In The Birth of Plenty by William J. Bernstein, he writes that apparently "something happened" at some point in the early nineteenth century. He is referring to a measurable rate of improvement from that time on. Further in the introduction he says that "[u]ntil approximately 1820, per capita world economic growth - the single best way of measuring human material progress - registered near zero." And again, "not long after 1820, prosperity began flowing in an ever-increasing torrent; with each successive generation, the life of the son became observably more comfortable, informed, and predictable than that of the father." (For more on this see the google book interview with the author at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTUZXwQwUJM.)
Profound? I think so. Why? Well, consider the comments of a man who said that early in the spring of 1820 he entered a grove of trees near his humble home in upstate New York to inquire of God about which church he should join :
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
"But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
"It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!
"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
"I was answered that I must join none of them." (Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:15 - 19)
It was this same man, who months before his martyrdom wrote these remarkable words which, especially when considering the remarkable findings of Mr. Bernstein (who used much research from Angus Maddison), are profoundly prophetic:
"I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world."
These are the words of Joseph Smith. Were they prophetic? The promise is always given: "Ask and ye shall receive."
The confirmation of the prophetic words of this remarkable man will continue to be found in discoveries of science, art, and anthropology for they are all inclusive under the umbrella of truth.
6 comments:
Very well written, you have a talent for connecting your thoughts and ideas clearly. That is an obvious correlation that I have never thought of.
I hope you don't mind that I disagree with you, Mark.
I haven't read Bernstein's book, but why does he pick 1820 to mark the "birth of plenty." Having not read the book, that date seems somewhat arbitrary.
This will come as no surprise to you, but I most disagree with your attributing this "birth of plenty" to Mormonism.
First, it is not know when Smith had the First Vision (if at all, of course). The official 1838 account puts it at 1820, but the disparate accounts of the First Vision disagree.
Moreover, pinning the "birth of plenty" on the First Vision seems no more reasonable than pinning it on the passage of the Missouri Compromise or the re-election of President Monroe, both of which also happened in 1820.
Second, I fail to see any correlation between the restoration of the priesthood and the "birth of plenty." What has the priesthood, or revelation for that matter, given us by way of technology?
If you're right that Mormonism was some catalyst to scientific progress, it seems curious, then, that the most important scientific pioneers were largely atheistic (Einstein, Hawking, Darwin, Curie, etc.).
And you'd think that if Mormonism engineered our scientific progress that science would would be kinder to Mormonism's truth-claims. But the opposite has been true, on issues like the Book of Abraham and the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
Third, the insinuation that the Great Apostasy deprived the world not only of the priesthood, but cultural and scientific progress is not (to my knowledge) doctrinal nor is it historical. For one, it ignores the progress made in the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution--all of which predate the restoration of the priesthood. Also, it ignores the wealth of progress made under the Golden Age of Islam (8th-13th century).
Ugh, what a messy, sporadic response that was. I look forward to your thoughts.
Mark,
Intriguing post, as always. Like Jon (is that Jon Adams from USU?), I do have different religious (or irreligious) ideas). I don't see any reason that the disparate vision accounts are entirely relevant. But, my real qualm would be relating 'per capita economic growth' as the criteria for God' blessing on the world . . . I might add that this economic growth (per capita) took shape largely as in the form of an ever widening gap between the Euro-American nations and the third world countries. Still, your ability to see connections in fascinating.
Hey, Ben. This is the Jon Adams from USU ha ha. Here's why I raised the disparate accounts of the First Vision: Mark seems wowed by the fact that a secular historian would place our "birth of plenty" at the year 1820, when Smith allegedly had the First Vision. My point was that some accounts (the earlier ones, in fact) place the date of the First Vision at 1823. It's a minor point, granted, but I think it makes the parallels Mark is drawing just that much more suspect. Meh.
Jon and Ben - You both give valid criticisms and I'll address them in order.
First, Jon argued that 1820 seems somewhat arbitrary since other recollections put the vision occuring in 1823, etc. Since 1820 is the date accepted by the Church as the official date of the First Vision, the date having been received by revelation and the exact year brought to the mind of Joseph Smith by the Holy Spirit, the official date still serves to have been prophetic. (Joseph needed to clarify the dates years later when it was made know to him that it was not clear in his memory just when the vision had occurred - remember, he could hardly write until later in his life. One might be more understanding if he/she tries to pick out the exact dates - in recollection - of the major experiences in life.) So, since 1820 was accepted, by revelation, as the date and inserted into the Doctrine & Covenants long before Bernstein's statement, my argument still holds.
Second, God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. (Matthew 5:45) Latter-day Saints (at least the leaders) have not said the Church contains a monopoly on truth, but otherwise. Therefore, that an atheist receives inspiration is between him/her, as it were, and God. For in the Latter-day Saint understand, all will be brought to stand before God in judgment.
In reply to Ben, economic growth, as Latter-day Saints see it, has indeed led to a greater ability to spread the Gospel. Therefore, there is a direct correlation between economic prosperity and the building up of the kingdom of God.
Sorry for the delayed responses to you both and I appreciate your critiques - as always.
Well stated, my friend.
Post a Comment