The Latter-Day Saint Liberation Front

Easter Thoughts on our Economic Lives

2005-03-26T06:11:00.000-08:00

On this Easter weekend, it strikes me as appropriate to ask what Christ would have us do here in the world. Often, our answers to this question are deeply personal. Of course Christ would have us obey the Law of Chastity, treat our families well, participate faithfully in church, and turn to Him in prayer. Yet, important as these answers are, they are drastically insufficient. Our families and our inward lives often play an important role in our self-definitions, but a large percentage of our time is spent in interaction with the broader world. We buy and sell, work and hire labor from others, invest, plan for the future, give or fail to give to charity and to the needy and homeless that we pass on the street, and generally carry out the activities that, grouped together, become the economy. When it comes to this major portion of our lives, is Christ silent in his guidance? Of course He is not. As a brief Easter weekend thought, I offer the following three passages from the Gospel of Matthew. Each passage offers us ideas and instruction for how to live our economic lives. These are, after all, Christ’s words and commandments to us.

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. [Matthew 6:19-21]

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. [Matthew 19:16-26]

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [Matthew 22:36-40]

When we sit down to make our budgets, are we remembering Christ’s commandment to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven, not on earth? How can we do that better? Obviously, we can start by giving a more generous fast offering. I try to ask myself this question: of my income, how much would it be worth to me to eliminate poverty and hunger among the Saints? Then I try to write that number down. This Easter, I pray that I can do better at this, and that the rest of the Saints can also more fully fulfill Christ’s call to lay up treasures in heaven by being generous with their treasures on earth. If we would be perfect, can we afford to be less attentive to the poor than Christ commanded the young man in Matthew 19 to be? How can we usefully devote our time, talents, and resources to ending poverty? Is this not what Christ asks of us? This Easter, I pray that I can be guided more effectively to give of myself to eliminate poverty and starvation, and that the rest of the Saints can receive the instruction on this regard that they need—so that we may all become perfect in Christ and enter His rest. When a homeless person on the street asks for our help, do we remember Christ’s commandment that we love that person as ourselves? If we do, how should we act? In the trite and overly-repeated phrase, what would Jesus do? This Easter, I pray that I might love the poor and the miserable that I encounter as I do myself, and that the rest of the Saints might have this gift of charity as well. Happy Easter!

A mid-1990s Debate Revisited: R.E.M. vs. U2

2005-03-25T07:24:00.000-08:00

About a decade ago, R.E.M. and U2 were battling for the title of "biggest rock band in the world," and both music critics and teenagers enjoyed arguing over which band was better. At that point in time, U2 was just coming off of the incredibly successful Zoo TV tour, which caricatured rock stadium tours by being the biggest, most ludicrous, most self-aware stadium tour possible. (The band even used suspended automobiles with the headlights on as spotlights.) Bono also mocked his own larger-than-life image by inventing the uber-rock-star character, The Fly (and later adding a lounge-singer devil character). R.E.M., by contrast, was in the middle of its most commercially successful period. The band had released four consecutive hit records, three of which were also quite good (I'm going to argue that Green was never much of an album. But Out of Time, Automatic for the People, and Monster are 90's-music classics). The band was toward the later phase of its most successful concert tour, the Monster tour. R.E.M. had achieved immense success without completely abandoning its fringe image; for example, Sonic Youth was the opening act on several dates of the Monster tour, and even punk rock radio stations sometimes played the band. (Strange but true!) So, a decade ago, there was a valid commercial and artistic struggle between the two groups. Where are we at today? U2 is by far the more successful of the two bands commercially. R.E.M. has not released an economically successful album in about eight years, whereas U2 as had two hits in the 2000s. R.E.M.'s current album, Around the Sun, has a score of 53 on Metacritic and is currently ranked #376 in music on Amazon.com. By contrast, U2's current record, How to Dismantle and Atomic Bomb, has a Metacritic score of 78 and is currently ranked #9 in music on Amazon.com. So, commercially and critically, U2 has clearly won this battle of the bands. The thing that get me about this, and that, in my eyes, justifies this post, is that R.E.M. seems, to me, to have won the contest on artistic grounds. In fact, it's a clean sweep, hands-down, triumph. In order to recover from the artistic and commercial debacle of the Pop album, which pushed the band's ironic postmodernism past the breaking point, U2 has reinvented itself as the almost painfully sincere rock-and-roll act that it was up to the release of Achtung Baby in the early 1990s. The problem is, post-postmodernism isn't the same as naive, heart-felt sincerity. Instead, it's cynicism! U2 cannot realistically ask us to forget that it once trashed the image of the rock star messiah, just because Bono wants to be one again. Yet that is, in effect, what they have done. This spectacle strikes me as painful and simply greedy. The members of R.E.M., by contrast, have allowed themselves to mature gracefully. The band now writes songs in a much more open, and surprisingly happy, mood than ever before. Among other things, I'm glad that Michael Stipe seems to finally be at peace with himself. Perhaps I no longer hear by teenage identity confusion amplified back at me in the music, but I do hear my more adult feelings of attachment, hope, occasional anger, etc. in it. P.S. This post has few if any implications for economics and the gospel. So why did I make it? I wanted to write about this, and the blog is as good a place as any. I will continue to post on economic ideas at least once or twice a week, but I find that I also want the freedom to ramble on other themes. And, as it were, it's my blog and I can ramble if I want to....

I Need a Peanut Butter Recipe

2005-03-23T21:12:00.000-08:00

Anyone who’s lived much in Latin America knows may know that most of the continent is sorely lacking in root beer, brown sugar, and peanut butter. I can do without the root beer—I only think about it when we’re eating pizza, anyway. I’ve figured out how to substitute raw blond sugar and a little dark corn syrup for North American brown sugar. But I’ve never found any solution for the long-term peanut butter deprivation I suffer when RoastedTomatoes and I live as expats. Can anyone help me?

It’s true that I’ve found a store here in Lima which does sell one brand of the stuff. However, the putative peanut paste has a consistency like maple syrup, and it’s strangely blue. What’s more, its package looks like something dreamed up by the state planners of the old USSR. It’s produced and marketed by the Peruvian College of Nutritional Engineers. I can’t bring myself to buy it because it seems more like an engine fluid than a food. I’m getting desperate. I need a peanut butter and honey sandwich, but all I can come up with is a layer of dry-roasted peanuts and honey between two slices of bread. It’s just not the same.

We as a people are renowned for our resourceful self-sufficiency—let’s live up to our reputation. Please, support your sister. Give me a peanut butter recipe!

What’s Wrong with Marxism? An Argumentative Guide to LDS Sources on Radical Social Change, Part II

2005-03-23T17:48:00.000-08:00

In 1966, Elder Marion G. Romney gave an entire speech, during the priesthood session of April conference, on the subject: “Is Socialism the United Order?” After offering definitions of communism and socialism, as well as an abbreviated history of the evolution of Marx-inspired thought and political practice, Elder Romney defines the United Order: In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship. To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a "covenant and a deed which" could not "be broken." (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church. Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3.) This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs. The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied. Elder Romney then proceeds to discuss similarities and differences between socialism and the United Order. His proposed similarities are that both systems are economic in nature, both try to eliminate inequality, and both propose a move away from self-interest as a driving force in human affairs. Elder Romney devotes somewhat more attention to differences between the two systems. Socialism, he argues, is atheistic, whereas the United Order is based on “belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.” This solid point connects with previously-discussed statements that the United Order must be based on priesthood authority. A second proposed difference is that socialism is implemented using the coercive power of the state, whereas the United Order comes into being via “the voluntary free-will actions of men.” This argument is obviously correct, and is often repeated by Latter-day Saints as a reason to avoid government action to increase economic equality. However, I think that close scrutiny reveals this distinction to be somewhat less telling than it has sometimes been taken to be. What is the punishment for resisting an action of a mortal government? Obviously, in the final analysis, the power of the state rests on its ability to kill. The state’s power to regulate, tax, prohibit, compel, imprison, and so forth are always backed up by the state’s control over the police and the army: resist any law determinedly enough and, in the end, you will die. Hence, the coercive power of the state is to be understood as its ability to bring about mortal death. The Church does not carry out executions (although it certainly did during Old Testament times, as a reading of the Mosaic Law makes quite clear). Instead, the maximum penalty imposed on heretics, renegades, and disbelievers is excommunication: Doctrine and Covenants 134:10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world's goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship. However, what does the penalty of excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mean? Excommunication entails the annulment of all ordinances performed for an individual, including baptism and temple ordinances. Yet, Latter-day Saints believe baptism to be necessary for salvation and temple ordinances to be necessary for exaltation. Hence, excommunication directly implies that an individual loses all right to salvation and exaltation. In typical Latter-day Saint language, such a loss is referred to as spiritual, or eternal, death. So we see that the ultimate consequence of disobeying the state is mortal death; the ultimate consequence of disobeying the Church is eternal death. Therefore, political rules and laws can only be seen as more coercive than religious commandments and instructions if mortal death is seen as a more serious consequence than spiritual death. If, as seems more reasonable, eternal death is seen as more fearsome than mortal death, then it follows that instructions from the Church are more coercive than instructions from the state. Furthermore, it is clear that the instruction to join the United Order was one on which these immense spiritual consequences did rest. The Law of Consecration, of which the United Order was an institutional realization, is accepted by covenant; no member can hope to achieve exaltation while rejecting this law. By direct implication, no member (during the period of the United Order) could voluntarily choose not to participate without suffering the consequence of eternal death. Brigham Young himself accepted this interpretation. In a speech on the United Order, he stated: Here is the kingdom of God; do you want to enter into it, or not? Do you want the future blessings of this kingdom, or do you not? Have your choice; but whomsoever you list to obey, his servants you will be, whether it is Jesus or the devil; please yourselves, have your choice. But all know we can not serve two masters acceptably; if we love one, we shall hate the other, and if we hold on to one, we shall despise the other. We must either be for the kingdom of God, or not. But we shall organize this holy order here before we leave. We give the invitation to all of you to come and get organized. Let us be one; let us carry out the order that God has established for the family of heaven. [Brigham Young, 1874, Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.46] Here, the choice involved in the voluntary decision to participate in the United Order is made explicit: serve Jesus or the devil. Given the obvious, eternal consequences of choosing to serve the devil, it seems clear that the believer has no real choice in this matter. For these reasons, the argument that socialism is coercive while the United Order is not seems to be correct on the surface but trivial, and even misleading, on closer examination. Certainly this point is a weak foundation for arguments against government action: it permits the government to take any coercive stance in which the severity of the punishment for failure to comply is less than or equal to eternal spiritual death. Returning to Elder Romney’s talk, he argues that the United Order is based on private ownership and management, while socialism obviously is not. I have previously discussed the somewhat problematic links between the concept of stewardship and the idea of private ownership. However, one reasonable reading of the overall point here is that economic management under the United Order is more decentralized than under socialism, with interventions by central planners (i.e., bishops) only in cases of major capital investment and with day-to-day economic decisions largely left to the individuals involved. This is a compelling point—and, given the bleak economic fate of real-world socialism, perhaps a telling critique and political alternative. Elder Romney also points out that the United Order is non-political, while socialism is profoundly political. This is correct, given an understanding of politics as involving the state. However, it is clearly incorrect, given the much broader interpretation of the term “political” now in common usage. Today, “politics” often includes action intended to replace state regulation, as well as issues on which the state might act but does not. The United Order most likely fits into both categories, and would therefore be considered by many in the early 21st century to be a profoundly political institution. Finally, Elder Romney reiterates the argument that the United Order requires a righteous people to implement it, whereas socialism does not. Let me present a few other notable quotes from this speech. “That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give.” “As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote ‘industry, thrift and self-respect,’ for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.” “If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.” So, socialism is bad, evil, and possibly even double-plus ungood. In light of the wide-spread collapse of anything that could be reasonably described as socialism as a political alternative over the last twenty years (except in Venezuela), these particular warnings may seem somewhat anachronistic. More useful are some of Elder Romney’s specific critiques of socialism, which may serve as some kind of inspiration for the construction of a more useful social-reform project: socialism was atheistic, overly centralized, and too reliant on the power of the state to create virtue. By direct implication, a better alternative would have to offer freedom of religion, rely to at least a significant extent on decentralized economic decision-making, and ask God to take the lead in making a virtuous people. Now, for some inspiring thoughts from the same sermon on what we, as members of the Church, can do immediately to try to improve the world and implement the United Order. In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order. As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop's storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put "all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to "pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . ." (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark: ". . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church." What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.

What’s Wrong with Marxism? An Argumentative Guide to LDS Sources on Radical Social Change, Part I

2005-03-22T13:30:00.000-08:00

As a result of comments and I've received on this blog, as well as discussions I've had over several years in the church, I have decided to put together a guide to LDS sources on socialism, communism, Marxism, government economic intervention, economic equality, and the United Order. My source guide will provide references, pull quotes, and my brilliant and insightful commentary. Would it really be fun any other way? The project may be finished in a few weeks or months, or it may take several years. Since this is a blog, though, you don't have to wait for the final product. Instead, I can publish bits and pieces as I go. Today is the first installment. *** It’s pretty much a matter of consensus among Latter-day Saints that Marxism, especially although not exclusively in its real-world, 20th century forms, is a bad idea. I’m not going to argue against this point in any way. My intention is instead to ask what precisely makes us have this reaction to Marxism. Some Latter-day Saints reject everything that is even remotely connected with Marxism. When I was an undergraduate at BYU, I heard students (up to and including political science majors) reject possible U.S. government policies because they were Marxist. The policies in question included, for example, government funding of public schools. On the one hand, it certainly is true that Marxist regimes have tended to provide government funding of public schools—so there is that much to be said for my classmates’ arguments. But, on the other hand, it’s not exactly clear to me that guilt by association can reasonably be taken to this extreme. So, rather than simply rejecting everyone and everything that has even a tenuous connection to Marxism, why don’t we try to specify exactly what the problems with Marxism are? Then, we can construct policies aimed at helping the poor and reducing inequality while we avoid those problems. The relationship between Marxism (and related ideas, including socialism and communism) and Latter-day Saint belief has been an issue in Latter-day Saint thought for over a hundred years. In a General Conference session from 1903, Elder M. F. Cowley gave a talk which included the following remarks on the relationship between socialism and the United Order:

I met a brother some time ago who was quite prominent in the community where he lived, and he had organized a little socialistic party, which, I suppose, from a political standpoint, he had a right to do; but he told me that all the people ought to be socialists, for the reason that socialism, he said, is the United Order, and the more we can get to join the Socialist party the easier it will be to establish the United Order when the time comes. I had to ask him if he was so blind as to believe that after God has revealed the Principles of the United Order, and the people are not prepared to carry them out, you can go to some institution of the world and find those principles and exemplify them for the benefit of mankind. I told him that no matter how near the world come to the theories of the Gospel, no matter how much they try to establish them, without the Spirit of the Gospel and the authority of the Holy Priesthood they never can carry them out, worlds without end. Humanity is too selfish to carry out these great laws of God. [Elder M. F. Cowley, Afternoon Session, General Conference, Monday, Oct. 5, 1903]

From a 21st-century Latter-day Saint perspective, a few things are noteworthy about these remarks. First of all, there is a proposed criticism of Marx-inspired ideas: they try to operate without the Holy Spirit and without the priesthood. This is a useful theme to hold onto. Second, Elder Cowley implicitly accepts the proposition that socialism is in fact quite similar to the ideas behind the United Order. Evidence for this is found in the claim that, “no matter how near the world come to the theories of the Gospel,” people can’t implement them without divine guidance. Obviously, this statement would be nonsensical if socialism didn’t come close to reflecting the principles of the United Order. The following quote, from Elder Richard R. Lyman, is relevant in extending the Church’s one-time stand against labor unions to socialism. Obviously, Marxist versions of leftism were fundamentally built around labor union activism, so this extension seems reasonable enough. However, the entire statement sounds odd and unfamiliar to my ears. It’s been a long time since the Church took a stand against labor unions (as far as I know), so this whole idea seems terribly anachronistic to me.

