The Betrayal of Ayn Rand

The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
An Open Letter to Objectivists

June 15, 2009

By Rick Koerber
Founder of the Free Capitalist Project

Long after her death, it’s sad to see so many Objectivists losing sight of Ayn Rand’s personal mission. Talking like an Objectivist, referencing the characters in her books, and using the vocabulary of her movement—are all poor substitutes for acting in accordance with the ideas of an Objectivist and working to usher forth the moral revolution she so passionately advocated.

While there are notable and significant exceptions too many Objectivists that I come across on a regular basis seem to be using their intransigent atheism to justify abandoning the actual hard work of BEING real radicals for capitalism. I’m writing this criticism, not to be sensational or to attack, but to rattle a few rusty mental cages among a crowd I consider to be my friends—friends however, who seem to have succumbed to what Ms. Rand regularly described as the ‘sluggish inertia of unfocused minds.’

Before I go any further let me also offer two very distinct caveats at the outset. Number one, I am not an expert on Objectivism—though I do consider myself a diligent student. Number two; I do not mean to suggest that most Objectivists are not thinking. I mean instead to suggest that a large number of so-called Objectivists seem to be entertained and satisfied by their own thinking—in some queer sort of intellectual masturbation—rather than translating their ideas into marketable, articulated tools for ‘building a new culture on a new moral foundation.’

Somehow, almost three decades after her death, a large body of self-proclaimed followers seems to be attempting, and in large measure successfully, a tragic historical revision; namely, equating the title Objectivist (and the less used phrase ‘radical for capitalism’) with the much less diligent pursuits of being an isolated, libertarian leaning atheist. This intellectual abdication is no simple error in judgment. It is the hallmark of second-handers and amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Even worse, this betrayal is being perpetrated by a significant portion of those very people who claim to be her advocates and defenders.

Alright. If I’ve gotten the attention of my desired audience, so far my remarks have been the equivalent of taking a stick and poking it violently into a previously docile beehive. Before I’m overcome with a multitude of now irritated bees intent on me as their new target—let me back up and create some context.

I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time perhaps five years ago. So, in the world of Ayn Rand fans and students, I’m certainly not an old timer. I did, however, find Atlas Shrugged to be, quite simply, earth shaking. I literally fell in love with the characters. It wasn’t because I was enjoying the fiction. I often found the reading long and arduous. Instead, I found in Atlas Shrugged, a systematic articulation of the main conflict facing the modern world, in a way that I had only been struggling to come to terms with previously.

Nevertheless, when I finished reading the book I found myself in a sort of depression. I had grown so accustomed to coming home from the office and sitting down to spend a few hours with Dagny, Reardon, Francisco and John Galt—eagerly plowing through pages to learn how they were dealing with the moochers and looters, that when the story ended, it was like saying goodbye to new friends. I actually experienced a real feeling of emptiness and withdrawal for the first few weeks after finishing the book.

It didn’t take long however, for me to realize that it was not her characters that I had actually fallen in love with, it was Ms. Rand herself–the mind behind the characters. This realization sent me on my own personal odyssey. Soon I was reading the Fountainhead and not long after I had ordered every book I could find online, authored by Ayn Rand. I read everything. I read Objectivist Epistemology, the Night of January 16th, the Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and on and on. I was like a starving man who had been invited to a banquet feast.

Oddly, while I was certain I had never read anything like Ayn Rand’s works, the material seemed somehow familiar. My own ideas were becoming more clear, and new related ideas were not hard to grasp at all. Ironically, I was so new to reading Ms. Rand that virtually no one around me knew enough to correct me when I would refer to her as “Ann Rand” rather than Ayn.

It didn’t take long before essentially every one of my seminars, every daily radio program, and every class that I was teaching had some reference to Ayn Rand or her books. For example, my recently completed four-hundred and forty-seven page student manual for my “13 Principles of Prosperity” course, contained forty-seven direct references and over one-hundred indirect references to Ms. Rand and her works. Some days I would talk about Comprachicos on the radio, during others I’d simply be quoting John Galt to one of my students. The bottom line is—I became a very sincere and diligent student of Ms. Rand and Objectivism.

Being a Mormon, and therefore a member of the larger “Christian” community, one of the most obvious contradictions in my new intellectual landscape was that Ms. Rand was an unapologetic, unwavering atheist. As time passed two related problems emerged. My religious friends and associates began regularly expressing concern about my unflinching advocacy of Ms. Rand’s ideas and at the same time so-called Objectivists would summarily dismiss me, my arguments, my ideas, and the movement I was building, because, in their words, I was a “God-believer.”

Nevertheless, I continued studying Ms. Rand and have also worked diligently to cultivate relationships and opportunities with people from all walks of life, including Objectivists. For example, a few years ago I was extremely excited to travel with an associate to southern California to meet Yaron Brook and a few of his colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute. They represent, generally speaking, some of the exceptions that I mentioned earlier on.

Over time I’ve learned that while there exists an unfortunate camp of so-called Christians who just can’t stomach the idea that Ayn Rand, an unapologetic atheist might have known something worth studying—even more oddly and surprisingly, there exists a camp of so-called Objectivists who can’t seem to think past the possibility that there might be some of us “God-believers” whose beliefs do not necessarily clash with reason.

In 1963 Ms. Rand, in a letter to US Congressman Bruce Alger wrote:

In accordance with the principles of America and of capitalism, I recognize your right to hold any beliefs you choose—and, on the same grounds, you have to recognize my right to hold any convictions I choose. I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason. If you find that your beliefs do not clash with reason and that your political views are rational—then that is the area in which we can communicate. I sincerely hope that we can.

I think it might do my Objectivist friends well to consider a few points drawn out by this quotation from Ms. Rand.

1) There is a difference in fighting for reason and fighting against religion. Ms. Rand’s mission was the former.

2) It’s possible for a religious person and an Objectivist to communicate and cooperate when they both agree that reason is the standard in any mutual communication or endeavor.

Much more could be said about brain-off tribalists, who are eager to exclude ‘outsiders’ as a means of self-preservation. But, relevant point to these considerations is that as ‘a radical for capitalism’ myself, I’m at a loss to explain why so many Ayn Rand followers evidently think such titles are merely a slogan or private label social tattoo of sorts. Or to put the matter even more succinctly, these days it’s hard to sort out the Objectivists who are fighting for reason from those who are simply fighting against religion. In my own experience, Objectivists have twice in this past month told me that they could not assist my Free Capitalist Project since we do not disallow religious beliefs as a standard of our membership. How irrational!

In the early 1960’s Ms. Rand wrote to Senator Barry Goldwater saying,

I regard you as the only hope of the anticollectivist side on today’s political scene, and I have defended your position at every opportunity…I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one “package deal” or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion.

