Self Existence, Free Will and the Necessity of Divorcing Politics from Universal and Personal Truth

The longer one has been upon the earth, the longer one's memory grows of various transpirings of events.  Some events are immediately pleasant, some not, and some neutrally affect one's disposition at the time they occur. Other events while immediately pleasant, gradually become less pleasant, while others that were immediately unpleasant become slowly but surely more fond in the memory as either lessons learned and wisdom imparted, or an unpleasant past that is now a distant memory. 

Of all the wisdom gained, none is more personally profound than the comprehension of the existential dichotomy of the uncreated and the created.    A man says that the speed of light cannot be surpassed as the velocities of a given mass assymptotically approach lightspeed from an assumed initial state of kinetic rest.  While complete thermal rest may be impossible, kinetic motion certainly requires overcoming the inherent inertia against such changes in motion.  Relative mass of the object under acceleration assymptotically approaches infinity.  Yet such limits have never precluded the possibility of objects already in existence whose velocities are already travelling faster than light. So it is with the creationist view attempting to dismiss the possibility of man's self existence in a universe where entropy defines a direction of disorder overcome by organizing acts of creation.

Now in order for there to be free will, man's intelligence must have been uncreated, for if it had been created by another intelligence then man could say "He made me so", but by being uncreated he was truly free to act on his own.  If God created man's intelligence, then couldn't it be claimed that man was simply a puppet and that God was our puppet master?  Unless you could somehow introduce some Pinnochio like fairy magic that somehow bestows the creation with unanticipated, undesigned, non-deterministic free will.  A magic that would not only cut the strings and free the puppet to be moved outside the control of the puppet master, but to be capable of autonomous motion and will. Now intelligence is such and free will is such that there are some truths that are subjective, even though there are truths that are objective.  In this regard, there are some subjective truths where man must find meaning for them on his own, where there is some meaning the intelligence must acquire and which cannot be endowed by a creator.  These subjective truths require that intelligence to have some degree of independence, autonomy, and self provision of meaning, whereby that intelligence finds meaning on its own in those subjective areas.

There are also things that raw, naked intelligence can be clothed upon with.  In that regard we can have reciprocal love towards other intelligences which have bestowed or clothed us with gifts, whether those gifts are being endowed with wisdom shared by other intelligences or clothed upon with a physical body, whether that body is truly physical or whether it is spiritual and we regard spirit as a more refined kind of matter.  That is how we might have the relationship of worshipper and worshipped and the notion of being endowed with or clothed upon with certain attributes versus acquiring and gaining other aspects.

If there is a difference between that which can be endowed and that which must be acquired; or subjective truths versus absolute truths or external truths that are independent of the individual intelligence, then one must also reckon that with regard to subjective truths and meaning that one is one's own highest authority in terms of finding personal meaning with regards to those rather significant areas of personal truth, where one must find one's own meaning.

The being we regard and worship as God could then be regarded as that intelligence which preceded us in coming to or having already possessed a knowledge of universal truths which when applied and followed could bring any intelligence happiness and meaning in a universal sense.  This being that we worship who we call God found personal meaning in sharing this universal truth and endowing us with it in so far as we were willing to introduce this universal truth from outside our "cytoplasm" of personal meaning through the "cell wall" of our individual intelligence so that it could attach itself unto our own personal nucleus of meaning and be a part of the discourse of our personal meaning.

So we have this dichotomy, it's not an exclusive dichotomy in terms of these notions not necessarily conflicting with one another, although they might.  The dichotomy is one of universal truth versus personal truth.  Therefore we hear references to truth being independent in that sphere in which it is placed, that reference to intelligence that's talking about personal meaning and truth.  And then we hear of truth as that which is, was and shall be, that objective universal truth which is independent of all intelligence, but which can provide meaning to all intelligences.

There's an area of overlap between what is labelled to be personal or subjective truth and universal truth which might be labeled as political truth.  Sometimes there are authorities, secular and religious, where those in authority find the "divine aid" or attribute "divine aid" as inspiration with regard to that higher intelligence or God providing universal truths that help that person in authority to find meaning which correlates most strongly with their personal truth.  This is fine and non-controversial when that "divine inspiration" affects only them.  It acquires more of a political sense, more of a controversial sense when that individual in authority uses that term of "divine inspiration" in universal application of the divine truth that is related to their personal truth but which they are trying to carry over into the personal truths of others where it may not have meaning.  [This attempt at applying universal application of such things which resonate as personally meaningful may correlate to personal definitions of truth, but in trying to carry over such personal truths into the realms of others conscious thoughts, the coherence of such political truths often falls apart especially when the attempt is made by that separate intelligence to comprehend another model of thought within the framework of that mind's perspective. ]  

Thus for instance we might have an authority, even a church figure, find personal meaning in growing sugar beets, which might not make any economic sense for other people, or might not even be economically viable. They might seek and receive "divine inspiration" in terms of relating universal truth to their own personal experiment whether that experiment ultimately fails or not.  So they could end up claiming "divine inspiration" which helped them and they could take that "divine inspiration" as lending credence to their personal truth and then telling other intelligences that they also should lend credence to this personal truth and give it the same priority as universal truth.  In this area we see political truth encroaching on both universal truth and subjective personal truth.

It is in this regard that one must either divorce the two concepts of personal truth and political truth as well as divorcing political truth from absolute universal truth in order for there not to be too much internal conflict.  In other words by divorcing political truth from personal truth and political truth from universal truth one can still have a testimony of the universal truths embodied in one's church and religion. One can still find personal meaning and relevance to belong to that church and to believe in the deity that one has come to believe in.  

One may very well become frustrated when one's church or authorities in one's church or religion take action in the political sphere which may conflict with one's personal subjective truth and may also may not necessarily agree with universal truth.  For instance with the Inquisition the Catholic church at that time surely didn't agree with universal truth, but also some church authorities when acting in the political sphere may be acting purely politically and that may not infringe on universal truth.  Political truth doesn't have to encroach on universal truth or personal truth, it could simply be seeking for a non-encroachment of one's personal truth by others' personal truths through manipulative measures. 

At the dawn of human history, man has been uncomfortable with raw naked universal truth.  When Adam became aware of his own nakedness,  this awareness became uncomfortable until it was dressed in clothing.  Man often dresses up universal truths in various trappings that reveal his own preferences or how he has developed his own personal meaning with relation to digesting that universal truth into his own cytoplasm of truth or that truth which is in his own sphere.

When church authority is used to manipulate others then that authority is practicing politics at the expense of the church members.  One finds abuse of such authority when some church leaders make statements such as saying that the Lord wants an individual to attend a given university, or that a given university is "the Lord's university" and that for that reason that individual ought to feel inclined towards attending the said university.  Perhaps someone might be advised by a religious leader to devote a portion of their lives to God by engaging in a particular ecclesiastical service.  Perhaps their age or gender hasn't previously been canonized into the rolls of those whom the church says have a duty to serve in God's army of missionaries.  When such manipulation is comprehensive or pervasive enough, the religion and church takes on a cult like status, even if the doctrines of the church are sound in and of themselves.  God himself might be pleased with that church as a spiritual institution but be either indifferent, pleased or displeased at various and sundry practices in its leaders being politically involved or with the church's disposition as a non-profit business or public entity in the world forum.  "A Study in Scarlet" by Arthur Conan Doyle involving Sherlock Holmes depicts such fears of manipulation by a cult in a fictional account depicting early Utah Mormon settlers as behaving according to such fears.  Such a depiction was obviously biased and fictional and reflects the exaggerated fears that outsiders held of the Mormon religion.  Obviously Doyle regarded the LDS church as a cult rather than as the mainstream Christian church it is today.  However his fictional story involving Sherlock Holmes provides a great basis for reflecting upon how religious authority might be perceived as manipulative or overly involved in local and state politics. Doyle's story depicts a man and his daughter having been rescued from starvation and dehydration in the desert by Mormon settlers.  The man finds it difficult to leave the Saints of Utah and has to flee Brigham Young's followers who seek to have his daughter married to one of them rather than letting her leave their community to marry her true love, a Gentile.  Any modern Mormon would find such fears largely unfounded, but might have some sympathy with the fears of outsiders towards what they perceive to be a cult when he felt like he needed a sabbatical or reprieve from the religious obligations his faith bound him to besides those conforming directly to universal ethics or fundamental commandments such as not killing, stealing or interfering with the real or potential sexual relationships of others by his own sexual promiscuity.  Just ask any Mormon who went inactive why they did so.  Was it a vain attempt to go under the radar of an overzealous society of worshippers seeking to home teach, visit teach and preach him back into the fold he no longer felt as strong a sense of connection or belonging with?  Church activity follows best when someone feels welcome, has true and not artificially provided friends and is given the freedom to choose the society of the Church for himself rather than being manipulated to choose the fellowship of the Saints out of a feeling of obligation and guilt.  

It is human nature that man doesn't like naked truth and therefore he likes to dress it up in clothing.  The way we dress or clothe universal truth reveals how we find personal meaning in that universal truth.  However when we convey that universal truth in the dressings or clothing that we have provided it, that clothing might be offensive or not have as much meaning to other people.  For instance one church authority might give a parable of some universal truth in the clothing of a tale about sugar beets which might be offensive to someone who is against government subsidies since sugar beets were subsidized in U.S. history but the practice of growing sugar beets was widely adopted at one time by many church authorities in the LDS church.  Another church authority might mention the term "social justice" and what it implies, and for them that term might mean something else. They might dress up some other gospel principle such as compassion using that term, maybe referencing Les Miserables or some other work of art that depicts human misery and compassion, but that clothing of universal truth about compassion might be misinterpreted or might even be offensive to someone for whom "social justice" might equate to legalized plunder or redistribution of wealth.  It is in this sense that purveyors of truth and religion should take caution in Socrate's warning about sophists and the need for questioning the wisdom and enlightenment of others with the personal compass of personal intuition, revelation and reasoning.  Ultimately Socrate's advise to know thyself was a charge to not abandon one's personal meaning and truth in the heat of other's dogmas and claims to authority in matters too often in the realm of politics and not universal truth.

When church authorities engage in politics we see gross inconsistencies.  Church authorities engaging in politics of immigration reveal the hypocrisy of preaching on the one hand that one should "honor and obey the laws of the land" or "be honest in one's dealings" or "not steal" (including another's identity) while endorsing politics and state enforcement policies that ignore existing laws in the name of compassion for illegal immigrants while ignoring the plight of the citizens who must accept a higher burden of providing yet more tax money for human services for a growing flood of illegal immigrants.  Ecclesiastical endorsements including the LDS church's temple recommends are issued to anyone bold enough to lie about their legal status or moral cleanliness unless they have a hold on their church records or are actively being processed in the criminal system.  In this latter case, there is no hypocrisy of the church leaders themselves, but the honor system is evidently broken unless perhaps ecclesiastical endorsements were given with greater scrutiny and more specific questions regarding immigration status.  Another inconsistency is the historical difference in certain church leaders' attitudes with regards to government.  At one point in the LDS church's history, there was widespread agreement and warnings to members to avoid sending their children to the free public schools that were newly being offered when the government monopoly in public education was just in the early stages of being established by strong lobbyists and professional educators seeking to ensure more money and investment in their favored profession.  Church leaders then wisely warned members that such free public schools would create a more secular, worldly and materialistic doctrination of our children if we sent them to such schools rather than holding fast to the traditional parish and private school systems which weren't necessarily subsidized by tax dollars.  Yet today's church leaders widely endorse public schooling and even have family members (e.g. Jeffrey R. Holland's son serves as president of UVU, a public school) serving in the government monopolized sector of education.  Likewise Ezra Taft Benson once condemned Socialism and wrote a treatise entitled "An Enemy Hath Done This" regarding the attack on our liberty and divinely inspired U.S. Constitution saying that every member of the church had a duty to defend freedom and fight against such ideologies that opposed the freedom of the individual such as Socialism and Communism.  President Benson paraphrased Frederic Bastiat's arguments against government subsidies and programs beyond the essential role of government in the defense of liberty against those who might encroach upon our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property rights).  Yet why has the LDS church as a political entity (there is no argument here for criticizing the church as a spiritual entity) engaged in growing sugar beets even when such a source of sugar was only profitable because the government was subsidizing its sale?  Or why has the church as a political institution recently engaged in endorsing non-discrimination legislation which while in theory sounds good, creates special classes of individuals and opens the door to lawsuits being filed against anyone who doesn't salute the flag of gay pride?  The church may have carved out legal exceptions, free speech zones within its hallowed halls, or special immunities for its clergy in the name of religious freedom while at the same time unintentionally or naively throwing the rest of us under the bus who can't claim the same special, ecclesiastical exemption from the potential legal liabilities such Progressive and arbitrary laws invoke.


How does one then maintain one's faith and adherence to one's church when it (as a non-profit political entity rather than as a spiritual entity) engages in the political sphere and disappoints one's personal convictions in relation to such events?  Does one simply accept such political activity as driven by God?  Does one simply accept that church authority acting in behalf of a non-profit businesslike entity that the church has to assume in order to exist in the non-spiritual realm of real life is always being directed in such a way that to question such political actions is an act of heresy?  Or is God and universal truth either indifferent or disregarding of such actions because while politically offensive they don't fit the jurisdiction of spiritual doctrine or spiritual salvation in the direct sense.  In this sense one could indeed disagree with one's church with regards to political matters if one still found the doctrines of one's church to be sound and sustained the church's leadership with regards to spiritual matters.   Oh but what about the rebellion of Aaron and Miriam against Moses and their jealousy over his position over Israel?  It is indeed an interesting question since the Children of Israel under Moses were indeed in a situation where Moses was at one time both the spiritual and political leader of his people.  Were Miriam and Aaron questioning Moses's spiritual or political authority or were these two authorities so closely intertwined in the case of Moses that to question one was to question both and therefore synonymous with heresy.  I would contend that while Moses may have held much political as well as spiritual authority over his people, the approach of Miriam and Aaron was likely wrong only on account of questioning Moses's spiritual authority  Why?  Well, even if Moses were indeed as infallible as God or had such direct communication with deity so as to be entrusted with so much authority, God himself wouldn't desire to go against the universal truth that honoring free will is ultimately the road to happiness for all mankind.  Nor would it necessarily be desirable to command men along political paths besides those guaranteeing the most freedom for all men including the unborn.  Why?  Because ultimately this would encroach on that sphere of personal truth, the mind of man, engaged in finding meaning in his or her self existence that only that self existing intelligence can provide for himself or herself.