[W]hen the leaders of this Church counsel our brethren and sisters not to be built up with the hope that outside of this Church they shall solve the problems between capital and labor by joining unions, by joining the non-partisan league, by joining socialism, it is not that they desire to curtail the liberties of the people. It is because they love all the people. This Church has had an interest in those who have possessed means, that they should have justice and their rights. Sometimes it has been charged that the Church rather favors capitalism. I have never discovered it. If you will search the records, you will discover that more means has been spent for the farmers, for the common people in the Church than for any other class in the days of President Young. We, today, recognize, as they did, that the very foundation of the Church depends upon the success of the tillers of the soil, the workers, and our interest is for them, and yet we do not become selfish nor sordid to join with one group of laborers against the interests of all others. They must stand on a broader platform. The solution of the questions that we have been discussing shall never be accomplished, and the difficulties removed between the workers, until every worker becomes his brother's keeper, interested in his brother's welfare. Until men shall recognize the rights and the privileges and the liberties and the welfare of all classes we shall not find a solution of our troubles; and I testify to you that to this Church the Lord has given the means of accomplishing this thing. [Elder Richard R. Lyman, Morning Session, Second Day, October, 1919, General Conference]

One thing that is highly relevant to the current discussion is that Elder Lyman endorses the concept, from the economic and political right, that the wealthy have a moral right to their property. There are a variety of viewpoints in which this might not be seen as true, but Elder Lyman’s remarks simply presuppose that it is true. This is another point to bear in mind. The following quote comes from Elder Harold B. Lee in the early 1940s. This quote directly addresses the question of the relationship between the United Order and Marxist-inspired political ideologies. Elder Lee expresses his confidence that the two systems will differ in fundamental ways. Let’s see exactly what critical differences he flags.

There are some things of which I am sure, and that is that contrary to the belief and mistaken ideas of some of our people, the United Order will not be a Socialistic or Communistic set-up: it will be something distinctive and yet will be more capitalistic in its nature than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained. I am sure also that when it comes it will come from the leaders of this Church whom you sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and will not come from some man who does not occupy that position. It will not come as a political program, legislated by men not possessed of that authority. I am also convinced that the time is here when Zion must put on her beautiful garments preparatory for the second coming of the Savior, and I believe firmly that that preparation is in progress. I am likewise persuaded that the Church Welfare Plan is contributing mightily to that preparation. [Elder Harold B. Lee, Morning Session, Third Day, October, 1941, General Conference]

First, “private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained.” Obviously, any economic arrangement based on Law of Consecration principles will involve individual responsibility; this is, after all, the entire meaning of the word “stewardship.” The question of private ownership is, of course, more complex. Consecration, as we are taught it, involves giving up our possessions, etc., for the needs of the kingdom of God. This clearly involves limitations on the idea of private ownership. However, the concept of stewardship does involve individual responsibility; perhaps Elder Lee’s mention of private ownership in this context is intended as a reinforcement of the concept of stewardship. At the very least, then, we can draw from this statement the idea that stewardship differentiates between the United Order and Marxism. Second, as Elder Cowley argues above, priesthood leadership is essential. As a kind of aside, some 20th- and 21st-century Latter-day Saints have argued that the United Order is not a communal economic arrangement at all. For example, Elder Ezra Taft Benson apparently believed it to be a market-driven system. In Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, by Gary James Bergera and Ronald Priddis, we find the following: During Oaks's tenure, Benson not only condemned the basic economics textbook used in undergraduate classes as Keynesian propaganda, but suggested that the required course in American history be restructured to "teach patriotism, loyalty to the Constitution, and the free enterprise system." In late April 1976, he grilled Oaks to discover if he had faculty who both understood and defended "the idea [that] we cannot be free if the government has the power to redistribute the wealth;" that "the free market is the most efficient producer and distributor of wealth;" and that "the [church's] United Order was a free market system and was the farthest removed from socialism of any economic system. . . . Is BYU as friendly to solid conservative constitutionalists," Benson asked, "as to those whose departure from political and religious orthodoxy is far greater and in a more dangerous direction?" (in Oaks to Bateman and Hickman). It is clear, then, that Elder Benson’s beliefs about the United Order required it to have been a non-communal economic system. Was he right about this? Fortunately, there is a historical record about the United Order that we can turn to in order to resolve this query. The following extended quote is from a sermon of Brigham Young’s when he was promoting the United Order.