Ms. Rand’s willingness to have hope and confidence in someone, despite their differences in belief and opinion on a subject as significant as the existence of God—is far afield of the contemporary banter spewed forth by a large group of her followers today. Consider, I was just reading Jared Seehafer’s March 17, 2009 piece entitled, “Jesus Christ or John Galt? The Republican Party’s Identity Crisis” published by Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com), and thinking to myself—“He’s not advocating for reason, he’s fighting against religion.” It was this realization that caused me to go and dig up the two quotes used above from Letters of Ayn Rand.

In his essay Mr. Seehafer concludes,

Republicans who support capitalism need to understand that those who combine religion with politics are their enemies, and must be ostracized from the party. In order to be successful, they need to defend capitalism on ethical grounds, which means recognizing that their best pitchman is not Jesus Christ, but John Galt.

Mr. Seehafer, like many “quick-to-the-punch” atheists, evidently does not see the contradiction of his own position. He indicts Republicans for mixing religion and politics and yet he himself brings the two together in his self-created, albeit artificial and irrational dichotomy of Jesus Christ vs. John Galt. His, ‘purge through ostracization’ is the same conservative approach taken by Republicans against Objectivists over the last five decades. Perhaps even more ironically, Ms. Rand, the creator of John Galt’s character, has actually said that,

Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism—the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal…

I suppose that Mr. Seehafer and my other friends like him would not want to throw out the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a “God-believer” and the document itself (being political) references “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “the Supreme Judge of the world.” I suppose also that Mr. Seehafer is not interested in throwing out the Constitution of the United States simply because so many of its drafters were “God-believers” who invoked his name during the convention. Ms. Rand argues instead that;

The Founding Fathers were America’s first intellectuals, so far, her last. It is their basic political line that the New Intellectuals have to continue. Today, that line is lost under layer upon layer of evasions, equivocations and plain falsehood; today’s Witch Doctors claim that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was faith and uncritical compliance with tradition; today’s Attila-ists claim that the basic premise was the subordination of the individual to the collective and his sacrifice to the public good. The New Intellectuals must remind the world that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The moral premises implicit in the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, in the social system they established and in the economics of capitalism, must now be recognized and accepted in the form of an explicit moral philosophy…The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution.

The point, being missed by Mr. Seehafer and so many of my Objectivist friends, is that the question of God and issues of religion have become their knee-jerk excuse for idleness, laziness, crassness and disengagement. The mission we have before us, all of us who love our lives, is to advocate for this moral revolution. The only required foundation for that, according to Ms. Rand, is a shared commitment to two essential principles: a) emotions are not tools of cognition; b) no man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. All other philosophical contradictions—including issues surrounding God and religion—will be resolved, in time, by a group of reasonable and thinking people.

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand?

It was several years ago, after picking up a copy of For the New Intellectual for the first time, that I boarded an airplane and felt the challenge I’m attempting to convey today. I’m certain that I must have read the majority of that essay with my jaw literally gaping open. It’s probably the only flight in my life that I don’t remember uttering a single word to any other passenger. For the New Intellectual, is the most comprehensive and detailed call-to-action for those of us who value truth and love our lives – more than anything I’ve ever come across.

We reformed businessmen could benefit from the efforts of Objectivist intellectuals who can free themselves from their own irrational mental indulgences. Yet, I regularly meet so-called Objectivists who can quote or paraphrase—nothing—from that essay. How is this possible? How is it possible to be an Objectivist, or anything close, and not be committed to the revolution advocated by Ms. Rand?

Long before I had started reading Atlas Shrugged I was engaged in an effort to organize at least 300,000 members into a “free capitalist” cause. My organization, the Free Capitalist Project, advocates for capitalism as the foundation of a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the Founders. I wonder how many so-called Objectivists even recognize that language.

The second-hander’s dream of tribal prestige is no substitute for getting on with the business of this revolution. This is no theoretical project and no amount of theoretical posturing will do.

In one of the most poignant sections of his radio address, John Galt challenges:

If you find a chance to vanish into some wilderness out of their reach, do so, but not to exist as a bandit or to create a gang competing with their racket; build a productive life of your own with those who accept your moral code and are willing to struggle for a human existence…raise a standard to which the honest will repair: the standard of Life and Reason. Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity—act on your rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankind’s rebirth.”

I am a radical for capitalism. While there exists any number of different groups who could use a healthy criticism, today, I’m challenging my Objectivist friends who have become complacent and disinterested. The hollow, righteous sounding bromides so often uttered by feigned intellectuals so lucidly able to describe our culture’s impending doom—is no substitute for a deliberate, strategic and organized effort put forth in defense of Ms. Rand, Objectivism, and capitalism.

This criticism is an open invitation from some of us, who like you, have stepped out of that dismal gray vacuum of a bankrupt culture and are committed to ushering forth the producer revolution advocated consistently by Ms. Rand.

We, who are NOT about to die, salute you.

###

Some Days Music Says it Best

As we were signing in church yesterday, the words to “Let us all press on” seemed to sink in deeper than before.  I thought I’d share a few sections, in this context, because some days music seems to say it best…

In the fight for right let us wield a sword,
The mighty sword of truth.

Fear not, though the enemy deride;
Courage, for the Lord is on our side.
We will heed not what the wicked may say,
But the Lord alone we will obey.

We will not retreat, though our numbers may be few
When compared with the opposite host in view;
But an unseen pow’r will aid me and you
In the glorious cause of truth.

If we do what’s right we have no need to fear,
For the Lord, our helper, will ever be near;
In the days of trial his Saints he will cheer,
And prosper the cause of truth.

>>> Full Version of the Hymn

Capitalism, Mormonism, and the Bible

Its not uncommon for me to receive questions via Facebook or email regarding my convictions as a capitalist and my religious identity as a Mormon.  Recently,  a sincere Facebook friend posted a few questions on my Facebook wall and I thought I’d answer them publicly for the benefit of all who read here regularly and who might have similar questions.

My Friend Writes: “Rick, your religious beliefs intrigue me, I will say I am an evangelical Christian and believe the Bible and take it as literal.  I have never heard you say anything that contradicts what I believe (as far as principal goes).”

My Response:  Well, being a Christian (specifically a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) I too “believe” the Bible.  What this statement means to me, may be something different than it means to you.  So, to clarify – let me briefly explain what I’m attempting to express.  I will outline a few basic points that describe my beliefs regarding the book commonly referred as the Bible.

1. First, it’s important to clarify just what book is being referred to as “the Bible.”  Not everyone agrees.  Not even most Christians agree.  For example, the King James Version of the Holy Bible is much different than the New Revised Standard edition of the Holy Bible.  Also, the New American Bible based upon the Latin Vulgate is quite different in substance than most Protestant bible’s because it includes an additional set of whole books that includes Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes).  Also, when different language versions of these editions there can be many differences.  So, in summary, when someone asks me my opinion about “the Bible” if it is for a matter of specific discussion related to a verse or a chapter of a book within the Bible, the first thing that must be determined is, “What book, specifically, are we talking about?”

