Social Justice in the Bible

[WalkerW]

Thanks, Bro. We need to get together so you can teach me about capitalism. Let me know next time you make a visit to BYU.

I will. It will be great to finally meet you in person.

As for capitalism [rubs hands in delight], here is some recent research that discusses the moral, collective nature of markets:

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]

Nonetheless, we're all children of God, even dirty socialists.

The term in the video link is actually "filthy," not "dirty." My bad. You're a filthy socialist and I'm a filthy libertarian.

[zerinus]

I really didn

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

However, some on this board apparently equate democracy in America with totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat,

Marx himself was quite clear that communism was a movement seeking a democratic social order. Indeed, Marx said that "Democracy is the road to socialism."

Lenin himself stated that "Democracy and socialism are inseparable."

Karl Kautsky said that "For us...socialism without democracy is unthinkable." Socialism is about "the democratic organization of society."

The idea can be found throughout historical and contemporary socialist writings and commentary.

Are you saying that the "peoples' democracies" which were formed under these claims were actually democracies, or are you saying that democracy always constitutes itself as the totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat? Or was democracy the mobocracy feared in ancient Greece?

Whatever the case, how do you understand the 12th Article of Faith to relate to any given form of government?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Ancient Israel rejected theocracy in favor of monarchy, despite the stated misgivings of Samuel as spokesman for God.

Modern American governments, from the municipal, county, and state levels to the national level have often had a variety of social programs. The funding of such programs has usually been provided by taxation or land sales. However, the laws under which such funding took place were agreed upon by a vote of the people or by their elected representatives. Remember, the Revolution which brought this nation into being had as its main complaint: "Taxation Without Representation!" The hubris of Lord North and King George III was to ignore such reasonable complaints and to disarm the colonial people and their militias. It never occurred to these elitists to allow membership in Parliament.

The call to perfection is a fallacy. If we wait for Zion to do what is right, Zion will never arrive -- or if it does, those who dragged their feet will certainly not be among those who constitute Zion, "The Pure in Heart." They will instead be told by the Lord: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mat 7:23), while those who were among the righteous will be admitted and told: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me" (Mat 25:34-36). This was the heart and soul of the teaching of our Savior, and the very notion of seeking to help the One could bring tears to the eyes of Hugh Nibley (especially in the Jewish tale of Father Abraham going out into the wilderness seeking to help someone lost). Nibley sought to live the Law of Consecration & Stewardship her and now, in whatever way he could.

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," and to arm ourselves to prevent looting by the hoi polloi? Would he accept as an alternative the organized efforts of the Hutterite Brethren? 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?

[semlogo]

Democracy = a majority of wolves deciding how many lambs to have for dinner and how to prepare them. Theft is only the beginning of the problems of democracy.

That's a pretty cynical outlook. But then again, not every system is as just and perfect as plutocracy.

[volgadon]

or it could be that the punishment was carried out without the Lord's consent.

Then we have a problem.

And he arose, and went into the house; and he poured the oil on his head, and said unto him: 'Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: I have anointed thee king over the people of the LORD, even over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the LORD, at the hand of Jezebel. For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab every man-child, and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel.

-2 Kings 9:6-8.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Consequences on an entire community or nation can be determined by the righteousness of a few:

Elder Groberg suggests that our individual Sabbath observance can hold back the power of the destroying angels against our communities. Source.

Maybe he got the idea that the righteousness of a few can spare an entire society from Helaman 13 where we are told of the wicked city of Zarahemla:

But behold, if it were not for the righteous who are in this great city, behold, I would cause that fire should come down out of heaven and destroy it. But behold, it is for the righteous

[Jeff K.]