As individuals we do not want your farms, we do not want your houses and city lots, we do not want your horses and your cattle, we do not want your gold and your silver, nor anything of the kind. "Well, then, what do you want?" We want the time of this people called Latter-day Saints, that we can organize this time systematically, and make this people the richest people on the face of the earth. If we are the people of God, we are to be the richest people on the earth, and these riches are to be held in God, not in the devil. God tells us how we may accomplish this, as plainly and as surely as he told Joshua and the people of Israel how to cause the downfall of the walls of Jericho. They were to march around the walls once a day for seven days, then seven times in one day, and the last time they went round the walls they blew their horns with all their might, and down fell the walls of Jericho. We do not understand all about this, if we did, we should understand that it was as simple as any of the acts of the Lord: as simple as being baptized for the remission of sins. We want now to organize the people. Says one—"Don't you want my money and my goods?" We want you to put them into the kingdom of God, into the vaults that are prepared, into the archives, the safe, the institution, to help to increase means for the kingdom of God on the earth. And what are we to have when we enter this order? What we need to eat, drink and wear, and strict obedience to the requirements of those whom the Lord sets to guide and direct; that our sisters, instead of teasing their husbands for a dollar, five dollars, twenty-five dollars, for a fine dress, bonnet, or artificials for themselves or their daughters, may go to work and learn how to make all these things for themselves, being organized into societies or classes for that purpose. And the brethren will be organized to do their farming, herding and raising cattle, sheep, fruit, grain and vegetables; and when they have raised these products, every particle be gathered into a storehouse or storehouses, and every one have what is needed to sustain him. But the people will stop going here, there, and yonder, and saying—"I am after the gold," "I am after the silver," or this, that and the other. They will stop this folly and nonsense, for they have already impoverished themselves too much by taking so unwise a course. Looking at matters in a temporal point of view, and in the light of strict economy, I am ashamed to see the poverty that exists among the Latter-day Saints. They ought to be worth millions and millions, and millions on millions, where they are not worth a dollar. Should they spend their means in folly and nonsense? No, not a dollar of it, but put all into the general fund for the benefit of the kingdom. Organize the brethren and sisters, and let each and every one have their duties to perform. Where they are destitute of houses, and it is convenient, the most economical plan that can be adopted is to have buildings erected large enough to accommodate a number of families. For instance, we will say there are a hundred families in this place who have not houses fit to live in. We will erect a building large enough to accommodate them all comfortably, with every convenience for cooking, washing, ironing, &c.; and then, instead of each one of a hundred women getting up in the morning to cook breakfast for father and the large boys, that they may go to their labor, while the little children are crying and needing attention, breakfast for the whole can be prepared by five or ten women, with a man or two to help. Some may say—"This would be confusion." Not at all, it would do away with it. Another one says—"It will be a great trial to my feelings, if I am obliged to go and breakfast with all these men and women. I am faint and sick, and do not eat much, and I want my breakfast prepared in peace." Then build side rooms by the dozen or score, where you can eat by yourselves; and if you wish to invite three or four to eat with you, have your table, and everything you call for is sent to you. "Well, but I do not like this confusion of children." Let the children have their dining room to themselves, and let a certain number of the sisters be appointed to take charge of the nursery and see that they have proper food, in proper quantities and at proper times, so as to preserve system and good order as far as possible, that a love of order may be established in their youthful minds, and they learn how to conduct themselves. Then let there be good teachers in the school rooms; and have beautiful gardens, and take the little folks out and show them the beautiful flowers, and teach them in their childhood the names and properties of every flower and plant, teaching them to understand which are astringent, which cathartic; this is useful for coloring, that is celebrated for its combination of beautiful colors, &c. Teach them lessons of beauty and usefulness while they are young, instead of letting them play in the dirt, making mud balls, and drawing the mud in their hats, and soiling their dresses, and cultivate their mental powers from childhood up. When they are old enough, place within their reach the advantages and benefits of a scientific education. Let them study the formation of the earth, the organization of the human system, and other sciences; such a system of mental culture and discipline in early years is of incalculable benefit to its possessor in mature years. Take, for instance, the young ladies now before me, as well as the young men, and form a class in geology, in chemistry or mineralogy; and do not confine their studies to theory only, but let them put in practice what they learn from books, by defining the nature of the soil, the composition or decomposition of a rock, how the earth was formed, its probable age, and so forth. All these are problems which science attempts to solve, although some of the views of our great scholars are undoubtedly very speculative. In the study of the sciences I have named, our young folks will learn how it is that, in traveling in our mountains, we frequently see sea shells—shells of the oyster, clam, &c. Ask our boys and girls now to explain these things, and they are not able to do so; but establish classes for the study of the sciences, and they will become acquainted with the various facts they furnish in regard to the condition of the earth. It is the duty of the Latter-day Saints, according to the revelations, to give their children the best education that can be procured, both from the books of the world and the revelations of the Lord. If our young men will study the sciences, they will stop riding fast horses through the streets, and other folly and nonsense which they are now guilty of, and they will become useful and honorable members of the community. [Brigham Young, 1874, Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, p.43]

The scenario President Young describes is certainly utopian—but it this a market-driven utopia? All of the grain is to be gathered into a common storehouse and everyone is to have what they need. Families are to live in giant, communal apartment buildings, sharing childcare and household duties. Young men will stop riding fast horses through the streets. As they say, dogs and cats will live together… Okay, so President Young’s vision of the United Order was not market-driven in any modern sense of the word. Apparently, Elder Benson’s historical interpretations on that score were mistaken; at the very least, they don’t fit with how President Young saw the United Order. (Incidentally, there are a wide range of quotes in which President Young discusses the United Order in clearly communal, non-market terms. I chose this one because it’s fun: it’s got the Mormon apartment building, the romance of children studying science, and the grumpy complaint about the teenage boys and their fast horses!)

Quotes from Gustavo Gutierrez, Father of Liberation Theology

2005-03-22T06:04:00.000-08:00

In this post, I offer you, the noble reader, a couple of quotes from Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian theologian who is credited with having invented the term "liberation theology." I hope they will be provocative, in the good sense of the term. Are these sentiments true? If so, what is our moral responsibility?

Much contemporary theology seems to start from the challenge of the nonbeliever. He questions our religious world and faces it with a demand for profound purification and renewal… [However, the] challenge in a continent like Latin America does not come primarily from the man who does not believe, but from the man who is not a man, who is not recognized as such by the existing social order: he is in the ranks of the poor, the exploited; he is the man, who scarcely knows that he is a man. His challenge is not aimed first at our religious world, but at our economic, social, political, and cultural world; therefore, it is an appeal for a revolutionary transformation of the very bases of a dehumanizing society. The question is not therefore how to speak of God in an adult world, but how to proclaim Him as a Father in a world that is not human. [“Liberation, Theology, and Proclamation,” in C. Geffre and G. Gutierrez, eds, (1974) The Mystical and Political Dimensions of the Christian Faith, pg. 69]

Real Christian love is founded on commitment to a more just society and action to bring it about. [G. Gutierrez, (1973) A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, pg. 278]

A Comment on our Comment Forums

2005-03-22T06:02:00.000-08:00

Several people have asked questions and raised interesting issues in the comment areas. I've tried to respond to as many as I can. Because my responses are part of an ongoing conversation, I'm posting them as follow-up comments in the comments area, rather than as new posts on the main blog. If you have said something to me, please look for my response there!

Economic Equality in the Restoration Scriptures

2005-03-20T07:34:00.000-08:00

In this post, I’m going to include the text of the major restoration scriptures related to communal economic arrangements. If you haven’t reread these texts, all in a row, recently, I’d encourage you to do so. They’re an impressive statement! However, if you are familiar with the texts, and are interested in my comments on them, skip to the end of the post, where I’ll say a few things. *** Doctrine and Covenants 42:30 And behold, thou will remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou has to impart unto them, and a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken. Doctrine and Covenants 42:31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose. Doctrine and Covenants 42:32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as it sufficient for himself and family. Doctrine and Covenants 42:33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants. Doctrine and Covenants 42:34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council; Doctrine and Covenants 42:35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hearafter to be revealed-- Doctrine and Covenants 42:36 And my covenant people may be gathered in one in that day when I shall come to my temple, and this I do for the salvation of my people. Doctrine and Covenants 42:37 And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me-- Doctrine and Covenants 42:38 For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me. Doctrine and Covenants 42:39 For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel. *** Doctrine and Covenants 49:20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. *** Doctrine and Covenants 51:3 Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs. Doctrine and Covenants 51:9 And let every man deal honestly, and be alike among this people, and receive alike, that ye may be one, even as I have commanded you. *** Doctrine and Covenants 78:3 For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs by that there be an organization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse for the poor of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion-- Doctrine and Covenants 78:4 For a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused; to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven; Doctrine and Covenants 78:5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. Doctrine and Covenants 78:6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; Doctrine and Covenants 78:7 For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you. *** Doctrine and Covenants 82:17 And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just-- Doctrine and Covenants 82:18 And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord's storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church-- Doctrine and Covenants 82:19 Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God. *** Doctrine and Covenants 105:2 Behold, I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now. Doctrine and Covenants 105:3 But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them; Doctrine and Covenants 105:4 And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom; Doctrine and Covenants 105:5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself. *** 4 Nephi 1:3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. 4 Nephi 1:7 And the Lord did prosper them exceedingly in the land; yea, insomuch that they did build cities again where there had been cities burned. 4 Nephi 1:23 And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ. *** A first point on these scriptural texts. (There’s a lot, maybe too much, to say about them, but I have to start somewhere!) Let’s talk about the rationale that the Lord offers for commanding communal economic arrangements and material equality. At no point is there a promise of increased overall prosperity in return for adopting these economic arrangements. Throughout the Doctrine and Covenants texts, the strong emphasis is on two interrelated rationales. First, communal arrangements are intended to benefit the poor among the Church. Second, these economic systems are designed to produce the material equality that is a prerequisite for exaltation and the building of Zion. Both of these justifications strike me as compelling in their own right—especially when they are divinely offered. The Book of Mormon text does, of course, briefly mention the successful implementation of communal economics. It also mentions that the people at that time were economically very successful. We are told that the Lord made them wealthy. This could be in part because they were living the Law of Consecration. It could also be because, for the first time in their recorded history, the Book of Mormon folks went for a couple of generations without having massive, and surely economically costly, wars. On either interpretation, it is clear that the text does not promise other people that the same result (exceeding prosperity) will necessarily follow the same behavior (adopting communal economics); it merely informs us that this conjunction happened once. So, we have a set of commandments that we should care for the poor, and indeed eventually come to the point of eliminating economic inequality among the Saints, as a prerequisite for the construction of Zion. But we aren’t allowed the materialistic motivation of expecting to accumulate unbelievable personal wealth due to greatly increased economic efficiency if we do so—although this may happen if the Lord chooses to bless us as described in 4 Nephi. How close are we to meeting the divine standard of material equality within the Church? Even within Utah, it should be fairly clear that there’s economic inequality among the Saints. (Those who doubt it should spend a weekend in one of the small towns in Southern Utah that isn’t near the entrance to a national park.) Globally, the degree of inequality within the Church is sort of staggering. In Latin America and Africa, there are large numbers of Saints who are living in self-constructed shacks of one kind or another, and even some Saints who are starving. What would the Lord have us do about this? Surely there should be something we can do—but I’m not entirely sure what.