2.  As a Latter-Day Saint, I generally use the King James Version as the primary source of my own Gospel Study from the Bible.

3.  I believe that the bible, generally, is what it is set apart to be, an inspired collection of written testaments of the Gospel, including a record of God’s dealings with certain groups of people over thousands of years.

4.  I believe it is important to translate books correctly, and that there have been errors, omissions, and mistranslations of the book, but that generally speaking, it is God’s Word to man, through inspired prophets who completed the task of reducing God’s word to written form.

5.  Regarding the literalness of the Bible, I generally take the Bible at face value.  Where the text suggests it is allegorical or metaphorical, I take it as such “for example, I do not believe there was an actual physical dragon who chased an actual physical woman into the wilderness, as described in Revelation Chapter 12 – I believe that is symbolic language.  Where the text does not suggest as much, I take it as literal, meaning the stories of Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.  However, it is also important to note, that I am not a mystic and I do not believe any text “speaks” without considering the intention of the writer.

6.  In summary, I believe the Bible to be an indispensable written work for all sincere disciples of Jesus Christ.  I am not a fan of Constantine or the councils that ratified or codified the existing text as “complete” but I do believe, in the context I’ve described, that the hand of God was instrumental in protecting and preserving the essence of the Book and as a central tenant of my faith believe it is a canonical text.

My Friend Next Writes:  What makes Mormonism different from other evangelical Christian faiths?  I understand this is likely a subject matter that would take more time then you have available and more space then is allocated for a single post on Facebook, but if you could at the very least give me some web links or recommendations for books to read, I would really appreciate it.

My Response:  Yes, you are correct his is an important, and deep discussion.  I will address it in two ways.  First, regarding the request for links.  I would start with http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org.  Second, as a convert to “Mormonism” and a study of Christian history myself (I studied early Christian history at the University of Denver – which certainly, by itself doesn’t make me an expert, just an above average interest student), a short compare/contrast list between my faith and “other evangelical Christian faiths” is as follows.

1.  I believe in an active Priesthood directed by living Apostles and Prophets.
2.  I believe that living Apostles and Prophets have authority to continue reducing God’s word to man, in the form of an open cannon of Scripture and therefore I believe that there are additional, complimentary texts to the Holy Bible, as part of the Cannon – namely, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

In my own judgment, I judge that all other significant differences boil down to these two.

While these differences are important, and the doctrine related to them is detrimental to the salvation of man, I will say that I believe the common ground that exists between Evangelical Christians and “Mormons” is more important and more detrimental.  Among these shared common beliefs are:

1.  I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, was the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and is now a living, resurrected being.  I believe he is one of three members of the Godhead or Holy Trinity.

2.  I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most important message on Earth and that life’s most important questions and choices boil down to our individual quest for knowledge, truth and light.

In summary, I would simply conclude that religion is a cultural mixed bag, traditionally being filled so such a great extent with mysticism and oppression that all religious claims should rightly be viewed with careful discernment, and any who claim to speak for or by the power of God should not be given a pass on standards of truth, morality, or justice.  I am not a mystic, and reject all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.  My advice to all believers and unbelievers is to constantly “check your premise”, “keep thinking” and be always willing to admit that your mind has yet room to expand and your faith has yet roots to grow.

>>>Learn more about capitalism

God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher

This past week a Facebook friend of mine, Ruble Fisher, wrote on my Facebook wall the following critique of my oft repeated observation that “God is a Capitalist.”

Rick, you definitely have not forgotten to suggest that God is a Capitalist, but I must say that this is not true. God’s economic system is Consecration, not Capitalism. Capitalism, Communism and Socialism all have the same flaw; they are man-made systems that ultimately lead to only one place, and that is destruction.

I answered Ruble on his wall, but since that time I’ve had several people who can’t access my post, ask about my response.  So, I figured I’d just post it here (with some minor edits and several additions based upon Ruble’s subsequent responses).

I wrote: Ruble, the error in your logic is that you’ve made my proposition a tautology. You choose to see the concept referred to in my statement, by the word Capitalism, as a man made concept. You then connect this choice with your choice—to see everything not directly made by God as doomed to destruction. So in essence what you are saying is that, “Whatever is made by God will prevail, whatever is not made by God will fail and whatever Rick says (including his choice of the term Capitalism) is made by Rick, not God and therefore it is self-evidently true that Capitalism will fail.”

However, here is the challenge put to you, that you ignore.  The concept I refer to when I use the term Capitalism (and this is not my choice uniquely) is the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.

When I say that “God is a Capitalist,” I am making the argument that the concept of capitalism is NOT man made. This is the challenge you ignore by defining the proposition as a tautology and simply assuming through your restatement of your proposition that capitalism is “man made.”

Since it is an assertion inseparable from your tautology, if I want to engage you in rational discussion, I can’t respond without you claiming that whatever I say or whatever concept I uphold is “man made” since I (the one speaking) am indeed a man. Or, in other words, your position boils down to the claim that MAN can never understand God well enough to accurately label God’s truths or laws and subsequently communicate them to others.  While you don’t make this argument explicitly, its implied in your position.

Your stance, of course, is self-evidently false, when at the same time you claim that God’s system is consecration. You see, the word consecration is also a “man made” term and therefore—according to your position—our understanding of God’s truths or laws is always limited by our man made articulations or choice of terms.

Certainly, you would agree (and its consistent with the position you take) that someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.  Right?  Since any such communication is going to be limited by man’s inherent fallibility (the core of your position).

The consequence, therefore, of your position is that in order to be rationally consistent you have to abandon either the tautology or your claim that you know and have properly labeled God’s system as consecration.

I suspect you would choose giving up the tautology. If its possible for you to argue that you have an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, then certainly you are forced to admit the possibility that I might also have made an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, regardless of the term I use (which would therefore include my use of the term Capitalism).

Your only argument could be that since the “word” consecration is used in the scripture and the word capitalism is not, your word (and the conceptualization attached to it) is not man made, while mine is.  This, of course, would make any conversation between us on the subject meaningless, because I could just point out every word used in defense of your position, that is not scriptural, and that effort would become infinitely regressive.

On the chance that I’m right, and that you’d be willing to give up the tautology and actually engage in the discussion over WHY I contend that God is Capitalist, then let me advance the next stage of our intellectual exchange.

I would begin by suggesting that Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being established in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept and obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE (of either the body or the mind) against any man or group is unjust and immoral. (Notice, my not so subtle argument by articulation).

This would therefore fence out any participation in CONSECRATION by tyrants. Or more simply, CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny. Because, CONSECRATION is the surrender of all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value. YET, any attempt at CONSECRATION by any group of Christians is ultimately undermine without a fundamental respect for the tenants of CAPITALISM.

