I read the chapter in your book about religion vs. subjectivism and really enjoyed it. Again, I find no principle with which I don’t agree, when it comes to objectivism. However, your opinion of God and his principles is way off. God is an objectivist; a capitalist. And you completely ignored my argument for the individual inalienable rights of an embryo. But I digress.
Before I wow you with my logical arguments, I bear testimony of the existence of our Father in heaven, His son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and, indeed, our Mother in heaven; all of whom live, just as surely as our earthly parents, siblings and friends live. Our spirits are the literal offspring of these heavenly Parents. We were sent here to earth to live mortally, outside Their presence, to be tested to see if, according to our faith in true principles, we would choose light, life and happiness, (learn to “love our lives,” in Rand’s words) or choose darkness, death and misery via the various shortcuts you correctly identify in your treatise; the indispensable element being freedom. Ultimately, we progress or regress according to our acquaintance with and adherence to truth, which as we Mormons learn in our temples “can be circumscribed into one great whole,” hence my argument that God, understood correctly, is found to be an objectivist.
You’re right when you say that the source of my knowledge is “feelings” though I see it as personal revelation from the Holy Spirit to my spirit, my mind, that eternal part of me. The great thing is, you don’t have to take my word for it. I refer you to the Book of Mormon and the promise found in the closing chapter of its last book, Moroni 10:3-5. You, too, can “feel” these elements of truth through prayer. Barring that, you can go about it scientifically and test each article of faith as a theory or hypothesis. If something leads you to happiness and love of life, it is true. It is light. It is spirit. It is intelligence.
I’m tempted to stop here, as further argument is bound to lead only to contention. But I’ll continue, with the hope that you may respond and we may have a profitable exchange.
Speaking of objectivism, my one objection, as I mentioned before, to “Atlas Shrugged” is Dagny’s, Francisco’s and Galt’s fornication, along with Reardon’s Adultery. I’m all in with Rand’s explanation of sex being a celebration of life and with her basis for choosing a partner. Where it breaks down for me is where it breaks with reality. It is a work of fiction, but I believe the portrayal accurately represents Rand’s views on the matter. However, I believe it does break with reality. No one is as perfect as these characters. I believe you would be hard pressed to convince me that, statistically, it turns out well to break the law of chastity and sleep with whomever one wishes without first making the commitment of marriage. Both partners being highly imperfect, unlike Dagny, would very likely find naught but sorrow (referring here to much more than just “guilt”) behind such transgressions, as many could and would attest who have been there and done that. So, I argue that it isn’t truly in one’s self interest to fornicate or commit adultery. I contend it’s best to listen to “Dad” and wait until marriage and then be faithful.
They’re called commandments, but there is no enforcement, only natural consequences. The commandments simply amount to a map which leads us back to Him and hence, to happiness (now and later.) Therefore, my argument isn’t for trying to force anyone to obey, just as our Father refrain’s from force. He holds freedom in absolutely the highest regard. When He chose Jehovah over Lucifer as a Savior, in favor of agency over coercion, Lucifer rebelled and was cast out. One third of those present (those intended to be sent to this earth) chose to follow Lucifer and left Heaven. So, in preservation of our freedom, our individual, inalienable rights, our Heavenly Father lost millions of His children.
This is the trouble “the government” gets into as they try to force us to do what they think is right. It doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong. Only freedom matters. But I, again, digress and in doing so, “preach to the choir.” Although, remember that it was Lucifer, now known as Satan, who wanted to force us to do what is right and therefore guarantee our return to Father’s presence. And whenever the government seeks to ”play God,” they’re really playing Satan.
My elemental argument, as I’ve said is that one’s enlightened self-interest is one and the same with God’s will and His self-interest. Like any father, He desires His kids’ happiness and their return to Him. A child, lacking sufficient light, isn’t acting selfishly (as you define it) or in his own self-interest as, in accordance with his own will, he runs out into traffic against his father’s “commandment.” This truly is the way to look at our relationship with God. We are arrogant and wrong if we believe we know enough to always choose what is precisely in our own best self-interest. We learn scientifically by trial and error. But, if we choose, we can learn from Others who have been there and done that. We can learn from Their mistakes. It is childish to think we have to learn everything by trial and error. Is it best for the child to run out into traffic and see and feel and know exactly what happens to his body when it engages a car? Or should he just take dad’s word for it until he can see and reason for himself? This is the fundamental question of parenthood and why it lends so much eternal perspective. How much force do we use with kids (if you’ll pardon a third digression?)
So as not to be redundant with the kid getting run over thing, allow me to use another analogy (similar to your criminal analogy). When a welfare recipient “votes himself a raise” I would say that it’s selfish or that it reflects an unenlightened, ignorant self-interest. Clearly, accepting unearned, stolen values doesn’t lead to happiness, just as watching TV doesn’t. Yet both activities I would term selfish in the negative sense. Taking the analogy one step further, I define greed as above, that is, the desire for the unearned. The desire for the fruits of one’s labor is good and if it be greed, then the Father himself is guilty of it. We are the fruits of his labor and He wants us to return to Him. Referring to the government again, greed, as I’ve above defined is the virtually the only desire of which politicians seem capable, since the power they desire is completely illegitimate, as well defined by Rand in “Capitalism…,” laying aside the fact that some few may desire to cut or eliminate taxes, spending, regulation etc.
Regarding what you term self sacrifice, human sacrifice and selflessness; I believe you correctly allude to those who attempt to engage in the behavior you describe. But I would say again, they are misled and misinterpret scripture. The type of sacrifice that is good is when we give up something good (e.g. TV) for something better (e.g. reading). Again, the absence of force of any kind is crucial. Each is free to choose, for instance, a lower kind of pleasure over a type of activity that would bring true joy.
The definition of sin has application here. Sin is where we act truly selfishly (which is to say childishly, ignorantly, etc.) in distinction from when we act with enlightened self-interest. Sin, where we transgress, disobey natural law, as in fornication or adultery or any lesser sin, no matter how minute, wounds our spirits, our minds, the eternal in us. It impedes our love of self and life, our growth, our eternal progression. It is not so much that we get punished as it is that we fail to be who we are- men of the mind, higher, eternal beings with limitless eternal potential. “Selfless service” is the quickest way to get us back on track. It helps us re-focus and rebound. That we benefit most from that service and that the fact of that service’s beneficence to us is lost on many is of little consequence. Our progression toward greater happiness is what is important. The rest can be learned as we go.
Allow me to clarify here that, while I do give my own opinion, I don’t pretend to interpret these things alone (although I don’t pretend to be a spokesman for the church), but according to the words of living, latter-day prophets (see Amos 3:7). The Lord has always worked through prophets. Briefly, when the Savior came to earth, they eventually killed Him and His apostles/prophets after him and that critical link between heaven and earth was severed. Hence, the hundreds of religions we see today, including socialism and objectivism; religion being defined as a moral system. Well, in 1820, the Lord resumed calling and working through prophets here on earth, beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing today with Thomas S. Monson. So instead of us each following our own inclinations, we follow the prophet. And that is one reason the scriptures so harp on faith and humility. It is impossible for man to be all-knowing, just as it is impossible for the child not to be at least somewhat more ignorant than his father; so it’s wise to listen to the Exalted Man; the ultimate, perfected Objectivist, who is our Father in heaven. And although the eternal elements of truth, light, spirit and intelligence predate His perfection, though not His (or our) existence, His acquaintance and adherence to truth is, indeed perfect. So to worship Him (and His Son) is but to follow the grave suggestions of a loving Father whose profit in the exchange with us is simply his joy in our happiness and our return to His presence. Yet when I get there, now and later, I(’ll) absolutely feel that I got the better part of the deal, as I do in any bit of intercourse into which I freely enter. Therefore, whenever I “sacrifice,” and serve someone else (Him or His kids), whether I like it or not, whether I’m aware of it or not, I get the better part of the deal, whether my profit be money, happiness or some other value, received now or later.
