation of the unhappy union of a

reactionary theology and revolutionary political theory, Harriet Beecher Stowe suggested in ‘Poganuc People’ that the Puritan immigrants were the children of two different centuries; that from the sixteenth century they got their theology, and from the seventeenth their politics, with the result that an older absolutist dogma snuggled down side by side in their minds with a later democratic conception of the state and society. In England the potential hostility between Calvinist dogma and individual freedom was perceived by the more liberal Separatists, but in America it was not till the rise of the Revolutionary disputes of the next century that Calvinism was discovered to be the foe of democratic liberalism and was finally rejected. It is a fruitful suggestion, and in its major contention that the liberalism implicit in the Puritan revolution were ill served by a reactionary theology, it is certainly in harmony with the facts.

That Calvinism in its primary assumptions was a composite of oriental despotism and sixteenth-century monarchism, modified by medieval conception of a city-state, is clear enough today to anyone who will take the trouble to translate dogma into political terms. In recasting the framework of the old theology, Calvin accepted as

18

PREFACE

sovereign conception the idea of God as arbitrary and absolute will -an august ‘Rex regum’ whose authority is universal and unconditioned; and this conception he invested with Hebraic borrowings from the Old Testament. The principle of absolutism, indeed, he could scarcely have escaped. It came down to him through the Roman Empire and the Roman Church, from the ancient oriental despotisms, and it was interwoven with all the institutions and social forms against which the Reformation was a protest. But unhappily, instead of questioning the principle, he provided a new sanction for it and broadened its sway, by investing it with divine authority and erecting upon it a whole cosmology. . . .

From this cosmic absolutism, that conceived of God as the stable Will sustaining the universe, binding together what otherwise would fly asunder, two important corollaries were derived: the universality of the moral law, and the necessity of divine judgment.

From the former flowed that curious association of God’s will with natural causes which induced Cotton Mather, when suffering from toothache, to inquire what sin he had committed with his teeth, and which left no free spaces or non-moral impulses in the lives of men.

From the later flowed the doctrine of theological determinism. If time is embedded in the eternity of God’s mind, if to Him past and future are here and now, fore-knowledge is an inevitable divine attribute, and predestination is only a finite way of expressing God’s understanding of how human fate works itself out. Ally this doctrine of determinism with the Biblical account of the fall of man, and the doctrine of the elect becomes the theological complement of the class prejudices of the times. Bred up in the current aristocratic contempt for the sodden mass of the people, Calvinist theologians easily came to regard them as stupid, sensual, veritable children of Adam, born to sin and heirs of damnation. Only the elect shall be

PREFACE

19

saved. That there was a remnant in Israel whom God had chosen, Isaiah had long before pointed out; and the doctrine of the remnant was confirmed for Calvinism by the sinful heart whose daily actions testified to their lost estate.

According to such a theology, the individual clearly is in no effective sense a free soul. There is no room for the conception of human perfectibility. The heritage of natural freedom was long since cast away by the common forefather; and because of the pre-natal sin which this act entailed on all mankind, the natural man is shut away eternally from communion with God. He is no better than an oriental serf at the mercy of a Sovereign Will that is implacable, inscrutable, the ruler of a universe predetermined in all its parts and members from the foundation of the earth. Except for the saving grace of divine election, which no human righteousness can purchase, all must go down to the everlasting damnation that awaits the sons of Adam. In the eyes of such a philosophy it is sheer impertinence to talk of the dignity and worth of the individual soul. Men are no other than the worms of the dust. The boon of eternal life is not included in God’s enumeration of natural rights; it is a special grant from the Lord of the universe who is pleased to smile on whom he is pleased to smile.

In the hard words of Paul, ‘Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ [One might note the inconsistency inherent of this doctrine: if God practices only categorical imperatively, Gods heart never hardens. However, he is undoubtedly pleased by those whose actions live in accord with rational categorical imperative] And those on whom he hath had mercy are his Saints, and

they are gathered into his church, as the free city-states had risen out of the muck of medieval despotism. They are the stewards of his righteousness and are called to the great work of rulership on earth that God’s will may be done and righteousness may prevail over iniquity.

20

PREFACE

It was an ambitious program, and so long as the Presbyterian party maintained its ascendency in England it endeavored to thrust its Calvinism down every throat, no matter how unwelcome; but with the passing of power from its hands, and the growth of a commonsense spirit of toleration, Calvinism long lingered out a harsh existence, grotesque and illiberal to the last. In banishing the Antinomians and Separatists and Quakers, the Massachusetts magistrates cast out the spirit of liberalism from the household of the Saints.

Emmanuel Kant found ‘a priori’ metaphysical effects in temporal causal nature: i.e., spiritual essence-based reality in intelligent noumena:1 3

Noumenon n. 1. (in Kantian philosophy) something that seems real, but cannot be truly understood, although people have some intuitive idea of it, as God or the soul. 2. A thing in itself; something that remains of an object of thought after all the categories of understanding, such as space, time, etc., have been removed from it.

Phenomenon n. 1. a fact. Lightening is an electrical phenomenon.

Fever and inflammation are phenomena of disease.

And, humans need to learn, as soon as possible, the lesson that Professor Waldemere Read had presented in 1962: . . . What I have hoped to emphasize is that the conditioning process

is a means of manipulation, an instrument of control. Moreover, the conditioning process is equally effective whether used unwittingly or with deliberate intent.

The bearing of this principle upon our problem is simple.

Individuals become members of society, not through reasoning, but by conditioning. Every institution, every family group for instance, and every church group is a conditioning agency. Through conditioning it recruits and controls its members. "In order that any society may function well, its members must acquire the kind of character which

PREFACE

21

makes them want to act in the way they have to act as members of the society or a special class within it. They have to desire what objectively is necessary for them to do. Outer force is replaced by inner compulsion, and by the particular kind of human energy which is channeled into character traits." 14 However, institutional control is like rain, or food; it's good up to a point; beyond that point it is deadening. Institutional control is good if the institution which provides it is open at the top; if the institution is closed, then the control is bad. That is, an institution may be such as to provide a ladder by which the individual may reach a launching pad from which he may transcend the very forms that lifted him; or, it may provide a ceiling which shields him, to be sure, but also limits him and uses him as one of the elements in the truss which holds it up. Institutions of the first sort liberate the human spirit; those of the latter kind imprison it. Bertrand Russell has written of the harm in educational systems which treat the individual child as a means to an end, not as an end in himself. "The teacher," he says, "should love the child better than his State or his Church."

To so love the child is to want to liberate him. It is to refuse to treat him as mere plastic material to be molded to a common form; it is to cherish his individuality, his uniqueness, his independence of thought and belief, his potentials as a possible contributor to the growth and enrichment of the human spirit in the continuing progress of mankind.

As features of . . . . uniform beliefs and teaching practices, certain methodological beliefs are noteworthy. These beliefs then [become tools of the institution] to reinforce uniformity. They become matters of attitude and function in the culture much like a governor functions in a locomotive or motor bus. They tend to insure that no discussion will get out of hand, that no heretic will run away with the argument, that the truth will always prevail. Three of these attitudinal or methodological beliefs are:

22

PREFACE

----

1) belief in the absolute certainty of the doctrine (the dogmatic attitude); ---2) belief in the wickedness of doubt; and ---3) belief in the authoritative hierarchy.

All three of these beliefs are conditioned responses. No one of them can be justified as an aid to cognition [which is the only human faculty to allow one to garner truth and knowledge]. They all intend to block inquiry, or, rather, to transform inquiry into rationalization. . . . . A word or two about each.

Dogmatism is inimical to freedom in thought. It denies the need of inquiry - save the inquiry of the learner; it denies the need for further research. In contrast with dogmatism, science became successful when it became tentative, skeptical, self-corrective. The scientific spirit is one willing to settle for probable as opposed to certain truth. But for the scientist, no settlement is final. He wants to be as assured as possible; and that induces a willingness to look again, to re-examine. Dogmatism in its very nature is unreadiness to re-examine. It trans mutes reason into [a rationalized search for the] "right reason"; right reason is that which comes up with the accepted answers. It has little in common with that reason of which Russell spoke when he said; "Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the welltried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. It sees man a feeble speck, surrounded by unfathomable depths of silence; yet it bears itself proudly, as unmoved as it were lord of the universe. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world and the chief glory of man" [One might note that often this obviously is not based in “right reason,� of which Cicero spoke].

PREFACE

23

Turning now to the adoration of faith and the distrust of doubt which characterizes . . . . [a ‘closed’ or ‘dogmatized’] culture, it will be well to remind ourselves of remarks of John Stuart Mill: ". . . . it is the opinions men entertain, and the feelings they cherish, respecting those who disown the beliefs they deem important which makes this country not a place of mental freedom." "No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead." The free mind recognizes that the question of truth - the determination of truth - is prior to the obligation to believe. The insistence upon faith begs the question of truth. The . . . . [closed, dogmatized] culture penalizes the reluctant believer by holding him suspect as to character. Too frequently, it is assumed that an attitude of skepticism or of unbelief is a sign of moral turpitude and of spiritual rebellion.

For too many, the idea that an unbeliever may be a good man is quite unthinkable.

Perhaps nothing is more popular with . . . . [those who had fostered dogmatized beliefs which led to the massacre at Mountain Meadow, or the followers of koresh, or Jones, or LeBaron] than the importance of

deferring to the authorities in matters of judgment - not only with respect to doctrinal interpretation, the reading of the scriptures, but with respect to matters of policy and practice. Social wisdom is supposedly vested in the . . . . [authorities] - and deep moral insights.

"When those who are in authority have decided, the thinking has been done." The virtue of deference to authority is thought to be one of the strongest assurances of salvation. It is, however, an abnegation of individual responsibility in thought. When carried to extreme, it is the antithesis of freedom of mind.

"If thou seest a man of understanding, get thee betimes unto him. And let thy foot wear the steps of his door. Yet accept no person against thine own soul. And let not reverence for any

24

PREFACE

man cause thee to fall; But let the counsel of thine own heart stand: For there is none more faithful unto thee than it. For a man's mind is sometime want to bring him tidings, More than seven watchmen, that sit above in a high tower."

Ecclesiasticus Dogmatism, adoration of faith, and deference to authority; all three of these conditioned beliefs tend to solidify and perpetuate the uniformity of belief.

Despite Professor Read’s lesson, Mormonism generally has favored political conservatism over liberalism (Calvinist deontology over Luther’s Christian teleology), which is telling about the religious current that Joseph Smith’s revealed doctrine had inculcated? : About unitary materialist phenomena supplanted as principle to replace noumena, Craig Thomas wrote this: 15

The ‘sense of nation’ is militaristic, expansionist, and aggressive, for German idealism and for German Sociology. Hegel’s apologia for the Prussian state and Weber’s support of his government’s approach to the Great War are more than sufficient evidence of the power of history on ideas, rather than the reverse. . . .. When one comes to examine the attitudes of thinkers belonging to later generations, one finds the persistence of attitudes rather than facts. Though Durkheim and Weber, for example, developed their principal theories at the end of the last century and the beginning of this one [the twentieth], their ideas exist in a historical vacuum to a large extent.

They are determined by Marx and their other predecessors rather than by the empirically observable society around them. And if Weber ever threw off the influence of Marx (and he spent his life refuting the greater German), he did not discard the persistent influence of Hegel and what one might call ‘Prussianism’ [Authoritarianism]. Ideas of political society in the nineteenth century did, to one degree or another, operate under the umbrella of the metaphysical tradition, revivified with a vengeance by Hegel. They became ‘philosophical‘ and like the other branches of speculation,

PREFACE

25

derived much of their energy, antithesis, and conclusions from reaction or response to other ideas [i.e., a unitary materialist bias, in place of noumenal first principles, had made their ideas “ideal,” i.e., “irrationalism” rather than “reason”].

One is left to conclude perhaps, the ideals which first inspired the French Revolution were those, however altered by the elevation of a secularist conception of human reason to ‘essence’ or model, that had inspired both the English and the American revolutions that preceded it. However, contemporary reflection upon the aftermath of the initial changes of the revolutionary period served only to throw political and social thought gratefully into the arms of collectivist theorists, another generation of metaphysicians. It is necessary, therefore, to regard the triumph of the revolution not as the triumph of the individual and the values of what historians term liberalism but rather the reverse. Confirmed by history, it was the triumph of a peculiarly French form of idealism which masqueraded as [unitary] materialism, a close relative of Lockian empiricism. Reason itself had become something ‘ideal,’ something [which replaced] essential, ‘a priori’ and self-evident -- and [irrationally] something to be elevated to the status of the divine. Added to this is the fact that the tradition of French philosophy, from Descartes to Rousseau, was metaphysical.

Materialism, at its best, is an accommodation of Locke’s empiricism with the prevailing current [of Hobbesian authoritarianism], and the power of history on ideas.

For the moment, all that need be additionally remarked is that nineteenth-century political [or ‘sociological’ or anthropological] theory is dogged by other minor legacies of the new science of history and from those who professed to interpret its mysteries for the benefit of the uninitiated, and these are derived from the sense of pattern attempting to accommodate itself with the ‘fact’ of the contemporary or spring from the recognition of pattern itself in history. We are

26

PREFACE

dealing with determinism on the one hand and pessimism on the other. . . . Not only is history beyond the control of the individual (even the individual society or government or state), but its pattern, given the continuing vigor of the capitalist system, despite Marx’s . . . prognostications, implies lack of change, the ‘iron cage’ that Max Weber eloquently spoke of.

Causal mechanism, i.e., ‘the universe behaves like a big machine,’ is causal theory, which logically cannot be rational necessary principle because tautologically it is an empirically deduced natural consequent, and therefore has no antecedent necessity? Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) asserted in his Leviathan (1651) that machine like determinism was natural causal principle. V. L. Parrington had referred to Hobbes’ asserted causality as orthodoxy when he observed America’s return to the sixteenth century from which the seventeenth had reacted: myriad Paradoxes resulted! Not until recent scientific study, was causal determinism’s dragon shown as being orthodoxy akin to ‘flat earth’: Prof. R. C. Weatherford, U of South Florida gave this philosophical account:16

determinism. It is often taken as the very general thesis about the world that all events without exception are effects -- events necessitated by earlier events. Hence any event of any kind is an effect of a prior series of effects, a causal chain with every link solid.

The thesis is fundamentally simple. The ideas which it contains, notably those of events and causal connection, are certainly open to definition. If the thesis cannot be expressed as some part of science or theory in it, some determinists say, the shortcoming is not in the thesis.

If the thesis is true, future events are as fixed and unalterable as the past is fixed and unalterable. One graphic expression of determinism is in terms of what William James called ‘the iron block universe’: “those parts of the universe already laid down,” he wrote, “ appoint and decree what other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb: the part we call the

PREFACE

27

present is compatible with only one totality. Any other future complement than the one fixed from eternity is impossible. The whole is in each and every unity, an iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning.” If this is what the way of the world is, then only what actually happens in it could possibly have happened. There are no genuine alternatives to be realized.

Philosophers and scientists have been concerned with the question of whether determinism conceived in this general and allinclusive way is true. The problem is ancient in its origins. The Homeric Fates were enigmatically described as having power over the future. Early forms of atomism were more clearly deterministic, so disturbingly so that Epicures found it necessary to hypothesize an uncaused ‘swerve’ of the atoms as they fell through the void. Hobbes and Hume, and many great and not so great philosophers after them, have been determinists.

But philosophers have been more concerned with what is to many of us the most compelling part of that general question: whether we ourselves, persons, are subject to the same sort of causal necessity. Philosophers have cared less about whether or not the rest of the universe is determined -- what they have cared more about is whether or not our lives are determined. Indeed determinism has often been taken as the more limited thesis that all our choices, decisions, intentions, other mental events, and our actions are no more than effects of other equally necessitated events. The problem of determinism in this second sense is pretty well identical with the problem of freedom, or the free will problem.

When philosophers have worried about this limited thesis in the past, they have typically focused on what it would mean for our concept of moral responsibility. But Strawson led us to see that more is at stake than that, including many human attitudes such as resentment [particularly resentment ending in terrorism?] and

28

PREFACE

gratitude. Honderich has raised the stakes higher. Determinism puts in doubt all “life-hopes, personal feelings, knowledge, moral responsibility, the rightness of actions, and the moral standing of persons”. And van Inwagen has suggested that if determinism were known to be true, no one could ever rationally deliberate about any type of action. Deliberation, it is said, makes sense only if genuine alternatives are available to us. If I deliberate about whether or not to raise my arm, my deliberation is rational only if I am able either to raise it or not to raise it. If determinism is true, only one course is genuinely open to me. So it is alleged, my deliberation is irrational.

But, as remarked, the most important issue historically has been moral responsibility. And what can be said about it applies in a general way to the other implications of determinism. Typically we believe that agents are morally responsible only for those acts that are freely chosen and within the power of the agent to decide. We are guilty only if we could have done otherwise. But if determinism is true, then in some sense we never could have done otherwise. Thus many philosophers have concluded that determinism and holding people responsible are incompatible. Others have strongly disagreed.

Recently, however, quantum mechanics and relativity theory have generally displaced Newtonian mechanics, and various proofs of them have been claimed. Many scientists and not a few philosophers believe that the dragon of determinism has been slain.

World Book Encyclopedia, defined ‘mechanist,’ as a person whose philosophy states that the universe behaves like a giant machine, 17 which dogmatic mechanist belief defined causal mechanism, the moral obligation (duties) of which are fundamental to deontology (i.e., the essence of duty or moral obligation 18 ). The causal contrast of mechanism is teleology:19

Mechanism explains causality from behind, in terms of its origin.

Teleology explains it from the front, in terms of the goal it is seeking. [Because human action naturally only occurs in the present time

PREFACE

29

frame, continuous mechanism based determinism is unreal] And, because the foundation of deontology is a root meaning of causal mechanism, orthodox cultist mechanist culture, as paradoxical philosophy lacking teleological goals or purposes, has both politically blessed and cursed US society by dogmatically practicing mechanism-based deontology, as economist P. Krugman observed in this Salt Lake Tribune opinion: 20 This is my of Krugman’s comment:

Supply Side economics, as practiced by the GOP since the Reagan Administration has deliberately understated governments needed revenues to pay its expenditures, thereby running huge deficits.

Krugman documents these deliberate acts so to starve Social Security and Medicare with intent to politically revise if not remove these popular government programs. Under president Reagan, SS contribution taxes were doubled to eventually pay benefits to the Babyboom generation. Since then (1984), the federal government has spent the surplus contributions as its general revenue. The IOUs to the SS Trust has reached past $8 trillion in 2008. And the Babyboom’s first year’s eligibility to recieve SS benefits is 2010. It is one hell of a mess that the GOP’s starving politics has handed to the Obama Administration and the Babyboom generation.

Philosophic mechanist underpinning of unitary materialist causality is dogma which mechanists’ politically asserted as deontological economic principle, and as orthodox political belief became legally installed following President Lincoln’s death, making deontological causal mechanism the official but fundamentally fallacious principle of The American System of Political Economy: World Book stated this deontology-based philosophy:21

MECHANIST is a person whose philosophy states that the universe behaves like a giant machine. Everything happens according to physical laws of cause and effect. He believes that no living thing has a choice in the way it behaves. The mechanist says that events of yesterday determine what happens today. Only the past and present

PREFACE

30 can control the future.

[Mechanists are clearly political conservatives, the secular politics of which in the U.S. eventually succeeded to install The American System of Political Economy] * * As neocon mechanists got the U.S. into war with Iraq and then denied culpability for having started this war on a false predicate, religious mechanists, as Brigham Young, and Warren Jeffs, authorized plural marriages with no concern for legal culpability.

Pursuing this cultural orthodox mechanist definition further, the encyclopedia referred to B. Spinoza (1632-1677): 22 [Spinoza] accepted Rene Descartes idea that the universe is divided

into mind and matter. But he saw as Descartes did not, that if mind and matter are separate substances, they cannot interact. Spinoza decided that they are “attributes” of one substance, God. God, being infinite, has many attributes, but mind and matter are the only two that human minds can know.

The mechanist orthodoxy caused Spinoza to leave Amsterdam. In the U.S., the Whig conservative unitary materialist orthodoxy, by political affirmation, installed The American System of Political Economy, i.e., sans legislation, dogmatic unitary materialism, which had conflated sovereign essence, falsely affirmed causal mechanism as economic principle.

It was materialist conflation of essence, which entailed myriad paradoxes that caused Parrington to observed this about sixteenth century causal mechanism as loco parentis paternalism, which Whigs, in charge of government, affirmed as a fundamental pseudo principle of the U. S. government’s political economy: holistically that which economically paternalistically was granted to ‘Peter’ paradoxically then naturally resulted in taking equivalent economic measures from ‘Paul.’

Economist Joseph Schumperter’s early twentieth century of the U.S. economy confirmed Parrington’s ‘Peter’ ‘Paul.’ thesis: showing that causal mechanism-based private businesses’ profit-taking upset the ‘static economic circular flow.’

And, paradoxically, because

PREFACE

31

government’s loco parentis (i.e., grants) to private businesses’ also freely provided common held national resources with economic license to exploit for their economic gain, myriad covert endemism codifications were made by law to enure as capital, for instance, to which government’s edicts were added to fallacious political policies to ensure that the business’ owned the exploited economy was successful. And, as Parrington’s Peter-Paul paradox observed, the licensed privatized economic gains from this exploitation have systemically resulted in a political counter class of ‘iron caged’ wage-earners? : where constitutionally equal physis-based rights deserving wage-earning citizens lose economically while nomos-based (mechanist) economic growth blesses the owner investors of the government-licensed paternal grants, 23 where officially government excused or ignored huge and growing public debt as less important than the paternalist loco parentis-based economic growth, with the counter economic loss due to inflation ultimately borne mechanistically by subsistence-based consumption: by society’s deontologically determined (‘iron caged’) wage-earning ‘Pauls,’ who by consuming to subsist, thereby recycled their wages, which then as enured capital returned to the ‘Peters’ (of the licensed businesses), combined with enuring inflation endemism, which wage-earning ‘Pauls’ also consumed at the mechanist scheme’s retail level, now also enured, by law, as business capital (i.e., as private business property), the recycled capital-based uses of which were “business profits” (i.e., dividends, bonuses and more production cycles); until the enured profitbased take at the top in 2008 threatened totally to economically burst!

The average economic growth, during the twentieth century, was measured at 4 percent, inflation at 3 percent. 24 However, the ‘iron caged’ wage-earner-consumers’ economic experience of this century’s mechanist economic effect was flat, if not because of unemployment spates, negative (The economic definition of ‘full employment’ had sustained the unemployment level at nearly 6%): which had resulted to the ‘employed Pauls’ experience quite simply because lawfully business profit-taking, typically as a percentage of the GNP, had exceeded the combined average economic growth’s 4 percent plus

32

PREFACE

inflation’s 3 percent. ‘Wage-earner Pauls’ loss of purchase power was sustained while lawfully enured profits of the ‘owner Peters’ mechanistically were allowed to grow exponentially! [Inflation, in any event, should enure to benefit consumers rather than only business owners: i.e., the exponential compounded profits should be regulated so that inflation effects do not legally enure, as company owned economic gains (Since real purchase value is conflated, wage-earned value should be recompensed by all enured inflation amounts)]. And in 2008, we now know economic failure had resulted. If nothing is changed, what assures that this mechanist paradox will not continue?

A principle, to be ‘true,’ logically must possess ‘necessity.’

And, reasoned definition compels that coherent ‘trueness’ prevails.

When, ‘logical coherence’ fails, as, for example, when political economy’s mechanist idealist causal determinism (i.e., the false materialist mechanism-based economic principle, as asserted) which clearly paradoxically compensated Parrington’s business owner ‘Peters’ by taking wage-earning value from ‘Pauls’, the irrational idealist economic political values resulting from the causal mechanism-based economy must be redressed (Politely, causal mechanism is economic ‘fallacy,’ therefore, is not reasonable! Rationally, truly, it is ‘false’ political dogma, which despite popular belief to the contrary, is deceitful and truthfully, is a mechanist cultural lie of belief-based orthodoxy.)

Ralph Waldo Emerson, as Parrington mentioned in the following paragraph, provided philosophical ‘no dualism’-based context to the orthodox belief-based conflation of natural principles: 25 Parrington noted that the cultural tautological fallacy had replaced natural rights:26

(As one would expect of a Connecticut Federalist) Theodore Woolsey was renewing the fight against an infidel [no dualismbased] philosophy that with its doctrine of natural rights denied the authority of the godly [i.e., Federalism’s dogmatic belief] to police society. In harmony with Lieber and Calhoun he rejected the romance doctrine [‘no dualism’] of natural rights, and substituted a [‘dualism’-based] composite socialistic conception,

PREFACE

33

that from John Winthrop and Roger Williams to Channing and Emerson had colored the Puritan thought of New England.

Emerson’s rational clarity demonstrates his transcendence to ‘no dualism’-based faith from orthodox belief-based ‘dualism’ : All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

34

PREFACE

based communism on. Russell’s acquaintance-based dualism is recalled:

Whatever we are acquainted with must be something: we may draw wrong inference from our acquaintance, but the acquaintance itself cannot be deceptive. Thus, there is ‘no dualism’ as regards acquaintance. But as regards ‘knowledge’ of truths, there is ‘dualism.’ We may ‘believe’ what is false as well as what is true.29 Bertrand Russell Only when falsehood is eliminated, does ‘no dualism’-based truth exist.

(The following is excerpted from a253) John Maynard Keynes had observed this about debauchery:

Emerson’s natural rights, ‘no dualism’-based “trust,” shows his abiding faith-based evidence of unseen things 27 (i.e., his transcendence to abiding purposes (teleology), rather than real-time-restricted duties (deontology).

Duties vastly differ from purposes: Differences that relate existentially (really) to common meanings of now and always? : Duties relate to the Greek word nomos, as the contraction of deon and ontos defines deontology-based duties, which temporally always must occur sequentially in present-time frames, and also implicate acquaintancebased dualism. Purposes relate to abiding intent that while temporal, transcend real time to include a cognitive past and future of life, as the Greek word physis defines, in which telos, i.e., eos (eternal end goals) distinguish the purposeful causality, which natural teleology defines.

Deontological duties are nomos-based and registers only real timeactivity. Teleological purposes are physis-based and eternal, i.e., causal teleology has moral necessity, in what “the old philosopher” LAU TSE called Sinderesis (i.e., moral imperative with no acquaintance-based dualism). This belief-based dualism becomes covert when physis, which is eternal, is conflated by orthodox mechanist belief (physis then must exist covertly within nomos-based materialist orthodoxy): eternal is then conflated to temporal, essence to material, and teleology to mechanism. Craig Thomas observed this conflated orthodox effect in results of Europe’s Principal Idealists’ search for a unitary spiritual and material meaning 28: Hegel’s Dialectical Materialism, which Lenin had

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. 30 Among the fallacies of the Federalist Agenda, ‘Broad interpretation of constitutional Power’s Doctrine’ is surely suspect, the only conflated truth of which is asserted by Federalist legal idealism: 31 When as U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton asserted the ‘broad power’ doctrine to justify his vision of government’s economic dimension, the U.S. Judiciary was overtly apolitically neutral in Hamilton’s debate with Jefferson, but clearly covertly either legally supported or allowed Hamilton’s idealistic Federalist Agenda.

Not until 1819, in McCulloc vs.Maryland, did Chief Justice John Marshall 32 uphold ‘Broad power’ doctrine, giving power to Congress to create The US Bank, which also firmly established the doctrine that federal power must prevail over state power in case of conflict. Then as fallaciously deduced, States Rights’ was also legally asserted,’ from which States now routinely legally license fictitious person corporations, which to great extent set the nation’s causally mechanized political

PREFACE

35

economic agenda (particularly as regards Foreign Policy)? While these legally deduced ‘consequents,’ undoubtedly arose from ‘constitutional ambiguity,’ Nomos-based (i.e., manmade) ‘broad power’ doctrine, which is Hobbesian Leviathan-based-determinism (i.e., mechanismbased), while by some magical federalist legal asserted wand made it constitutionally legal, is paradoxical to the consented authorities of ‘We, the people,’ and this mystical illogic became the legal cornerstone of separation between the U.S. government’s officially privatized Political Economy [of seeking and accepting campaign donations (i.e., bribes) to gain elections, and the return of ear marked legislation, in which ‘pork barrel’ grants became the privatized rewards of the political exchange], and privatized Political Economy [of private business entities (which legally are licensed on the same mystical ‘broad power’ cornerstone doctrine)]. Candidly, however, constitutional ‘private economy’ and ‘States Rights’ are legally only based on ‘mystical’ myth: i.e., private economy, and corporate entities licensed to act as persons, are figments of Federalist ideology that issued deductively from Federalist dogmatic materialist ‘positivism,’ which was expedient for gaining the idealistically perceived economic advantages: ‘positivism,’ deals only with positive facts and phenomena, rejecting abstract speculation (World Book Dictionary, 1965), and Federalist, then Whigs’ materialism was the basis of this idealistic thought. Political Economy, as idealistically made legal, is as fictitious as corporations are that States now routinely, excepting jail time, license to act as humans (If they could, which duty-based reality is impossible, they undoubtedly would also impose jail time.)? About differences of Whigs and Federalists, Parrington wrote this:33

In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony.

It substituted [dualism-based] expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt.

36

PREFACE

Parrington also documented this about government’s banking practices:34 “The great desideratum . . .,” [Andrew Jackson] said in his message to the twenty fourth Congress, “is an efficient check upon the power

of banks, preventing that excessive issue of paper, whence arise those fluctuations in the standard of value which render uncertain the rewards of labor.” [This desideratum eventually would burst in 2008.]

And while Andrew Jackson was on the track laid by Roger Sherman’s ‘A Caveat Against Injustice,’ neither had, logical factual information that is now available to justify their argument. 35 Change, according to [the Idealist G. W. F.] Hegel, was the rule of

life. Every idea, every force, irrepressibly bred its opposite, and the two merged into a “unity” that in turn produced its own contradiction. History, was nothing but the expression of this flux of conflicting and resolving ideas and forces. [ H e g el , t h e principal European Idealist, the unitary materialism of which conflated Kant’s dual existential reality (i.e., life’s noumenal essence and phenomenal appearance) to a unitary orthodox materialist reality] About irrational unitary materialist reality, Craig Thomas observed that Kant failed to recapture metaphysics from a dogmatic materialism: 36 Kant . . . had failed to recapture metaphysics that ‘queen of the sciences,’ as a truly valid -- indeed, as the most valid -- branch of philosophy. [A romanticism had] judged his work as incomplete and as manifesting the Cartesian dualism in another form by his distinction of the ‘noumenal’ and ‘phenomenal’ realities of the world [The Nicene Creed’s believed unitary materialist reality had conflated noumenon’s essential ubiquitousness: still while irrational, the ‘three in one’ doctrine was unimpeachable and, therefore, was not challenged?].

G. W. F. Hegel’s dialectical materialism, with others of phenomenonbased belief (nihilism, positivism, French Romanticism and Enlightenment, Prussian Idealistic ‘power-state,’ . . .), provided to Marx a philosophic foundation to communism, which Leninist politics then

PREFACE

37

forcefully impressed on Russia. And, the dogmatic, inconsistently fallacious rationalization stands out. This fallacy called ‘materialism’ is at the core of dogmatized predicates that intrinsically deny the essential source of pure truth: Craig Thomas referred to the shift in personal identification with ‘divinity’ to the identity with a nation-state (rationalization that defined English ‘conservatism’ is similar with the new nation of America, which affirmed it as doxy-based mechanist economic materialism-based mercantilism). 37 . . . to be precise, not even Germany but prenational Prussia under Frederick the Great. Christian theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life; Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -with history and the collectivity he terms the state.

Craig Thomas also wrote about those who influenced Hegel’s unitary materialist view (Hegel claimed he wasn’t a materialist!): The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought, above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind all appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient idealist] systemizers, assuming that there could be discovered some essential explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world, which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of that dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato, Descartes, or Christ] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own image. (In this, the principal idealists even conflated God’s noumenal antecedence, to which Nietzsche, when realizing this, cried out, “we have killed God!”) As Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of 1792, ‘Not

38

PREFACE

to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of non-philosophical response to an understanding of the world. . . .

Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced.

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential, non dualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority.

[Note how dogmatic ‘Idealists,‘ as Fichte and Schelling, are blameworthy for conservatism’s mechanist philosophical underpinning of unitary materialist Hobbesian philosophy] (end of excerpt from a253) --Is Justice in the US administered by causal nomos or physis? In case history, it seems clear that even our Supreme Court has failed to distinguish between nomos and physis.

The presence of essence-based physis in society’s philosophy and culture (Civitas) required to effectively confront and balance the myriad asserted dictums of the nomos-jaded dualism-based American sovereign Will, is being severely conflated to a pervasive and expanding unitary materialism-based nomos. This political contest is not new, as

PREFACE

39

‘antinomy’ (anti nomos) was attested in this centuries old passage about the Socratic debate: 38 Like Western philosophy in general, philosophy of law in particular first emerged in ancient Greece. In the 5th century BC the Sophists and Socrates, along with his followers, took up the question of the nature of law. Both recognized a distinction between things that exist by nature (physis, with no dualism) and those that exist by human-made convention (nomos, with Paradoxical dualism). The Sophists,

however, tended to place law in the latter category, whereas Socrates put it in the former, as did Plato and Aristotle.

Sophists’ opinions were acquaintance-based assertions that failed to distinguish dualism-based ‘consequents,’ from dualism-free natural ‘antecedent principles’(Whigs did the same when expediently they asserted, as dualism-free economic principle, mechanism-based causality: then when in political administrative control of US government, officially adopted the mechanism-based American System of Political Economy): since then, mechanists’ dogmatic unitary materialism-based nihilism and positivism, ignore or say no to dualismfree naturally ‘true’ essential principles.

Mechanists’ politically affirmed conservative ideology ignores the dualism-based economic paradox endemic of the mechanism-based causality on which the US economy’s deontology is based: covert inflation endemism, for instance, is a source of a paradoxical economic myriad. 39 This contrarian classical mechanist deontological politics asserts that government’s duty, as specified in the Constitution’s Preamble (which clearly is teleological strategic purpose, which is dualism-free), ensures that what elected representatives’ agree upon in sufficient numbers, regardless of ensuing dualism-based paradox, is sufficient ‘trueness’ on which legislation is based. (The only validity test of legislated law is meted, after the fact, by the judicial branch of government, which has a Federalist conservatism-based bias.) Classical conservatives, dogmatically, fail to consider the covert determinism-

40

PREFACE

based economic paradox intrinsic of government administered political economy, which ensures that business capital investments in goods and services, when consumed, cyclically legally return as enured capital, i.e., exclusively is the business owners’ property (and because this paradox is causally determined, government’s constitutional teleological purpose “to sustain all” was covertly financially aborted by exponential compounded results of legally defined “enuring,” 40 in which the mechanized inflation endemism together with produced economic growth, exclusively legally returns to business owners, as their exclusive ‘property’): the Bankers’ COLA [i.e., the government granted interest allowance added onto the borrowing of money, which the Constitution instructed Congress to create and regulate] was paternalistically granted to bank owners along with the mechanist legal decision “to enure” this cyclical exponentially compounded allowance, returns as their exclusive property (Since banks neither create nor construct anything in any real sense of real production, which naturally only happens sequentially in real-time (exponential compounding of production is unreal), this lawfully granted banker’s COLA, as consumed and enured, is a primary endemic source of economic inflation).

So, as for fiducial trust (which constitutionally has nothing to do with money’s creation and utility, excepting as to ensuring mediating accountings of property ownership as exchanged), which predicate adjective of fiducial trust (faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise, i.e., teleological physis-based imperative), is applied by mechanismbased (i.e., determined) legal exponentially compounded enuring, to convert physis-based imperative into nomos-based private property? : Brockway’s of the “Banker’s COLA,” as the primary cause of inflation, clearly inferred this unreal conversion. And anyway, in the unreal sense of transcending “now” to “always,” Banks do create unlimited moneybased value, not money, by their legal contract-based accountings in which economic exchanges occur at defined future dates, rather than as actual real time money-based exchanges: The banks then routinely sell the legal contractual positions, as bundled, to be freed of contractual liability, which then allows them to underwrite more contracts

PREFACE

41

(governments’ paternal mechanism-based determinism ensures that the contracts eventually are paid off and enured as the contract owners’ capital).

Constitutionally, ‘money’ is created to ease the private exchange of goods and services.’ And the Constitution [Section 8, (5)] empowered Congress to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”: however, political economy, as officially installed by affirmation rather than legislation, which also codified the deontological conduct (i.e., mechanized duties as regards created money).

While Congress specifically is responsible for coining and regulating money, Government generally is responsible for covert inflation’s endemism (the average annual economic inflation for the last century was 3 percent) that exclusively is first consumed at the retail level of economy, the compounded effects of which, conflated each principal dollar’s value to less than 25 cents, Second, by governments legally defined ‘enuring’ of capital, as business owners’ exclusive ‘property,’ inflation endemism (3 percent), taken together with average growth in produced products and services (4 percent), determined the legally the century’s enured increase in business capital: The exponential nature of the dogmatic mechanismbased enuring of capital investments, as warehoused in private mechanisms, which essentially doubled each decade, when compounded, doubled more than 1024 times in the century’s last decade. [Multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses that contemporarily are paid by major corporations (Top incomes now exceed 500 times the low incomes) confirmed in 2008 that this grand but unreal economic determinism cannot be sustained. And because the originally defined dollar’s principal value is also greatly conflated, reminds one of inflation’s value debauchery, as Keynes had observed, which particularly has devastated the value of wage-earned fiat money, as paid for services and production.]

Which doubling had anything to do with government created money?

Not much, for sure! : Legal compounded enuring of capital, as paternally granted by government’s causal mechanism-based determinism, provided an advantage to business and stock owners.

This economic scenario’s unreality is not complete, however: as for

42

PREFACE

instance, when money, is unfairly used (misused as in fraud and crime), is hoarded and invested to exponentially accumulate, or is diverted to support other economies by exchanges for foreign produced goods and services, inflation’s endemism then becomes a complex complementary negative result of the Constitution’s empowerment of Congress to regulate the value of money, as specified by “Powers vested in Congress, Section 8, (5).”

Invested money hoards, for instance, when considered with the government’s mechanism-based political economic paradox, which Parrington cited, “as giving to ‘Peter’ by taking from ‘Paul, ‘” results simply by government’s legal codified administration of capital-based inuring, as accumulated exponentially in “fictitious person” defined corporate warehouses: profit taken by corporations routinely now exceeds 10 percent (i.e., doubles in 7.2 years). The corporate profit allowance specified in the US health care legislation is 15 percent (i.e., doubles in about five years), as legalized corporate mechanism-based enuring of returning capital from consumption as the business owners’ capital. US economy constitutionally involves all that is included in GNP: US enterprise, while private, is involved as legally licensed by the antecedent Constitution created to serve sovereign citizens’ interests, and consequently to serve the government-licensed enterprise. Paternalist Government does not regulate in this order, however.

G. P. Brockway wrote this about investing money in a bull market:

While a bull market drains money from the producing economy, a crash does nothing to restore it; it merely destroys the money that had been drained away. A bull market serves no purpose whatever.

It creates nothing and reproduces nothing. The employment it provides performs no service for the public good. The money it sucks in it wastes. The markets claimed function of financing productive enterprise may be facilitated by liquidity; it is destroyed by volatility.

[Money invested in the stock market is comparable to making casino bets?]

Acquaintances (i.e., dualism) intrinsic of government’s

PREFACE

43

mechanism-based economic paradox, clearly as shown in the above example of doubling, has vastly advantaged licensed business income and disadvantaged citizens’ income the conflated value-based wages of which are not discretionary simply because natural subsistence requirements do not allow, still, whose interests are as coeval of constituted government, as high income ‘owner’ citizens are. However the legalized incomes, as enured on the one side and conflated on the other, are greatly unequal as causally determined by political economy’s mechanism-based dualism. So where is rights-based constitutional equality found in this legal administration of mechanism-based “enuring?” The Constitution’s instruction to regulate the value of money, as regards sovereign human rights-based equality, rationally justifies regulation of the government’s economic determined compounding effects of enured capital, so to assure an equal granting of fundamental human rights to life, liberty and happiness, of which health care is surely a fundamental right. And licensed businesses are not coeval of government.

Adam Smith is generally acclaimed as the principle designer of the US capitalist economy. Adam Smith, however, did not consider the licensing of corporate entities as a viable part of his design: Insert from section A205 Since Abraham Lincoln, meanings of conservative and liberal has changed and converged. Conservative politics that was Federalist then Whig politically affirmed neo mercantilism and called it the ‘American System of political economy,’ which was less liberal than Adam Smith’s original ultra-liberal economic system: American conservatives that are not ‘classical liberals’ (i.e., don’t subscribe to Smith’s ultra-liberal

postulations ), is likely traditionally are persuaded by Sir Edmund Burke’s standards [(i.e., distrust government excepting for private property-based positions that require security-based favors’ and strict oligarchical order). This from World Book Encyclopedia, 1965 describes Edmund Burke (1729-1797):

served as a Whig member of Parliament from 1765 until his death . . . Though he had worked before to decrease the power of rulers,

44

PREFACE

Burke bitterly criticized the French Revolution. He denounced its injustice to individuals, attacks on religion, and attempts to build a completely new social order. . . . His ideas became the philosophy of the [English] Conservative party.].

The “least liberal” trend at the extreme fringe of conservatism, i.e., the “classical” standard of Smith’s ultra-liberal system tends toward monarchically ordered controls that favor propertied interests. Burke’s conservatism fits this genre. But then, “social engineering,” which to counter conservative dogma, in turn establishes counter dogma to support dire needed welfare, as sponsored by contemporary liberals are equally regressive: this, liberalism is a mirror image of conservatism.

“Whig conservatives” distinguished the unique American brand of contemporary conservatism. Traditional conservatives (i.e., Edmund Burke’s following), and “classical-liberal” conservatives (i.e., Smith’s followers as conservatively modified), differ fundamentally from “Whig conservatives” (i.e., as mercantilism’s adherents and economic creators of the ‘American System,’). These differences are found as fallacies, which rational tautological veracity testing quite easily uncovers. Unfortunately, dogmatic conservatives of all persuasions politically defend the dogmabased fallacies. Tolstoy’s paradoxical befits them: 41

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven into the fabric of their lives.

“Whig conservatives” affirmed the American System, then achieved to legalize corporate constitutional rights, as licensed ‘fictitious legal persons.’ Also, legal equally fictitious states’ rights is another example of ‘abstracted justice, ’as I believe Thomas Jefferson had observed ?

American liberals find little reason-based recognition from Whig conservatives whose ideology dogmatically is duty-based and mechanistic.

Even when purely logical, liberal attempts to reason from disinterested

PREFACE

45

political positions are flatly rejected. For this lack of empathy, Whig conservatives quite routinely call caring liberals ‘bleeding hearts,’ and generally then gleefully bask in the prideful laughter that ensues from the orthodox crowd. Still, these economic pockets of need are confirmed as literally ‘true,’ therefore, mechanist political economy surely had departed from an impartially delivered economy of ’all’ somewhere along the mechanist political economic track. Searching for the departures, common meanings of conservative and liberal are considered as the politics of “artful men,” as the political action, from which The American System of Political Economy arrived, was artful: mechanist biases had induced sophistry to the political art: ----

First, innate bias instinctively protect, as front lines of defense: ourselves, families, communities, states and only then our nation.

This natural bias is the source of resisting an all-powerful government.

----

Next, successful acts of Whig-conservative, “artful men” gave us fictitious legal persons " with unlimited sovereign powers and a perpetual (i.e., humanly unnatural) existence.

[Perpetual mechanist subtleties of corporate existence became the American economic reality in a similar manner of systemic economic inflation endemism: Carl Marx’s surplus theory and Henry George’s unearned-increment theory was summarily absolutely ignored. These mechanized subtleties act unopposed and unethically (i.e., unreally) to enrich owners’ economy, while the wage-earners’ economy suffers.]

----

Collaterally, the owner-based Surreal Economy finds its definition only in fictitious legal persons and has become a prescriptive orthodox bias of society. Surreal Economy is as subtle and unopposed as fictitious legal persons are. That is, until markets

46

PREFACE ‘crash’ as they did in 1929, 1987, and 2002 (to this, the granddaddy crash of 2008-9 must now be added).

----

Finally and also collaterally, fictitious legal persons are now the objects of trade in the Surreal Economy. New expressions as “Synergy Management” represent rationalizations that affect the wage-earners’ interests and communities enslaved by Surreal Economy.

America has yet to rationally awaken to the devastating realities of philosophical and authoritative influence those large corporate “fictitious individuals” have on political economy: particularly devastating in the purely democratic sense of economy. The influence of these fictitious individuals has nothing in common with Adam Smith’s balanced philosophy of economy. (As we have now seen with the collapse of Enron and myriad corporate others, double entry bookkeeping is the farce of rationalizations that intend to maximize appearances of profits in replace of facts.) Therefore, The American System of Political Economy needs a constant “reality check.” The following comments generally describe the less liberal schools of Political Economy:42

This perspective entertains a somewhat more mixed vision of contemporary economic reality. States and governments are seen to be inevitably involved in their economies, albeit an involvement of varying quality, intensity and consequence. Perfect competition is held as a neo-classical fantasy in an economic world which is highly structured by differential distributions of power and influence. The operation of an uncontrolled and undirected freeenterprise system is moreover, seen to be somewhat uncertain: empirical confusion being the characteristic result, rather than the nirvana of the [classical] liberals [which mostly call themselves conservative] and neo-classicists . . .

With these irrational complexities in mind, who is to blame?

"

To compare a fictitious person corporation with an individual is to compare General Electric, General Motors, or Microsoft with a sovereign individual: When the Supreme Court extended ‘Due Process’ to corporations, this illogical comparison was made.

----

Did Adam Smith’s liberal or neo-classicists promise what empirically is an impossibility?

PREFACE

47

----

Then, who is responsible for installing deterministic endemism (as the Bankers COLA, profit, and rents) and other mechanisms that restrain the economy to keep wage-earners from the nirvana of the liberal and neoclassical ideological systems’ fruits?

----

Should we blame liberals? Or are conservatives blameworthy?

Trite labels are not blameworthy, however, the economic liberalism that culminated in Adam Smith’s ultra-liberal system provided for economics that benefits both liberals and conservatives?

Henry George was right.

Both polarities -- liberalism and conservatism -- are blameworthy for

political blunders, or jobs obtained by artful men for private advantage, as Franklin observed. Is the selfish, Whig human nature blameworthy? Are Whigs to blame for economic restraints as zoning, licensing, and entry qualifications to schools and professions (as instituted at local and state government levels of economy)? Having done this, who is to blame: can we blame ourselves? 43

Classical liberals [who defined themselves as conservatives] generally oppose the creation of public utilities, the issuance of licenses and entry requirements into professions, the imposition of restrictions on international trade, immigration quotas, and the use of state power to restrict competition. . . .(i.e.,) are not advocates of strict laissez faire.

Albert Gaylord Hart observed that: 44

Economics has evolved through controversy. Economists have never agreed easily or fully with each other, and one of the safer economic forecasts is that they never will. A number of recognizable schools of economic thinking have existed at various times and places and there generally has been competition between them as well as a considerable spread of views within each school.

True, there is often repression of some schools within a given society. . . .

48

PREFACE

Are Whig conservatives, of the GOP, particularly since 1980 and the deliberate deficits of Supply Side Economics, which are designed to economically starve “The Liberal Beast,” 45 the culprits behind perpetuating these classical defined organic restraints? And since then, do we find liberals, as political reactionaries [the dissatisfied reactors to the inequitable results of the mechanism-based economic paradox, i.e., the causal determinism of which is not only consequential of materialist belief (i.e., is dualism-based), it surely fails as naturally antecedent principle (i.e., has no dualism)]: Are liberals ever seeking politically to achieve a more equitable economic balance, as redistributed from the accumulation side (i.e., from the mechanism’s owners) of either legally enured capital returns from consumption, or maybe more equitable not legally wholly legally enured as capital returns (i.e., the mechanism’s wage-earners of political economy can equally claim the profits that are returned from consumption, as Brockway claimed and, as Marx’s surplus theory and Henry George’s unearned-increment theory had carefully noted )?

[Distributing the capital-based accumulations (of which intrinsically also includes outright paternal capital-based grants, licensed exploitations, and covert inflation endemism -- as C. Marx’s surplus theory or H. George’s unearned-increment theory had addressed), i.e., to achieve a more even producer-owner capitalist’s income with that of wage-earners]? : in what GOP Whig conservatives have chosen to brand as “social engineering?”

Should you agree with this political history, then this must be concluded: Whig conservatives favored The American System of Political Economy, with crass disregard for legitimate moral self-interests to rightfully fairly consume the nation’s wealth, as opposed to their legally enured, i.e., owned profit to enjoy alone. (A. Smith’s “wealth” was for “all” to enjoy) Whigs designed the American political economy to cater “owned” property-based interests from economy’s accumulation function, as classically was interpreted from Adam Smiths economic equation. Wageearners are the deemed slaves of the Whig system as Senator John Calhoun explained: John Calhoun argued convincingly the absurdity of the notion of "democratic equality." Equity, he argued, is accordingly,

PREFACE

49

of necessity, unequal. 46

In . . . speculation on the possibility of achieving political justice by the machinery of representation, Calhoun was face to face with a revolutionary conception--the conception of proportional economic representation. The idea was implicit in his assumption of an existing economic sectionalism that must find adequate expression through political agencies. He had come to understand the futility of a miscellaneous numerical majority; he had only to go back to eighteenth-century philosophy and substitute economic classes for economic sectionalism, finding his social cleavages in economic groups instead of geographical divisions, to have recast the whole theory of representation. Clearly he had made enormous strides in his thinking. He had long since put behind him the philosophy of Jefferson. He had subjected the principle of democracy to critical scrutiny. But instead of rejecting it as an unworkable hypothesis, as the Hamiltonian Federalists had done, he proposed to establish it on a sound and permanent basis. The ideal of democracy he conceived to be the noblest in the whole field of political thought, but misunderstood and misapplied as it had been in America, it had become the mother of every mischief. This betrayal of democracy he laid at the door of the Jeffersonians. They had accepted too carelessly the romantic dogmas of the French school, and had come to believe that democracy was synonymous with political equalitarianism.

It was this false notion that had debased the noble ideal, and delivered it over to the hands of the [democratic] mob. To assert that men are created free and equal is to fly in the face of every biological and social fact.

Calhoun represented the Black Belt that rationalized to justify slavery and Imperialism. Parrington’s account of Calhoun continues.

50

PREFACE

The first business of the true democrat, therefore, was to reexamine the nature of democracy and strip away the false assumptions and vicious conclusions that had done it incalculable injury. The Greeks, he pointed out, understood its essential nature better than the moderns. Democracy assumes a co-partnership among equals.

Its only rational foundation is good will, and it can function only through compromise. From this it follows that in a society composed of high and low, capable and weak, worthy and unworthy -- as every historical society has been composed -- a universal democracy is impractical.

The numerous body of social incompetents will suffer one of two fates: they will be exploited by the capable minority under the guise of free labor, or they will be accepted as the wards of society and protected by the free citizens -they must inevitably become wage slaves or bond slaves, in either case incapable of maintaining the rights of free members of the commonwealth. Democracy is possible only in a society that recognizes inequality as a law of nature, but in which the virtuous and capable enter into a voluntary co-partnership for the common good, accepting wardship of the incompetent in the interests of society. This was the greek ideal and this ideal had created Greek civilization.

Anyway, Liberals are those who attempt to achieve the balance intended

by Smith's accumulation and consumption equation. Conservatives’ then branded these neo liberal “welfare” programs “socialism.” In the melee of continual political skirmishing, real facts continually frustrate: i.e., that poverty in the U. S. grows; that our political economy increasingly fails to sustain the entire society as Smith had postulated. Headlines have become a frequent reminder of our American proletarian economy:47

U.S. poor tops 39 million (in 1994) -With poverty growing to its highest level in 33 years, income gaps are growing, the Census Bureau says.

From these facts: definition of the political economy, growing poverty and income gaps, we can reasonably conclude that Whig conservatives rejected

PREFACE

51

Adam Smith’s definition of wealth (i.e., the distribution of goods and services) to all Americans? Instead, they installed The American System of Political Economy to channel owned legally enured wealth and oligarchical organizational power, as Parrington observed, allowing laissez faire, as restricted to an owner oligarchy, to go where interests led and to control, finally bulldoze and reform, the marketplace as it pleased them?48

Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on principle and more on property -- if less regard seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more to assertive selfseeking -- business was no less secure than in the good old days, and its profits were greater. And so, master of the looms and a growing home market, New England industrialism regarded genially the great western movement, fostered by a benevolent paternalism, confident of extending its markets with every mile of westward expansion. To encourage the development of the West and South by a Federal policy of internal improvement became, therefore, common business foresight, provided of course that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard business interests against local agrarianism and the menace of particularism.

By the year 1830 both dangers lay black against the political horizon. The triumph of Jackson had enthroned the agrarian menace at Washington and produced such a scrambling of frightened interests -- such a rattling among the old bones of Federalism and scurrying among the young limbs of industrialism -as the country had not seen for many a year. Henry Clay appealed to his followers in the West, and Webster marshaled his adherents of the East, and from the coalescing of these incongruous elements emerged the Whig party to do battle with Old Hickory.

52

PREFACE

. . . In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt. Its bitter and unseemly squabbles over the Bank and tariff, its platitudes of patriotism and it pose of disinterestedness, the venom of its personal attack upon Jackson, were the earmarks of shallow opportunism that failed to make use of such victories as fell to its lot, for the simple reason that it could never agree on what to do.

Such cohesive power as held together -- aside from petty antagonism to Jackson -- was the vague assumption that the well-being of the American people was dependent on governmental patronage [then blamed liberal legislation that became known as the congressional ‘pork Barrel’], the belief that each economic group and section must

receive its special favor, and that through tariffs and bonuses and internal improvements the country as a whole must prosper.

Of this principle of special favors -- a return to the seventeenth century from which eighteenth century liberalism was a reaction -- the American System of Henry Clay was the chief expression, and it remains the most significant bequest of the Whig party [i.e., the GOP] to our political history.

Parrington referred to philosophical sophistries as deduced from dogmatic materialism -- The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old

Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt -- R. L. Heilbroner commented briefly, as follows, on materialism from which he introduced the philosophical distinction between ideas [physis] and physical environment [nomos].49

The philosophy is often called dialectical materialism; “dialectical”

PREFACE

53

because it incorporates Hegel’s idea of inherent change, and “materialism” because it grounds itself not in the world of [reasoned] ideas, but on the terrain of social and physical environment.

American Whigs artfully digressed from the foundational ethical probity that Adam Smith had called for. This artful diversion distinguished Whigs from Federalists whose expedience-based diversion from Smith’s defined liberal political economy was less pronounced. Both provided the roots to the chameleon nature (i.e., change their political color, as expedient) of contemporary American conservatism. Smith’s admonition is again recalled, as Heilbroner’s comments on the theory of moral judgements:50

54

PREFACE

The lobby for trial lawyers, legendary for its clout, beat back efforts to limit damages in product liability and medical malpractice cases. Big Oil and energy-intensive manufacturing killed the Clinton administration's proposed energy tax. Lobbyists looking out for themselves stymied new registration and gift rules.

And American business, large and small, managed to kill initiatives it didn't like and prevailed in the area of international trade Whenever political economy abuses market freedom, as it has and always seems to, this was neither suggested nor intended by Adam Smith's postulations for ultra-liberal economy. Heilbroner again is recalled:52

Smith held that the answer lay in our ability to put ourselves in the position of a third person, an impartial observer, and in this way to form a sympathetic notion of the objective (as opposed to the selfish) merits of a case.

For although he saw an evolution for society, he did not see the Industrial Revolution. Smith did not see in the ugly factory system, in the newly tried corporate form of business organization, or in the weak attempts of journeymen to form protective organizations, the first appearance of new and disruptively powerful social forces.

In a sense his system presupposes that eighteenth-century England will remain unchanged forever. Only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged. His are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never matures.

Considering again Jim Dinkard's article, we must indict American conservatism’s crass disregard of reasoning! 51

In America, the dynamics of unforseen and powerful forces are not only present, now they are mature. Presenting a very serious question:

Lobbyists succeed as blockers The 103rd Congress didn't get a lot done, but for most Washington lobbyists that was just fine. It was a largely successful period for the capital's interest groups, a sign of a new age of defensive lobbying.

Major health care interests . . . took comfort in Congress' failure to pass comprehensive health care reform, which they saw as a threat to their survival.

As the direction of Political Economy in America turned to patronizing amoralities in the name of public good (Franklin’s view), have the powerful forces of self-interest sapped [i.e., conflated] our nation’s moral fiber?

The "Theory" was an inquiry into the origin of moral approbation and disapproval.

How does it happen that man, who is a creature of selfinterest, can form moral judgements in which self-interest seems to be held in abeyance or transmuted to a higher plane?

As this question needs constant evaluation, take another look at Smith's intended guideline for ‘purpose and morality’ of political economy.53

The market system is a mechanism for sustaining and maintaining

PREFACE

55

an entire society.

The intended utility of our political economy-based market system, for -sustaining and maintaining an entire society -- and, we needn't look far for examples where greater unprincipled, chaotic market systems fail to do this -- Somalia, the period of transition in Russia, and the many pockets of poverty in America -- where Black markets rampantly do exist.

Effective Political Economy surely fails to exist. We must admit, therefore, any market system now in existence surely does not represent the ideal proposed by Adam Smith.

Smith postulated his ultra-liberal system with moral principles, as they in his mind then existed: this stellar foundation of society would ensure ethical conduct in markets and moral conduct of Political Economy as well, so he believed. Heilbroner commented:54

Smith is not, as is commonly supposed, an apologist for the up-andcoming bourgeois; as we shall see, he is an admirer of their work but suspicious of their motives, and mindful of the needs of the great laboring mass. But it is not his aim to espouse the interest of any class. He is concerned with promoting the wealth of the entire nation.

And wealth, to Adam Smith, consists of the goods that "all" the people of society consume; note "all --" this is a democratic [purpose], and hence radical, philosophy of wealth. Gone is the notion of gold, treasures, kingly hoards; gone the prerogatives of merchants or farmers or working guilds. We are in the modern world [which civilization will ensure], where the flow of goods and services consumed by everyone constitutes the ultimate aim and end of economic life.

The American nation’s forefathers referred to the absolute requirement for probity in the administration of the new Constitutional Republic.

Unfortunately, the aim of self-serving persons (liberal self-interests are as competitive as conservative) whose politics are played out on the political

56

PREFACE

gridiron of Henry Clay's "American System." Nor is probity in the political aim of wage-earner-consumers who find that their incomes are too heavily taxed. However, the impoverished are a group apart. But, this is left for section 208 (about Sovereignty). And Adam Smith entrusted all of this to society to ensure: to imbue Political Economy with morality and equity (i.e., balance to both sides of the economic equation). As politics decided to authorize the Federal Reserve System, for instance, should politics decide to create a quasi-government authority to standardize exchange values of trade, address systemic endemism (as inflation), and oblige the appointed authority with responsibility to ensure that standard values with an equity and utility of all in mind are maintained, particularly as regards poverty. More particularly, would this special authority fulfill a Constitution’s provision that Roger Sherman had sponsored and remains to be ignored by Congress?

Heilbroner confirms Adam Smith’s intent:55

What Smith had meant by ["leave the market alone"] was one thing; what his proponents made him out to mean was another . . . If he had any bias it was in favor of the consumer. "Consumption is the sole end of production," he wrote and then proceeded to castigate those systems that placed the interest of the producer over that of the consuming public. [Heilbroner agrees with Brockway: consumers have an equal claim on economic returns as producer-owners do.]

Adam Smith anticipated and strongly castigated Whig mechanisms of the "American System" of political economy.

What Smith is against is the meddling of the government with the market mechanism. He is against restraints on imports and bounties on exports, against government laws that shelter industry from competition [zoning, licensing, and such], and against government spending for unproductive ends. Notice that these activities of government all bear against the proper working of the market system. Smith never faced the problem that was to cause such intellectual agony for later generations of whether the

PREFACE

57

government is weakening or strengthening that system when it steps into welfare legislation. Aside from poor relief, there was virtually no welfare legislation in Smith's day -- the government [not Smith] was the unabashed ally of the governing classes, and the great tussle within the government was whether it should be the landowning or the industrial classes who should most benefit. [The great American debate about placing sovereignty in America, was about this.] The question of whether the working class should have a

voice in the direction of economic affairs simply did not enter any respectable person's mind. [This political bias, must be redressed by moral reason.]

In America, maybe because of Smith but surely because the revolution, was the people’s, Americans decided the Constitution’s purpose was to provide for democracy and be the ultimate voice, of, for and by the people.

Political influences of American Tory, Federalist, and Whig conservatives (those of seminal interests in property, position, and commerce) on American Political Economy have in effect trampled on this public voice.

The politics of Commerce and industry is not alone in this. Underworld of economics, as Heilbroner wrote about, uncovered other culprits.

The only thing constant in our world is change and all aspects of society's security must adapt to counter insecurities, as intensified by the political tugs and pulls of the expanding global political economy, which have, as rapidly, changed with or because of it! The solution to our own security clearly rests in the commonality of adaptations with other nation's security: a global -- liberal economy, because liberal is the only adaptive political commonality that exists. As Robert Kennedy astutely suggested:

Some men see things as they are and say: why? I dream things as they never were and say: why not? [liberals have good reason to distrust belief-based orthodoxy] And to Kennedy's thought, this might be added,

There are none so blind as those who dogmatically refuse to see.

Because of those who choose to not see (hear or do) -- for

58

PREFACE

whatever lack or denial of reason, as belief-based conservatism (concupiscence and such) -- an ultra-liberal Global Political Economy without a strong, impartial helmsman or constitution will be difficult if possible to control and, therefore, we must be concerned with the emergence of Global Serfdoms, as headed by corporate ‘fictitious legal individuals,’ as the dictator in control. However grabbing this thought of impending devastation to the working classes, as foreseen, the focus of my concern here is returned to the American System of Political Economy: Social Security providing an example of reactionary Reform Liberalism, as regards this particular Political Economy.

With the entire society in mind, these questions are again posed: ---When will the promise of better economic times, in what we call ‘The Information Age,’ be substantiated?

---Who can convince us rationally that Service Industries, of themselves, create wealth? Will they ever?

(Banking has become the greatest part of GNP) ---Do Service Industries depend on technology and production -soft and hard -- for wealth creation?

----Finally, if the $ trillions simply lost from the stock crashes, as mentioned above, had instead been invested in wage earning and general consumption, therefore, not lost, would the American economy then be more robust and without public debt?

End of insert from A205 Obviously, the licensed materialist acquisitive capitalist nature of private businesses has conflated government’s constitutional teleological intent, as created on behalf of sovereign citizens, not businesses, which conflation has made citizens adapt to the economic mechanism-based political economic determinism, which conflation is nomos-based mechanized deontology (i.e., has acquaintance-based dualism): reasonbased science (no dualism) is conflated by the political economic determinism, as Prof. Weatherford cited:

But, as remarked, the most important issue historically has been moral responsibility. And what can be said about it applies in a

PREFACE

59

general way to the other implications of determinism. Typically we believe that agents are morally responsible only for those acts that are freely chosen and within the power of the agent to decide. We are guilty only if we could have done otherwise. But if determinism is true, then in some sense we never could have done otherwise.

Thus many philosophers have concluded that determinism and holding people responsible are incompatible. Others have strongly disagreed. ... Recently, however, quantum mechanics and relativity theory have generally displaced Newtonian mechanics, and various proofs of them have been claimed. Many scientists and not a few philosophers believe that the dragon of determinism has been slain. (See p.26) As Einstein’s special relativity, for instance, which rationally equated energy with mass (E = MC2), instead of an essential antecedence (no dualism) economy deontologically has been made a conflated appendage to propertied materialism, which while acknowledged to be Einstein’s individual ‘intellectual property’ that is naturally coeval of government (business property is not), lawfully now is enured capital, as in most cases of the pseudo necessary labor employments, also are lawfully enured (i.e., legally owned property considerations by businesses).

Acquisitive materialism-based political economy, which Whigs when in administrative control of government (following Lincoln’s death), politically affirmed economic causal determinism (mechanism) as the fundamental principle of US economy, as it was and still is paradoxical, therefore, tautologically is irrational. Mechanism, i.e., ‘the universe behaves like a big machine,’ is rationally a consequentially deduced causality from dualism-based human acquaintance-based experience, which then was dogmatically asserted as a universally ‘true principle,’ however without necessary antecedences, as logically inferred to human rationally intelligent faculties, is not reasonable, tautologicallyis, therefore, irrational. Acquisitive materialism’s irrational antecedents, as classically asserted to be necessary economic principles, were judiciously legalized by the Federalist orthodoxy, to serve the ideological unitary

60

PREFACE

materialist deontological economic duties, and paradoxically resulted in the conflation of constitutional teleological purposes, as Craig Thomas had observed: 56

Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their [asserted, as if] essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority.

While tautologically, Federalists have opposed the constitutional teleological purposes of Social Security, they dogmatically officially asserted the Federalist-Whig ideological doctrine as authoritative truth.

And, the privatized nomos-based mechanisms’ paradoxes, which act cumulatively to divide society into economic haves and have nots, were also politically affected officially by political attempts to affirm the mechanist ideology as Social Security’s antecedent principle as well.

Incoherence, as inflation endemism, shows as unitary materialism’s asserted pseudo principle, which also incorporated the same materialismbased dogmatic dragons as causal mechanism did: 57

materialism n. the belief that all action, thought, and feeling can be explained by the movement and changes in matter: ‘in the latter half of the 1800's, materialism severely challenged the traditional spiritual view of man’ (Science).

Again, as the U.S. Constitution was being designed, principal Idealists, which Craig Thomas wrote this about, had influenced Europeans:58 [In] prenational Prussia under Frederick the Great. Christian theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life;

Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with history and the collectivity he terms the state.

Thomas also wrote this about Idealists’ influence on Hegel: The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought, above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind all appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal

PREFACE

61

62

PREFACE

noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient idealist] systemizers,

the issue rather than seeking answers to the question; the dogmatic focus is on the expedient neatness of confusion.]

assuming that there could be discovered some essential explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world, which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of [Kant’s] dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato and Descartes] nor the passive receptor of the Empiricists but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own image. [The

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority.

principal idealists, as C. Thomas’ account shows, had even denied God’s antecedence, causing Nietzsche to cry out: “we have killed God!”]. As

‘Deterministic materialism,’ ‘mechanism,’ and ‘positivism’ is dogmatic political bias of American Federalists and Whigs and also is intrinsic of the principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel’s rationalized philosophies. [The materialist conservative principle Idealists, which had denied Kant’s noumenal teleology’s spiritual and material duality then fell apart with little to no effect on conservative culture then and now.

Considering J. G. Fichte’s Idealist influence (1714-1814), for instance, the encyclopedia recorded this subsequent reversal]: 59

Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of 1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of nonphilosophical response to an understanding of the world. . . .

Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced.

[Which came first, the egg or the chicken, is of no consequence to materialist conservative idealism, which expediently compounds

[Note how ‘conservative Idealists‘ are blameworthy for the philosophical foundations of irrational materialist philosophy]

Fichte decided to devote his life to philosophy, after reading Immanuel Kant’s three Critiques published in 1781, 1788, and 1790. His ‘Attempt at a Critique of Revelation’ won the favor of Kant, who asked his own publisher to accept the manuscript. It appeared in 1792, without Fichte’s name and ‘preface,’ and was widely hailed as a new work by Kant. When Kant corrected this misunderstanding, Fichte became famous overnight. The University of Jena made him professor. Fichte was a popular lecturer, but his technical works are difficult. Accused of atheism, he lost his

PREFACE

63

position.

[Atheism, as communism, denies Kant’s spiritual-material duality because it favors the unitary materialism-based thesis of the principal idealists.

Fichte, therefore, cleverly maybe, had denied Kant’s finding of teleologybased synthetic a priori causality because, as an atheist, he did not believe in an essential spiritual antecedence to life. Was he a positivist?

Schelling had provided linkage between Kant and Fichte’s philosophy, then in later life criticized his own works and those of fellow conservative idealists as promoting “negative” philosophy. 60 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), a pessimistic atheist, influenced by Hinduism, denounced Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel’s works. Still, Hegel’s unitary dialectical materialism, greatly influenced Marx’ Manifesto, which Lenin used to install with military force in Russia: Marx gave Dialectical Materialism 61 its contemporary meaning and foundation to the materialistic communism installed by military force. And, it is important to note that conservative unitary notions of materialism-based philosophy, which suppress noumenon, are more akin to this materialism-based communism than are reasoned dualistic (spirit and matter-based) notions of democratic philosophy.]

The Western World’s orthodox cultural dogmas, the biased values which influence materialistic ‘conservative’ belief, has proved unreliable as a fiducial parameter of pure truth.

Regarding the causal moral deterioration of society, which of the following are of concern?

--Are the fallaciously idealistic philosophic foundations of ‘unitary materialism’ of concern? — Do ‘conservative’ materialist assertions compromise individual accountability? --- Do they promote the fallacious Hobbesian leviathan view of the State?’

Maybe, the only reason that unitary materialism has failed to completely devastate the American political economy, as in Europe, gave way to communism and fascism, is the American culture’s physis-based Bill of Rights demand, as its condition for ratifying the Constitution. These amendments preserved Locke’s democratic dualism (spirit as well as materiality), which critically has kept teleological human essence as an

64

PREFACE

active part of government. We can thank men, as Jefferson, for having preserved this critically important human essence from the conflating effects of mechanists’ unitary materialist laws of government: Jefferson called it the ‘firewall of separation’ between mechanist law and human religious essence.

In Western culture, Auguste Comte’s dogmatic ‘positivism’ deals only with positive facts and phenomena, rejecting abstract speculation, 62 religiously, this dogma was spread as ‘the gospel of reason’ and this dogma abides entrenched in mechanist culture as tautological fallacy.

Mechanists’ unitary materialism is convenient orthodox theory that rational logical tautology exposes as a consequent of human acquaintancebased experience, as convenient ‘flat earth’ orthodoxy had also claimed.

Unfortunately, when mechanist unitary materialist experience is asserted as causal principle, politically assigned deontological duties of government are then its vices, as Adam Smith observed,63 and Brockway has confirmed, :

“In the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer.”

And these government’s vices then have endemically as conveniently been made the mechanized vices of Social Security and religion.

This thought on insurance from section A102 will conclude this PREFACE. As pure truth requires prescriptive integrity of the whole, our problem of national security is one which six hundred years before Christ, Lao-tse called Sinderesis .

When “positive laws” or prevailing dogmas coerce orthodox standards for morality and justice, natural standards must give way (The test of tautology confirms this). Rather than standards determined by reasonbased knowledge (no dualism), the eroded dualism-based standards represent a synthesis of the human experience that is a mixture of wily prejudice laced with truth. We call the spectrum of this synthesis wisdom , and in wisdom, we dismiss the part of Lao-tse’s Sinderesis that humans judge is unfit for certain others: particularly those we call enemies. We should ever bear in mind the pure-truth-based knowledge of

PREFACE

65

this admonition: the best way to conquer an enemy is to make him your friend.

And to have a friend, you must be one. Anyway, a nation’s security does not depend so much on its secrets as it does on its economy, trustworthiness, and diplomacy, in that order. In the sixth century before Christ, Lao-tse (The old professor) wrote this:64

The Wise Man does not have a constant mind, But he takes the mind of the people as his mind.

To the righteous we must be righteous, And to the unrighteous also we must be righteous: this is the Sinderesis of Righteousness.

To the truthful we must be truthful, And to the untruthful also we must be truthful: This is the Sinderesis of Truthfulness.

Wise Men shut themselves away because the world confuses their minds: Wise Men are all children.

I think of politicians when I think about applications of Lao-tse’s meaning.

“Wise” politicians have no moral prescriptive logos of their own. In confusion, their minds are “shut away” from reasoning. They are followers; Not leaders; They are children. More over, since they adopt no moral values for their own prescriptive logos , they do not espouse truthfulness or righteousness (which have “necessary” consistencies of pure truth, as the Bible ascribed to the nature of God: i.e., Sinderesis, or faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise). Also noteworthy is that Sinderesis of truthfulness or righteousness is of deliberate human intelligence rather than of human instinct or emotion (as with truth, knowledge (without acquaintance-based duality), which describe necessity, and wisdom (with duality-based contingency). 65 Those who lack Sinderesis as a value of their prescriptive logos are given to following their instinct or emotion, and wily political leaders often take advantage of a common lack of morality. Or why are the accusations from our self

66

PREFACE

proclaimed “moral majority” so visceral these days? What morality did they express during the Vietnam War or in 1944 when black navy recruits, as conscripted slaves, were pressed beyond human capability to hand-load live ordinances into the hulls of cargo ships? [Three hundred and fifty sailors lost their lives in the resulting explosion. The war was over for them but also for those who survived and refused to return to this conscripted slave duty (transfer to other duty was not available to them).

World War II continues as a personal battle to regain human dignity, which, court martial and dishonorable discharge had assigned to them.

President Truman had pardoned them and ordered the integration of service forces, however, Congress still must act to absolve them of the dishonor the racist military mechanism had imposed.] Does the “moral majority” select the issues and applications of Sinderesis? And isn’t it curious that visceral hate in its ranks lingers to accuse the brave few who arose to defy orthodox authorities of this self-acclaimed “divine rights” class? (Matt. 23 recorded Christ’s condemnation of such wile conservative White Rabbits of our Wonderland.) Values as morality and truth, are what our “moral majority” selectively want it to be. White Rabbits of our society act similarly to the White Rabbits of Asian feudal societies.

Sinderesis and tautology are cousins of the common dupes.

About Sinderesis in Socrates’ thoughts, Parfit wrote this:66

But the old philosopher did not love a stupid mob any more than he loved a stupid committee of tyrants. He said that democracy, if it was stupid and unjust, was as evil as stupid and cruel tyranny. [or terrorism] Forms, he pointed out, were comparatively unimportant. The essential thing was that government, whatever form it took, should be enlightened and just.

[Does Adam Smith’s admonition for “moral approbation” apply?]

Jefferson addressed this ‘old philosophers’ point when he wrote:67

It was the law of Blackstone rather than Coke that [Jefferson] feared most -- that “elegant” canonization of the malign influences of Tory reaction, and that was so cried up by the smatterers and

PREFACE

67

“ephemeral insect of the law” in America; whereas Coke “was as good a Whig as ever wrote”; Blackstone and Hume have made Tories of all England, and are making Tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, and especially the former [Blackstone], have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker. (Writings, Vol. VI, p. 335) These rationalizations supposed as truth have made Psalms 2 especially pertinent and poignant.

Digital truth, via audio-video media, provides a form of acquaintance, which as technology produced by reasonable persons whose focused search for it had no dualism, however, the real time agenda-based portrayals provided by are dualism-based, in measures that equal the falsehood that is provided. Still, for reasonable persons, the digital media should eventually cause no dualism-based truth and integrity to prevail over an agenda-based evil: Dogmatic materialist “positivism” must eventually yield to a Sinderesis (i.e., rational integrity in the holistic sense). For instance, casting political blame for national security failure signifies a lack of holistic Sinderesis. Truthful blame, we might probably find, as Pogo did, is viscerally intrinsic of the blamer, rather than endemic of the blamed political adversaries: political hate commonly is viscerally expressed furry, unwarranted calumny, or a terrorism form, for instance: Such contemporary political hate intends self preservation by way of other’s personal destruction. When a legitimate political difference exists, what moral value is found in dramatizing it? Moral value does not exist there! Only political value exists: which in free society can only morally be controlled by self constraint. Sinderesis offers a reasoned approach that quite simply would open possible solutions? Sinderesis shows furious political publicity for what it is: a wily condition that is akin to ‘greed-

68

PREFACE

based concupiscence,’ which is neither moral nor patriotic, intended only to gain some political advantage: Instead of bickering, why is more clearly defined information about each political adversity, not offered? Simply because a clear definition has no standard, as was made clear when Ellsberg unlawfully uncovered and publically disclosed the secret “Pentagon Papers”: Secrecy’ embroils an antithesis of Sinderesis: Whatever truth exists in secrecy, is enshrined in rationalization that is consistently neither pure nor truthful.

