Social Justice in the Bible

[David Bokovoy]

I've only been following this thread intermittently, so I haven't read every post, but this Bokovoy statement caught my eye:

There have been other statements by Bokovoy on this thread that raise eyebrows, in particular the ones where he appeals to his own authority to affirm the correctness of his arguments--always my favorite example of an appeal to authority. But this statement may be the most condescending I've seen in a long time.

I'm pretty confident that there are quite a few people in the church who have "seriously engaged the OT" who don't interpret things the same as David, and who don't draw the same conclusions.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that David is the one person in the church who has "seriously engaged the OT" more than any other.

Sorry to offend. I'm certainly not trying to be boastful. As Loran has repeatedly pointed out, my speciality is not very meaningful. But it is a speciality for which my family and I have worked hard to obtain, and given the fact that it's a trivial expertise, the reality is that there aren't too many Latter-day Saints who have been seriously trained in Old Testament studies, you can probably count them on about one hand, and as Paul Hoskisson once warned me, the few that have been trained typically don't stay in the Church (something that both you and Will have repeatedly expressed your hope will be my fate).

But my observation was directed to a person who has been seriously trained in these matters, whose posts I enjoy reading, and who has shared insights into the Bible and ancient Near East that I appreciate, and who surprisingly enough, shares my perspective.

Funny how that works.

[Jeff K.]

Right, because the only way individuals were able to opt out of the United Order was to submit to their own deaths. Of course, if the community is of one heart and mind there is no tyranny of force is there?

Or exile. You perhaps do not understand the issues in ancient Israel where exile was the equivalent of death. To a lesser degree shunning.

And how is this different than what happens in Zion if someone is not of the 'one heart, one mind'? I don't see Zion happening overnight where suddenly all are of one mind where disagreements occurred before. Zion must grow overtime and thus there will likely be some who choose to 'opt out' just as happened with the United Order.

PS: I'm not offering anything, I'm just interested in understanding others' POV.

In Zion we have a question of faith, and Zion, true Zion is where everyone has a complete understanding as to the goal and method. Where we were all of one mind and one faith and one heart. You see Zion as everyone being happy together. It is something much more profound than than. Zion does grow over time, but it may only grow under the direction of Christ, or through a prophet. A bureacracy that enters into the mix is not Zion, it is a set of orders that apply to all equally, even though all do not need or should be applied to equally. Exceptions sometimes, based on needs not necessarily known by all.

Bureacracies are, by their nature powerful tyrannies.

Zion by its nature is and must be driven by propehts under Christ.

I understand you are discussing a point of view, but consider the point of view that you cannot create a template of a car and not take into account that the indispensible proper driver must be in charge.

I cannot trust an organization driven by man, even one with the best intentions because it will eventually deteriorate into tyranny. It always has historically.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 23 March 2011 - 02:32 PM, said:

Opt out? You mean perhaps die? That is of course an "option" that was used, a type of exile. I do not think Zion exiles people because they are all of one heart and mind, in other words they all agree with the one path.

What you offer is a bureaucracy with power that imposes a lifestyle that may or may not be the correct way, but that follows your interpretation of the correct way. If one disagrees with it, or opts out, we have of course exile, shunning, various separations of the community from the "tainted" individual.

The implication of force is powerful, with a passive aggressive patina. Your position seems to be that it is your heart and mind that is the one we should all be. Mine is that such a community must be driven by a prophet or Christ himself, upon whom we have our faith in creating such a society. At such a juncture the power and strength of the bureacracy is irrelevant since it will not be needed and everyone acts as one. In your case there will be rules, punishments, opt outs.... something significantly more complicated and infinitely less sure.

Wha?????

Could you possibly misconstrue another's statement any more?

Wha?????

Could you possibly misconstrue another's statement any more?