More on Book of Mormon Historicity

2005-03-20T07:31:00.000-08:00

Thanks to an alert reader who passed on the citation to an entire published volume on the historicity of LDS scriptures! The book in question is Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson. Two quotes in particular offer at least part of the missing argument that I requested in my previous post on Book of Mormon historicity.

One, by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, is as follows:

There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship (pg. 241).

A second, by Kent P. Jackson, states:

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be "true," in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events? (pg. 137-38)

Note: both of these quotes are pulled from the FARMS review of this book. Serenity Valley and I are currently living outside of the U.S., and so we have limited access to information that is not available online. But the FARMS review is online, so, hey presto! When I get the chance, I’ll read the entire book.

My tentative response to these arguments is as follows. I don’t find myself, on balance, convinced that the Book of Mormon is historical—rather the opposite, I’m afraid. So, when I read a statement in the text (for example, 2 Nephi: 2, one of my favorite parts of the book), I am forced to turn to God to see whether it is true. If the text resonates spiritually with my experience of Him, i.e., if its message is carried to my heart via the Holy Spirit, then I accept it as a true statement about God and Christ. If not, then not.

Is this even different from the response of someone who believes the book is historical?

Does the Church Rise or Fall with Book of Mormon Historicity?

2005-03-18T09:39:00.000-08:00

A common claim, both by the central leadership of the LDS church and by church members discussing the church’s truth claims, is that the spiritual value of the church and the literal, historical truth of the Book of Mormon are linked in an all-or-nothing way. According to this argument, either: a) the Book of Mormon is a literal, factual history of some segment of pre-Colombian America as well as a true account of God’s dealings with man, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a road, indeed the only road, for fallen men and women to take back to God and His Christ; or b) the Book of Mormon is a toxic fraud that can only damage the soul, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cancer of the religious world. (Please forgive the elements of overstatement and irony in my summary. I probably should edit to try to remove them, since they are somewhat out of place. But if I did that, I’d most likely find a way to subconsciously reintroduce them in the editing process. This, for better or worse, is who I am!) I am really quite interested in this argument. After all, it’s usually made in a terribly incomplete way. For example, consider this really quite typical version of the argument, from B. H. Roberts in the preface to Volume II of his New Witnesses for God (1911):

While the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is but an incident in God's great work of the last days, and the book itself subordinate to some other facts in that work, still the incident of its coming forth and the book are facts of such importance that the whole work of God may be said, in a manner, to stand or fall with them. That is to say, if the origin of the Book of Mormon could be proved to be other than that set forth by Joseph Smith; if the book itself could be proved to be other than it claims to be, viz., and chiefly, an abridged history of the ancient inhabitants of America, a volume of scripture containing a message from God to the people to whom it was written--"to the Lamanites [American Indians], who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile; written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and revelation"--if, I say, the Book of Mormon could be proved to be other than this, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and its message and doctrines, which, in some respects, may be said to have arisen out of the Book of Mormon, must fall; for if that book is other than it claims to be; if its origin is other than that ascribed to it by Joseph Smith, then Joseph Smith says that which is untrue; he is a false prophet of false prophets; and all he taught, and all his claims to inspiration and divine authority, are not only vain but wicked; and all that he did as a religious teacher is not only useless, but mischievous beyond human comprehending.

What is the support for the central either-or argument here? How does it logically follow that, if Joseph Smith was mistaken about the historical content of the Book of Mormon, we must also conclude the following: he was mistaken about the spiritual content of the Book of Mormon; the book’s description of Christ’s role in the plan of salvation has no merit; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no value as an institution that helps bring people to Christ; all of Joseph Smith’s teachings are likewise useless and even wicked? Each of these ideas is logically separable from the others. While it might be true that the premise (in this case, the ahistoricity of the Book of Mormon) implies the conclusions (the LDS Church is useless, the Book of Mormon’s witness of Christ is false, Joseph Smith’s other teachings are false and evil), the connection is, at the very least, not obvious to me. Hence, an explicit argument needs to be made. Elder Roberts made no such explicit argument, relying instead on his (admittedly not insubstantial) authority. In my experience, other statements of this either-or argument tend to do the same. Our religious tradition certainly does value authoritative pronouncements—but it also prizes understanding. Spelling out this either-or argument in a more explicit way would certainly facilitate understanding. An explicit statement of the logical steps involved might persuade people who disagree with the argument (a collection of shady and unreliable characters that happens to include your humble blogger). Alternatively, it might allow those who disagree to point out fundamental weaknesses in the argument, opening the door to a more flexible faith for other believers. Either result would seem, to me, a good one. I’m interested in collecting other statements of this argument. The quote from Elder Roberts above seems an early version of the claim. Is his book possibly its source? If not, I’d love to have readers who are better informed than me (surely the majority) send me citations for earlier versions of the argument. Relatedly, it is clear that recent, and even current, leaders like to use this claim. For example, President Hinckley has been known to resort to this particular either-or. Are current statements filling in the logical steps more completely than Elder Roberts did? Please send me citations, and we’ll discuss. (Citations, either old or recent, can be posted in the “comments” section for this thread or emailed to roastedtomatoes@hotmail.com. Thanks!)

Holy Week

2005-03-18T04:24:00.000-08:00

For many of our brothers and sisters in other Christian churches, this Sunday marks the beginning of the most sacred week of the year. As Latter-day Saints, we tend not to take Holy Week, which begins with Palm Sunday and ends on Easter, too seriously. (See a discussion on this point at New Order Mormons.) While we do celebrate Easter, we also tend to believe that it does not directly mark the anniversary of Christ's resurrection. The other Holy Week holidays we generally disregard altogether. The traditional LDS celebration of Easter is obviously perfectly fine. However, it seems to me that there can be a lot of spiritual power in unity. This coming week is the ideal chance to reflect on what actually does unite us with the vast majority of Christians. We are united in the belief that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, that he suffered and died to free us from our sins. Without Him, we are eternally lost. With Christ, salvation and exaltation are miraculously, perfectly available to those who ask, to those who accept Jesus Christ into their hearts and lives. During this coming week, Serenity Valley and I will be making a special effort to join the rest of the Christian community in remembering Christ's triumphant sacrifice and resurrection. In our prayers, we will seek to humbly thank Him for His gift to us; in scripture reading, we will review the discussions of Christ's final days and resurrection in the Gospels. I encourage and invite you to join with us in this. Let's make this Holy Week a time of unity with our fellow Christians in the worship of God and His Christ!