This is the premise for Apostle Stephen L. Richards (who was an attorney, grandson of Apostle Willard Richards and mentor to the late President Gordon B. Hinckley), teaching that CAPITALISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF GOD’S CELESTIAL LAW. He taught:

“Many people misunderstand and misinterpret capitalism. They think that because the word “capital” is used to designate the system that its chief purpose is to make wealthy men who are usually called capitalists and whose wealth, it is feared, is too often accumulated at the expense of poorer classes.

I admit that there are instances, altogether too many, where this comes about. But this is not the true concept of capitalism. The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.

It is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty. For one I do not want to lose it.  But we will lose it if we do not understand it and recognize its virtues.  It is not the capitalistic system itself that makes some men rich and some men poor. The men themselves do that, again with some exceptions. The system merely offers the opportunities. “

Ruble then responded.  I’ll address his response, in line by line fashion, for clarity.

Ruble writes 1: Rick, honestly, I am really trying to follow your logic, but I am unable to do so. Capitalism was not inspired by God, nor was it made by you.

I agree I did not “create” capitalism, but I have argued that it is in fact God’s doctrine.  You don’t address my argument you just ignore it.  You see, I’ve defined Capitalism as, “the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.” The basic premise of capitalism, justifying this moral position, is that man is free by right, and that all men have an equal claim to liberty.

Again, I suggest that this plan/system of men being “free” (Which I, and many others call Capitalism) is indeed authored by God.

• “…under [Christ's] head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free.”  (Mosiah 5:8)
• “Wherefore men are free according o the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 NE 2:27)
• “I stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”  (Gal:5:1)
• “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:17)
• “…according to the Spirit of God, which is also the spirit of freedom which is in them.” (Alma 61:15)
• “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”  (Rom. 8:2)
• “That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him…” (Moses 4:3)

Finally, on this I would also point out that you have completely ignored that excellent quotation I provided from an Apostle of the Lord who uses the SAME articulation of CAPITALISM that I have used and that is at issue here.

Let me remind you that he clearly pointed out, “The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”

The reason this quotation is important is that it directly counters your claim that Capitalism was not inspired by God.  It does so in two ways.

1. Elder Richards clearly articulates that Capitalism is “a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and…. is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”
2. The Doctrine and Coventants makes clear that the Constitutional law of the United States which supports “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” was indeed inspired by him.

Ruble Writes 2: Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism that is helping the inhabitants of this Earth to know the difference between good and evil. Each of these systems are evil, and God has nothing to do with them.

I have already addressed the core of your argument above, namely that God did not create capitalism.  However, you now take the matter even further, so I’ll provide some additional insight regarding your claims that “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism”, your claim that “each of these systems are evil” and you last claim that “God has nothing to do with them.”

RE: “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism.”

1. Why?  You have ignored my arguments to the contrary.
2. You offer no analysis as to how these are similar, except to repeat, implicitly, your contention that they are all “man made.”  But certainly I’ve addressed that.  But, to be clear, TRUTH is not man made, and ideas either conform to the TRUTH or they do not.  I have argued that CAPITALISM conforms the the essential Gospel truth related to the agency of man.  I have argued that God has authored this system and provided an explanation and scriptural support.  But, you simply keep repeating your assumption.  My question to you is, what if it’s not true Ruble… what if God did indeed establish the “Capitalistic system.”  I’m presenting that case, and you are ignoring it completely, and ignoring the statement by a Latter-day Apostle on the subject without any explanation.
3. How are these systems alike, besides your claim that they are man made?
4. I suggest they are extremely different.  First, Socialism and Communism are Godless.  Second, Capitalism acknowledges the supremacy of individual rights (which are central to the American System established by God) and Socialism and Communism seek to eradicate these fundamental rights.Lest you think this is just my assertion, let me quote Engles to you from his “Principles on Communism” 1847,“Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.  In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.”
   
5. Finally, I suggest that the Church has made clear distinction between these systems. Consider for example the following statement from Elder Albert E. Bowen who said,“The Lord must want and intend that His people shall be free of constraint whether enforceable or only arising out of the bindings of conscience. … That is why the Church is not satisfied with any system which leaves able people permanently dependent, and insists, on the contrary, that the true function and office of giving, is to help people [get] into a position where they can help themselves and thus be free.” (The Church Welfare Plan, Gospel Doctrine manual, 1946, p. 77.)

RE: “Each of these systems are evil.”

1. Why?  Same argument right?  They are all man made?  I’ve addressed that.
2. What would you say is actually evil about Capitalism?  We need not delve into the others because I’ll readily concede they are evil.
3. You’re still ignoring Elder Richards who directly contradicts your point when he says that the capitalistic system is “precious” and “indispensable to liberty.”  Is it your argument then, that he is simply mistaken?

RE: “God has nothing to do with them.”

1. I’ve already addressed this point above.
2. God is the author of man’s agency, certainly you would agree to that.  Capitalism is the name given to the philosophy of holding man’s agency sacred, as I’ve explained, so how can it be argued that God has nothing to do with it?
3. Do you really mean NOTHING?  Do you agree with the scripture that says not even a sparrow falls to the earth without his notice and sanction?
4. If I have not been convincing previously, perhaps you’ll consider President McKay’s suggestion in the Church News of 11/27/1954 that:The “Individaulistic, capitalistic, free enterprise system” has been the God inspired means of enabling men to raise to a level of prosperity unprecedented in “all historic time.”
   
5. Perhaps you’ll also consider Apostle Mark E. Peterson’s explanation and warning in the Church News of  April 16, 1950.“How many Latter-day Saints truly believe in the Constitution of the United States?  That Constitution stands for free initiative.  That is free agency.  In a business sense we have spoken of it as free private enterprise.  Are the Latter-day Saints as a people willing to accept the principle of free enterprise?  There are some among us who are teaching that free enterprise is wrong.  These same individuals would do away with the capitalist system, setting forth its many abuses.” He goes on to suggest that “Free Enterprise” generally and “Capitalism” specifically are both in a general sense “free agency—the principle to which Latter-day Saints are committed.”

Ruble Writes 3:  God’s economic system is Consecration.

1. Yes, but you do not define Consecration and at the same time have ignored my statement that, “Someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.”
2. Also, I argue that Consecration requires a group of men first committed to the fundamental principles of Capitalism, i.e, eschewing the initiation of force.  You ignore my argument and simply say you “disagree.”  But, why?
3. How could you ever consecrate something if a) you did not have it in your possession and b) it was not yours (by private property right) to give in the first place.  “How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak.”(Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message October 1984)
4. Any group of people who get together, as you later suggest, to live the law of consecration will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the early pilgrims who had to learn first hand how to overcome the evil of collectivism and institute the Godly inspired virtues of individuals rights, individual stewardship, and the protection of men’s individual liberty. Or in other words, how can this group ever consecrate effectively without capitalism?  You seem to believe their is some other way but you don’t elaborate.
5. You also ignore Elder Richard’s statement that the system of Capitalism, “Is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty.” Is it your suggestion that Elder Richards simply forgot about Consecration in his assessment that Capitalism (since he does not mention consecration) is the ONLY system that has been proven to protect our freedoms.
6. Perhaps you might say, “all these things are incorporated in consecration” but this would mean we agree because this is what I have said in essence, that consecration is not possible without Capitalism.  Whether you say it my way or say it like, “Consecration contains all the principles of capitalism” then you are agreeing with me that God is a Capitalist because for him to be a consecrationist he would have to “be” that by first “assuming all of the qualities of a true capitalist.”