Apparently you may have,but it could be that you out of your depth senator. So far I am seeing a discussion on one persons desire to establish their version of Zion. Of course we should all kumyah and get on board. I just know how bureacracies work, I know why governments are limited, and how people who recieve a little authority more often than not abuse it, even when they begin with the best intentions. the establishment of Zion, but I am not seeing much mention of the most important requirement, that being Christ or a prophet. When one focuses only on the end results, one somtimes forgets the road paved with destruction. And how easily things go awry. All in the name of "social justice" of course.

[Calm]

You see Zion as everyone being happy together. It is something much more profound than than.

I am sorry, but you really are clueless here about what I do and do not see. I really wish you would stop making assumptions and jumping the conversation ahead to attacking positions I do not hold. You have not been right on one thing yet.

It seems also that I am not the only one you are doing this to.

Every instance of Zion existing in the past and every description of Zion in the future has Zion under the direction of Christ and/or the prophet/priestking. Some of us take that direction as a given.

[David Bokovoy]

As a further point of clarification on Nomad's mischaracterization of my post, contrary to his assertion, I was being very sincere. The reality is that very few Latter-day Saints, including many of the posters in this thread, have ever seriously engaged the Old Testament. I recognize that once one is initially exposed to some of these concepts, they can prove a bit shocking. I have found in my studies, however, that with the proper perspective, these issues pertaining to the Old Testament can actually not only increase one's insights into the Restoration, but actually strength one's testimony. They certainly have mine.

I'm therefore grateful for a chance to share my perspective on these matters and the way that I connect these issues with the Restoration. In the end, of course, I may be right or wrong, but I'm passionate about these topics and enjoy sharing that passion with others; especially in light of the fact that when Latter-day Saints do seriously engage the OT, they inevitably encounter these scholarly insights and often wonder how to reconcile them with the Restoration.

This is what I meant in the post Nomad cited. It certainly wasn't an effort to boast, and or present my position as an appeal to authority.

[Calm]

This is what I meant in the post Nomad cited. It certainly wasn't an effort to boast, and or present my position as an appeal to authority.

I read it as simply describing that people's level of comfort in discussing things in such a way would rise as they had more exposure and that they would not see such discussion as inappropriate, not that they would always be in agreement over what conclusions would drawn from such discussions.

[WalkerW]

1. Such advanced degrees, no matter how many and no matter how long they have been held, do not guarantee either the wise or intelligent use of such knowledge, nor even that such knowledge will be understood by the possessor in such a way as to make it valuable as knowedge

True. But one would have to demonstrate that the individual is lacking in wisdom or intelligence. Neither has been shown in the case of David.

David is all over the map attempting to isolate his thesis from criticism. My post to him above that you find so "uncalled for" was a direct counter thrust to his long standing insistence on avoiding any and all discussion of the theoretical or potential ramifications of his economic ideas regarding the UO as it would actually be applied, as well as any and all the implications of his ideas within other subject areas, such as economics, political theory, political philosophy, and political economy upon which they impinge and directly relate, while at the same time insisting that any number of mandates, practices, prescriptions, and concepts found OT law be diractly applied to the modern Church. He will take no criticism of the implications of his desire to transfer practices and concepts from ancient Israelite religion to the contemporary Church and to a future Zion society, while maintaining that any and all criticisms be centered strictly within the OT text itself, ignoring such implications for gospel doctrine in a broader sense, and for economic and social theory outside the narrow confines of several thousand year old cultures of the ancient Near East

Then say those of the ancient Near East were misguided and move on. I'm more so baffled by individuals who try to say that the OT doesn't fit David's reading. It is presentism at its worst.

I've stated quite clearly elsewhere that I support market systems for a variety of reasons. I don't see how the agrarian model of consecration would work in a globalized society. Thankfully, I believe in continuing revelation and revelatory adaptation. But I don't try to turn the OT into an ancient version of modern Western society.

Hence: he claims his theories are relevant to contemporary questions and to the restored gospel as revealed and understood in our day. At the same time, he utterly refuses to explore any criticism of them from any perspective outside his own academic niche and its particular concerns

The OP doesn't go into modern political theories. It addresses an ancient version of social justice within the biblical texts.