The call to perfection is a fallacy. If we wait for Zion to do what is right, Zion will never arrive -- or if it does, those who dragged their feet will certainly not be among those who constitute Zion, "The Pure in Heart." They will instead be told by the Lord: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mat 7:23), while those who were among the righteous will be admitted and told: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me" (Mat 25:34-36). This was the heart and soul of the teaching of our Savior, and the very notion of seeking to help the One could bring tears to the eyes of Hugh Nibley (especially in the Jewish tale of Father Abraham going out into the wilderness seeking to help someone lost). Nibley sought to live the Law of Consecration & Stewardship her and now, in whatever way he could.

The question isn't attitude towards the saviors teachings. The question is methodology in carrying out the teachings. There are those that believe you can "bureaucratize" the teachings within a system that enforces good will. I do not find such a system within the attitude of what Christ wants. It goes back to the question, if we are forced to do good, are we doing good? Of if you will permit the paraphrase of Satan, all will be forced to do good. At such a point we take away the opportunity for each of us to carry out acts of goodness or charity upon which we can build our understanding of Christs dictum of Charity through Paul.

If you have no choice in the matter, you end up undermining the very learning we must do here. To the extent we are forced to do things, our own growth and progression is reduced because our choices are made for us and we have limited capacity to act in a Christ like manner.

I will not go into the inefficiencies of large bureaucracies and how they may waste more than they save and how such groups may in effect dehumanize individuals into groups and people so as to make them irrelevant as individuals, but much easier to handle.

[Jeff K.]

As to the witholding of judgement of the extension of judgement of the majority or minority. This is an interplay that we see in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. But I do not think there is a rule of righteousness that is fixed. I also believe that being forced into righteous acts by a large governmental power would in effect increase the number of those who may not be righteous but act so (aka pharisees and sadducees), and decrease those who have an opportunity to develop their spiritual gifts through true righteous acts of choice.

[David Bokovoy]

Not at all. The references given from the D&C (and from Ezekiel) correctly interpret those verses to be referring to the children themselves who

[Loran Howard Blood]

I didn't say that these issues do not have relevance to the contemporary world. They certainly do. I'm just not interested in debating and/or getting up on a soap box in order to preach on how best to apply these principles to the present American political sphere, or argue over how they do or do not relate to any particular man made -ism that you embrace.

I have not isolated "the present American sphere" for critique of your ideas. Their effects and implications would be the pretty much the same regardless of the society or social milieu in which they were attempted, or applied. It is simply that they are most especially incongruent with the concepts of the American founding, the legal basis of which is the constitution, which we as LDS accept as a divinely inspired document.

Simply because Old Testament conceptions do not accord with your worldview does not make them barbaric. Thus far we

[David Bokovoy]

And then there is Job whose entire household (servants and children) died by sword, fire or crushing---not pleasant deaths---exactly for what reason? To demonstrate that Job was a good man, nothing to do with how they themselves were living?

Definitely an interesting perspective of how the individual interacts with the community and how God acts upon them both.

Well said. Thanks for providing another example of this view.

[David Bokovoy]

One of the reasons why social justice is a key concern of the Hebrew Bible has everything to do with the concept of Israel as God's kindred.

Ancient tribal societies (and some until fairly recently) were formed around a figure know as the father (ab) or brother (ah), though both can be expressed by "kinsman." People were bound together as family through a covenant. This kinsman lead his kin in battle, protected his kin, provided for their needs, shared his land and possesions with them, rescued them from dire straits, and administered justice. In return his kin are obligated to love their kinsman and be loyal to him. These obligations towards the kinsman are also applied towards each member of the group. They are considered as one. As a Beduin formula has it: "They pursue and are pursued together." This of course relaates to blood feuds, but these are rooted in the idea that the group bears responsibility for the actions of its individuals. Not only were Korah, Dothan and Abiram swallowed up by the earth but so were their families. David has provided many more examples of this collective guilt. Love and grace (or acts of familial loyalty) were proper responses to kinsfolk. Meyer Fortes wrote that "Kinsfolk are expected to be loving, just and generous to one another and not to demand strictly equivalent returns of one another." Frank Moore Cross (friend to both Nibley and Madsen, even appearing in a short church video about temple worship) describes their obligation as upholding the welfare of their fellow kinsmen. The laws of the Bbible, such as Jubilee years, or not holding a coat as pledge overnight, or the proscription of interest and the demands to care for the most vulnerable segments of society might seem odd and unrealistic, but they conceive of society as being family. Property was held in common, with each member obligated to care and love for his brother as he does his own soul. These social terms extended to Israelite theology, and interestingly enough, as society got bigger and kinship ties less and less practical, the more the terms associated with kinship were used.

