Communal Sin in the Bible

[volgadon]

Part of the issue here, in my mind at least, is that the concept of salvation is multifaceted.

In every case I am seeing of "communal salvation", the scripture is speaking of temporal salvation: nations being wiped out or saved from destruction, famine, or other disaster.

I cannot see how communal salvation can apply to Celestial salvation. Even though we are "saved" (read exalted) as couples, one may be exalted when his spouse apostatizes, just with a different spouse. We are sealed in the huge network of the family of Adam, but individuals will fail or succeed according to their individual works.

Making this distinction is critical to understanding the idea. I cannot imagine anyone being counted as charitable because he paid taxes some of which fed the poor.

Lehi

Salvation encompasses more than just the spiritualised side of things. Be still and see the salvation of the Lord was uttered in a dire, temporal situation.

However, Joseph's famous statement about not being saved without our dead would indicate that communal salvation is not merely temporal.

[LeSellers]

Salvation encompasses more than just the spiritualised side of things. Be still and see the salvation of the Lord was uttered in a dire, temporal situation.

However, Joseph's famous statement about not being saved without our dead would indicate that communal salvation is not merely temporal.

This last is where we disagree.

No one is saved because of what his neighbor did (or did not) do.

The temporal salvation of which I spoke surely has its spiritual aspects, but it does not mean the same thing as "spiritualised" salvation. These promises were for a large posterity, wealth, safety (for enemies), food ("land of milk and honey"), peace, etc. This is where the Lord makes the case for "communal salvation".

And that is why I tried to define the differences between temporal and Celestial salvation. One is (or can be) communal, the other is exclusively individual (saving our ancestors notwithstanding). All men will be judged as to salvation according to their works, not whether they were part of a specific community, not even if they are baptized by proxy (or did proxy baptisms): it is their individual works on which they will be judged. Christ told us that God could make stone cry out if the sons of Abraham did not. Having "Abraham to our fathers" is no guarantee of salvation.

Lehi

[blackstrap]

Some people use up an enormous amount of bandwidth. It would be nice to see a discussion of the topic without a commentary of the "sinfulness" of the topic presenter. Lots of good thoughts and opinions have been expressed on this thread. Also,lots of Trash. Minos,where are you when we need you?

Now stepping off my nanny box.

[David Bokovoy]

[David Bokovoy]

Salvation encompasses more than just the spiritualised side of things. Be still and see the salvation of the Lord was uttered in a dire, temporal situation.

However, Joseph's famous statement about not being saved without our dead would indicate that communal salvation is not merely temporal.

Perfect! In reality, the higher we ascend in the ordinances of the gospel, the more communal the nature of the covenants.

Once one begins to understand these concepts, the law of adoption practiced in Latter Day Saint temples between 1843 and 1894 doesn't seem so strange.

[David Bokovoy]

The point is I think that some are jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted because of the connotation of certain words which sound like words which have a significantly different meaning. Having disagreed with and discussed issues with DB I think I finally understand where he is coming from, and I think he has clearly said he thinks governments have the responsibility to "teach" people to be generous and help the poor. He would like to see more people giving more freely of their wealth. I have to agree with this. We may have a disagreement on how much government involvement there should because as others have expressed I only trust politicians to do what is in their best interest, not the people's.

Thank you, Deborah. And in my mind, given the temporal nature of secular governments, the disagreement is quite trivial.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Words have meaning and it's interesting how words get interpreted.

Take "wealth distribution" as an example. In our current society this has a very leftist, negative connotation. Yet what is selling all that one has and giving it to the poor other than distribution of one's wealth. Interesting how turning the words around changes the meaning. Wealth distribution implies a third party coming in and arbitrarily taking and giving. Distributing wealth implies willing imparting to those to whom one sees need.

This is a good point, and I think the problem here is not so much "wealth distribution" which I myself have used on a number of occasions do describe what happens when someone receives Church food, or financial assistance, and wealth re-distribution, which carries other, larger implications.