Gender Inequality, Social Privilege, and the Priesthood

2005-03-17T19:16:00.000-08:00

By Common Consent is currently hosting a discussion of the relationship between church membership and women’s happiness (or lack thereof). It’s an interesting conversation, and well worth reading. One thread of the discussion has focused on the social consequences of women’s inability to perform saving ordinances, and it caught my interest. In a more general sense, I have always been aware of the social privilege priesthood authority grants. My father is not a church member; my mother was a member during her life; and I spent my childhood painfully ashamed of the status difference between myself and my BIC friends. My brother and I were often treated with love and concern by other members of our ward, but we were also widely treated as illegitimate; my mother’s stigma was much worse. I always believed that priesthood-bearing men who say their religious office provides no social benefit are being dishonest. As I read the thread, though, I realized that I have been uncharitable in the worst way. The men who posted comments on BCC denying a connection between the ability to perform public ordinances and social status clearly had no idea what it is to be without the priesthood in our church. They never really have been in the church without it—not as adults, anyway. It’s hard to recognize your own privilege if you have never lacked it. Quite aside from the general point that priesthood confers prestige in our culture, the fact is that the ability to publicly perform ordinances provides social opportunities in our church. I can illustrate this clearly with an example from my own life. I left the church as a teenager and rejoined after I’d been married for several years. My husband baptized me; without thinking about it, he kissed me while we stood in the font. Half our ward was there, and everyone loved it. We both heard about it for weeks afterward; apparently, we cut an appealing image. My baptism became a sort of romantic legend to our neighbors. We already had friends in the ward. I already felt welcomed, and even loved, there. But our kiss at my baptism had immediate social consequences. We began receiving more invitations to ward members’ homes, sisters began asking me for marital advice, and people began to treat my husband as a spiritual star—a couple of months later, an incoming EQ president actually reversed a calling he’d extended to another brother in order to make my husband his second counselor. Our social status had increased, our visibility in the ward increased, and the leadership’s willingness to trust my husband with serious callings appeared out of nowhere. (I hate to refer to my husband’s calling as a sign of social status, because it shouldn’t be one—but the fact remains that some people see it as such. A family member actually congratulated him on his place in the EQ presidency). If I had stayed in the church, if my husband had left and rejoined, I would not have been able to baptize him. The famous kiss would never have taken place. We would have missed social opportunities because I am not allowed to perform the saving ordinances; and neither of us would have had the opportunity for service and growth my husband has received with his calling. And it stands to reason, so long as we are an imperfect church with human proclivities toward unequal social hierarchies, so long as priesthood provides any social benefits at all, that my gender-based inability to enhance our status among our friends is at least potentially unfair. Should social status be tied to religious authority or responsibility? Of course not—in Christ’s arms we are all equals, and so we should be in His church. But we are only His imperfect followers; and since we haven’t yet overcome our own unfair natures, we shouldn’t deny that those natures exist. We should therefore not pretend that the authority to perform priesthood ordinances provides no social or personal benefits. I won’t pretend to have an answer to the question of whether women should bear the priesthood. But I do know that our church’s conversation on the subject needs to be full, open, and honest. Until we acknowledge the price my mother and other women like her paid for their exclusion, that conversation hasn’t even begun.

More on Liberation Theology

2005-03-16T17:39:00.000-08:00

I'm now well into my liberation theology reading project for the blog. As I get through the relevant material, I'm finding some interesting ideas--as well as some unusual aspects of the theology. But more on that in a couple of days as I manage to put the ideas together a bit better in my own mind. This evening, I just want to write a little bit about what role I think Catholic liberation theology can usefully play for a Latter-Day Saint. Obviously, ideas from other religious traditions have no authoritative value for LDS folks. So, Catholic thought, no matter how well-developed and even appealing, can never serve as more than an inspiration. On the other hand, liberation theology was, for a significant period of time, a quite successful religious innovation. It dramatically reshaped the public role of the Catholic church in a significant part of the world, and it revitalized and even revolutionized the relationship between many poor people and God. Finally, and this will also be discussed in greater depth over the next few days, liberation theology dramatically raised the profile of Jesus Christ for many poor Catholic Latin Americans. Given these noteworthy successes, I think it might be quite useful to ask in what ways LDS thinkers on the left can borrow from liberation theology. At the same time, the fall of the Soviet bloc and the global crisis of the Marxist left effectively broke the back of the liberation theology movement. This is strange, in a way: the movement that collapsed was, at least in part, hostile to the Christian left. But liberation theology made, I think, some key strategic errors that exposed it to this fate. Once again, there are lessons to be learned for LDS leftists! So, more to be written in the next few days!

Airport Serendipity

2005-03-16T07:59:00.000-08:00

While travelling this weekend, I had a moment of airport literature serendipity. Generally speaking, I find few things to be worse than running out of books in the middle of travel. After all, the only options you've usually got in airport bookstores are the grim menagerie of Crichton, Grisham, King, and fellow travellers. But, every once in a while, there's something different. For example, back in October, I ran into the book The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet by James Mann. That book, which I bought on the "it's got to be more interesting than Tom Clancy" principle, turned out to be wonderful. For one thing, it's not a polemic: the book's perspective is neither pro- nor anti-Bush. Instead, the goal is journalism and contemporary history. People's stories are simply told, not judged. In the intensely partisan climate of last year, that neutrality was a revelation. Just as revelatory was the fact that I found myself, in important ways, to be sympathetic with at least some members of Bush's foreign policy team. Paul Wolfowitz's trajectory as an intellectual who is more comfortable with ideas than with the dirty work of government appeals to me, even if his approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict and toward warfare more generally unsettles me. Richard Armitage's life story turns out to be nothing short of heroic. Furthermore, while I have serious concerns about how the Bush administration has used warfare, I found myself in complete agreement that the US needs to be firmly on the side of democracy in the world. Most of my least favorite bits of US history involve incidents where the country has taken the side of dictators. At least with respect to the idea that we should never do that, I have to say that I agree with the more idealistic of the neoconservatives. This kind of agreement is something I may never have discovered without reading the book. (Also, it's incredibly well written. I fully recommend it to anyone interested in international politics!) This week's bit of airport serendipity involved The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of The Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Winchester. Unlike the previous book, this one is in no way important to the world; it's just charming and insightful. It tells the story of the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary, with special emphasis on the very important role of a paranoid schizophrenic in developing the book. The author's prose is charming and occasionally hilarious. Furthermore, the book offers surprising insights into: the breathtaking imperial ambitions behind the original idea of the OED; the Victorian legal system and approach to mental health care; the origin and maintenance of popular myths about historical events; how lucky we are to have dictionaries and reference books at all. The author is occasionally somewhat pompous about language and the dictionary, but that's a small price to pay for the other charms of this book.

Breaking news: the DOJ visited LDSLF!

2005-03-15T20:46:00.000-08:00

Yes, that's right, according to our view-counter thingy, someone from usdoj.gov (that is, the US Department of Justice) visited our blog. I'm torn between thinking it's really neat--hey, we're making an impact with the government, even if the church will never notice our existence--and feeling kind of bad that we added to some civil servant's workload. I mean, they found alarming key words like "guerilla insurgency" and "liberation front," and then had to read a blog discussing liberation theology and my views on jello-belt cinema. What a let-down.

Catholic Liberation Theology and the LDSLF Worldview

2005-03-13T06:20:00.000-08:00

Another possible association raised by the title of this website is the Catholic theological tradition referred to as liberation theology. This theological tradition dates roughly to the 1960s, with its high water mark probably occurring at the Second Latin American Bishop's Conference in Medellin, Colombia, in 1968. A driving conception of liberation theology is that the Christian tradition demands a preferential option for the poor. This idea, in combination with the situation of extreme poverty, inequality, and human misery then (and, unfortunately, still today) prevalent through much of Latin America, led to a belief that Christ demanded a revolutionary change in societies. At the time, of course, the primary available revolutionary theory was based in Marxism. Therefore, liberation theology often had the consequence of forming a practical alliance between the Catholic church and Marxist insurgent groups. This aspect of liberation theology turned out to be unpalatable to Pope John Paul II, who is of course Polish and a noted anti-communist. Probably for this reason, the current pope has spent a great deal of effort fighting against liberation theology. I think the liberation theology episode makes for fascinating history. Over the next few days, I'll be reading some social science and theological writings on the subject and then I'll write up a somewhat more informed statement. For the time being, I'd like to signal a few points of both convergence and divergence between the Catholic liberation theology perspective and theological approachs that I would consider taking within the LDS tradition. First of all, the idea of helping get the poor out of misery must be central to both perspectives. For liberation theology, this imperative derives first and foremost from the example of Christ's terrestial mission (which did sometimes involve miraculous assistance to the poor, and which often included verbal statements favoring major revisions in the distribution of wealth). From an LDS perspective, there are various ways of reaching the conclusion that a first priority needs to be helping the poor get out of misery. For example, the United Order and related communal-living efforts reflect a socioeconomic system clearly designed to enhance the welfare of the poorest at the expense of overall economic efficiency. Clearly, a God who would command His children to undertake such endeavors must favor the poor and the miserable. An alternative approach draws on the needs of missionary work. While the LDS tradition does emphasize that the poor are often the most humble and prepared for accepting the gospel, it is clearly the case that those who fall below a certain material threshold have a hard time even hearing the gospel message. From the perspective of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, those who are starving cannot attend to the needs of the spirit until their bellies are not so empty. So Catholic liberation theology and the LDS perspective do share a fundamental commitment to improving the fate of the poor--even at the expense of society as a whole. But whereas liberation theology is ready to make alliances with a militantly athiestic tradition such as orthodox Marxism, I think an LDS perspective would be hesitant to take such a step. An LDS version of the Christian left will need independent thought about how to successfully restructure society to achieve a minimization of poverty without destroying the foundations for individual spiritual development. Any ideas?

Capitalism in the Gospel

2005-03-12T20:34:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, HL Rogers posted a hotly-debated column at By Common Consent claiming that people who sell items related to the gospel for a profit are guilty of priestcraft. This conception of the issue certainly paints it in the gravest possible terms, and perhaps a majority of readers were uncomfortable with Rogers' perspective. After all, in a capitalist economy, the profit motive is necessary to encourage (or even to allow) LDS cultural and religious speech. The question this raises to me is as follows: should our religious beliefs be sold in a capitalist market? There are strong prohibitions within our tradition against selling sacred things. This applies first and foremost to temple knowledge, but it is not at all limited to that. We just aren't supposed to try to sell Jesus to others under any circumstances. We don't want to be the moneychangers at the temple, do we? In other words, at least with respect to cultural products related to LDS religious beliefs, it might be best if we thought about alternatives to the capitalist market. How else can we support and encourage people in free religious expression? There are certainly alternative models available. We could (and maybe should) encourage free electronic distribution of books and music built around LDS beliefs. Film is a more complicated issue, since the budget is much higher. One possibility would be to develop a donations-in-advance model, rather than a charging-after-the-fact one. In any case, I would recommend reading Rogers' post and the discussion that it has spawned. I don't see a lot of easy answers to the priestcraft/moneychanger in the temple aspect of selling things related to the gospel. But the issue is clearly worth thinking seriously about.

Welcome to the Guerrilla Insurgency

2005-03-12T20:30:00.000-08:00

Hi, I'm Sister RoastedTomatoes, but you can call me Serenity Valley. I'm the militant one. I'm currently planning an attack on what I feel are common misinterpretations of the film Brigham City, because I really like the movie, and because I'm drunk with power. Here's what I'm talking about: see post 28 on this thread at Times & Seasons. [Spoiler alert]

... I agree overall with D’s review of “Brigham City". I will, though, say that the final scene is quite moving (though I get a lot of mixed emotions from it–one of them being anger). There’s a powerful sense of redemption in it (though we never get the idea that anyone in the town feels that the bishop has let them down. They’re always pretty much on his side aren’t they?) But even so, I think many viewers resonate with the oneness in the ward because of their own religious experience and not because the narrative itself really culminates in a redemption wherein the characters have to forgive one another in order for the community to be made whole again. I guess that’s OK. Maybe Dutcher really wanted to convey a solidarity in the community because of it’s religion.

This analysis of the film's end misses the director's point. I think Dutcher is saying that the bishop himself feels that he has failed. He cannot forgive himself for his mistake. The ward members' response is both reproof for his self-castigation--'If you, who have tried so very hard to serve God and protect us are unworthy, then we are unworthy also"--and a fulfillment of the baptismal pledge they have made to stand in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in the Church--'we love you, and we mourn with you'. This serves to show the bishop that he must forgive himself. It's a lesson we often forget. The revolution has begun.

Why I Am an Active Latter-Day Saint

2005-03-12T19:37:00.000-08:00

Recently, I began corresponding via email with an old friend who I had not spoken with for five or six years. In her second message to me, this friend asked me about my position on religion. I ended up writing a lengthy reply, which I'm going to post here (suitably edited to maintain some degree of anonymity on both ends). The idea is simply to make it clear where I'm coming from on these issues--as a way of getting started here, if nothing else. ***

You asked where I'm at with respect to religion. Am I practicing now? The short answer is yes. One funny thing, though, is, I don’t know that many people who are religious. That’s kind of strange, I think. I mean, I even have a degree from BYU, but most of my friends from there are now post-Mormons. Even about half of my cousins have now moved on religiously. So I often find myself trying to explain to people why I’m still in the church when I share a lot of the concerns that people who've left it have.

For example, is the Book of Mormon true? I think this is a complicated question. There are a lot of different claims made about and for the Book of Mormon, and the truth value of the different claims isn’t necessarily related. For example, there’s the widespread belief that the Book of Mormon contains a general history of North and South America. Involved in this idea are the claims that most or all of the pre-Colombian peoples were Middle Eastern in origin. To me, this is almost certainly false. There’s substantial anthropological and biological evidence to suggest that almost all pre-Colombian groups originated in Asia. You probably know about the recent controversy over genetic evidence of this point. From my point of view, it’s sufficient to go to the Andes or the Yucatan and look around. It’s a lot easier to imagine oneself in Siberia or Tibet than in Israel or Jordan. So I pretty thoroughly reject the theory of the BofM as a continental history.