This is a prime example Walker, of why William Buckley said many years ago that he would "rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard." and why holding such degrees as David has has no particular relevance to being a Bishop, a stake president, an apostle, president of the Church, or being a gospel doctrine teacher.

Perhaps I missed where David said it was relevant or necessary for any of those. Given the type of comments I hear in gospel doctrine, though, I wish people would familiarize themselves more with the history and scholarship of the book they claim as scripture.

I don't defer to credentials, though I respect them as is their due, in the way you and some others apparently do

Forgive me for assuming that a Ph.D. student in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East would know something about Hebrew and the Ancient Near East.

If one cannot understand the OT properly unless he has a degree in biblical Hebrew, and can read the texts in their original languages, then please, let's just close up the entire gospel doctrine program of instruction in our Sunday schools until we can get degreed scholars who read the original languages to teach in every ward and branch in existence.

Why do you assume you can understand an ancient text without knowing anything of the history, language, and culture it comes from? This doesn't mean one has to be a scholar, but surely you don't think anyone can just pick up "the Bible" and know exactly what it is talking about with no familiarity of its background.

The present gospel doctrine teacher in my branch reads, speaks and writes neither biblical Hebrew nor NT Greek

I wish mine at least made an effort to understand these languages in relation to the text she is called to teach. As far as I'm concerned, that's called being a good teacher and magnifying your calling.

If, bacause of this, she is not competent to teach either the OT or NT gospel doctrine classes, then let's be up front about it and let the Brethren know that changes need to be made such that the common run without degrees from Brandeis or Harvard are not polluting the minds of Church members with their "primary/Sunday school" versions of gospel teachings.

David is discussing the OT academically. For whatever reason, you are offended by this. I'll be up front and say that the average gospel doctrine teacher doesn't know what in the hell they are talking about half the time. There is a reason the manual has feel-good moral lessons and not heavy exegesis.

There is a very dangerous precedent being set here, and that is what David's critics are responding to.

There is also the danger of taking Sowell's Intellectuals and Society to the extreme where one ends up despising any and everything "intellectual."

David's critics are trying to make the OT say something it doesn't because of political ideologies. Because they aren't immersed in biblical scholarship and languages and therefore can't make any worthwhile argument against his position, they try to undermine his studies by dismissing him as an unwise, unintelligent, arrogant "intellectual."

[David Bokovoy]

I read it as simply describing that people's level of comfort in discussing things in such a way would rise as they had more exposure and that they would not see such discussion as inappropriate, not that they would always be in agreement over what conclusions would drawn from such discussions.

Thank you. I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way. More importantly, weather's warming up which means it's about time to get the rib, pulled pork, and brisket parties rolling once again. Springville's not too far from Orem. I just got to get some more cherry and apple wood.

[Calm]

I'm more so baffled by individuals who try to say that the OT doesn't fit David's reading. It is presentism at its worst.

It is a position that one is likely to hold if one believes that the scriptures are inerrant, that God's teachings to men have always been the same no matter what the cultural understandings or some such thing and such teachings have always been clearly transmitted by their human carriers.

[Calm]

Thank you. I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way. More importantly, weather's warming up which means it's about time to get the rib, pulled pork, and brisket parties rolling once again. Springville's not too far from Orem. I just got to get some more cherry and apple wood.

Yum yum...

[WalkerW]

Delete: Unnecessary explosion of frustration to

You mean a bunch of unbelieving, faithless, secular

[WalkerW]

As for the concept of the anointed priestly king, I strongly suggest James R. Davila's excellent "Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God" in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response?, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer (SUNY Press, 1997).

Puts the Melchizedek priesthood into perspective (for me at least): Kings, priests, and the mysteries of godliness.

