PROPHETIC UTTERANCE AND THE HEISENBERG PRINCIPLE

I can thank my wife, Shawna, for getting me up to speed on this little gem of a principle regarding physics and agency of man and all of God's creations down to the smallest particle.

With all of my physics classes to ready me for Engineering, I just remember a snippet of the Heisenberg principle, but Shawna brought it to life for me from her simple (one and only) Physical Sciences class at BYU. Here is a link to the basic definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The nuts and bolts of it state that there are three basic variables that affect every single thing that we do in this temporal-based world; event, time of a specific event, and location of the event. Relating to any given event, you cannot state/measure/plan for, etc. the place of a known event without (to at least an infinitesimally small degree) affecting the time of the event and vice versa.

Such is the nature of preserving agency of man, beast, element, etc. God will not hedge us in as to the three things that make each event in our lives have meaning. To violate this basic principle would cause God to cease to be God (he must follow His own laws and eternal principles - a whole other blog topic quoting Cleon Skousen and the First Thousand Years). Thus the seeming ambiguity of prophecy that is given to mankind for their benefit.

For example, we can say that a (non-specific) 'life changing' event will occur on a specific date and at a specific location (HARD TIME, HARD LOCATION), but no hard specifics will be given for the event. A similar prophecy could be given with hard statements about a life changing event (lets say a car crash that leaves the subject paralyzed from the waist down) on a specific day (HARD EVENT AND TIME) but the location variable would be fuzzy or non-specific. The third possibility would be for an individual to receive an impression that the same paralyzing crash would occur at a busy high speed intersection (HARD EVENT AND LOCATION), but the time might be fuzzy or non-existent in the prophetic utterance. If all three variables were known to an individual, the individual could just simply thwart that future event/prophecy by avoiding that area on that day and, just to be sure, borrowing a friend's semi to drive around, thus ensuring that they would be on the giving end of any injury in a potential collision.

So it is with prophecy of any kind. I am yet to find any forward looking statements in any scripture or inspired statements that declare all three variables with surety. Even any that Jesus stated in Matthew 24 simply state two of the three - never three of three. If I do find something that someone is trying to float as prophecy with all three variables spelled out, I can, of a surety throw it out and dismiss it categorically as false. Thus the statement on the second coming of Christ where the event and places are clearly spelled out - and then the statement "No man knows the hour". Not even Christ himself knows, the Father only. That is strong - but spells out how tightly that principle of agency is maintained.

MORE TO COME AS I FIND SCIENCE ARTICLES THAT CORROBORATE THIS PRINCIPLE. CHECK BACK IN A YEAR OR TWO.

VISION OF SOLS GUARDISTO - COMING HUMANITARIAN DISASTER

This is a vision of Sols Guardisto written to President Woods of the Cardston, Alberta Temple (Pres Woods is not related to me - the Northern Utah Wood line:


Mrs. Sols Guardisto was one of the 50,000 people who toured the Cardston Temple prior to its dedication in 1923. While in the temple she had a very unusual experience, which is told below as she wrote to President Wood of the Cardston Temple. She was not a member of the Church at the time, but she has since joined.

"We have been to the temple erected by your church, wherin the sacred rites are to be performed in accordance with your faith. The first time I was strongly impelled to describe to you my impressions.

It seemed as though the Temple was filled with the actual spiritual bodies of these previous leaders of the

Church, each seeming to have a definite work to do, automatically taking up in the spirit world the work that person was engaged in whilst in the flesh. In that Temple I saw persons who were leaders of your Church, during its march across the American Desert, now engaged in helping those patriarchs under whose orders they seemed to be working. It was these leaders of your Church, or spiritual leaders, if I may use that term, who seemed instructed to show me the scenes here recorded.

I can give no time as to the happenings except that the impressions I received were of the actual present or immediate future.

I saw first a brief but comprehensive sketch of the present state of the world, or, as you would term it, the Gentile Kingdom. Each country in turn was shown its anarchy, hunger, ambitions, distrusts, and warlike activities, etc., and in my mind was formed from some source the words, "As it is today with the Gentiles."

I saw next international war break out with its center upon the Pacific Ocean, but sweeping and encircling the whole glove. I saw that the opposing forces were roughly divided by so-called Christianity on one side, and by the so-called followers of Mohammed and Buddha upon the other. I saw the great driving power within these so-called Christian Nations was the Great Apostasy in all its political, social, and religious aspects. I saw the world-wide dislocation and devastation of production and slaughter of people occur more swiftly and upon a larger scale than ever before. I saw an antagonism begin to express itself from those so-called Christian nations against your people. I saw those of a similar faith to yours in the Far East begin to look toward Palestine for safety.

I saw the international world war automatically break down, and national revolutions occur in every country and complete the work of chaos and desolation. I saw geological disturbances occur, which helped in this work as if it were intended to do so. I saw the Cardston Temple preserved from all this geological upheaval. I saw the international boundary line disappear as these two governments broke up an dissolved into chaos. I saw race rioting upon this American continent on a vast scale.

I saw hunger and starvation in this world granary of the American continent sweep off vast numbers of the conflicting elements. I saw disease produced by hunger, strife, and chaos complete the end of this present order or epoch…"

Mrs. Guardisto goes on to describe the preparations allegedly made by the future Church leaders to endure catastrophic conditions in the world.

"I saw Cardston and the surrounding foothills, especially West and North, for miles being prepared for a refuge for your people, quietly but quickly.

I saw artesian wells bored and other wells dug all over that territory, so that when the open waters were polluted and poisoned, the people of the Church and their cattle would be provided for. I saw the fuel resources of the district developed in many places, and vast piles of coal and timbers stored for future use and building.

I saw the elders, still under divine guidance, counseling and encouraging the planting of every available acre of soil in this district, so that large supplies could be near the refuge. I saw the Church property under cultivation of an intensified character, not for sale or profit, but for the use of the people. I saw the inspired officers giving instructions as to what would be the best crops to plant and cultivate, not for profit but for use in storage at the time of chaos. I saw the territory carefully surveyed and mapped out for the camping of a great body of people of the Church. I saw provisions also made for a big influx of people who at present do not belong to the Church, but who will gather in their tribulation. I saw inspiration given the elders whereby the quality, quantity, and kind of things to be stored were judged, which might not be attainable in this territory during the time of chaos.."

More to come on visions of the future of massive refuge camps located in the Eastern foothills of the Oquirrhs - camps covering tens of square miles. I believe this to be the prime reason we have been commanded to have a food supply - to absorb the short term crisis of millions of people overloading basic

PUTTING OFF BABYLON - BEING IN THE WORLD BUT NOT OF IT

Being a father of four (five) children who have to be in this world - but not immersed in it's sin-laden nature, I like this quote by Brigham Young (quoted from Mosiah Hancock's diary:

In the summer of 1862, President Brigham Young came through Dixie. The people were so glad to see him that they took every means in their power to make everything as comfortable for him as possible. I remember too, when he stopped at Harrisberg at the time Dr. Pridy Meeks, my brother-in-law, and I, with our families were living in willow rooms that joined. The President stopped with us. He sat at the head of the table and had me sit down at his right. The President, when everything was ready, asked a blessing, then all began to eat. He asked for some buttermilk; then crumbed some bread in it and began to eat. He conversed freely on the situation of the Saints in the mountains, and said that he dreaded the time when the Saints would become popular with the world; for he had seen in sorrow, in a dream, or in dreams, this people clothed in the fashions of Babylon and drinking in the spirit of Babylon until one could hardly tell a Saint from a black-leg. And he felt like shouting, "To your tents, Oh Israel!" because it was the only thing that could keep the people pure. "I know that my families court the ways of the world too much," said he, "And our hope lies in the Lamanites. I hope that you brethren who labor among the Indians will be kind to them. Remember that someday they will take their position as the rightful heir to the principles of life and salvation, for they never will give up the principles of this Gospel. Many of this people for the sake of riches and popularity, will sell themselves for that which will canker their souls and lead them down to misery and despair. It would be better for them to dwell in wigwams among the Indians than to dwell with the gentiles and miss the glories which God wishes them to obtain. I wish my families would see the point and come forth before it is too late. For oh, I can see a tendency in my families to hug the moth-eaten customs of Babylon to their bosoms. This is far more hurtful to them than the deadly viper; for the poisons of the viper can be healed by the power of God, but the customs of Babylon will be hard to get rid of."

FATE OF THE PERSECUTORS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH

This is one of my now-favorite topics - that if you get me started on, will not easily get me off of. I have always been fascinated with happens to wicked people, who for one reason, or another, decide to harrass or even murder the servants of God - or even the Son of God himself.

Somehow, people in their deluded minds think that they can halt the work of God by taking the life of a hallowed servant. Usually, in so doing they actually propel the work forward. Such is the folly of the devil and his short-sighted minions. From the enticement of the fruit in the Garden of Eden to the crucifixion of Jesus himself, the plan of Salvation was played right into with each act.

Almost with precise clockwork, backfirings and miscues by the adversary and associated ilk are leading God's people right along to their final destiny to usher in the millenial reign of peace and joy in a world free of sin and where "none can molest or make afraid".

I had a group of rabblerousers (self-proclaimed hedonists) on the bus I ride mention that they would gladly take the life of Joseph Smith if given the opportunity again. That led me to point out that they had the same lying and murderous spirit that the people that murdered Jesus had and I talked about Josephus, a contemporary Romanized Jewish historian that witnessed the deconstruction of Jewish society in 69-71 AD. One of them mentioned that her son liked Josephus and I was able to get a book about Josephus from her. It was very telling of the final days of that group of people. It was prophesied by the Savior that the temple would be destroyed within one generation of his own crucifixion. Just under 40 years later, wham - it was over.

The reason that I point out the utter destruction in Jesus' day is that Joseph Smith made a similar prophecy about those who had destroyed the homes of the Saints and driven them out of their homes and taken the land/possessions by force - THE SAME THING WOULD BE DONE TO THEM: (EXACT QUOTE TO FOLLOW)

There is ample info out there on " ORDER #10 AND #11 " that was carried out by the Union troops against the guerrilla's fighting just inside the western border of Missouri, the same place where the Saints had been driven from just 20 years earlier.

Note the pics in the following link how it is exactly as it is described by the early Saints (not so much as a chimney standing in an attempt to drive the Lord's people out):

MISSOURI BORDER WAR (DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU....)

MUCH, MUCH MORE TO FOLLOW LATER....

AH, YES. PROPHECY AND THOSE WHO FAIL TO EVEN GRASP IT AND QUIBBLE OVER ITS FULFILLMENT

A POST FROM A SITE RIPPING ON GLENN BECK'S MORMONISM AND DELUDED STATE OF MIND. THIS POST ON HOW TO JUDGE OR EVALUATE PROPHETIC UTTERANCE WAS TOO GOOD NOT TO POST BECAUSE I HEAR IT ALL THE TIME FROM UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE. READ ON:

Hallelujah! You are obviously not aware that Joseph Smith fulfills biblical prophecy! The restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ, fulfills biblical prophecy! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, FULFILLS biblical prophecy. There is no other organization, religion, person, book, bible, whatever- that teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ in its entirety- except for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This isn't to say that other churches, religions, creeds, pastors, preachers, etc. are bad, but they simply don't have all the pieces of the TRUE chruch of Jesus Christ. Paul taught, "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." Ephesians 4:5.

There is only one God, only one Jesus, and only one true church, and this is it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is a RESTORATION of the original Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is at the head of his church, it bears his name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, (to distinguish it from the church he formed in the Meridian of times.)

Joseph Smith was the prophet that Jesus Christ called to restore his church. FACT. Think what you may, but it is true. It matches biblical scriptures, and prophecy. Your attacks on Joseph Smith are an attack on Jesus Christ, and I am honored to testify to you of the divinity of his life, his teachings, and the church that he restored. I have studied his life, I have read his revelations, I have received a personal witness from Heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit, that Joseph Smith was, and is, a Prophet of God.

A witness of the spirit is more powerful than sight or sound, because once Heavenly Father has witnessed to your heart, there is no denying it. I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, just like I know that Jesus was the Christ, and that God lives.

Now, you say that Joseph Smith made some prophecies that didn't come true. That one unfulfilled prophecy makes him a false prophet.
You even went on to say "I see no example of a Word from the Lord not coming to pass exactly as the Prophets spoke in the Old Testament. Can you point to one?"

Yes Joel, I can. I'm glad you asked. Your standard for judging Joseph Smith's prophecies is just as damaging to a number of Bible prophecies, if not more so.

I will not be discussing any of the Prophet Joseph Smith's alleged "false prophecies," for two reasons: (1) He never uttered any false prophecies; and (2) before I will even enter into such a discussion, I first insist on examining some important rules about prophecy itself, and on asking anti-Mormons to justify their attacks on Joseph Smith in light of those prophecies in the Bible that plainly and clearly did not come to pass.

In discussing difficult Bible prophecies, it is not my intention to attack the Bible, nor to suggest that any of the biblical prophets were false prophets. Rather, it is to illustrate the fact that anyone who accepts the anti-Mormon standard for concluding that Joseph Smith uttered false prophecies must also conclude that several Bible prophets did the same thing.
It has been my experience that anti-LDS critics are willing to make every possible allowance and exception for difficult Bible prophecies, but none for those of Joseph Smith.

The Anti-Mormon Standard

Typically, anti-Mormons point to Deuteronomy 18:21-22 as their measuring rod for branding as "false" a number of Joseph Smith's prophecies. Here is how these verses read in the Revised Standard Version (RSV):

And if you say in your heart, "How may we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?"--when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

Using a strictly literal interpretation of these verses as their guide, most if not all anti-Mormons insist that if a prophecy does not come to pass, it is automatically false, period.

These critics don't seem to realize they are stepping into quicksand when they use this criterion to attack Joseph Smith. The issue of prophecy is extremely complex. It is by no means as simple as a strictly literal understanding of Deuteronomy 18:21-22. The rigid anti-Mormon interpretation of these verses invalidates several Bible prophecies as much as it does some of Joseph Smith's prophecies. In fact, atheistic critics have used this same sort of approach to attack several prophecies in the Bible.

Rules on Prophecy

However, after studying prophecy for several years, I have deduced certain rules which, when taken into account, enable us to explain the difficult prophecies uttered by certain Bible prophets and by Joseph Smith. I will now list these rules. Most of them are intertwined to varying degrees.

1. Almost all prophecy is conditional to one degree or another, even if this is not stated in the prophecy itself (which is often the case).

2. In many cases human actions and choices can alter, postpone, or prevent the fulfillment of prophecy.

3. A prophecy is not always telling us what will happen, but what could happen under certain circumstances.

4. A prophet can misinterpret the timetable for a prophecy's fulfillment (this, of course, does not invalidate the prophecy itself).

5. A prophet can be mistaken about certain details of a prophecy but correct with regard to its central message.

6. A prophecy can apply to more than one occurrence or time period, i.e., it can have dual application.

7. A prophecy's fulfillment can be intended to take place in the spirit world or during the millennium, even if this is not stated in the prophecy itself.

8. The fulfillment of prophecy can go unobserved and/or unrecorded.

9. A prophecy can contain rhetorical overstatements. For example, a prophecy might read that "every single house" in a certain town will be "leveled to the ground," when what is really meant is that the town will suffer heavy destruction.

10. Such terms and expressions as "soon," "quickly," "in a little while," "shortly," etc., are often given from the Lord's perspective of time--so that "soon," for example, might turn out to be a very long time by our reckoning.

11. The text of a prophecy can undergo alteration to the point that it no longer reflects the original intent of the prophecy.
Therefore, just because a prophecy goes partially or totally unfulfilled does not mean it is false. Anyone who would deny this must explain those prophecies in the Bible which did not come to pass.

Difficult Bible Prophecies

Let us now examine three difficult Bible prophecies that would have to be rejected as false if we were to insist on judging them solely on the basis of a strictly literal reading of Deuteronomy 18:21-22.

In 2 Samuel 7:5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established "forever," that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land "and move no more," and that the "children of wickedness" would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever.

That Nathan was predicting the permanent establishment of the temporal kingdom of David has even been acknowledged (albeit somewhat obliquely) by R. K. Harrison, a fine conservative Bible scholar:

The Davidic dynasty was confidently expected to usher in a new era of Israelite life of an enduring quality (2 Sam. 7:5ff), because it was firmly rooted in loyalty to the God of the Covenant. (1969:410, emphasis added.)

Robert Jamieson, Andrew Faucet, and David Brown concede that the promise of "the throne of his kingdom" being established "forever" (vs. 13) refers "in its primary application, to Solomon, and to the temporal kingdom of David's family" (587). The promise is reiterated in verse 16:

"thine [David's] house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever."

In short, as Robert H. Pfeiffer has stated, "... the point of II Samuel 7 is the eternity of this [the Davidic] dynasty" (370). It was because of the supposed permanence of the Davidic empire that the children of Israel would be able to remain in the promised land "and move no more" (vs. 10).

And, as for the assurance that the Israelites would no longer be afflicted by "the children of wickedness" (vs. 10), the New International Version phrases it this way: "Wicked people will not oppress them anymore." But, of course, what actually happened to the Davidic empire and to the children of Israel?

The Davidic dynasty was later smashed. The Israelites were driven and scattered from the promised land. And "wicked people" certainly continued to afflict and oppress them.

The second difficult Bible prophecy we will consider is one which is attributed to the Savior Himself. It is found in Matthew 10:23, wherein Jesus is represented as very matter-of-factly stating that His second coming would occur before the disciples returned from the mission on which He was then sending them. This, of course, did not happen. The verse reads as follows in the RSV:

"When they persecute you [the disciples] in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say unto you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes."

Howard Clark Kee has said the following about this verse:

"One of the most problematic sayings in the whole Synoptic tradition [i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke] is this explicit statement that the disciples will not have completed their mission tour before the Son of man comes, i.e., before the age ends and the kingdom of God arrives in its fullness. (In Laymon 622)"

Says T. F. Glasson, "Thus, before the disciples return Jesus expects to be caught up to heaven and to come down in glory" (57).

This verse is so problematic that many scholars have questioned its authenticity. Glasson notes that there is "widespread doubt concerning the genuineness of Matthew 10:23. . . ." (59).

The third difficult Bible prophecy we will consider is Judges 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson's mother that Samson would "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.

Not only did Samson fail to even "begin" to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him. Moreover, and most importantly, Israel actually lost ground to the Philistines during Samson's tenure. Judges 13-16 illustrates Philistine encroachment into Hebrew territory. The Samson narrative documents the eastward expansion of the Philistines by mentioning the Philistine presence in Timnah and Lehi, both in the strategic valley of Sorek (Achtemeier 1985:787-791). This Philistine expansion worsened the land shortage that eventually forced the Danites to migrate northward.
Of course, the nonfulfillment of Judges 13:5 can be attributed to Samson's failure to live according to his Nazirite calling. In addition to his sexual liaisons, he married a Philistine, ate unclean food, drank wine, and allowed his hair to be cut.

Therefore, it could be said that the angel's prophecy was nullified by Samson's behavior. However, the angel placed absolutely no conditions on his promise that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. He simply declared that Samson would do so.

Conclusion

The three Bible prophecies discussed above are certainly "difficult," to put it mildly. However, they can be explained, if one is willing to accept the rules on prophecy presented herein.

The exact same thing can be said about Joseph Smith's alleged "false prophecies." Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and he never uttered a single false prophecy.

LINK OF MANY CANCERS TO STD VIRUSES

As a committed germ freak and believer in committed monogamous relationships and the law of chastity, this is one of my babies.

I have been wanting to make this post for quite some time as part of my "Chastity Makes Sense" diatribe. It would seem that most (60%) of the cancers out there can be caused by STDs or violations of the Word of Wisdom (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89):

Here is the first link from THROAT CANCER to oral sex and HPV.

There is much more to come so check back over time. This is definitely a work in progress.

JETTA WAGON ROLLOVER FIX

THIS PROJECT WAS PRETTY MAJOR. IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY AGAIN, I WOULD PROBABLY TRY SOMETHING ELSE:

FUNERAL TALK - THE PLAN OF SALVATION

OCTOBER 2008 TRAVIS HOLT FUNERAL TALK

“THE PLAN OF SALVATION”


I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today at this memorial service for Travis Holt.

This is a difficult time for Travis’ family and loved ones and my goal is to hopefully provide some comfort and direction for those that are left behind and who may be experiencing some questions about why.

Speaking on the subject of death, Joseph Smith said “All men know that they must die. And it is important that we should understand….. our departure hence …..
It is but reasonable to suppose that God would reveal something in reference to the matter, and it is a subject we ought to study more than any other. We ought to study it ….because the world is ignorant in reference to their true condition and relation (to death). If we have any claim on our Heavenly Father for anything, it is for knowledge on this important subject.” Joseph Smith (History of the Church, Vol VI, p.50).

In talking about the Plan of Salvation, I will draw a little from a talk given by one of the Twelve Apostles, L. Tom Perry that was originally delivered during a General Conference of the Church in October 2006.
Many people wonder, “Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?” Our Eternal Father did not send us to earth on an aimless, meaningless journey. He provided for us a plan to follow. God is the author of that plan
“God is the Father of our spirits. We are literally His children, and He loves us. We lived as spirit children of our Father in Heaven before we were born on this earth. We were not, however, like our Heavenly Father, nor could we ever become like Him and enjoy all the blessings that He enjoys without the experience of living in mortality with a physical body.
MOST CORPORATIONS HAVE A MISSION STATEMENT – SOMETHING THAT DEFINES WHAT THEY ARE ABOUT. GOD HAS ONE AS WELL – ARE YOU AT LEAST SOMEHWAT CURIOUS WHAT IT IS?
IN MOSES 1:39 WE READ, “FOR THIS IS MY WORK AND MY GLORY, TO BRING TO PASS THE IMMORTALITY AND ETERNAL LIFE OF MAN”.
SO THE MISSION STATEMENT IS TWO FOLD BUT IT POINTS TO THE SAME EXACT END GOAL, THAT GOD WANTS TO HELP US TO THE SAME STATE THAT HE IS – A PERFECTED GLORIFIED BEING BY PROVIDING A PLAN WHERE WE CAN HAVE A PERFECTED RESURRECTED BODY THAT IS CAPABLE OF BEING IN HIS PRESENCE, (FREE FROM THE EFFECTS OF SIN), FOR “NO UNCLEAN THING CAN DWELL IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD.”
HAVE YOU THOUGHT LATELY WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO BE DIRECTLY IN GOD’S PRESENCE? I PICTURE IT FREQUENTLY – HIS MAJESTY, HIS POWER, THE FREEDOM FROM THE LOW AND BASE THINGS OF THIS WORLD. SOME DAYS IT SEEMS COMPLETELY POSSIBLE AND OTHER DAYS I SHRINK FROM THE THOUGHT, DUE TO MY PERSONAL FOIBLES AND SHORTCOMINGS.
THROUGH THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST, ALL OF GOD’S CHILDREN THAT HAVE LIVED ON THIS EARTH. WILL RECEIVE A PERFECTED RESURRECTED BODY THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BEFORE GOD TO BE JUDGED, SO THE ATONEMENT WILL OVERCOME PHYSICAL DEATH. THROUGH SIN THAT WE COMMIT WHILE ON THIS EARTH, WE BECOME UNCLEAN AND CANNOT FULLY ENDURE GOD’S PRESENCE. WITHOUT REPENTANCE AND BEING WASHED CLEAN FROM OUR SINS, WE WOULD BE QUITE MISERABLE IN GOD’S PRESENCE. GOD DOES NOT DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM US, WE THROUGH OUR ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE, DISTANCE OURSELVES FROM GOD.
IT THEN BECOMES EXPEDIENT THAT WHILE WE ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, THAT WE SEEK OUT GOD’S WILL FOR US AND DO IT.

THE WAY THAT WE CAN BECOME CLEAN BEFORE GOD, SO THAT WE CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE IN HIS PRESENCE, IS TO ACCEPT THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST, WHERE OUR SINS WERE PAID FOR ALREADY IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE AND ON THE CROSS. A SINLESS SACRIFICE GIVEN WILLINGLY BY ONE WHO WAS PERFECT AND WHO VOLUNTEERED TO BE OUR ADVOCATE TO THE FATHER AND TO PLEAD OUR CAUSE BEFORE THE FATHER.

ADVOCATE MEANS LAWYER. IMAGINE, IF YOU WILL, STANDING BEFORE A PERFECTLY JUST FATHER BEING JUDGED FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THIS LIFE. GOD WANTS YOU TO BE WITH HIM AND YOU WANT DESPERATELY TO BE WITH HIM. BECAUSE OF YOUR FILTHY AND UNCLEAN STATE, YOU CANNOT BE WHERE HE IS UNLESS SOMETHING CAN BE DONE. THEN STEPS FORWARD THE GREAT MEDIATOR, JESUS CHRIST AND HE AGREES TO ACCEPT YOUR SIN, IF YOU BUT AGREE TO ACCEPT HIM AS YOUR SAVIOR AND AGREE TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE THE BEST YOU CAN.

JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF PROSCRIBED THE WAY FOR US TO ACCEPT HIS SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS. TO BE BAPTIZED BY IMMERSION FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. As he said in Matthew 3:3-5 “EXCEPT A MAN IS BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”. WE MUST ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS OUR PERSONAL SAVIOR AND THEN FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE OF SERVICE AND LOVE FOR OUR FELLOW MAN. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO BE WASHED CLEAN AND COME AGAIN INTO GOD’S PERFECT PRESENCE.

FOR THOSE BILLIONS WHO WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND ACCEPT HIS SACRIFICE WHILE ON THIS EARTH, THEY ARE NOT LOST – THERE IS HOPE.

THE LORD AFTER HIS CRUCIFIXION, SET UP THE WORK IN THE SPIRIT WORLD, WHERE THE SPIRITS OF ALL MEN GO AFTER THEY DIE, SO THAT ALL CHILDREN OF GOD WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCEPT THE GOSPEL AND EITHER ACCEPT IT OR REJECT IT THERE. I TAKE YOU BACK TO MATTHEW 3:3-5 WHERE IT SAYS THAT A PERSON MUST BE BAPTIZED TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. SO IF SOMEONE WHO HAS GONE ON WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE TRUE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, WHO ACCEPTS THE GOSPEL AS IT IS PREACHED IN THE WORLD OF SPIRITS, THEN MUST BE BAPTIZED BUT HOW IS THAT TO BE DONE SEEING THAT THEY HAVE NO BODY?? PAUL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS CLARIFYING SOME POINTS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION WHEN HE SAID THE FOLLOWING THAT SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT:

“ELSE WHAT SHALL THEY DO WHICH ARE BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD, IF THE DEAD RISE NOT AT ALL? WHY ARE THEY THEN BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD.” 1 CORINTHIANS 15:29

FOR ALL THOSE THAT ARE NOT GIVEN A CLEAR OPPORTUNITY TO ACT ON THE CLEAR MANDATE TO BE BAPTIZED WHILE IN THIS LIFE, THAT ESSENTIAL ORDINANCE CAN BE PERFORMED BY AUTHORITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD ON BEHALF OF THOSE WHO HAVE DEPARTED THIS LIFE WITHOUT THE VITAL ORDINANCE PERFORMED. THOSE WHO HAVE DEPARTED THIS LIFE WITHOUT BAPTISM WILL THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER ACCEPT OR REJECT THE WORK PERFORMED FOR THEM VICARIOUSLY. JUST AS JESUS CHRIST VICARIOUSLY PAID FOR OUR SINS, WE CAN VICARIOUSLY ASSIST IN PERFORMING THIS ORDINANCE ON BEHALF OF ALL OF GOD’S CHILDREN. THERE IS LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT CHARITABLE WORK THAT WE CAN PERFORM ON THIS EARTH FOR OUR FELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

THE JEWS, HAVE SOME VERY UNUSUAL WORDS IN LITERALLY THE LAST TWO VERSES OF THEIR ACCEPTED SCRIPTURE, THE OLD TESTAMENT. IT IS BECAUSE OF THESE LAST TWO VERSES THAT THEY HAVE A SPECIAL CHAIR IN THEIR SYNAGOGUES FOR AN HONORED GUEST. WHO IS THAT GUEST? IF YOUR GUESS IS JESUS CHRIST, YOU ARE CLOSE BUT NOT ON THE MONEY.

JUST AS WE EAGERLY AWAIT THE RETURN OF JESUS CHRIST, OUR MESSIAH, THE JEWS ALSO EAGERLY AWAIT THE RETURN OF THEIR MESSIAH, OR MESSIACH, AS HE IS CALLED. THE PERSON THEY EXPECT TO COME BEFORE THEIR MESSIAH IS ELIJAH, AND THEN THE MESSIAH WILL COME. LETS READ THESE LAST TWO VERSES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

MALACHI 4:5-6 “BEHOLD, I WILL SEND YOU ELIJAH…….

AS LATTER DAY SAINTS, WITH THE FULLNESS OF THE GOSPEL, WE KNOW THAT ELIJAH HAS ALREADY RETURNED IN APRIL 1836 TO RESTORE THE KNOWLEDGE OF WORK FOR THE DEAD SO THAT ALL OF GOD’S CHILDREN FROM ADAM DOWN TO THE LAST INHABITANT OF THIS EARTH WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE THESE ESSENTIAL ORDINANCES.

ALL OF GOD’S CHILDREN – NOT JUST SOME ARBITRARILY CHOSEN. ALL OF THEM.

AND THIS IS THE PART THIS FILLS MY HEART WITH JOY KNOWING THAT GOD LOVES ALL OF HIS CHILDREN IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL MAY OBTAIN HIS PRESENCE. NOT JUST A SELECT OR ELECT FEW – BUT ALL OF GOD’S CHILDREN WHO CARE ENOUGH TO STRIVE FOR THAT PRIVILEGE.

WHAT A BLESSING!!

MOST OF THE REST OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD WALLOWS IN THE TRAGIC BELIEF THAT GOD HAS ARBITRARILY DAMNED SOME OF HIS CHILDREN TO HELL AND CONSIGNED SOME OF THEM TO HEAVEN BY VIRTUE OF WHEN AND WHERE THEY WERE BORN – AS IF THERE WERE SOME KIND OF COSMIC LOTTERY DETERMINING OUR INDIVIDUAL DESTINY. THE GOD I KNOW IS PERFECT AND DOES NOT ALLOW SIN WITH THE LEAST DEGREE OF ALLOWANCE. THE GOD I KNOW ALSO LOVES ALL OF HIS CREATIONS WITH A LOVE THAT I SCARCELY EVEN BEGIN TO COMPREHEND. WITH THAT LOVE, HE GAVE JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO SAVE US FROM OUR FALLEN AND SINFUL STATE. NOT JUST THOSE WHO HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF HEARING HIS WORD, BUT ALL MANKIND. THAT IS THE GOD THAT I WANT TO RETURN TO LIVE WITH..