Ruble Writes 4:  However, there are some good principles found within the Capitalistic system, one of which is private property rights.

1. You are contradicting yourself.  You have already said that you did not believe that God “had anything to do” with Capitalism.  Yet now you say it has some “good principles.”

• The scripture is clear that we should, “lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not..” and that the followers of Christ will “cleave unto every good thing…” (Moro. 7:19,28)
• The scriptures also clearly state that, “…every good gift cometh of Christ.” (Moro. 10:18) and that “Every good gift”, “cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)

Ruble Writes 5: Your “claim” that the concept that “God is a Capitalist” is not man made is something which I agree with. The “God of this World” is the author of Capitalism, and the God of this world is the enemy of all righteousness.

1. Ruble, its hard to take you seriously when you get to this point.  Are you kidding?  Do you believe that the God of this world is Satan? The God of this World is JESUS CHRIST.  And, on this point, you and I will have to agree, that HE is the author of Capitalism, which was my argument in the first place.
2. Ruble, in all sincerity, Satan is a liar, and he is NOT the God of this world.  If you have been misled or deceived on this fundamental, core doctrine of the Gospel, perhaps we ought not be having this conversation yet.  Please consider,

• “My heart tonight is filled with thanksgiving unto the Almighty God. Through the gift of His Son, who is the God of this world, we have been so magnificently blessed.” — Gordon B. Hinckley, Feb. 2001
• “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” — Spencer W. Kimball, Nov. 1977
• “His identity and his relationship to God, the Eternal Father, and as “the God of this earth,” was clearly explained when he as the risen Lord, following his crucifixion and resurrection, appeared to his people in the land Bountiful on this continent.” — Harold B. Lee, November 1973.

Ruble Writes 6: God is a consecrationist, not a Capitalist. That is simple and understandable.

It’s only simple and understandable if a) you do not define “consecrationist”, b) ignore my challenges to your definition and my counter definition—remember I originally argued that to be a consecrationist meant one who, “surrenders all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value.”  I would agree with you that God is a consecrationist, but I would argue that it first presupposes that he is first and foremost a capitalist, as I’ve been arguing.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?  What about Capitalism or Consecration creates this dichotomy?

Ruble Writes 7: Your logic is not so simple or understandable.

Okay?  What exactly don’t you understand?  Where am I being unclear?

Ruble Writes 8: To be consistent Rick, I uniformly abandon the tautology, and I stand solidly with my claim that I know and properly label God’s system “Consecration”.

Great.  I thought we would agree on abandoning the tautology.

Ruble Writes 9: [Beginning by quoting my earlier statement] “Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE against any man or group is unjust and immoral.” Your connection here is faulty and illogical.

Okay?  What is faulty about it?  Or Illgoical?

Can you consecrate without first having the private right of ownership?

Can you consecrate while resisting the idea that the initiation of FORCE is unjust and immoral?

Can any society live by consecration while tyrants abound who would mooch, or loot the wealth of the “order?”  I posit, that this is exactly why previous experiments failed, because men needed more time in our generation perfecting their ideas with regards to freedom, liberty, individual rights, and therefore CAPITALISM.

What logic allows you to counter my statement?

Ruble Writes 10: The connection between force initiation and Capitalism is strange to me. I read your explanation, but it simple does not logically hold up.

Hmmm, what do you mean?

I simply defined capitalism?  What about that definition is strange?

Stephen L. Richards also defined the system of Capitalism in consistent terms with my statements?  Did you misunderstand his statement as well?

Consider, “There are only two fundamental questions (or two aspects of the same question) that determine the nature of any social system: Does a social system recognize individual rights?  — and: Does a social system ban physical force from human relationships?

The answer to the second question is the practical implementation of the answer to the first…

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned…In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary.  Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.” (Ayn Rand: “What Is Capitalism?” Nov. 1965)

Ruble Writes 11: [Again beginning by quoting my argument first] “CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny.” I don’t agree! There can be tyrrany everywhere. We only need a group of people who truly understand the power of the Priesthood, and they will overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith.

1. Okay, finally you’ve addressed my argument.  Kind of.  What do you mean that there can be tyranny everywhere.  Certainly that statement is true by itself, but my argument was that the presence of tyranny (i.e. one or more tyrants who do not respect the basic premise of capitalism, or for the sake of further clarity, any person who does not respect the agency of man) threatens any chance of consecration.  You don’t address this.  You simply make a counter assertion.How could any number of Priesthood holders live God’s law without first casting out the tyrants?  I think Rev. Ch. 12 sets the precedent.* Note, a capitalist does not believe that ALL force is tyrannical.  It is the initiation of force that is tyrannical, but it is morally just to respond to tyranny with force in self-defense (separate argument if you want to have it.)
2. When you say that this “group of people” would have to first understand “the power of the priesthood” what you are essentially saying is that they would have to understand the fundamental tenant of a capitalist.  Right?  D&C 121:41
3. I would go a step further and say they would have to voluntarily agree to be bound by the priesthood, and would have to enter into such an agreement through covenant (private agreement based upon individual rights, including property rights).  Or in other words, we are agreeing on this point, because you have no argument against what I’ve clearly defined as Capitalism.
4. It is dangerous and naive to think that because “a group of people who truly understand the Priesthood” will ever “overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith” if that is what you are advancing as the only requirement.The implication is that somehow faith alone will “do the trick.”  It will not.  Faith is essential, no doubt.  But, the fundamental agreement mentioned in #2 and #3 above is essential.  To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the current members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorums of Seventy don’t “truly understand the Priesthood.”  I don’t think that is what you’re wanting to to do here. Is it?The Saints have been working at this for a long time, but the stumbling block has been the PRIDE of our members who accept the deceptions of the adversary, for example, rejecting capitalism through misunderstanding and mis-attribution.  Additionally, the brethren teach that in addition to UNDERSTANDING the Priesthood this same group would have to:a) commit to live by the principles
   b) have a legal right to do so and the ability to defend that legal right
   c) become temporally self-reliant and surplus generating and
   d) united through love and service to and with one another.

   These are just a few things.  I suggest that before ANY of this is affected the PRINCIPLES of CAPITALISM have to be established first, because once again TYRANNY through FORCE (of either the body or the mind) is the way Satan seeks to destroy the AGENCY of man and with that goes the chance of living in a united order.

   In modern history, neither Capitalism nor its higher, supplemental manifestation of CONSECRATION has yet been possible among any sizable group of people because no sizable group has yet established legitimate civil authority over the tyranny brought about by the members of that same society having their hearts so set upon the things of the world and gaining the the honors of other men.  It will take a moral revolution, lead indeed by those who understand the Celestial law and have covenanted to live by it, before the day of Capitalism and Consecration fully comes.  Thank goodness, God is a Capitalist—and that the revolution has begun.

Ruble Writes 12: In conclusion, Capitalism is not necessary in order to have consecration. Enoch had no knowledge of Capitalism and he created God’s consecrated society on Earth.

1. Ruble,  with respect, I suggest your biggest stumbling block is that you do not define terms.  Your argument is not against Capitalism but against some idea of what capitalism means “to you” that you have not been clearly defining.  You have yet to advance an argument against Capitalism as I have represented it—yet it is to my original argument that you’ve been intended to respond.
2. Your statement about Enoch not having any knowledge of Capitalism is to suggest that he did not have any knowledge of THE CONCEPT we’re calling capitalism and that suggestion, on your part, is without foundation.  My argument is that CAPITALISM is at its core based upon timeless truths and governed by eternal principles.  No one, Enoch included, can prosper without being mindful of these truths, and the degree to which we are mindful determines the degree to which we prosper.
3. Also, your statement about Enoch is also revealing because using the same logic I could argue that “the ‘Mormon’ Church isn’t God’s true Church because Enoch was a member of God’s true Churcha nd he never heard of it, or of the Book of Mormon for that matter.”The “NAMES” we use to define concepts do not bind the truth—in fact it is the other way around.  To the extent that we are not deliberate and diligent in educating ourselves, including taking responsibility for having a consistent rational framework for organizing our conceptual understanding of the world, we are blinded to greater truths.

My own conclusion is that, God is a Capitalist, Enoch is a Capitalist, I am a Capitalist, Jefferson is a Capitalist, Joseph Smith is a Capitalist, etc., …. you get the picture.  The men upon whom the light of truth has shined and from which social revolution has taken place to advance the eternal cause of liberty—these men are true Capitalists.

Now, with all due respect I’ve invested quite a bit of time and energy taking your casual “stabs” at an argument very seriously.  Before you answer would you please consider the following invitation of mine….

1. Read my whole argument before responding.
2. Read the references contained in my argument.
3. When responding make arguments, not just claims.  An argument consists of three essential ingredients.  First a claim (which you are good at already), second is data or an appeal to the factual basis that substantiates your claim (logic is suitable but so is reference to external realities) and finally a warrant or the “reasoning” behind why your data supports your claim.
4. Finally, will you spend some time refining your point?  I mean no disrespect when I say, you haven’t really begun to come to terms with what I’m saying when I say that “God is a Capitalist.”  You are simply launching random thoughts at a concept that seems offensive to you and it makes it a rather lengthy and cumbersome task to address all of your statements when we’re not diving very deeply into a very rich and rewarding subject.

I appreciate you taking the time to a) consider my statement, b) respond to it in a way that is both challenging and passionate and c) doing it without using techniques that are uncivil.  I look forward to further discussion… but again, I hope you’ll consider my 4-fold invitation.

Thanks for reading.

Initiation into the Secret Brotherhood of Dads

TAKING ONE FOR THE TEAM, an INITIATION into the SECRET BROTHERHOOD of DADS
By. C. Rick Koerber

“The picture of the shoes above is evidence of an experience I had a few weeks ago. It was one of those experiences that brings you to the limit of sanity. Sometimes, I am surprised at how short the path can be from here (the normal, sane and rational world) to that crazy place where, it seems only parents can go.

I’m learning how to be a good dad. I actually think I’m getting better at it, as time goes on. For example, I haven’t taken my kids on any more random four-wheeler trips where I almost kill them on accident. That’s got to be a sign of improvement. But, some days I am strikingly aware of just how much further along the road of “being a good dad” I have yet to travel.

Our youngest son Erick is just thirteen months old. But, even at his young age he and I have been having a sort of father and son duel for the last several months. How is it possible, for a rational adult to be in a duel with a on-year old you might ask, well, in the place I am now (normal, sane, rational) that statement sounds a little ridiculous. But, when I find myself at my wits end with one of my kids, particularly this boy Erick, as silly as it sounds somehow it’s exactly the truth.

The thing is, Erick doesn’t really like his daddy yet. I’m not really all that panicked about it because I figure its kind of normal given that that large majority of his life up to this point has been spent at the side of his mother.

I remember, for example, that it wasn’t until about month eight or ten that I could really tell that Bethany, our oldest, knew me as her daddy and I think it was about the same with Marty, our middle child. Certainly by the time each of them was over a year, we had developed the beginnings of the father-child bond. But with Erick, at this point, he just barely tolerates me as some sort of inconvenient stranger who periodically intrudes in his otherwise peaceful life.

Let me see if I can explain. If Michelle is holding Erick, he’s usually happy, smiling and quietly interested in the goings on around him. The goings on can even include me, because if I’m nearby its like I’m just another part of the world he’s exploring with his penetrating glance.

From a distance I get smiles from Erick and I’m even convinced he can already say “da da.” So, that’s all pretty normal right? Well, as soon as I pick him up, and hold him in my arms, the very disconcerting oddness beings.

It usually doesn’t take more than about fifteen seconds before he starts to squirm, then whine and in maybe thirty seconds its progresses to a full on cry, then soon after a heavy bawling interrupted only by his sporadic breathing and frantic turning this way and that, trying to see if his mother hears and is on her way to the rescue. If he doesn’t get his way quickly, in a matter of just a few minutes, its as if somehow he is trying to warn everyone within ear shot that he’s afraid for his life and that I might just be the end of his world and theirs.

Seriously, no matter what I’ve tried, it’s not uncommon from him to be in my arms (previously happy, smiling and peaceful) and in less than sixty seconds he’s screaming uncontrollably at increasing levels of both volume and intensity. Its during this kind of, “I’m absolutely convinced I’m gonna die, so someone please come save me” tirade that I find myself rapidly transported to that “crazy place” I mentioned earlier.

I mean, at first it didn’t bother me too much. But now, it really drives me crazy. Reason seems to escape my brain in those situations and I start having this conversation inside my head, of course, talking like Bill Cosby saying, “Look here boy, I brought you into this world and I’ll take you out!” I’ve never really said that out loud by the way, maybe its because since he’s adopted, its not exactly true and therefore looses some effect. I’m not sure.

I know it’s a bit risky being this candid, knowing there are rabid socialists out in the world secretly plotting every day to disrupt the life of The FreeCapitalist, and I rationally know that there are in all likelihood a number of completely plausible explanations for his behavior. But, somehow it is my experience with this one little boy that uniquely sends me (Mr. Rational) flying down that one-way track to the crazy place.