The point is I think that some are jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted because of the connotation of certain words which sound like words which have a significantly different meaning. Having disagreed with and discussed issues with DB I think I finally understand where he is coming from, and I think he has clearly said he thinks governments have the responsibility to "teach" people to be generous and help the poor. He would like to see more people giving more freely of their wealth. I have to agree with this.

I don't think this is a fully accurate representation of what David has said, and doesn't do it justice. Here is what he recently stated, and several things are of note here. One is the clear manner in which David sees charity as a matter of positive law to be enforced by coercion through a central governing authority, and the manner in which he confuses the enforcement of morality upon a citizenry in the positive sense of punishing transgressions of civil society that have already occurred (rape, murder, theft, drug usage etc) with the enforcement of broad Christian moral imperatives in which no one has committed any crime, or breech of civil society, but are yet seen as "guilty" in some sense simply due to the fact that poor exist. The poor again, in this paradigm, are perceived as in some collective sense as having had something done to them that has created their situation of poverty, for which forced reparation is required.

The whole idea of the use of force to extract support for the poor in a collective sense, in which "morality" itself is wrenched from its gospel context as an individual mandate to "do unto the least of these, my brethren" as a matter of personal compassion and love of our fellow beings, appears to me, from a gospel standpoint, perverse. "Charity" here becomes alienated from the individual as it and its individual blessings are transferred to impersonal bureaucracies and placed in the hand of politicians, who's motives and incentives for doing ostensibly "good works" are very different from those of the individual at the local and personal level.

Suffice it to say that I believe a secular government still holds a responsibility to enforce morality upon its citizens. If we can pass legislation forcing people not to commit acts of rape, murder, etc., we can certainly pass legislation to care for the poor and needy.

Note here the philosophical slight of hand in which enforcement of morality in the sense of protecting citizens from the forcible denial and violation of their fundamental unalienable rights to be free from the violation of their bodies, property, and personal integrity by others is conflated with the gospel concept of charity, alms giving, and compassion for the needy, which scripturally flows from the individual to the needy not as reparation for something the needy have lost through the violent or immoral acts of others (although this may be the case. People can be the victims of robbery, arson etc.), but because of a particular life path they have chosen and/or because of certain circumstances in which they have found themselves, they are poor at that time.

The poor, in this positive view of "rights", have a pre-emptive claim by right and entitlement upon the property of others. In the negative view of rights, there are simply boundaries within civil society which both other individuals and the state cannot cross. It is the responsibility of government to protect and maintain those boundaries, but it is not its business to make everything right between people individually, or on a communal scale. If I break into your house and clean out your house, you have a moral and legal claim against me, as does the state, as I have invaded and violated your rights and property. If you are poor, for whatever reason, you have a need, but I'm not at all sure that the gospel provides authorization for an inherent claim of right upon charity, simply by this fact alone. This is the problem.

Its one thing to say I have rights you cannot violate, in which you must only refrain from crossing the boundaries of my rights. Its quite another to say that I have rights that make absolute claims of right upon your rights (your time, talents, capacities, property, etc.) in which my very claim to a right imposes a responsibility on you to provide that right.

David appears to see charity here as a matter of both collective entitlement that can be provided by government coercion, as well as a matter of law enforcement, an interesting twist, given the concept of charity as expressed in the teachings of the Church.

I believe that the government representing a community holds a moral responsibility to see that virtue and charity are legislated

Can the pure love of Christ (charity) as defined in the scriptures and taught by the modern prophets, be legislated and coerced through collectively applicable statute law?

David then uses the following First Presidency statement as support:

"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."

David then comments:

What do you think the Brethren mean by calling upon governments to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family?

All I'm suggesting is that I believe that a righteous government should promote morality by making sure that its citizens take care of the poor and needy. I haven't even ever specified how I believe governments should accomplish this task, because the matter is complex and I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Now, a couple things need to be said here. First, the idea that government welfare, or of alleviating poverty in a society-wide sense, has anything to do with the gist of the First Presidency's message here, is less than obvious. The entire statement, which comes from the The Family: A Proclamation to the World, never mentions poverty, economics, Church welfare, or direct government action in forcing people to behave in a certain manner.

The Church has been clear in the past regarding the meaning of "measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." Most, if not all of these, are purely negative, and involve restrictions of the absolute freedom of humans to do anything they desire without consideration of the ultimate effects on the larger culture (convenience abortion on demand, unconstrained sexuality, mass recreational drug usage, homosexual marriage, pornography etc.) or the encouragement of policies that promote the creation of lasting, two parent families (opposition to "no-fault divorce", ending the marriage penalty, encouraging government policies supporting sound money and living within economic means, educational reform, promotion of the importance of work, thrift, industry, personal responsibility etc.).

None of this, on the face of it, has anything to do with welfare in a strictly economic sense, and the leap from this to some notion of government enforced communal charity (a violation of the very concept), is quite a stretch. Politically and morally legitimate government can enforce morality in a way that does not cross the boundaries of our agency and the proper place of government in human affairs so long as this is understood as enforcement of moral standards that condition how we treat each other in an ordered, civil society.

Poverty, however, except in certain specific circumstances (an arsonist burns down my house, placing me in poverty) when the actions of someone are the direct cause of another's economic misfortune, is not a matter of the violation or deprivation of the rights or lives of others by others, but, at least in nations such as America and other advanced western societies, is simply a state of affairs that has been arrived at through a certain life path that has been taken, for whatever reason, and which has placed one in the position of being in want.

We may become poor because of poor economic choices, personal characterological attributes (greed, materialistic selfishness, immaturity and impulsiveness, carnality (drug use, partying etc.)), bad luck, a tornado, whatever. In most cases, however, no one - the community - is not "at fault" and cannot be held responsible for the poverty of others. Hence, while others in the community (note: others in it - of their own free will, not "the community" as a personified entity) can and should, as a matter of Christian discipleship, give freely to those in need, the idea of a collective, central enforcement of such discipleship hollows out the very core of the gospel, in my view, not to mention sets in motion political and economic problems of the same kind we've seen over the last 40 years in the Great Society, with the same disastrous results.

What are the known historical results of government coerced and legislated charity? Precisely the promotion and embracing of all the social pathologies the Brethren mentioned and implied in the Proclamation that will bring "the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

[Loran Howard Blood]

Shall I let Nehor know that he isn't the only Born-Again?

I see you want to continue on this path and avoid any serious discussion.

Ciao.

[David Bokovoy]

Loran,

It's really silly to respond to your continued efforts to misconstrue my arguments, but here are a couple of points.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not interpret the First Presidency statement to mean government should promote welfare, or the alleviating of poverty in a society-wide sense. This is why you shouldn't strip posts from one context and put them into another, especially since this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, i.e. "communal sin in the Bible."

To clarify, I used the quote to illustrate why I do not agree with the assertion that governments should not force moral behavior on their citizens. They should! The statement from the First Presidency states that in order to avoid communal punishment, governments should promote morality.

Governments promote morality through the production and enforcement of law. Do you believe the government should compel women to avoid using abortion as birth-control? I suspect you do!

Do you believe that governments should compel people to avoid abusing children? I suspect you do!

Do you believe that in dire circumstances of defense, the government should compel its citizens to serve in the military? Maybe you do maybe you don't, but many people support the draft.

Do you believe that the government should compel people to avoid driving while intoxicated? I suspect you do.

All I'm suggesting is that I believe that a righteous government should promote morality by making sure that its citizens take care of the poor and needy. I haven't even ever specified how I believe governments should accomplish this task, because the matter is complex and I don't pretend to have all the answers. But, it is a fact that when the rich hoard resources and that wealth resides with the minority and not the majority, the poor suffer.

The First Presidency statement simply illustrates that the Brethren endorse the view that governments should promote moral values connected with the concepts of Zion.

[Loran Howard Blood]

I don't mean to be offensive, but this reading provides an excellent example of what occurs when the scriptures are stripped from their proper historical context.

What happens, however, when the historical (and hence, by definition, cultural) context is emphasized to the displacement or marginalization of what the Holy Spirit actually meant, in a deeper sense, that transcends that cultural context? How do you know where the proper boundaries of cultural context and potential deeper, overarching meanings to a scriptural text begin and end?

If we are to "liken the scriptures to ourselves" in our modern cultural context, then it would appear that the culture and historical circumstances of ancient Israel, or the NT Church, would have to be carefully filtered out from the spiritual meaning that would speak to both ancient Israelites and modern LDS.

Your readings of these texts, despite all the apparent evidence you bring to your argument, are still, at the end of the day, not at all clearly conclusive or, perhaps, even more importantly, relevant in a contemporary restored gospel context. Scriptural texts may, of course have multiple layers of meaning, and the colorations they may have had for ancient Israel may be masking their deeper, diachronic meaning that transcends one cultural context and can have a broader meaning across multiple cultural contexts.

[mfbukowski]

I think it is very important that we are accurate in our use of theological terms and expressions. The expression

[mfbukowski]

"Personal redemption" from what, and based on whose teaching? Half of the time I really don't know what it is you are talking about.

That is becoming abundantly clear.

I can't help you with that. Next time you are in the temple listen carefully.

[David Bokovoy]

What happens, however, when the historical (and hence, by definition, cultural) context is emphasized to the displacement or marginalization of what the Holy Spirit actually meant, in a deeper sense, that transcends that cultural context?

Based upon my experiences, understanding the historical context of scripture does not displace but rather accentuates spiritual application.

How do you know where the proper boundaries of cultural context and potential deeper, overarching meanings to a scriptural text begin and end?

See Ibid.

If we are to "liken the scriptures to ourselves" in our modern cultural context, then it would appear that the culture and historical circumstances of ancient Israel, or the NT Church, would have to be carefully filtered out from the spiritual meaning that would speak to both ancient Israelites and modern LDS.

I couldn't disagree more. And neither could the Church. Note the introduction to the LDS Institute manual for the OT:

"Some parts of the ancient scriptures are not easily understood by today

[WalkerW]

So do I, and I have a quarter of a century of wallowing (just ask my wife) behind me and hopefully, 25 more.

It is precisely for this reason, and my experiences in life over half a century, that I have become an intellectual, but at the same time am deeply suspicious and, when necessary, scathingly critical of "the intellectuals" as a class and with specific individuals, especially as their attitudes, values, and perceptions are shaped by the terribly politicized and almost monocultural ideological environment within modern higher education.

David Bokovoy is representative of a small La trahison des Clercs presently underway among what is doubtless a very small subgroup of LDS intellectuals who have been deeply influenced by certain philosophies they have encountered within academia and which have become, as these kinds of ideas tend to do, a religious commitment in and of themselves. This isn't in any sense weird, just somewhat shocking to see it rising within the Church. Its already had a very long run in Catholicism (especially in Latin America) and mainline Protestantism, but this is, after all The Church of Jesus Christ, and its doctrines are not negotiable, and not to be altered or modified unless done so through the proper channels and authority.

So, in other words, it didn't go over my head. I knew exactly what you meant, hence my reference to Intellectuals & Society and your distrust of the "intellectual class."

Stop trying to talk down to me as if I'm too stupid to understand either yours or Bokovoy's position.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Loran,

It's really silly to respond to your continued efforts to misconstrue my arguments, but here are a couple of points.

(sigh...) No, what's really silly and annoying is your continued attempts to play this game with me that I"m willfully attempting to misconstrue your arguments. Mine is a philosophical and logical analysis and critique of what you have claimed and said. It involves the inferences, implications and conceptual assumptions your arguments and use of language impose on any analysis of them. You asked Nomad, in relation to your use of the Proclamation as an example:

Please explain in what way this statement does not mean that governments should attempt to enforce the moral responsibility of the community to practice Gospel principles connected with building the city of Zion:

Now, you're very big on questions of context David, and given the language you used here, and the overall context of the entire discussion, there is really only one probable, or likely (though I admit not the only possible) inference here, and that is that you are referring to the Proclamation as, at least in part, referring obliquely to the provision of welfare for the poor, such provision being a "promotion" of "those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family" as well as poverty, in a society-wide sense, being something that could "bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

That was the inference I made, and, given the context and the language you used, is hardly far fetched.

To clarify, I used the quote to illustrate why I do not agree with the assertion that governments should not force moral behavior on their citizens. They should! The statement from the First Presidency states that in order to avoid communal punishment, governments should promote morality.

I'm sorry, but who was, or has been arguing that governments should not prohibit and enforce laws against rape, murder, robbery, larceny, driving while intoxicated, or any number of other things? The inferential question that arises, given again, the context of the thread, is what is the relation of this kind of legislation of morality to the provision of welfare? Well, you yourself made that connection in the very same thread. First, you asked the question:

Should secular governments avoid enforcing all moral responsibility upon their citizens, or simply in the context of personal wealth?

My interpretation of this rather vague query, given the context and the terms you used ("...or simply in the context of personal wealth"), would have to be an argument such as, "If secular governments are not to be allowed to forcibly transfer wealth from one group of citizens to another group, for the purpose of alleviating poverty, because of some "right" of private property, and if poverty is or can be conceived of as a moral problem in a communal sense, then how can you consistently maintain government's right to legislate any moral requirements or restrictions?"

Governments promote morality through the production and enforcement of law. Do you believe the government should compel women to avoid using abortion as birth-control? I suspect you do!

Yes, I believe that governments should compel woman to refrain from the unjustified taking of the life on another human being who has no say in the matter and cannot be consulted upon his own views of the matter.

Do you believe that governments should compel people to avoid abusing children? I suspect you do!

Yes, because this is a violation and crossing of moral boundaries into the rights and person of other autonomous human beings.

Do you believe that in dire circumstances of defense, the government should compel its citizens to serve in the military? Maybe you do maybe you don't, but many people support the draft.

I don't personally support the draft, the the concept is the same.

Do you believe that the government should compel people to avoid driving while intoxicated? I suspect you do.

Yes, because I may hurt or kill other people (again, violating their unalienable rights and violating fundamental moral and ethical boundaries) while I am driving under the influence.

All I'm suggesting is that I believe that a righteous government should promote morality by making sure that its citizens take care of the poor and needy.

And this is where the disconnect comes. Could you please explain how a state, in "making sure" its citizens "take care of the poor and needy" promotes morality, and could you describe how the promotion of such morality through legislated (coerced) welfare provision, is connected to the warnings regarding spreading social pathology and moral deterioration mentioned in the Proclamation?

Is poverty per se a moral question in a positive sense, or only in a negative sense? In other words, to be as clear as possible, in the first sense, I would, being affluent, have a moral debt to the poor. In the second, I would have a moral responsibility toward the poor. The one sees my relation to the poor as in some sense causal and hence, one of moral debt. The second sees my relation to the poor as incidental, and hence one of moral value grounded in the gospel concept of charity.

But, it is a fact that when the rich hoard resources and that wealth resides with the minority and not the majority, the poor suffer.

Very good, basic, introductory level Marxist clap trap (of which non-Marxist socialists like Proundhon would have been equally proud), and precisely why these threads end where they always end. The above, let's be clear, isn't taught in the gospel, and in the minds of countless intelligent thinkers, both within and outside the Church, Its poor economic and social history, poorer economics, and well, its ideological, isn't it?

[mfbukowski]

How like your mentor Angela (speaking of which, a Latter day Saint defending an unalloyed totalitarian ideologue who spent her life seeking the destruction and overthrow of the constitutional liberties of the American people and defending Stalinist political system around the world "Christlike," is rather...perverse, don't you think?)