As I said in an email exchange with a fundamentalist Christian,

Paul and others reinterpreted and reapplied Old Testament scriptures to fit the new Christological view. For example, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes Ps. 45:6 and applies it to Christ: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Heb. 1: But the original Psalm was obviously not about Jesus. It was addressed to the anointed Davidic king:

"[T]he rituals which transform the status of the earthly king, removing him from "merely human" status to that of a sacral figure, to be couched in the form of a narrative about a god, carries with it the hint that the king himself is to be seen as transformed into a god...The enthronement of the king is thus his apotheosis." (Nicolas Wyatt, "Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship," 'There's Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King': Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.: 2005)

The king was seen as divine, the son of Yahweh. This is why you have the people prostrated "before Yahweh and the king" in 1 Ch. 29:20 (notice the king sits on the throne of Yahweh in vs. 23). James Davila of the University of St. Andrews has pointed out that Melchizedek was the prototype of Davidic royalty and was originally understood to be a priest, king, and god (or deified king). This, however, was suppressed by the Deuteronomist reformers. Hence, we only have two mentions of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible, yet he is a key parallel figure to Jesus in the epistle to the Hebrews. During Christ's timeframe, Melchizedek was viewed as a god or divine mediator in some circles i.e. Fragment 11Q13 (see Davila, "Melchizedek: Priest, King, and God," The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response?, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer, SUNY Press: 1997). Ps. 45:6 describes the Israelite king, who is anointed or a messiah (Heb "anointed one"), a Davidic descendent, a son of God (see Ps. 2:7), and originally a high priest (see Ps. 110:4). All these apply to the Messiah who is Jesus. So, we see a reworking of Old Testament scriptures to fit the revelation of Christ's resurrection (even resurrection had cultic significance. See J. Wijngaards, "Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. VI 2)," Vetus Testamentum 17:2, April 1967).

[Deborah]

In the context of biblical views regarding social justice and equity, these conceptions appear directly linked with taking care of the poor and needy by forgiving their debts, and making sure that they had enough food, clothing, and shelter to live comfortably. This perspective on social justice stands at the very heart of the kingdom of God as defined in both the Old and New Testaments.

Not having read all of the comments I don't know if this has been addressed. But isn't the point of the Biblical admonitions that they are directed to the "kingdom of God" and not the kingdom of men? I have no disagreement that the kingdom of God should be living so that the poor are taken care of and debts are forgiven.

The problem is when secular governments get involved with such tasks it's done by taking from someone to give to someone else and not of the people themselves opening their hearts and giving freely. This doesn't encourage charity but fosters envy on the part of those receiving and anger on the part of those who have no say in the matter, and is contrary to fostering a spirit of love and unity.

I think that people, without government intervention, are for the most part very generous. Even in these difficult economic times look how many individuals respond to calls for help from those who suffer from disaster, or personal illness or tragedy. We see this all the time in communities and even on a worldwide scale. These are people acting out of charity and not governments imposing their wills. However, people who freely give in such circumstances, even when they might be economically strapped, will react very differently if a bureaucrat tells them they must donate to an anonymous coffer that distributes their wealth according to a faceless bureaucrat's whims and not according to the impressions of the donor's heart, or the guidance of the Spirit.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Excellent. I'm quite fond of Frank Moore Cross' work. It was fun to see him in the Church video.

What were' seeing in this thread, however, is that it is only those who have not seriously engaged the OT that struggle to understand these concepts. I suspect it's simply a matter of exposure. Give them some time to reflect over these issues and most of them will come around.

Has everybody got that? Like Plato's dragging of the unenlightened out of the cave and into the sunlight, after enough exposure, we will all come around to seeing Christian charity and discipleship to some degree the way Gustavp Gutierrez sees it.

Our consciousness will eventually be raised.

[volgadon]

But my observation was directed to a person who has been seriously trained in these matters, whose posts I enjoy reading, and who has shared insights into the Bible and ancient Near East that I appreciate, and who surprisingly enough, shares my perspective.

