Social Justice in the Bible

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I must say that I find it interesting that a good number of those who come to your defense on these threads of yours are posters that, if memory serves, are non-believers in Mormonism. You appear to be very popular among that crowd, both here and at MDB. Not sure what that means, but I've noticed it.

I don't know that that is true. Can you demonstrate this? I thought Semlogo was still a member in good standing.

Of course you did say "A good number".

[Doctor Steuss]

I would just like to say that I hold David personally responsible for Rebecca Black's singing career.

[volgadon]

Have you served a mission? I found on mine that the opposite is true. It's the rich and comfortable who have no time for God.

I've found it to be true of rich and poor, if they are busy pursuing material things (I mean beyond making a decent living) then they have no time for God.

[volgadon]

I don't know that that is true. Can you demonstrate this? I thought Semlogo was still a member in good standing.

Of course you did say "A good number".

And Walker, Mercy&Grace, Calmoriah, and myself are all believing members in good standing. Walker is also a filthy libertarian.

[kitmarlow]

I don't know that that is true. Can you demonstrate this? I thought Semlogo was still a member in good standing.

Of course you did say "A good number".

I am a believing member in good standing and I have found nothing objectionable in either Volg's post or David B's; rather I find myself agreeing with almost all of their posts, if not all.

The suggestion in Nomad's post above disturbs me.

[David Bokovoy]

I must say that I find it interesting that a good number of those who come to your defense on these threads of yours are posters that, if memory serves, are non-believers in Mormonism. You appear to be very popular among that crowd, both here and at MDB. Not sure what that means, but I've noticed it.

Yes, you've pointed out the fact that I'm on friendly terms with critics several times, as if the fact that I express love and patience to these non-believers and count many of them as friends somehow provides evidence for your public accusations of "apostasy." Reading this criticism, I couldn't help but reflect upon the following passage covered in my New Testament class last Wednesday night:

"And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them" (Luke 15:2)

For several years now, I have posted my public disagreement with the way that certain posters approach their defense of Mormonism. If the Church is true, and I believe that it is, then the goal of apologetics should not be to attack those who question and/or hold alternative perspectives. Based upon my study of the New Testament, Christ was never in opposition with the non-believers, the adulterers, the drug users, the fornicators, i.e. those struggling to live the Gospel. He ate, and drank with these sinners.

The New Testament does not depict Christ being in conflict with the critic. Christ stood in opposition to the believers, those whose self-righteous religious arrogance led them to mock those outside of the faith and present themselves as the guardians of orthodoxy. These are the people that Christ considered his opponents.

[David Bokovoy]

I would just like to say that I hold David personally responsible for Rebecca Black's singing career.

You've got to admit that that's a catchy song!

[gurn]

One final point to add. My view is in complete harmony with the perspective taught by the living oracles. Note the public admonition calling governments to implement the principles of Zion applicable to the family:

"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Here we see a specific example of the living prophets calling upon governments to implement one of the principles of Zion. Interesting to contrast their perspective with the view advocated by "Gurn."

I

[kitmarlow]

My wife is not American, she was born in Europe (she's French), she is very active LDS, very devout, much moreso than I am, and she has read all of the posts on this thread and would no doubt reply here were she more fluent in English (she speaks three languages and English is her weakest); but she finds the vehement opposition among the U.S. LDS faithful to David B. and Volg puzzling, to say the least.

[David Bokovoy]

I am a believing member in good standing and I have found nothing objectionable in either Volg's post or David B's; rather I find myself agreeing with almost all of their posts, if not all.

The suggestion in Nomad's post above disturbs me.

Thanks you guys for the support. As believers, we really, really should be able to discuss differences of opinion without accusing each other of apostasy.

[gurn]

I suspect that "Gurn" simply hadn't thought his criticism through too deeply. I very much doubt he intentionally sought to directly contradict the position taken by the First Presidency.

Au contraire, I

[David Bokovoy]

I

[David Bokovoy]

In the United Order thread, numerous quotes by modern-day prophets clearly show your positions run contrary to the teaching of our modern leaders. You dismissed those quotes with a wave of your hand. There would be little value in revisiting that well-trodden path.

CFR

[Jeff K.]

The vehemence may not be due so much to a gospel issue as it is fear of a powerful government. It may be puzzling for a French woman, or man, or German for that matter to understand why US members are so passionate about limited government. It is, for the most part because limited government is in our political DNA. From the very outset of our nations birth we rejected strong rule by a king, and even by a parliament. Our own present Constitution was strenuously and vehemently debated when it was brought forth, mainly because of the fear it would create a strong government. George Washington was unanimously approved of as President because he had no heirs upon which to grant kingship or potential kingship with a powerful presidency.