Most of this information is drawn from Frank Moore Cross "From Epic to Canon."

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.

[David Bokovoy]

I knew, I just knew, that if given enough time and enough rope, you would eventually come to the point that you would begin the rhetorical and intellectual excommunication from the gospel of those who do not accept your particularistic academic revision of the restored gospel I think this was an inexorable process, given the trajectory of your thought.

Honestly, Loran, you need to tone down the drama a few notches. No one is calling for your excommunication from the gospel. I was illustrating the fact that the OT doctrine of vicarious punishment provides the justification for Christ's atonement. Hence, if you have problems with one, you'll have problems with the other.

[Jeff K.]

Honestly, Loran, you need to tone down the drama a few notches. No one is calling for your excommunication from the gospel. I was illustrating the fact that the OT doctrine of vicarious punishment provides the justification for Christ's atonement. Hence, if you have problems with one, you'll have problems with the other.

Yes vicarious punishments did provide the template for Christs atonement. But then that leads to a thoughtful and scary question. Are non theological governments in modern times then supposed to represent Christ?

[Loran Howard Blood]

What exactly is so funny?

That my testimony of the Savior's Atonement, the Restoration, and the temple was strengthened?

That David has an incredible knowledge regarding the Old Testament and Ancient Near East (considering he is finishing up his Ph.D. in it, I would certainly hope that he would be knowledgeable)?

By all means, elaborate on the hilarity that obviously alludes me.

However, without detracting from David's knowledge in this highly specialized area:

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.

2. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

[Loran Howard Blood]

Ok, now we

[volgadon]

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.

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

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

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.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Honestly, Loran, you need to tone down the drama a few notches. No one is calling for your excommunication from the gospel. I was illustrating the fact that the OT doctrine of vicarious punishment provides the justification for Christ's atonement. Hence, if you have problems with one, you'll have problems with the other.

Thank you again for substantiating my assertion, even as you attempt to defend yourself from it.

[David Bokovoy]

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.

Well said. We should also note that neither this thread, nor this message board is "Gospel Doctrine Class." This thread is an effort to discuss scholarly issues pertaining to Mormonism. Hence, it does not serve the same objective as a Gospel Doctrine class. Moreover, political discussions like those that interest Loran are a violation of forum rules, and for good reason. I'm happy to leave application of the principles discussed in this context to individuals in a way that best reflects their own personal ideology.

[Jeff K.]

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," and to arm ourselves to prevent looting by the hoi polloi? Would he accept as an alternative the organized efforts of the Hutterite Brethren? 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?

Wasn't that church policy for quite some time? There is a strong apocalyptic strain in regard to the last days, and rightly so given the experience of the church through persecution in its history.

It appears to me various policies come into play depending on the environemnt at the time. Times of pleny often lead to the question of bureacracies to care for the poor so we don't have to bother ourselves with it as we enjoy our own versions of the gladitorial games. The problems arise when the times become lean, but the bureacracy does not go away.

[Senator]

The Law of Carnal commandments, including the entire array of economic and social forms, relevant to a tribal, agrarian Middle Eastern people of several thousand years in the past, does not.

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, relavant 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?

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.

These themes David has highlighted are very relevant to the restored gospel.

[Jeff K.]

Do we take away individual choice to create the new "communal" relationship?

[Vance]

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."

Well, to be a REAL Priestly king, he must abide by this principle.

D&C 121: 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile