Battle Against the Laws of Nature—With God Comes Worlds without End

This Earth will eventually pass away, but not to worry, through God we will have a new Earth and Eternal Life. We want to see humanity in pursuit of knowledge for the mind is fascinating, for it looks on things with the hidden generosity in the soul. Few words in recent years have fueled as much hatred and controversy around the World as globalization—and few have been used more hypocritically—and naively—by all sides. For many anti-globalists, the real target of their wrath is the United States of America, World headquarters of free-market economics. The U.S. drive over past decades to globalize (or, more accurately, to reglobalize) the World economy also flew a false flag. Successive administrations, especially that of former President Bill Clinton and currently President Joe Biden, have preached a mantra to the World. The so-called Washington Consensus held that globalization plus liberalization in the form of privatization, deregulation and free trade would alleviate poverty and create democracy and a batter World for all. Both pro- and anti-globalist ideologues typically lump globalization with liberalization, as though they were inseparable. Yet countries can integrate economics without liberalizing. Liberalizing countries, by contrast, can sell off their state enterprises, deregulate and privatize their economies, without necessarily globalizing. None of this guarantees that long-term benefits will flow from the macroeconomy to the microeconomy in which people actually live. And none of it guarantees democracy. It is now perfectly clear that both sides in the ideological war over reglobalization have been perfectly and deliberately unclear. Thus the Web site of a protest movement that has waged a ceaseless campaign against globalism listed “actions” in Hyderabad, India; Davos, Switzerland; Porto Alegre, Brazil; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Washington, D.C.; and Barcelona, Spain, as well as others in New Zealand, Greece, Mexico and France. Demonstrators surrounded World leaders in their luxury hotels at numerous international meetings from Seattle to Genoa or forced them to seek refuge in remote locations—and to call up security forces to maintain the peace. Now protestors are invited to meet these leaders and much of the fizz has gone out of the movement. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

It hardly escapes notice, however, that much of this purportedly anti-globalist activity is coordinated by interlinked Web sites on the Internet, itself an inherently global technology. The political impact of the movements comes largely from television coverage delivered by global satellite systems. Many of the demands of these groups—for lower-cost medications, for example—can be met only by global corporations the protesters could not fly to their demonstrations without globally linked airlines dependent on global reservation systems. And the goal of many of the protesters is to create a movement with global impact. In fact, the movement has split into many different, often short-lived groups with dizzyingly diverse goals, from eliminating child labor to outlawing tobacco to protecting the rights of all inmates. A few are dewy-eyed anarcho-localists, glorifying the supposed authenticity of face-to-face life in pre-industrial villages—conveniently forgetting the lack of privacy, gender discrimination, and the narrow-minded local tyrants and bigots so often found in real villages. Others are back-to-nature romantics. Still others are United States—and European Union—hating supernationalists identified with neofascist anti-immigrant political movements. However, many others are, in fact, not “anti-global” at all but “counter-global.” These counter-globalists, for example, strongly support the United Nations and other international agencies. Many long to see something approximating a single World government, or at least better, stronger global governance financed, perhaps, by a global tax. What many of them do want, however, is a World crackdown on global corporations and global finance, which they blame for exploiting workers, damaging the environment, supporting undemocratic governments and an infinity of other ills. The antis make the most noise. However, even if all the chanting, marching anti- and counter-globalization protesters were to steal away in the night, the advance of economic re-globalization might still slow or stop in the years immediately ahead. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

Powerful factors now loom before us that could halt the continued extension of spatial reach and make even the anti-globalists sorry to see that happen. The re-globalization period has seen the World economy suffer one devastating regional or national crisis after another—in Asia, in Russia, in Mexico, in Argentina. In each case, investors, business decision-makers and governments all over the World worried about financial “contagion.” Would Argentina’s collapse destroy the Brazilian economy? Could the COVID pandemic cause a Worldwide meltdown? (It is still coming close to.) Because economic integration today is far more dense, multilayered and complicated, linking so many diverse economies at so many different levels, it requires systemically designed fail-safes, redundancies and other safety devices. Unfortunately, overenthusiastic re-globalizers are constructing a gigantic financial cruise ship lacking the watertight compartments that even the Titanic had. U.S. stock markets have “circuit breakers” intended to stop a crash in its tracks. For example, if the Dow Jones index falls 10 percent before 2.00 p.m. on a trading day, the New York Stock Exchange will call a one-hour halt in trading. If prices move too far above or below a preset limit, so-called collars are imposed on certain trades. Similar measures are in place or under discussion in many countries from India to Taiwan. These may or may not be adequate locally or nationally. However, trade, currency and capital markets at the global level lack equivalents of even these cautionary measures, let alone a comprehensive system of firewalls, compartments, backups and the like. By integrating faster than we are inoculating ourselves against contagion, two processes are out of sync—setting us up for a global epidemic that could send individual nations rushing back, head over heels, into their protective financial shells. Their frenzied responses could include yanking foreign investments back home, restoring trade barriers, drastically reshuffling import-export patterns and relocating businesses, jobs and capital around the planet—in short, reversing the recent direction of change. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

What other events or conditions could limit or reverse re-globalization? Plenty. If not the age, we have entered the age of export overload—or, at least the interval. Starting in the 1970s, Japan soared to prosperity by combining computerized design and manufacture, relatively closed domestic markets and aggressive exports. That strategy was soon emulated by South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and later by Malaysia and Indonesia. All pumped their products into American and European markets, and more “things” that ever in history moved across the Pacific by containership, tanker and cargo planes. Exports—a spatial phenomenon by definition—came to be regarded as the magic bullet for development. In all these Asian countries, exports grew faster than domestic demand—another example of large-scale de-synchronization. At that point, China roared into the fray, cramming even cheaper products into the crowded global market and especially into the United States of America. Suddenly America was awash with Chinese hair dryers, hoses, handbags, clocks and calculators, tools, and toys. Overcapacity and rapacity marched hand-in-hand. If the United States of America’s economy, which alone accounts for more than 30 percent of World demand, were at any time to lurch into a free fall, it hardly needs to be noted that the relocations of wealth in the World would be shattering for many other countries—including some of the poorest. Among those hardest hit would be countries whose governments are dangerously overdependent on a single export for their day-to-day revenue. This could be copper, as in Zambia. It could be bauxite, sugar, coffee, cocoa or cobalt. Or it could be oil. With crude-oil prices at record highs, it may seem unlikely. Yet the unlikely happens again and again, and a severe slowdown in the United States of America or a crash in China could, despite producers’ efforts to control supply, send oil prices plummeting again. Even if the decline is temporary, the results could shake many governments out of power. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

Fully 80 percent of Nigeria’s government revenue comes from oil, as does 75 percent of Saudi Arabia’s. Much the same can be said of Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Angola. For Venezuela the number is 50 percent, for Russia close to 30 percent. Unstable or politically fragile at best, oil-funded governments could be forced to cut domestic subsidies and social benefits at the risk of triggering upheaval in their streets. More bad news for re-globalization. The war between Russia and Ukraine is increasing pressure on the global system and increasing oil prices higher than they have ever been. The cost of a barrel of oil is currently $115 and is expected to reach $150 a barrel. That could send gas prices from $6.00 a gallon to around $9.60 a gallon, which would cause a supply shock. The average American could end up paying $1250 a month for gas. Canceling the Key Stone Pipeline may have been Joe Biden’s biggest mistake. However, he says all Americans need to do is buy electric car. Yet let us forget that we are still in a pandemic and many people have been spending money just to get through it, and with inflation and rising gas prices, no one has money to go out and buy electric cars and a lot of people have already bought new vehicles. In fact, in 2021, sales of light trucks accounted for about 78 percent of the approximately 15 million light vehicles sold in the United States of America. So currently gas prices are really hurting Americans and if they continue to state at this rate and increase, that will be a significant bill. Therefore, people will spend less money dining out, shopping, and traveling. The decades ahead may also see a further formation of supranational blocs and trade groups following the wake of the European Union (EU). The is the World’s largest trading bloc, and second largest economy, after the United States of America. In 2014 the value of the EU’s output totaled $18.5 trillion. The five largest Economies, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain, account for around 70 percent of the 28-country trading bloc. Ranging from Mercosur in South America to emergent groupings in Asia, these blocs, since they create larger-than-national markets, can be seen as half steps toward global integration and more open trade. That is how they are usually portrayed. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