Because maintaining cutting edge technology depends on who has the best talent, corporations of our nation’s military-industrial complex hire the best possible intelligentsia. Maintaining security becomes a matter of defining those who are cleared to have access to the privileged information (this defined security is a particular matter, the no dualismbased truth of which should be tautological tested, to not only confirm the truth value of Sinderesis, but will show that the ‘classified’ meaning fits only a very short period of privilege). An elite class of privilege and Sinderesis, as compatible common values, rapidly becomes impossible.

This ‘classified’ eligibility division creates myriad opportunities for nefarious politics: Our elite and wily materialist orthodox citizenry (of wealth, political position, or authority) often preserve themselves by demeaning others, i.e., upstart students during the Vietnam war, black navy-men during WW II, or an upstart administration, which, to serve the whole of society, fails to respect and defer to the orthodox elite’s wishes.

Charges of electronic espionage involving Chinese Intelligentsia, as claimed to have happened on the democratic watch, is typical of an intent to stir public concern about perceived administrative incompetency.

About the emerging global Sinderesis, men of Peace were successful to achieve foundations of peaceful Sinderesis in Ireland and men of Peace are leading NATO, in the herculean task of achieving foundations of Peace in the Republics of Yugoslavia. Orthodoxy, found in all nations,’ is selectively and selfishly interested only in its particular political power and prosperity. Orthodox power depends largely on secrecy about weapons and strategies of deployment. This is particularly

Section 212

About Truth and Religiono

69

true of feudal Dictatorships.

In favor of humans’ generally, there have never been congregated in positions of international power, greater men of peaceful Sinderesis.

Therefore, the prospects of peace for the Balkan Republics have never been brighter. Unfortunately, orthodoxy remains powerful and wily.

Presently, the emerging competitive global economy is an ally: on the side of peace. However, as international mergers compromise competition to cause state economies to falter, new global orthodoxies will undoubtedly emerge to attempt to dominate humanity.

As a final note to Sinderesis, the categorical imperative of it provides an insight into all intents and acts of God. God is always consistent.

About Truth and Religion Unique meaning of “truth and religion” portends to find agreement by those who press forward: this excerpt from section 109 appertains: About Plato’s ‘divided line,’ on which side of the line are dogmatic doctrinal predicate values as ‘materialism’ and ‘positivism,’ found? These dogmatic values are not on the side where Plato put human ‘intelligent’ reasoned ‘necessary truth,’ as aligned with God’s truth . Instead, ‘materialism’ and ‘positivism,’ are exclusively related to Plato’s ‘Visible Realm’ where dogmatized mind conditioned ‘truths’ of ‘Opinion’ and ‘Belief’, which he compared, as limited by ‘shadows,’ are commonly found? And, while those who reason critically and thereby understand the no dualism standard for ‘necessary (noumenal) truth,’ which as manifestations of God’s LOGOS, must mirror God’s noumenal predicate values, however, choose instead fact-based predicate values (without culling from the clutter of human experience the dualism-based phenomenal facts, which rather infer human-made predicate values) for the expediently popular political advantages, which are found there: Do they, ‘walk in God’s light’?

Bossuet, on St. John’s Treatise on Concupiscence suggests this:68 [They] are those who prefer visible and transient things [i.e.,

70

Section 212

About Truth and Religiono

’facts ,’ which naturally are dualism-based] to those invisible and everlasting [i.e., only noumenal and dualism free]?

Mortals as Confucius, Lao-Tse, Plato, and Socrates, who were not mindconditioned by dogmatic Biblical doctrine, understood the purer possible temporal meaning of Truth: which Truth, Moses told he had received by ‘revelation.’69 ‘The Song of Moses,’ concluded this:

For all his ways are Judgment: a God of [Troth] and without iniquity, just and right is he, This conclusion confirms that Moses understood God’s axiomatic inferential language (i.e., pure noumena with no dualism) which humans can only, by reasoning, understand inferentially pure truth from natureposited-factual evidences [i.e., phenomenal and dualism-based].

Therefore, what Moses called ‘revelation,’ he probably obtained from prayerfully reasoned contemplation: which uniquely is similar in manner as Plato, Confucius, Lao-tse, Einstein, myriad others, had obtained their metaphysical ‘truths.’

The old-English word troth is an etymological root in the origins of temporal meanings of ‘truth.’ In the context which Moses referred to ‘truth,’ the predicate values of ‘troth’ maybe are the purer in meaning (the fault might be, therefore, of translation, which undoubtedly was unduly influenced by Brahmanist concupiscence’ of mind controlling dogma as, for instance, ‘positivism’): The predicate values of Troth, (faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise), also connote the predicate values of God’s LOGOS which posited and sustain all realities of Creation. Unless mortals portray these values in their conduct, they are not ‘intellectually truthful’: In accordance with God’s ’troth,’ their values are partly incoherent (And, St. John expressed this sentiment first general Epistle):

‘If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the [Troth].’

And, since the predicate values of an organization’s logos are synthesizedgroup instead of individual values, ‘untruth,’ instead of ‘lying,’ is a better

Section 212

About Truth and Religiono

71

depiction of the dualism-based predicate of organic fictional logos that is untrue or disrespectful of the predicate values of the Creator’s LOGOS. Incidently, Plato, Cicero, Russell, Einstein, . . ., were not religious in the sense of organic religion but their predicate values were those of human ‘intelligence’ which St. John described as ‘walking in the light of God.’ Russell stands out in this ‘light’ for his logical criticism of truth’s common definitions: particularly ‘contingent truth, of opinion,’ as based on dogma called materialism.70

If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no room for falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may be called ‘facts,’ it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements; hence a world of mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood.

With this logic in mind, was ‘divine license’ given to certain humans that wrote the Bible or Book of Mormon? Is the manner of that temporally claimed ‘divine license’ worthy to be called revelation, which then must remain as ubiquitous as truth and life is? Joseph Smith’s Mormonism purports to have restored the revealed Biblical religion that Adam enjoyed as a primal androgynous man, as supplemented doctrine of the Book of Mormon. Smith claimed ‘divine license’ and revelation from God to personally uniquely restore this religious doctrinal cosmology to Mormonism. Compiled similarly, with overlapping instances, the Book of Mormon purports compatibility rather than a new Gospel doctrine.

And, while Smith’s claimed teleology of Christ’s Gospel is compatible, his doctrinal idealism, is heavily deontology burdened: mechanist conflations of Christ’s teleological purpose or essence, to a unique and mystical temporal alchemy-based androgynous unitary materialism-based form, the dualism-based results of which often failed to comport with no dualism-based walking in the light of Christ’s cardinal imperatives: paradoxical ‘nomos-world’-based orthodoxy clearly shows in Smith’s personal conduct, that transgress Christ’s teleological imperatives.

72

Section 212

About Truth and Religiono

However, does Mormonism, in Christ’s teleological Gospel sense, ontologically produce no dualism-based ‘truth’? Ten (now thirteen) million members not only say that it is! They honestly endeavor to abide with Christ’s Gospel. Is this pragmatic truth, faith-based (i.e., is the lived belief a faith promoting form of Christ’s Gospel?).71

It is exciting and enlightening to see a religion born. And Joseph’s was no mere dissenting sect. It was a real religious creation, one intended to be to Christianity as Christianity was to Judaism: that is a reform and a consummation.

Religion, as life, embroils essential metaphysical essence in the temporal material reality of life. Nature’s God, to which St. John gave the proper Greek name LOGOS, must be accepted on faith (active believe that human cogito’s first principle of likeness with God must be preserved): LOGOS will not be subordinated either by rational or irrational temporal human acts, i.e., logically tautologically, LOGOS is the logically inferred antecedent principle of human existence, which infers that Christ’s first commandments must be lived for the personal realization of St. John’s testimony (the promise that LOGOS conditionally abides as life’s personal companion).72 Temporal life, by its creation, represents a carrot and stick, categorical responsibility to live Christ’s Categorical Imperative: ‘to walk in the light of God’, i.e., to live the commandment to ‘love God and humans.’

FOREWORD: my Mormon by-birth acquaintance-based testimony My life’s purpose is rationally persuaded by teleology: i.e., intends to foster logical truth that has no acquaintance-based dualism.

My tutored acquaintance-based belief since birth inculcated an awareness of danger, as related to unsanctioned religious opinion. This tempering of belief has not affected my reason-based pursuits, however it sharpened my focus on acquaintance-based belief that is false, i.e., is not true: Still, I consider the LDS doctrine as the ‘best’ there is. However, covertly (i.e., behind closed doors and generally unpublicized) acts by the LDS hierarchical priesthood implicates a dogmatic materialist endemism (i.e.,

Section 212

About Truth and Religiono

73

determinism), which like economic inflation’s endemism implicates mechanism-based dualism, which aligns this priesthood practice with nomos or acquaintance, therefore, disqualifies it as Christ’s teleology: member adherence to LDS doctrine, as sanctified by this nomos-based LDS priesthood practice is a determinist form of LDS coercion. Still, I believe, if the LDS church is not the best teacher of Jesus Christ’s Gospel, it is better than others that I know of.

My purpose is not to harm anyone’s belief in Christ, and particularly fellow LDS Church members’. And, in any causal sense of belief-based responsibility my purpose with fostering objective ‘truthful’ criticism, rationally is not only a valid, but also each other’s responsibility as well: as asserted by Mormonism’s second and thirteenth Articles of Faith? : We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s [or any other’s] transgression: We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, ..., indeed we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul –... . This belief assumes that temporal life’s cognizance begins in an acquaintance-based world in which both truth and falsity necessarily exists. Temporal life is improved only to the extent that individuals act in accord with such as these Articles of Faith. Therefore, believing that Joseph Smith enjoyed a sort of temporal perfection, that others did not, is indeed a false belief. And “all” men improving by the enlightenment of what is true (no dualism) is what all Christian religion is about: imperfect beginnings that hopefully improve as truth, rather than falsity, is embraced. The titles assigned to books about Joseph Smith’s Mormonism confirm this belief: No Man Knows My History, which Fawn Brodie assigned, was taken from a Speech that Joseph Smith himself had made. To know is a stronger than faith, belief, or opinion. Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling, the title that R. L. Bushman chose, also infers imperfection to start with, some falsity of which is worn-off by the friction of ‘rolling’ (and Bushman often confirms Brodie’s account). J. L. Brooke’s The Refiners Fire, is an academic accounting of Joseph Smith’s history rather than a member-persuaded religious opinion. Brooke’s title, like Bushman’s considers the imperfect origin that changes and improves

74 with time. Brooke, however, is the one with living experience of the cultural origins and influences affecting the times and places of Smiths youthful life: i.e., with the hermetic alchemy which had influenced Freemasonry that had a more prominent cultural influence on Joseph Smith than the Gospel of Jesus Christ did. Anyway, in all these books, origins are not as important as outcomes are.

Many books have been written about the LDS (Mormon) Church mostly in keeping or contrast with religious reformations, as happened with the much older Catholicism. My research focus is on dogma that possesses acquaintance-based dualism, as falsely believed as ‘pure truth’ (i.e., no dualism where dualism in fact clearly exists), and often is asserted as antecedent principle: whether of LDS, Semite, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Native American Indian, or any other religious doctrine. Dogma, asserted as a principle, is logical fallacy, since dogma is naturally contingent, not an antecedent:73 Dogma 1) a belief held or taught as true. 2) doctrine. 3) an opinion asserted in a positive manner as if it were authoritative. ideology 74 1) A set of doctrine; body of opinions (most teachers and professors do not teach ideology) [Belief is clearly ideology] Knowledge 75 is best produced by the strictly logical scientific method, which until all acquaintance-based dualism is eliminated, is held open to challenge and reason-based improvement:

1) What one knows; range of information. 2) all that is known or can be learned; the sum of what is known. 3) the fact of knowing.

4) the act of knowing; familiarity with a thing, person, subject, etc.

Moses produced his religious knowledge in a faith-based manner that became published as the Song of Moses; Socrates, Descartes, ..., knowledge was reasoned by the scientific method, which became known as logical science; which necessary fundament of knowledge, until dualism is proved not to exist, is always open to question? Scientific knowledge, as its precursor truth, derived commonly logically exact meaning from mathematical pursuits. In the sixth century before Christ,

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

75

Pythagoras gave us the word mathematics, which comprised the Quadrivium of knowledge: (Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, and Astronomy). 76 Science, therefore, strictly is an applied necessary structure, which supports logical truth (no dualism), and consequently is scientific knowledge: temporal necessity has made antecedence an essential principle of pure truth:77 3) logic. a. that cannot be denied because denial would entail

contradiction of what has already been established: b. that cannot be avoided or escaped because based on a premise known to be true.

[As in logical tautology, for instance] Whereas religion depends on belief, its truth form, is often neither logical nor necessary and, therefore, is paradoxical, i.e., has dualism.

(Plato would categorize religious truth in his Visible Realm of Opinion) Increasingly, anchored to dogmatic prejudice rather than to antecedent principles of reasoned-noumenon, religious truth, as believed bears the impossible burden of proving that it is more than logic-deficient rhetoric (i.e., an opinion that appeals to a dogma-afflicted class of sycophants): Richard Rorty wrote this about truth’s temporal burden:78 [Science look-a-likes as] Humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics [and judicial officers particularly] -- have to

worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’

Richard Rorty human cogito, ergo sum (I think. Therefore, I am) For this reasoned proposition, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) is generally academically considered to be the father of modern philosophy: human cogito, as Rene Descartes concluded, necessarily is a separate principle essence of human life, which Plato had called the human soul.* *Fred Alan Wolf’s ‘The Spiritual Universe,’ is a scientific ‘quantum jump’ into metaphysical reality of ‘intelligence’ that transcends but also links man with God. Wolf explained Plato’s importance: To grasp Plato’s concept of the soul, and we need to do that to understand how modern

76 science can have anything to do with such an idea.79

Plato’s Idealism and the Soul When we think of a friend who is over idealistic and perhaps naive but also gifted with an intellect, we may think of the person in terms reminiscent of the Greek philosopher, Plato. He was born in 427 B.C. and died in 347 B.C. He came from a family that had long played a prominent role in the social and political scene of Athens, then the center of Greek politics -- an often conniving enterprise that disturbed the young Plato. I think of him as an idealistic youth, ever dreaming of distant shores and possibilities and easily disillusioned by reality. He was especially disturbed by the execution of his friend and mentor Socrates in 399 B.C. The intrigues and corruption of Athenian political life so sickened Plato, though it would have been natural for him to follow in his family’s footsteps, that he declined to do so and instead became a brilliant thinker, writer, philosopher, and the inventor of the concept of idealism, as we know him today.

Let the Philosophers, Not the Poets, rule!

Plato was indeed as idealistic as we might imagine him to be. Plato’s idealism, his recognition of the failure of our senses in our attempts to describe not only the soul, but also anything in the world, and the death of Socrates gave him ample fuel to concern himself with changing politics, ethics, and morals. Plato strongly distrusted the political world surrounding him, leading him to proclaim, ‘let the philosophers, not the poets, rule’ -- a dictum we obviously have not heeded, considering the impact of poets and their emotional appeals in modern advertising.

He was seeking a cure for society’s problems, not through politics, which, being the work of human minds set on dealing with the lowest principles of human concern, was corrupt at the core, but through philosophical discourse. It was in philosophy, Plato

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

77

believed, that a human intellect was capable of soaring closest to, not ever touching, the loftiest ideals of the mind of God. He was serious in the hope that not until philosophers became rulers would the problems besetting humankind be resolved and alleviated. To this end, Plato wrote voluminously, usually presenting the arguments in the form of intellectual dialogues that, perhaps ironically, were reminiscent of playwrights of his day.

Plato wrote only prose; indeed, he looked with some disdain on poetry and the works of poets and artists in general. This disdain arose from Plato’s mistrust of emotions and feelings -- centered as they were in the polluted material body and its senses. Truth could only be obtained with a cool and reasoning head -- one bent on intellectual pursuit. For Plato, truth was tantamount to God, and all art could do, appealing to the feelings and emotions, was to imitate truth poorly. For Plato, imitation was the lowest sort of the higher human activities. The highest sort was intelligent reasoning.

Highest on Plato’s ladder of idealism was something not doable by human beings, but only by Gods. This included the creation of an original form from which all lesser value copies were made.

To grasp Plato’s concept of the soul, and we need to do that to understand how modern science can have anything to do with such an idea, we look at the essence of Plato’s thinking about ideals.

Reality, Illusion, and Idealism Because Plato believed the truth could only be grasped by using reason and not by appealing to emotion, Plato was particularly disturbed by the worshipful acclaim Greek society gave to Homer’s and other poets’ writings. If Plato were alive today, I am sure he would be appalled by our society’s love of movie heroes and romantic novels. The reason for Plato’s disdain for art is easy to understand: Art imitated life, only portraying it through imitation.

78 It was a representation of reality but not reality itself and was, thereby, wanting.

Wolf’s graphic presentation of Plato’s Divided Line impressed me greatly. My depiction of this, later on, is based on Wolf’s presentation.

Reasoning was essential bedrock to Descartes’ quest for truth. Quite surprisingly, however, in Plato’s (fourth century’s BC) philosophy, human capability to reason was an exclusive capability that he found was naturally restricted to the Intelligible Realm of his reasoned Divided Line.

And maybe this is because ontological faith-based human Intelligence, only when exercised diligently, is capable to understand essential knowledge, which holds sway above the flux of temporal change, of human experience, as Bertrand Russell would say. About knowledge, Russell had regarded this thought of Socrates:80

Theaetetus, when Socrates asks him for a definition of ‘knowledge,’ suggests that knowledge is perception. Socrates persuades him to abandon this definition, mainly on the ground that percepts are transient, whereas true knowledge must be of something eternal; but he does not question the occurrence of perception as a relation between subject and object (which when ‘true,’ is considered to represent ‘the truth’).

Descartes’ cogito’s reasoning capability contrasted starkly with Plato’s ‘Visible Realm of Opinion, as deduced from belief in dogma, as ‘nihilism’ or ‘positivism,’ or conceptive illusion of any sort. When (1) a popularly believed consequential deduction is asserted (i.e., is affirmed) as a necessary antecedent, or (2) is the popular (orthodox) fallacy of denying the antecedent, they are tautological fallacies (i.e., logical irrationality). Both describe the common temporal fallacies of dogmatic belief as popularly asserted orthodoxy. Causally, as Plato described, humans are tethered by their dogma, which changes constantly with orthodoxy produced acquaintance-based wisdom, which, as a fact, they then affirm as ‘their believed truth’: where opinion instead of reason, as Plato also observed, dominates life’s belief-based orthodoxy, in which

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

79

causal mechanisms serve temporal deontology rather than essential unchanging principle-based causal teleology81: deontological duty rather than teleological purpose is the service-based rule of these determinist causal mechanisms. As causal philosophy, mechanism rivals teleology.

Mechanism unitarily asserts: The universe behaves like a big machine. [this empirically asserted irrationalism concludes that human cogito (i.e., soul or essence) is a unitary material part of the universe, as communism’s ‘dialectical materialism’ * also shows?] * Hegel’s quest of dialectical truth in unitary materialism provided definition, from which Marx, a unitary materialist believer, theorized communism’s ‘dialectical materialism.’ Causal materialist belief is unproved theory: dogma! When tautologically unitary ‘dialectical materialism’ was affirmed as the antecedent principle of human essence, the irrational product was an example of first order tautological fallacy: that of ‘affirming the consequent.’

Insert from section 109 (about the essence of truth) Tautology, the written form of mathematical logic, is commonly and officially, largely unknown: briefly mentioned in the dictionary and not at all in the Encyclopedia, it probably was not known by conservative Federalists and Whigs in early America. If not for continual mathematical refinement in its attempts to make mathematics language applicable, thereby, broadening general understanding, tautology would not now be available for the veracity testing of truth. John N. Fujii explained this test:82

By a tautology we mean a statement, which has the truth value ‘true’ for all possible truth values of its components. . . .

Compound statements with all truth values ‘true’ are called tautologies and represent valid argument forms. The implication formed by the conjunction of all the premises as the antecedent and the conclusion as the consequent that form a valid argument form, will always result in a tautology. Testing compound statements to

80 see whether they are tautologies is thus equivalent to testing an argument for validity.

J. N. Fujii gave three classical valid arguments (P = compound premises, Q = consequent, - = denial, = therefore): (a) Modus ponens

(b) modus tollens (c) hypothetical syllogism

P6Q

P6Q

P6Q

P

-Q

Q6R

Q

- P

P6R

classical invalid Argument:

classical invalid Argument:

(d) P 6 Q Q

(e)

P

P6Q

-P -Q

(d) Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and (e) Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, Fujii warned, are invalid argument forms. With all forms of ‘hypothesizing a tautological argument,’ the invalid argument form (d) Affirming the Consequent is mostly applied. Fallacies of ‘Affirming Consequents’ of nomos, is a particular Sophist pseudo philosophic proclivity intrinsic of nomos-based dogmatic belief. The Federalist Agenda, as V. L. Parrington noted, provides an example of irrational tautological sophistry. 83 [Hamilton’s] notorious comment -- which the American democrat has

never forgiven him, “the people! -- the people is a great beast! -was charactoristically frank. . . . He was at pains, therefore, as a practical statesman, to dress his views in a garb more seemly to plebeian prejudices, and like earlier Tories he paraded an ethical justification for his Toryism. The current Federalist dogma of the divine right of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox dei’ -- was at hand to

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

81

serve his purpose and he made free use of it. . . .

He was frankly a monarchist, and he argued the [fallacious] monarchical principle with Hobbesian logic. “The principle chiefly intended to be established is this -- that there must be a permanent ‘will.” [A “permanent will” fits with philosophical “absolute Idealism” rather than with democracy, which philosophically is defined as “Rational Empiricism.”] “There ought to be a principle in government capable of resisting the popular current.” [In ‘Works, Vol. II, p 415]

The only effective way of keeping democratic factionalism within bounds, Hamilton was convinced, lay in the erection of a powerful chief magistrate, who “ought to be hereditary, and have so much power, . . .. “ He devoted himself to the business of providing all possible checks upon the power of the democracy.”

This Federalist agenda continues. Parrington cited the Federalist-Whig political disposition to ‘deny antecedents’ and ‘affirm consequents’:84

Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on principle [physis] and more on property [nomos] -- if less regard seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more to assertive self-seeking -- business was no less secure than in the good old days, and its profits were greater. . . . Provided of course that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard business interests against the menace of particularism.

82 ended intellectually bankrupt.. . . aside from petty antagonism to Jackson -- was the vague assumption that the well-being of the American people was dependent on governmental patronage; the belief that each economic group and section must receive its special favor, and that through tariffs and bonuses and internal improvements the country as a whole must prosper. Of this principle of special favors -- a return to the seventeenth century from which eighteenth century liberalism was a reaction -- the American System of Henry Clay was the chief expression, and it remains the most significant bequest of the Whig party to our political history.

Clearly, classical dogma has fraudulently usurped rational sovereignty. It has not only conflated the logical Categorical Imperative-based philosophy of American democracy to appear as fascism. It threatens to make the pseudo fascism permanent. And it has done the same to Categorical Imperative of Islam and globally to other societies as well.

-- End of Excerpt from section 109 -Causal mechanism is an empirically deduced consequent of dogmatic belief in unitary materialism. And as Bertrand Russell observed, the fallacious contradiction of materialism is this: if humans were material entities only, Mechanism, as theory is unchallenged but meaningless: 85

[Which nomos-based Federalism is here shown to be opposed to antinomy, which connotes anti nomos.] . . . In the hour of peril,

If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no room for falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may be called “facts,” it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements; hence a world of mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood.

principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and

Materialism n. the doctrine (dogma) that all spiritual phenomena are the result of organized matter.86 [clearly, this is nomos-based]

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

83

Materialism n. the belief that all action, thought, and feeling can be explained by the movement and changes of matter: In the latter half of the 1800's, materialism severely challenged the traditional spiritual view of man (Science).87 [clearly, the traditional spiritual view is physis-based] World Book gave this of what maybe represents the Western World’s greatest nomos-based temporal paradox: 88

Mechanism is one of the two great philosophical theories of cause and effect in the universe. Opposed to the theory of mechanism is the theory of teleology. Any thing that grows and develops can be explained in two ways. Mechanism explains it from behind, in [temporal nomos-based] terms of its origins. Teleology explains it from the front, in terms of the [physis-based] goal it is seeking.

About the unique ‘front end view’ of ‘scientific man,’ as always challenged by materialist absolutism, Craig Thomas wrote this:

It is Cicero’s clarification and codification of Stoic natural law theory that influenced the early and medieval Christian thinkers, who preserved natural law theory and made it irrefutably dependent upon the Christian deity. It is a history of continuity that attends natural law theory rather than one of change or adaptation. We might encapsulate this continuity simply by comparing the original Stoic concept of the cosmopolis with that of ‘kingdom of ends’ Kant expounds in his essay ‘Perpetual Peace’ -- and similarities are remarkable. Natural law theory enshrined and preserved the ideas of equality of reason, justice, rights, and liberties. By doing so, it also preserved the conception of the unique value of each individual as a rational being and thus entitled to equality. Equally, the theistic origin or guarantee of natural law is also preserved. There is no profound change within, or decline of, natural law theory until the ‘materialism’ of the French Enlightenment, when reason becomes divorced from all theistic conceptions of the universe for,

84 perhaps, the first time.

There is continuity, too, in the Stoic conception of the passions as malfunctions of reason, as requiring government by the rational faculty in human nature, together with the sense of transcending mere ’nature’ through the employment of reason in the pursuit of knowledge. It is a tradition that reawakens in Descartes and Spinoza, however applied or altered, in their emphasis upon reason as the essence of human nature and existence, particularly in Spinoza’s ideals of liberty and justice and in his theory of the necessity of reason to subdue the [orthodox] order of the ‘passions.’

Natural law theory, in other words, illuminates the theories of the great rationalists, just as it forces upon us a recognition of the tradition to which Kant belonged and upon which Locke drew.

In Stoic and Roman thought, therefore, natural law theory is nothing less than a theory of human ‘identity,’ since it avoids all classifications of human beings into groups or classes or within any exclusive idea of citizenship or even the status of the ‘wise’ in human society. It allows and promulgates a common identity to all human beings as opposed to any more partial means of identification, just as it establishes the spirit of any legal system or positive law, which must imitate and embody natural law. . . . What become in Locke ‘inalienable rights’ are those very principles which admit the equivalence of identity (and therefore significance) between ourselves and others -- you are as individual as I am. . . .

Natural law theory and the importance of reason are synonymous throughout [the] millennia, in Greek Roman, and Christian thought.

Mark Eddington’s article, about Mormonism’s doctrinal void of scientific knowledge, presents serious reason-based consideration: 89

Orem UT -Adam or Ape? It’s the inevitable question when talk turns to evolution.

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

85

Sure enough, it cropped up Tuesday at Utah Valley State College [UVSC] during a discussion of a new book about the LDS Church’s evolutionary view.

Duane Jeffery, a Brigham Young University biology professor, and William Evenson, a UVSC administrator and physics professor, who co-wrote “Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative Statements,” say the church’s position on evolution is clear: it doesn’t have one.

“When you look at what the church has said on evolution in context, it’s clear the church has no authoritative position that suggests evolution is incompatible with religion,” said Evenson, a 34-year professor and administrator at BYU until retiring and taking his present job at the Orem college.

The duo’s 123-page book, published by Salt Lake City-based Greg Kofford Books, is just beginning to grace shelves at area bookstores. Its release is timely, given the Legislature’s defeat this week of a bill that would have required teachers in Utah public schools to tell students that evolution is not a fact.

Fact is, both professors attest, many Latter-day Saints are misinformed about their church’s stand, often dismissing Charles Darwin by selectively citing what certain LDS leaders have said.

Evenson and Jeffery -- both of whom say Darwin’s theory doesn’t lack for evidence -- concern themselves with authoritative church statements.

Three formal statements made by the governing First Presidency -- first in 1909 during Joseph F. Smith’s administration, a second in a Christmas message in 1910 and a third in 1925 during Heber J. Grant’s tenure -- carry the most weight. So does the 1992 “Encyclopedia of Mormonism’s” entry on evolution, which contains excerpts from First Presidency minutes in 1931.

Jeffery said the 1909 declaration, while not rejecting

86 evolution, clearly carries an anti-evolution flavor. He said the 1925 statement mirrors the earlier one, but without anti-evolution rhetoric.

Penned by Evenson and approved by the church, the Encyclopedia article says, “The scriptures tell why man was created, but they don’t tell us how.” The article further contains the First Presidency’s instructions in 1931 to church general authorities: “Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research.”

Evenson and Jeffery buttress their book with an appendix of additional documents the First Presidency approved or sponsored for publication, as well as church President’s published statements that were issued over their signature. For example it contains President F. Smith’s 1911 editorial in the church’s Juvenile Instructor.

“The church itself has no philosophy about the ‘modus operandi’ employed by the Lord in his creation of the world,” wrote Smith, who personally opposed the idea of evolution.

Mormonism and Evolution’s genesis came about in 1992, when then BYU President Rex Lee tired of answering students questions about the subject and wanted a packet written to inform students of the church’s official position. Jeffery and Evenson helped assemble that packet, which is replicated in their new book along with some commentary to provide context.

Jeffery said many LDS members’ anti-science views can be traced to the 1909 statement or Joseph Fielding Smith’s “Man: His origin and Destiny,” written in 1954. [Both Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith were proud conservatives about Federalist dogmatic belief, as originated in Mormonism with Joseph Smith.

Tautologically, therefore, their conclusions were fallacious.] Too many

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

87

Mormons, he added, are not as well versed on other statements.

“This book tells the rest of the story.”

Whenever belief is anchored to dogmatic prejudice rather than to principles of strict logical reasoning, it is nothing more than logicdeficient rhetoric, calumnious opinion, that of design appeals to a dogmaafflicted class of religious sycophants: 90 [Science look-a-likes as] Humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics [and judicial officers particularly] -- have to

worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’

Richard Rorty Mormonism’s religious truth clearly diverges from scientific truth similarly as Plato’s reason-based truth differs from belief-based truth of Plato’s forms of opinion. And, scientists, when considered as radical by those who hierarchically are superior in position or possession, are commonly excoriated, even killed, when sycophantic orthodoxy is marshaled against them: Christ, incidently, was crucified because he taught radically divergent, i.e., liberal doctrine, which he openly declared had fulfilled the dogmatically traditional beliefs of the Old Testament.

Four centuries earlier, Socrates, was considered a radical scientist, and was made to drink the cup of hemlock. Now, because Mormonism has admitted that logical science’ has worth, it is slowly progressing on a path that will lead to LDS religion’s scientific reason-based ontological truth?

Or, maybe more probably its on a path that will excite a sycophantic fundamentalist belief-based rejection? The path of logically reasoned truth was followed by Roger Williams, and he described the logical requirement for to eradicate dogmas: 91

Every lawful Magistrate whether succeeding or elective, is not only the Minister of God, but the minister or servant of the people also (what people or nation soever they may be the world over), and that Minister or Magistrate goes beyond his commission who intermeddles with that which cannot be given him in commission

88 from the people.

Roger Williams Keith Klundt’s opinion, in the Salt Lake Tribune May 13, 2006, presented fundamental LDS doctrine (dogma) about polygamy:

Polygamy never renounced With Warren Jeffs on the lam, and HBO’s “Big Love” giving the world a look at polygamy in a modern context, there has been much discussion and controversy surrounding polygamy and the LDS Church doctrine regarding plural wives.

As a lifelong church member and student of LDS scripture and prophetic teachings, my understanding of the subject is that the principle of plural marriage is a fundamental doctrine of the LDS Church. It is taught in the Doctrine and Covenants (section 132) and in numerous talks and writings from LDS prophets and apostles.

LDS doctrine clearly teaches that gods and goddesses in celestial realms practice the principle of plural marriage. The doctrine is held in abeyance at the moment because of inhospitable social and legal circumstances in the United States, but it will be practiced during the millennial reign of Jesus Christ on Earth by all who are faithful to him and his true prophets. I have yet to hear or read an official statement from the LDS Church, its prophets or apostles, that contradicts this belief.

While Mr. Klundt fundamentally believes in polygamy, the LDS church does not consider him as a fundamentalist in fact. But, instead, considers him, as any law-abiding U.S. citizen: Practicing polygamists in the U.S. are those the LDS church now considers, as not law abiding. And, only they are the cause of great controversy. The LDS Church, however, as it does with the evolution issue, provides no doctrinal solution here either. With polygamy, however, LDS doctrine was and is the source of this controversy, which is irrational since only men of the priesthood’s mantle are considered to hold the rightful antecedent authority (women do not qualify), which LDS hierarchical practice fundamentally severely

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

89

violates the equality tenets of our constitutional authorities and, therefore, fundamentally violates this constitutional principle.

Why do I contend that polygamy is religious fallacy? Roger Williams’ dictum is clearly Christian, rational, and democratic, and polygamy defiles it! Because the U.S. Constitution represents the consent of authority, which equally protects, regardless of belief or sex, individual liberty, even when that liberty is violated by religious thraldom (bondage, slavery or servitude): polygamy, as church doctrine, whether practiced or not, portends a thralldom form of belief! Is it not the separation of Church and State, which allows the LDS church to uphold an unpracticed doctrine? Embroiling this controversy, these thoughts were expressed by Utah Justices: 92

“The people of this state have declared monogamy a beneficial marital form and have also declared polygamous relationships harmful.”

Justice Mattyhew B. Durrant “Any two people can make private pledges to each other, with or without the assistance of a religious official, but these private commitments are not equivalent to marriage . . .”

Chief Justice Christine M. Durham "

The Holm ruling “probes a particularly sensitive area of our state’s identity. No matter how widely known the natural wonders of Utah may become, no matter the extent that our citizens earn acclaim for their achievements, in the public mind Utah will forever be shackled to the practice of polygamy.”

Justice Ronald E. Nehring Noumena, as human thought, logic, truth, . . . , is essential axiomatic principle to each human life’s conduct. And this noumena fails to conform to mechanism’s empirical-based theory (the world behaves like a big machine). Likewise, materialism and its deduced

"

The supreme Court of Utah rejected Rodney Holm’s bid to decriminalize polygamy.

90 corollaries, as mechanism, are irrational human-deduced dogma, as temporally believed, and then asserted as principles of life’s conduct.

Capitalism, sans ‘rational empiricism’ (democratic balance provided by rational ‘noumenon’), fails miserably as logically virtuous essential economic ‘principle.’ Paradoxes of mechanisms’ economic determinism proliferate. Without democratic balance, capitalism is a fascism form, in which paradoxes rule life: substance then rules essence.

While the ‘Visible Forms’ of Plato’s Divided line pervasively convince orthodoxy of an antecedence, they are superficial. Kant would say they are synthetic because, they fail reasonableness in causal applications that transcend Plato’s divide between substance and essence.

Auguste Comte’s ‘positivism,’ which dogma became popular orthodoxy during French enlightenment, took Western humankind further into logical fallacy (irrationalism, Heidegger, would say) by concluding that Plato’s opinion-based ‘Visual Forms’ are all that is important in human temporal life. Invariably, unwittingly or not, applied dogmatic ‘positivism’ transpose life’s naturally essential principle antecedents (Plato’s Knowledge Forms) into belief-based contingencies either by dogmatic cultural supplanting or conflation effects: the resultant contingent orthodox belief tends culturally to dominate society. And thereby, the dogma of belief controls law and history: ‘conservative’ orthodoxy generally, fallaciously, rules Society’s ontologism effects, which are coeval of natural individual rights, Which the Constitution is supposed to protect.

Ontologism 93 n. Doctrine that human beings have an intuitive knowledge of God and that this knowledge is the basis of all other knowledge. [Evidence of intuition is a myriad, as all forms of life attest.]

God intends that wisdom is available to all humanity: 94

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.

Differences between faith-based wisdom and belief are important. As the difference between wisdom and knowledge is also important.

Ontological argument or proof, the contention that since our idea

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

91

of God is that of a perfect being and since existence is part of perfection, our idea of God is an idea of a necessarily existent being. This argument, used by Anselm and Descartes, is repeated

by Thomas Aquinas and most of the theologians.95 Holding unwavering faith that God is a necessarily existent being is diabolically incompatible with dogmatic belief in ‘positivism’: for instance, dogmatic belief fetters the human‘ Cogito,’ whereas unwavering faith opens the human ‘Cogito’ to life’s essential vistas: belief, when dogmatic, acts like a halter or tethered effect by a rope, or as Plato explained, as chained to a wall in a cave so as only to perceive of shadows rather than reality. Shakespear might compare it to ‘habitual’ acts similarly as Hindu Vedas (dogmatic acts) are practiced religiously.

Dogmatic ‘believers’ are a most hopeless caste; they are followers who welcome letting their leaders do all faithful knowledge-based reasoning for them! Without their leaders, they are lost. Branch Dividians are an extreme example of such tethered control. John Adams wrote this: 96

Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees, for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees. . . .

Without life’s inalienable (ontological knowledge-based) root cognition, Descartes, ‘I think; therefore I am,’ or St. Anselm’s, ‘faith

first, then by cogito, confirm empirically,’ dogmatic traditions and customs of the Dark Ages would still prevail. Think about it. Faith in ontologism naturally occurs with each new experiment or adventure [Kant’s synthetic ‘a priori,’ as is causally different from the empiricist Visible Forms’ of determinist causality (mechanisms) represents the essential case for ontologism’s reasoned faith-based antecedence]: So, why not also with religious faith of ‘walking in the light of God?’ Transcendence of faith to realities of living in accord with God’s ‘light,’ in which temporal experiences and opinions are extraneous to the comforts

92 of God’s abiding presence as St. John testified was the reward.97 Is ontologism not therefore, about faithful experimentation, of qualities of mind’s logos (values) as faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise (which pure values also describe God’s intelligent predicate, which St. John called LOGOS) that when exercised in faith leads to the pure knowledge of truth, where Plato’s pure thought and reason transcend opinion (belief and Illusion), which as Plato ontologically had reasoned was more purely of science than were believing those orthodox religious belief-based mythical Greek gods? : Human knowledge is naturally linked to the truths of nature’s LOGOS, only accessible by faithful logical reason.

After having pondered ontologism in results of abiding faithful reason, my subconsciousness apparently remained active during sleep.