From one of your own websites:

Angela Davis, the daughter of an automobile mechanic and a school teacher, was born in Birmingham, Alabama, on 26th January, 1944. The area where the family lived became known as Dynamite Hill because of the large number of African American homes bombed by the Ku Klux Klan. Her mother was a civil rights campaigner and had been active in the NAACP before the organization was outlawed in Birmingham.

No, a latter day Saint who understands what it must have been like to witness your childhood friends being blown up by racist bigots (yes, privately she speaks of that experience). There had been many such bombings in a small community- her childhood was not unlike being raised in a war-zone. Birmingham was known locally as "Bombingham".

Do you think maybe that might cause a little anger which might manifest itself later in life?

Judge her as you like, but I stand by my comments. She survived her childhood and condemns what she sees as "evil" just as you do, and is willing to fight against it.

She may be wrong, and of course I think she is, but her position is certainly understandable given what she has personally witnessed of the "blood and sins of this generation."

I think there is not a human being on earth who could come out of that unscathed.

Incidentally it is ludicrous to suggest, if you are, that I am still a leftist- my friends would be rolling on the floor laughing at such a suggestion. To characterize a professor I knew 43 years ago for a brief period, and later repudiated everything she taught me as a "mentor" is simply beyond belief!

You may know what God has in store for Angela Davis, but I certainly don't. I stand by my characterization of her as kind and "Christlike"- she certainly was to me.

[WalkerW]

Zerinius has done a good job pointing out that David's readings of the relevant scriptures here are eccentric, and not at all conclusive.

At the very most he has shown that there is an individual element as well. I pointed this out in my reference to 1 Corinthians and Paul's imagery of the "temple of God."

I, myself have not addressed that per se.

I know you haven't. This is why your claims that you have shown Bokovoy to be wrong are nonsensical.

However, keep in mind that David has no interest in simply pointing out, as a matter of scholarly interest, that ancient Israel believed in collective guilt/salvation.

I don't care. The OP is about ancient Israel.

Even if this can ultimately be supported scripturally as the clear and unambiguous meaning of the texts - which is doubtful

No, it really isn't.

David has made clear time and time and time again, including on this present group of threads, that he perceives in the ancient Israelite tradition a template for both the contemporary Saints and as a model, or type, of the future UO (not to mention secular government, which adds another element entirely).

Why shouldn't it? I believe in revelatory adaptation.

Let me ask you this W. Do you believe that Acts 4: 34-35 represents a clear doctrinal mandate for all contemporary Latter Day Saints and Christians generally, to divest themselves completely of all their material goods, including money and personal property, and distribute it to the poor?

I believe it alludes to an ancient form of consecration, though it may be similar to the voluntary poverty of the Qumran community.

Do you further believe that Jesus' specific call to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19 to "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" is a broad general mandate to all Christians and Latter day Saints to do exactly this, regardless of the consequences or effects of such action?

Regardless of consequences or effects? I think it is a general mandate to follow the very instructions put forth by King Benjamin.

Well, David teaches and adduces arguments for exactly this, and he has defended this proposition clearly and assertively in this forum on various occasions.

Fan-freaking-tastic. Has nothing to do with communal sin in ancient Israel.

In other words, what I and others have demonstrated again and again is that, whatever the facts of the matter may or may not be regarding ancient Israel (and David has patently not made his case for that with any degree of certainty), David has always made clear the application of his readings of both the OT and NT to the Church in a modern, as well as future context. What his critics, including myself, have made clear regarding this is that David's views here, as I've said, are not a part of the restored gospel, and cannot be found in the Church, whether or not some plausible case can be made for finding some ancient form of them in the OT.

Then start a thread about the practical application of the United Order in an industrial, globalized economy and stop derailing threads about ancient Israel. It isn't that hard.

Instead of learning about and discussing this subject, we all waste time combating your incredibly long-winded, soap-box preaching.

[WalkerW]

I'm really interested to know what David's critics think about Dr. Ricks' article.

[mfbukowski]

Serious question: do you take seriously the sociological and philosophical implications of this statement, bukowski?

