The case for Book of Mormon socialism

[David Bokovoy]

A really interesting book on biblical politics is Joshua A. Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (Oxford University Press, 2008). This includes economics.

This is a very problematic book. I would recommend reading Bernard M. Levinson's review "The Bible's Break with Ancient Political Thought to Promote Equality--'It Aint Necessarily So'" in the Journal of Theological Studies; vol. 61 2 pp. 685-694. Levinson tries his best to be positive, but this is an extremely problematic book.

A series of methodological issues compromises the [author's] results. Created Equal advances a Yehezkel Kaufmann-like meta-narrative whereby biblical religion allegedly marks a radical conceptual and historical break with the religion, literature, and thought of the ancient Near East.2 I find the arguments used to defend such a position somewhat one-sided in their representation of both the biblical and the Near Eastern material. Perhaps of greatest concern, I find the method used to make the arguments logically inconsistent. Created Equal embeds into its selective presentation of the primary sources precisely the kind of hierarchies and power relationships that, Berman claims, the Bible disavows.

etc., etc.

[WalkerW]

Indeed the current system is far preferable:

--Steve Earle

Or we could go with what Milton Friedman said to Gen. William Westmoreland:

Milton Friedman was very persuasive. One of Meckling's favorite stories, which his widow, Becky, recalled in a recent interview, was of an exchange between Mr. Friedman and General William Westmoreland, then commander of all U.S. troops in Vietnam. In his testimony before the commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?" Mr. Westmoreland replied, "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." Mr. Friedman then retorted, "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."

[WalkerW]

This is a very problematic book. I would recommend reading Bernard M. Levinson's review "The Bible's Break with Ancient Political Thought to Promote Equality--'It Aint Necessarily So'" in the Journal of Theological Studies; vol. 61 2 pp. 685-694. Levinson tries his best to be positive, but this is an extremely problematic book.

etc., etc.

I knew it was problematic as soon as he talked about taking the Books of Moses as a whole without regard for the Documentary Hypothesis.

I thought it was interesting more so from the persepective of the Bible's influence on Western political thought, not necessarily uncovering First Temple Israelite politics.

I guess I should have clarified that.

Thanks for the review.

[Senator]

What I find curious about this thread is that almost all the people (with one notable exception) who are arguing for BoM/D&C "socialism" are, unless I'm mistaken, all now disbelievers in Mormonism.

I think you might be.

[Jeff K.]

Well it does indeed appear to be the trend. Are socialists perhaps less interested in the church and more interested in government control?

[WalkerW]

Wanted to say thanks again to David for the review. Just finished reading it. Levinson actually voiced my own confusion with how to take the book. As a political and literary treatment, I thought the book was fascinating. However, due to the fact that some of the claims are not rooted in historical accuracy, its power and message are diminished.

Nonetheless, I really liked Ch. 1 "Egalitarian Theology: The Commoner's Upgrade from King's Servant to Servant King." It reminded me of King Benjamin's address.

[thesometimesaint]

The truth is the truth even if only one person knows it.

[WalkerW]

For those interested, I strongly recommend Paul J. Zak (ed.), Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy (Princeton University Press, 2008). I think it demonstrates quite well the moral nature of market exchange and societies. It also addresses the incomplete and misleading understanding of markets as selfish and exploitative.

[Hestia]

semlogo....

No personal attacks or judgment of character. Jeff is excused from this thread.

[David Bokovoy]

I knew it was problematic as soon as he talked about taking the Books of Moses as a whole without regard for the Documentary Hypothesis.

I thought it was interesting more so from the persepective of the Bible's influence on Western political thought, not necessarily uncovering First Temple Israelite politics.

I guess I should have clarified that.

Thanks for the review.

I can see how it would be more helpful from this angle. I'm so wrapped up in comparing biblical with other Near Eastern conceptions that I get worked up quickly against these types of studies.

Best,

--DB

[Loran Howard Blood]

What I find curious about this thread is that almost all the people (with one notable exception) who are arguing for BoM/D&C "socialism" are, unless I'm mistaken, all now disbelievers in Mormonism.

I think that's kind of weird.

Actually, I don't really find this weird at all, but rather of a piece.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Or not steal, or not murder, or should a government be allowed to keep same-sex couples from marrying each other? In reality, many arguing in this thread that governments should not force people to behave morally only want this standard to apply to the realm of personal wealth.

This of course, following David's overall philosophy in these matters, implies that the accumulation of personal wealth is, by definition, morally corrupt, and hence he can equate moral lapses such as theft, murder, homosexual marriage with doing nothing more than working for a living.

Its an interesting apples and oranges comparison, but belies the mental set and worldview orientation behind it.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Why are so many so quick to give their blood involuntarily (redistribution of life) but not their money? Is the valor acknowledged in harm

[Loran Howard Blood]

Oh, I'm just wondering, as I cannot edit my posts or start a new topic...why can't I edit my posts or start a new topic? The edit button doesn't even show up on my posts.