(My subconscious thoughts continued to pursue Plato’s Divided Line as F. A. Wolf had portrayed: The word mer re came so forcefully to mind in a dream that the following day I pursued its meaning. Because physis and nomos are intrinsic of the explanation of Plato’s Divided Line, this excerpt explains mer re’s intended meanings.

That mer re was an essential principle to be respected if not pursued in life, came forcefully to my mind while dreaming? However, mer re was not listed as a separate word, which suggested that my dream was nothing more than an illusion. Then, quite surprisingly I found its meaning listed under emeritus: emeritus was the past participle of mer re; meaning in Latin: ‘honorable service to the end.’

Therefore, the prescriptive fiducial values of mer re are synonymous with the values of troth as explained in Old Testament terms. And these values are those ascribed to God, the Creator’s LOGOS, which biblical translators attributed to ‘a God of truth,’ categorical imperatively having faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise, which variously consistently describe these predicate values in logos, whether of God or man.

“Emer re”, in Latin, means “honorable service to the end”: meanings of conservatism and liberalism are thereby given a truth value context, regards dualism:

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

93

About American ‘public interest’ nature, Ron Chernow cited the clash between Alexander Hamilton’s orthodox political conservatism and Thomas Jefferson’s heterodox political liberalism, which politics of conservative orthodoxy had branded, as radicalism: 98 . . . their clash inside George Washington’s first Cabinet proved so

fierce that it would spawn the two party system in America.

Philosophically, this public interest clash is as old as life. M. Heidegger, reasoning of causal sources, called the liberal side, rationalism, and the conservative side, irrationalism. About justice, Grolier Encyclopedia gave this account of rationalism (physis) and irrationalism (nomos): (continued following Plato) PLATO’S DIVIDED LINE ‘PHYSIS’ - - COSMIC: ‘Eternal Good’ Descending order of truth 99 GOD’S LOGOS PURE KNOWLEDGE (The predicate of God’s LOGOS is PURE LOVE: Faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, promise: Jehovah’s Covenant. Lao-tse said this is Sinderesis,100 i.e., God is impartially constant) INTELLIGIBLE REALM knowledge FORMS: A -pure thought B -reason Does the human cogito join ‘NOMOS’ to ‘PHYSIS,’ values of logos to the values of LOGOS (i.e., Ontologism)?

‘NOMOS’ WORLD: ONTOLOGICAL ‘temporal’ HUMAN logos: ontologism [Human logos is naturally corrupted by material aspects and by upbraiding materialist dogma. PURE LOVE is corrupted by visceral emotion, such as love-hate-greed] VISIBLE REALM FORMS: C D

Opinion ---

belief illusion

94 Like Western philosophy in general, philosophy of law in particular first emerged in ancient Greece. In the 5th century BC the Sophists and Socrates, along with his followers, took up the question of the nature of law. Both recognized a distinction between things that exist by nature [i.e., physis] and those that exist by human-made convention [i.e., nomos]. The Sophists, however, tended to place law in the latter category, whereas Socrates put it in the former, as did Plato and Aristotle. [Plato viewed reason as pure rational truth (i.e., no acquaintance-based dualism); opinion (because of dualism) consistently failed to qualify as reason] Teleology vs. Mechanism is diabolically paradoxical, i.e., a causal clash of truth and falsity that temporal politics exacerbates: Only Teleology (no dualism) is about eternal reality and applies only to essence in temporal reality as St John observed 101 : dualism exclusively applies to temporal materiality, on which causal mechanism is based . Both temporal (dualism) and eternal (no dualism) reality forms are critically important to philosophical democracy, however, paradox (i.e., dualism), which is caused by mechanism-based materialist applications, can only happen when reason is displaced by materialist political orthodoxy, which is mechanist unitary materialism inclined.

[End of rationalism (physis) and irrationalism (nomos) insert.]

The necessity to engage logical ‘reason’ usually is distrusted and often is considered offensive to the orthodox view in life’s temporal walks, in which belief-based dogmatic political doctrine persuades the orthodoxy. Differences between faith and belief rest undisturbed in necessity’s root definitions, however: in root meanings as ‘trust,’ ‘sincerity,’ and ‘faithfulness,’ deontology defines the root meanings differently than teleology does. The human life’s eternal soul (essence) and the body’s temporal (substance) embroil in these paradoxical root definitions, in thoughts and actions, in which the dualism of paradoxes are exacerbated by the causal deontological duty-based definition of ‘trust,’ ‘sincerity,’ and ‘faithfulness, which diverges from life’s teleology-based

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

95

purposeful ‘trust,’ ‘sincerity,’ and ‘faithfulness.’

World Book Encyclopedia refers to causal ‘mechanist’ meaning to define the contrast of deontology with teleology: deontology became cultural orthodoxy intrinsic of causal mechanism, therefore, mechanist culture expediently found great advantages in the lack of moral goals or purposes. Pursuing orthodoxy, World Book’s reference was to B. Spinoza (1632-1677). 102 [Spinoza] accepted Rene Descartes idea that the universe is divided

into mind and matter. But he saw as Descartes did not, that if mind and matter are separate substances, they cannot interact. Spinoza decided that they are “attributes” of one substance, God. God, being infinite, has many attributes, but mind and matter are the only two that human minds can know.

And, for espousing such heretical logic, mechanist orthodoxy’s threats forced Spinoza to leave his Amsterdam home. Materialist Whig orthodoxy in the U.S. affirmatively installed The American System of Political Economy, the tautologically fallacious principle of which is government administered economic determinism, i.e., causal mechanism.

Mormonism’s history as regards Spinoza’s heterodox view of the human mind and matter, had also endured a similar doctrinal contest which played out between Brigham Young’s Adam-God theory and Orson Pratt’s view that God was in everything. Brigham Young asserted the pure androgynous Adam, as a material manifestation of divine immortality. Pratt’s reasoning eventually prevailed when John Taylor became the Mormon President: the LDS Church then quietly abandoned the Adam-God doctrine. (A recent conversation with a former Mormon polygamous member is recalled: I mentioned that following Brigham Young’s LDS Presidency, the Adam-God doctrine had been abandoned.

This former LDS member retorted: I believe the Adam-God doctrine!

Don’t you?)

Mormonism, only then abandoned the material androgynous Adam for an unwavering doctrinal faith in Christ’s atonement, while temple rites of eternal marriage and spiritual wifery remained aligned with the occult’s alchemical marriage, (J. L. Brooke cited other occultist groups, i.e., Ranters and Munster Anabaptists that

96 also practiced spiritual wifery 103 ): In 1852, Brigham Young asserted this divinely revealed LDS doctrine:104

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a ‘celestial body, and brought Eve ‘one of his wives,’ with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, ‘the Archangel,’ the ANCIENT OF DAYS! About whom holy men have written and spoken - HE is ‘our’ FATHER ‘and our’ GOD, ‘and the only God with whom we have to do.’ 105 Unitary materialist causality (mechanism) is dogma, which mechanists’ had politically asserted as their idealists’ deontological economic principle. And its assertion as law, installed this deontological causal mechanism as the fundamentally fallacious principle of The American System of Political Economy: World Book Encyclopedia captured this factually deduced basis of this mechanist’ deontology: 106

MECHANIST is a person whose philosophy states that the universe behaves like a giant machine. Everything happens according to physical laws of cause and effect. He believes that no living thing has a choice in the way it behaves. The mechanist says that events of yesterday determine what happens today. Only the past and present can control the future. [(Brigham Young’s asserted doctrine above, clearly indicates a mechanist foundation): Mechanists are clearly orthodox conservatives, the Whig politics of which eventually succeeded to install The American System of Political Economy. Like the mechanists that got the U.S. into war in Iraq and then denied culpability for starting this war on a false predicate, Brigham Young’s doctrine assigned, as deontological duty, plural marriage assignments with no concern or culpability for having done this: deontology had provided this legal shield?]

Britannica Encyclopedia defined deontology and teleology:

deontology (Greek deon, duty, and logos, science).

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

97

deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. teleology (Greek telos, end, and logos, science) what is good or desireable is an end to be achieved. Opposed to deontology, which holds that basic standards for an action being morally right are independent of the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ generated. teleological ethics holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely the value of what an action brings into being (Duty for duties sake).

Deontology, therefore, is specified ‘duty,’ which is not to be confused with deontological ethics, which specifies that ‘duty’ is independent of any end moral rightness or wrongness, thereby is disconnected from any ending ‘good’ or ‘evil’ generated by the dutiful action. (A Corporation’s legal acts as a fictitious human, which practice deontological ethics, thereby legally enjoy a liability shield.)

Teleology is ‘purpose’ with enduring ‘good’ ‘moral’ intent that correspondingly results in ending moral value. Deontology, however, as culturally interpreted, has only immediate temporal moral value, as earning a paycheck, which only coincidently implicates rational purposeful intent of the end result of the enacted duty. Only teleology has culturally retained noumenal moral intent that quite unreasonably must depend on temporal phenomenal moral end value, deontology fails to define: the operating key of teleology is trustful ontologism exercised with faithful reason, which is mer re defined. Still, subtly divergent human values of deontological specification relate to human intents’ in correlation with dualism generated truth or falsity. The Apostle James cautioned persons about ‘upbraiding’ (uncertainty or faultfinding), as is usual with subscribed belief-based dogma, particularly ‘nihilism’ and ‘positivism,’ that by emphasizing the causality of empirical ‘nomos,’ as the all important, but irrational, principle to live by, routinely summarily dismiss faithful intelligent ‘ontologism,’ despite scriptural cautions to place ‘trust’ in the supreme intelligence of Creation, to which St. John gave the proper Greek name LOGOS. 107

98 Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

H. G. Wells registered these natural axiomatic evidences of life:108

Life differs from all things whatever that are without life in certain general aspects. There are the most wonderful differences among living things today, but all living things past and present agree in possessing ‘a certain power of growth,’ all living things ‘take nourishment, ’all living things move about as they feed and grow,’ though the movement may be no more that the spread of roots through the soil, or of branches in the air. Moreover, ‘living things reproduce;’ they give rise to other similar living things, either by growing and then dividing, or by means of seeds or spores or eggs or other ways of producing young. ‘Reproduction’ is a way of life.

In a primordial natural sense (i.e., the intelligent design), all living things were genetically determined and instinctive-based reproduction is an aspect of this nature: of the nature that LOGOS had genetically coded: humans, however, also were endowed with an intelligent noumena-based choice and responsibility (i.e., Cogito or reflective logos of God’s LOGOS) that must be faithfully exercised and revered, or it becomes inactive, as the most sacred aspect of nature’s independent temporal phenomenon called life.109

Primordial man could have had little or no tradition before the development of speech [God’s LOGOS and man’s logos are related; GOD entirely understands man; whereas only faithful ontologism qualifies man to understand small bits of GOD].

David P. Barash’s article is about a surprising academic finding:110

The German public was recently shocked to learn that 30 percent of

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

99

their women are childless -- the highest proportion of any country in the world. And this is not the result of infertility: it’s intentional childlessness. Demographers are intrigued. German nationalists aghast. Religious fundamentalists, distressed at the indication that large numbers of women are using birth control. And evolutionary biologists (including me, Barash) are asked, “How can this be?” If reproduction is perhaps the fundamental imperative of natural selection, of our genetic heritage, isn’t it curious -- indeed, counterintuitive -- that people choose, and in such large numbers, to refrain from participating in life’s most pressing event?

The answer is that intentional childlessness is indeed curious -- but in no way surprising. It is also illuminating, because it sheds light on what is perhaps the most notable hallmark of the human species: the ability to say no -- not just to a bad idea, an illegal order or a wayward pet, but to our own genes. [Humans, surely do not always sexually behave according to the genetical designed causality]

When it comes to human behavior, there are actually very few genetic dictates. Our hearts insist on beating, our lungs breathing, our kidneys filtering and so forth, but these internal organ functions are hardly “behavior” in a meaningful sense. As for more complex activities, evolution whispers within us. It does not shout orders.

People are inclined to eat when hungry, sleep when tired, and have sex when aroused. But in most cases, we remain capable of declining, endowed as we are with that old bugaboo, free will.

Moreover, when people indulge their biologically based inclinations, nearly always it is to satisfy an immediate itch, whose existence is itself an evolved strategy leading to some naturally selected payoff.

A person doesn’t typically eat, for example, with the goal of meeting her metabolic needs but to satisfy her hunger, which is a benevolently evolutionary trick that induces the food to help out their metabolism.

For more than 99.99 percent of their evolutionary history,

100 humans haven’t had the luxury of deciding whether to reproduce: simply engaging in sex took care of that, just as eating solved the problem of nutrition. But then something quite wonderful arrived on the scene: birth control. Because of it, women (and men) can exercise choice and, if they wish, save themselves the pain, risk and inconvenience of childbearing and child-rearing, indulging themselves rather than their posterity.

Add to this another important observation from nature.

Behavioral ecologists distinguish between what are known as “r” and “k” strategies among living things. Thus, “r” strategies -- such as mice and rabbits -- breed early and often, producing large numbers of offspring that suffer high mortality. “K” types -- such as elephants and whales -- breed later and relatively rarely, producing fewer offspring (with lower mortality) and investing more in each.

Neither elephants nor whales send their children to college, although they indulge in the animal equivalent.

Pre-technological human beings are comparatively “r” in their reproductive style. But with improved socioeconomic conditions -- especially better educational and vocational opportunities for women -- comes the demographic transition, whereby “r” gives way to “k,” and infant mortality plummets along with birth rate. There also arises a tendency to take especially good care of the fewer children one produces, as well as a greater inclination to look after No. 1, sometimes -- horror of horrors! -- by producing no children at all.

It happens over and over from Nigeria to Nicaragua. Even the already low birthrates in developed countries become lower still when each child is expected to be outfitted with an ipod and yoga lessons, not to mention a personal trainer. It is notable that childwariness is not only characteristic of highly developed Germany (and northern Europe as a whole), but that it rises from 30 percent to

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

101

more than 40 percent among German women who are college graduates.

When it comes to our behavior, evolution is clearly influential. Of this there can be no doubt. But only rarely is it determinative, even when something as deeply biological as reproduction is concerned. Indeed, the trend toward childlessness is neither particularly German nor strangely “un-biological” but profoundly human. David P. Barash is a professor of psychology at the university of Washington.

Human will, a natural ontological aspect of essential Cogito, competes with genetically coded material instincts (For instance, Professor Barash’s ‘sexual arousal’ must particularly present a frustrating paradox to human individuals, which greatly depends on culture for education and understanding, as concerns any deontological practice of responsibility, let alone teleology). About human language, H. G. Wells said this:111

But even this original Aryan language, which was a spoken speech perhaps 6,000 or 5,000 years’ B.C., was by no means a primordial language or the language of a savage race. . . . It had grammatical forms and verbal devices of some complexity.

Human Cogito had an active part in this development. About how much speech had originated ontologically, remains an open question. Wells wrote this about the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel:

At Nippur they built a great tower of brick to their chief God, El-lil (Enlil), the memory of which is supposed to be preserved in the story of the Tower of Babel.

The Great King Hammurabi (2,100 B.C.)112 who ruled the first Babylonian Empire and gave to humanity a record of the comprehensive laws that existed back then (Which antedated the distinct moral laws of Moses), was recorded by Wells:113

The code of Hammurabi was based on older collections of Sumerian and Akkadian laws, which Hammurabi revised, adjusted, and expanded. . . . The code concerned such matters as false accusation,

102 witchcraft, military service, land and business regulations, family laws, tariffs, wages, trade, loans, and debts. The main principle of the code was that “the strong shall not injure the weak.” [which categorical imperative resembles that given by Christ?]

A picture writing on clay pieces of Hammurabi standing before the sun god Shamash while receiving the symbols of divine authority portrays factual evidence of Hammurabi’s ‘divine rights’-based dogma (Roger Williams’ seminal research of authority found Divine Rights dogma among illusions he called “hoary fiction,” which fiction he discarded from the basis of authority.) that was popularly believed in Babylonia: Hammurabi’s authority, therefore, came from the sun god Shamash. Any truth here is based on illusion, as then believed, that Shamash was LOGOS, the Creator.

Ludowich Allison introduced the Bible translation, arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates. He wrote this:114

That [King James] message reverberates . . . Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to make himself into God. (His second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else.) . . .: the great covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ.

That message reverberates on many different levels throughout Western thought. It enables us to comprehend the mystery of life as a part of a larger story of sin and redemption. Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to make himself into God. (His second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else.) This is the great Biblical motif that runs from Genesis and the Fall through the impieties and failures of Israel to the final consummation of the Old Testament in the New. It is the tension between man’s aspirations and man’s inadequacies, and it gives rise to the idea of hope. The Bible tells us man’s stories are more than fables, and his oldest myths are more than legends; they

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

103

are intricately inlaid into the very foundation of the cosmos, and further-more, into a cosmology that plays itself out in the processes of each individual soul.

In this, the Bible is the definitive epic of the West. King David had been dead two hundred years when the great Homeric verses of the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’ were first set down. The Biblical epic of which he is a central character was only halfway to completion. This epic moves us from Exodus to Job, from the tribal and collective experience to the individual, which in its singularity is universal in a way the narrowly tribal cannot be. And while this revelation is unfolding, another is moving parallel in the opposite direction: the great Covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ, so that we move from the individual through the tribe to the universal.

[King Solomon, King David’s son, also had been dead more than a century when Homeric verses and Greek gods’ legends were written: which Socrates, more than four centuries later, ridiculed and was, for expressing his independent but truthful view, made to drink the hemlock.]

Clearly, all that is written or believed cannot be truthfully ascribed to God’s divine influence. In fact, human belief more generally subscribes idealist mechanist orthodoxy than it does truth. And appropriately, for temporal concupiscence embroiling occultist idealism, which culturally ascended to taking plural wives and concubines, Joseph Smith’s claimed divinity parallels the divinity, which King David claimed: 115 The ten tribes broke away in successful rebellion and set up the Northern Kingdom of Ephraim or Israel.

[The Utah-bound Mormons, which migrated following Joseph Smith’s death, rejected Smith’s authoritatively promised successor. 116 ] FREEMASONRY is maybe the world’s largest fraternal organization. The rites and secrecy of this fraternity fundamentally promoted brotherhood to foster morality among its members. George

104 Washington, wearing his regalia as a member of the Masons is pictured while laying the cornerstone of the United States Capital building in Washington, D.C., in 1793. 117 The Biblical account of Adam, Jehovah, King Solomon and Temple rites (plural wives, and secrets as claimed by FREEMASONRY) profoundly influenced Joseph Smith and Mormonism.

And whether primely internal of, or external to FREEMASONRY’s secret rituals, Smith’s practice of FREEMASONRY largely perpetuated the occult. John L. Brooke provided this account of the occult: 118

Since it is unfamiliar to many readers, and so central to this story, we need to examine briefly the history of hermeticism. 119 The origins of hermetic thought lay in Greco-Roman Egypt, where ancient metallurgical traditions were fused with Platonism, Gnosticism, and Egyptian theology. Passing from Islamic sources at the turn of the twelfth century, fragments of the hermetic philosophy emerged in medieval Europe in the form of alchemy. 120 These fragments contained a theory of material creation from ethereal vapors, rooted in a vision, of a living breathing earth and of necessary correspondences between material and spiritual entities . . . The stone, also known as the quintessence or the ‘prima materia’, was the central element in an elaborate alchemical symbology of divine perfection produced by alchemical marriage . . . The outcome of their resolution was the androgynous Adam [having the physical characters of both sexes], the manifestation of divine immortality. [The Mormon Adam-God theory (In a recent conversation with a former Mormon polygamous offshoot member, I mentioned that the Adam-God theory had been abandoned as LDS Church doctrine following Brigham Young’s Presidency: this former member retorted: I still believe the AdamGod theory, Don’t you?), which was abandoned at the time John Taylor became the Mormon President, and Mormon temple rites of eternal marriage align with this occultist alchemical marriage; this occultist practice, of spiritual wifery, Brooke also documented other religious groups as Ranters and Munster Anabaptists. 121 ] Humans wrote all books of the Bible, as well The Book of

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

105

Mormon. Mormonism began with Joseph Smith and its new scripture included The Book of Mormon. Compiled similarly, this new Scripture’s message overlaps and is compatible with the Bible’s. While Smith’s personal account of Christ’s Gospel, of which Jehovah is not only the forerunner, Christ, ‘the Word’ of God, is the guarantor of the binding contract-called Jehovah, maybe also is compatible, however, as regards St. John’s account of (walking in the light of) Christ’s categorical imperative, Smith’s personal provincial religious deontology laced with antinomy has often failed: paradoxical, mystical influences of the ‘nomos-world’ clearly show in Smith’s character. But is Smith’s doctrine ontologically ‘true’?

Ten million members now say it is! : this faith-based religious truth is strong belief, that is faithfully lived.122

It is exciting and enlightening to see a religion born. And Joseph’s was no mre dissenting sect. It was a real religious creation, one intended to be to Christianity as Christianity was to Judaism: that is a reform and a consummation.

Religion, as life, embroils essential metaphysical ontology.

Nature’s God, which St. John called LOGOS , must be accepted on faith (faith that actively, persistently is taken as evidence of this axiomatic first principle of human Cogito): God will not be subordinated, i.e, tautologically, God is always the logical antecedent principle of all existence; then that Christ’s commandments to love, must be lived for the personal realization of St. John’s promise (to have God as life’s companion).123 Temporal life presents to each human the great deontological duty (Categorical Imperative): In faith ‘to walk in the light of God’, i.e., to love God and each other human. The word religion, itself, means “to oblige”:124

religion < Latin re (again) + legere . . .; religio was strongly influenced, in popular thought, by the verb religare “to bind ,“ as place an obligation on.”

With life, as uniquely genetically coded by LOGOS, each human begins with complete dependence on society’s ‘opinion’-based orthodoxy

106 as society is then constituted: whether in freedom or slavery, liberalism or conservatism, activism or passivism, each temporal life begins in an opinion-based “idealism.” Then, only as we each gain cognizant standing enough, so to contribute our own bit to culture, to better or worsen it, can we, do we, influence change in society’s orthodoxy: in society’s cultural constitution that constantly, naturally in acquaintance-based dualism, is in a state of flux. Even as we passively do nothing, as if a cork floating on a stream’s current, we naturally either wax or wane as the cultural stream increasingly is pure or polluted. The meaning of each temporal life is found within these natural cultural parameters: each not culpable for life as it is found but for life’s condition of self, and those around us, as we naturally must leave. And, because the intelligent ‘Cogito,’ of human logos is interconnected with LOGOS, by an ontologism that is as ubiquitous as life itself is, morality is an individual teleological responsibility with critical purpose and value: a solemn responsibility but also one in which each human ‘is that he might have joy.’ 125 (Joseph Smith observed and expressed this truth.) More purely, it is each cogito’s responsibility to choose to abide in faith (both in thought and action) to emulate LOGOS (in what Plato described as God’s Intelligible Realm), or alternatively, without ontologism’s guidance (i.e., in light, which in faith emanates from LOGOS), to venture forth in Plato’s Visible Realm, of acquaintance-based opinion, which increasingly is affected by dualismbased idealistic dogmatic nomos. Then, because pure truth is exclusively of LOGOS, pure religion is only about abiding in faith that emulates the pure truth (as St. Paul observed, “pick you up as often as is needed to begin again on the only faithful path of transcendence into living in accord with life’s faith-based Categorical Imperative): ‘pure truth’ of science and philosophy, is not different than ‘pure religion.’ Joseph Smith also observed this:126

‘God judges men according to the use they make of the light He gives them.’

Smith’s teleology (values in his logos) with those of his religious following, keenly admonish, Christ’s faith-based Categorical Imperative.

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

107

But Smith’s deontology (acquaintance-based rationalizations in logos, that drove his visceral actions) also registered deceptive fallacy. He was a mystic of great distinction! : both admired and hated.

Along with language and philosophy, the Christian religion originated with Christ’s followers. Literally, ‘Church’ meant ‘the Lord’s house.’ In this noumenal sense of individual logos, when our teleological purposes faithfully are compatible with LOGOS no dualismbased purposes (i.e., ‘we faithfully walk in His light’), we individually and collectively are then of ‘Christ’s Church.’ (In Acts 3, the King James’ translation wrote: Christ’s Church grew, whereas an early Greek original translation, more precisely wrote: the Lord daily added those being saved to the congregation.) In the organic sense, Christ’s Church primarily now has phenomenal meaning, which infers deontologically meaning rather than faith-based noumenal purpose-based meaning, that each member’s consent to worship essential values of LOGOS is symbolic and material, as organically, became codified.127

After the Roman Emperor Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians in the A.D. 300s, Christians began building churches [material symbolism]. . . .Constantine built a number of splendid churches, including Old St. Peter’s in Rome.

Roman Catholic stresses the Alter as the focus of worship.

Protestant churches emphasize the [assembled] congregation.

Both engage visual material symbolism, to depict Church’s meaning.

Then, symbolisms, which changed noumenal purpose-based values to phenomenal duty-based values, became visual forms of nomos-based (dogmatic) doctrine! Appurtenant here is Constantine’s imposition into religious authority: where clearly Christ’s authority is noumenon-based antecedence, Constantine’s interpretation of this “divine authority” transposed it to imposed deontological actions and duties, i.e., the predicate values in Constantine’s logos fail to faithfully represent mer re, as previously defined (‘honorable service to the end’). Rather, his newly feigned predicate values remain phenomenal machine like authoritative power, the concupiscent deontology of which is diabolical to

108 faithfully walking in God’s light?

In contrast to the Roman Emperor Constantine’s ‘divine rights’based phenomenal authority, which forcefully enveloped Catholicism, Joseph Smith’s claim was that LOGOS-based noumenal authority was personally conveyed to him: God (LOGOS) in a human phenomenal form had personally visited him, as so he testified. Others’ religious claims have not so boldly contradicted St. John’s noumenal depiction of God (see I John 4:12). Smith answered his critics about this, by claiming that he was enveloped spiritually, so personally to be enabled to be in the presence of LOGOS, whose glorified phenomenal form was described as that of a resurrected man! (Richard Lyman Bushman, in Rough Stone Rolling, described the ‘usual way’ of a revelation, as Smith and Rigdon had claimed to experience on Feb. 16, 1832.) Ontological proof of this divine right-based event, i.e., confirmation by an abiding presence of LOGOS, is surely an extra-personal experience that not only depends on personal living in faith-based mer re: the ontologism-based reward also depends wholly on an acceding disposition of LOGOS. This ontological experience is as ubiquitous as finding pure truth: neither can pure ‘truth’ be ordered or prescribed to certain individuals nor to religious organizations. The ubiquitous God, which St. John described, only abides with probity and faith (i.e., in Plato’s ‘good’) and finding this noumenal truth is neither regulated nor ritualistic. As the sun shines or the rain falls on everyone, likewise, LOGOS is not a respecter of persons or groups, as Peter had perceived, as a truth.

‘Opinion-based Truth’ is ‘contingent truth’ As Allison opined, Christ opened ‘Jehovah,’ the Old Testament’s covenant, to all humanity. And because myriad opinions are possible, which opinion is the most ontologically accurate? Plato contemplated this choice-based task in his presentation of Divided Line, particularly as regards Plato’s depiction of ‘opinion-based truth,’ which is ‘contingent truth’ that is acquaintance-based, i.e., which transposes ‘truly’ noumenal antecedent principle (In logical tautology, this common choice fallacy depicts what in tautology is called Affirming the Consequent). An equal

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

109

choice fallacy occurs tautologically when ‘true’ antecedents are denied.

Dualism-based confusion of Plato’s Realm of opinion is exacerbated by irrational paradoxical opposites, which exist naturally (the positive and negative poles of electricity, for instance). Then as an adjunct to individual ‘opinion-based truth’ there is irrationally consensus-based truth, which I call the ‘authoritative truth’ of orthodoxy. Because authority is consensus-based power, as Constantine’s was, about which, this truism is observed: ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely.’* * Noumenal Authority is a fiducial trust that requires accountability: In a rational empiricism based democratic society, authority is accountable to the sovereign constituency, and in a rational ontologism-based theism, authority is accountable only to LOGOS the Creator (Incidently, such adjunct accountability depicts ‘divine right’ which is belief based only).

Ontologism, like sovereignty, is inalienably, naturally intrinsic of human logos. Theism that honors organic authorities is without accountability, i.e., is absolute belief, which only claims to glorify God. King James translation gave this quote of St. Peter:

Of a truth I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Impartially administered teleology, taken with ontologism’s natural availability “to all,” is equitable regardless of human genetics, station or gender: one’s measure of ‘ontologism’ is as available to any other.

Therefore, a woman’s ‘ontologism’ is naturally as genuinely as equal and forceful as any man’s. For instance, therefore, Sarah Pratt’s rebuff of Joseph Smith’s audacious divine-right based spiritual marriage proposal, which emulated King David’s plural wivery, that would cause her to transgress both her marriage vow and her ‘inalienable self,’ was of greater truthful force than Smith’s claim to some unprovable divine-right-based authority. Unless God is partial, Smith did not possess the ‘authority’ that he claimed God had personally given to him. This was her rebuff :128 ‘Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant, and prove

recreant to my lawful husband? I never will. My sex shall not be

110 disgraced, nor my honor sullied. I care not for the blessings of Jacob, and I believe in no such revelations, neither will I consent, under any circumstances whatever. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me.’

This rebuff of Smith’s authoritative-truth-based claim became a core ignition of a cultural moral uprising in Nauvoo, IL. F. M. Brodie’s account of spiritual wivery in Mormonism is factually detailed whereas R. L. Bushman accused Sarah Pratt’s character to protect the LDS official view of this fact-based event. Brodie provided the more objective history of this secreted organic authoritative complicity involving Smith and other’s spiritual wivery polygamous practice.

My personal interest here is both unusual and involuntary (Fawn M Brodie’s brother was my sister’s brother-in-law): my oldest sister’s marriage had made Fawn her sister-in-law. And, this unusual connection, has keenly intruded onto my personal interest involuntarily? With this family connection, my approval of Brodie’s highly principled, religiously pedigreed family was greater, and more respectful than usually it would have been. The common rancorous reaction of Brodie’s accountings of Smith’s personal history troubled her family greatly, still, their Scottish determination showed forth, as they neither talked about this nor allowed the rancor to cause their Faith in Smith and Mormonism to waver. It was, however, the a great cause of my curious interest in Fawn’s book.

Some forty years later, I fell heir to a copy of Brodie’s book. It was among a brother-in-law’s personal things, in a pile to be discarded following his death. My interest in Thomas Jefferson had introduced me to Brodie’s craft as a historian: her book “Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History,” the accounts of which proved to be accurate, even while highly controversial among Jefferson’s heirs, somewhat parallels her book on Joseph Smith. Everything in my experience with Brodie, her family and Mormonism have indicated to me that her singular historical search for factual truth was made despite strong contrary acquaintance-based belief, or religious authoritative dispositions.

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

111

At my sister’s funeral, Fawn M. Brodie’s brother, who was introduced to me years earlier as “Tom,” attended, and I briefly had a personal conversation with him, exchanging condolences and regarding his sister Fawn’s recent passing, I expressed appreciation for her history of Jefferson. He responded to this by confirming that ‘finding truth’ was her rare life’s sacred quest: he said nothing, however, I add this: the rancorous reaction to which had caused her and her family great sorrow, and which had resulted in her excommunication from the LDS Church (In my mind, The convenient truth-based reaction to Fawn Brodie’s book was like the convenient truth which Socrates, Christ, and untold others have confronted because of the paradoxically convenient orthodox mechanist authoritative acquaintance-based truth which in fact was false belief that instead of ‘true’ belief, had prevailed). And, emotionally Tom told me of his sister’s death bed request: she asked him to comfort her with a priesthood blessing, to which he said he had gladly obliged.

As I relate this personal experience, I now realize that I consciously had chosen Brodie’s inconvenient truth as being more pure than the Mormon Church’ convenient truth, which in belief rather than faith, I had practiced.

In my research about truth, involving Social Security, my convictions about St. John’s account of the Godhead became more clear: they are recalled here: only reasoned truth that coheres with noumenally antecedent natural principles qualifies as ‘pure’ necessity: pure because it coheres with nature’s intelligence, to which St. John had properly named LOGOS (i.e., God the Creator of all that is). 129 Nicholas Dent gave this ancient meaning of logos .130

Logos. A Greek word, of great breadth of meaning, primarily signifying in the context of philosophical discussion the rational, intelligible principle, structure, or order, which pervades something, or the source of that order, or giving an account of that order. The cognate verb legein means ‘say’, ‘tell’, ‘count’. Hence the ‘word’ which was ‘in the beginning’ as recounted at the start of St. John’s

112 Gospel is also logos. The root occurs in many English compounds such as biology, epistemology, and so on. Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, makes use of a distinction between the part of the soul which originates a logos [our spiritual reason] and the part which obeys or is guided by a logos [our visceral instinctive emotions].

The idea of a generative intelligence (logos spermatikos) is a profound metaphysical notion in Neoplatonic and Christian discussion.

Words as logic, logarithm, logistic, . . . , represent meanings related to logos . Logos and Sovereignty are natural aspect-essential-capabilities of each human’s temporal nature, of which Descartes had declared “I think, therefore I am!

Then, fitting the apparent rationalized, theory-based-dogma to recorded scripture, monks for reasons suspected but unknown, bowed to orthodox mechanist ‘power.’ They modified history (the King James’ translation of I John 5: 7-9, for instance * ) was made to fit with the prevailing authoritative dogma. * The part emboldened, of this text, (I John 5: 7-9, King James Translation) became the focus of my curiosity:

‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.’

The simple, direct ‘word for word’ translation from an original Greek translation (Diaglott) startled me: to fit with the dogmatic authoritative meaning, and these three are one was added to the Greek original text, to replace:

‘For there are three which testify.’

The footnote to the Greek translation explained the change that appeared in most translations, which included the King James translation:131

This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

113

Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifth century.

It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; nor by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. It is therefore evidently spurious; and was first cited (though not as it now reads) by Virgilius Tapsansis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century; but by whom forged, is of no great moment, as its design must be obvious to all.

How did Einstein read God’s mind? And as difficult, how can humans be sure that what they believe, or claim to “know” is ‘true’?

[While human intelligence, logos, is an axiomatic noumenal ‘something’ of each human soul, the related visceral body, in Kant’s view, is a LOGOS created phenomenally natural posit; rather than a chance occurrence or a fact posited by a human (That is, until cloning becomes successful as an experimental human achievement that still is enigmatic to the usual human minds? : In any event as a human made posit rather than by nature, still however, is nature created.). Human logos, by ontologism reflects some attributes of God’s LOGOS: and temporally isn’t fully understood.

Don’t those, of dogmatic materialist ‘positivism’-based belief, for instance, deny that noumenal human souls exist, or that God’s LOGOS’ -based ontologism confirms ‘truth,’ with no dualism, as St. John testified (I John 5: 7-10)? And, because of this dogmatic belief in Comte’s ‘unitary materialism’-based positivism, do they then deduce their unitary materialist ideology, which while naturally lacking factual definition, their dogmatic belief conflates their essential human soul to same positive matter, as their body and its visceral parts, which naturally are factually evident (as Sophists’ orthodoxy in Plato’s time also had dogmatically believed)? [Thereby, by dogmatic assertion, as was evident with St. John’s testimony of three separate spiritual entities testifying to truth, which he described as (1) LOGOS (as if a father), (2) WORD (as if a son, born of water and blood), and (3) the omnipresent Holy Ghost (as the evident noumenal essence in everything), which cogent meaning was changed

114 deliberately by interpretation and thereby confuses understanding by the added conflating materialist phrase (and these three are one.)] Do they, thereby, deny the natural existence of axiomatic first principles with noumenal values (which independent of experience-based human understandings has naturally concurrent universal necessity), and which are critically important to cogent human understandings of no dualismbased truth? Still, this does not answer why ‘contingent’ fact-based-values are deliberately culturally dogmatized and the irrationally deduced assertions of which, are asserted to supplant the ‘necessary’ noumenal principles? Which similarly, as the Epicurean Paradox explains: when necessary essence becomes conflated to materialist nomos, an unconcern for truth’s necessary no dualism-based ‘veracity,’ dominates our desires and actions: Heidegger, Holmes, ..., and mathematics has observed that dualism-based paradoxes in temporal life are the result of dispensing antecedent axiomatic principles by dogmatic materialist conflations:

There is that glorious epicurean paradox . . . : ‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.’ [Life’s necessities are natural antecedent principles]

Oliver Wendell Holmes

In the cultural aftermath of dogmatic materialists belief-based inculcation, as the ‘gospel of reason,’ which nihilistically conflates ‘noumenon,’ as unimportant, then depends only on unitary materialist deduction, which quite simply denies that dualism (truth and falsehood) then exists: paradoxes are the inevitable result [The fundamental legal common law in the U.S., for instance (like driving forward by looking in the rear-view-mirror), depends on ‘past case law adjudications’ as the fiducial parameter to deciding what contemporary justice is]? ; Any legal system, which increasingly deliberately is denuded of ‘necessary’ noumenon-based principles (upon which pure justice must be based), is necessarily intrinsically unitary materialism affected, as by Auguste Comte’s’ ‘positivism,’ on which ‘legal positivism’ is based? 132

legal positivism, intending to oppose natural law theory, denies any ‘necessary connection between law and morality’. Central theses

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

115

among a loose cluster: (1) law is definable and explainable without evaluative predicates or presuppositions; (2) the law (e.g. of England now) is identifiable from exclusively factual sources (e.g. legislation, judicial precedents). Some versions deny that there is knowable moral truth. Most understand positive law as products of will, some as imperatives. [both positive law products represent tautological fallacy]

(Prof. John Finnis, University College, Oxford)

On which side of Plato’s ‘divided line,’ are the dogmatic ‘materialists’ and ‘positivist predicate value-based doctrine (i.e., dogmas) found?’ Dogmatic values can never exist where no dualism-based noumenal human ‘intelligence’ finds ‘necessary truth’ (i.e., on the pure thought and reason side of Plato’s ‘divided line’). Instead, Plato’s ‘Visible Side,’ is where dogmatized mind conditioned dualism-based ‘truths’ of ‘Opinion,’ analogous to ‘shadows, ‘(Plato’s ) are commonly found and then fallaciously affirmed to stand as no dualism-based principle? And, while those who reason critically and thereby understand ‘necessary’ (noumenal) no dualism-based truth, however, then choose dualism-fact-based predicate values (without culling from the clutter of human experience, phenomenal facts, which are of man rather than of God’s LOGOS) for the popular political advantages found there, do they, can they, thereby, then ‘walk in the light’ of God? Bossuet, on John’s Treatise on Concupiscence suggests this:133 [they] are those who prefer visible and transient things [’facts ,’ only part of which are of nature, i.e.,of noumenon created phenomenon] to those invisible and everlasting [i.e., purely are of noumenon]?

Mortals as Confucius, Lao-tse, Plato, and Socrates, who were not mindconditioned by dogmatic Biblical doctrine, understood the purist possible meaning of Troth (from which temporal concepts of truth arrived): Which Troth Moses told he received by ‘revelation.’134 The Song of Moses, about God’s voice and nature, was concluded from revelation given to Moses:

For all his ways are Judgment: a God of [Troth] and without iniquity, just and right is He.

116 Which confirms that Moses understood God’s axiomatic inferential language (pure noumenon) which humans can understand only by inferential reasoning of the no dualism-based pure truth of nature-positedfactual evidences [pure noumenon created phenomena]. Therefore, what Moses called ‘revelation’ was also probably obtained by critical faithbased prayerfully reasoned inferential contemplation: which is similar in manner as Plato, Confucius, Lao-tse, Einstein, or many, many others have obtained their revealed metaphysical ‘truths?’ However, we do not call the vast evidences of science revealed no dualism-based truths as revelation-based, however, are prone to call testified dualism-based truths of religion, revelation: curious indeed?

The old-English word troth is an etymological root in the origins of temporal meanings of ‘truth.’ In the translated context in which Moses referred to ‘truth,’ the predicate values of ‘troth’ are the purer in meaning (any fault is, therefore, of translation, which undoubtedly was unduly influenced by Brahmanist mind controlling ‘contingencies’ of dogma as ‘positivism’): The predicate values of Troth, (faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise), also infer the predicate values of God’s LOGOS which posited and sustain all realities of Creation. Unless mortals portray these values in their conduct of life, they are not ‘intellectually truthful’: In accordance with God’s ’troth,’ their values are incoherently irrational (And, this sentiment was expressed by St. John’s first general Epistle): ‘If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the [Troth].’

And, since the predicate values of an organization’s logos are synthesizedgroup instead of individual values, ‘untruth,’ instead of ‘lying,’ is a better depiction of any organic predicate of fictitious logos that is untrue or un respectful of the predicate values of the Creator’s LOGOS. Plato, Cicero, Russell, Einstein, . . . , were not religious in the sense of organic religion but their predicate values conformed to the ‘intelligence’ which St. John described as ‘walking in the light of God.’ Russell stands out in this ‘light’ for his logical criticism of temporal truth’s common positivismbased definitions: particularly ‘contingent truth, of opinion,’ which is

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

117

based on dogma called materialism.135

If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no room for falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may be called ‘facts,’ it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements; hence a world of mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood.

About the ‘coherence definition’ of truth Russell wrote this: 136

Some schools of philosophy . . . maintain that in all our knowledge there is an inferential element, that all knowledge is an organic whole, and that the test of truth is coherence rather than conformity with ‘fact.’ I do not deny an element of truth in this view, but I think that, if taken as the whole truth, it renders the part played by perception in knowledge inexplicable.

Here, Russell points out the ‘inexplicable’ nature of holistically Pure Truth, which is about ‘necessary’ coherence of noumenon (the coherence of human logos with God’s pure truth predicate, the Creator’s, LOGOS which posited the ‘organic whole’ of natural phenomena, rather than just corresponding conformity with a ‘fact,’ as posited either by nature -- a natural phenomenon -- or by a human -- a fact). A pure predicate of knowledge’ is only found among the predicates of the Creator’s LOGOS (which posited and sustain all ‘necessary’ factual realities of Creation).

And these are found in Troth, or Covenant, i.e., in sustained values of faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise.

Unfortunately for humanity, dogmatic belief in, ‘materialism,’ ‘positivism,’ and ‘mechanism’ effectively displace the natural connectivity (ontologism) to all axiomatic noumenon: fictitious dogma-based doctrine, as ‘fictitious legal state’ or ‘fictitious legal person’ corporations, effectively has superseded naturally reasoned truth-based noumenal concerns about ethics, probity, . . . , (While noumenal intelligence is indestructible, Kant’s concern when he contemplated the political-opinion-

118 based philosophic determinism of his day, which had adversely affected natural inferences of phenomena, instead had effected human-made ‘facts’ which were threatening to whole species of ‘life’). Until Brahmanist dogmatists prove that their contrived ideology, which they then asserted as axiomatic fictions, are coherently based on the ‘organic whole of knowledge’, i.e., cohere to prescriptive values which posited the natural phenomena of human experience, as contrasted with prideful concupiscent contrivances of human ‘desire,’ whereby inculcated ‘belief’ is transposed to irrational political sophistry of which C. Thomas observed this: 137

This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority.

[This, I call Authoritative truth, which necessarily has dualism] Thereby humanity is led down a path of self destruction: this political irrationalism is a gift of our ‘Brahmanist’ ideological intellectuals (social, economic, and religious), which they accomplish by affirmations of cultural dogma-based values, supplanting the rational cultural values of ‘necessity’ (noumenon) with endemic values of ‘contingency,’ positing what appears as noumenon but instead are mere ‘facts’ of idealistic human contrivance. Then, at will (by the command of Brahmanist organic idealism), are positioned politically to influence the inculcated cultural prejudice by positing additional desired factual events that will nudge political opinion in their favor.

Still of the LOGOS of nature, the source of all noumenal, intelligence, spirit or energy, Ontologism is the natural means of communication between man with his maker. St. John understood this metaphysics as the spiritual reality of his faith: in fact, writing in Greek, he named nature’s Creator LOGOS. 138 He understood Ontology, Deontology and Teleology and St. John’s promise of an abiding noumenal companionship with God that is predicated on his and other humans’ understanding of Ontologism: W. R. Inge’s,

‘Either the world shows a teleology or it does not,’ suggests: that to choose ‘mechanism’ shows unbelief in ‘teleology.’

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

119

Inge infers this: when Brahman deontologists choose mechanism, they have their naturally intuitive (of Plato’s pure thought) ontologism switch turned off and, their choice is to say no to (deny) the natural principles, which makes’ them unbelievers in natural teleologies of God (St. John said that to not walk in the light of the truth of God, makes us liars).

When humans determine causal ‘mechanisms,’ they deny Teleology. (And they also deny God) About the philosophy of mechanism, Brockway wrote this:139

We find mankind liberated from spooks and spirits, from lords and priests, by becoming mechanized. Once the universe was running like a clock, there was nothing for it but to fit us to a wheel in the works -- perhaps a greater thing than a cog, but mechanical nevertheless. For us to be fit for this function, psychology had to subject us to mechanical controls. Or, as J. W. Miller said, we had first to lose our souls, then our minds; and finally, with the behaviorists, consciousness. Economic man is a prime example of this remarkable servomechanism.

First, Concupiscence [Latin: Con + cupere (intensive desire)] Why a topic of discussion at a dinner party of friends is unimportant, and why pride was asserted as sinful, was as casual. Acting out Plato’s part in a discussion, “what is sin,” I asked? The response came without hesitation. “Sin, as St. John said, is the transgression of God’s laws.” 1 John 5: 17 was cited to reinforce this response. Because pride’s meaning remained paradoxical, my pondering and research began to verify this common belief that ‘Pride is sin.’ My conclusion, which follows, is based on mine and others’ notes about truth: Contemporary philosophers and scientists as Fred Wolf (a quantum physicist), in his book ‘The Spiritual Universe, confirm Plato’s view of temporal truth’s dual and divided predicate: tracking with ‘pure intelligence’ that is the antecedent of, and separated from, ‘belief-based experience’ that is paradoxically fallacious. (The predicate of pride has

120 many meanings, which also spans from ‘good’ to ‘bad’: meaning intended here is: basis, core, essence, or heart.) Etienne Henry Gilson (18841978), a philosopher, pondered why great men, as Alexander Hamilton, failed to employ Plato’s ‘pure thought’-based ‘truth’: While Hamilton applied deductive reason, as based on orthodox experience, he failed to employ his naturally ‘pure intelligent’ faculties. 140 Plato’s Pure Truth Form, which he called ‘pure thought,’ inferentially transcends dogmatic experience to reach the metaphysical realms of the pure predicate values of God’s pure truth, where pure thought, pure truth and justice are found.

(When evaluating this statement, weigh in the fact that Plato was not a Christian and that Moses Ten Commandments’ had little influence on Greek culture 400 years before Christ. Greeks, however, did have a rational sense of democratic Categorical Imperative, however).

Hamilton’s dogmatic experience-based materialist predicate values, while partially aping Plato’s temporal truth Form, called ‘reason,’ failed to transcend to God’s pure intelligence, about which Gilson wrote this:141

To seize truth here below by the intelligence, be it an obscure and partial manner, while waiting to see it “Love not the World, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life [prideful human intelligence that denies, slights, or disrespects God’s pure intelligence]; which is not of the Father, but is of the world. [God’s intelligence is axiomatic, which cannot be contingently restricted or qualified in any way.] And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God abideth forever.” Bossuet recalls these words of the first Epistle of John at the end of his ‘treatise on Concupiscence’ and he adds to them this brief but pithy commentary: “The last words of this Apostle show us that the world, of which he is here speaking, is those who prefer visible and transient things to those invisible

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

121

and everlasting.” Allow me to add simply in my turn that, if we attain to an understanding of the meaning of this definition, the mighty problem we have to examine together will resolve itself.

What is true of nature is eminently true of the intelligence, the crown of nature. In the evening of creation, God looked at his work and He judged, says the scripture, that all that was, was very good. But what was the best in His work was man, created to His image and likeness; and if we seek the basis of this divine likeness, we find it, says St. Augustine, ‘en mente’: in thought [as Plato, the critical reasoning heretic of Greek culture, had found by reasonable inference ( Parenthetical statements, not in italics, are mine.)]. Let us go

further, still following the same doctor: we find that this likeness is in that part of thought which is, so to speak, the summit, that by which, in contact with the divine light of which it is a sort in its complete splendor -- such is man’s destiny according to Christianity. Indeed far from scorning knowledge, it cherishes it: ‘intellectum valde ama’ [love the intelligence intensely].

While the dictionary supports casual notions that Pride is sin: 142

A high opinion of one’s own worth or possessions . . . Too high opinion of oneself; conceit: ‘Pride goes before a fall.’

This definition fails to explain why so casually pride was tucked in a sequence of concupiscence. ‘En mente’ (in thought), this restricted definition clearly fails to fully define pride. Searching further, I reviewed the scriptures to confirm that sinful aspects of pride were expressly restricted to en mente (i.e., intelligence) because when conflated by unitary materialist belief, the concupiscent (intensive desire) aspects of the above definition had not only become generally excused, concupiscence was practiced and celebrated: maybe only sinful when celebration became worshiped i.e., in the light that God clearly instructed that any subordination to a manmade god would not be tolerated ( Dt. 5: 7, Ex. 20: 3, 32: 4-8.). With this answer to my question, ‘why?’ my review of

122 scriptures was concluded.

Can a word, as pride, be sinful? Reason must conclude that words are without cognizance and, therefore, all words are innocent.

Without the qualification that pride, as a human predicated quality of mind that spans across ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ it is fallacy to conclude, that ‘pride exclusively represents sin.’ Without similar qualification, it also is fallacious to argue that scripture confirms in many places that ‘pride is a sin’: (Pro. 16: 18) Pride goeth before destruction, (I Jn. 2: 16) For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, are not of the Father, but is of the world, (I Tim. 3: 6) Theft, covetousness, wickedness, lasciviousness, deceit, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile a man, (Mk. 7: 22) pride of drunkards?

Despite the above qualifying and limiting concupiscent predicates, as are applicable to each scripture, individuals are at liberty to impose their choice of words to accord with their own understandings of pride and proud, which commonly depict not only the bad, evil conduct of pride in temporal life, but also virtue and good, which diabolical meanings are also the Bible’s intent. For this complex reason, I suspect, pride is not listed in the Bible Dictionary. A computerized thesaurus lists the synonyms of pride as a noun, and as a verb. pride as a noun pride as a verb dignity boast self-esteem glory in self-respect preen arrogance (antonym of being ashamed) conceit groom (egoism, hubris, immodesty) primp vanity bask in condescension exult in disdain. take pride in Surely preen should dignify pride since believers in Christ should not be ashamed of their faith. And, if it were not for this, wouldn’t Christians

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

123

dress like many religion’s advocate: dress in sack cloth, adorn with ashes, woefully chant publicly, and flagellate self.

Which of pride’s virtuous meanings [dignity, self-esteem, self respect, preen (bask in, exult in, or glory in)], have anything to do with sin? For instance, didn’t God express pride when his voice was heard to say: ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased’? 143 Uplifting meanings of pride are surely as important and, therefore, it’s inappropriate to unthoughtfully assert that pride is sin? Instead it is more appropriate to specify concupiscence (i.e., extreme desire) as befitting scriptural definitions of sin, as applicable to intent rather than to the word pride?

The Bible’s meaning is unchanged when the word pride is replaced or omitted: The Diaglott, an early Greek original, connoted pomp rather than pride. And the international translation (NYIBS) omitted both pride and pomp:

If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world --the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does -- comes not from the Father but from the world.

Translators prefer an original text for translation accuracy. Yet, the King James Bible is acclaimed as good: words less important than context.

Joseph Smith’s claimed revelation about plural marriage, as he proposed to Mrs. Sarah Pratt, provides an example of what now constitutionally might legally be called ‘harassment.’ Sarah Pratt’s marriage-vows, appear more attuned to God’s mer re-based values (i.e., faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise) than Smith’s claim to divine right-based revelation, which not only violate natural human sovereign inalienable rights, but as St. John reasoned, made God a liar as regards strictly impartial ontologism-based gifts of knowledge. Neither does God respect men more than women nor a Prophet, so acclaimed, more than any follower! And anyway, organic religion (i.e., a chartered legal entity that has no essential human soul that is natural) has no natural ‘rights’-based sovereignty: all fictitious organic sovereignty is restricted to member

124 consent, as granted by individual sovereign members, as members are collectively disposed. And as surely is appurtenant to natural inalienable human cognizance, all opinion-based truth, therefore, is acquaintancebased, to which dualism applies. And all absolute orthodox belief-based notions that the truth value is ‘true’ because testimony has affirmed it, cannot dispel the natural acquaintance-based possibility that the truth value is ‘false’ (absolute personal testimonies of ‘trueness’, can never escape the natural dualism-based possibility of ‘falseness’). 144 Contingent truth, which belief-based truth always is, is no more than a story that we individually choose to believe. 145 Belief that sustains religion is logically neither consistent nor pure, and therefore, involves dualism. Plato’s Divided Line (p 78) put ‘belief’ (Form C) and ‘illusion (Form D), in the Visual Realm of Opinion. Natural cognition-based human attributes, belief and illusion, represent factually defined truth value forms, which Plato put in his Visual Realm. The US Supreme Court decided that fiction-based legal entities were equally entitled to constitutional human rights, and thereby posited an official legal factual definition, which I call ‘authoritative truth’ (i.e., authoritatively, constitutionally, such legally asserted truth lawfully is as naturally necessary natural human necessities are (no dualism), however, until fiction can qualify as necessary reason-based, this ‘authoritative truth’ is stupid oxymoron, of consequential necessity that legally is considered to be antecedent necessity), as legally applied to licensed fiction–based entities, which unnatural truth form is hereby aligned with Plato’s VISIBLE REALM (because it paradoxically still has dualism).

Legal responsibility for human posited facts, when forensically considered, has an inferential relationship between the posited fact, and the person making the posit: this forensic link is the basis of the ‘correlative frame of truth’? The truth value in human logos, which prescribed the human action, is rationally considered for being responsible for the posited fact? If Britannica Encyclopedia’s following definition of deontology was available when the US Supreme Court decided that legally licensed fictitious entities forensically should enjoy the essential cognitive rights

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

125

of humans, then this US legal decision knowingly provided to fictional entities, an independence from the natural dualism-based, ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ which naturally resulted from a fictitious entity’s temporal factual posits.

126

deontology (Greek deon, duty, and logos, i.e., science). deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. teleology (Greek telos, end, and logos, i.e., science) what is good or desireable is an end to be achieved. Opposed to deontology, which holds that basic standards for an action being morally right are independent of the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ generated. [Duty for duty’s sake (which legally serves organic hierarchy well, but irrationally)] teleological ethics holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely the value of what an action brings into being.

Mathematics recognizes this as axiomatic metaphysical essence, as logical holistic necessity that only closed consistent logic can verify. If this mathematical principle is true (i.e., no dualism), then Joseph Smith’s unitary materialist hermetic-freemasonry-based belief (i.e., dualism), on which Smith and Rigdon’s idealology-based ‘united order’(communism) was practiced by Mormons in Kirtland, Ohio, compares with Craig Thomas’ reporting of European principal idealists,’ unitary-materialist conflation of necessary logical essence, which Hegel concluded was dialectical materialism, from which Lenin then deduced USSR’s communism, and unitary materialist belief in both instances conflated God’s essential axiomatic nature (no dualism) to materialist (dualismbased) belief. (J. L. Brooke documented Orson Pratt’s doctrine: i.e. that God’s LOGOS is “comprehensive, intelligent, and infinite,” on which John Taylor, as the new LDS President, then abandoned Smith and Young’s Adam-God doctrine. 146 )

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided that inalienable human rights applied also to licensed fictitious organic entities (i.e., corporations and states primarily but also to organic religions), as it did by extending the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process to also apply to licensed organizations, it ignored the fact that inalienable rights (as life, liberty and happiness) were naturally endowed only to humans and without Due Process, are not to be legally encroached upon by government. (Often noted is that humans can be put in jail when convicted for crimes committed, so, whenever has an organization been ‘put in jail’?)!

Kant reasoned that consistent predicate values’ emulations of God’s LOGOS (i.e., faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise) provided the purest foundation to truth, ethics, morality, causality, justice, . . . : and only reasonable mer re-based efforts of humans can logically infer these pure value-based ‘necessities’ (no dualism) that are by God’s ontologism, freely inferentially made to faithful pursuits of humans. Kant and Hume provided great critical dialogue both about ‘necessary’ (no dualism) and ‘contingent’ (dualism-based) truth. G. W. von Leibnitz, who with Isaac Newton developed ‘The Calculus,’ wrote this:147

Opinions categorically are illusion or belief-based, which organically must always be ideology-based. Organizations mostly are hierarchical, the authoritative-administrative duty-based functions of which are never open to rationally critical legal review. They, therefore, fit Plato’s Opinion (Forms C & D), which politically and authoritatively encompass all organic truth, for which US ‘Positive Law’ is constituted. (‘A fixed or established principle, law, etc,’ is World Book’s definition 3).

Quantum physicist Fred Wolf recognized Plato’s (Socrates student’s) concept of the human soul as an essential metaphysical reality:

There are two kinds of truths; those of reasoning and those of fact.

The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible [i.e. no dualism]; the truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. [i.e., dualism-based paradoxes (‘true and ‘false’ are possible) to oppositely embroil all factual inferences: correlative ‘true’ and ‘false’ perceptions, which frame all ‘fact-based truth’] Despite temporal truth’s dualism-based impurity, Britannica’s definition might be associated with the origins of legal fictitious organic sovereign

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

127

rights, in which deontology-based organic duties, are legally relieved of essential moral obligation (i.e., in a legal absence of dualism that naturally applies to all facts), thereby legally equalizing licensed fictitious organic entities dualism-based deontology with pure principle-based teleology (no natural dualism): this legal decision-based equalizing provided to fictional entities duty-based dualism a legal moral equality with teleology-based purpose(i.e., naturally no dualism). And, by British rule of American colonies, this orthodoxy-based British legality also became practiced in the US: however, the acquaintance-based truth value (‘true’ or ‘false’), as applied to forensic factual judgements, when legally applied to duty-based deontological instances, the factual dualism legally often became conflated by orthodoxy to no dualism-based forensic liability, as based on ‘the legalized correlative frame of truth.’ But, these legally equalized factbased adjudications, which forensically decide the resultant fictional entities fact based natural paradoxes, also often extend no dualism-based judgements, when applied to managers, whose deontological duty-based assignments legally are then framed as legal truth (no dualism), thereby humans who own or are employed to do the legalized deontology-based corporate duties enjoy a moral liability shield even though naturally fiction is a legally posited fact-based reality, which implicates natural dualism (both true and false outcomes). Outside Directors, who rationally should provide for the fictional corporate entities’ teleology (i.e., moral purpose), are in fact, however, are also legally shielded from legal liability: Britannica’s legal fiction-based corporate sovereignty only exists as the legalized fiction of a license, which allows corporations to act as individuals. Still, while deontological duties, sans moral obligation, are legally apparent, class actions taken to assign personal legal responsibility to both corporate owners and employees, are now piercing this fictitious legal corporate shield.

Before concluding that ‘necessary’ truth (no dualism) is better learned from philosophy than from religion or politics, for instance, we might consult Plato’s Divided-Line-Forms to rank the pertinence of learning about truth. For this consideration, the following statement from

128 Kant’s, The Critique, in which the prime critical difference between ‘pure thought’ (of Plato’s INTELLIGIBLE REALM, i.e., no dualism) and ‘dogma’ (of Plato’s VISIBLE REALM, i.e., dualism) is that vehement dogmatists eschew deliberate criticisms of their ‘absolute orthodox doctrinal beliefs,’ which, until proved, logically must always bear the possibility of the ‘false’ truth value: and, forensically an absolute orthodoxy perpetually persuades society’s belief-based views. 148

This (‘Critique of Pure Reason’) can never become popular and, indeed, has no occasion to be so; for finespun arguments in favor of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths. On the other hand, since both inevitably force themselves on every man who rises to the height of speculation, it becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough investigation of the rights of speculative reason and, thus, to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses.

Clearly, Form D of Plato’s Visible Realm is the lowest empirical-based form of truth (which neither is critically anchored to temporal reality nor is based on critically deliberated principles): R. L. Heilbroner described human ‘opinions’ of this realm as analogous to those ‘denizens of the barnyard.’ Variously, human cognizance (of Plato’s Forms C & D) has been described by Machiavelli, Hobbes, Burke, Hamilton, . . .Adams.

John Adams, lawyer, wrote this legal opinionated truth predicate: 149

The mass of men are naturally indolent, selfish, given to luxury, shortsighted, jealous, tending to faction and all mischievous intrigue. Never does he find them given to virtue, choosing wisdom, seeking justice. They cannot endure that others should be superior in virtue, or rank, or power; but driven by ambition they strive to pull down their superiors in order themselves to rise. The men in any society who possess sufficient virtue to set justice above self-

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

129

interest, are few and count for little in the scale against the selfish many. (See “Defense of the Constitution, etc.,” in Works, Vol. VI, pp 9, 57, 97). [TV show ‘Survivors’ dramatized this negative scenario.]

This Calvinistic doctrine that “human nature is not fit to be trusted,” and that “men are never good but through necessity,” being accepted -- and John Adams was as clearly satisfied of its truth “as of any demonstration of Euclid” -- he proceeded to translate it into political terms, and examine the bearing of it upon systems of government.

As ‘denizens of the barnyard’ are easily led, the mass of men is easily led to subscribe and follow dogma. Dogma has proved the effectiveness of absolute dogmatic belief to conflate fact-based dualism to no dualism-based belief of the non reasoning crowd, so to remain fenced within zones, which dogma allows. As Kant observed, the potential of man is far greater than, because restricted, is in evidence from the lowest forms of Plato’s truth. (Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ viewed dogma as chaining human minds to walls of ‘the cave’: allowing only shadows of reality to be experienced by the human intelligence whose truths were belief-based.) Kant wrote this:150

I appeal to the most obstinate dogmatist, whether the proof of the continued existence of the soul after death, derived from the simplicity of its substance; of the freedom of the will in opposition to the general mechanism of nature, drawn from the subtle but impotent distinction of subjective and objective practical necessity; or of the existence of God, deduced from the conception of an “ensrealissimum” -- the contingency of the changeable, and the necessity of a prime mover, has ever been able to pass beyond the limits of schools, to penetrate the public mind, or to exercise the slightest influence on its convictions. It must be admitted that this has not been the case and that, owing to the unfitness of the common understanding for such subtle speculation, it can never be expected

130 to take place. On the contrary, it is plain that “the hope of a future life” arises from the feeling, which exists in the breast of every man, that the temporal is inadequate to meet and satisfy the demands of his nature. In like manner, it cannot be doubted that the clear exhibition of duties in opposition to all the claims of inclination, gives rise to the consciousness of “freedom,” and that the glorious order, beauty, and providential care, everywhere displayed in nature, give rise to belief in a wise and great Author of the Universe. Such is the genesis of these general convictions of mankind, so far as they depend on rational grounds; and the public property not only remains undisturbed, but is even raised to greater importance by the doctrine that schools have no right to arrogate to themselves a more profound insight into a matter of general concernment than that to which the great mass of men, ever held by us in the highest estimation, can without difficulty attain, and that the schools should, therefore, confine themselves to the elaboration of these universally comprehensible and, from a moral point of view, amply satisfactory proofs. The change, therefore, affects only the arrogant pretensions of the schools, which would gladly retain, in their own exclusive possession, the key to the truths they impart to the public.

At the same time it does not deprive the speculative philosopher of his just title to be the sole depositor of a science which benefits the public without its knowledge -- I mean, the “Critique of Pure Reason.” This can never become popular and, indeed, has no occasion to be so; for finespun arguments in favor of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths. On the other hand, since both inevitably force themselves on every man who rises to the height of speculation, it becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough investigation of the rights of

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

131

speculative reason and, thus, to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses. It is only by criticism that metaphysicians (and as such theologians too) can be saved from the subsequent perversion of their doctrines. Criticism alone can strike a blow at roots of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which are universally injurious -- as well as of idealism and scepticism, which are dangerous to the schools, but can scarcely pass over to the public. If governments think proper to interfere with the affairs of the learned, it would be more consistent with a wise regard for the interests of science, as well for those of society to favor a criticism of this kind, by which alone the labors of reason can be established on a firm basis, than to support the ridiculous despotism of the schools, which raise a loud cry of danger to the public over the destruction of cobwebs, of which the public has never taken notice, and the loss of which, therefore, it can never feel.

Summarizing Kant’s ‘criticism’ to the American heritage and politics which persuade it, Parrington observed this:151

A just and liberal government is an excellent ideal, but it is one for which few amongst the mass of men greatly care; and because America chose to follow its own nose [with determinist economic dogma dominating the consented predicate values of official organic logos], . . . it would not become like the America of its dreams.

Still, substantially diminished by dogmatic sophistries and the ‘pork barrels’ of political economy, ‘rational empiricism’ (true democracy) persists in representing ‘true’ democratic principles. Jefferson’s presidency was considered the first political victory for democracy and Jefferson’s teleology-based predicate values continue to inspire democratic truths. Jefferson’s retort to absolutist Brahmanist dogmabased deontological empiricism, which asserted that common humanity

132 is unfit to rule, was irrefutable.152

Have we found angles in the form of Kings to rule?

Class-conscious pseudo monarchist empiricism of Aristocratic Americans, who, at the time, comprised mostly Federalists and Whigs, overwhelmed the U.S. Constitution’s discussion, as Parrington wrote:153

Although Franklin’s origins . . . were narrowly provincial, his mind from early youth to extreme old age was curiously open and free, and to such a mind the intellectual wealth of the world lies open and free. . . . No other man in America and few in Europe had so completely freed themselves from the prejudice of custom. The Calvinism in which he was bred left not the slightest trace upon him; and the middle-class world from which he emerged did not narrow his mind to its petty horizons. He was a free man who went his own way with imperturbable good will and unbiased intelligence; our first social philosopher, the first ambassador of American democracy to the courts of Europe. . . .

The conception of a federal union of the several colonies was slowly spreading in America, and no other colonial had done so much to further it; in his well-known Plan of Union he had sketched the outlines of a federal constitution. . . .

He was a forerunner of Jefferson, like him firm in the conviction that government was good in the measure that it remained close to the people. He sat in the Constitutional Convention as one of the few democrats, and although he was unable to make headway against the aristocratic majority, he was quite unconvinced by their rhetoric.

Freedom-conscious colonists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights amendment being added: the elitist federalist Brahmanist sponsors of the Constitution, then had no alternative but to accede to this populace-based demand for amendments to constitutionally protect

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

133

134

individual rights and liberties, which articles’ Jefferson, Madison, and others, provided to Amend the Constitution. This ‘Bill of Rights’ is, therefore, an integral part of the Constitution, which Federalist constructionists cannot dispel!

Conservative mechanists replicate dualism-based economic legalities, the subjective inward turning of which, as Goethe observed, causes society’s decline: whereas, representing society’s affluent organic orthodoxy, as the most popular politics, however, mostly is sustained in political control.

Moral predicate values of purely reasoned logos-based intelligence are uniquely ubiquitous in human actions: truly, while this morality is allied to fact-based ‘idealism,’ i.e., with dualism, as reasoned to qualify as necessity-based knowledge with no dualism, moral values are then triumphant. Unfortunately, habitual opinion-based practicing, as deduced from dualism-based belief, and therefore, comports with ‘positivism’deduced ‘idealism,’ is the popularly belief-based orthodoxy in this dualism-based ‘positively’ defined sense: 154

For more than a thousand years, Monarchs ruled absolutely the Dark Ages, while corruption and war despoiled the greater part of the Western World: by declaring belief-based dogma, as ‘Divine Rights’ or ‘human liberty is only spiritual in nature,’ organic Christianity went along with the Monarchical cultural despoilment: religion willingly sided with the Monarchs. While observing this, Robert Hughes referred to man's subjective proclivities (inward-turned orthodoxy) when recalling Goethe's explication of paradoxical social conditions caused by the orthodox cultural subjectivity. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe (1749-1832) spent 60 years dramatizing ‘the truth’ of humankind, keenly observing what had caused societal regression and growth. Hughes also described orthodox political subjectivity as ‘inward-turning’: about humans’ values? 155

5. Philosophy. The [dualism-based, i.e., a materialist oxymoron] belief that all our knowledge is a knowledge of ideas and that it is impossible to know whether there really is a world of objects on which our ideas are based. Idealism as opposed to materialism, holds that objects do not really exist apart from our ideas.

(This is an oxymoron because physis-based knowledge is conflated to dualism-based materialist belief.)

Knowledge is aligned with physis-based truth, i.e., is no dualismbased purely reasoned intelligence. In rational empiricism (i.e., practicing what Plato called the Socratic method), striving rationally to emulate in practice what is God’s (i.e., emulating the Creator’s LOGOS-based inferred no dualism-based predicate values); On the other hand, in dualism-based materialist belief that deontological ethics is independent of no dualism-based morality, elitist Brahmanists’ ethical predicate values are, therefore, not necessarily an integral of their organic deontological schemes’ formulations of specific duties, which morally are aligned with nomos-based empirically paradoxical truths (i.e., dualism-based opinions, of Plato’s Visible Realm). Calvinist fundamentalists from Baptists to Evangelicals, Tories, Federalists, and Whigs are political conservatives that align more with nomos-dualism-based values of Plato’s Visible realm than with physis-based values of Plato’s Intelligible realm (no dualism)!

“The problems of inward-turning were sketched long ago by Goethe, speaking to Eckermann. "Epochs which are regressive, and in the process of dissolution, are always subjective, whereas the trend in all progressive epochs were all objective in nature . . .

Every truly excellent endeavor turns from within toward the world, as you see in the great epochs which were truly in progression and aspiration, and which were all objective in nature."

In ‘inward-turning,’ finding reason-based truth while difficult, is possible: As when addressing the ‘young rich man,’ Christ said:

It is easier for the camel to enter through the needle’s eye than for the ‘rich man’ to enter the kingdom of God (where God’s pure (no dualism-based) truth is the way of heaven).

My understandings of this pure truth, as commonly is practiced by organized religions: Mormons, Catholics, or Muslims, about organic authorities, particularly, God’s no dualism-based truth exists in few and

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

135

unexpected places: as in Proudhon’s answer to Marx, for instance.

Proudhon’s answer to Marx is so profoundly moving and prescient that it is worth quoting [again, and again]: Let us together seek, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are reached, the process by which we shall succeed in discovering them; but, for God’s sake, after having demolished all the ‘a priori dogmatisms’ [undoubtedly referring irreverently to Kant’s antecedent finding of ‘synthetical a priori,’ i.e., dualism-based aspects in the conservative materialist ideology], do not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people. . . . I applaud with all my heart your thought of inviting all shades of opinion; let us carry on a good and loyal polemic, let us give the world the example of an informed and farsighted tolerance, but let us not -- simply because we are at the head of a movement -- make ourselves into the leaders of a new intolerance, let us not pose as the apostles of a new religion, even if it be the religion of logic, the religion of reason. Let us gather and encourage all dissent, let us outlaw all exclusiveness, all mysticism, let us never regard a question as exhausted, and when we have used one last argument, let us if necessary begin again -- with eloquence and irony. On these conditions, I will gladly enter into your association.

Otherwise, no! [What impressed me is Proudhon’s clear understanding of logic and reason, as the source of pure, no dualism-based truth, which he failed to find in Marx’s political proposition!]

Orthodox ‘Inward-turning’ in England and America, had adopted ‘conservatism’ (also adopting Auguste Comte’s positivism as “their gospel of reason”), denying Locke to exalt Hobbes. Antithetically, intolerance was not the only mutuality that is common to capitalism and communism: dogmatic materialist values, which includes nihilism, positivism, and ‘blond brutes,’ as Nietzsche had celebrated, were also common. All represent the dogmatic fallacy of acquaintance-based belief,

136 i.e., ‘paradoxical’ predicate values which function prescriptively in the human logos as religiously inculcated dogmatic belief that spreads easily.

When reasoned (no dualism) values of noumenon are denied, suppressed, or conflated, dualism-based results will always intrude that orthodoxy.156 What nihilistic dualism of communism’s ‘dialectical materialism’ is different from the positivist ‘unitary materialism’ of capitalism or organic religion, for that matter of fact? Are the resultant dualism-based paradoxical destinies the same? However, is the outcome of our positivist American economic experiment (The American System of Political Economy), as tempered by a truly philosophic ‘Rational Empiricism’ (i.e., democracy), depend on if and how a non dualism-based noumenon prospers rather than is conflated to a dualism-based phenomenal ‘unitary materialism’-based organic form? : to prod-on Rational Empiricism’s no dualism-based side, seeking and finding teleological fiducial principles (no dualism) to regulate (offset), capitalism’s ‘Absolute idealism-based dualism’? And, the myriad ‘Positive’ laws, as administered by the materialist dogma-jaded judiciary, expose dualism-based values which claim democratic ‘Rational empiricism’, but prefer ‘Absolute idealism.’157

‘Rational Empiricism,’ the philosophic basis of democracy, believes that the world is both material and spiritual. It holds that change and progress occur by applying reason to experience, and human nature can be changed and improved by experience. On the basis of these [non dualism-based] principles, democracy stresses discussion and the use of reason [not dualism-based dogmatic belief] as a way of arriving at conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of tolerance and freedom in developing intelligent, loyal citizens.

Absolute idealism, i.e., stress[ing] the existence of one ‘absolute reality,’ a being or element that is complete in itself and does not depend on anything outside itself. It asserts that there is a principle

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

137

of authority expressing the will of the absolute. As a political philosophy, ‘Absolute idealism’ considers the ‘state,’ or the national government, as the absolute, according to this philosophy, everything in society is a part of the state and subservient to it.

From these doctrines follow dictatorship by an absolute ruler, rejection of parliamentary procedures, and submission of the individual to the state.

Rene Descartes advised humanity to make no moral choice until the truth of the choice is “clearly and distinctly” perceived. Bertrand Russell often referred to deliberate reason and undoubtedly had Descartes’ disciplined analytical process of proving truth (no dualism) in mind. John Locke applied deliberate reason to prove, then explain the truth that nature had endowed each individual with inalienable properties (i.e., Constitutional Rights): each individual’s equal properties of person.

Locke’s natural truth appealed to Americans and they expressed it to declare their independence from England: We have preserved this expression of Locke’s natural truth in The Declaration of Independence.

Rene Descartes’ natural truth, as represented in the following, gives one a perspective of the uniqueness of human rights, qualities and capabilities:158

---What then am I? A thing that thinks.

---What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and which also imagines and knows.

As we act, we do so instinctively, habitually or, preferably deliberately by associating the likely choices of an action posited with the inevitable results of that action: deliberately we choose the “good” (no dualism) and when not deliberate the outcome has inevitable dualism-based results [i.e., paradox of which both “good” and “bad” outcomes are possible. Society decided early on that each independent person is responsible for their own actions (in this, society, sided with Von Leibniz’ monadology (Voltaire’s satirical opposition to Von Leibniz had erred in the aspect of what, Kant had exposed with synthetic a priori causality. Voltaire, a Deist, had failed

138 to reconcile God’s causal teleology inherent of the human free will with the dualism-based causal determinism inherent of materialism.) over Voltaire’s opposition: i.e., each person’s existence is in harmony with God’s purpose]. For the conscious mind to be responsibly in control of an action posited, the mind must be allowed as well capable to make a value judgement on the spectrum between the “good” and “bad” choices. With actions involving moral judgements on all spectrums of linkage between mind and body, the mind must choose, for instance, between celestial (however vague) and terrestrial (pervasively real and carnal); eternal (no dualism) and temporal (dualism-based); truth and ignorance; pure (no dualism) and impure (dualism). Or in Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism, that human aspirations lead to God as a living reality: Sartre's natural truth considers the dimension of time with all action:159

"There is no reality except in action." More over it goes further, since it adds, "Man is nothing else than his plan; he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore, nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life."

[Everything we do is accounted to each of us.]

While intelligent perception allows us to think about actions of the past, present, and future, the present has no equal. While we can plan and anticipate, we must always act in the present. What we do in all moments of the present is what really counts and this, I believe, is the essence of Sartre's philosophy. All else has no philosophical state of active cognizance, no deliberate reason. Without moments of the present, there can be no actualization and therefore no memory or hope. Again, Sartre's natural truth for responsible action is this:

Nothing can be ‘good’ for us without being ‘good’ for all.

[This imperative thought, Lau Tse had called Sinderesis] Sartre’s philosophy involves deliberate choices. From research section 201, I recall that the spectrum of dependent-independent life has everything to do with actualization based in objective comprehension.

