Social Justice in the Bible

[Calm]

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.

Indeed. It was always interesting to hear how the Russian Saints viewed how the gospel should be put into operation in their communities. And Canada, where I lived for almost half my adult life, as well though not as pronounced or varied.

[WalkerW]

ignorant and uninformed

Most have made ignorant or uninformed arguments. Some don't even address the OT at all while telling David he is wrong, arrogant, or some kind of liberal, pseudo-scholar.

some kind of extreme right wing wacko

Not really. Perhaps only in response to the immediate "socialist conspiracy" accusations that appeared early on. I would very much be considered on "the right" of American politics. But my objections are mainly to certain understandings of market systems, not scriptural interpretations.

and at odds with the teachings of the gospel and the leadership of the church

Actually, this is what David has been accused of. He defended himself.

From what I have seen, he has engaged in a subtle demonization (not to mention misrepresentation) of everyone who has disagreed with his perspectives, or even expressed hesitation to see things the way he does.

As one who disagrees with David's views of capitalism (at least what he has expressed in various threads), yet agrees with much of his scriptural interpretation, I'm afraid I have to disagree and say that David's character and position has been assaulted from the get go for no other reason than political ideology.

[WalkerW]

Walker is also a filthy libertarian.

To be completely accurate, I'm a conservative libertarian. (which is disgustingly filthy!)

[WalkerW]

As believers, we really, really should be able to discuss differences of opinion without accusing each other of apostasy.

Now, accusing each other of being filthy, well...

[Calm]

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.

People generally don't have any problem sticking with scriptures when discussing things with nonLDS (such as the beliefs in the Trinity, inerrant scripture, etc) so I do not understand why it has been rare. It is frustrating to read comments about a discussion about a potential scriptural interpretation that do not primarily appeal to the scriptures for greater understanding but primarily to man-made political philosophies.

[David Bokovoy]

Walker,

Tell me again about the type of "communal" capitalism you were describing. I made a mental note to learn more and have now lost the post.

[WalkerW]

Tell me again about the type of "communal" capitalism you were describing. I made a mental note to learn more and have now lost the post.

I assume you mean the sources and links. They address a number of issues, including the morality (i.e. the claim is that markets foster feelings of fairness and empathy) and collective nature of markets (what Ridley calls the "collective brain"):

Paul J. Zak (ed.), Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy (Princeton University Press, 2008). See

with him for an overview of his findings.

J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, R. McElreath, M. Alvard, A. Barr, J. Ensminger, K. Hill, F. Gil-White, M. Gurven, F. Marlowe, J. Patton, N. Smith, D. Tracer,

[David Bokovoy]

I assume you mean the sources and links. They address a number of issues, including the morality (i.e. the claim is that markets foster feelings of fairness and empathy) and collective nature of markets (what Ridley calls the "collective brain"):

Paul J. Zak (ed.), Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy (Princeton University Press, 2008). See

with him for an overview of his findings.

J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, R. McElreath, M. Alvard, A. Barr, J. Ensminger, K. Hill, F. Gil-White, M. Gurven, F. Marlowe, J. Patton, N. Smith, D. Tracer,

[WalkerW]

Thank you, I've copied and made a note. But there was a specific brand of capitalism that you mentioned that I found intriguing.

Was I replying to Jeff K? If so, this was the exchange:

But capitalism's basis is purely individualistic.

I think this is a very narrow view of capitalism.

Quote

Smith stated the individual knew more clearly what was better for him than the government did.

Most definitely. Note the Hayek articles I linked to. But the government does not equal the community. Markets utilize the dispersed knowledge of individuals across the community rather than leaving all the decision-making in the hands of a few government bureaucrats. In my view, the former is actually more communal than the latter.

Quote

You would have to toss out "Wealth of Nations" to walk away from that idea.