Self-trained, for the most part. I say for the most part because one of the unique features of Israeli schools is that biblical studies are part of the required curriculum from 2nd grade upwards. That provides the basic framework for biblical scholarship. I've learned a lot from interacting with you as well.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Sunday School really isn't about understanding the OT properly. It is about teaching gospel principles using certain OT scriptures, which often take the backseat to quotes from general authorities. Lets take as an example President Benson's remarks regarding shepherds. Come spend a few days in my parents' house, you'll see Palestinian shepherds in the fields outside and you will understand why whatever the spiritual and inspirational value of Pres. Benson's quote is, it has nothing to do with how shepherding was done.

Gospel doctrine class is about understanding the scriptures from a restoration gospel perspective mediated by the Holy Ghost and clarified by the inspired statements and interpretations of the Lord's anointed servants in our day. Everything takes a backseat to that.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Moreover, political discussions like those that interest Loran are a violation of forum rules,

Then why the hell, if I may politely ask, have you continually insisted on initiating them for at least a year or more in this forum?

[Loran Howard Blood]

Just so, is it Loran Blood's heartless alternative to modern American democracy to adopt the Darwinian and Spencerian notion of "survival of the fittest,"

This is pure diversionary pablum, period. You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. There is nothing whatsoever Darwinian or Spencerian about my political and social philosophy. You have a long, long intellectual and philosophical way to go, Mr. Smith.

Or are all secular democracies to be denied the avenue of assisting people who have fallen on hard times -- due to famine, flood, earthquake, economic catastrophe, etc.? Is there anything which will move him to compassion? Are all organized governmental efforts to deal with problems offlimits? Just asking?

Compassion has not the slightest thing to do with it. Charity is the responsibility of the individual and collectively, of compassionate individuals within groups (such as the Church) combining resources to help the poor. The federal government has simply no business engaging in such "good works." It is not defensible philosophically, politically, or morally, and its catastrophic consequences (especially with regard to the inner city black family) are now a matter of history.

The church has long had an inspired template for our compassion. First we go to our family. Then the Church. Then the state, if all else fails. The idea here, however, is government charity no farther beyond the state and local level in organization and disbursement. Even here, there will be corruption, fraud, and waste, as there is in all government activities, but nothing like that seen in the federal welfare state.

Don't be so smug about your "compassion" Mr. Smith. Your version of welfare has destroyed and corrupted virtually the entire fabric of our society, and entrenched poverty to a degree wholly incongruous with its stated objectives. It has also created a centralized, federal caregiver state radically beyond the control of the electorate or the constitution, that poses a direct threat to the liberties of the citizenry, poor and rich, that the Constitution was originally written to avoid, if at all possible.

It is not Caesar's business to give alms, but ours. Any other course, as the history of this course clearly shows, leads to, not only ever greater poverty and an entitlement mentality and underclass culture that perpetuates and entrenches it, and an aggressive and open ended corrosive diminution of our liberties.

[Loran Howard Blood]

I'm curious as to why one would think that one's contemporary law of carnal commandments -along with its entire array of economic and social forms, relevant to a individualistic, capitalistic, industrialized western people of the here and now- would be any more in parallel to a restored Gospel, than would an archaic people whose proximity in time places them closer to the original gospel that the said restoration is referencing?

Captialism is nothing more than economic liberty. It is purely negative. It is our individual agency that determines how that freedom is utilized, just as in all other areas of the mortal experience. There is no modern "law of carnal commandments" within the realm of free market economics and property rights.

One of the most effective products of the restored gospel upon the minds of its adherents, is the creation of a new identity, group, tribe, ethnicity- House of Israel, if you will. Along with this, is a different way of thinking and doing, both individualistically and communally. This new people was to be set apart, independant from all nations, as a people , not as individuals. The Lord promised a temporal salvation(at least, if not spirtitual as well), contingent on a group, not upon individuals.

Sophistry. The "people" you reference are a group made up of individuals, each with their own agency and liberty to decide whether or not they will live the gospel and remain part of that group. We are not a tribe or an identity group with special privileges above those of others in a free, pluralistic, rule of law oriented society. Perhaps you do not live in such a society, but many of us do.

Temporal salvation is as individual as spiritual salvation. There is no gospel teaching to the contrary. There are no idlers on Zion, and only the "worthy poor" have claim on the property of their brethren.

Go back to Blazer B class, and begin again at the fundamentals.

[volgadon]

Gospel doctrine class is about understanding the scriptures from a restoration gospel perspective mediated by the Holy Ghost and clarified by the inspired statements and interpretations of the Lord's anointed servants in our day. Everything takes a backseat to that.

I've been a gospel doctrine teacher for many years. Guess what, understanding the scriptures in historical context actually clarifies the doctrines of the Restoration.

[Calm]

The church has long had an inspired template for our compassion. First we go to our family. Then the Church. Then the state, if all else fails.

Not really.

There is nothing that states that going to the state cannot take place at the same time as family and Church assistance is sought and church leaders can even offer assistance in seeking out this assistance. There are no conditions on when this direction should take place. My bishop up in Canada was told at a leadership meeting that the Church was not there to duplicate what the government was already doing, but rather was to help fill in the gaps and promote self-reliance in the long run.

From the CHI volume 2 (volume 1 makes this even clearer but it not available for quoting, ask your bishop if you are interested in reading it):

Leaders may also help members receive assistance through community and government agencies.

[Loran Howard Blood]

As Loran has repeatedly pointed out, my speciality is not very meaningful.

I have long acknowledged, in many posts on the same subject, David's deep knowledge and erudite grasp of his subject. However, biblical studies and textual criticism are also deeply theoretical, subjective, and open to individual bias, prejudice, and the imposition of personal philosophical templates upon the subject matter, as are, by their very nature, all subjects within the humanities and social sciences.

Here's what I actually said, and it applies, in my personal philosophy, to all academic specialties (particularly in the humanities):

1. Such advanced degrees, no matter how many and no matter how long they have been held, do not guarantee either the wise or intelligent use of such knowledge, nor even that such knowledge will be understood by the possessor in such a way as to make it valuable as knowledge.

This is not a disparagement of David's hard won degree, but simply, what should be an obvious caveat to the entire enterprise of historical, interpretational scholarship within these areas. David's interpretation of both LDS and traditional Judeo-Christian scripture are highly iconoclastic and ideosyncratic from an LDS perspective, and his unwillingness to so much as acknowledge such is, for me at least, indicative of a personal agenda and evangelical orientation that goes well beyond the kind of tentativeness that such study and interpretation demands be a part of any discussion in which alternative interpretations are well established and equally as plausible.

[Loran Howard Blood]

The reality is that very few Latter-day Saints, including many of the posters in this thread, have ever seriously engaged the Old Testament.

Perhaps not in the specific manner in which you have my friend, but oh yes many of us have. We have engaged it in the way the scriptures themselves counsel us to engage all scriptures and, indeed, all subjects: by study and by faith.

You're manner of engagement is important, but the spirit of revelation, that attends, if we are living in harmony with it, those without specialized academic knowledge, the study of all the scriptures, is the greater key and provides the gnosis of the scriptures beyond the conjecture and bias laden theoretical speculations of the purely academic sphere, which, in and of itself, is of little spiritual value unless combined with other elements.

[volgadon]

I've been a gospel doctrine teacher for many years. Guess what, understanding the scriptures in historical context actually clarifies the doctrines of the Restoration.

Taking two minutes to explain the ancient pagan concept of prayer as reflected in the Greek Magical Papyri saves fifteen minutes of discussing what vain repetition isn't.

[Loran Howard Blood]

I've been a gospel doctrine teacher for many years. Guess what, understanding the scriptures in historical context actually clarifies the doctrines of the Restoration.

No &%#@ Sherlock. I'm well aware of that. But, as that has nothing to do with what I'm arguing here, I pass on it.