This is different than the board was before it was restructured.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Why are so many so quick to give their blood involuntarily (redistribution of life) but not their money? Is the valor acknowledged in harm

[WalkerW]

I can see how it would be more helpful from this angle. I'm so wrapped up in comparing biblical with other Near Eastern conceptions that I get worked up quickly against these types of studies.

Best,

--DB

I know what you mean. I seriously considered returning it after I read that he was taking the Pentateuch as a finished product. It was a moment of, "Really?"

But from the angle of trying to understand how the Pentateuch might influence Western political thought both in the past and today, it was interesting.

[David Bokovoy]

What I find curious about this thread is that almost all the people (with one notable exception) who are arguing for BoM/D&C "socialism" are, unless I'm mistaken, all now disbelievers in Mormonism.

I think that's kind of weird.

I don't find the issue weird at all! It's simply a matter of objectivity. Lacking a need to superimpose their world view upon these texts makes it a heck of a lot easier for these individuals to call a spade a spade.

And make no mistake about it, as these threads have illustrated time and time again, this matter is clearly a "spade." There's a reason that none of these believers have ever been able to use LDS scripture and/or the historical application of the Law of Consecration by the Church of Jesus Christ to defend their views.

As a result of their belief, they are trying desperately to force a square peg into a round hole.

So I don't think your observation is "weird" at all. It actually makes perfect sense.

[USU78]

What has that got to do with what I said?

Just a slogan. Fit for the back window of a Kennedy limo. Otherwise uninteresting.

Doesn't say anything about its alleged subject matter, but does say a whole lot about its possessor.

[Vance]

. . . having a large portion of one's time, talent, and property involuntarily confiscated for use by the political class in solidifying and expanding its internal partisan and ideological interests?

This reminds me of a money grubbing, tight fisted business owner I know. They wouldn't give a penny (of their own) to a starving child. BUT they claim ownership of the high moral ground because they vote for the socialists.

I am confident that is NOT what the Book of Mormon is teaching.

[Vance]

And make no mistake about it, as these threads have illustrated time and time again, this matter is clearly a "spade." There's a reason that none of these believers have ever been able to use LDS scripture and/or the historical application of the Law of Consecration by the Church of Jesus Christ to defend their views.

I am not sure what you mean by this. But I think it is obvious that these verses are mandates to the INDIVIDUAL, not to the Government.

Isa 1:16

[USU78]

This reminds me of a money grubbing, tight fisted business owner I know. They wouldn't give a penny (of their own) to a starving child. BUT they claim ownership of the high moral ground because they vote for the socialists.

I am confident that is NOT what the Book of Mormon is teaching.

Yup. ****ens had 'em pegged:

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

That is the socialist's downfall: government compels citizen funding of pet projects of government pets, which relieves said pets of personal responsibility of giving of themselves. The BoM priest-kings who proclaim the people should give to the poor, don't compel compliance. They act and live the part.

[USU78]

Again, you do not understand Socialism as an ideal if this is what you believe. The bureacrats will not be allowed to profit from special interests, which is precisely the problem under our current government. Thanks to the capitalistic profit motive, our politicians vote according to the highest bidder. Corporate lobbyists number more than 20,000 and they have full access to the politicians we the people put into office to vote in our best interest. But politicians typically come out of office much wealthier than they were before election, because they are essentially bribed by Corporate America, which has caused true tyranny in this country.

All animals are equal,

But some animals are more equal than others.

[Vance]

Again, you do not understand Socialism as an ideal if this is what you believe.

Ah, the old, "if you knew what I knew, you would agree with me" mime.

Good luck with that.

The bureacrats will not be allowed to profit from special interests, which is precisely the problem under our current government.

And so, you will have other bureaucrats watch these bureaucrats? And just who will watch this new level of bureaucracy? Another level of bureaucracy?

Thanks to the capitalistic profit motive, our politicians vote according to the highest bidder.

And this will change with socialism?

Corporate lobbyists number more than 20,000 and they have full access to the politicians we the people put into office to vote in our best interest.

That is because we have gotten away from FREE ENTERPRISE and the government has its hands in so many aspects or the economy that business CAN'T AFFORD not to have lobbyist.

But politicians typically come out of office much wealthier than they were before election, because they are essentially bribed by Corporate America, which has caused true tyranny in this country.

Correct, but socialism won't change this. In fact it will make it worse because the government will own the economy.

Some will be more equal than others.

Any way you look at it, socialism isn't the answer. It has FAILED EVERY TIME it has been tried.

[semlogo]

What I find curious about this thread is that almost all the people (with one notable exception) who are arguing for BoM/D&C "socialism" are, unless I'm mistaken, all now disbelievers in Mormonism.

I think that's kind of weird.

I'm a believer. I admit to having unpopular opinions. The reason why so many Mormons oppose socialism has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with Mormon culture, which is politically conservative.

[semlogo]

I suggest you read up on the crisis. If you have, you can, perhaps tell us how the government contributed to the pending failure. The central bank of Ireland kept interest rates artifically low which resulted in more loans with greater exposure.

They abandoned the European model and adopted an American model. As a result, they're suffering as we are.