Human life invariably begins in complete dependence as our very survival depends upon those who care for us: on those who care about our vital

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

139

needs and act to provide them.

However, while such care is surely objective (outward-turned), particularly for parents, instinct and love motivate them more than consciously chosen objective thoughts and actions. Love, therefore, also plays a huge role in the transcendence from dependent to independent temporal life.

Similarly, and in direct proportions, the welfare of society depends on the actions -- on the relative ‘good’ or ‘bad’ -- of the choices made by the “doers” among us (As for Sartre's philosophy, society depends on the Sinderesis-based moral choices upon which each of us will act):160

To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.

[In Sinderesis, we must treat others as our self] Our natural capability to reason deliberately provides definition to the absolute poles of each spectrum of choice. More particularly, deliberate reason provides definition to the absolute pole of moral “purity,” “virtue,” or “truth.” “Purists” always claim that the absolute pole is the only correct moral choice. The pure ideal, however, is often not a practical choice: The pure ideal is often impossible in the physical sense of morality. Rationalization provides reasonableness and practicality to actions involved with moral choices that are less than “pure” and still “virtuous.” Rationalizations mostly arise in adapting to the material aspects of life and maybe more, to fit a mutuality with others’ materialbased choices. However, when we allow predispositions as concupiscent passion to rule the rationalizing of our deliberate reason, we invite the internal conflict of conscience. Dr. Read’s lesson (belief-traps) will be learned only by some, and only at times:

Three of these attitudinal or methodological beliefs are: ---1) belief in the absolute certainty of the doctrine (the dogmatic attitude); ---2) belief in the wickedness of doubt; and ---3) belief in the authoritative hierarchy.

140 All three of these beliefs are conditioned responses. No one of them can be justified as an aid to cognition [Which is the only human faculty that allows one to garner truth and knowledge?] . They all intend to block inquiry, or, rather, to transform inquiry into rationalization.

Because of methodological belief, which Read defined above: Reasonbased Truth (no dualism) is hard to find in Joseph Smith’s religion: which include banking, polygamous marriage, temple building for conducting alchemy-based ordinances, i.e., as refitted Freemasonry’s methodological belief to symbolize the ‘divine right’-based religion, as Smith asserted, and myriad other personal matters of an independent civic social nature, which overtly was incongruous with the U.S. Constitution.

Simply, the symbolism was based solely on belief, therefore, this religious methodological complexity is why reason-based truth (no dualism) is hard to find? Gaining Utah’s statehood relieved Mormon practice of some of its dogma-based doctrine. About practicing polygamy, for instance, any astute aborigine might probably observe that the U.S. Constitution offered greater medicine than did Joseph Smith’s religious doctrine. Anyway, believed truth until proved is always impure (has paradox-based dualism): must endure Tolstoy’s paradox:161

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven into the fabric of their lives.

So, who religiously tells the truth, and how can individuals be sure of it?

To answer this question, this thought is concluded with these comments I had written to introduce the essence of truth (section 109): Commonly understood fiducial-truth is anchored to Correspondence and Coherence-based theory (A ‘pragmatic theory’ of truth was also popularized by William James at the turn of the twentieth century. This

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

141

theory, like science-based calculus took belief, as an approximation of truth that over time was revisited to adjust the range of purity.): as for instance, truth lacking fiducial anchorage to natural factual phenomena, as reasonably inferred, has no corresponding reliability. And truth, which lacks fiducial reasoned anchors to natural noumena, inevitably fuels controversy as to whose subjective perception reasonably coheres with natural noumenal reality (has the no dualism-based ‘true ‘predicate value?

Coherence is problematic because subjective belief (Plato’s opinion-based forms of dualism-based truth) subjectively relies on human noumena and logos for proof that nature’s noumena and LOGOS is truly reflected. Pragmatism becomes important, therefore, in answering whether or not human ideas agree or disagree with ontological reality: pragmatists appear more analytic and painstaking! 162 The following excerpt shows a current passion, embroiling Bible texts that were rejected at the time the Bible was published: the gospel of Thomas particularly, was about Gnosticism’s proclivity for libertarian objectivity involving liberalism and democracy: 163

Followers of the Gospel of Thomas The gnostics . . . felt that only a faction of humans were capable of their kind of salvation -- but among themselves they were democratic, abandoning titles like bishop or deacon for a kind of commonwealth of individual inspiration. . . . This irked critics who were building a church with the hierarchy and discipline to withstand Roman persecution. Attendees at Gnostic services “all have access equally,” grumbled Tertullian, a church father who helped consolidate the Christianity we know today. “They pray equally . . . they share the kiss of peace with all, for they do not care how differently they treat topics -- All offer you gnosis!” [gnosis: spiritual knowledge] Unanchored, therefore, unreasoned, deficient fact-based truth is the quintessence of politics, which too often not only lacks commonly

142 understood definition, it begs for the natural axiomatic principles of noumenon: Increasingly, anchored to dogmatic prejudice rather than to principles of reasoned-noumenon, it is nothing more than logic-deficient rhetoric, calumnious opinion, that of design appeals to a dogma-afflicted class of sycophantic believers: 164 [Science look-a-likes as] Humanists - philosophers, theologians,

historians, literary critics [and judicial officers particularly] -- have to worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’

Richard Rorty Will Durant observed similarly as von Liebnitz did about reason originating in dogmatic assumptions that cannot yield trustful results.165

Ultimately, our troubles are due to dogma and deduction; we find no new truth because we take some venerable but questionable proposition as the indubitable starting point, and never think of putting this assumption itself to a test of observation or experiment.

While Kant and Hume provided critical dialogue about ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ truth, G. W. von Leibnitz, who shared mathematical distinction with Isaac Newton (with The Calculus), wrote this:166

There are two kinds of truths; those of reasoning and those of fact.

The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible.

[Because Science is logically factually based on principles of necessity, it is far more truthful than belief-based religion] Truths of economics, are contingent upon believed unitary materialism forms, and its causal mechanism-based corollary: Both are dogma based! Therefore, economics is paradoxical because dualism is certain. Truths of religion, are contingent upon belief, and depend completely on a dogmatic trust in belief, which never is supported by logical reason. The truth of dogmatic belief is contingent upon trust in the dogma, which as doctrinal ideological opinion, is neither of

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

143

natural facts nor of reasoned or natural principle (i.e., no dualism). philosophical pertinence Mark Sainsbury, King’s College, wrote this about the liar paradox.167

Semantic paradox, known in antiquity, focus of much recent work.

Jack says ‘I am now speaking falsely’, referring to the words he is then uttering. If Jack speaks truly when he says he is speaking falsely, he is speaking falsely. If he is speaking falsely when this is what he says is going on, he is speaking truly. So what he says is true if, and only if, it is false: which seems absurd. One response claims that Jack says nothing true and nothing false. But a variant makes trouble: Jill says ‘I am now not speaking truly’. If Jill is not speaking truly when this is what she says she is up to, she is speaking truly. If she is speaking truly, then she must be doing what she says, that is, not speaking truly. So, it seems, what she says is true if, and only if, it is not true.

When a legal-proceeding is tainted by falsity, whether the source of falseness is a witness, the prosecution, defense judge (any or all), justice, which is based on truth (no dualism), then quite simply is injustice.

Because of temporal human dualism-based proclivities, each individual must mostly depend on their own cognizance and arduous distrust, as Descartes admonished, to seek out ‘pure truth’ (no dualism).

With Monarchy’s demise, Christianity endured critical reinspection and reformation: scriptures embroiled in dogma constantly, carefully, and critically has been reevaluated. Therefore, it also is appropriate and necessary to reevaluate Mormon scriptures and dogmas. And largely due to Tolstoy’s paradox, finding dogma is easier than discarding it:168

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which

144 they have woven into the fabric of their lives.

Fawn Brodie’s documented views of Joseph Smith’s religious monarchical hierarchy, as displayed ‘mysticism’ in Smith’s revelations, has a large following of believers. (Monarchy, in my understanding of organic meaning, best fits Smith’s self deified absolute role as Mormons’ Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.) Smith’s divinely claimed, teleology, as ubiquitously applied, at Brodie’s closer inspection, found Smith’s claims to divinely revealed purposes (i.e., no dualism) quite overtly were transposed into the temporal nomos-based world’s deontological (dualismbased) duties: Smith’s purposes, as asserted therefore, were incompatible with God’s no dualism-based creation that would not and could not accommodate such materialism conflated transpositions. For Smith and his Mormon followers -- i.e., allowing alchemy-based fusion, temporal life in a unitary materialist purely Physis-based salvation, has been more an apparition of belief than any factual social reality: crime and corruption statistics show the paradoxical dualism-based effects to remain untempered by the myriad testimonies of belief, attesting the actuality of pure life with no dualism. Although Smith’s ‘divine right’-based claim to Christ’s physis -based authority [the LDS Church claims this divine authority as an organic corporate right], also claims to transcend nomosbased temporal values and living, to physis -based values of heaven on earth (to a Valhalla form that is worthy of Christ’s return), is evidently an apparition only perceived by faithful Mormons -- but clearly cannot be lived. But the focus here is on Fawn Brodie who in 1945 delivered her biography of Joseph Smith: both she and her history were officially rejected by the LDS (Mormon) Church. Since then, however, Brodie’s work has been vindicated by myriad authors of distinction, as Richard Lyman Bushman, whose cultural biography of Smith, published in 2005, which incidently is the 200th birth year of Joseph Smith. With this vindication, can Brodie now be quoted as an honest and truthful authority on Joseph Smith’s history, , as Bushman and others have confirmed? The LDS Church excommunicated and banished her and she is not alone: The list is long of persons excommunicated for telling the

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

145

truth, which audacity had tarnished the Mormon Prophet’s good name as the organic Church’s icon. Bushman wrote this: 169

No one intimated in 1835 that Joseph’s actions caused the rumors.

The sources written before 1839 indicate that most Church leaders knew nothing of a possible marriage. What they did know is suggested by the minutes of Oliver Cowdery’s excommunication trial before the Far West High Council in April 1838 . . .. Cowdery long Joseph’s friend and associate in visions, was a casualty of the bad times. In 1838, he was charged with “seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith jr., by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery &c.” Fanny Alger’s name was never mentioned, but doubtless she was the woman in question.

[Joseph Smith’s revelation on Polygamy was not recorded until 1843] Regarding the LDS Church’s celestial plural marriage covenant, for instance, to receive the constitutional benefits of statehood for Utah’s citizen members required that the polygamy practice (not the revealed doctrine of plural marriage) be abandoned, which practical repudiation of the plural marriage covenant then also became a claimed revelation from God: However, because God’s teleological nature and purpose are unchangeable (no dualism), i.e., is contradictory because of the dualism of this doctrinal flip flop, logically put either the celestial marriage covenant revelation or the action to accept statehood in doubt. Now, a century later, the social evidence is overwhelming: polygamy was either a bad mistake or the monogamous life style, as now commonly practiced, is socially wrong: which? And therefore, Utah Statehood either provided a great social favor to the LDS Church or it devastated a revealed doctrine? Is it time, therefore, for the LDS Church to officially recognize the fallacy inherent of the doctrine itself? : that temporally, humans do not and cannot purely truthfully (with no natural dualism) live the belief-based materialist doctrinal ideological alchemy, which implicates dualism!

Another sample of very quiet LDS doctrinal change involves the Danite Oath [blood atonement (In the words of one Church President,

146 Joseph Fielding Smith, a man who commits “certain grievous sins . . .” is not cleansed by Christ’s blood, but must shed his own blood to atone for these transgressions. Church critics say that the fundamentalist doctrine has “blood atoned” for sins, including mere heretics. And, in the news, March 2006, we find this fundamentalism is similar to Islamic law that takes the life of infidels, as those that converts to Christianity.)], Which until recently was a commonly practiced Mormon symbolism-based temple rite-based promise to be dutifully faithful, or beware the fateful consequences: symbolic vicarious ‘baptisms and plural temple marriage ordinances for the dead’ are still practiced dutifully (For instance, men can be sealed to many wives, while women can only be sealed to one husband. Women must select the one to whom they are sealed.): and this Danite Oath, as a sacred required exercise that undoubtedly was taken by the Book of Mormon’s original ideological cabal of witnesses and translators, then without official explanation, was recently quietly discontinued.

Skeptics’ have consistently found fundamentalist LDS doctrine, as being ‘untrue,’ while generally they have not associated this ‘untruth’ with acquaintance-based dualism. Rather, about Jesus Christ’s Gospel, skeptics generally find that Mormon doctrine is as good as the myriad other Christian faiths.’ Jack Anderson, the widely syndicated newspaper columnist, wrote this: 170

The Book of Mormon takes a lot of research to back up, and I’ve done a lot because . . . I have a natural curiosity, and a natural suspicion. In the end it’s a matter of faith -- you can have corroborative evidence to prove or disprove -- but this is what I have found. In the case of Joseph Smith, I went to the Palmyra area, and personally looked up some of the statements that were given in those days by non-Mormons who knew him. I don’t think there’s any question that he was a grade school dropout, was a backwoods boy and came from a remote frontier village -- that had, over a wide area, about 350 families, The Smith family being one of the least distinguished. They had to work for a living by

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

147

serving other families, for the most part digging wells, clearing land and doing other manual work.

Joseph Smith did not finish the sixth grade. He was bright in school, he got high marks, but never had much schooling. From this background he produced The Book of Mormon. . . . I don’t know very many writers with college educations who could write it. . . . In the end my own research has tended to verify, not prove, . . . the Joseph Smith Story.

And isn’t it telling of the myriad subjective religious faiths that Irving Stone wrote this religious appraisal of C. Darrow, the agnostic: 171

“ . . . There were no limits to Clarence Darrow’s compassion. It reached ever where, touched every life. The underdog was his especial friend, the downtrodden and oppressed his brethren, the outcast and wretched and despised his loved ones. Not since St. Francis walked this earth has the world seen such mercy clad in human flesh. Not since Jesus himself has there been such an exemplar of the ‘gospel of ‘unto this last.’ If religion is love, as it surely is, then Clarence Darrow was one of the most religious men who ever lived and his pessimism a purer wellspring of the spirit than all the founts of faith.”

During his forty years of work for the poor, the underdog, the defenseless, he received letters from every part of the world in which strangers would say, “God bless you, Mr. Darrow; you are a true Christian.”

Also, Thomas, an apostle of Jesus’, clearly also was agnostic. And his written version of Christ’s Gospel was bypassed when the Bible was compiled. Thomas’ writings have now been found, about which, this writing by David Van Biema appeared in ‘Time’s’ December (2003) issue:

THE ANCIENT DEBATE OVER DOUBTING THOMAS Most scholars believe that the majority of the lost Gospels were

148 written decades and in some cases’ centuries after Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But a minority thinks one of the long-abandoned texts, the Gospel of Thomas, was very much in the mind of John’s author when he sat down to write in A.D. 95.

Elaine Pagels is part of that minority, which sees certain verses in John as refutations of Thomasine thought and a valuable illustration of how the early Christian communities lobbied for their version of Christ and his message. “I’m not saying (John) was responding to Thomas as written, because there may not have been a written text (yet),” she says. “But after you study them, it is inconceivable that the Gospel of John is not responding to some of these ideas.” . . .

The incidents culminate in John’s indelible postResurrection portrait of Doubting Thomas, a man so obsessed with what he can “know” that he is blind to the greatest spiritual truth in human history. For it is Thomas who announces that he will not believe in the risen Christ “unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my . . . hand in his side. “When Jesus presents precisely this proof, writes Pagels, Thomas, overwhelmed, capitulates and stammers out the confession, “My Lord and My God!” Jesus then turns pointedly to the other disciples and says, “Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.” [Jesus did not make clear whether they were more or less blessed, however] Van Biema also wrote this about the Christian followers of Thomas:

THE GNOSTICS WERE ELITIST -- MOST FELT that only a fraction of humans was capable of their kind of salvation [as was based on knowledge rather than belief or faith] -- but among themselves they were democratic, abandoning titles like bishop or deacon for a kind of commonwealth of individual inspiration. . . .

Apparently, the Christian spectrum includes those who deny that

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

149

anything about God can be known (Darrow’s Deism-based agnosticism, which similarly was Voltaire’s affliction), through those who believe that their knowledge (no dualism) rather than their dualism-based faith is the key to the mysteries of God, and that this knowledge came from spiritual insight about what was seen and felt (Thomas’s Gnosticism), to those who accept Christ on belief alone (the Christian mainstream). So, which group on this spectrum most fully embraces Christ’s Gospel, of categorical imperative to, in love, ‘walk in the light of God’? Surely, neither Darrow nor Thomas would ever trust in Joseph Smith’s religious spins or those of any other person claiming that God’s divine authorities were exclusively bestowed only onto them. And in reference to this, LDS President David O. McKay stands as unique since he never claimed to have received divine visions or visitations from God. If factual, this lack of direct connection to God, might hold some agnostic pertinence. 172 Joseph Smith’s revelations surely fit with Allison’s of the Bible.

(Theocratic leaders generally commit the crime of Moses, and for which Moses was punished. To upbraid or upstage God is anathema.173 While wisdom is given liberally, God’s authorities are exclusive.)

Brodie’s biography also suggests that while Smith’s revelations were impressive, maybe fraudulent, both in values and motive; because she factually had recorded his pragmatic mystical alchemy-based belief that might easily have influenced a conspiracy to organize and head a religious empire by manipulating Calvin’s views of organic Christianity, which earlier had manipulated God’s causal teleology (no dualism), making it into dualism-based deontological ethics, which, sans purposeful moral connection, rather had comported to the organic causal mechanismbased Church of Smith’s divine right-based claim to revealed conception, as the cabal of deception had conspired to create? For having demurred of belief that Smith had received the ‘divine rights’ -based powers over heaven and earth (i.e., a unitary materialist view), the LDS Church excommunicated Brodie (Referring to this official LDS Church action, W. Carver wrote this in his LITERATURE, MORMON WRITERS, AND THE POWERS THAT BE, published in Dialogue Autumn 1969 issue):

150 I learned that . . . a mere slip of a girl from Huntsville who had actually taught at Weber had dropped at least two degrees of glory by marrying a Jew and writing “No Man Knows My History” in that order.

Why did Brodie write a history of Smith that could be taken disparagingly? But had found no historical basis to support Solomon Spalding’s manuscript as the Book of Mormon’s source? Surely, sociological deduction, as analogous to ‘the nut falls close to the tree,’ applies here. Fawn Brodie’s paradigms of character were similarly allied to those of her father, and uncle who was then next in line to become the LDS Church’s President and Prophet: Brodie’s book was copyrighted in 1945 and David O. McKay became the Church’s President in 1951. At his death in the late 1960s, and about family traits, analogous of a “nut to the tree,” L. Bennion wrote this in Dialogue, Winter 1969:

President McKay invited me in to see him as I began . . . to teach religion . . .. After drawing me out on a number of issues, his only advice was, “Be true to yourself and loyal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and whatever else you do will be all right.” Not long thereafter, I returned with questions about evolution and family planning. “What shall I teach in these areas?” I asked. Very wisely, he replied, “What is your belief?”

Fawn Brodie’s facts and skills as a historian, while impugned, have never been proved wrong. Also, her religious belief remained that of a trueblue-blooded LDS Church member who had been raised to excel by representing truth as she perceived of it, in the vein of Christ’s teaching, to express the truth and be free! : concluding that Smith was a prophet, but still a human being with no more natural favor than any other human of God’s creation. Her ‘truthful’ intent with researchbased of Smith’s biography was honest to a fault.

While Smith’s success as the charismatic Mormon leader is undeniable, his authority derived as any organic group’s consented human sovereignty (as that of Jones, Koresch, Catholicism, or any reformed

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

151

152

organic Christian Church, for instance). And despite misuses of this organic sovereignty, he remained a human despite his hyperactive display of visceral proclivities: proclivities, of which the Apostle Paul had described to the Romans, as the curse of human life. Without Christ’s redemption, Paul had proclaimed that humans are consigned to an everlasting diabolic hell, of life’s turmoil between the natural ‘Physis’based spiritual laws of LOGOS (of what the Pope called Strategic) and manmade ‘Nomos’-based (i.e., practical) temporal laws. Smith’s doctrinal attempts to regulate Mormon culture, by what he divined as revelation, I believe, show that his personal catering to instinctive visceral human responses caused his greatest interpretive error of Christ’s teleology.

Brodie’s character and situation has little to do with others’ observations as this one in Dialogue, Winter 1968, written by D. L. Lythgoe’s, THE CHANGING IMAGE OF MORMONISM. Factors of change, which Lythgoe noted, mostly involved media efforts to change the public’s image of the LDS Church’s conservative attitude and belief.

Particularly, he observed the Church’s diabolical politics (compared to Christ’s categorical imperative), as in evidence and commonly in the News: as Paul Gunn’s editorial comment years later show:

noted that Mormonism has been slow to change because “. . . its leadership is conservative, in part because it relies on seniority and tends to put old men into positions of power and leave them there until they die.”

Commenting further on the nature of Mormon leadership, a 1965 “Christian Century” classified it into two factions -- liberal and conservative. Hugh B. Brown (then a counselor to the Church’s President McKay) was called “the leader of the twelve appostles’ liberal faction,” While Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Bensen head the conservative wing. The Negro problem was blamed for sharpening these factions, and it was predicted that many Mormon liberals and intellectuals will suffer recriminations.

“Even Apostles will fall victim.” Exercising speculation into Elder Benson’s Mormon conference remarks, the author quoted him as saying traitors could easily emerge in the church, and interpreted that statement as an obvious reference to only one person -- Hugh B. Brown. . . . [and this conservative Church faction has refused to allow

Whether it is a testimony meeting or a priesthood lesson, someone always manages to find a way to inappropriately represent their political or social views as Church doctrine. This . . . confuses new members of the church and discourages a healthy diversity of opinion and honest debate within the church.

I wonder why so many of our faith are so quick to march in lockstep with President Bush. Perhaps this tendency arises because we so willingly follow our church presidents’ council, whatever it may be. We ought to be sufficiently intelligent to recognize the difference between two presidents and courageous enough to speak out when a clear difference exists.

Paul Gunn, Cleveland, Ohio

the publication of the former Church Historian B. H. Robert’s manuscript, which a nephew of Hugh B. Brown, Edwin Firmage, had a copy that Brown had given to him]

About LDS church presidents’ politics, Lythgoe wrote this:

In an interesting observation of the same year (1963), “Nation”

“New York Review of Books” in 1967 said that Mormons’ present conservatism is a “conservatism of an economic elite” rather than an intrinsic quality of Mormon doctrine, which originally promoted an “egalitarian” rather than a conservative form of social organization. . . . [In this , is seen a deontological evolution in the organic form: “egalitarian” Christian to conservative economic purposes.]

The Church was categorized as undergoing a “testing time” by a 1967 issue of “Time.” Mormonism, it said, is being “Prodded out of its old ways by a new generation of believers.” Though they

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

153

are loyal to the faith, they are worried about the relevance of Mormonism” and question some of the policies of the “venerable conservative hierarchy.” . . . J. D. Williams was quoted as arguing, “its time that the Church indicated its concern for more things than simply internal structure and processes.”

[So far, however, a dogmatic conservatism prevails] The supposed apolitical Mormon conservative culture (While claiming that the Church takes no official stand on politics, Lythgoe referred to President McKay’s endorsement of Richard Nixon in 1960.) is probably most significant in Brodie’s excommunication: analogous to Old Testament’s strict organic reprisal of liberals’ presumptions that attempted to steady the arch of the covenant. In fact, however, Brodie’s Church sanction, in effect, might, however covertly, have been a repudiation of President David O McKay’s liberality. I believe it was Lythgoe who wrote that McKay never claimed that God had spoken to him during his nearly thirty-year Presidency.

Brodie’s book cover began with this:

Of the many prophets who arose during the early 19th century in America, when unfettered religious liberty spawned a host of new sects “only one was destined for real glory . . . A century after his death (in 1844),” Mrs. Brodie writes, “Joseph Smith had a million followers who held his name sacred and his mission divine.”

[Today the count is more than thirteen million] Since President McKay, the economic conservatism in Mormonism has dominated, if not completely. In fact, so dominantly that in 2004 Utahns’ gave President George W. Bush 57% of Utahns’ vote, and for communities as Randolph, it was 92%. Z. A. McGee, Salt Lake Tribune Feb. 3 2006, wrote this:

Liberal? We can only hope In a public forum letter (Jan. 30) a writer uses the word “liberal” as though it has a negative connotation, and criticizes

154 “the Tribune” for its liberal bias. I must conclude that the writer didn’t bother to check on the definition of the word “liberal” before using it.

The gold standard, “Oxford English Dictionary,” typically gives a number of definitions for a word, including for the word “liberal”: “generous, openhearted, free from narrow prejudice, open-minded, candid, free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice”, and “favorable to reforms tending in the direction of democracy.” Such liberal individuals or institutions are frequently characterized by acute and chronic decency. Is the writer criticizing “The Tribune” for favoring freedom and democracy?

We can hope that the writer is correct about a liberal bias of “The Tribune,” and that it along with those “liberals” in our community, should take pride in being called liberal.

God’s natural laws of physis (as causally teleology inferred with no dualism) are beyond any common individual or organic nomos dutybased deontology (i.e., causal mechanism-based practice in the temporal world in which paradoxical dualism exists). God’s laws are inferentially intrinsic of values in human logos: principles of individual choice that are assumed on faith, ‘to walk in God’s light,’ then are ontologically proved

by God’s abiding presence, as St. John had admonished. Sarah Pratt’s rejection of Joseph Smith’s polygamy offer, for instance, proves more valid ontologically than any host of Pavlovian testimonies that, because Smith had revealed it, favored it: Sarah Pratt had exercised her God endowed inalienable right, which in the U.S. is not constitutionally contradictable. Smith’s polygamy in its belief-intended physis-based transcended pure form, but ontologically still an alchemy-based form of unitary materialism, as believed, was everlastingly bonded to a morally responsible marriage covenant, as practiced in the nomos-based temporal culture, then in the Constitution’s light of inalienable right-based equality, and sadly as practical evidences resulting from Smith’s concupiscence showed, polygamy was neither rational nor practical: more likely Smith’s

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

155

momentary visceral desires were as St. Paul had observed, as the documented experiences of it have shown.174 The ensuing war of morals in Nauvoo, as generally continues now, confirms that Smith’s experiment with polygamy was fraught with a visceral belief-based dominance over rationality (i.e., inward-turned, conservatism dominated human rational proclivities) that as Goethe had observed caused a cultural wane in morals.

Goethe's explication of social problems caused by subjectivity. Hughes' ‘inward-turning’ described man's subjectivity (as in language of today is ‘conservative’) clarifies the generally ‘orthodox’ political values of a society. (When free enterprise capitalism is objectively administered, it remains atomistic in nature, and best serves society as Adam Smith postulated. As its purpose ‘turned inward’ onto profits, ‘to grow,’ however, it lost its value to society. Organically licensed profit taking from products and services produced by wage-earners, as Economist Joseph Schumperter convincingly found, a century ago now, profit-taking was not justified by Smith’s capitalism.) Hughes wrote this:175

The problems of inward-turning [tending to conservatism] were sketched long ago by Goethe, speaking to Eckermann. "Epochs which are regressive, and in the process of dissolution, are always subjective, whereas the trend in all progressive epochs were all objective in nature. . . Every truly excellent endeavor turns from within toward the world, as you see in the great epochs which were truly in progression and aspiration, and which were all objective. . .."

[Organic deontological ethics-based subjectively is inherent to all economic causal mechanisms,176 whereas organic teleology (as practicing Christ’s categorical imperative, for instance) is objective in nature] Teleological end-purposes are God’s causal standard. ‘Good’ or ‘moral’ purposes (objectives) are of teleology: If the Mormon deontology was objective (and, it is not), the belief-based duties would then qualify, as teleological purposes, however, conflations by materialist belief are cause for these believed duties to lose end-purpose-based significance.

This report, as considered in the context of the Epicurean Paradox,

156 emphasizes the point intended here: 177

Exxon Molbil Corp. Posted the fifth highest quarterly profit for any public company in history.

Because profit-based business deontological duties are subjective (amorally inward turned), therefore, perceiving of teleology as negative and regressive instead of morally ‘good.’ This capitalist ‘affluence’-based culture constantly skews by conflation effects, the moral values of those practicing it. Economics Professor Schumperter expressed the cultural need for economic teleology rather than deontology, in his book published in early part of the twentieth century. But, this about the ‘golden ratio’ and G. P. Brockway’s is first.

The ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)], which the Greeks found related to population growth, probably, therefore, is naturally applicable to capitalist economy: to hold in check, the systemic inflation effects. An irrational number like B, N approximately has the decimal value of 1.618. [Over the twentieth century, average GNP growth was 4%, inflation 3%: stock growth, which reflects non earned income investments (mostly reflects growth in shares of corporate profits that legally enures to private owner-investors of stock), which profits legally enure to the capital side of cost accountings the consumed goods and services, in which consumer price inflation are also consumed and returns to the capital side of accountings (The capital returns from consumption include both GNP growth and cost accounted inflation). Stock growth enhances unearned political affluence, while inflation in consumer prices conflates (debauches) the value of wages earned: giving to ‘Peter’ by taking from ‘Paul,’ as Parrington had observed.] Then, ‘the golden rule of consumption,’ 178 in which growth in economy equals growth in population (and with consumption maximized), is nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ applies to economic growth, and therefore, should administratively be made to apply to economic growth. If Congress accepted its constitutional teleological charge and controlled inflation by limiting GNP growth to N, investments in production and wage-earning would shift away from the casino

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

157

economy of stock growth fiction into an inflation neutral, real consumerbased economy. And a dollar earned would retain its value.

Brockway challenges the classical mercantilist paternalist notion of economic rights: 179 (Federalists, Whigs, and now ‘Neo cons,’ as political mechanists, are our greatest political supporters of legal paternal mercantilist economic rights:)

There is no right that capitalists claim, that equally cannot be claimed by labor.

He asserts. Classical orthodoxy, as based on mercantilism, gave legal advantages to capitalists: for instance, with pay delayed until a work period is completed, capitalists thereby were legally paternalistically granted an interest free capital consideration. Capital is, thereby, granted an advantage by this freed capital, to advertize and lobby. And, egregiously this paternal advantage became a legal inalienable business right (as speech is, for instance). No such free capital on which to subsist, is granted to wage-earners. Orthodoxy, thereby, put wage-earning workers in an ‘iron wage cage.’ About capitalism’s propensities for growth, which the economic paternalism-based granting of free capital sponsors, R. L. Heilbroner gave this telling teleology-based by economist, Joseph Schumperter: 180

‘The Theory of Economic Development’ sounds like an of what we have come to call the underdeveloped world. But in 1912 the special economic status and problems of that “world” had not yet come into existence -- this was still the unabashed colonialism [Whigs, while in charge of the government’s ‘Gilded Age’ officially had installed pork barrel ‘internal improvement’ paternalism into their American System of Political economy]. Schumperter’s book was about

another kind of development -- the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth. . . . this academic treatise was destined to become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of capitalism ever written. ...

158 Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital [which transcends real time business activity into exponential expansions of capital]. Schumperter describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless, reproducing itself in a “circular flow” that never alters or expands its creation of wealth.

The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore, we must examine the characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life: “All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter, “becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.” Thus having found by trial and error the economic course that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine. Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a habit.

More important, in this changeless flow competition will have removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution to output. This means that competition among employers will force them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the value of output that was derived

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

159

from capital goods they owned would be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those goods plus the value of resources they contained. Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit!

Why does Schumperter present us with such a strange -- not to say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have already divined the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an attempt to answer the question of where profits come from.

The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one would have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own interest. Still other [classical?] economists described profits as the earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with.

Schumperter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from the earnings of capital. They were

160 the result of quite another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’

Now we can see why the wildly unrealistic circular flow is so brilliant a starting point. For all the forces leading to disruptions in routine, one stands out. This is the introduction of technological or organizational innovations into the circular flow -- new or cheaper ways of making things, or ways of making wholly new things. ‘As a result of these innovations a flow of income arises that cannot be traced either to the contribution of labor or of resource owners.’ A new process enables an innovating capitalist to produce the same goods as his competitors, but at a cheaper cost, exactly as a favorably located piece of land enables its owner to produce crops more cheaply than less well situated fellow landlords.

Again, exactly like the fortunate landlord, the innovating capitalist now receives a “rent” from the differential in his cost. But this rent is not derived from God-given advantages in location or fertility. It springs from the will and intelligence of the innovator, and it will disappear as soon as other capitalists learn the tricks of the pioneer. The new flow is not therefore a more or less permanent rent. It is a wholly transient profit.

An innovation implies an innovator -- someone who is responsible for combining the factors of production in new ways.

This is obviously not a “normal” businessman, following established routines. The person who introduces change into economic life is a representative of another class -- or more accurately, another group, because innovators do not necessarily come from any social class. Schumperter took an old word from the economic lexicon and used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called them ‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

161

were thus the source of profit in the capitalist system.

Schumperter’s Entrepreneurs require no government paternalism, as granting free front end capital or Gilded Age ‘internal improvementearmark-based paternalism,’ to grow profits (i.e., accumulate capital).

Only entrepreneurs are required: so, what political irrationalism justified government’s pork barrel paternalism? Which paternalism, in the instance of Exxon Mobil, now gives them the fifth largest quarterly profit in history [Only banking and pharmaceuticals reported greater profit-based returns (and what does banking create?)]? The paternalism-based doubling is recalled: Government, is responsible for inflation’s covert endemism that exclusively is first consumed at the retail level of economy (the measured average inflation for the twentieth century was 3 percent of each year’s consumed economic activity, which, over the century’s time, conflated a dollar’s value to less than 25 cents), and second by governments legal codification for enuring capital, which included inflation’s endemismbased effects (which averaged 3 percent annually), together with growth (which averaged 4 percent), returning exclusively to business owners (as their exclusively owned ‘property’): this paternalist mechanism-based enuring effect’s exponential nature, essentially doubled with each decade (the compounded accumulations doubling exceeded 512 times). And this cumulative effect is confirmed by the multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses that contemporarily major corporations, and banking particularly, now pay annually [because banking’s essential function is accounting (i.e., a banks’ products only relate to money that only government is constitutionally authorized to create (their contractual products are not directly material related) and this paternalism, as legally granted, is the primary source of covert economic inflation.

Polygamy, the practiced doctrine of the LDS Church, was deontological in nature (i.e., was duty-based, and therefore, implicated dualism), which seriously paradoxically degraded Mormon culture, because of factionalism that resulted. Brodie recorded these schisms: 181

162 For a time after Joseph’s death it seemed that schisms would disintegrate the church. Sidney Rigdon, after a bitter battle with Brigham Young, retired to Pittsburg; Lyman Wight went to Texas, and Charles Thompson to St. Louis. James Jesse Strang set himself up as a king on Beaver Island, Michigan; and William Smith, claiming the succession for himself until his nephew Young Joseph should come of age, stayed in Nauvoo until repelled by Brigham Young. All of these lesser prophets followed Joseph’s lead in proclaiming visions or giving forth revelations, and most of them practiced polygamy. Only Brigham Young had the sagacity to claim his authority as president of the apostles rather than as an opportunistic revelator. And it was he to whom the bulk of the Mormons turned. [This schismatic factionalism changed forever the organic LDS Church of Joseph Smith! In the organic doctrinal confusion or void of post Smith Mormonism, myriad campaigns to Smith’s revealed authority were put to the members for them to decide whom they would follow, and most elected to follow Brigham Young: Mormonism’s reorganization under Young took many years and fundamental doctrinal changes occurred; in itself, this member decided election was the first noumenal (i.e., teleology-based) departure from Smith’s belief-based materialist Rule, as the Church’s Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. ] Most schismatic factions were cultist Mormon subcultures, which dogmatically followed their mentor Joseph Smith’s doctrinal deontology, which deliberately failed to practice lifestyles that fit with constitutional requirements, as established by the common consent of American society, which had produced the US Constitution. And, had it not been for these constitutional requirements for Utah’s statehood, which required that the LDS Church’s polygamy practice would stop (but did not require its doctrine to change), the fundamentalist conservative LDS church faction led by Brigham Young, would still practice the belief-based polygamy doctrine, in disregard for constitutional equality rights and standards that apply to all U.S. citizens. And while the LDS church members no longer

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

163

actively practice polygamy, the regressive fundamentalist conservative politics remains strong within the cultist factional Mormon subcultures.* * About the LDS Church joining with other religions by signing a petition for a Constitutional Amendment to specify “one man and one woman” marriage, T. Dorr’s April 28, ‘06 opinion in the Tribune stated this:

What would Joseph say? : It is interesting that the LDS Church, so persecuted for its unusual marriage practices around the turn of the century, now supports a petition to persecute others with “non traditional” marriage views.

Maybe the church should have considered the wisdom of its fathers’ first. Guaranteed: Joseph and Brigham would not have supported a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to “one man and one woman.”

While Dorr’s comment has merit, this suggestion is added: Maybe the LDS Church should recognize that the Constitution and not Church doctrine, caused the “one man and one woman” practice, as now commonly subscribed: The Constitution only featured equal rights for all.

When humans fail to exercise equality-probity in their behavior, in the coequalness of the monogamous marriage partnership troth, for instance, the abundant available empirical evidence is that faithful individual or organic deportment ‘to live in the light of LOGOS’ fails to exist. And, by God’s order, which fulfilled the Commandments of Jehovah when Jesus gave his dual-meaning First Principle Commandment: fully and completely to love the supreme intelligence of Creation (which St. John gave the proper name, LOGOS), and love each other human as thyself?

Brodie wrote this:182

Under Brigham Young, what M. R. Werner has sagely called “puritan polygamy” had none of the lush sensuality of the harems of the Middle East; yet an aroused American public, fed on lurid exposés of Mormon sex life, tried for three decades to legislate polygamy out of existence in Mormon territory, sending the leading

164 elders to the penitentiary like common criminals. But both men and women, sublimely certain of the rightness of their cause, fought the nation with astonishing tenacity. Finally in 1890 their fourth president, Wilford Woodruff, in a manifesto intended to win statehood and peace, renounced the practice of plural marriage while retaining the principle as an ideal.

Fifty years later the Mormon hierarchy in its passion for respectability had so turned against the principle as well as the practice that it heaped upon a tiny dissenting “fundamentalist” sect that revived polygamy all the self-righteous fury and abhorrence that the gentiles had spent upon the Mormons a generation before.

Polygamy, which had always been an anomaly in America, was not yet extinct. But for most Mormons Joseph’s last great revelation was merely a memory, and an embarrassing one.

Joseph Smith’s ideal of uniting church and state [under its unique materialist form], which brought such catastrophe in Illinois, was realized under the rigorous suzerainty (feudal order) of Brigham Young. But by the time of his death the pendulum had begun to swing back. The Mormons themselves broke up their political solidarity to aid in gaining statehood for Utah. A generation later they even ignored the admonitions of their leaders, now strongly Republican, to vote in overwhelming numbers for Franklin Roosevelt. Whether knowingly or not, they had come to reject the theocratic principle of their prophet for the American tradition of democracy. [when will this truth prevail in LDS circles?]

Joseph Smith’s prophet-hood is often compared to that of Moses,’ therefore, Smith’s misuse of divine authorities is also comparable to Moses’ misuses. As God (LOGOS) punished Moses, God surely has also punish Joseph Smith! But still, Moses was Israel’s prophet? : so, only when Moses is considered a fallen prophet, should historical critics consider Smith a fake.

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

165

Given this allowance for Joseph Smith’s seeming undemocratic humanity, Brodie had also documented Smith’s temple building and the doctrinal rituals preformed in them: 183

The Mormons who followed Brigham Young continued to be temple-builders, their spires and pillars rising in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Canada, and Hawaii (many others). No other portion of Joseph Smith’s religion showed the same unbroken continuity as the temple rituals, which are even now performed, with only minor changes, as they were in the Nauvoo Masonic Hall.

[However, the symbolic “Danite Oath”-based ritual, was quietly discontinued.]

Brodie’s account of these temple rituals has now been vindicated by Bushman and other Historians. Still, until Brodie’s documentation, the LDS Church had persisted to deny Smith’s plagiarism, of Freemasonry’s secret rituals, which had underpinned his early revelations.

However, despite an organic doctrinal obstinacy in LDS politics, which not only ignored the Constitution’s separation of church and state, this politics also lived the lie about the ‘true’ (no dualism) origin of the freemason-based temple rites. It is in this rational conundrum, as made complicated by the temporal liar paradox, as observed above, that faithbased LDS member-ontology should be recognized, if not considered as the primal legitimacy of LDS doctrine, which amplifies Christ’s life and mission. It was this persistent inculcation, from my birth, for which I consider myself as unusually blessed with a pure Christian faith, although deliberately now, I am an inactive LDS member. Former President Carter’s similar situation provided comfort to me: President Carter wrote this in his book, Our Endangered Values:

“After much prayer and soul-searching, Rosalynn and I severed relationships with the Southern Baptist convention . . ..” (p 42) Smith’s LDS doctrinal insights, although now tarnished by his documented actions, were as ‘a light’ to me about Jesus’ life and mission, and for this, Joseph Smith was for me a personal Prophet, even while progressively, the LDS organic hierarchical order, as administered

166 judicial, and political civic embroilments have deeply concerned me: however, because, in deliberate reasoning, I recognize that belief-based truth (As in Plato’s Visible realm of opinion, all truth is problematic) is always tentative, and at best only partly “true.” And, like theories of science, but more critically because of paradoxical dogma intrinsic of opinion, must be constantly challenged for validity as pure truth. And because the LDS church routinely has excommunicated the challengers of the LDS doctrine, as a constitutionally protected sovereign human, endowed with inalienable rights, neither a self-proclaimed prophets nor, far less, without my inalienable God given consent, organic hierarchical religion, as the LDS Church , surely cannot assume to assert divine authoritative eminence (At times, over the years, I have declined dutiful church activity. For instance, when as a ‘home teacher,’ my organic instruction was to report family member conduct as well temporal needs of those assigned to me: Excepting temporal needs, I demurred from this assignment. Then, when I perceived that organic authorities required acquiescent dutiful faithfulness to the organic hierarchy (as symbolically routinely taken by me as a temple rite, this implied ‘Danite Oath, as effectively implied to me by this church ritual, caused me to demure in all assigned organic LDS duties. With this qualification in reserve, however, I continue to greatly honor Grandsons who live worthy and commit to serving LDS Church missions. This Sentiment was sent to one of them: Christmas is the highly celebrated date on which we rededicate our thoughts and concerns to meanings and purposes of Jesus Christ, Creator, Jehovah, Savior, and Redeemer of all humanity. You probably are aware, ‘The Jehovah’ means ‘The Covenant’ or ‘The proper name of the God of Israel.’ It denotes the ‘Unchangeable One,’ ‘the Eternal I Am’ (see Ex. 6.3; Ps. 83.18; Is. 12.2; 26.4). In Matthew 16.1-4, Christ chided the Pharisees and Sadducees for not paying heed to instructions he had given as ‘the Jehovah.’ (see Deut. 32). These scribes (mostly lawyers) were the teachers and judges of laws which had been handed down from the earliest time of humanity. Their demeanor had departed from serving ‘The Jehovah’ to serving their organic leaders. In this, their logos-based

‘Cogito, ergo sum’

167

values were dangerously close to the worshiping of Baals (1 Kings 18:2022). The following statement from the Bible Dictionary has pertinence to Christ’s Rebuke of them:

They taught either in ‘houses of instruction,’ or in the Temple courts, their pupils sitting on the ground. They formed an influential part in the Supreme Court of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi (my Master) was the title usually given them. . . . In theory they received no pay for their work and it was usual to combine the study of the law with the exercise of some other calling. Their influence considerably increased after the downfall of Jerusalem and the cessation of the Temple worship. As a class they offered a determined opposition to our Lord mainly because He disregarded the ‘traditions of the elders.’

Had they humbled themselves to reason deliberately about the dualism-based inferences of natural phenomena, as Confucius, Lao-Tse, Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Hume, . . . had done, they might have understood that Christ became of ‘the flesh’ to fulfill his teleological no dualism-based mission and responsibility to humanity and to bless and comfort repentant humans including the prophet Jonas (Jonah) who had become discouraged because he had failed to bless the people of Nineveh and ‘The Jehovah’ had then, himself, fulfilled this teleology.

The scribes requested Christ to show them a sign, he answered:

A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.

‘The sign of the prophet Jonas (Jonah),’ is clear. No human can shrink from Jehovah’s no dualism-based categorical purposes and calling: no greater, comforting message exists than ‘repentance and baptism in the love of Christ,’ to fulfill all righteousness. Society progresses when its members fulfill their teleological responsibilities (i.e., love in Jehovah’s Covenant and Christ’s categorical teachings) and it regresses when its

168 members fail in this.

Serving as a missionary in Haiti, where life is paradoxical and harsh, is a special responsibility that you will come to treasure greatly.

You might spend a moment to read the few pages of the book of Jonah.

May God bless you with those you serve with on his behalf, and may you find special comfort and peace of mind on this special Christmas, and always, is our constant prayer?

LDS Church missions have proved many times over their worth in building ontological faith in Christ and are, therefore, in my mind, the LDS. Church’s greatest service, both to Christ and to humanity. And, had it not been for missionaries in other areas, church historians recorded this failure of Joseph Smith’s early LDS Church in Kirkland: 184

When the effects of the 1837 panic and the subsequent depression spread, any chance of Kirtland and its bank prospering was destroyed. Far from flourishing as their prophet had foretold, the Saints were caught in a downward spiral of personal losses and narrowing opportunities.

Widespread apostasy resulted. The volatility in prices, the pressure to collect debts, the implication of bad faith were too much for some of the sturdiest believers. The Stalwarts Parley and Orson Pratt faltered for a few months. David Patten, a leading apostle, raised so many insulting questions Joseph “slapped him in the face & kicked him out of the yard.” Joseph’s counselor Fredrick G. Williams was alienated and removed from office. One of the Prophet’s favorites, his clerk Warren Parrish, tried to depose him.

Heber C. Kimball claimed that by June 1837 not twenty men in Kirtland believed Joseph was a Prophet. 185 Faith-based ontology is the only truthful justification of the LDS faith.

The ontological argument or Proof of faith is this: 186

The contention that since our idea of God is that of a perfect being and since existence is part of perfection, our idea of God is an idea

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

169

of a necessarily existent being. This argument was used by Anselm and Descartes, is repeated by most of the theologians.

[Smith’s claim of a personally revealed materialist God, with a human like body, is ontologically incompatible with this rational proof (no dualism) of God’s necessary axiomatic nature.]

Descartes proved to himself, that the only reality of him that existed necessarily, did not depend on any of his body’s materiality: but instead was his essential Cogito: I think, therefore, I am, he then declared. With this foundation to Descartes modern philosophy, the Dark Ages ended!

Robert Herold’s commentary, Mormonism and Required Acceptance, which ran in Dialogue, Vol. V, No. 2, Summer 1969. This excerpt, to me, is the core of Herold’s message:

The Church cannot become totally pragmatic if it is to maintain its claims of divinity. Certainly there are principles which it cannot compromise. This we take as quite evident. The Church can, however, carefully examine its inventory of principles, dogmas, programs, practices, and even folklore so as to provide better definition of just what those unalterable truths are. Once this is accomplished, the potential adjustment to the new environment could, in turn, be defined. In short, let us separate essentials from non essentials . . ..

This thought concluded Herold’s introduction:

When we use the word ‘acceptance,’ we don’t mean that doubt vanishes. Rather we mean a tacit commitment to a principle even in the face of some doubt. To demand more would limit acceptance to those so naive as to comprehend or those so dishonest as not to care. [i.e., Herold acknowledges the paradoxical nature of belief.]

In his commentary, Herold addressed two categories: (1. Faith is sole justification), (2. Faith must be supplemented by reason . . .). In category (1. Faith is sole justification), Herold acknowledged Smith’s perception of God’s material body, to his ontological argument, of God’s

170 necessarily essential noumenal existence, and this focus is my prime interest here (Brodie wrote that Joseph Smith, in revelations and organization, related to Kingdom building? : i.e., merged Church with State, which contradicted the Constitution’s separation of Church (physis) from state (nomos). Islam, for instance, prohibits portraying their prophet in material ways, as a sacrilege above all else. When Joseph Smith declared that a physical God personally had visited him, in Islam’s religious concept, he clearly had defiled God?) : his vision of a physical God appearing to him, if ‘true,’ then Smith’s ontological faith in an essential ubiquitous God, was made into a materialist physical unreal certainty by this vision. And, his materialist faith, as then confirmed as certain knowledge, also cannot really be ubiquitous! Smith’s greatest faith-based problem was then convincing others of this physical certainty: For Smith’s knowledge of God to be transferable, then required all others’ faith in Smith, which necessarily rationally then either shared or replaced one’s faith in God: Herold’s first listed the acceptance of God as a membership requirement. Descartes reasoned ontological argument (his thing that thinks), was in this requirement, complicated by a necessity to believe in Smith’s definition of God with definite form, bodily parts and spiritual passions (all visceral, i.e., temporal?), as James E. Talmage described in his Articles of Faith? After quoting paradoxes (i.e., with dualism), Herold wrote this about Mormon required ‘acceptance’:

The most authoritative Mormon authors . . . failed to define God in such a way as to give the reader an understanding of just exactly what it is he is supposed to believe concerning God. Maybe, because of my scientific acquaintance with mathematical axioms, as undefined but holistically coherent ubiquitous necessities of reason (i.e., to close the rational process, as Socrates suggested), which first principles must be accepted on faith (i.e., without empirical redefinition), the ontological argument for God’s necessary ubiquitous existence, in my reasoning, nicely applies as the first principle axiom in all fields of science, which in serious faithful pursuits are reasonably inferred by God’s phenomenal creations (Which Moses celebrated as “words from the mouth

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

171

of God” 187 ). In this, philosophers who ponder the essential metaphysical side (a noumenal sum) of all things unknown, and attain reasoned evidence to support their theories, therefor qualify as prophets when their faith-based ontology bears out as true metaphysical insight. About Plato’s concept of the human soul, a rational pursuit of Quantum Physics recently returned to Plato’s ideas when pondering energy’s complex scientific inferences: physicist Fred Wolf wrote this:188

to grasp Plato’s concept of the soul, and we need to do that to understand how modern science can have anything to do with such an idea. [As when Socrates answered Crito’s offer to help him escape from prison: ‘I must follow where God leads,’ assures that this response was teleological! (About which teleological ethics, Socrates, had expressed his life’s ethical purpose)] Brodie wrote that Joseph Smith, in revelations and organization, related to Kingdom building? : merged Church with State, which contradicted the Constitution’s separation of Church (i.e., physis) from state (i.e., nomos). Islam, for instance, prohibits portraying their prophet in material ways, as sacrilege above all else.

When Joseph Smith declared that a physical God personally had visited him, in Islam’s religious concept, he defiled God? 189 ] Leave me then,

Crito, to fulfil the will of God, and to follow whither he leads.

[Socrates surely referred to God’s Truth as his purpose?]

Accepting on belief, Joseph Smith’s vision of God, with Jesus at his side, as tangible beings, which he claimed had answered his urgent prayer, does Smith’s portrayal of God present an axiomatic paradox (i.e., a conflated metaphysical essence (i.e., no dualism) rolled into a dualismbased materialist form?), which analogously fits with Smith’s alchemical admixture of church with state, all of which contests St. John’s axiomatic God. This excerpt explanation of a personal experience: Truth and Knowledge, of reasoning, are of God ETHEREAL-GOLD, a cameo which I wrote about Social Security, is about myriad beneficial results of reasoning. Ethereal Desiderata also are rewards of reasoning as, for instance, the constitutional prescriptions for preserving human rights, which are called the Bill of Rights. In reasoned

172 manifestations of God, i.e., in transcended human logos which uncovers truth of the Creations of nature, the cosmos or the metaphysical,190 pure truth is found in human reasoning about God’s nature and purity. Earliest common meanings of ‘TRUTH’ as depicted in The Song of Moses, revealed the nature of God’s LOGOS: natural dynamics as deliberated by human minds, which intelligence is an extended sample of God’s intelligent noumenon. Etymologically, treowth and troth, were early meanings of ‘truth.’ They described faithfulness, fidelity and promise, i.e., the dynamic holiness of God’s constitutional ubiquitous LOGOS: His omnipresent power, and judgement as inferred (revealed) by reasoning.

Einstein, for instance, advanced human knowledge of the Nature of LOGOS (which proper name St. John had assigned to God) when his metaphysical-based pursuit and reasoning found source realities of relativity, which had equated gravity to light in temporal terms of time:

G:< [gravity (:<)]= 8BT:< [light (:<)] revealed what maybe is the greatest example of God’s noumenal prescriptive genius.191 Scientists reviewing this stellar noumenal Relativity achievement attributed it to ‘reading God’s prescriptive mind.’ Einstein, claimed no religion but he provided substantial evidence of natural LOGOS-based cosmic order, and transcending all religious belief, or not, he vindicates common phrases as ‘under God,’ and ‘in God we trust,’ which, when we abide in truth (no dualism), underpin our pledge, and our money.

‘Bearers’ of truth, and of its counterpart, falsity?

Idealist rationalization, which twists reason to expediently accommodate a mechanists’ material advantage, trivialized pure meanings of truth; static judgements we call ‘wisdom’ as based on experience, mostly are based on materialism, i.e., inward-turned concupiscence, as want, desires, emotion, . . . , rather than outward-turned reasonable need, which because of dogmatic orthodox definition of economic causality (mechanism) eventually has resulted in the compromise of truth’s scope and purity.

Temporal pseudo truths we perceive by seeing, touching, smelling, hearing and feeling incites controversy, which then is exacerbated by

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

173

174

deception and fraud. Sophist politics became the norm, positivism the standard of judgement: this orthodoxy (‘like pigweed grows in gardens’, as Parrington wrote) routinely created Deterministic Economic Dogmas, which are defined by the mechanist dogmatic belief. Only pure truth can slay these dogmatic economic Dragons. The problem is that of changing orthodoxy (what ancients called nomos) from inside out. Professor Lowe wrote this about our truth-based quandary:192

A proposition is a truth-function if its truth-value is determined by the truth-value of its components (or arguments).

The term ‘truth’ seems to denote a property, one which is also expressed by the truth-predicate ‘is true.’ But if so, of what is truth a property? What are the primary ‘bearers’ of truth, and of its counterpart, falsity? At least three candidates can be put forward: sentences, statements, and propositions.

TRUTH, as LOGOS, temporally, is of life’s essence, therefore, ubiquitously spiritual, with fiducial consistency: temporally, TRUTH is undefinable except in ubiquitously fiducial consistencies of encyclopedic evidences (As ‘The Song of Moses’ had revealed). Any probe of this pure TRUTH is, therefore, a metaphysical and philosophical experience. This probe of temporal life, is naturally restricted to phenomenal faith-based explorations, which require untiring persistence to understand partial essential bits of pure TRUTH. L. J. Pojman wrote about philosophy: 196

Indeed the question ‘of what is truth a property’ begs an answer which cannot be separated from deliberate reasoning about God’s LOGOS. Prof.

Dent, U. of Birmingham, wrote this about logos.193

logos. A Greek word, of great breadth of meaning, primarily signifying in the context of philosophical discussion the rational, intelligible principle, structure, or order which pervades something, or the source of that order, or giving an account of that order. . . . Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, makes use of a distinction between the part of the soul which originates a logos (our reason) and the part which obeys or is guided by a logos (our emotions). The idea of a generative intelligence (logos spermatikos) is a profound metaphysical notion in Neoplatonic and Christian discussion.

In positivism, philosophical and legal, orthodoxy of society has partitioned truth apart from its metaphysical origins, making ‘the truth’ an objective quality which can only be determined by analysis of ‘the bearers of truth’: sentences, statements, and propositions. About such , Prof. Ruth Barcon Marcus, provided this about the concluded truth-function.194

Mr. Colwyn Williamson, wrote this about truth-value.195

The truth (T or 1) or falsity (F or 0) of a proposition is its truthvalue. In propositional calculus, propositions are regarded primarily as the bearers of these two values . . .

Philosophy begins in wonder in the pursuit of truth and wisdom and ends in life lived in passionate moral and intellectual integrity. [which shuns idealism or ideology].

I began this probe with St. John’s Gospel because he, above others, understood humanity’s dual nature (i.e., life’s spiritual and material aspects). These passages confirm St. John’s understandings.

[St. John assigned the parenthetically inserted proper names] :

He [WORD] was in the world, and the world was (enlightened) through him; and yet the world knew him not. 197 But to as many as received him, he [WORD] gave authority to become children of God [LOGOS], to those BELIEVING TO HIS [WORD’S] NAME. 198 And the Logos [WORD] became Flesh, and dwelt among us, -- and we beheld his Glory, a Glory as of an Only Begotten from a Father [LOGOS], -- full of favor and TRUTH. 199 John the Baptist was recorded to have said this:

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

175

176

On the next day he sees Jesus [WORD] coming to him, and says, “Behold the Lamb [WORD] of God [LOGOS], who takes away the sin of the world . . .; for he [WORD] is my superior.” 200

And the world is passing away, and its desire; but he who does the will of God abides for the age.

[Value antecedences

[What is the ‘sin of the world,’ which Christ took away? St. John described this ‘sin of the world’ in his First Epistle: 1: 6-10. ]

because understanding the axiom God is faith based: 203

TRUTH, i.e., that third entity of the Godhead, to which St. John had assigned no proper name, is that entity which, by ontologism, testifies ‘because the spirit is the TRUTH’: this spiritual Greek-based ontologism noumenal reality, of ontologically intuitive message giving purpose, confirms TRUTH: ‘The song of Moses’ is about this metaphysical ontologism-based source of TRUTH, as rationally inferred by the myriad phenomenal evidences (this pure TRUTH, of the united voice of LOGOS-WORD-TRUTH, is available to all who deliberate FAITHFULLY and rationally, sans idealism or ideology).201

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.

My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the Lord, ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: For all his ways are judgement: A God of truth and without iniquity, Just and right is he.

St. John either named or defined the Godhead’s three entities. St. John was also specific about the world’s sin! 202

Because everything in the world [of or related to matter], -- the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes, and the pomp of life, is not from the father, but is from the world.

chosen by acts and deeds of humans, are critically important]

Because all that has been begotten by God overcomes the world: and this is that victory which overcomes the world, -- our Faith.

[Concupiscence (sensual desire; lust) denudes faith, which is axiomatic, i.e., is faithfully accepted without proof (St. John wrote this about God’s axiomatic nature: No man hath seen God at any time 204)] end of insert Mormons routinely misuse faith in the sense, which St. John suggested, instead in dogmatic belief: in Joseph Smith’s complex alchemy-based vision of God’s tangible-axiomatic persona, and in his vision-based divine organization: i.e., God, as a glorified anthropomorphic person, which directs his revealed organization, which ‘tangible complexity’ represents necessary principle, which incidently, centuries earlier had given credence to the Catholics’ Nicean three-in-one doctrine.

R. L. Bushman, in his more recent documentary, Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling, gave this account of a vision, to which Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon had testified provided the belief-based evidence:205

The resulting revelation was received in the usual way: in plain sight, with others looking on. More surprising, Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, according to the text, viewed the vision together.

Sitting on chairs with perhaps a dozen men watching, they spoke in plural voice: We, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Sidney Rigdon, being in the spirit on the sixteenth of February, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty two, by the power of the spirit our eyes were opened, and our understandings were enlightened so as to see and understand the things of God.

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

177

Together they [as Smith and Rigdon testified?] saw the “glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father,” and jointly bore witness.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him, that He lives; for we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that He is the only begotten of the Father; that by Him, and through Him, and of Him, the worlds are and were created; and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 91,3) Rigdon and Smith did in fact either put on a carefully rehearsed show, which intended to convince the twelve, or so, attendants or this scheduled show was attended on Smith and Rigdon’s cue by God and Jesus, which so quite unusual, simply is not believable. However, what evidence other than the belief of those attending, is there to convince that Rigdon and Smith, with those attending, in fact experienced a visual show? : did those attending also see the vision? Or, was theirs limited to the extent of their belief, as based on the mesmerizing testimony of Smith and Rigdon, without any actual visual experience? Beyond belief, there is no proof.

Added to the three separate Godhead witnesses which St. John had listed in his First Epistle, in Mormon belief, Robert Herold listed each LDS member’s acceptance of Christ’s temporal life and literal resurrection as a required Mormon accepted faith. 206 To this personally accepted faith, he also listed the literal acceptance of Joseph Smith’s vision and mission, as well the acceptance of the LDS Church as a divinely Instituted Organization. Herold wrote this: 207

On Tuesday, April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith met with five others for the purpose of establishing the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. According to the Prophet, the Church was “organized in accordance with commandments and revelations given by Him to ourselves in these last days, as well as according to the order of the

178 Church as recorded in the New Testament.”

A personal qualifying Mormonism-based testimony ultimately primarily depends on a dogmatic belief-based acceptance of Smith’s acclaimed “divine right”-based revelations from God, as faithful evidence of things that they themselves had not seen: each faithful LDS Church member’s active faithful trust in Jesus Christ’s Gospel, however as Herold observed, must also dogmatically also accept the LDS Church as a divinely Instituted Organization. Undoubtedly, the possibilities of dualism Herold had considered, as he also listed pragmatic change as a necessary possibility of belief-based acquaintances, particularly, by selecting and separating the essential (i.e., purely true) aspects from those in evident open disputes, which clearly are nonessential: It is this pragmatic situation, on which I submit that belief in Joseph Smith’s saga can be, and must be, separated from faith-based enlightened pure truth (i.e., no dualism), as derived by those of abiding faith in Jesus Christ’s Gospel, in which belief-based error can be isolated and dismissed from self acquired pure faith-based truth, without in any way destroying or disparaging the truths of Christ’s Gospel. J. L. Brooke observed that John Taylor essentially did this when he became the LDS President following Brigham Young’s death: 208

John Taylor’s “re-Christianizing” of Mormonism marked a fundamental departure from the explicit hermeticism of Joseph Smith at Nauvoo and Brigham Young in early Utah. But Taylor was not willing to jettison the entir[einccllausdsinicg M theorpm oly ognam thyeodloocgtryine].

J. L. Brooke also provided these comments and references: 209

Since the turn of the century the [LDS] church itself has been deemphasizing the distinct doctrines of the church; since 1950 references to Joseph Smith have declined just as fast as references to Jesus Christ have grown. 210 O. Kendall White, the staunchest opponent of the growing influence of Christian fundamentalism in contemporary Mormonism, admits the probability that the church will continue to jettison traditional Mormon doctrine in an effort to

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

179

attract converts and mollify uneasy members. 211 The Salt Lake Tribune, March 28, 2007, featured Warren Jeffs’ ongoing trial on charges for being an accomplice to rape. Below Jeffs’ article was another article: LDS a cult? 350, 000 DVDs try to shake Mormons’ faith. Both articles were about fundamentalist Mormon doctrine? : Jeffs, the leader of a fundamentalist polygamous Mormon outgrowth, represent the abiding doctrinal issue, originally instituted by Joseph Smith, faith in polygamy as a ‘divine order,’ which practice, not the doctrine, was abandoned because it was required before the US authorities would grant Statehood to Utah. Claims that the LDS Church is a cult, represents an image of LDS Mormonism, as made by other Christian faiths: Whether ‘true’ or ‘false’, is an open question?212

Cult. 1. A particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. Great admiration for a person [In this instance, Joseph Smith], thing, idea, etc.; worship. 3 a group showing such admiration.

The organic LDS Church holds its leaders in highest esteem and faith.

And officially, LDS doctrine disavows neither polygamy nor Joseph Smith’s prophesies, as the source of its dogmatic faith-based truth. Maybe when Jeffs is convicted for being an accomplice to rape, as constitutionally he should and maybe will be, then also maybe Joseph Smith posthumously also should be so judged. [Jeffs claims in a handwritten note, now (April 5, 2007 news article) never to have claimed he was a prophet.] So, about this assigned cultist claim, until the organic LDS Church disavows its claims to divine right-based authority, the above dictionary definition of a Cult befits LDS. LDS Church members, by exercising their constitutional sovereignty, demonstrated that their inalienable individual rights were of greater value than Smith’s doctrine of polygamy: Brodie wrote this:213

Joseph Smith’s ideal of uniting church and state, which brought such catastrophe in Illinois, was realized under the rigorous suzerainty (feudal order) of Brigham Young. But by the time of his death the pendulum had begun to swing back. The Mormons

180 themselves broke up their political solidarity to aid in gaining statehood for Utah. A generation later they even ignored the admonitions of their leaders, now strongly Republican, to vote in overwhelming numbers for Franklin Roosevelt. Whether knowingly or not, they had come to reject the theocratic principle of their prophet for the American tradition of democracy.

Only when these inalienable individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights are logically reconciled with the LDS Church organic authorities, tenets and practices, then and only then, will contemporary Mormon doctrine logically accord with the pure coequality of belief and inalienable rights, which are inseparable human rights. Anyway, Mormon doctrine, about Christ’s Gospel is as good, maybe better than any other.

Brodie wrote this about the effect on belief that awareness of constitutional rights had broadly caused:

Joseph (Sr.) and Lucy united in their marriage the divergent heterodoxies of their parents, both of which were reactions from Jonathan Edwards’s soul-searing Calvinism. (Which organic deontology, i.e., organic religion is idealistically unitary materialist mechanism-based?) . . . Lucy had a vigorous though unschooled mind, and her belief was simply the core of Antinomianism -- the inner life is a law unto itself; freedom and integrity of religious experience must . . . be preserved. [Brodie’s footnote: See John M. Mechlin: The Story of American Dissent (New York, 1934) pp 37, 123 (Antinomian: denies an obligatory nature of moral law)]

Lucy, on the other hand, was devoted to the mysticism so common among those suddenly released from the domination and discipline of a church [Had her mysticism released her from religious thraldom while instilling a greater awareness of her constitutional inalienable rights?].

Like her father she accepted a highly

personalized God to whom she would talk as if He were a member of the family . . . Her children probably never learned to fear Him.

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

181

With this true, therefore, it is far more than just Brodie’s presumption, which portrayed Joseph (Jr.) as undisciplined, generally holding an anti religious heterodoxy, if religion at all (as Jack Anderson’s account had portrayed). In any event, Smith’s heterodox behavior clearly shows his awareness of carnal goings on, as he frequently had demonstrated by the accounts of his carnal knowledge with a host of spiritual wives.

John L Brooke’s book, The Refiners Fire John L Brooke’s book, The Refiners Fire, as published in 1994, confirmed Brodie’s historical note by furnishing far greater detail of the occult in the early modern north Atlantic region: . . . Here I write as a historian of early American society and

religion, exploring little known byways of popular culture in somewhat greater detail than might be given to them in other studies of Mormonism. [quoted from the Preface, xvi] When newspapers first published accounts of startling documentary discoveries touching on the history of Mormonism, (my) study began in May 1985. Letters purported to have been written in the 1820s conjured up a fascinating picture of popular magic, treasure hunting, and ancient, alchemical salamander symbolism among the peoples of the Burned-over District. Piquing my curiosity as a historian, these images perhaps triggered childhood memories, memories of after-school expeditions to dig for garnets, or of coming upon red efts, summer salamanders, scarlet with delicate orange spots, in the moist, mossy woods below Lenox Mountain. . . . Though the Hofmann letters were forged, they were rooted in documented behavior; Joseph Smith was indeed deeply involved in the popular magic of treasure-divining in the 1820s, the decade when he claimed to have discovered golden plates buried in the earth and translated them into the ‘Book of Mormon’. And beyond this story of divining and prophecy lies the content of the Mormon theology itself, developed by Joseph Smith and associates ... [quoted from Preface, xiii]

182 Brooke also observed this: 214

And we know that at Nauvoo Smith’s announcement of the temple rituals carrying the Mormon promise of divinity came in the wake of his renewed interest in Freemasonry, which was just emerging from the stigma imposed by the Antimasonic furor over the murder of William Morgan that had swept the Burned-over district as Smith was composing the Book of Mormon.

Neither the anti-Masonic furor nor Morgan’s murder became fully documented in official LDS history. Brodie gave this account:215

In Batavia, on the road to Buffalo, a printing press was burned and its owner beaten by a group of masked men. In the press office were fresh proofs of a new book, an expose of the secret rites and oaths of Freemasonry. The author, William Morgan, was abducted some days later and carried to Canandaigua, nine miles from Joseph Smith’s home for a mock trial. He was then taken secretly to Fort Niagara on the Canadian border, where he disappeared. . . .

In October 1827 a bloated corpse was washed up on the shore of Lake Ontario. . . .

Mrs. Morgan had not a particle of doubt of the identity of the body, fully believing it to be that of her husband. . . .

So it happened that Joseph Smith was writing the Book of Mormon in the thick of a political crusade that gave backwoods New York, the hitherto politically stagnant and socially dÁclassÁ, a certain prestige and glory. And he quickly introduced into the book the theme of the Gadianton band, a secret society whose oaths for fraternal protection were bald parallels of Masonic oaths, and whose avowed aim was the overthrow of the ... Nephite government. . . . Before burying the golden plates, Moroni, last of the Nephites, engraved a solemn warning to the gentiles of 1930: “. . . and whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations,to get power and gain, until they shall be

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

183

184

spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed, for behold the Lord will not suffer that the blood of the saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them,. . .

overview of transformation of Mormonism from the 1860s to the present.

[The Book of Mormon (1830), pp 424, 554] Brooke found parallels with alchemy in Smith’s revelations: 216

provides a telling story in the years after the Cold Summer of 1816, when the Smiths emigrated from Vermont. Jacob Cochran, like Joseph Smith and the Wood family, who raised the New Israelites, borrowed from the Shakers, the Freewill Baptists, and the Universalists in framing a cult in which he claimed magical powers over his followers, attacked the Freemasons, reenacted scenes from the Garden of Eden, and engaged in spiritual wifery. 218 . . . The Shaker experience, in Manchester in the 1780s and among the American Shakers of the late nineteenth century, there was a curent of interest in Emmanuel Swedenborg’s hermetic theology. [from page 282] . . . Swedenborgian ideas fed into Transcendental communalism at Brook Farm and Fruitlands and they shaped the fascination with spiritual communication and healing beginning in 1840s with Andrew Jackson Davis and Phineas P. Quimby, which led directly to Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science in the 1870s. Davis, “the Poughkeepsie Seer,” was briefly attracted to the Millerites and was also deeply involved in the mid-nineteenth-century revival of Mesmerism, which became synonymous with Spiritualism. 219 John Humphrey Noyes was similarly influenced by Mesmer’s theories of electric fluids, which made possible the “the most intimate connection between” between humanity and divinity. Like the German communitarians and Shakers, Noyes posited an androgynous God; as among the Mormons, this vision became the basis for marital experimentation. 220 From the 1840s to the end of the century a popular Mesmerism, the hermetic cult of Theosophy, and, most importantly, a revived and widely elaborated

The mystical philosophies of alchemy, the Cabala, and more broadly the hermetic theology offered not only a view of the stars but a ladder up through them to the divine Godhead. The goal of the hermetic philosophy was to recover the divine power and perfection possessed by Adam before the Fall, and indeed before Creation. Just as purification of the church by Protestants and Catholics isolated and demonized the cunning folk, so too the hermetic ‘magus’ was expelled in the destruction of the medieval synthesis. When recombined in Radical Reformation and the English Revolution with currents of millenarian prophecy and conviction of the imminence of the restored Kingdom of God; hermetic divinization posed a potent challenge to Christian orthodoxy. It also prefigured the cosmology constructed in the 1830s and 1840s by Joseph Smith, who was born in - if not of - a Calvinist culture and moved from the ranks of the cunning folk to the status of and Adamic ‘magus’ as the prophet of the Mormon restoration.

Smith’s magic (i.e., occultism)failed to produce an acorn of claimed faith, as, “wishing the acorn back into the religious Oak,” for instance?

Brooke’s mention of dualism-based materialism belief, included: 217 . . . Mormon doctrines of the mutuality of spirit and matter, of

celestial marriage [in the nineteenth century, polygamous marriage (with married women, no less)] and of human deification can be understood only in the light of the connections between the occult and the sectarian ideal of restoration . . . The book closes with an

[from the front cover, about Smith’s doctrinal materialism] . . . The emergence of the Cochranites in the Saco Valley of Maine

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

185

Freemasonry spread the elements of the hermetic culture into the far corners of American society, a diffusion whose implications have not yet been fully explored. 221 All of these perfectionist movements might easily be assimilated into Harold Bloom’s thesis of an “American religion” founded on Gnostic roots . . . But with the Mormons we run into a paradox.

Mormonism, Bloom’s prime example of a Gnostic “American religion,” was certainly the most successful of the American perfectionisms shaped by the hermetic tradition, but this hermeticism has been disguised, denied, and significantly eroded in the century and a half since Joseph Smith announced human divinizastion at Nauvoo and since Brigham Young declared Adam to be God. Mormonism took the hermetic ideal to its fullest manifestation, but in years after 1860 the church leaders began to move away from the implications and connotations of their hermetic roots. . . . Here the church hierarchy had two problems to contend with. [from page 283] First, clearly, the Mormon revolution against the American nation-state was doomed to encapsulation and defeat. Nauvoo may have marked the emergence of “a new steady state” for Joseph Smith, as he announced the ritual keys that would give the Saints divinity and inaugurate the coming of the Kingdom. But even flight to the desert wilderness of the Great Basin could not guarantee autonomy and stability of the Mormon kingdom; the American Republic followed close behind. Eventually, the price of stability and reintegration would be accommodation, both political and doctrinal.

Second, and certainly connected with this accommodation, the church faced a potentially unruly and dissident membership.

Despite its carefully structured hierarchy, Mormonism bore within

186 it a great potential for divergence, dissent and schism, as did the contemporary perfectionist movements, many of which have disappeared with barely a trace. . . .

Though the Mormon church had been founded in supernaturalism, Brigham Young and his apostles struggled in the early 1850s to deflate popular expectations. The faithful were not to expect miracles or visions, rely upon their endowments, or search out the mysteries. 222 . . . The reformation was initiated on the premise that the Saints were to live their religion and serve the Kingdom. Here indeed is a remarkable parallel with the jeremiads of the Puritan ministry of seventeenth-century New England. . . . [from page 284-5] Surely but slowly the Mormon boundary between the Kingdom and the world would be reduced, and the conventional boundary between [hermetic] purity and danger reestablished. In the process, the authority of the church hierarchy was extended and strengthened over the membership, just as its reach in civic affairs was diminished..

Some of the means to this end were institutional, as Young extended the scope of participation by reviving organizations abandoned since the days of Joseph Smith, such as the School for Prophets and the women’s Relief Society in 1867. . . . Here Young worked “to see that correct doctrine is taught and to guard the church against error,” guiding an 1860 council of the First Presidency and Apostles to a consensus that no one would preach or publish doctrine without collective council approval, so as to “keep as far away from the precipice as possible. 223 Then (Young) effectively abandoned his controversy with Orson Pratt over the nature of divinity. Pratt confessed error and agreed not to publish his view of an absolute God running as an electric fluid through all matter, a target of hostile preaching during the Mormon

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

187

Reformation. Young dropped his preaching that Adam was God and the father of Jesus Christ, a doctrine that he had been backing away from since the spring of 1857, when the fires of the Reformation had burned a little too fiercely. 224 If Young and the apostles were sometimes ambiguous -- perhaps intentionally -- on the mysteries in the 1850s, after 1860, they redoubled their efforts to ground Mormonism in the Saints behavior in this world, “living their religion,” rather than in their dreams of instant divinity, which the mysteries seemed to offer.

At the same time the hierarchy continued an effort to suppress countervailing voices, however benign. In March 1860 the council voted that novels were an evil influence, following the suppression of a literary and musical “Polysophical society” during the Reformation.225 Similarly organizations advocating the occult were suppressed. . . .226 [from page 287] Perhaps because Young and other church leaders had what Michael Quinn calls “a general affinity for folk magic,” no concerted campaign was inaugurated. In the scattered Utah settlements, beliefs in peepstones, animal magnetism, the healing powers of lobelia, and the mystical three Nephites persisted among the Mormon rank and file to the end of the century, along with more sanctioned fears of evil spirits and belief in healing artifacts. 227 The church also had bigger problems to contend with. The Morrisite schism of 1859 to 1862 was followed in 1868 by the New Movement, or Godbeites, centered on a group of Mormon merchants led

by William Godbe, who decried the church’s theocratic hegemony, demanding economic and political pluralism in Utah. . . . In 1869 they were excommunicated from the church and formed The Church of Zion. Though they lasted only fifteen years, the Godbeites formed the most potent internal dissension from the late-nineteenth-century church, in great part because they provided a haven for an apostate apostle, Amasa Lyman. 228

188 Amasa Lyman’s apostacy and excommunication seem to have been an important catalyst for a decisive shift in emphasis in Mormon doctrine.

In the 1860s Young was content to call a truce with Orson Pratt, both men downplaying their hermetic interpretations of cosmic history. In the meantime another division within the ranks of the leadership demanded a reassertion of the traditional Christian doctrine of atonement.. . . 229 [from page 288]

Lyman’s rejection of Christ’s atonement, and probably a general continuing belief in the doctrine of blood atonement, seem to have impelled a general reconsideration of church doctrine.

Certainly Brigham Young had mentioned the atonement in earlier sermons, but it was always conditioned in some way by blood atonement, the Kingdom, or even -- in 1860 -- the analogy between Christ’s death and that of the Mormon faithful: “Some of our people have suffered unto death. Could a God do more?” 230 Then at the height of the Godbeite controversy between 1869 and 1871 Young preached at least four discourses that unambiguously emphasized that Christ’s atonement was critical to salvation. 231 Others had already spoken out. In February 1863, perhaps in reaction to Lyman’s original sermon, John Taylor preached a detailed sermon on the Christian themes of “Sacrament, Atonement, and Second Coming.” Then, at a conference in the fall of 1867 Orson Pratt [provided] an extended statement on the doctrine of atonement. 232 But it would not be until 1882 that such a major work would appear. John Taylor, on the committee who had labored with Amasa Lyman in 1867, assumed the presidency in 1877, at the death of Brigham Young. In 1879 he began writing “The Mediation and Atonement,” which his modern biographer describes as “of great significance doctrinally, because it marked the rejection of the Adam-God concept . . . [and] restored Christianity to the Church.”

233 The book was written as an extended proof of the basic Christian

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

189

principle that, Adam’s fortunate Fall notwithstanding, “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Again and again Taylor reaffirmed the principle of “the offering of the Son of God, as a sacrifice and atonement and a propitiation for our sins.” . . .

Little was drawn from the Nauvoo theology, and Young’s AdamGod thesis was totally ignored. Though Taylor stated that the “Priesthood on the earth [would] continue in the exercise of that Priesthood in heaven,” there was barely a reference to the makeup of those heavens, and no discussion of matter and spirit. And God is described as having a “comprehensive, intelligent, and infinite mind”; he “is unchangeable, so are his laws, in all their forms, and in all their applications.” In saying that “in Him all animal life of every form has its being,” Taylor came close to reversing Joseph Smith’s assertions of the preexistence. 234 [from page 289] Many of these ideas may reflect the influence of Orson Pratt’s absolutism, and they would be powerfully restated in a new Mormon orthodoxy over the next forty years. John Taylor’s “reChristianizing” of Mormonism marked a fundamental departure from the explicit hermeticism of Joseph Smith at Nauvoo and Brigham Young in early Utah. But Taylor was not willing to jettison the entire classic Mormon theology. Although he reemphasized Christ’s atonement, he staunchly defended the ideal of the Mormon Kingdom of God and the practice of polygamy.

His efforts were not sufficient to resist the full force of the United States government. [from page 290] Brooke recorded the effects of conflated materialism in classical economics, as compared to the Principle Idealists’ unitary materialismbased dialectical materialism in Europe, from which communism and fascism ensued, which also serves as a cornerstone to the US Republican Party, and hierarchically politically dominates within the LDS church’s membership (The conflated result is materialism-based paradoxical

190 dualism). The US constitutional democratic philosophical dualism [human spirit (i.e., essence) and body (i.e., matter)] is different in that spiritual part is purely rational (i.e., without acquaintance-based dualism).

The U. S. constitutional government, forced the LDS Church to eliminate its practice of polygamy, which has proved as a beneficial change to the LDS church doctrine. About the polygamy seed in Joseph Smith’s character, Brooke wrote this: 235

There were simultaneously implications and antinomianism and state building in Smith’s marital behavior in 1835. Testimony dating from 1843 suggests that Smith saw himself subject to no human law. Accused of “licentious conduct” with women in several families, Smith was said to have declared that “he was God’s Prophet . . . and that he could do whatever he chose to do, therefore the Church had no right to call into question anything he did.”

Brodie compared organic L D S. religion’s success:

236

Jemima Wilkinson was forgotten with the division of her property; the Noyes Oneida community degenerated from a social and religious experiment into a business enterprise; and Dylks was ridden out of the Leatherwood country astride a rail. William Miller, although his Adventists is still an aggressive minority sect, never regained face after 1845, when after two recalculations Jesus still failed to come. But Joseph Smith a century after his death, had a million followers who held his name sacred and his mission divine. [Had Mormonism succeeded in Kirtland, Ohio, it might now appear as the Oneida social business enterprise; as eventually happened within capitalist Mormonism in the West before statehood: private churchbased enterprise had thrived beyond all expectations?]

Joseph Smith’s revelations opposed some of Calvin’s mechanist doctrine, which R. L. Bushman summarized as follows: 237

---

(1) God is absolute sovereign in His creation.

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

191

---

(2) God as sovereign both foreordains and foreknows all things including man’s destiny.

--(3) Originally man was pure and made in the image of God, but has fallen from this state through his own voluntary act.

--(4) Man can be saved only through the unmerited grace of God, as mediated to him through Christ. Man can do nothing to promote his own salvation, and no amount of good works can further it.

--(5) Those predestined to salvation will be saved.

Among the most influential Calvinistic creeds are the Heidelberg Catechism (1562) and the second Helvetic Confession (1566). The Belgic Confession (1561) is also an important creed.

Brooke confirmed that Smith had rejected Calvinist doctrine, however, oddly adopted Calvinist organic hierarchy: Brooke wrote this: 238

The Mormon cosmology constructed by Joseph Smith was as optimistic as Renaissance hermeticism and shared with it a startling number of common themes. As he was gathering his church in Fayette, New York, in December 1830, Smith announced that he had been given “the keys of the mystery of those things which have been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the world.” 239 The revelation of these “mysteries of the kingdom” commenced with Smith’s revision of Genesis in the months following; in February 1832 he reproduced the three heavens of the Cabala and hermeticism in the three Mormon heavens, The telestial, terrestial, and celestial kingdoms. 240 Both hermeticism and Mormonism celebrate the mutuality of spiritual and material worlds, pre created intelligences, free will, a divine Adam, a fortunate, sinless Fall, and the symbolism and religious efficacy of marriage and sexuality. And in hermeticism, Adam, “the father of all, prince of all, that ancient of days,” 241 would occupy a

192 central position in the Mormon cosmology.

From Smith’s personal Antinomianism-based conduct, it is evident that he denied Calvinism’s moral strictness. However, did he and do LDS members still confuse the diabolical causalities, teleology and mechanism: in what E. Kant called noumenon (essence or sum, which causally defines teleology with no dualism) with what Kant had also recognized as phenomenon (substance or materiality, which empirically causally defines mechanism, with dualism, which became the basis of temporal economic determinism)? That Smith’s life and doctrine intrinsically shows conflated essence of antecedent teleology (no dualism) to unitary mechanism-based causality (with paradoxical dualism), and thereby, Smith frustrated reason-based truth. Whenever belief’s opinion-based truth is affirmed as the antecedent of reason’s logically pure, or fact-based truth even, we thereby duplicate the logical error of affirming mechanisms’ determinist causality (with dualism) as the antecedent of natural teleology’s causality (no dualism). And in any event, Smith appears not to have agreed that cultural Antinomianism-based heterodoxies convinced the Constitutional Convention to separate the State from religion: to protect the noumenal teleological religious matters of faith from diabolic secular matters of fact. A century before the U.S. Constitution, Roger Williams conceived this democratic dictum as an authoritative model:242

Every lawful Magistrate whether succeeding or elective, is not only the Minister of God, but the minister or servant of the people also (what people or nation soever they may be the world over), and that Minister or Magistrate goes beyond his commission who intermeddles with that which cannot be given him in commission from the people.

Roger Williams About “hard Determinism” Louis Pojman wrote this:243

Determinism is the theory that everything in the universe is governed by causal laws. That is, everything in the universe is entirely determined so that whatever happens at any given moment is the effect of some antecedent cause. If we were omniscient, we could predict exactly everything that would happen for the rest of

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

193

the hour, for the rest or our life time, for the rest of time itself, simply because we know how everything hitherto is causally related.

(Calvin apparently believed this also) David Hume reasoned that “universal causality” was not logical (i.e., had inherent dualism). Immanuel Kant confronted the philosophical causal dilemma: calling the orthodox materialist universal causality “a synthetic a priori,” [i.e., an acquaintance-based causality with dualism, as deduced from belief-based opinion (i.e., Plato’s Visual Realm) rather than from essentially reasoned teleology-based natural causality with no dualism].

L. P. Pojman observed this about Kant’s philosophical dilemma: 244

The problem of freedom of the will and determinism is one of the most intriguing and difficult in the whole of philosophy. It constitutes a paradox. If we look at ourselves, at our ability to deliberate and make choices, it seems obvious that we are free. On the other hand, if we liik at what we believe about causality (i.e., that every event and thing must have a cause), then it appears that we do not have free wills but are determined. So we seem to have inconsistent beliefs.

By considering free will-based causality in the context of materialismbased orthodoxy, on which dogmatic economic determinism (i.e., mechanism-based dualism) is based, we conflate pure truth-based teleology (with no dualism) to imposed dualism, in which falsity as well as trueness exists. Causal Determinism, as deduced from acquaintances with unitary Materialism is called Mechanism, the truth of which is diabolical because of belief-based dualism.

One needs only an elementary course of philosophy to conclude there is more to human life than materialist determinism as dogmatically deduced from human experience. As to the ultimate essential causal principle, God’s teleology about human free will effects of choosing trueness or falsity rather than being determined by mechanisms’ paradoxical dualism-based effect, which determinism-based Predestination or Fore-ordination are examples, while Joseph Smith, Jr., repudiated Calvin’s Predestination, he agreed with Fore-ordination. Smith, thereby

194 burdened others’ belief with an impossible paradoxical burden of proving that his revealed God of unitary materiality, rather than an undefined axiom, which St. John described as the exclusive all intelligent purely essential intelligent noumenon, which he properly named LOGOS. And, as Herold observed, Smith thereby added confusion rather than understanding: Smith’s organic Church had incorporated Calvin’s hierarichal deontology-based duties, as divine-right-based Presbyterian authorities of Christ. And Mormon acceptance of this deontological belief is based on believing Smith’s testimony as much or more than on any ontological-based belief in Jesus Christ’s Gospel, so because of paradox, which is free-will based choice is the essential principle antecedent?

Again, acceptance of Mormonism includes acceptance of the organic Church’s hierarchical regulatory conduct of secular matters of life, particularly to follow wilfully the leaders’ counsel, and otherwise face official judgements resulting in censorship and even excommunication: exemplifying Christ’s doctrine only when the organic duty-based deontologies are objective (seldom if possible!), i.e., hierarchical beneficence seldom exists, whenever Christ’s teleology is not practiced? : as Goethe, speaking to Eckermann had expressed:

The problems of inward-turning (tending to conservatism) were sketched long ago by Goethe, speaking to Eckermann. "Epochs which are regressive, and in the process of dissolution, are always subjective, whereas the trend in all progressive epochs were all objective in nature. . .[When free enterprise capitalism is objectively administered, it remains atomistic in nature, and best serves society as Adam Smith had postulated. As its purpose ‘turned inward’ onto profits, ‘to grow,’ however, it lost its value to society. Organically licensed profit taking from products and services produced by wage-earners, as Economist Joseph Schumpeter convincingly found, more than a century ago now, profit-taking was not justified by Smith’s capitalism.] Every

truly excellent endeavor turns from within toward the world, as you see in the great epochs which were truly in progression and aspiration, and which were all objective...."

‘Divine Rights’: Catholic and Mormon authorities

195

[Subjective deontological ethics is inherent to all economic causal mechanisms,245 whereas teleology (the practicing of Christ’s categorical imperative, for instance) is objective in nature] Experience has proved that it is unwise to overtly be critical of organic orthodoxy, even when having found fresh truth and virtue! The price paid for cultural truth and virtue has been organic sanction and even death:246

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven into the fabric of their lives.

This anthology’s pagination is continued in the separate document: ABOUT TRUTH and RELIGION, Part II

196

ENDNOTES

1 L. P. Pojman, PHILOSOPHY, The Quest for Truth (Wadsworth, 1989), 152

2 H. G. Wells, Outline of History (Garden City, 1961) 602 3

L. P. Pojman, PHILOSOPHY, The Quest for Truth (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989), 152

4 M. Heidegger, Metaphysics (Anchor, 1961) 149-150 5 Thomas, 264-265 6 H. G. Wells, The Outline of History (Garden City, 1961) pgs as in text 7 Hirth, The Ancient History of China, chap. Viii 8

Arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates, with updated Scholarship and a New Introduction by Lodowick Allison, The Bible (Simon & Schuster, 1993) xii

9 David van Biema, Time (December 22, 2003), 60 10 World Book Dictionary (1965) 976 11 Parrington, Vol. I, 8-15 12 Parrington’s note: See “The Babylonian Captivity,” in Works, Vol. II, p. 233 (Philadelphia, 1915).

13 World Book Dictionary (1965) 1324 & 1456 14 E. Fromm, in David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd, 5 15 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial,1991) 21,22 16

Edited by T. Honderich, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY (Oxford Press, 1995) 194

17 World Book Encyclopedia, (1965, Vol. 13) 298 18 World Book Dictionary (1965) 532 19 World Book Encyclopedia, (1965, Vol. 13) 298 20 P. Krugman, GOP succeeded in starving the beast, Now what?, Tribune, Feb. 24, 2010

21 World Book Encyclopedia (1965), Vol. 13, 298 22 Encyclopedia, Vol. 17, 619 23 V. L Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Vol II, 197-98

ENDNOTES

197

24 As reported on national TV as 2003 ended. Think about it. $3 of every $4 accounted as the nation’s GDP growth during the twentieth century was related to inflation. Really, net GDP average growth was only about 1 percent. Inflation’s endemism was directly cost accounted to prices that consumers paid for goods and services. Consumers, therefore, became the only buyer-owners of inflation. All unearned income, much of which had created inflation, got a free ride. And licensed organic profits (which were greater than the sum of inflation and growth) were classically “enured” to belong exclusively to ‘business owners.’

198

ENDNOTES

of production and distribution of goods and services, as consumed. By the magic of legal definition “to enure,” money-based value in goods and services, including all endemic add-ons, legally returns as the owned capital of business.

41 J. Gleich, CHAOS-Making a new Science (Penguin) 38 [about tones of calumny, also read A. Franken’s Lies and Lying Liars (Dutton, 2003) 132-]

42 R. J. Barry Jones, 5 43 Greenwald, 142 44 Greenwald, 323

25 Ralph Waldo Emerson, World Book Encyclopedia (1965) 208

45 P. Krugman, GOP succeeded in starving the beast, Now what?,

26 V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (Harcourt, Brace

Tribune, Feb. 24, 2010

and Company, 1930) Vol. I, 62-75, Vol. II, 97, 327, 379, 399, Vol. III, 121

46 Parrington, Vol. II, 76-78

27 Bible Dict.: Faith is that quality in a believer which enables him to

47 R. E. Schmid (A P), U.S. poor tops 39 million, Las Vegas Review

grasp the unseeen and the future. (Heb. 11,1, 27; 2 Cor. 5, 7; 1 Peter 1,8)

Journal, October 7, 1994

28 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial, 1991)

48 Parrington, Vol. Two, 298

29 L. P. Pojman, PHILOSOPHY, The Quest ... (Wadsworth, 1989), 152

49 Heilbroner, 144

30 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920

50 Heilbroner, 47

31 M. DeYoung, Ethereal Gold (an unpublished, personal research

51 Jim Dinkard, Lobbyists succeeded as blockers, Las Vegas Review

document).

Journal, October 11, 1994

32 John Marshall, World Book Encyclopedia (1965), 185

52 Heilbroner, 72

33 Parrington, Vol. II, 298

53 Heilbroner, 27

34 Parrington, Vol. II, 150

54 Heilbroner, 53

35 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, (Touchstone, 1986) 142

55 Heilbroner, 68-70

36 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial, 1991) 250

56 Thomas, 264-265

37 Thomas, 264-265

57 Dictionary, 1196

38 Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia

58 Thomas, 264-265

39 G. P. Brockway charged that government’s unregulated paternally

59 Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, 91

granted Bankers’ COLA is inflation’s primary economic cause, as granted with the dogmatic companion (the legal definition “to enure”), which allows profit to be taken, excepting entrepreneurial startups, upsets’ the static economic circular flow: Schumperter’s economic showed?

60 Encyclopedia, Vol. 17, 147 61 Dictionary, 549 62 Dictionary, 1516

40 World Book Dictionary (1965) 658 : Capital is in fact as fungible as

63 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Cornelia & Michael

money. However, as legally defined and granted, it includes the economic endemism (as inflation), which is allowed to be added, as profit taken, to the cost

Bessie Books, 1991) 91 (from Smith, Wealth. 6) : Discretionary money, which transcends subsistence, is classically regarded the same as property

ENDNOTES

199

and wealth. And the ubiquitous nature of money is violated.

64 Monson, 268 65 Explained in Section 100 (about Pure truth) 66 H.. Hagedorn & D. Parfit, Eleven Who Dared (SBS, 1967) 16 67 Parrington, Vol. I, 352-53 68 E. H. Gilson, The Intelligence in the Service of Christ [from, J. Pelikan, editor, The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought (Little Brown, 1990) 218-219]

200

ENDNOTES

value of what an action brings into being [Duty for duty’s sake].

Deontology is simply prescriptive ‘duty,’ which is not to be confused with deontological ethics that puts’ emphasis on an independent moral rightness in relationship to the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ that is generated. Teleology is ‘purpose’ with ‘good’ ‘moral’ intent that correspondingly results in end moral value.

82 J. N. Fugii, Introduction to the elements of Mathematics (J. Wiley & Sons, 1961) 45

83 Parrington, Vol. I, 300-301

69 Deuteronomy 32: 1-4

84 V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Volume Two,

70 Pojman, 152

Winds . . . (Harcourt Brace, 1930) 298

71 F. M. Brodie, No Mon Knows My History (E & S, 1963) viii 72 See, I John 73 Dogma, World Book Dictionary (1965) 586 74 Ideology, Dictionary, 976 75 Knowledge, World Book Dictionary, 1084 76 See H. W. Turnbull, The Great Mathematicians (Barns & Noble, 1993) Chapt. 1

77 Necessary, Dictionary, 1293

85

L. P. Pojman, PHILOSOPHY, The Quest for Truth (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989), 152

86 New Dictionary of the English Language (1925 Edition), 527 87 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1196 88 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1202 89 M. Eddington, LDS Book: Evolution is not incompatible with Religion, in The Salt Lake Tribune March 1, 2006

90 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s Press,1989), 6

78 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s

91 See V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (Harcourt,

Press,1989), 6

Brace and Company, 1930) Vol. I, 62-75, Vol. II, 97, 327, 379, 399 [in Vol. III, p 121, for instance, Parrington notes that tautological fallacy replaced natural rights: (as one would expect of a Conecticut Federalist) Theodore Woolsey was renewing the fight against an infidel philosophy that with its doctrine of natural rights denied the authority of the godly to police society.

In harmony with Lieber and Calhoun he rejected the romance doctrine of natural rights, and substituted a composite socialistic conception, that from John Winthrop and Roger Williams to Channing and Emerson had colored the Puritan thought of New England.]

79 F. W. Wolf, PhD, The Spiritual Universe (Simon & Schuster, 1996) 6080 B. Russell, An Inquiry Into Meaning And Truth (Unwin Hyman Ltd. 1980) 116

81 Britannica Encyclopedia gave these meanings of deontology and teleology: deontology (Greek deon, duty, and logos, science). deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. teleology (Greek telos, end, and logos, science) what is good or dedireable is an end to be achieved. Opposed to deontology, which holds that basic standards for an action being morally right are independent of the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ generated. teleological ethics holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely the

92 Salt Lake Tribune, May 16, 2006, A4 93 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 1353 94 James 1:5 95 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 1353

ENDNOTES

201

202

ENDNOTES

96 edited by D. Ravitch, THE AMERICAN READER, WORDS THAT

Weaver (New York, 1989)

MOVED A NATION (Harper Collins, 1990) 12

120 Brooke’s note 12: Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical

97 See, I John

approach to the Late Pagan Mind (New York, 1986); Yates, Bruno, 1-19; E. J. Holmyard, Alchemy (Harmondsworth, 1957), 23-40, 58-101, 102ff; Jack Lindsey, The Origins of Alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt (New York, 1970)

98 R. Chernow, Time (July 5, 2004) 72 99

St. John gave the name LOGOS to God, the Creator (Vatican Manuscript in original Greek. John 1:1, translation to English called the Emphatic Diaglott).

100 Edited by C. H. Monson, Jr., LAO-TSE, Philosophy Religion and

121 Brooke, 28 122 F. M. Brodie, No Mon Knows My History (E & S, 1963) viii

Science (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963) 268.

123 See, I John

101 1 John 2:17

124 World Book Dictionary, 1646

102 Encyclopedia, Vol. 17, 619

125 F. M. Brodie, 294 (as quoted from the Book of Mormon)

103 Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire (Cambridge University Press, 1994), 28

126 F. M. Brodie, 296 (History of the Church, Vol. V, 472)

104 Brooke, 276

127 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 421

105 Brigham Young, JD 1:50

128 F. M. Brodie, 316

106 Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, 298

129 Diaglot, from Vatican manuscript 1209 (1942) 312

107 Jer. 17: 5

130 T. Honderich, Editor, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford,

108 H. G. Wells, The outline of History, Vol. I (Doubleday, 1961) 20

1995) 511-12

109 World Book Dictionary, 1543

131 Diaglott, 803

110 D. P. Barash, The emergence of the child free society, Los Angeles

132

Time, reprinted in The Salt Lake Tribune May 13, 2006

111 Wells, 20

edited by Ted Honderich, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY (Oxford, 1995) 476-77

133 E. H. Gilson, The Intelligence in the Service of Christ [from, J.

112 Wells, 134

Pelikan, editor, The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought (Little Brown, 1990) 218-219]

113 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 9 (1965) 34

134 Deuteronomy 32: 1-4

114 Arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates, with updated

135 Pojman, 152

Scholarship and a New Introduction by Lodowick Allison, The Bible (Simon & Schuster, 1993) xii

136 B. Russell, An inquiry into Meaning . . . (1980) 123-24

115 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 17, 480

137 Thomas, 264-265

116 F. M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History (A. Knopf Inc., 1945), 381

138 Diaglott, 312

117 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, 209

Dr. A. Clarke remarks, : “[Logos] should be left untranslated for the very same reason why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated.”

118 J. L. Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire (Cambridge, 1994), 8

139 Brockway, 4

119 Brooke’s note 11: Hermetic culture has been reviewed in luxurious and amusing detail in Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum, trans. William

ENDNOTES

203

204

ENDNOTES

140 Federalists became Whigs: Parrington wrote this (Vol. II, 298): In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt.

159 Pojman (Existentialist Ethics) 372-76

141 E. H. Gilson, The Intelligence in the Service of Christ [from, J.

162 L. Pojman, Philosophy, The Quest for Truth (Wadsworth, 1989) 168

Pelikan, editor, The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought (Little Brown, 1990) 218-219]

142 World Book Dictionary (1965) 1541 143 Mt. 3: 17 144 As Research Section 209.1 (Necessary and Contingent Truth) explains.

145 Lawson and Appignanesi, Dismantling Truth 146 Brooke’s note 35 on page 400: John Taylor, An Examination in and an Elucidation of the Great Principle of the Mediation and Atonement of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, 1882), 9, 128, 167-8.

147 Quoted by S. West, What happens After Death? (Abbott Macdonnell Winchester, 1977) 62

148 I. Kant, The Critique, Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 39 (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1991) 10-12

149 V. L Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1927) Vol. I. 312

150 I. Kant, The Critique, Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 39 (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1991) 10-12

151 Refers to Edwin Lawrence Godkin's idealism, Parrington, Vol. III, 167 152 D. Ravitch, Editor, The American Reader (Harper Perennial, 1990) 43 153 Parrington, Vol. I, 164-177 154 World Book Dictionary (1965) 976, 5.

155 Culture of Complaint, The Fraying of America, Robert Hughes, Oxford Press, 1993, p. 10

156 Heilbroner, 153-54 157 World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 15) 348 158 L. Pojman, Cartesian Theory of Knowledge, PHILOSOPHY The Quest For Truth (Wadsworth, 1989), 103

160 Pojman, Ibid.

161 J. Gleich, CHAOS-Making a new Science (Penguin) 38 [about tones of calumny, also read A. Franken’s Lies and Lying Liars (Dutton, 2003) 132-]

163 David van Biema, Time (December 22, 2003), 60 164 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s Press,1989), 6

165 New Dictionary of Thoughts, 665 166 Quoted by S. West, What happens After Death? (Abbott Macdonnell Winchester, 1977) 62

167 T. Honderich, 483 168 J. Gleich, CHAOS-Making a new Science (Penguin) 38 [about tones of calumny, also read A. Franken’s Lies and Lying Liars (Dutton, 2003) 132-]

169 Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling (Alfred A. Knoph, 2005) 324

170 M. Parrish, The Saints Among Us, Rocky Mountain Magazine, January-February 1980, 23

171 Edited by Bucklin Moon, A Doubleday Anthology (Doubleday, 1962) 178 (Irving Stone’s Clarence Darrow for the defense)

172 As mentioned in Dialogue, Winter 1969 173 Num. 20:12 174 Doctrine & Covenants, section 132 175 Culture of Complaint, The Fraying of America, Robert Hughes, Oxford Press, 1993, p. 10

176 Britannica Encyclopedia defined deontology and teleology: deontology (Greek deon, duty, and logos, science). deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. teleology (Greek telos, end, and logos, science) what is good or dedireable is an end to be achieved. Opposed to deontology, which holds that basic standards for an action being morally right are independent of

ENDNOTES

205

the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ generated. (Amoral deontological ethics opposes teleology)

206

ENDNOTES

201 Deut. 32:1-6 (King James) [However this account is taken from E. S. Bates, The BIBLE, (Simon & Schuster, 1993) 149]

202 I John, 2: 16, 17 (Diaglott) 177 Steve Quinn (associated Press), Exxon Mobil earns 8.4 B in Q1 (in The Salt Lake Tribune April 26, 2006)

178 D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 115 179 Brockway, 127 180 R. L. Heilbroner, 293

203 I John, 5: 4 (Diaglott) 204 I John, 4: 12 (King James) 205 Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling (Alfred A. Knoph, 2005) 197

206 Robert Herold, Mormonism and Required Acceptance, (Dialogue,

181 F. Brodie, 398

Summer 1969)

182 F. Brodie, 401

207 “Joseph Smith’s testimony” as published by the Church of Jesus Christ

183 F. Brodie, 400

of latter-day Saints. (Acceptance is by way of faith in Smith’s testimony.)

184 Bushman, 332

208 Brooke’s note 35 on page 400: John Taylor, An Examination in and

185 Bushman’s note, 626

an Elucidation of the Great Principle of the Mediation and Atonement of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, 1882), 9, 128, 167-8.

186 Encyclopedia Dictionary (1965) 1353.

209 J. L. Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire (Cambridge Press, 1994) 305

187 Deut. 32

210 Brooke’s note 79 on p 404

188 F. W. Wolf, PhD, The Spiritual Universe (Simon & Schuster, 1996)

211 Brooke’s note 80 on p 404

60-

189 Pojman, 310 190 See Deuteronomy 32.

191 PBS TV, NOVA’s Einstein revealed 192

edited by T. Honderich, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY (Oxford University press, 1995) 881

212 Dictionary, 484 213 F. Brodie, 401 214 J. L. Brooke, 4 215 F. Brodie, 43-44 216 J. L. Brooke, 7-8

193 T. Honderich, 511-12

217 J. L. Brooke, pages are as shown in the text.

194 T. Honderich, 882

218 Brooke’s note 6 on page 398: Joyce Butler, “Cochranism Delineated:

195 T. Honderich, 883

A Twentieth Century Study,” in Charles E. Clark et al, eds, Maine in the Early Republic: From Revolution to Statehood (Hanover, 1988), 146-64

196 L. J. Pojman, Philosophy, the Quest for truth (Wadsworth 1989) 2

219 Brooke’s note 9 on page 398: R. Laurence Moore, “Mormonism,

197 1 John, 1:10 (from Diaglott, an early translation from the Greek which

Christian Science, and Spiritualism,” in Howard Kerr and Charles L. Crow, eds. , The Occult in America: New Historical Perspectives (Urbana, 1983), 143-56; Ann Braude, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth-Century America (Boston, 1989), 32-43; Robert W. Delp, “Andrew Jackson Davis: Prophet of American Spiritualism,” Journal of American History 54 (1967), 43-56; J. Stillson Judah, The History and

St. John had written)

198 1 John, 1:12 (Diaglott) 199 1 John, 1:14 (Diaglott) 200 1 John, 1:29 (Diaglott)

ENDNOTES

207

Philosophy of the Metaphysical Movements in America (Philadelphia, 1967), 11-12, 33-49, 51-6, 148-54, 272-6.

220 Brooke’s note 10 on page 398: Frank Little, “Radical Pietism in American History,” in F. Ernest Stoeffler, ed., Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity (Grand Rapids, 1976) 172; John H. Noyes, The Berean: A Manual for the Help of those who seek the Faith of the Primitive Church (Putney, Vt., 1847; rept. New York, 1969), 58-9, 487-8, cited in Gillian G. Fuqua, “The origins of Oneida Perfectionism: A Reassessment” (senior honors thesis, Tufts University, 1989), 24-7, 34; Louis J. Kern, An Ordered Love (Chapel Hill, 1981), 219-34.

221 Brooke’s note 11 on page 398: See Judah, The History and Philosophy of the Metaphysical Movements, 92-145; R. Laurance Moore, In Search of White Crows, Spiritualism, Parapsychology, in American Culture (New York, 1977); Kerr and Crow, eds., The Occult in America; Arthur Wrobel, ed., Pseudo-science and Society in Nineteenth-Century America (Lexington, Ky.,1987); Marc C. Carnes, Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America (New Haven, 1989).

222 Brooke’s note 14 on page 399: On these points, see Brigham Young, Dec. 3, 1854, JD 3:318; Oct. 6,1855, JD 3:44-5; Feb. 17, 1856, JD 3:20511; Apr. 20, 1856, JD 3: 318; Oct. 25, 1857, JD 5;352; / Apr. 8, 1860, JD 8:42.

208

ENDNOTES

Spiritualism,” JMH 1 (1974), 39-50; Loretta L. Hefner, “Amasa Mason Lyman: The Spiritualist,” JMH 6 (1979), 75-88; Loretta L. Hefner, “From Apostle to Apostate: The Personal Struggle of Amasa Mason Lyman,” Dialogue 16 (Spring 1983), 91-104; Stenhouse, Rocky Mountain Saints, 630-45.

229 See Brooke’s notes 29 & 30 on page 400: (note 29) Amasa M. Lyman, “Nature of the Mission of Jesus,” The Latter-day Saintgs’ Millennial Star 24 (Apr. 5, 1862), 209-17, esp. 211, 213, 215; Hefner, “From Apostle to Apostate,” 92-93. (note 30) Thomas G. Alexander, Things of Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford G. Woodruff (Salt Lake City, 1991), 204-5; quotation is from Woodruff’s journal.

230 Brooke’s note 31 on page 400: Brigham Young, Aug. 15, 1852, JD 6:296-7; Mar. 16, 1856, JD 3:247; Sept. 21, 1856, JD 4:53-4; May 22, 1859, JD 7:114; July 8, 1860, JD 8:114.

231 Brooke’s note 32 on page 400: Brigham Young, July 18, 1869, JD 13:59; May 8, 1870, JD 14: 41; July 10, 1870, JD 14: 70-3; May 21,1871, JD 14: 130. This summary is based on a review of the titles of Young’s discourses and on an of those discourses cited as discussing atonement in John A. Widstow, ed., The Discourses of Brigham Young . . . (Salt Lake City, 1926), 27, 388.

232 Brooke’s note 33 on page 400: John Taylor, Feb. 22, 1863, JD 10:

223 Brooke’s note 23 on page 399: Arrington, Brigham Young, 302-5

113-20; England, Orson Pratt, 234.

224 Brooke’s note 24 on page 399: Breck England, The Life and Thought

233 Brooke’s note 34 on page 400: Samuel W. Taylor, The Kingdom or

of Orson Pratt (Salt Lake City, 1985), 200-2, 223-37; Gary James Bergera, “The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quorums, 1853-1868,” Dialogue 13 (Summer 1980), 17-35; David J. Buerger, “The Adam-God Doctrine,” Dialogue 15 (Spring 1982), 23-4, 2831

nothing: The Life of John Taylor, Militant Mormon (New York, 1976), 278; see also Buerger, “The Adam-God Doctrine,” 35.

225 Brooke’s note 25 on page 399: England, Orson Pratt, 214; Alexander,

235 Brooke’s note 27 on page 381: Benjamin Winchester, “Primitive

“Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation,” 29; Stenhouse, Rocky Mountain Saints, 300-1.

234 Brooke’s note 35 on page 400: John Taylor, An Examination in and an Elucidation of the Great Principle of the Mediation and Atonement of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, 1882), 9, 128, 167-8.

Mormonism,” Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 22, 1889, quoted in Bachman, “New Light,” 31.

226 Brooke’s note 26 on page 399: Quinn, Early Mormonism, 215-16.

236 F. M. Brodie, 15

227 Brooke’s note 27on page 399: Priddy Meeks, Journal (Dugway, Utah,

237 Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 58,59

[1970?]); Quinn, Early Mormonism, 195-211, 225.

228 Brooke’s note 28 on page 399: see Ronald W. Walker, “The Commencement of the Godbeite Protest: Another View,” Utah Historical Quarterly 42 (1974) 217-44; Davis Bitton, “Mormonism’s Encounter with

238 J. L. Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire (Cambridge University Press, 1994) 12

239 DC 35:18

ENDNOTES

209

240 DC 76:7, 50-117 241 DC 27:11 242 See V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930) Vol. I, 62-75, Vol. II, 97, 327, 379, 399 [in Vol. III, p 121, for instance, Parrington notes that tautological fallacy replaced natural rights: (as one would expect of a Conecticut Federalist) Theodore Woolsey was renewing the fight against an infidel philosophy that with its doctrine of natural rights denied the authority of the godly to police society.

In harmony with Lieber and Calhoun he rejected the romance doctrine of natural rights, and substituted a composite socialistic conception, that from John Winthrop and Roger Williams to Channing and Emerson had colored the Puritan thought of New England.]

100

243 Pojman, Freedom of the Will and Determinism, 254 244 Pojman, 255 245 Britannica Encyclopedia defined deontology and teleology: deontology (Greek deon, duty, and logos, science). deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. teleology (Greek telos, end, and logos, science) what is good or dedireable is an end to be achieved. Opposed to deontology, which holds that basic standards for an action being morally right are independent of the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ generated[.deontological ethics opposes teleology]

246 J. Gleich, CHAOS-Making a new Science (Penguin) 38 [about tones of calumny, also read A. Franken’s Lies and Lying Liars (Dutton, 2003) 132-]

200

CONTENTS of OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN and ETHEREAL-GOLD (the shaded titles) FOREWORD Quintessential Foundations (An Introduction) 101 Security: our Heritage 102 Insurance: our Heritage 103 Political Economy: the foundation of our Heritage (introduces 205) 104 Exercising Sovereignty: a responsibility of Heritage (introduces 208) 109 Truth’s Fiducial Gauges (introduces 209) Substantial Quintessence (Virtuous Knowledge) 201 Life’s enigma and the essential need for philosophy 202 Perceptions of reality and illusions 203 The requirements of self in finding truth 204 Politics for what it is 205 Political Economy 205 Appendix, Petitioning ‘Civitas’ 206 Liberal and Conservative 207 Our "Captains of Industry" 208 Sovereignty 209.1 Truth: The predicate value divisions of 209.2 Truth: The Fiducial Gauges of 210 Truth: Postscript about Organizations 211 Truth: Postscript about Emotion 212 Truth: Postscript about Faith 220 Truth: Postscript about Paradoxs 230 Truth: Postscript about Paradox and Mechanism 240 Truth: Postscript about Deontology sans Teleology 250 Virtues of Social Security and Vices of organization

In 2000, wage-earners have a $2 trillion (+) stake in the private capitalist Economy. " Teleologically, this $2 trillion stake (with interest) must be repaid before the top 20 percent of income earners (who did not contribute to SS) are given a revenue tax refund (top income earners got tax refunds, common wage-earners did not).

ABOUT ETHEREAL-GOLD

“It is the uniqueness of individuals, as they are encouraged to develop responsibly, into which the beauties of nations bloom. The American heritage is ETHEREAL-GOLD. The unalienable qualities of individuals are not compatible with anything that we produce, particularly on production lines.”

From Petitioning‘Civitas,’ the Appendix to 205 The American System of Political Economy is a mechanism that opposes teleology: It divides the economy and upsets the ethical flux in culture.

Our Political Economy locks Americans of the REAL ECONOMY between Americans of the SURREAL ECONOMY and Americans of the NON ECONOMY. Tyrannous Determinism results to compromise the human rights bequeathed by the Constitution.

--Are we losing our unique AMERICAN HERITAGE? ---

Do we allow Mechanism to gamble with Teleology?

Increased in 1967 to provide for Medicare, Congress increased Social Security contribution-taxes again in 1984 to fund OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN for SS (Then spent the money) and (as reported in NEWSWEEK, May 13, 1991, p. 35) "the centrists [in Congress] say the deficit-ridden government needs the money." All attempts to cut SS taxes have failed. Political Economy, however, now calls for general tax reductions. The Administration of 2001 anointed this political objective.

"

This accumulation was created by surplus SS contribution taxes that government routinely spent as governments general revenue.