Social Justice in the Bible

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think a distinction is not being made between the Theocratical government of ancient Israel and the secular government of modern America by those trying to use the scriptures to justify government forced redistribution of wealth. I would be all for government social programs if the government was run the God's appointed leaders. But that day will not come until Zion is established.

[David Bokovoy]

I actually took the "thou givest him nought" into consideration with my appraisal of the economic realities. When the "Seventh year, the year of release is at hand," and a debtor borrows beyond his needs, without reasonable expectation of repaying, he is committing an immoral act. It's like the debtor before the bankruptcy laws changed in the US, who'd run up credit card bills without ever intending to repay, then get them discharged in bankruptcy. I cannot envision a moral system under which such a thing is okay. This is on the debtor's side.

On the other hand, I took the "thou givest him nought" into consideration when considering the moral duty of the creditor. If repayment is not practicable under the circumstances, then giving the debtor the debtor's needs, not wants, sufficient to keep him and his from starvation/want fulfills the moral duty in Deuteronomy.

That

[Vance]

Did you read Grant Hardy's article in Meridian Magazine today?

The Book of Mormon and Social Justice

Interesting article.

These were interesting statements in it.

1) Avoid

[David Bokovoy]

Interesting article.

These were interesting statements in it.

And then what did the author do?

He did EXACTLY what he advised us not to do, with this;

Grant PRESUMES that Benjamin is speaking as King (head of the government) and not prophet (head of the church). Yet the context makes it rather clear that he is speaking as head of the church.

Grant's political ideology is overriding the context to "support predetermined opinions".

Sad indeed.

Surely you can't be serious! Of course Benjamin was speaking as king, i.e. head of the government. In both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the position of kingship was both a political and a religious office (note that 1 Nephi is identified as a record of his "reign" and "ministry"). Kings were messiahs/christs, i.e. "anointed ones." Moreover, neither in the scriptures, nor in the Latter-day Church is there a prophetic office. A prophet is a messenger and mediator to his people.

[semlogo]

If I voted for the guys who decide to take my stuff, then there is a minor difference, but as I never vote for anyone who will raise taxes, then it is theft.

Sometimes war is murder. I believe Ho Chi Min was a warrior murderer. He is far from alone.

I also believe that conscription is murder, too. Volunteers are risking their own lives by choice.

For the perpetrator of a war, the political perpetrator, war is always murder.

Sometimes incarceration is kidnapping. Political prisoners are kidnappees. Most drug "offenders" are kidnappees.

In any case, there is no justification for incarceration. If there is a true crime committed, the perpetrator should compensate his victim (for the loss, including administration costs, etc.) and the matter settled. But enter government, and not only is the victim not made whole, the victim is further victimized by having to pay taxes to support the criminal with a place to live, free food, and uninterrupted leisure.

Oh, nice touch. My "b&w thinking" is far more nuanced than you seem to be capable of grasping.

Lehi

Well, thanks for clarifying your views on this topic. It's clear that your political views are, er, unique.

[mercyngrace]

Interesting article.

These were interesting statements in it.

And then what did the author do?

He did EXACTLY what he advised us not to do, with this;

Grant PRESUMES that Benjamin is speaking as King (head of the government) and not prophet (head of the church). Yet the context makes it rather clear that he is speaking as head of the church.

Grant's political ideology is overriding the context to "support predetermined opinion".

Sad indeed.

Vance,

I'm going to post the beginning of King Benjamin's speech for the benefit of those who might not remember the point of view from which he speaks.

9 And these are the words which he spake and caused to be written, saying: My brethren, all ye that have assembled yourselves together, you that can hear my words which I shall speak unto you this day; for I have not commanded you to come up hither to trifle with the words which I shall speak, but that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.

10 I have not commanded you to come up hither that ye should fear me, or that ye should think that I of myself am more than a mortal man.

11 But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me.

12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;

13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you

[Vance]

Surely you can't be serious! Of course Benjamin was speaking as king, i.e. head of the government. In both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the position of kingship was both a political and a religious office (note that 1 Nephi is identified as a record of his "reign" and "ministry"). Kings were messiahs/christs, i.e. "anointed ones." Moreover, neither in the scriptures, nor in the Latter-day Church is there a prophetic office. A prophet is a messenger and mediator to his people.

Are you serious?

Mosiah 2:14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, . . .

Does THAT sound like a king or a prophet?

. . . and that ye should not be laden with taxes, . . .

Does THAT sound like a king or a prophet?

Does that sound like using the force of "government" to implement your brand of "social justice"?

. . . and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne

[Vance]

Vance,

I'm going to post the beginning of King Benjamin's speech for the benefit of those who might not remember the point of view from which he speaks.

Well, for heavens sake, don't quote the rest of his speech. Don't quote all of that religious stuff in Mosiah 3, 4 & 5.

Or this part of Chapter 6,

. . . and also had appointed priests to teach the people, that thereby they might hear and know the commandments of God, and to stir them up in remembrance of the oath which they had made, he dismissed the multitude, and they returned, every one, according to their families, to their own houses.

[mercyngrace]

Well, for heavens sake, don't quote the rest of his speech. Don't quote all of that religious stuff in Mosiah 3, 4 & 5.

I don't need to. I'm not arguing that he is speaking from exclusively one position.

Also, what you posted from chapter 6 isn't part of the speech but since you brought it up, let's quote the verse in its entirety:

And again, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had made an end of all these things, and had consecrated his son Mosiah to be a ruler and a king over his people, and had given him all the charges concerning the kingdom, and also had appointed priests to teach the people, that thereby they might hear and know the commandments of God, and to stir them up in remembrance of the oath which they had made, he dismissed the multitude, and they returned, every one, according to their families, to their own houses.

The text simply does not support the position that King Benjamin approached this gathering and delivered this speech from an exclusively ecclesiastical position.

[Vance]

I don't need to. I'm not arguing that he is speaking from exclusively one position.

Also, what you posted from chapter 6 isn't part of the speech but since you brought it up, let's quote the verse in its entirety:

The text simply does not support the position that King Benjamin approached this gathering and delivered this speech from an exclusively ecclesiastical position.

Nor does it support that he was exclusively speaking as king. Nor does it support the use of the force of government to implement "social justice" as Grant asserted.

I also found these caveats of Grants interesting.

Of course, I

[David Bokovoy]

Are you serious?

Does THAT sound like a king or a prophet?

Does THAT sound like a king or a prophet?

Does that sound like using the force of "government" to implement your brand of "social justice"?

Does THAT sound like a king or a prophet?

Nah. King Benjamin doesn't support your version of "social justice" at all.

Nor does he support Grant's assertion.

Again, in asking the question "king or prophet," you're creating a false dichotomy. Since you won't accept mine or Mercy's comments, perhaps you'll pay attention to Daniel Peterson's:

"This notion of a priestly kingship is perhaps a bit jarring to modern readers, living in a society where what we think of as 'church' and 'state' are kept separate as a matter of principle. However, the Nephites were not modern, and we should not be surprised to see them untouched by more modern fashions. Kingship in the Book of Mormon is very much a religious affair, much as it had been (or had been intended to be) among the Israelites of the Old World."

Grant hit the nail on the head.

Here is the link:

Kingship

[Calm]

Social Justice is a word that is merely a tool for those in power. It no longer has a real meaning. If you have a cause, you paint "social justice" on it. I have seen it used by the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, the Contras of El Salvador, Pinochet in Chile, Bill Clinton and Obama in the US, and Bush in Brazil.

So yes, when I see the term social justice, there is a certain twitch in the knee and a roll of the eyes, and a "not again" in the head. The term has been so often used to push forward some agenda or another, it has lost its flavor of meaning, like religion in Europe or "gay" meaning happy.

Then if this is the situation then it seems best to stop quibbling over whether or not the phrase should be used at all and simply pay attention to how it is being used and whether or not that particular definition is something we can support.

[Vance]

Grant hit the nail on the head.

Nope!

Grant missed the nail entirely.

And this leads us to a consideration of the role of government.

I am pleased when my tax dollars are used to alleviate suffering and help the disadvantaged. Some may object that this is entirely different from what the Church does; tithes and offerings are, in Alma

[Jeff K.]

The problem is that it can be used one way, and then when people come to power, used in an entirely different way. Social Justice for me is not a good word to use, anymore than "gay" is a term I would use when describing a party.

[Jeff K.]

There are ways of helping the poor, the US used it a great deal in its history. For instance it offered free land to those who would attempt to till it, some succeeded, some failed. On the other hand, the government also ignored the plight of the working class, but one could put in place minimum standards without approaching the need to take away wealth. The question often presented is "how do we approach helping the poor?"

Is it a closed system where the pie must be redistributed, or is it a large system which allows for all to gain in measure?

If the community is forced to help, are individuals then really helping? And by forcing the community to help, do we in effect reduce individual incentive to help? In other words does the government destroy the incentive of charity by telling everyone that it is the governments job to be charitable?

Europeans do not give very much to charities individually because they feel it is a government job. Mormons there are considered an anomaly since the church tax (in Germany for instance) should do the job of tithing....

[WalkerW]

This is why so few scholars participate in public message boards, and why it's not doubt a mistake for me to post here.

For what it is worth, I look forward to your posts and threads. Not only are they erudite and enlightening, but your tone is always very loving. As of late, you have had the greatest impact on my thinking and approach to the scriptures. I read the articles you cite and put the books on my "to-read" list. And it has helped me immensely with certain struggles regarding claims of the Restoration. It has allowed me to see many modern doctrines and revelations in a new light.

And this is so despite being fairly certain that we don't agree on politics (at least on capitalism). That means so little to me that it is barely a blip on the radar. I have never interpreted your threads as devious conspiracies hellbent on corrupting the church into a quasi-Marxist Social Gospel. I simply see it as the reflections of a scholar.

So, thanks for sticking around. I hope you will continue to.

[Calm]

How would we, for example interpret Christ's dictum regarding the emphasis of individual responsibility over social responsibility?

CFR please, I want to see exactly what you are talking about.

----

. . . and that ye should not be laden with taxes, . . .

Does THAT sound like a king or a prophet?

Vance, why would a prophet (in the sense you are talking about it, not the dual role David is) act like he had any control over taxes? Taxes are in the hands of the government, not the religious community (unless they are one and the same which is the case in King Benjamin's community so it makes sense he was talking as King AND Prophet, not one or the other).

If King Benjamin acted both as religious and political ruler---which I think the scriptures are clear that he did---why in the world would he speak in any other context than what he was--both roles at once?

[Calm]

The problem is that it can be used one way, and then when people come to power, used in an entirely different way. Social Justice for me is not a good word to use, anymore than "gay" is a term I would use when describing a party.

Then don't use it and only speak in specifics. It is, however, most civil and most likely to create a productive discussion, imo, when others use it to simply ask them to define it and then if necessary use their definition in discussing your points rather than insisting on no one be able to use a term because you personally distrust how some people use it.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

How would we, for example interpret Christ's dictum regarding the emphasis of individual responsibility over social responsibility?

CFR please, I want to see exactly what you are talking about.

Render unto Ceaser...., not replace Ceaser, nor do what Ceaser does not.....

Individual responsibility is found in the question of the good samaritan.

Did the Samaritan village care for the individual or did a Samaritan do so?

I cannot think of anywhere that Christ created the idea of a "movement" and organization, but rather focused upon individual acts. The collective found no place, because the collective in the New Testament was not judged. Pharisees as a body were not deemed good because they helped the poor. Pharisees as individuals however were judged.

Individual acts and judgements were the cornerstone of Christ in establishing responsibility, not groups or villages.

[WalkerW]

I

[Calm]

Render unto Ceaser...., not replace Ceaser, nor do what Ceaser does not.....

Individual responsibility is found in the question of the good samaritan.

Did the Samaritan village care for the individual or did a Samaritan do so?

I cannot think of anywhere that Christ created the idea of a "movement" and organization, but rather focused upon individual acts. The collective found no place, because the collective in the New Testament was not judged. Pharisees as a body were not deemed good because they helped the poor. Pharisees as individuals however were judged.

Individual acts and judgements were the cornerstone of Christ in establishing responsibility, not groups or villages.

Thank you for your clarification.

[mercyngrace]

For what it is worth, I look forward to your posts and threads. Not only are they erudite and enlightening, but your tone is always very loving. As of lately, you have had the greatest impact on my thinking and approach to the scriptures. I read the articles you cite and put the books on my "to-read" list. And it has helped me immensely with certain struggles regarding claims of the Restoration. It has allowed me to see many modern doctrines and revelations in a new light.

And this is so despite being fairly certain that we don't agree on politics (at least on capitalism). That means so little to me that it is barely a blip on the radar. I have never interpreted your threads as devious conspiracies hellbent on corrupting the church into a quasi-Marxist Social Gospel. I simply see it as the reflections of a scholar.

So, thanks for sticking around. I hope you will continue to.

I already gave Walker a rep point for this but I decided it needed a +10.

[Jeff K.]

Then don't use it and only speak in specifics. It is, however, most civil and most likely to create a productive discussion, imo, when others use it to simply ask them to define it and then if necessary use their definition in discussing your points rather than insisting on no one be able to use a term because you personally distrust how some people use it.

Not really, because it also engenders a certain arrogance who claim one type of social justice (theirs) while other may seek a different way are somehow not allowed to use the same word? I do not see that as productive, I see it as a battle or contention of meanings.

Claim: I believe in social justice.

Response: No, your social justice is enslavement

Claimant: You then don't believe in social justice?

Does that sound productive?

If someone does not believe a village is important to impart social justice, are they then against social justice? If not, why use the word at all?

[Calm]

Not really, because it also engenders a certain arrogance who claim one type of social justice (theirs) while other may seek a different way are somehow not allowed to use the same word? I do not see that as productive, I see it as a battle or contention of meanings.

Claim: I believe in social justice.

Response: No, your social justice is enslavement

Claimant: You then don't believe in social justice?

Does that sound productive?

What doesn't sound productive is never letting the discussion get past whether it's right or not to use the term "social justice". I would suggest that if someone is truly interested in being productive that they adapt to the situation, use the words if that works to promote understanding, use specifics if that does, find another way if neither of those work.

[Jeff K.]

That is easy to say. But the truth of the matter is that "social justice" becomes the high ground word. And to ask one side or the other to "adapt" is to ask the one side or the other to give up their term for social justice so that the other side can take "the high ground".

To suggest that if someone is "truly interested" is to suggest that if they are not interested in your point of view, how interested can they be? I am sure one side will use the word to "promote" understanding from their point of view, while denying it to the otherside.

That is why the term is more like a political football than it is an honest appraisal of the best course of action.