Then consider also that Mormons who have lived and understood our unique history under America were heavily persecuted by a government. Our leaders were killed by mobs, we were declared in rebellion, and a death warrant for all Mormons was issued in US territory. We were forced to flee.

Later we were followed out West and threats of our destruction, even as we sought an isolated safe harbor, again raised themselves leading to the Utah Wars (minor skirmishes, but with Mormons ready to die than allow themselves to be led to the slaughter again.

And then when the powerful government decided our lifestyle was not acceptable, they took our churches, our lands and were seeking to utterly destroy us.....

All of this is something saints in France which has had a more peaceful government, or Gremany for that matter (The 1930's and 14940's aside) both nations that gave birth to socialist peace movements while simultaneously offering full cradle to the grave health and care. Americans often feel that to give such power to a government is also to give away such power from the individual.

A difference of perspective.

[kitmarlow]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming decades as the church continues to grow south of the U.S. border by leaps and bounds. In So. America, for example, we have Evo Morales, a committed socialist, and a country about to become very, very wealthy (lithium); and many tens of thousands of LDS who do not share the same political philosophy as the great majority of the U.S. LDS faithful.

[Calm]

I don't think that has been shown. In fact accounts of concentration camps in Nazi Germany tell of those who comforted others, who maintained their faith and who shared even what little they had. I find Americans for the most part very generous. Even those who have to scratch a living to survive. What people resent is when someone tells them they have to do something. But give them an opportunity on their own and they will find a way to do so, no matter what the circumstances.

If this were true (that if one is less receptive to the gospel, hardened to the Spirit, etc), then it is extremely strange that God would send or even just allow hardships such as famine and war or allows his people to become slaves as they were in Egypt in order to bring them to a remembrance of him and repentance as the scriptures have him doing over and over again.

[Calm]

I have no doubt that he believes this.

My view is that these two statements, taken together, ought to signal a warning to everyone who has paid any attention to these discussions.....

What ought to concern other readers of these threads is that not only is Bokovoy absolutely certain of the correctness of his viewpoints on this sensitive and controversial topic, but that he represents his views as being in harmony with the leadership of the church, and has made it clear that government should enact laws to enforce the

[Calm]

You're not alone.

What is most troubling to me is that everyone who has expressed reservations over David's viewpoints has been dismissed as: ignorant and uninformed; some kind of extreme right wing wacko; and at odds with the teachings of the gospel and the leadership of the church.

Please show where Walker and Deborah who have both expressed reservations over David's viewpoints have been dismissed in such a way.

[Calm]

I find it enlightened to notice that while David always finds plenty of scripture and Bible scholarship to back up his view, his detractors seem to rely completely on modern political theories.

Not all...well, maybe all depending on how one is using "detractors"

[Calm]

Not so. there are those of us who have disagreed with his interpretations and stated such. What is not called for is name calling and personal disparaging comments.

Excellent observation.

[David Bokovoy]

Probably not, but I for one do not. We are intelligent adults here capable of forming our own opinions. He has every right and reason to discuss and even promote his own understanding of the scriptures including any belief that his views are in harmony with the leadership and how the gospel should be practiced just like anyone else has the right, reason and hopefully the ability to challenge his ideas....one would hope that they would do so in the context that he frames the discussion which is scriptural and not from a political basis as in my opinion that yields little actual discussion because it is dealing with a related, but separate subject for the most part.

The irony of this is that I can remember a specific instance in which Calmoriah's disagreement with one of the points I made many, many months ago regarding caring for the poor led to a change in my opinion. If there's one person who has constantly illustrated an ability to disagree without ever making the matter personal it's Cal. So really, this is possible.

[Calm]

I admit that I have not read even 10% of the posts on this thread.

Then I find comments like this---"What is most troubling to me is that everyone who has expressed reservations over David's viewpoints has been dismissed......" rather problematic.

[Calm]

I've found it to be true of rich and poor, if they are busy pursuing material things (I mean beyond making a decent living) then they have no time for God.

A very important distinction, I believe.

[David Bokovoy]

Not all...well, maybe all depending on how one is using "detractors"

Indeed, one thing I've appreciated about Deborah is the fact that she has never avoided commenting upon and/or using scriptural texts in the context of her opposition. The fact that this is so rare in the context of these discussions makes her efforts all the more impressive.

[Calm]

The vehemence may not be due so much to a gospel issue as it is fear of a powerful government.

Walker is a libertarian, that is probably the closest thing that describes my own position and if I am right in extrapolating Deborah's position from what she has said she is probably much the same.

If we can discuss David's claims without the more extreme vehemence then I think there needs to be something added to that explanation....though perhaps the use of the word "fear" does actually explain.