It was a joke

I do not accept the gospel according to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps you could respond to the following, which I posted earlier in this thread and which was directly pertinent to a question you, yourself asked and which you received at least two substantial responses to, one from me, and another from LeSellers, neither of which you have bothered to respond to up to this point.

You know, just in general, you often post things to no one.

How is anyone supposed to know who you are addressing this to?

Was this for me?

[Loran Howard Blood]

In reality, however, the communal nature of Zion couldn't be more relevant in a contemporary restored gospel context: "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18)

Incorrect, Zion is not "communal," and your views are not doctrinal:

[mfbukowski]

[Loran Howard Blood]

No, a latter day Saint who understands what it must have been like to witness your childhood friends being blown up by racist bigots (yes, privately she speaks of that experience). There had been many such bombings in a small community- her childhood was not unlike being raised in a war-zone. Birmingham was known locally as "Bombingham".

So what? Many others witnessed, and were the victims of, the very same things, and they didn't become gang members and supporters of a genocidal totalitarian ideology and of nations seeking the destruction of her own country and the very constitution and founding principles that were the very principles that defeated slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. What's amazing here is that you've utterly missed the irony of an American black person being angry at injustice and the use of unaccountable power against black people joining and supporting a movement and ideology that is responsible for more injustice, bigotry, and human carnage than any ideology in human history.

Do you think maybe that might cause a little anger which might manifest itself later in life?

So, supporting a genocidal, totalitarian ideology of oppression and slavery (another sweet irony don't your think, that the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other countries she so staunchly defended, were, in all salient points, slave societies), and becoming a subversive traitor to the freest, most liberty and opportunity oriented society (the same society who, based on its highest values and its constitution, ended slavery, ended Jim Crow and segregation, and crushed the Klan) on earth is a understandable response to the criminal actions she witnessed. Why didn't all Mormons join become Bolsheviks after 1917 then?

Judge her as you like, but I stand by my comments. She survived her childhood and condemns what she sees as "evil" just as you do, and is willing to fight against it.

Ahh, the inevitable postmodern relativism. The final shirking of intellectual responsibility. All evil is relative and in the eye of the beholder. Forgive me mfb, if I chuckle again at the Irony of a person who was a member of a viscous inner city street gang and would have sent me to Siberia (or worse) had she had the power and opportunity, for disagreeing with what she sees as "evil" being lauded as a moral hero.

Gag me with an arc welder.

She may be wrong, and of course I think she is, but her position is certainly understandable given what she has personally witnessed of the "blood and sins of this generation."

Did she? What did she think about the invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Berlin Wall, The Great Leap Forward, The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and Che's torture dungeons at La Cabana? If she saw so much blood and sin, and was so repulsed and angered by it, why did she embrace it on a scale the Klan could never have imagined, even in their most moonshine drenched fantasies?

I think there is not a human being on earth who could come out of that unscathed.

Yes. Its a good thing Corrie Ten Boom didn't become a KGB agent after her experiences in Hitler's camps.

I

ncidentally it is ludicrous to suggest, if you are, that I am still a leftist- my friends would be rolling on the floor laughing at such a suggestion. To characterize a professor I knew 43 years ago for a brief period, and later repudiated everything she taught me as a "mentor" is simply beyond belief!

You're defending her as if she were your kid sister that had been accused of losing control of herself at a frat party. You roll the dice and take what comes up I guess.

You may know what God has in store for Angela Davis, but I certainly don't. I stand by my characterization of her as kind and "Christlike"- she certainly was to me.

Let me change that from an arc welder back to the traditional pitchfork.

[David Bokovoy]

In reality, however, the communal nature of Zion couldn't be more relevant in a contemporary restored gospel context: "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18)

Incorrect, Zion is not "communal," and your views are not doctrinal:

[David Bokovoy]

That's it- the answer which fits perfectly with the need for an ordinance prior to one becoming a priest- that I was looking for.

Thanks! Great insight!

I knew exactly where you were going, and I appreciate you drawing this analogy to our attention.

Thanks!