TESTIMONY.
We first heard about the plan of salvation before we were born, in what the scriptures call our first estate (see Abraham 3:26). What occurred in this first estate is dimly understood, but we do know that we lived there as spirits, children of our Heavenly Father, and we made certain steps of advancement to prepare for the opportunity of housing our eternal spirits in earthly bodies. We also know that our Father held a great council to explain the purpose of earth life. We had the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the plan of salvation. It was not forced upon us. The essence of the plan was that man would have an opportunity of working out his own salvation on earth, with God’s help. A leader was selected to teach us how to follow the plan and to redeem us from sin and death. As the Lord explained to Moses, “Behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).
Jesus Christ, our Elder Brother, became the leader in advocating the plan designed by the Father, and we accepted the plan and its conditions. With that choice we earned the right to come to earth and enter our second estate.
God created Adam and Eve in His own image, with bodies of flesh and bones, and placed them in the Garden of Eden. They were given the choice either to remain in the garden or to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and have the opportunity of experiencing mortality. They accepted the challenge, partook of the fruit, and thus became mortal and subject to physical death. Because of their choice, they would experience all of the trials and difficulties of mortality.
There are two purposes for life in mortality. The first is that we might gain experiences that we could not obtain in any other way. The second is to obtain tabernacles of flesh and bones. Both of these purposes are vital to the existence of man. We are now being tried and tested to see if we will do all the things the Lord has commanded us to do. These commandments are the principles and ordinances of the gospel, and they constitute the gospel of Jesus Christ. Every principle and ordinance has a bearing upon the whole purpose of our testing, which is to prepare us to return to our Heavenly Father and become more like Him. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has said this about following the straight and narrow path:
“What I think all of us need to do is to determine where we stand in every field of mortal endeavor. Then, based on the general overall concepts that are clear and plain, we make a determination on how we will live in this field or in that field in order to pass the probationary estate in order to succeed in the test of mortality. If we make the right choices, we’ll go on to eternal reward, and if we do not, then we’ll get some lower and lesser place in the kingdoms that are prepared.
“… Everyone in the Church who is on the straight and narrow path, who is striving and struggling and desiring to do what is right, though [he] is far from perfect in this life; if he passes out of this life while he’s on the straight and narrow, he’s going to go on to eternal reward in his Father’s kingdom” (The Probationary Test of Mortality, devotional address, Salt Lake Institute of Religion, Jan. 10, 1982, 8–9).
All of this is made possible by Jesus Christ. He is the centerpiece of the eternal plan of the Father, the Savior who was provided as a ransom for mankind. God sent His Beloved Son to overcome the Fall of Adam and Eve. He came to earth as our Savior and Redeemer. He overcame the obstacle of physical death for us by giving up His own life. When He died on the cross, His spirit became separated from His body. On the third day His spirit and His body were reunited eternally, never to be separated again.
Life on earth is of limited duration. There comes a time for all of us when the spirit and the body are separated in death. But because of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we will all be resurrected, regardless of whether we have accomplished good or evil in this life. Immortality is the gift to every mortal child of our Father in Heaven. Death must be viewed as a portal to a new and better life. Through the glorious resurrection, body and spirit will be reunited. We will have a perfect, immortal body of flesh and bones that will never be subjected to pain or death. But the glory we attain to in the next life will depend on our performance in this life. Only through the gift of the Atonement and our obedience to the gospel can we return and live with God once again.
After the Resurrection of the Savior, His Apostles went forth to preach this glorious message to the nations of the earth. They traveled extensively as they taught of the mission of our Savior. A great movement of Christianity started to spread throughout many lands. But the Church gradually drifted into a general apostasy in which the succession of the priesthood was broken. The authority to officiate in spiritual ordinances ceased to exist on earth.
Gradually, inspired men started to bring forth a reformation. President Gordon B. Hinckley has described it as the dawn of a brighter day. He said:
“Somehow, in that long season of darkness, a candle was lighted. The age of Renaissance brought with it a flowering of learning, art, and science. There came a movement of bold and courageous men and women who looked heavenward in acknowledgment of God and His divine Son. We speak of it as the Reformation.
“And then, after many generations had walked the earth—so many of them in conflict, hatred, darkness, and evil—there arrived the great, new day of the Restoration. This glorious gospel was ushered in with the appearance of the Father and the Son to the boy Joseph. The dawn of the dispensation of the fulness of times rose upon the world. All of the good, the beautiful, the divine of all previous dispensations was restored in this most remarkable season” (“The Dawning of a Brighter Day,” Liahona and Ensign, May 2004, 82–83).
Following the glorious event of the First Vision, the sacred record of the Book of Mormon was delivered to the Prophet Joseph Smith. This brought a new witness of our Lord and Savior and His mission to the peoples of the earth.
Thus we see in the eternal plan of our Father that His love has no bounds. Every one of His children is included. All men have the same origin and equal possibility to fulfill their eternal destiny.
The Book of Mormon prophet Amulek, testifying that the words of Christ will bring us our salvation, said:
“And now, my brethren, I would that, after ye have received so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things, ye come forth and bring fruit unto repentance.
“Yea, I would that ye would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.
“For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors” (Alma 34:30–32).

COMMUNISM VS SOCIALISM - THE BLIGHT OF SOCIETY

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

- From "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"


"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."

QUOTE FROM Ayn Rand



THE FOLLY OF MARXISM:

Marxian Exploitation
by Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1974), pp. 253-262

Why is it that some unions or groups of workers don't start their own business? What an easy way to give workers access to the means of production: buy machinery and rent space, and so forth, just as a private entrepreneur does. It is illuminating to consider why unions don't start new businesses, and why workers don't pool their resources to do so.

This question is of importance for what remains of Marxist economic theory. With the crumbling of the labor theory of value, the underpinning of its particular theory of exploitation dissolves. And the charm and simplicity of this theory's definition of exploitation is lost when it is realized that according to the definition there will be exploitation in any society in which investment takes place for a greater future product (perhaps because of population growth); and in any society in which those unable to work, or to work productively, are subsidized by the labor of others. But at bottom, Marxist theory explains the phenomenon of exploitation by reference to the workers not having access to the means of production. The workers have to sell their labor (labor power) to the capitalists, for they must use the means of production to produce, and cannot produce alone. A worker, or groups of them, cannot hire means of production and wait to sell the product some months later; they lack the cash reserves to obtain access to machinery or wait until later when revenue will be received from the future sale of the product now being worked on. For workers must eat in the meantime.[1] Hence (the story goes) the worker is forced to deal with the capitalist. (And the reserve army of unemployed labor makes unnecessary the capitalists' competing for workers and bidding up the price of labor.)

Note than once the rest of the theory, properly, is dropped, and it is this crucial fact of nonaccess to the means of production that underlies exploitation, it follows that in a society in which the workers are not forced to deal with the capitalist, exploitation of laborers will be absent. (We pass over the question of whether workers are forced to deal with some other, less decentralized group.) So, if there is a sector of publicly owned and controlled (what you will) means of production that is expandable so that all who wish to may work in it, then this is sufficient to eliminate the exploitation of laborers. And in particular, if in addition to this public sector there is a sector of privately owned means of production that employs wage laborers who choose to work in this sector, then these workers are not being exploited. (Perhaps they choose to work there, despite attempts to convince them to do otherwise, because they get higher wages or returns in this sector.) For they are not forced to deal with the private owners of means of production.

Let us linger for a moment upon this case. Suppose that the private sector were to expand, and the public sector became weaker and weaker. More and more workers, let us suppose, choose to work in the private sector. Wages in the private sector are greater than in the public sector, and are rising continually. Now imagine that after a period of time this weak public sector becomes completely insignificant; perhaps it disappears altogether. Will there be any concomitant change in the private sector? (Since the public sector was already small, by hypothesis, the new workers who come to the private sector will not affect wages much.) The theory of exploitation seems committed to saying that there would be some important change; which statement is very implausible. (There's no good theoretical argument for it.) If there would not be a change in the level or the upward movement of wages in the private sector, are workers in the private sector, heretofore unexploited, now being exploited? Though they don't even know that the public sector is gone, having paid scant attention to it, are they now forced to work in the private sector and to go to the private capitalist for work, and hence are they ipso facto exploited? So the theory would seem to be committed to maintaining.

Whatever may have been the truth of the nonaccess view at one time, in our society large sections of the working force now have cash reserves in personal property, and there are also large cash reserves in union pension funds. These workers can wait, and they can invest. This raises the question of why this money isn't used to establish worker-controlled factories. Why haven't radicals and social democrats urged this?

The workers may lack the entrepreneurial ability to identify promising opportunities for profitable activity, and to organize firms to respond to these opportunities. In this case, the workers can try to hire entrepreneurs and managers to start a firm for them and then turn the authority functions over to the workers (who are the owners) after one year. (Though, as Kirzner emphasizes, entrepreneurial alertness would also be needed in deciding whom to hire.) Different groups of workers would compete for entrepreneurial talent, bidding up the price for such services, while entrepreneurs with capital attempted to hire workers under traditional ownership arrangements. Let us ignore the question of what the equilibrium in this market would look like to ask why groups of workers aren't doing this now.

It's risky starting a new firm. One can't identify easily new entrepreneurial talent, and much depends on estimates of future demand and of availability of resources, on unforeseen obstacles, on chance, and so forth. Specialized investment institutions and sources of venture capital develop to run just these risks. Some persons don't want to run these risks of investing or backing new ventures, or starting ventures themselves. Capitalist society allows the separation of the bearing of these risks from other activities. The workers in the Edsel branch of the Ford Motor Company did not bear the risks of the venture, and when it lost money they did not pay back a portion of their salary. In a socialist society, either one must share in the risks of the enterprise one works in, or everybody shares in the risks of investment decisions of the central investment managers. There is no way to divest oneself of these risks or to choose to carry some such risks but not others (acquiring specialized knowledge in some areas), as one can do in a capitalist society.

Often people who do not wish to bear risks feel entitled to rewards from those who do and win; yet these same people do not feel obligated to help out by sharing the losses of those who bear risks and lose. For example, croupiers at gambling casinos expect to be well-tipped by big winners, but they do not expect to be asked to help bear some of the losses of the losers. The case for such asymmetrical sharing is even weaker for businesses where success is not a random matter. Why do some feel they may stand back to see whose ventures turn out well (by hindsight determine who has survived the risks and run profitably) and then claim a share of the success; though they do not feel they must bear the losses if things turn out poorly, or feel that if they wish to share in the profits or the control of the enterprise, they should invest and run the risks also?

To compare how Marxist theory treats such risks, we must take a brief excursion through the theory. Marx's theory is one form of the productive resources theory of value. Such a theory holds that the value V of a thing X equals the sum total of society's productive resources embodied in X. Put in a more useful form, the ratio of the value of two things V(X)/V(Y) is equal to the ratio of the amount of productive resources embodied in them, M (resources in X)/M (resources in Y), where M is a measure of the amount. Such a theory requires a measure M whose values are determined independently of the V ratios to be explained. If we conjoin to the productive resources theory of value, the labor theory of productive resources, which holds that labor is the only productive resource, we obtain the labor theory of value. Many of the objections which have been directed toward the labor theory of value apply to any productive resources theory.

An alternative to the productive resources theory of value might say that the value of productive resources is determined by the value of the final products that arise from them (can be made from them), where the value of the final product is determined in some way other than by the value of the resources used in it. If one machine can be used to make X (and nothing else) and another can be used to make Y, then the first machine is more valuable than the second, even if each machine contains the same raw materials and took the same amount of time to make. The first machine, having a more valuable final product, will command a higher price than the second. This may give rise to the illusion that its products are more valuable because it is more valuable. But this gets things backwards. It is more valuable because its products are.

But the productive resources theory of value doesn't talk about the value of the productive resources, only about their amounts. If there were only one factor of production, and it were homogeneous, the productive resources theory at least could be noncircularly stated. But with more than one factor, or one factor of different kinds, there is a problem in setting up the measure M to get the theory stated in a noncircular way. For it must be determined how much of one productive factor is to count as equivalent to a given amount of another. One procedure would be to set up the measure by reference to the values of the final products, solving the ratio equations. But this procedure would define the measure on the basis of information about final values, and so could not be used to explain final values on the basis of information about the amount of inputs.[2] An alternative procedure would be to find some common thing that can be produced by X, and Y, in different quantities, and to use the ratio of the quantities of final product to determine the quantities of input. This avoids the circularity of looking at final values first; one begins by looking at final quantities of something, and then uses this information to determine quantities of input (to define the measure M). But even if there is a common product, it may not be what the different factors are best suited for making; and so using it to compare them may give a misleading ratio. One has to compare different factors at their individual best functions. Also, if two different things can be made by each resource, and the ratios of the amounts differ, there is the problem of which ratio is to be picked to provide the constant of proportionality between the resources.

We can illustrate these difficulties by considering Paul Sweezy's exposition of the concept of simple, undifferentiated labor time.[3] Sweezy considers how skilled and unskilled labor are to be equated and agrees that it would be circular to do so on the basis of the value of the final product, since that's what's to be explained. Sweezy then says that skill depends on two things: training and natural differences. Sweezy equates training with the number of hours spent in training, without looking to the skill of the teacher, even as crudely measured by how many hours the teacher spent in training (and how many hours his teacher did?). Sweezy suggests getting at natural differences by having two persons make the same thing, and seeing how the quantities differ, thus finding the ratio to equate them. But if skilled labor of some sort is not best viewed as a faster way of producing the same product that unskilled labor produces, but rather as a way of producing a better product, then this method of defining the measure M won't work. (In comparing Rembrandt's skill with mine, the crucial fact is not that he paints pictures faster than I do.) It would be tedious to rehearse the standard counterexamples to the labor theory of value: found natural objects (valued above the labor necessary to get them); rare goods (letters from Napoleon) that cannot be reproduced in unlimited quantities; differences in value between identical objects at different places; differences skilled labor makes; changes caused by fluctuations in supply and demand; aged objects whose producing requires much time to pass (old wines), and so on.[4]

The issues thus far mentioned concern the nature of simple undifferentiated labor time, which is to provide the unit against which all else is to be measured. We now must introduce an additional complication. For Marxist theory does not hold that the value of an object is proportional to the number of simple undifferentiated labor hours that went into its production; rather, the theory holds that the value of an object is proportional to the number of simple undifferentiated socially necessary labor hours that went into its production.[5] Why the additional requirement that the labor hours be socially necessary? Let us proceed slowly.

The requirement that an object have utility is a necessary component of the labor theory of value, if it is to avoid certain objections. Suppose a person works on something absolutely useless that no one wants. For example, he spends his hours efficiently making a big knot; no one else can do it more quickly. Will this object be that many hours valuable? A theory should not have this consequence. Marx avoids it as follows: "Nothing can have value without being an object of utility. If a thing is useless so is the labor contained in it; the labor does not count as labor, and therefore creates no value."[6] Isn't this an ad hoc restriction? Given the rest of the theory, why does it apply? Why doesn't all efficiently done labor create value? If one has to bring in the fact that it's of use to people and actually wanted (suppose it were of use, but no one wanted it), then perhaps by looking only at wants, which have to be brought in anyway, one can get a complete theory of value.

Even with the ad hoc constraint that the object must be of some use, there remain problems. For, suppose someone works for 563 hours on something of some very slight utility. Is its value now determined by the amount of labor, yielding the consequence that it is incredibly valuable? No. "For the labor spent on them (commodities) counts effectively only insofar as it is spent in a form that is useful to others."[7] Marx goes on to say: "Whether that labor is useful for others, and its product consequently capable of satisfying the wants of others, can be proved only by the act of exchange." If we interpret Marx as saying, not that utility is a necessary condition and that (once satisfied) the amount of labor determines value, but rather that the degree of utility will determine how much (useful) labor has been expended on the object, then we have a theory very different from a labor theory of value.

We can approach this issue from another direction. Suppose that useful things are produced as efficiently as they can be, but that too many of them are produced to sell at a certain price. The price that clears the market is lower than the apparent labor values of the objects; a greater number of efficient hours went into producing them than people are willing to pay for (at a certain price per hour). Does this show that the number of average hours devoted to making an object of significant utility doesn't determine its value? Marx's reply is that if there is such overproduction so that the market doesn't clear at a particular price, then the labor was inefficiently used (less of the thing should have been made), even thought the labor itself wasn't inefficient. Hence not all of those labor hours constituted socially necessary labor time. The object does not have a value less than the socially necessary number of labor hours expended upon it, for there were fewer socially necessary labor hours expended upon it than meet the eye.

Suppose that every piece of linen in the market contains no more labor-time than is socially necessary. In spite of this, all the pieces taken as a whole may have had superfluous labor time spent upon them. If the market cannot stomach the whole quantity at the normal price of 2 shillings a yard, this proves that too great a portion of the total labor of the community has been expended in the form of weaving. The effect is the same as if each weaver had expended more labor-time upon his particular product than is socially necessary.[8]

Thus Marx holds that thus labor isn't all socially necessary. What is socially necessary, and how much of it is, will be determined by what happens on the market!![9] There is no longer any labor theory of value; the central notion of socially necessary labor time is itself defined in terms of the processes and exchange ratios of a competitive market![10]

We have returned to our earlier topic, the risks of investment and production, which we see transforms the labor theory of value into one defined in terms of the results of competitive markets. Consider now a system of payment in accordance with simple, undifferentiated, socially necessary labor hours worked. Under this system, the risks associated with a process of production are borne by each worker participating in the process. However many hours he works at whatever degree of efficiency, he will not know how many socially necessary labor hours he has worked until it is seen how many people are willing to buy the products at what price. A system of payment in accordance with the number of socially necessary labor hours worked therefore would pay some hard-working laborers almost not at all (those who worked for hula hoop manufacturers after the fad had passed, or those who worked in the Edsel plant of the Ford Motor Company), and would pay others very little. (Given the great and nonaccidental incompetence of the investment and production decisions in a socialist society, it would be very surprising if the rulers of such a society dared to pay workers explicitly in accordance with the number of "socially necessary" labor hours they work!) Such a system would compel each individual to attempt to predict the duture market for the product he works on; this would be quite inefficient and would induce those who are dubious about the future success of a product to forgo a job they can do well, even though others are confident enough of its success to risk much on it. Clearly there are advantages to a system which allows persons to shift risks they do not themselves wish to bear, and allows them to be paid a fixed amount, whatever the outcome of the risky process.[11] There are great advantages to allowing opportunities for such specialization in risk-bearing; these opportunities lead to the typical gamut of capitalist institutions.

Marx attempts to answer the following Kantian-type question: how are profits possible?[12] How can there be profits if everything gets its full value, if no cheating goes on? The answer for Marx lies in the unique character of labor power; its value is the cost of producing it (the labor that goes into it), yet it itself is capable of producing more value than it has. (This is true of machines as well.) Putting a certain amount of labor L into making a human organism produces something capable of expending an amount of labor greater than L. Because individuals lack the resources to wait for the return from the sale of the products of their labor (see above), they cannot gather these benefits of their own capacities and are forced to deal with the capitalists. In view of these difficulties with Marxist economic theory, one would expect Marxists to study carefully alternative theories of the existence of profit, including those formulated by "bourgeois" economists. Though I have concentrated here on issues about risk and uncertainty, I should also mention innovation (Schumpeter) and, very importantly, the alertness to and search for new opportunities for arbitrage (broadly conceived) which others have not yet noticed.[13] An alternative explanatory theory, if adequate, presumably would remove much of the scientific motivation underlying Marxist economic theory; one might be left with the view that Marxian exploitation is the exploitation of people's lack of understanding of economics.

Notes

1. Where did the means of production come from? Who earlier forwent current consumption then in order to gain or produce them? Who now forgoes current consumption in paying wages and factor prices and thus gets returns only after the finished product is sold? Whose enterpreneurial alertness operated throughout?

2. However if given the values of some final products (with great latitude about which ones would serve) the ratio equations could be used to specify the measure M and that could be used to yield the values for the other final products, then the theory would have some content.

3. The Theory of Capitalist Development (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1956). See also R. L. Meek, Studies in the Labour Theory of Value (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1958), pp. 168-173.

4. See Eugene von Böhm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, vol. 1 (South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press, 1959, chap. 12; and his Karl Marx and the Close of His System (Clifton, N.J.: Augustus M. Kelley, 1949).

5. "The labor time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labor prevalent at the time in a given society." Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (New York; Modern Library, n.d.), p. 46. Note that we also want to explain why normal conditions of production are as they are, and why a particular skill and intensity of labor is used on that particular product. For it is not the average degree of skill prevalent in a society that is relevant. Most persons may be more skilled at making the product yet might have something even more important to do, leaving only those of less than average skill at work on i. What is relevant would have to be the skill of those who actually work at making the product. One wants a theory also to explain what determines which persons of varying skills work at making a particular product. I mention these questions, of course, because they can be answered by an alternative theory.

6. Capital, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 1, page 48.

7. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 2, pp. 97-98.

8. Marx, Capital, p. 120.. Why "stomach"?

9. Compare Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, vol. 1 (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969), p. 161. "It is precisely through competition that it is discovered whether the amount of labor embodied in a commodity constitutes a socially necessary amount or not… When the supply of a certain commodity exceeds the demand for it, that means that more human labor has been spent altogether on producing this commodity than was socially necessary at the given period… When, however, supply is less than demand, that means that less human labor has been expended on producing the commodity in question than was socially necessary."

10. Compare the discussion of this issue in Meek, Studies in the Labor Theory of Value, pp. 178-179.

11. Such risks could not be insured against for every project. There will be different estimates of these risks; and once having insured against them there will be less incentive to act fully to bring about the favorable alternative. So an insurer would have to watch over or monitor one's activities to avoid what is termed the "moral hazard." See Kenneth Arrow, Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing (Chicago: Markham, 1971). Alchian and Demsetz, American Economic Review (1972), pp. 777-795, discuss monitoring activities; they arrive

PUTIN MAKES THE PREDICTION AND WARNING THAT OUR ECONOMY IS BECOMING SOCIALIST:

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”[Snip.]

Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than the former head of the KGB, Putin said, “Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”

Putin also echoed the words of conservative maverick Ron Paul when he said, “we must assess the real situation and write off all hopeless debts and ‘bad’ assets. True, this will be an extremely painful and unpleasant process. Far from everyone can accept such measures, fearing for their capitalization, bonuses, or reputation. However, we would ‘conserve’ and prolong the crisis, unless we clean up our balance sheets.”

CORRUPTION, GRAFT AND GREED - COLLAPSE OF SOCIETY

THIS IS A GREAT QUOTE OUTLINING THE KEY POINTS OF HOW A SOCIETY WILL COLLAPSE DUE TO CORRUPTION, GRAFT AND GREED:

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed”. - Ayn Rand

A WICKED AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION

THIS IS A TOPIC THAT I HAVE BEEN RUMINATING ON FOR DECADES NOW. WHEN I WAS PREPARING FOR MY MISSION, I WAS READING THE BOOK "TEACHINGS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH" (TOPJS), AND I CAME ACROSS THE STORY THAT HE HAD WHILE PREACHING IN PHILADELPHIA, QUOTED HERE:

" FORTHCOMING "

I WAS IMPRESSED THAT JOSEPH SMITH HAD THE BOLDNESS TO CALL THIS DETRACTOR ON THE CARPET WHILE HE HAD NOT A SHRED OF PROOF (OTHER THAN A PRINCIPLE AND THE HOLY SPIRIT AS HIS GUIDE) THAT THE MAN WAS AN ADULTERER.

THE SAVIOR TOOK MANY OCCASIONS TO POINT OUT THAT THE BEHAVIOR OF THE WICKED PEOPLE (THAT EVENTUALLY PUT HIM TO DEATH) WAS GENERATED BY THE ACTIONS OF WICKED PEOPLE - SPECIFICALLY ADULTERY/SEXUAL SIN. PLEASE READ MATTHEW 12:39 TO SEE WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE SECRET SIN OF THE DAY:

38 ¶ Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

SO, EVEN THE QUEEN OF SHEBA WILL RISE UP IN CONDEMNATION AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THAT DAY BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT RECOGNIZE THE GREATEST PERSON (EVEN A GOD) EVER TO WALK THE FACE OF THE EARTH. TRUTH IS MAGNETICALLY ATTRACTED TO TRUTH AND TRUTH REPELS ERROR. APPARENTLY, THERE IS A POLARIZING EFFECT TO SEXUAL SIN THAT CAUSES THE ERRANT PERSON TO BECOME BLIND AND CATEGORICALLY REJECT OBVIOUS TRUTH. THE SON OF GOD POINTED THAT OUT - AND IT IS A PRINCIPLE. JOSEPH SMITH DROVE THE POINT HOME IN HIS DISCOURSES AND I WENT ON MY MISSION EXPECTING TO HAVE AN EXPERIENCE SIMILAR IN NATURE.

MY EXPERIENCE;
BRAZIL 1988:

I was a newly-made Zone Leader in Joao Pessoa and was working with Elder Christianson (an excellent artist and servant of God). We were teaching a young family (seven children) about the Joseph Smith story and the Spirit was there in spades. I then turned to the man of the house (cannot remember his name) and asked if he could believe the truth of our statements. He said he could not believe that God could talk to man. I then explained the workings of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22) and that what he was feeling was the Holy Spirit confirming truth to his soul. I knew that he was experiencing that as another scripture came to mind and bore witness to me:

Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.
24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

Knowing that they knew the truth, but that the mysterious repelling of truth was at work - just as with the man in Philadelphia, I, to the utter confusion and horror of my companion blurted out "What do you know about the law of chastisty?".

They seemed a little confused, so I asked them to open their scriptures to Matthew 12:39 and to read it (while my companion was kicking away at my leg). They read it and then I explained that they must be in violation of that law - otherwise they would know it and declare that Jesus is the Son of God and that he did indeed appear to Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820, as we were teaching it - and as the Holy Ghost was bearing firm witness. I boldly asked them if they had something they would like to share with us.

They both looked nervously at each other and then asked the kids to leave. I was thinking in my head "Now I've done it". The kids left and they quietly told us that they had been 'living in sin' and had all seven children without ever getting married. I was floored - but then proceeded to let them know that before they could receive a deep and abiding witness of the truths that we were teaching, they would have to get married and then we could proceed. We politely bid them a good evening and left with my companion letting me know his agitation over this.

I on the other hand, was more than satisfied in the principle and was able to use it later in another even more poignant occasion while on my mission.

BELEM, BRAZIL
DECEMBER 1989.

While Zone Leader in Belem, a largish city near the mouth of the Amazon River (will finish at a later time).

PROPHECY OF THE RISE AND THEN THE COLLAPSE OF DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA

THIS IS A TOPIC THAT IS NEAR AND DEAR TO ME.

AS A YOUNG MAN GROWING UP IN THE 1980'S I ALWAYS THOUGHT ON THE COLD WAR AND WONDERED "WHAT WILL BECOME OF ME?" IN A 'DUCK AND COVER' WORLD. WILL WE END UP IN A WAR OF TOTAL AND COMPLETE ANNIHILATION WITH THE RUSSIANS? IN MY PROPHETIC NAIVETE, I EXPECTED THAT I WOULD HAVE TO FIGHT IN BATTLE AGAINST THE RUSSIANS IN ORDER THAT COMMUNISM WOULD FALL SO THAT THE GOSPEL COULD GO TO 'EVERY NATION, KINDRED, TONGUE AND PEOPLE'. I NEVER IMAGINED THE RELATIVELY PEACEFUL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

I HAVE, OF COURSE, WITNESSED 'THE FALL OF COMMUNISM', BUT HAVE ALWAYS HAD A TENUOUS/UNEASY FEELING ABOUT THE PERMANENCY OF IT. THAT IS, UNTIL I READ A PROPHECY BY A MAN WHO I CREDIT FOR TURNING MY LIFE AROUND (FROM A LIFE OF SELFISH ARROGANCE AND PRIDE TO ONE OF MEANING AND OF DIRECTION THROUGH HIS CLASSIC TALK ON PRIDE ).

IN 1959 WHEN THINGS WERE REALLY STICKY WITH THE RUSSIANS, PRESIDENT EZRA TAFT BENSON, AS AN APOSTLE OF THE LORD, PUT HIS 'PROPHETIC LIFE ON THE LINE' AND MADE THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION:

(WILL ADD LATER, AS TIME ALLOWS)

I LOVE IT WHEN SOMETHING COMES TO FRUITION AND CONFIRMS WHAT I KNEW IN MY HEART (BY THE SAME GIFT OF PROPHECY) TO BE TRUE. ACCORDING TO JOSEPH SMITH, THIS IS THE GREATEST GIFT THAT WE CAN SEEK AFTER - BECAUSE THROUGH IT, WE CAN KNOW THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST AND THE VERY SAVIOR OF THE WORLD AND THAT THROUGH THAT ATONEMENT, MY PERSONAL SINS HAVE BEEN WASHED AWAY. THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE THAT A PERSON CAN POSSESS IN THIS FALLEN WORLD!

PLEASE NOTE THAT PRIME MINISTER PUTIN AND PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV ARE WORKING NICELY TO PUT THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THIS PREDICTION INTO PLAY TODAY AS RUSSIA IS CLOSING BACK UP. WITHIN THE LAST TWO MONTHS RUSSIA HAS DECIDED TO ALLOW NO MORE FOREIGN-BORN MISSIONARIES THROUGH HER BORDERS. THOSE THAT ARE THERE MAY STAY AND FINISH OUT THEIR MISSIONS, BUT THE WORK IS EFFECTIVELY DEAD.

I FURTHER PREDICT THAT THIS ACT ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WILL BRING MUCH SUFFERING TO INNOCENT PEOPLE AS WICKED MEN (AND WOMEN) RULE UNRIGHTEOUSLY. RUSSIA WILL BE GIVEN POWER ONLY FOR A SHORT TIME (TO CASTIGATE THE WICKED AMONG ISRAEL IN THE WEST) AND THEN CATASTROPHIC EVENTS WILL BRING HER TO HER KNEES.

POLITICAL CHAOS IN THE U.S. - IT'S COMING

I PUT THIS IN MY FIRST BLOG ENTRY IN JAN 2008 WITH ALOT OF OTHER RELEVANT INFO. I ALSO FOUND A LINK TO THE ONLINE VERSION OF MOSIAH HANCOCK'S DIARY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ THE ENTIRE QUOTE IN CONTEXT FROM MOSIAH'S DIARY: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/MHancock.html

HERE IS A GREAT YOU-TUBE PRESENTATION OF THE MOSIAH HANCOCK PROPHECY - WHY READ WHEN YOU CAN WATCH?

I DECIDED TO BREAK THIS OUT AND RE-PUBLISH IT BECAUSE IT IS SO RELEVANT TO THE TIMES (BUT PROBABLY 10-20 YEARS OUT FOR FINAL COMPLETION). NOTE THE TIME STAMP ON THE ORIGINAL E-MAIL - LAST ELECTION). ENJOY:


IN LIGHT OF THINGS CURRENTLY GOING ON, HERE ARE SOME INTERESTING PROPHECIES.

THE FOLLOWING WAS MADE BY JOSEPH SMITH EIGHT DAYS BEFORE HIS DEATH IN 1844. WE ORIGINALLY GOT THE E-MAIL BELOW FROM RON MANN (A FORMER HIGHER LEVEL BOEING (SENIOR LOBBYIST) GUY THAT HAS SINCE MOVED TO THE INTER-MOUNTAIN REGION AND WHOSE PASSION IS THINGS HISTORICAL).

SHAWNA VERIFIED THE BOLDED SECTION FROM A CDM ROM OF HISTORICAL DIARIES AND CHURCH COLLECTIONS THAT WE HAVE AT HOME:

Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 1:07 PM

Subject: R Mann talk

A Prophecy Pertaining to Today?

"Mosiah Hancock, son of a close friend and bodyguard of Joseph Smith, recorded an important prophecy as having been made by the Prophet.

According to his diary, this prophecy was made the day after Joseph made his final speech to the Nauvoo Legion (Wednesday, June 19, 1844; eight days before his martyrdom).

After telling how the Prophet discussed a map of the West and foretold the route the Saints would follow in their western exodus, Hancock records Joseph Smith statement to him that,

"There will be two great political parties in this country.

One will be called the Republicans* and the other the Democrat party. These two parties will go to war** and out of these two parties will spring another party which will be the Independent American Party***.

The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands**** until other nations will say, 'Let's divide up the lands of the United States'. Then the people of the U.S. will unite and swear by the blood of their fore-fathers, that the land shall not be divided.

Then the country will go to war, and they will fight until one half of the U.S. army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle.

They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up - when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American Army from defeat and ruin. And they will say, 'Brethren, we are glad you have come, give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God'. Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when it's (sic) liberty hangs by a hair, as it were."

(Mosiah Lyman Hancock, Life Story of Mosiah Lyman Hancock, p.29).

* The Republican Party originated in Ripon Wis. in early 1854 and was formalized on July 4, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The first national convention was held in Philadelphia, Pa., on June 17, 1856--Ten years after this prophecy was made!

** I believe this war of words was started for real with election difficulties of this year (Nov 7,2000) and will be exacerbated within a short time.

***An Independent American party presently exists in several states.

**** Since 1992 the United States military has been reduced to less than 50% of what is was in 1991 and less than before the II World War. It has spent it's strength and means warring in foreign wars needlessly. This is especially true during the past twelve years when every conflict has been politically motivated, not necessitating the U.S. involvement!

HERE IS AN INTERESTING PREDICTION THAT I FOUND ON THE DRUDGE REPORT BY A RUSSIAN ANALYST. IT POINTS TO FINANCIAL COLLAPSE, THEN POLITICAL COLLAPSE, THEN SOCIAL COLLAPSE. I FIND IT EXTREMELY ACCURATE IN CONSIDERATION OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS BEEN PREDICTED BY PROPHETS OF GOD - ESPECIALLY HOW THE U.S. IS DIVIDED INTO SEVERAL DISTINCT PARTS WITH THEIR VARIOUS LOYALTIES:

RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA
Tue Nov 25 2008 09:04:22 ET

A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.

When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."

When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."

Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.

Developing...