Objectivism is not a religion. It is not an anti-religion. It is simply a philosophy, sort of like Tony Robbins on steroids. Unless, I suppose you consider Platonic philosophy or Aristotelian thought religions or anti-religions. You probably do.

I lugged the book to Japan last trip and really got hooked on it … I very much enjoyed the read.

If you say I do then it must be so.

Lets see - Ayn Rand and Joseph Smith both wrote fiction, both had a following, both took lovers years younger than they were.

I am just pleased to see that Shades has found a new faith tradition. And, while I don't personally ascribe to the Objectivist philosophy, I will respect Shades's decision and not deride him or his high priestiss--which is more Shades's offers in return.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven’t read Atlas Shrugged yet. But I can pretty-much find my own personal system of morality in the Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I’d throw away some 99% of it as myth, superstition, immorality posing as God’s commandments, and utter falsehood. But I’d save a few parts:

I’d save 1 corrinthians 13.

I’d save Philippians 4:8.

I'd leave other verses I’d save as well. In general, I would selectively choose the parts that describe Benjamin Franklin’s system of morality, but perhaps with slight adjustments to remove the peripheral references to Deism.

Having said that, if I had to choose one book from which I’d read over-and-over-and-over-and-over again for the rest of my life in the way I used to read the Book of Mormon, I’d choose just about anything other than the Standard Works. Atlas Shrugged? Sure. Moby Dick? Why not. The Book of Mormon? Just shoot me.

I love the Book of Mormon.

Just for the record.

rocket wrote:



I am sure you are wrong, but go ahead and start a thread and compare Ayn Rand to Mussolini or Hitler, for that matter. Try it.

That would be cute. And fun fodder for next week's session with my therapist.

The Dude wrote:



Exactly. How Dan couldn't have figure that out, even at 17. Mind boggling, to me anyway.

I saw DCPs reply to Shades as a subtle smack down, in typical DCP fashion. But, hell, some of us never bought into the Rand cult.

Again, rocket, you are dead wrong. But, go ahead and start the thread. You are a fool to think I might compare Joseph Smith to Hitler or Mussolini. You are such a dipwad, really.

Indeed I do, and it is so.

The writing is incredibly stilted. The philosophy expresed therein is naïve and morally repugnant.

As for what's philosophically wrong with Rand, I like this essay:

http://web.archive.org/web/200101110316 ... /rand.html

It's written by a sympathetic libertarian, so it'll let you down easy.

As for how this compares to the LDS canon, that's not an easy question. The LDS canon is a collection of dozens of books written by even more authors from varying historical periods with different perspectives and arguments. The writing style varies and is filtered through the writing talent of gifted translators. There's no one to one comparison here.

Articulate rejoinder.

I was a fool to think that you would compare Ann Rand objectivism to the teachings of Joseph Smith, but you proved me wrong there. Hang in there with your friend, Joe Wiki.

Wow! Fascinating! I wonder what my therapist will think about this revelation. It is so fun to watch the MADness here (from afár, of course, and unaffected, of course). From my vantage point, high up in the clouds, above the range animals and all.

Yea - I never saw the comparison of Joseph Smith and Hitler either.

I don't much care, actually. But feel free to share it with me, or to have your therapist write to me directly.

I"m deeply, deeply impressed with psychotherapy. Oh yes, indeed.


Are you being treated for delusions of grandeur?

DCP wrote:



Funny stuff. Isn't that the very kind of stuff you actually publish, after having written it yourself, of course?

Delusions of grandeur? Why don't you link everyone to that stuff you have written. Super high class stuff, DCP. After reading that nonsense, who wouldn't think that you are really just projecting? Which was it? Range animals on the African plains? or was it farm animals? Hardly matters, does it?

Delusions of grandeur? I have a few beers and you believe in a guy translating the Book of Mormon from a hat, through a magic stone. There is some perspective for ya!

Gramps, is there any substance to you? I'm trying to figure out why you think -- as you've intimated several times over the past few hours -- that you're on some Olympian height from which you can condescend to look down on us Mormons, but your posts aren't helping me much. They're snotty, yes, but they don't seem to reflect any particular depth or insight.

I'll admit that I haven't paid much attention to you in the past, but, now that I'm watching, I'm not seeing much.

I'm quite serious about that.

Anyhow, it's very nearly two in the morning in Bavaria, and you plainly need some rest.

It would be interesting to know age groups of readers ... baby boomers ... being more of a work-a-holic generation (high work ethic) would likely be more inclined to relate with the book. But then again baby boomer Ph.D.'s might not fit the mold ... stereotypically academia/hard work ethic don't seem to mix.

Oh, that is rich, DCP. I am doing just what you do. I'm quite serious about that.

Well, I'm not much into Mormon stuff much anymore, except to watch the MADness. But I would be happy to talk with you about legal formalism, interpretivism. The debate between Breyer and Scalia. Things like that. This is hardly a board to do such things.

But, if you are saying your range animals essays are substance, well, ...., but then you are the editor and the publisher, so I guess you can call it anything you wish. Whatever.

If that's actually the case, then she changed her mind by the time Atlas Shrugged saw print. She saw every transaction as a trade of value-for-value among equals. The last half of the oath that the strikers took was, ". . . nor ask that any other man live for the sake of mine." In other words, they pledged not to subjugate another for the sake of the self. Have you even read Atlas Shrugged?

But anyway, back to the point. Several people here have called her ideology "repugnant," "naïve," etc. Talk is cheap; so to all the naysayers I ask the following question:

What specific portion of her philosophy do you believe is untrue, and what are your specific reasons for concluding as much?

(In addition, if you haven't actually read the book, please kindly admit it. Thank you.)

I haven't read the book, but I laughed at this comment from Rock: