I’ve had a series of recent posts in which I’ve been critical of the Book of Mormon. I make no apologies for those criticisms, but I also don’t want to give the impression that I find the Book of Mormon devoid of any value.
I don’t think it’s inspired. I don’t even think it’s a good read. But what the Book of Mormon says about poverty still resonates with me:
And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—but I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
…
[Y]e should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants. (Mosiah 4: 16-26)
It’s as though Karl Marx took a page out of the Book of Mormon when he wrote: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Is this the same Book of Mormon that Glenn Beck believes to be scripture? Hmmm. Perhaps he’s a closet communist…
But because I don’t have a chalkboard handy, we may never know. ;)
I agree. There is much in basic Mormonism to support socialism and even communism (BoM, D&C, the early church), and seemingly very little to support the ultra-right wing, Ayn Randian leanings of so many members (the most vocal ones at least). It is sad that the (often racist) paranoia of people like Erza Benson has had so much influence over the direction of politics of the church and its members.
Ezra that is.
It all goes back to the basic differences between communism and consecration. Communism, your property is taken and then re-distributed. In consecration, you GIVE it to the church, and they deed it back, albeit to be used at the Church’s discretion (at least in the early church. It’s not currently practiced.
Remember what’s read before every election, (excepting special cases like Prop 8): “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties. While the church does not endorse political candidates, platforms or parties, members are urged to be full participants in political, governmental and community affairs.”
And I agree. Personally, I agree with President James E. Faust who said, “”I am a conservative on fiscal and property matters and I am a liberal in terms of human values and human rights. I believe what is says in the Book of Mormon that God loves all of his children equally, black and white, bond and free, Jew and Gentile, and the Lord likewise has compassion for the heathen. As a result I like to see all people enjoy every advantage, every blessing, every opportunity that comes to them by reason of citizenship.”
I hear the general sentiment of Joe’s point frequently in response. The idea is a difference between the “mandatory” aspect of one and the “voluntary” aspect of another…but even with consecration, there is pressure. I mean, if you DON’T give, then you are not worthy…you are sinful…you are selfish.
However, there still is a distinction. I guess this guilt complex produces a difference effect than having the govt take the stuff themselves, in which case a person doesn’t interact with humanity as much (if at all).
I guess a big problem in economics (if I’m remembering correctly) is in incentives, especially as it relates to public goods and positive externalities, so to speak, which are generally underproduced or overconsumed…there are many solutions to these kinds of problems…one of which is government intervention in some way, shape or fashion, but another of which are strong and strict social norms and traditions…different incentives can make or break other ones (e.g., making a fine for not picking up dog poop subverts social norms about cleaning up dog poop…people can say, “ahh, the fine isn’t too bad.”)
I have not looked this up myself, but Dr. Sherlock tells me that Utah was consistently a blue state with pretty liberal politics on fiscal and poverty issues (while being conservative on “family” and sexuality issues). He pinpoints two events as turning points:
The push to pass ERA. The LDS Church saw this as a covert way of forcing “alternative lifestyles” acceptance on religious organizations (Sherlock thinks this view is not without some merit).
The acceptance of abortion by Democrats. Up through part of the 1970s, the Democratic Party was substantially pro-life. Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and others were all pro-life at one point.
On Sherlock’s narrative, it was those issues that turned the state to red. Prior to this, he rattled off all the Democratic governors and congressman that had represented the state over some 30 years. So the state turned away from the Dems on family/sex issues. The fiscal conservatism and Randian stuff followed later. It is not totally out of whack – while there is plenty in the BoM of a more communitarian bent, the libertarian notion of free will that is such a driving force in LDS theology fits well with the Randian view. (Sherlock often tells me that his theology starts with his view of human freedom, and the nature of God in his theology has to conform to that view … I mock him and tell him my theology starts with God instead of man).
I still find it sad that the Democrats have so sold their soul to the pro-choice movement. If the Democratic Party were to become pro-life, they would have a near permanent majority in this country (they would get almost all of the Catholic vote every term). the radical pro-choice lobby is WAY left of most American on the issue (a majority of Americans now self-identify as “pro-life”), and even most self-identifying pro-choice Dems are not as crazy as the Planned Parenthood lobby (which, in my view, is pretty much plain evil). Personally, I am much closer to the Democrats on issues of race, environment, poverty, immigration, capital punishment, war, etc etc. I wish Dems respected the principle of subsidiarity more, that is my primary difference in terms of governing philosophy. In fact, my politics is a mix – I am more conservative than conservatives but am more liberal than liberals.
Perhaps Jon (a political scientist) and others can fill our or correct this assessment. What I have here is just second-hand from Dr. Sherlock.
By the way, I think Marxism has a rotten philosophical anthropology. It is dehumanizing. But we need not go over that far to get social justice. You need not abolish private property, you just need to understand the right to private property properly. As John Paul II says in Laborem Exercens: “At the same time [the Catholic/Christian tradition] differs from the program of capitalism practiced by liberalism [in the classical sense, think Locke] and by the political systems inspired by it. In the latter case, the difference consists in the way the right to ownership or property is understood. Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: The right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.” … “From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labor and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production.”
Only the most fringe libertarian would disagree with this in principle. For instance, I think almost all Americans agree that it is good that water is socialized. It is pretty easy to get people to agree to that, once you wade through the Randian / Friedman talking points on capitalism.
“By the way, I think Marxism has a rotten philosophical anthropology. It is dehumanizing.”
In what ways is it dehumanising? Keep in mind that there are many different types of communism, not all of them necessarily even strongly Marxist.
“…and even most self-identifying pro-choice Dems are not as crazy as the Planned Parenthood lobby (which, in my view, is pretty much plain evil).”
I realise you’re Catholic, but isn’t that rhetoric a little strong? I find it amusing and sad how many different ways religious people have to daemonise ideas they don’t agree with as evil. Of course, I don’t believe in evil, but if Planned Parenthood is evil, then I’m quite proudly called such. But I am part of the extreme leftist fringe, so I’m used to being called evil for all sorts of reasons. I should start making a list.
Lastly, while it is true that in the past few years, public opinion has moved slightly towards a pro-life stance, currently it is actually split down the middle, with neither side having a majority.
I was specific to Marxism because I know there are lots of brands of communism and socialism out there. Marxism has a dehumanizing anthropology because it engages in a materialist reduction and forgets the “subjective sense” of man, instead treating man as if his meaning/worth/value can be completely reduced to quantifiable commodities (the product of their labor). This dehumanizes the person because it tends to treat him as a thing instead of a person. I actually think Marx was better early, his 1844 Manuscripts have a much more palatable (actually, even attractive in some ways) view. But he moved away from his idea of “species-being” and his view was the worse for it.
Readers of this blog can probably tell that I get really hung up on the issue of philosophical anthropology. I think most of the personal and cultural sicknesses of our age stem from a disordered understanding of what it is to be a human being. Capitalism vs Communism? The debate is interesting (and I suspect I Craig and I would find more common ground here than on most any other topic), but the “older” question about the nature of man is more compelling. Capitalism itself is not evil – it is the disordered modern anthropology of radical individualism that is the real error there. Those interested in communism (broadly construed) should also reject the philosophical anthropology that is behind much of the defenses of abortion (I made this point recently regarding Judith Thompson).
We’ve gone round the abortion debate before. Let me just say my piece on Planned Parenthood. You don’t need to respond. I don’t intend to get into the debate here. I’d rather not think too much on abortion right now – my wife is delivering our child next Thursday. The person is in her womb now, but will be in my arms next week. And let me alert Dawkins – she will be a “Catholic child”!
I don’t toss around the word “evil” lightly, but PP is evil. My using the word had nothing whatsoever to do with me being Catholic. I don’t know how many times I have to say this – the argument against abortion is NOT a religious argument. It is an argument made from natural reason and appealing to basic principles of justice. If you don’t agree with the arguments, fine. But if you would take just one thing from me, one thing, it would be to stop constantly treating the pro-life argument as if it were a sectarian religious argument. IT IS NOT! In fact, here is a secular humanist site where pro-life atheists gather: http://godlessprolifers.org/home.html
You may know that Planned Parenthood was founded by a known racist and eugenicist. That people like Hillary Clinton have lauded Margaret Sanger, who sought to weed out “socially undesirables” through abortion and sterilization of african americans, latinos, and asians, is simply appalling. Here is Hillary in 2009 after receiving the Margaret Sanger Award: “Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”
Seriously, how do liberals get away with this kind of crap? Remember again, Sanger herself said that abortion and birth control campaigns are “identical in ideal with the final aim of Eugenics.” Let’s be honest – had a Republican heaped such praise on, say, a KKK leader, the Repub candidate would have been forced out of the election.
But I won’t hang the current organization on its founder. PP, and any other organization who makes a concerted effort to defend the “right” to kill innocents, is evil. If killing innocents is not evil, then nothing is. PP is complicit in the intentional killing of literally millions of innocent human beings. That is evil. I grant that this statement assumes my position on when human life and personhood begins. But we need not even get hung up too much on when personhood begins. PP lobbied hard to preserve partial birth abortion, a procedure that was being done past the point of viability. In that procedure, the entire body of the baby is delivered, save the head. The abortionist then kills the baby by jamming scissors into the skull or cutting the neck. Keep in mind, these are in some cases viable babies.
PP has also fought against protections for infants who survive botched abortions. So this is not the right to an abortion, it is the right to a dead baby. Be clear on this – in these cases a baby is born. It is fully delivered and is living and breathing on its own. I know of at least 2 instances where a child survived an abortion and was literally dumped in the trash can by the Planned Parenthood workers and left to die. That is evil. Care to defend that? Are you proud to be on the side of that?!
So I am not “demonizing an idea I disagree with” – I am making a principled moral stand against the killing of innocent human beings. Is that “amusing and sad”? I might remind you that you have, much more than me, had the tendency to demonize ideas you don’t agree with. (If I recall, you insisted that the only possible motives for being against gay marriage bigoted homophobia or fear).
I did misspeak – it is not a majority of Americans who identify as pro-life. Rather, neither side has a majority but the pro-life side has had a couple point edge or so for two years running. I think there is a trend, a trend that I think can largely be credited to improved ultrasound technology. I honestly believe that the tide is slowing turning on abortion in this country. Thank goodness – it is THE civil rights issue of our times.
CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM
I have always been a bit of a socialist. I very much enjoyed my time in the social democracy of Germany during the 1980′s. I used to more directly claim socialism in the 1970′s, but without the violent rebellion that Marx thought was necessary. Theologian Karl Barth had formerly supported a Christian socialist movement until socialism turned to violent overthrown in Europe. Then he moved towards opposing any ‘-ism’ as ‘Christian’ (I agree). There were many Christian social experiments in the 1800′s and Mormonism was one of them.
I was vocal opponent to the conservative McConkie-ite Mormons in my youth (1960′s in Kaysville, Utah), but I still admired the social genius of Joseph Smith — the communalist, abolitionist, and city planner. Utah still benefits from his practical city designs despite the recent 30 years of government based on the freedom for developers to develop for profit’s sake only.
TO ANDREW ON VOLUNTEERISM
There is a sort of volunteerism in a religious society, but only with the choice to belong or not belong. After that it becomes a total authority under god. If the prophet sent you to go on a mission, to plant a new community, or to share your wife, then you had to volunteer or be excommunicated. In a majority dominated hegemony as in Utah, there is little ‘volunteerism’. You are either apart of the hegemony or you are in a counter culture. Placing a social order on society through secular government or a theocracy really differs very little to the citizens — except that theocracies start their decrees with ‘thus sayeth the LORD’ — which I abhor except in eschatology (which I de-construct in meaning anyway).
DEMOCRATS IN UTAH
Yes, Democrats used to have a voice in Utah. There is a seed of association with the Southern Democratic party (Dixie), but there were several excellent western liberals before the Reagan era (Govs Rampton & Mattheson, Congressmen Owens, Senator Moss). It is interesting that Former Senator Garr (a conservative Republican during the Reagan years) went to Washington D.C. during the last Bush administration to advocate for the science programs of NASA. He complained to me at a dinner party that he was labeled a liberal by recently Republican dominated U.S. Senate.
And Dreck can’t even spell “oligarchy.”
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Hard Facts Edition! | Main Street Plaza
To Jon on his “My Favorite Mormon Scripture” entry:
I don’t believe the intent was to encourage our Community-Organizer-in-Chief to sock the “rich” with outrageous taxes to “spread the wealth around” to the poor. I think it was rather to encourage those who “have” to willingly share with those who “have not”. I think Jesus said the same thing, unless I’m mis-reading the Bible. This idea has nothing to do with socialism, communism, social justice, collective salvation, “humanism” or anything related. It is charity, straight up, pure and simple, and if you think otherwise you are purely mistaken… I take it you’re not real sharp on political theory either. When you trust the Government to provide for the poor, you’ve taken the wrong turn (to the left)…