AN INCONVIENIENT EDUCATION

This is not a political tome, but begins with a political thought.

Since Trump’s election in 2016, the reaction by the liberals has been so far beyond vitriol, it has risen to a dangerous level.  In years past, conservatives have won elections, and liberals have won elections.  And in all these contests there were always two common threads to the aftermath.  First, there was a winner and a loser.  Second, the losers were gracious about it.  Not so this time around.

In reading news from many sources, I am laying the blame for this on poor education.  Poor education from public grade school all the way to ivy league graduate schools.  The corruption is nearly complete.

Now what do I mean by corruption?  There are many sides to many issues, and good points and theories to be made by all, however education has failed to do this.  Most of the blame for this must be laid at the feet of liberalism.  For it is in liberal schools, that thought has been suppressed.

A good education will teach a bright person how to think.  This is done by presenting the student with at least two sides of a controversial issue.  Positives and negatives are given on both sides of an equation, and then education and learning is achieved when the individual sorts through all of this and comes to an independent conclusion.

Sadly, in the liberal schools this process is not taught anymore.  For example, in the sixties, students at Berkley in California rioted for free speech.  In the fall of 2016, they rioted against free speech.  What happened?

Rather than educating students, students are indoctrinated with the school’s philosophy.  Failure to recognize different points of view shelters the students and makes them terrified of things they don’t understand.

So now to my main point, and why I titled this, “An Inconvenient Education.”

One if the things I struggle with is educators promoting “theories” as “facts.”  And there are two major areas in which this is done.  Evolution and Earth age.  I am going to focus on earth age, and leave evolution for another day.

There are two main theories concerning the age of the earth.  One is the earth is billions of year old, giving man time to evolve.  And the second is the Biblical perspective, in which man was created and the earth is around 7 thousand years old.  Scientists prefer the former, people of faith prefer the latter.  But in recent years, an interesting phenomenon has been occurring.  Religious people are trying to blend science with religion because they think scientists have proven themselves.  We shall see that they have not!

So now I am going to present some material that is not taught in school, however it is out there.  And to ignore it is ignorance.

A billion’s year-old earth is taught in school as fact, but is it?  First, let’s look at what is known as the Scientific Method.  Many people are under the impression that scientists observe some facet of nature or whatever, then make an educated guess as to the facts.  This is hardly the case.

Wikipedia has a good as definition as I have seen, and is presented below:

1.      Something in nature is observed.

2.      Questions are asked about the observation.

3.      A hypothesis is formed.

4.      Testable predictions are developed.

5.      Data is gathered to test the predictions.

6.      General theories are developed.

You have been taught by well-meaning educators that the earth is billions of years old.  Now I will show you some observations that will make you realize this is only a theory with many holes in it!

But first a disclaimer, I believe the Bible literally.  It is God’s word.  Period.  I cannot “prove” the Bible, but I can show a multi-billion-year-old earth philosophy cannot make it past the theory stage of its own evolution!

For my own belief, I will quote the words of Joseph Fielding Smith in October 1952.

So far as the philosophy and wisdom of the world are concerned, they mean nothing unless they conform to the revealed word of God.  Any doctrine, whether it comes in the name of religion, science, philosophy, or whatever it may be, if it is in conflict with the revealed word of the Lord, will fail.  It may appear plausible.  It may be put before you in language that appeals and which you may not be able to answer.  It may appear to be established by evidence that you cannot controvert, but all you need to do is to abide your time.  Time will level all things.  You will find that every doctrine, every principle, no matter how universally believed, if not in accord with the divine word of the Lord to His servants, will perish.  Nor is it necessary for us to stretch the word of the Lord, in a vain attempt to make it conform to these theories and teachings.  The word of the Lord shall not pass away unfulfilled, but these false doctrines and theories will all fail.  Truth, and only truth, will remain when all else has perished.”

And now to the fun stuff!

Geologists have developed a time scale based on radioactive time clocks, and claim to have calibrated the age of rock formations.  The problem is several “clocks” have been used, and they don’t all tell the same time!

Radioactive time clocks, at first glance, provide a good way of measuring rocks and things.  If one knows the decay rate of a material, one measures the current amount of the original element to the products of the decay process. (Science and Mormonism, Melvin A. Cook, 1967).

The problem with this method however is we do not know, or can we know, what the original condition was!  In other words, we know that 10-3=7.  It is impossible to know that 10 minus an unknown quantity equals something.

Radiocarbon forms in the earth’s atmosphere as a by-product of cosmic radiation.  Dr. Libby, who invented carbon dating assumed that the radiocarbon in the earth was in a state of equilibrium.  In other words, the amount of radiocarbon dying (half-life is 5760 years) equals the amount of replenishment by radiation.  As it turned out this was not true.  Unless we know the amount of radiocarbon in the biosphere when something died off, we have no way of measuring the change between then and today.  Or from the beginning to when it died.

And the most interesting part of this is assuming a radiocarbon free earth at its creation, the earth would have to be less than 30,000 years old!  And radiocarbon dating can be used on the atmosphere as well as rocks.  And it dates the atmosphere at a maximum of 12,500 years!

A book entitled “Prehistory and Earth Models, 1966” bears studying.  “The only way to tell time by radio time clocks is to know the ratio of the radioactive material at the end to that at the beginning of a specimen.”  This cannot ever be know!

Dr. Libby discovered that radiocarbon dating did not work, yet he had great faith in his creation because he ignored the problems the “scientific method” led him to.  He “just knew” the earth was billions of years old, regardless of the problems with his theorem.

So, did Dr. Libby prove anything?  No.  Can the Bible prove anything?  No.  So rather than teach theories as facts, all sides should be taught.  This is education!

POLITICS, MILLENNIALS, AND A SLEEPING GIANT

After watching this election cycle, and the world at large, I have several thoughts.  Most of these surround millennials and their view of the world.  And perhaps the next older generation as well.

With the beginning of the demolition of the Berlin wall in the summer of 1990, most free people thought communism had finally been defeated.  And it seemed so, for a while.

In the last few years however, like a sleeping giant communism seems to be awakening.  Many people do not realize that Russia’s current leader, Putin is an old KGB agent.  One of the responsibilities of the KGB during the 70’s was to provide security for, and guard the leadership of the communist party.  And now the man who knew the atrocities of this time, is their leader.

What does this have to do with today?  First, I don’t think this very dangerous part of our history is known or remembered to a great extent.  If so, I believe people would completely disavow the democratic party and their insatiability for State control.  I remember reading a magazine in the mid-80’s that noted since WWII the population of our country had grown 150% while the government had grown about 900%.  Why is this?  The founding fathers were terrified of a large central government.  And by the Constitution, it’s powers are supposed to be limited.

I doubt this is taught sufficiently in school anymore, because if it had been, something happened on January 14th, 2014 that should have terrified the nation.

President Obama, frustrated with his inability to get Congress to go along with his socialist programs, gave up on the rule of law.  He gave up on the enumerated powers of the Constitution, He gave up on over 250 years of history, and uttered these words,

“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need.  I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.  And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward…”

This is not how a president of a free nation speaks.  This is the speech of a dictator, or a king.

Aristotle stated there were 3 principle types of governments that existed prior to the great American experiment in freedom, or self-government.  These were a monarchy, aristocracy, and a polity.

A monarchy has a single ruler such as a king.  An aristocracy is based on birth and privilege, and a polity was kind of a loose democracy without any controls.  The first two of these systems concentrated all power in a single individual, or a small ruling class.  And the third deteriorated into mob rule due to a lack of controls.

Today in the world, we have Communism, Monarchy’s, Marxism, and Socialism.  Without going into detail, these forms of government use what is known as command and control economies.  They have differences, but they are slight.

And now to the millennials.  A lot of them tend to be democratic in nature as liberalism seems to be the mantra in most of our universities.  In fact, many of the professors in universities today were the hippies of the 60s!  It is a "feel good" philosophy!

The more government programs we have, the less freedoms we have.  You see, the government does not have an income.  It can only give something to person “A,” if it takes from person “B.”  And the younger generations seem to think this is all good.

Where does this deterioration end?  If we do not stop and change course now, we will lose what is left of our Constitution and slowly slide into a third world society with ruthless dictators at our helm.  We are headed there now with President Obama’s statement quoted earlier.

Like the frog in the boiling pot, these changes are happening slowly, so we don’t notice them.  So, let’s jump ahead by going back in time to see how command and control economies worked after WWII.  And then see if this is the type of society you want to live in!  Following are a few examples of what freedom deteriorates into;

“The existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable.  One or the other must triumph in the end.  And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable.”

V.I. Lenin, “Report of the central committee at the 8th party congress."  1919.

The history of the world, including now, is unending war between freedom and slavery.

**********

“Our collaboration with capitalism during the war which has recently ended, by no means signifies that we shall prolong our alliance with it in the future.  On the contrary, the capitalistic forces constitute our natural enemy despite the fact that they helped us to defeat their most dangerous representative.  It may happen that we shall again decide to make use of their aid, but always with the sole aim of accelerating their final ruin.”

Marshall Tito, Continental News Sevice Nov. 8, 1946.

We cannot trust communist societies even though we may work with them.

**********

“If the situation is ripe for a popular uprising, in view of the fact that the revolution in social relationships has already taken place, and if we have prepared for it, we can order an uprising.”

V.I. Lenin, Selected works, Vol. III p. 298.

Black lives matter?  Riots in Ferguson? Civil uprisings?  We have found out these have been funded by less than honorable sources.

**********


Speaking of the Bible, “A collection of fantastic legends without any scientific support.”
Russian dictionary under Christian Economics, Vol III, No. 7. March 27, 1951.
 
Hillary Clinton saying the Catholics have to give up their beliefs?  Obama forcing Christian doctors to do things that violate their beliefs through Obamacare?
**********

The Book of Revelation speaks of a great war in Heaven.  The issue was over agency and how we were to be saved.  Isaiah and Luke speak of this.

ANYTHING that lends to God given freedoms is righteous.  ANYTHING that would remove or shackle these freedoms is evil.

The drive of Satan (communism, command and control economies, whatever you want to call it) is to force all to be equally good and all the same.  The drive of God is to give us the freedoms we need to become like him.  A great war was fought in Heaven over this.  Is the fight for freedom any less important now?

A CHRISTIAN RELIGION?

Tonight's thoughts deal with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons.

Many Christians do not feel that Mormonism is a Christian religion.  There are two primary reasons for this.  First, they feel that Mormons don't interpret in the Bible the "right way."  And secondly, the Mormons believe in continuing revelation from God which is considered by many to be blasphemous.

I find these mainstream beliefs very interesting!  Starting with the second, Christians believe that after Christ died, the heavens were closed and God quit speaking to his Children.  This belief by the way, is not in the Bible, nor was it taught by the apostles.

Imagine if you will, we on Earth, God's children, telling Him when He can and when He cannot speak to us.  Imagine God in all His omnipotence being told what he can and cannot do by His son's and daughter's!  Imagine a young child telling his/her parents to "be quiet," and "I will tell you when you can speak!"  I struggle with this theological reasoning!

Now to the matter of interpreting the Bible the "right" way:  My intention is not to try and prove anything, but invite thought.  So following is a typical Christian belief contrasted with the Mormon belief, and than a few appropriate questions and comments.

Mainstream Christians believe God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all the same being.  John 10:30 is used as a supporting scripture for this which states, "I and my Father are one."  There are others, but this gives us a good idea.  Mormon's on the other hand, believe they are separate and distinct individuals, but one in purpose.

If the typical Christian belief is true, why does God, a singular being, state, "Let us make man in our image (Genesis 1:29), which is plural?  In Acts 7:55 Stephen looked into heaven and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.  Again, plural beings.  And lastly when Jesus was baptized as recorded in Matthew 3:17, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."  Clearly two persons here.  And like the aforementioned belief, these are but a few examples.

So you see the dilemma.  We have some scriptures stating God and Christ are the same being, and some scriptures stating they are separate.  Which is it?  Using logic, which do we believe literally and which are not to be believed, or have a different meaning assigned?  And more importantly, who gets to make this choice?

I believe the answer to this (which is the Mormon belief) lies within the great intercessory prayer in the 17th chapter of John.  These verses by the way, also seem to indicate God and Jesus are not the same individual as Christ is praying to God, rather than himself.

In the 21st verse, Christ indicates how the Father and He are one by stating, "That they all may be one (the people); as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..."

Does this not suggest that Jesus and the Father are separate beings, yet one in purpose?  Accepting this allows the other contradictory verses to all be correct rather than forcing a situation where one has to choose which scriptures to believe and which to ignore!

I would maintain that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints follows the bible more literally and more completely than any other religion, with the bible itself supporting this.  But like most things theological, the Holy Spirit must be relied upon to discern truth.

As the bible states the being of God two different ways, I don't see how mainstream Christianity can assume the Mormon church is wrong and they are right.  You see, the only thing they  have to go on are guesses as to which scriptures are to be taken literally and which are not.

Since the bible contradicts itself on many points, it makes one wish someone with a pure knowledge could tell us the truth.  Anciently, someone with this ability was known as a prophet.  Hmmm.

ABORTION: A MINIMAL STATEMENT

I would like to outline a couple of facts regarding abortion, then end with a comment and question.

First, abortion will always be regulated by the government in some form or another as it is a medical procedure, and the practice of medicine is regulated.

Secondly, given the high priority of States rights the founders envisioned, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court should not have ruled on abortion based on the powers given them.  I believe they overstepped their bounds, and should have known this.  Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so by edict of the 10th amendment, the regulatory power for this lies with each individual State.  Here is the text:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."