I don't think so. Exchange involves interaction with others. It involves providing a good and service for others. Market don't work without a community. One would just need to read The Wealth of Nations through the lens of his The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

See Deirdre N. McCloskey, "Adam Smith, the Last of the Former Virtue Ethicists," History of Political Economy 40:1 (2008).

[frankenstein]

Deut 15

If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother ... For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

[Nathair/|\]

To be completely accurate, I'm a conservative libertarian. (which is disgustingly filthy!)

Try being a Discordian libertarian.

[WalkerW]

While this is on an organizational level, it draws on behavioral sciences and economics:

Daniel Pink, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (Riverhead Books, 2009). He argues that the scientific evidence points to autonomy (i.e. decentralization, self-direction), mastery, and purpose in the work place. See his

or

.

Unfortunately, he sees this as "left-wing" and "socialist." This is due to the usual connection between extrinsic incentives and capitalism. However, what his research demonstrates is that Taylorism or scientific management works only in a limited amount of circumstances. Taylorism, it should be noted, was born out of the intellectual make-up of the early 20th century. It was a Progressive era concept. See Thomas C. Leonard, "American Economic Reform in the Progressive Era: Its Foundational Beliefs and Their Relation to Eugenics," History of Political Economy 41:1 (2009).

I've argued in a research paper that his findings are closer to those of Hayek and other market-oriented theorists.

[LeSellers]

The people addressing Rehoboam did not ask to be released entirely from taxes and levies, but to have them lightened.

Okeh, I asked earlier, but have not seen a reply, so let's try again:

How much, if any, of the taxes the ancient Jews/Israelites paid went to what we would call "social programs"?

Much here has been made of the role government plays in securing communal salvation. But I have not seen any evidence that the government of Samuel, David, Hezekiah, Mosiah, or Benjamin was involved at all in administering a dole, providing medical care, or anything else for the poor.

The Law of Moses provided for a tithe every third year to support the poor, but it was administered by the Church, not the state. Individuals were required to leave spilt grain, and the grain in the corners of the fields so the poor could glean it for their survival. I can't recall a single passage that says the king should feed them or relive their poverty through taxation.

If we are discussing the role the state should play in helping the poor, according to scripture, then should there not be some scripture that says government should be involved in it?

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

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.

Depends. Ever been on the receiving end of such power? I have, in Peru. I can understand what the saints felt like in their early years. For some it is more than merely an intellectual exercise for some it is entrance into a fearful place. You should expect people to be passionate regarding such a thing. Just because it does not elicit the same passion does not mean such passion in some does not or should not exist.

What is especially fearful, is when discussion of that very powerful force is then combined with a justification through scripture, giving it a veneer of righteousness. I think people see this, and they respond with worry and passion. Whether libertarian, socialist or anything else, the expectation of one attitude should also be reflected in attempting to understand why the passion exists. To say there is no excuse is a cop out.

[frankenstein]

J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, R. McElreath, M. Alvard, A. Barr, J. Ensminger, K. Hill, F. Gil-White, M. Gurven, F. Marlowe, J. Patton, N. Smith, D. Tracer,

[volgadon]

Okeh, I asked earlier, but have not seen a reply, so let's try again:

How much, if any, of the taxes the ancient Jews/Israelites paid went to what we would call "social programs"?

Much here has been made of the role government plays in securing communal salvation. But I have not seen any evidence that the government of Samuel, David, Hezekiah, Mosiah, or Benjamin was involved at all in administering a dole, providing medical care, or anything else for the poor.

The Law of Moses provided for a tithe every third year to support the poor, but it was administered by the Church, not the state. Individuals were required to leave spilt grain, and the grain in the corners of the fields so the poor could glean it for their survival. I can't recall a single passage that says the king should feed them or relive their poverty through taxation.

If we are discussing the role the state should play in helping the poor, according to scripture, then should there not be some scripture that says government should be involved in it?

Lehi

I was working on putting together a reply of substance. I would like to point out that the separation of church and state was not the case so much, but they were two branches of the same.

[David Bokovoy]

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

Have you heard the Bob Dylan cover? It's outstanding!

[LeSellers]

I was working on putting together a reply of substance.

I thank you in advance.

I would like to point out that the separation of church and state was not the case so much, but they were two branches of the same.

While this is true, during the period of the Judges in the Bible, there was not "government": "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6, cf 21:25). Since the Law of Moses applied in Israel at that point, it seems clear that government is not necessary to implement temporal salvation. Individuals are fully capable of (and required to) supply that need.

Lehi

[volgadon]

I thank you in advance.

While this is true, during the period of the Judges in the Bible, there was not "government": "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6, cf 21:25). Since the Law of Moses applied in Israel at that point, it seems clear that government is not necessary to implement temporal salvation. Individuals are fully capable of (and required to) supply that need.

Lehi

And that phrase in Judges is not one of approval, it is one of condemnation. Indeed, if we take the account of the concubine at Gibeah, and look at Saul's first act as king, we find propoganda for the king. And this account of the concubine has everything to do with social justice and hospitality.

[LeSellers]

And ["In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes"] in Judges is not one of approval, it is one of condemnation.

I disagree, at least to the extent that in 1 Samuel, the Lord Himself says that a monarchy is not His preferred form of government for the Israelites.

5 And [the Israelites] said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. 22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

Please note in verse 7 that the Lord strongly implies that the reign of the Judges was His preferred government. If the monarchy was His preference He could have made Joshua or Moses king centuries earlier. He did not. When the monarchy was proposed to Him, He said, essentially, "Okeh, be careful what you ask for, because this is what you're going to get."

The position, that strong government is God's plan flies in the face of this exchange among Israel, Samuel, and God. Because, as I read it (and can imagine no other interpretation), God explicitly says He does not want a King over His people other than Himself.

Indeed, if we take the account of the concubine at Gibeah, and look at Saul's first act as king, we find propoganda for the king. And this account of the concubine has everything to do with social justice and hospitality.

It does not, however, make the case for a strong government.

"Hospitality" is a new argument. It has little or nothing to do with "social justice" as far as I can tell. The Levite was not poor, he was just traveling and needed shelter. If a strong government could compel just anyone to take in a traveler, we would be in a worse position than the USmerican colonials who were forced to house and feed the King's soldiers. At least there was a finite number of them, but of passers-by there is no end.

Lehi

[WalkerW]

I had this thought in Gospel Doctrine today due to this thread. We went over Matt. 11 and the Savior's yoke:

Christ always uses the language of releasing captives from bondage, most likely in relation to Jubilee and/or the Lord's deliverance of Israel from slavery. In Matt. 11, Christ will give the "heavy laden" rest. The Lord of the cosmos is so "meek and "lowly in heart" that He offers His "yoke," which is "easy" and his "burden," which is "light." In the original creation order, male and female were created to attend to and further the work of God's creation.

Here we see the principles of Zion as the most powerful (in this case, the Lord Himself) and the most helpless (the "heavy laden" i.e. the poor) are given equal distribution in task and labor. The burden is not lifted, but made light through this distribution (brings to mind D&C 56:16-17).

It is only by releasing one from bondage that they are able to fully participate in furthering the Lord's work, side-by-side with Him.

Did I totally make that up or is there some validity to that analysis?

[Doctor Steuss]

Have you heard the Bob Dylan cover? It's outstanding!

I'm not sure, but I think my mind just 'sploded.

[Nomad]

I'm not sure, but I think my mind just 'sploded.

I used to know a guy who was 100% tone deaf, but he was funny and clever. He could do the most spot-on impression of Bob Dylan I

[Deborah]

But truth be told, I only intend it to be a defense of the right of filthy rich capitalists to mercilessly exploit the proletariat.

But what does that have to do with this topic which is talking about something in reference to church members both past and present?

[Nomad]

But what does that have to do with this topic which is talking about something in reference to church members both past and present?

Attention Deborah: it was a tongue in cheek comment.