Even as I write this, I’m not convinced I’m quite capturing the essence of what has been going on between me and my boy. (Okay, side note; if you haven’t caught on, I’m trying to be dramatic-for effect).

The thing is, there are times when I am almost convinced that he’s actually waging some kind of personal war with me, intentionally creating these attention getting protests just to drive me crazy and at the same time giving him some sort of strange satisfaction like only a rebellious teenager could understand. He is indeed a rebellious little guy, I’m serious.

For example, one day not long ago, we were going through this father-son ritual when one of our good friends, who happens to be female, came strolling by. She must have discerned the desperate. “I really think I could kill this kid” look on my face because she offered to hold him for a minute.

As I quickly passed him over to her, I must have been thinking to myself, “Lady, you have no idea what you’re in for, because unless this kid gets his mommy in about t-minus two minutes and counting, he will mysteriously rob you of your sanity, your dignity and your willingness to remember that you are indeed an adult on planet earth.” I think its kind of like a magic spell. I bet he’s gonna grow up to be a Harry Potter kind of kid or something. On second thought, I don’t think that would mean good things for me.

Well anyway, do you know what happened next? Seriously, as soon as his trembling hands-when he gets really dramatic he twists his hands at his wrists with outstretched arms, in some kind of waving fashion, back and forth, back and forth (wow I just realized, this is like his magic gesture.)

Okay, sorry about the distractions, as I was saying, as soon as his trembling little hands made first contact with her, he immediately relaxed, straightened up his back, stopped screaming, and turned around to look at me (completely uninvited and unprovoked I might add) and deliberately grinned from ear to ear.

I’m not sure how to write, into words, the exact expression I would be making right now if we were talking in person. But, suffice it to say she walked away with the happiest kid in the world and I stood there thinking to myself, “Maybe I have some sort of weird-I’m your Dad and we’re gonna go toe to toe someday-energy and this little boy is already trying to get the upper hand in that yet to be formally initiated battle of wills.

Okay, I’ll admit once again that from where I stand now, this all sounds a bit ridiculous. But, when I’m in that crazy place it really starts to sound believable.

So, back to the shoes. It wasn’t more than a hand full of Sundays back, when Michelle and I, with our three very cute kids in tow headed for church. We were all dressed very nicely-or smartly if you prefer-and we arrived probably thirty minutes early to the meeting. That is a very satisfying victory all by itself, but once again I digress.

Everything was going well, the kids were all happy and Michelle and I were both actually pretty relaxed as we sat there enjoying the calm, peaceful atmosphere listening to the organists’ prelude music.

But, this particular Sunday, church was going to be a bit different for us. It was a day where Mommy was going to be signing in the choir. How exciting, right? The cool thing was that she was able to sit with the four of us in the congregation (with me and the kids-just in case you’re not paying attention) until about half way through the program, at which point the plan was that an announcement would be made from the pulpit that the choir would now come forward and perform a special musical number.

So, the point is, I wasn’t really that nervous about the situation. I thought to myself, “I can certainly handle all three kids on my own, for at least the length of one hymn, even if it’s a really long hymn, because, I mean-come one, I am their dad after all.” But, as has become the rather usual pattern when I’m wearing my “dad hat,” I sort of miscalculated the challenge.

It was about five minutes before Michelle would be heading to the front of the chapel and out of the blue our oldest daughter, who had just recently mastered the whole, “I’m a big girl now, don’t need diapers and can easily tell when I need to go” thing. Sometimes she doesn’t give us a whole lot of warning, but she’s pretty darn good at being serious when its time.

Well, there we were, this nice, normal, and (very importantly) calm and happy family sitting in church, just like everyone else. Of course, I wouldn’t be writing this whole story if it wasn’t obvious that our peaceful Sunday was about to take a serious, Sabbath altering, twist.

Since I don’t feel all that great about taking my daughter into the men’s bathroom, in situations like this I usually try to see if Michelle can just do it, leaving me to take care of the two boys. Even though Erick freaks out when he’s alone with me, it doesn’t take Michelle and Bethany that long to take care of things, and I figured Michelle could make it back before Erick had fully bewitched me.

But today? Nope, as reasonable as that may sound, it wasn’t meant to be. See, I was thinking to myself something like -

“Well, if Michelle takes Bethany now, they’ll be back just about the time that Erick starts to get pretty freak-o. He’ll calm right down and it will be a good conditioning experience just in time for Michelle to head to the front of the chapel. At the front of the chapel, Erick could – though tortuously I’m sure – be in my arms, but still see his mommy and hopefully be fine for the few minutes she’s signing.”

As you can tell, just anticipating the coming conflict with my son had already started to dement my thinking. So, as I sat there in church, that innocent Sunday morning, I wasn’t even worried about managing the other two kids at the same time because I was pretty sure of my own supper-daddy abilities. This is what I mean by the whole “dad hat” pattern of miscalculation.

Michelle and Bethany headed out and Erick watched desperately and yearningly as his mother abandoned him-to me. When she was out of sight he began, in what was an even quicker than I expected manner, to wage a public protest. I mean seriously, when he does his thing, it’s as if he were a paid lobbyist for the IWW trying to convince the whole world that his dad, the FreeCapitalist, was single handedly exploiting all innocent infants in some diabolical plot to destroy the world.

Of course, sitting there in church that Sunday (like all other times when this happens) I’m doing no such thing. I’m just sitting there, minding my own business doing all the things desperate dads do when they sense a coming eruption. I’m smiling and talking in the highest falsetto I can manage, and this Sunday I even tried enlisting the cooperation of my willing two-year-old son Marty, as a “distraction factor.” None of it worked.

Even writing this I can feel the tension building. Within a minute or two Erick is so worked up that there is some sort of tear soaked saliva draining constantly off his lower lip and chin. His nose is pumping out more problems in what seems to me at the time to be a bewildering, physics defying manner, and now he is starting to push away at my chest with some strange finger gripping motion-like a falcon trying to sink his talons deep into his enemy, just before flying off.

Nothing I’m doing is calming him down-not one bit. Marty gives up and for some unexplainable reason, maybe instinct, decides its best to sit down squarely, shoulders back and head straight, arms politely folded, staring at the speaker at the pulpit, almost convincing me that he’s really listening to what is being said. Its about that time that I can tell that my trip to the crazy place is rushing ever so close and is already starting to have its effects. Because, there is no way my two-year old is coping with the situation better than I am.

It finally gets to the point where Erick wins his political protest. With his head tucked to the side of my face-where in between cries I start to worry that perhaps he’s smiling and winking to the people behind us-I decide its best if we just get up and move out into the hallway.

I have two motives. First, I really don’t like the attention. Second, I can’t imagine that this whole Koerber family circus routine is making it very easy for those around us to enjoy the service. If it wasn’t for these two concerns, and the fact that I’m trying to do all of this while protecting my newly dry-cleaned suite and one of my favorite silk ties, I’d probably have already forgotten that it was Sunday since all of those feelings have long since escaped somewhere between the first few innings of mine and Erick’s epic World Series level rivalry.

As I stand up to head out, I look down and Marty seems to have no clue that I’m about to have a small nervous breakdown. Evidently he has no idea how desperately I was hopping that he’d just sort of get it and start heading to the door. So, I kindly-with all the fatherly affection I can yet muster, palm his head with my left hand, turn it deliberately to the isle, and gently move him in that direction with my right knee pushing very convincingly at his side.

Did I mention that Erick had gotten pretty loud by now? Oh, and did I also mention that we were sitting about two rows back from the very front of the chapel? So by now, most in attendance are paying more attention to us than anything else going on in church-at least that’s how it seemed in my mind?

One more detail, right before Michelle and Bethany headed out, Michelle had just finished feeding Erick a six ounce bottle of whatever that is that kids drink at that age that magically turns into bones and hair and finger nails and stuff.

So, I’m sure you can probably put the pieces together. I really think this kid knows how to vomit at will. I also think he is skilled at precision timing. No, really.

If he could have waited like thirty more seconds, what was about to happen could have been our little secret. But, alas – I’ll admit, he won our battle that day.

Right as we got to the edge of the pew-Can a Mormon call church benches pews, or is that word reserved for Catholics? Well, right as we got to the isle and I could actually see the chapel door, feeling certain that we could reach the exit before anything got any worse, Erick started making very violent stomach motions accompanied by those ever so recognizable “Ol’ Faithful is about to erupt-RIGHT NOW!” sounds.

For some reason, I misinterpreted the message and decided to hold Erick out away from my shoulder, just a bit (with Marty now headed in the right direction- he escaped all evidence of being involved-I actually had back the use of both hands and arms) so that I was essentially looking Erick right in the eye. That’s how boys and their Dads are supposed to do it, right?

Six ounces of still warm baby formula shot out, high-pressure like, hitting me right in the center of my face. Turning ever so slightly, it continued to pour down my shoulder, my chest, my silk tie, my pants and miraculously into both shoes. Yes, I said into.

I never have liked the smell of baby formula. Stunned, I stood there-now with my own chin dripping with gross, gooey baby stuff, taking a quick inventory of the situation. Now, I’m not sure if this is actually true, but it seems, as I look back now through my memories, that everything in the church sort of came to a silent standstill.

I don’t remember much else about the details, but I do remember nonverbally acknowledging my defeat, bowing my head, and with Erick once again tucked back up against my neck, and Marty now, even unprompted, leading the way-we headed for the door and out into the hallway.

I squished as I walked, and disgustingly, left a faint but definite trail that unmistakingly told the story of the battle which had just taken place. True to form, with his victory sure in hand, Erick had stopped his most serious protesting, and I don’t even think he was still crying.

Standing in the center of the foyer, trying to use the brain in my head that had long since stopped working, I couldn’t quite figure out exactly what I should do next. Thankfully, just in time, here came Michelle and Bethany walking happily up the hallway. That is of course, until they saw us.

I think even Bethany could tell that a battle had just been waged, and that from the looks of things, baby brother Erick had won. Without saying much, but shaking her head slowly, with a look on her face that only started the sentence, “Uh…what…?” Michelle quickly rescued the boy from my grasp and Marty, probably sensing it was safer, took up a position beside Bethany and behind Michelle’s left leg.

My shoes were still squishing by the time we got home. Everyone stayed except for me. I washed up-especially my goatee, and changed clothes. I had to change everything because the consequence of my drenching had been so thorough.

I put on a suit that had not recently been pressed, a shirt that I normally wouldn’t have worn to church and an old pair of shoes that I had actually forgotten were in my closet. Michelle kindly packed me a super large zip-lock bag full of essential cleaning supplies, and I headed back to the scene.

I don’t know if it’s just me or if all guys feel this way, but returning to the exact physical location of a previous defeat (baseball, football, after being turned down after asking a girl out on a date, etc) just does something to you.

When I arrived at the meetinghouse, the service was just ending. Without making eye contact with anyone, I quickly slipped past the exiting crowd and made my way to the front of the chapel. I didn’t need the trail, but it was still visible.

I went straight to work cleaning, scrubbing, and soaking up all evidence of what had taken place. Somehow I was hoping to go unnoticed in my effort. You see, I don’t like leaving my own messes for others to clean up (that is another story) but even more importantly I was starting to get my rational mind back and was thinking to myself that if I did a really good job cleaning up the mess, maybe not that many people would find out about the morning’s drama.

As I was just about finished scrubbing the most seriously affected area I looked up for a moment and noticed another father sitting maybe five or six rows back. He appeared to be taking his time, calmly packing up the whirlwind pattern of toys and other affects evidently left behind by his own children in a battle they too had waged that day, but they were nowhere in sight as far as I can remember. He had a big smile on his face and I could tell he had something he was planning on saying to me. I really wasn’t looking forward to the conversation.

I replaced the now swollen contents of my zip-lock back and headed out, having done my duty. Exiting meant I had to walk right past this guy, so I preemptively asked, “So, I’m not sure how many people saw all this, but I think its all cleaned up now.”

Then, and this was the first time I had known anything about it, at that very moment it became obvious to me that I had actually passed some sacred initiation ritual and was now a part of something, something much bigger than myself.

I don’t think I’m really supposed to talk about it, but its safe to say that I now belong to a very special, but secret brotherhood- a sort of father’s fraternity, that I had up until this point in my time as a dad, not yet qualified to even know it existed. With a chuckle and the same smile on his face he said to me, shaking his head,

“Well, we saw it, we all saw it. And it was quite a thing to witness.”

“We,” I thought to myself. “Who is we?”

Clueing me in to my newfound position in the ranks of fatherhood, looking back up at me, he nonchalantly confessed,

“Thanks man, you really took one for the team today.”

Nothing else was spoken between us that day. But, I walked out of the chapel a different kind of dad. I don’t know if it’s my new fraternity, or my willingness to admit such a sound defeat at the hands of a one-year-old, but Erick and I are actually doing pretty good these days.

Today, for example, I think he sat in my lap for exactly five minutes during church. In Sunday School Michelle even left us alone together-if that makes any sense-for maybe another five minutes, and believe it or not, I think we both had a pretty good time.

In all seriousness I love my kids, and I especially love my youngest boy. I think the “dad hat” is fitting a little better these days, but I don’t even want to think about what kind of battle of wills might be lurking around the corner.

In the mean time, I still have those shoes in my closet, and I know I should wash them and clean them off, but in some strange way they seem like a trophy to me. They’re some kind of sign I think, part of the secret initiation ritual onto the team that I so unwittingly “took one” for that memorable Sunday, not long ago.

Nevertheless, I’m sure the “Crazy Place” chronicles might still have a few chapters left to be written, but I sure hope that the trophies of the future don’t squish. I’ve really had my fill of that.