One popular current next move is to say that “limited geography” theories of the BofM account for the problems. The idea here, as you probably know, is that the entire story took place in an area of maybe a couple hundred square kilometers. This approach dramatically reduces the challenge posed by the genetic evidence, because of the statistical problem of fishing for a very small signal in a vast array of white noise. However, it has at least one quite serious drawback, which is that nobody has yet been able to suggest a plausible limited geography. A couple of BYU professors have suggested Central American limited geographies, but those have serious problems. They require the Nephites to have had a severely distorted sense of north and south, which is not in remote accordance with the archaeological record. The identifications between specific BofM cities and Central American ruin sites require ignoring important architectural differences. (For example, the most prominent limited geography identifies a Zarahemla with no city wall. What, then did Samuel the Lamanite stand on when he was shot at?)

Other than Central America, it’s really not clear where else a limited geography could be situated. If the Nephites were part of a major civilization, the only choices are Mesoamerica and, basically, Peru. But Peru obviously doesn’t fit (essentially no evidence of written language, and bad problems with geography). So I’m not sure if there are any intellectually respectable limited geographies.

So I don’t believe the continental theory of the BofM, and I haven’t yet heard a limited geography that I find convincing. Does that mean that I don’t believe in the BofM? Well, as a historical document, I really can’t do. It just doesn’t seem to fit with the other available facts. So I’m forced to conclude that I probably don’t think there was a Nephi, a King Benjamin, etc. I’m certainly not sure that these folks didn’t exist, but it seems, on balance, unlikely. (There are other serious problems, setting aside geographical issues. But I’m trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to avoid rambling. Besides which, these intellectual debates are generally not terribly satisfying in a religious context, are they?)

But the thing is, there are a bunch of sermons and personal statements about God in the BofM, and the spiritual value of those statements is really independent of the historical value of the document as a whole. Whether the witnesses of Christ in the book were written by ancient American prophets or by Joseph Smith (or by Sidney Rigdon, if you prefer), they’re still sincere and helpful, or false and manipulative, or whatever they are spiritually. I mean, one can imagine scenarios in which a vengeful, trickster god arranged for the miraculous translation of a document that entirely lies about his nature. So even if we knew that the BofM were historically accurate, it wouldn’t logically follow that it’s spiritually accurate.

In any case, I feel that much of it is, in some sense, spiritually accurate, or at least useful in terms of bringing people to Christ, even though I can’t find a way to believe that it’s historically accurate. I have really felt what I take to be the amazing forgiving and sanctifying power of Jesus Christ, and I find that my experience fits with what the epistles of Paul and the BofM text say about it: it’s universally available, infinitely powerful, free for the asking, etc. So these passages for me, in the New Testament and in the BofM, are scripture—no matter who wrote them.

(As you probably know, the New Testament also has problematic issues as a purely historical text. But my emotional stance is the same.)

My opinion with respect to priesthood is also ambiguous. God obviously gives His power to people when He chooses to do so. The Mormon tradition has stories of miracles worked by women and so forth, so it’s obviously the case that divine power isn’t supposed to be confined to the priesthood. But it’s also obviously true that those who have the priesthood don’t always have divine power.

So, we know that God’s power sometimes acts independently of the priesthood, and we know that the priesthood sometimes acts without having God’s power behind it. Therefore, any identification of priesthood with God’s power is obviously inadmissible. The priesthood is left as a purely ecclesiastical form of power. That’s fine as far as it goes, and any community requires structure, but does priesthood office really justify the kind of awe that Mormons are sometimes tempted to give it?

Gordon B. Hinckley is said to be a prophet. But Paul teaches us that all believers are prophets when they receive the Holy Ghost. So I can agree that Hinckley is a prophet, but I can also say that I am a prophet. If God wants me to do something, He might possibly tell Hinckley about it. But He would surely tell me about it. So I don’t mind listening to Hinckley and the other leaders, and it’s good to hear what other people struggling with issues of belief and behavior think about different things. But if I disagree with them, I’m going to follow the light that I have and not trust them to be acting through inspiration rather than personal prejudice, desire, cowardice, or thoughtlessness. I mean, I don’t really know them well enough to know that they aren’t doing that, do I?

In particular, I just cannot find it within myself to accept the leadership’s stance on homosexuals and on the suitability of women for leadership positions in the church. I’ve known too many people who are gay or lesbian to believe that they really choose to be gay or lesbian. And I just can’t accept the idea that God created people to love wrongly. So, by process of elimination, I come to the belief that God must have a place for gays and lesbians. With respect to women, I’ve known too many powerful ones to believe that women aren’t born leaders as often as men are. In a world where leadership is a relatively scarce resource, why would God throw away half of it? I just can’t accept it.

Having said all of that, I return to the fact that I’m an active, temple-recommend-holding Mormon. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe, but there are a lot of worse things to be. In fact, it seems to me that the only way to totally avoid hypocrisy is not to have any beliefs at all, because then it’s easy not to violate your own moral code, no? But I don’t think I’m a hypocrite. I think I’m a Christian believer in a pretty generic sense, and I find that I need a religious community to feel right about my life. Of the different communities I’ve tried, I seem to fit comparatively well with Mormons. This is partly because I grew up among Mormons, and it’s partly because Mormons believe in direct, personal relationships with God and I think I do, too. I’m happy as a Mormon, and, if I disagree with other people in my community, well, I don’t think I disagree with them more often or more profoundly than I would with the Quakers, the Episcopals, the Catholics, etc. Finally, in a totally irrational and inexplicable sense, I feel that God wants me there for now. And in the end, faith is really only about putting rationality on hold and accepting something irrational for emotional or spiritual reasons, right? So I guess I’m also a Mormon as an act of faith.

So that was almost certainly three or four times longer than it should have been. But I’m not going to edit it. I can never write about religion with any sincerity whatsoever if I get premeditated about it. And these issues are too important to discuss with less than complete sincerity. So that means the only choice I have is unpremeditated, and therefore hopelessly unstructured, rambling. By the way, the last question that my post-Mormon friends always ask is what I talk about when I have to talk in church. The answer’s easy: I always talk about Jesus, repentance, and absolution. That’s the only thing that matters in Christianity, anyway, and Mormons sometimes forget about it for weeks on end. It has the immense virtue of being something I believe in passionately, and it saves me from having to make too many gnomic statements about prophetic infallibility and the awesome majesty of the priesthood.

The best I can figure out about spirituality and religion is to do what good I can here and trust God to take care of whatever else He needs from me. Since I am doing the best thing I can see to do by being a Latter-day Saint, I figure that God will take care of the details.

Welcome!

2005-03-12T17:20:00.000-08:00

Hi, and welcome to the Latter-Day Saint Liberation Front! The name is intended as an homage to Latin American revolutionary and leftist movements. Whether the homage is serious or sarcastic (or, more realistically, the degree to which it is each) is a question that will be left to the reader. A point of clarification about our title is necessary. I want to make it as clear as possible that we aren't interested in liberating people from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I myself am a faithful member of the church, as is my wife. I think the church has a great deal to offer; in particular, the church plays a central role in bringing many people to Jesus Christ. This is, I think, invaluable. So this site isn't about liberation from the LDS church. Rather, it's about liberation and the LDS church. I want a place to share my thoughts and feelings about political issues (from an LDS perspective), explorations regarding theological ideas, and frustrations with social problems that I encounter (both within the LDS community and in the broader world). In general, my belief is that Christ always intends to set us free, a topic deserving further discussion at a later date. For this reason, my bias is toward finding liberating ways to think about issues and liberating approaches to problems. Participation by others is definitely encouraged on this site. The only rule I would ask you to follow is that all comments should be thoughtful and should actually engage the substance of whatever it is that you are discussing. Please don't just assume that whatever you are reading is just like a million other comments you've seen before! That can lead to dogmatic and, even worse, repetitious conversations. Let's take the high road here and actually listen to each other. So, thanks for dropping by. Please read what we've got to say and add your own thoughts to the discussion.