However, despite protestations to the contrary, they can also, under extreme pressures, flip the protectionist switch and become large-scale deterrents to further openness and globalization. With respect to global integration, area-wide supranational blocs could prove to be a double-edged switchblade. And so could the next explosion of scientific and technological breakthroughs. Propelled by the fusion of information and biological technologies, it could reduce the need for some previously imported raw materials and other goods. Radical miniaturization, customization and the partial substitution of knowledge content for raw material means that tomorrow’s economies may no longer need as many of the bulk commodities that now form so large a part of the global market. Teaspoons of a nanoproduct tomorrow could replace tons of material that today needs to be shipped across the World. This may be long in coming, but its impact will be felt in major port cities around the World, from Qingdao to Los Angeles to Rotterdam. Again, all this points to more do-it-at-home processes and less reliance on a globalized marketplace. Furthermore, we cannot rule out war and its partner, terror, the most obvious de-globalizers. Both, as we are currently seeing, can physically destroy energy and transportation infrastructures needed for the movement or relocation of oil, gas, raw materials, finished products and other goods. Both can also unleash capital flight and unstoppable tidal waves of cross-border refugees. Bother will target critical information infrastructures in knowledge-intensive economies. Unfortunately, the period ahead is likely to see high geopolitical instability and frequent outbreaks of military conflict—leaving not only dead and wounded on the field but, as in the past, the disintegration of what has already been integrated. Beyond these potential de-globalizers are what futurist call wild cards, scenarios that, though highly improbable, cannot be ruled out: strange new pandemics and quarantines, asteroid strikes and ecological catastrophes that could knock the entire economic firmament off its current course and reduce it to Mad Max conditions. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

It is useful to reserve at least a speck of mind space for thinking the unthinkable, for history is little more than a sequence of high-impact events that began as utterly improbable and exploded into actuality. We cannot know with certainty which of these thrust-reversers might come into play, or how they might converge. However, any one of them could prove a far more potent force for turning back re-globalization than all the headline-grabbing protest movements put together. Moreover, it is easy to imagine two or more of these de-globalizing events coming into play simultaneously—and in the not-so-far-off future. It is a lot harder to imagine a future in which none of them occurs. The most likely scenario is a split—a possible slowdown in further economic integration as such, even as World pressures rise for globally coordinated action on such issues as terror, crime, environmental issues, human rights, slavery, and genocide. This should put to bed any dream of linear progress toward a fully integrated, truly global economy—and any illusions about a World government in the foreseeable decades. It points, instead, to more not fewer, faster not slower, bigger not smaller, spatial jolts to job markets, technologies, money and people around the planet. It points to an age of accelerating spatial turbulence. What we have seen so far, therefore, is not only a massive shift of wealth toward Asia, a growing importance of region-states and a change in spatial criteria in advanced economies, but a gigantic—though reversible—process of re-globalization. Any of these, by itself, represents an important change in the way revolutionary wealth is related to the deep fundamental of space. Yet, as we will soon see, one final spatial change may, some distant day, dwarf all these put together. Now, one striking characteristic of modern education is the unanimous disapproval of exploiting the powerful feeling of shame, the hot blush and wanting to sink into the ground out of sight. It is claimed that this injures personal dignity and either makes a child vengeful and not belonging, or breaks his spirit. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

Youth workers with delinquents make a fetish of protecting self-esteem, as contrasted with the polices’ “You young Punk!” Yet in ancient education, exempli gratia, in the Socratic dialogues, this very arousal of shame is a chief device; the teacher greets the hot flush as a capital sign that the youth is educable, he has noble aims. Such a youth has dignity in his very shame. The difference seems to be that we cannot offer available opportunities of honor, we do not have them; and therefore we must protect what shreds of dignity the youth has. If we make him ashamed of his past, since he has no future, he is reduced to nothing. In other ages, the community had plenty of chances of honor, and to belong to the community itself was honor. (Let me make an analogy from psychotherapeutic practice: when a patient is schizoid, you give reassurance, protect the weak ego; when he is neurotic and can take care of himself, you attack the character resistances.) Now shame is the only direct attack on conceit, the defensive image of oneself. Conceit is the common denominator of the Organization Man, the hipster, and the juvenile delinquent—this is why I have been lumping them together. The conceited image of the self is usually not quite conscious, but it is instantly woundable; and people protect it with a conformity to their peers (oneself is superior). However, the conceited groups differ in their methods of confirming and enhancing conceit: the juvenile delinquent by surly and mischievous destructiveness of the insulting privileged outgroup; the hipster by making fools of them with token performances; the Organization Man by status and salary. To this inner idol, they sacrifice the ingenuous exhibition and self-expression that could make them great, effective, or loved in the World; but if it is mistaken, out of place, or disproportionate, that can also be shamed. Being ashamed ought to mean that a youth gives up some cherished error or conceited image of himself, and goes on, without loss of dignity, to achieve an ideal that is real; this is honor. Only the community can bestow honor, on those who enhance the community, who follow the useful callings, or bring new culture. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

In New York, those who have kept out of jail for a generation are not made much of by a grateful and admiring citizenry. It is hard achievement but, like other public gods, it is not esteemed. Among cities, Venice had magnificence; but it is Florence that knew how to pay honor to her sons. She made it hard for them, with neglect and exile, to be themselves and serve her; but when nevertheless they achieved their ideals, her praise was loud. Boys today hardly aspire to immortal honor, the honor of self-fulfilling achievement. It is highly disapproved of in the code of the organized system. Instead, they devote themselves to protecting their “personal honor” against insults; and conversely they dream of the transient notoriety which will prove that they are “somebody,” which they doubt. The personal honor that they protect does not include truthfulness, honesty, public usefulness, integrity, independence, or virtues like that. A reputation for these things does not win respect, it has no publicity value; it is believed to be phony anyway, and if it is true, the person is hard to get along with. A British disaffected young man, an Angry Young Man, can make his protest by simply being a Cad, like Osborne’s George Dillion; but that would not much distinguish him on this side of the sea. A bad reputation naturally makes people prudent in their personal dealings, but it generally does not do much hard in the press or on TV, even to a public official, for the plugs is more important than the content of it. On the other hand, any official bad mark that gets on an IBM card, like being arrested and fingerprinted—and even if her was exonerated it–no matter what the charge, it can be disastrous to a young man, for his name can thereby drop out of the system. Nobody, but nobody, may disesteem a man for something, or he may even get wished for notoriety for something, that at the same time makes him unemployable. Just try to imagine nowadays the administrator of old-fashioned juvenile fiction who says, “You man, I do not care what Personnel reports, you have an honest face and we will give you a chance!” #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

Rather, a good man will be asked to resign for the sake of Public Relations. And correspondingly, suburban “good families” increasingly shun “bad families” that have had troubles, such as divorces or delinquency or even death of a parent (!), for that makes the family untypical. (A few years ago an editorial in Life complained that our novels always contain alcoholics, jailbirds, addicts, crazy people, perverts, etcetera, and do not portray average families who have none such. James Farrell, pointing out that the combined numbers of these deviants come to much more than the number of families, drily offered that the editor of Life probably did not have a material family, a very abnormal case.) There is an organized system of reputation that is calculated statistically to minimize risk and eliminate the unsafe; likely it succeeds in this. It may make the enterprise as a whole less efficient, for it guarantees excluding the best, but be that as it may; the important thing is that there has ceased to be any relation whatever between “personal honor” and community or vocational service. Conversely, the way in which our society does do honor to its indubitably great and serviceable men—say, Schweitzer, Einstein, Picasso, Buber—is a study in immunizing people against their virus; it would be a remarkable and melancholy subject for a sociologist. They are transformed into striking images and personalities, and we assign to them the Role of being great men. We pay respectful attention to their birthday sayings. They are the menagerie of Very Important People who exist only for ceremonial occasions and to sponsor funds and drives for enterprises in which they will have no further function. This effectually prevents the two practical uses that we could make of them. We neither take seriously the simple, direct, fearless souls that they invariably are, whether humble or arrogant, to model ourselves after them because they make more sense as human beings; nor do we have recourse to them please to help us when we have need of exceptional purity, magnanimity, profundity, or imagination, giving them a free hand on the assumption that their action is really better. Though we publicize the image, we do not behave as though we really believed that there were great men, a risky fact in the World. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

They are likely to be and do the damnedest things: Picasso is a communist; Einstein sponsored the atom bomb; Bernard Shaw was arrogant and peculiarly celibate; Frank Lloyd Wright was wildly arrogant and immoral when it came to pleasures of the flesh; Bertrand Russell was a convicted pacifist and has practically advocated free love; etcetera. Few great men could pass Personnel. Or, as if we believed that the affairs of our World were alternatively significant enough for the intervention of great men. For instance, no one would think of looking for actualized Christians to intervene in our racial troubles—that is not their “field of competence” (though we did have the sense to get some good sociology on the subject from Gunner Myrdal). We would not officially ask a man of letters, as the British used Bernard Shaw, to criticize the penal system. When it comes to improving the high schools, we choose a well-licensed administrator, we do not try to persuade some extraordinary scholar or natural philosopher, a man who has actually learned something and therefore perhaps knows how it is done; naturally we come out with an excellent administrative report, but no ideas. John Dewey was called on, by passionately interested people, to make an impartial inquiry into the death of Trotsky; that seems a reasonable use of a judicious and incorruptible man; but we do not much imitate it. However, even when there is no doubt of the field of competence, when we choose a man to beautify our towns, we do not automatically call on the major artists of the World; for instance, we now lavishly praise Frank Lloyd Wright, but we never made any community use of him, though he longed for the chance and kept badgering the country with community projects. My belief is that one can easily put great men to work, even against their own freedom and advantage, for they allow themselves to be imposed on, noblesse oblige; but one must, of course, then take the consequences. As if they were a useful public resource, I understand that to consider powerful souls is quite foreign to our customs. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

In a small sense it is undemocratic to consider powerful souls as a public resource, for it assumes that some people really know better in a way that must seem arbitrary to most. In a large sense it is certainly democratic, it that it makes the great man serve as a man. Either of these choices, to eschew them or to use them, however, is preferable to creating glamorous images with empty roles. Now, schoolteaching in Tsarist Russia was little different from anywhere else. The profession was undervalued, underpaid, and overworked, and subject to unutterably petty rules and regulations spewed forth by a strangulating educational bureaucracy. Russia’s legal code granted government officials the right to deny any soldier or civil servant permission to marry, but by the late nineteenth century, only schoolteachers who married lost their rent-free lodgings, seniority, even their jobs. In fact, women teachers were the real target and were routinely fired for marrying, while men seldom were. In 1897, the St. Petersburg Duma (the name for elective municipal councils) formalized this discrimination, passing a law that banned the hiring of married women teachers and terminated those who married after their appointment. The reasons? With fewer employment opportunities than men, single, well-educated young women were grateful for teaching positions. Since they needed less money to live (so the authorities reasoned), they demanded lower salaries. Teaching youngsters was natural for them and prepared them or marriage, at which time they would be dismissed. Off they went to their husbands, at a net saving to St. Petersburg because they were given no pension benefits and were replaced by another contingent of eager, hardworking, docile young spinsters. Why were women singled out for singleness? Married men, after all, were permitted to teach. The reasoning was that a man merely provided his family’s living, but a mother had much heavier responsibilities. She might, for example, have to nurse a baby during school hours or stay at home to nurse a sick child or husband. She might even transfer to her family some of the interminable hours previously dedicated to her teaching. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

Elementary-school teaching in St. Petersburg paid better than elsewhere in Russian, and the city’s rich cultural life, with concerts, ballets, and lectures, was an additional lure for eager young minds. School conditions, on the other hand, were less delightful. Classes were held in the teachers’ rented apartment, dark and cramped, unequipped and noisy, and scattered throughout the city, preventing camaraderie with other teachers. Their often cold, hungry, desperately poor, and sometimes abused pupils were divided into three grades, for which one teacher alone was responsible. To ease the children’s suffering, teachers were supposed to dip into their own meager purses and provide after-hours food, clothing, and lodging. When teachers dared complain, it was of overwork and nervous exhaustion. This, however, was not the end of their employer’s demands. Teachers had to provide certificates of political reliability, and in some areas (but not St. Petersburg), the women had to submit medical proof of virginity. In Moscow, female but not male teachers had to abide by a strict 11 P.M. curfew and were monitored to ensure they did so. Clearly, women teachers were expected to be more than just unmarried. Virtue and virginity were of the highest importance. Frightened teachers dared protect only collectively, through the women’s movement and teachers’ mutual-aid societies. A 1903 survey revealed their conflicting views on the issue of celibacy as a prerequisite to teaching, which many abhorred but practiced for wants of alternatives. As one liberal legislator expressed it, “This situation weighs heavily upon city teachers and is tantamount to serfdom. Women teachers are primarily poor girls, needing a scrap of bread; the city administration gives them the chance to work and not die of hunger, but under conditions which cripple their natures, condemning them to eternal celibacy.” Thirty-five teachers reported financial insecurity as their motivation for remaining single and celibate; twenty-nine were afraid of losing their jobs; seven were too exhausted by their teaching responsibilities to lead a personal life; and seven worked too long hours to meet potential husbands. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

A minority of women teachers readily accepted the celibacy imposed on them. Two did not want to marry anyway, one to avoid wedding an unsuitable man, as she noticed so often happened. A few believed teaching was emotional reward enough: “THEY DO NOT NEED A FAMILY. They have found their family among those whom the Lord called His pupils.” Others argued that teaching provided them with independence and a satisfying profession without the constraints of marriage or parental authority, and they defended both their celibacy and their right to reject marriage. The vast majority, however, would have loved to marry and raise families and believed married women were better teachers than spinsters. One anonymous writer agreed: “The Duma’s vestal virgins! How sad and pitiful that sounds…What intelligent woman would give up her right to be a mother? What educated young woman, having known the soul of a small child, would give up the right to bring up her own children and give the motherland useful citizens?!” Some blamed a host of physical and emotion problems on their legislated celibacy: “Celibacy has a harmful effect on everything—on health and on character: it causes selfishness, irritability, nervousness, and a formal relationship to the children,” one woman declared. To avoid all this, a tiny number of defiant women teachers simply had secret love affairs or married and hid the fact. If discovered, they were summarily fired. The simmering discontent boiled over late in 1905, when the Duma voted, by majority of one, to maintain the marriage ban. The authorities had won, just barely, their “battle against the laws of nature.” Eight years later, the “laws of nature” were reestablished, when in a nearly unanimous vote, the marriage ban was repealed. Celibacy was not longer a requirement for St. Petersburg’s women teachers. This episode, replanted in variations through the Western World, including Canada, was a telling indictment of coercive celibacy. Most teachers observed it, reluctantly and even bitterly, simply to keep their jobs. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

The professional and economic risks were too great, and the news of cheaters caught and fired maintained the ambience of fear. Far from finding it rewarding, these unwilling teachers attributed a multitude of ailments to their unnatural celibacy. The few who embraced it voluntarily, on the other hand, respected it as a means to an independent and respected profession and adopted it as a desirable and fruitful way of life. Several revelations were given at Kirtland during the Winter months of 1831-1832. After Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer left Kirtland for Independence with the revelations, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon returned to their work on the Inspired Version of the Scriptures. While they were thus engaged, a revelation came to them in which the Lord gave them these instructions: “Open your mouth in proclaiming my gospel, the things of the kingdom, expounding the mysteries thereof out of the Scriptures. Call upon the inhabitants of the Earth, and bear record, and prepare the way for the commandments and revelations which are to come.” Newell K. Whitney was called to the office of bishop in Kirtland. He was to be an assistant to the bishop in America. It was his duty to receive the funds of the church in Kirtland, to keep that part of the Lord’s storehouse, and to administer to the wants of those who were in need. The Lord said: “It is required of the Lord, at the hand of every steward, to render an account of his stewardship, both in time and in eternity. For he who is faithful and wise in time is accounted worthy to inherit the mansions prepared for them of my Father.” After Joseph and Sidney Rigdon had preached about two months in Kirtland and in neighboring towns, God revealed that they should resume their work on the Scriptures. The Lord said: “It is expedient to translate again, and, inasmuch as it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until Conference, and after that it is expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished.” As Joseph and Sidney Rigdon read and studied the Bible, God helped them understand the Scriptures by His Holy Spirit. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

Sometimes the Lord gave them direct revelations about things which puzzled them, as he did when He said: “And it came to pass that the children being brought up in subjection to the Law of Moses…believed not the gospel of Christ. Wherefore this cause the apostle wrote unto the church that a believer should not be united to an unbelieve, expect the Law of Moses should be done away among them. And that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy. However, little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the Scriptures mean.” The elders were instructed that it was their duty to provide for their own families, to find places for them to live, and then perform their work for the church. The Lord promised his elders: “Let my servants proclaim the things which I have commanded them: and inasmuch as they are faithful, lo, I will be with them even unto the end. Let every human be diligent in all things. And the idler shall not have place in the church, except one repents and mends one’s ways.” On February 10, 1832, Joseph and Sidney Rigdon received a vision in which they saw and talked with Jesus Christ. They saw Jesus Christ sitting at the right hand of God. They saw the holy angels and all those who were pure in heart bow, worshiping God and His Son. Because of this vision they were able to say concerning Jesus Christ: “And, now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, that he lives; for we saw him, even on the right hand of God. And we heard the voice bearing record that He is the only Begotten of the Father; that by Him, and through Him, and of Him, the World are and were created; and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” In this vision they saw that before the World was created, one of the angels, Lucifer, was evil, having rebelled against the Son of God. As a result he was thrust from the presence of God and he fell from Heaven, and became Satan. Of this part of their vision, Joseph writes: “We beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the Devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and His Christ. Wherefore he maketh war with the saints of God…And we saw a vision of the sufferings of those with whom he made war and overcame, for thus came the voice of the Lord unto us.” #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

Then the Lord revealed to Joseph and Sidney Rigdon how men should live after death in places that are called “glories.” The glory of a human is to occupy depends upon one’s works while one lives on the Earth. In vision Joseph and Sidney Rigdon saw these three glories and they wrote of what they saw: First, the celestial glory, or the glory as of the sun. Those who will inherit the celestial glory: “They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on His name, and were baptized. And received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of one who is ordained and sealed unto this power. And who overcome by faith. They are they who are priests of the Most High after the order of Melchisedec. These shall dwell in the presence of God and His Christ for ever and ever: these are they whom He shall bring with Him, when He shall come in the clouds of Heaven, to reign on the Earth over His people. These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just. Second, the terrestrial glory, or the glory as of the moon. Those who will inherit the terrestrial glory: These are they who died without law…who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable humans of the Earther, who were blinded by the craftiness of humans. These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus. These are they who receive of His glory, but not of His fullness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fullness of the Father. Third, the telestial glory, or the glory as of the stars. Of this glory, and those who would inherit this glory, Joseph wrote: These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus Christ. These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit; these are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who shall not be redeemed from the Devil, until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished His work. These are they who are liars, and whosever loves and makes a lie; these are they who suffer the wrath of God. These are they who receive not of his fullness in the eternal World, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial and also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels. As one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial World. Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

God made it known that eventually all will acknowledge Him as the Lord, for Jesus Christ said of those who inherit telestial glory: These are all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne for ever and ever; for they shall be judged according to their works; and every human shall receive according to one’s own works, but where God and Christ dwell they can not come, Worlds without end. Many wonderful things were shown to Joseph and Sidney Rigdon in this vision. Many of them were so glorious that God commanded they should not write about them. In March four revelations were given. One gave further information on the storehouse and how to care for the poor. In others some of the elders were sent to different parts of the country to preach the gospel. Good advice was given to Frederick G. Williams when the Lord said: Be faithful, stand in the office which I have appointed unto you, succor the weak, lift up the hands of which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees. And if thou art faithful unto the end, thou shalt have a crown of immortality and eternal life in the mansions which I have prepared in the House of My Father. “Only fear the Lord and serve Him faithfully with all your heart; for consider how great are the things He has done for you,” I Samuel 12.24. An Angel inclines the will as something loveable, and as manifesting some created good ordered God’s goodness. And thus one can incline the will to the love of the creator of God, by way of persuasion. Everywhere is the green of new growth, the amazing sight of the renewal of the Earth. We watch the grass once again emerging from the ground. O Lord, may we today be touched by grace, fascinated and moved by this your creation, energized by the power of new growth at work in your World. Prayer is an invitation to God to intervene in our lives, to let His will prevail in our affairs; it is an effort to make Him the Lord of your soul. If it does not add to the glory of God, what is pride worth? We forfeit our dignity when we abandon loyalty to what is sacred; our existence dwindles to trifles. We barter life for oblivion, and pay the price of toil and pain in the pursuit of aimlessness. Through prayer we sanctify ourselves, our feelings, our ideas. In prayer we establish a living contact with God, between our concern and His will, between despair and promise, want and abundance. Life is fashioned by prayer, and prayer is the quintessence of life. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18