Have you never “felt” the joy of being in the service of your fellow man? I feel it whether I’m being paid in money or not. It is the joy experienced by Dagny, et al in production. The full expression of one’s powers, enjoyed by Rand’s heroes can only be achieved through service. That is, that level of production can’t not yield fruit that is valuable to others. And even absent the joy of service, good luck getting rich without serving/creating value for others. Service/work is an eternal principle of truth and it’s impossible to not be compensated in kind or better, now or later (see Napoleon Hill’s “Law of Success” and “Think and Grow Rich”).
While I’m recommending books (beyond the Book of Mormon which is objectivism historicized, just as objectivism is the Gospel applied temporally), “Mormon Scientist” by Henry Eiring springs to mind, written about his granddad, the famous chemist; also, “The Science of Getting Rich” by Wallace Wattles, more temporal application of spiritual, eternal laws applied to a quest for abundance. The point is, it all agrees, again, “All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.” See also, freecapitalist.com (local radio show host’s site who turned me onto “Atlas”).
As to Adam, my understanding is that He or at least Eve figured out that they needed to leave the Lord’s presence (the garden) to be tested as I mentioned. Suffering from the natural consequences of our mistakes (sins) is part of the test. But the Lord provided a Savior to pay the price for and overcome sin in a different garden, Gethsemane, as well as on the cross, where He also overcame death, paving the way for our return to Heaven, according to our voluntary obedience to eternal law. How is it done? I don’t know. How (and why) does my son grow inside his mother from the union of a couple of our cells? Don’t know that either. It just is. And when, in our ignorance, we undertake to whine about our interpretation of our Superiors actions and demands, it comes off very childishly, indeed.
One thing we must learn in this life is to subdue our passions. A man may choose to masturbate. A former president and prophet of my church, Spencer W. Kimball, in his book, “The Miracle of Forgiveness” said it is wrong to masturbate. Let’s look at that logically. I would never argue that a man is not free to masturbate, but is it truly “selfish” to do so? I don’t think so. I believe, as the prophet suggested, that it leads a man to slavery to that particular passion. And it could lead him to even more destructive behavior. Clearly, such a man is not a “man of the mind.” And every moment spent uselessly is wasted productive time. I believe that the scripture about it being impossible to “serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24) has application here. This passion could grow to crowd out all other desires and then service to God can’t take place. And remember that you can’t serve God (or anyone) without serving yourself; or perhaps better put, you can’t serve yourself; you can’t be selfish-as you define it-without serving God. Even if what you’ve done is somehow good only for you, you unwittingly serve His purpose, that is, your happiness. Your highest and best desires for yourself are the same as His desires for you. The childish man sees the “commandment” not to masturbate as harsh, limiting, etc., just as the child can’t understand why his dad won’t let him play video games 24/7. Bounds must be set to benefit the child, just as the Lord has set bounds for sex. Again, the following of commandments is not a “suspension of judgment,” it’s only an exercise in humility where we put off reinventing the wheel, at least until we give what is suggested a try.
My life is an end, in itself; my eternal life, of which, this mortal life is just a blink of an eye. And John Galt seeking and loving his life is no different than the eternal life I seek. Again, obedience affects how happy I am now and later. “Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” (Luke 17:33) I believe this scripture refers to losing ourselves in the service of others. That is, sacrificing leisure and other lower pleasures for production. And I believe the scripture indicates that through production, one preserves, seeks, expands and comes to love his life. This is an excellent example of a suggestion or “commandment” given, and the reward immediately mentioned. It speaks of a goal we all have and tells us how to achieve it. I know of no “sacrifice” suggested where no reward is provided. The word “save” used in the scripture reminds me of the parable of the talents (Mat. 25:14-30). In brief summary, a rich guy needed to travel, so he left some money with each of three guys who worked for him, to produce as they would and should. The two were productive and doubled his money and were allowed to keep it all and were given stewardship over even more. The other of the three buried his in the ground out of fear of his boss, claiming the boss gained from the production of his employees. The money entrusted to him was taken away from him and given to the most productive employee and he who was fearful and covetous was fired, showing that stewards who productively possess (that is, are aware of and thankful for blessings) and make capitalistic exchanges with what they have, receive more. To me, the servant who buried the talent given him by the lord sought to “save” it. Our production, our ability isn’t ours alone to consume. We have it “on loan from God” as Rush is fond of saying. It is meant to be shared, to be used in the service of others to our own gain, our own reward. And when we do so, we retain what we have, what we have gained with it and more. This is salvation and life, a life one can love; and you’re right, few there be that achieve it via either subjectivism or religion; and I would add to that list, atheism. I submit that you and I are both a work in progress when it comes to our shared goals for ourselves.
I see Heaven as a place where we eventually belong or not. This notion that we can simply say, “I believe” and be saved by grace regardless of our actions, too is a fantasy. Seemingly, it quarrels with the opposing notion that we can never “merit” heaven. The truth is a combination of the two. An NBA player gets to play on that level because he can. He belongs. I, for instance, do not belong in the NBA. My eternal presence in Heaven will be due to the fact that I will “fit in.” Someone’s earthly perspective may be that I could never earn “all that the Father hath,” but that’s none of his business. It is up to the Father, what He gives and why. In like manner, my kids may not seem to deserve all I give them, but it’s mine to give/mine to decide. Returning to the point, in Heaven, I will either be able to “play” at that level or I won’t, now or then.
You speak of the moral obligation to do God’s will and the spiritual and physical pain involved. You say we must (once again, where is the coercive force?) obey, “regardless of the difficulties or consequences involved.” There is no pain; there are no difficulties or consequences that don’t lead to more joy. This, I would say, may not necessarily be His doing. I believe it to simply be natural law. Didn’t Hank Reardon go through pain, difficulties and consequences during his rise to the top and the bringing to market of Reardon metal? And he initially conquered and had joy in his triumph, due to obedience to natural law. And it is precisely this protection against failure (or pain/consequences) against which you and I would argue as our government rushes in to save corporation and individual alike from failure, when failure is what would have been best for all involved. As Robert Frost said, “The best way round is always through.” God’s requirements agree with these notions and they lead to triumph, now and later.
That the Lord knew the natural laws with which you are now acquainted before you did, is that the problem you have with Him? Or is it just the flawed adherence to those laws you see in your fellow mortals that you blame on God? They shouldn’t be allowed to be ignorant?
You refer to Abraham and Isaac. Salvation and progression are so individual to each of us. My theory is that the Lord saw the two of them as only He can; that is, perfectly. And he saw that they could handle such an extraordinary commandment. That they were willing is an outstanding show of faith. They must have been incredible spirits with incredible understanding and perspective and trust. Maybe they suspected they wouldn’t actually be required to follow through with it. It takes great faith to believe that adherence to any commandment will yield better fruit than whatever it is we feel like doing in the moment. But that’s how it is. Apart from that, it showed Abraham and Isaac what a great sacrifice the Lord would later make of His Son. I can’t really speculate beyond that, but is it any crazier than the Son being “required” (again, He volunteered) to do what he did? Yet in doing so, he saved all, including himself and was glorified. He knew what He was doing, and though he asked to not “drink of (that) cup,” He did so anyway, according to the Father’s will; how much of the decision was based on knowledge and how much on faith, again, is speculation.
As to “water into wine,” well, “scientists” used to think the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. So, that they can’t explain or replicate the transformation of water into wine doesn’t impress me. For all I know, He had some of the disciples replace the “water” behind the scenes, unbeknownst to anyone else. Or maybe there is a way to do it that would appear “miraculous.” The fact is, miracle is just the word we use for something we don’t fully understand. I personally know of times when someone who was sick got better, due to faith and the laying on of hands. One of the channels through which such may work could be the power of faith having a placebo affect on the sick one. Personally, I think it’s more than that, but there is a simple explanation. It’s just not known to those of us present. And as the aforementioned Henry Eiring was fond of saying of the Mormon faith, ”In this church, you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.”
As to altruism; again, I’m with you. But isn’t it interesting that one of the fruits of Reardon’s labor is the fact that his invention can be sold to others? I believe one of life’s goals ought to be to learn to love others as we love ourselves, our spouses and our kids. That love comes through service and I believe it’s a key to happiness. In addition to the value exchanged, represented by money, the joy from that love, which love we learn through further exchanges, feeds upon itself, making production and exchange (service to others) truly the key to happiness. Reardon loved Francisco and the other producers because of their expressions of life, their progression, their achievements, their character. And as we serve others, we come to know these same qualities in them; some more latently than others; nevertheless, we come to appreciate them, to really see them as they are, as God sees them, and we rejoice together. As long as there’s no coercion or deception, who could argue against such joyous exchanges? Surely you see these qualities in yourself, as I see them in me. It logically follows that they exist in all of our brothers and sisters. Each is trying to express them, with varying levels of success, based on his familiarity with true principles/natural law/eternal truth.
Rich Koerber (the freecapitalist I mentioned earlier) once made the point that an artist really hasn’t produced an objective value if no one wants to buy his art. He may claim we who don’t want what he is offering are morons; we have no appreciation for art. But his lack of profit is proof of his art’s lack of value. He’ll never be rich unless he produces something someone wants. My point is, service is how we get everything we could ever want. Yet it’s not mandatory, nor should it be. Service is the pursuit of happiness.
While charity is a good exchange in which I engage with Father, capitalism has clothed more, fed more, helped more individuals and families in all ways than charity ever has, not to mention than tax dollars at work.
Regarding faith, it is belief in things which are not seen which are true. Are there not scientific theories, parts of which must be taken in faith? What about inter-species evolution? Where is the proof? There may be evidence that leads us to certain conclusions, but such is the evidence of God’s existence. Neither science nor religion gives us all of the answers, all of the explanations. To make a blanket statement like, “Nature is all that there is;” is true, from a certain point of view. But the way you appear to use it is that there is nothing knowable but it is known to you. All things in the universe, in “Nature” including God are knowable. It’s just that much is yet to be revealed. Again, you sound like a teenager who already knows everything, so why listen to dad? Words like universe and nature are merely man’s attempt to feel as if he understands, knows everything. God is just a guy. Heaven is just a place. I’ve never been to New Zealand or met Peter Jackson. Should I doubt their existence or claim I know more about directing movies than he?
Life goes on after death. It just does. Prove it doesn’t. Yet I can’t prove it does. What, then is the purpose of life? It ends at death? Really? I’m supposed to fully express my potential, produce, etc. and it all lasts only a tiny fraction of the time scientists believe the earth has lasted? There’s really no truth beyond what has already been discovered?
“The laws of identity, causality and non-contradiction are not rationally debatable.” Agreed. But check your premises. Is man really aware of the totality of each of these laws? “These laws are self-evident, immutable and absolute.” They are…as far as we know. Does God have more reason than we? Does anyone?
Is space travel possible, beyond what we’ve achieved? How about this: is there life on other planets and if so, are those people more advanced than we? Is anybody more advanced, does anybody know more than we?
Religion, specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on facts. You just don’t know that, yet. Or do you truly claim to be all knowing? I don’t think you do. I certainly do not, am not. Much of what I espouse is my opinion. But, as I said, back of it are the words of the prophets, ancient and modern.
You refer to missionary service. This was an exchange I entered into, somewhat ignorantly, 20 years ago, when I was 19. Nevertheless, my profit was 1000%. I believe I did some good over two years in Brazil, but what I learned and the continued joy in that service are priceless to me. Every exchange has been that much better because of that sacrifice, which I made freely and would make again, this time sans ignorance.
Well, there is much more I could write which I won’t, in the interest of brevity. I’d apologize for the length here, but the chapter of your book was longer.
You must get many emails, so I appreciate your time, but I must say, the chapter of your book addressed very little of my original email to you. Perhaps the rest of your book does. The above is but a lengthier version of what I initially argued. The truth is, the Lord, you and I agree.

I am blessed to be surrounded by producers in a church that does not follow false principals of faith, and a community that loves and embraces freedom. I only wish the surrounding communities were of the same mindset as mine. Unfortunately I live in one of the more socialistic states in the union. I have begun working to change this and hope that one day Wisconsin will be a beacon of freedom in the nation.

any advice would be greatly appreciated

ps: does free capitalist radio still air live on itunes? I always seem to miss the live broadcast.