I used this as the foundation for one us my posts, and gave you props for the great work you do here!

Thanks for making so many amazing thing accessible!

http://poetrysansonions.blogspot.com/2012/08/proud-to-be-american-or-not-so-proud-to.html?m=0

Julia
poetrysansonions.blogspot.com

After reading this I felt uplifted and had several specific things that I thought to do for people in my life. I made a list so I wouldn’t forget, and then I started reading the comments.

Ick! What the heck was that and whose gospel do a lot of those comments make sense to? I can’t imagine those words coming from Christ’s mouth or that of His prophets! Where in the gospel does institutionalized charity equate with the Gadiaton robbers? Have you tried reading your comments out loud, looking in a mirror? Do you see and hear how you are belittling the beatitudes? Did you find some secret part of the Book of Mormon that has Lamanite teachings and get them confused? (Sorry if this is off track Ardis, I guess I am isolated to some degree because I live in Oregon, from the spiritual gymnastics that is required to have your politics and religion clash. I will attempt to switch gears.)

I think that as the doctrine of Christ, this expressed a major part of what being a follower of Jesus Christ means.

“It has also become a prime moral and civic duty of modern men to cultivate and, if necessary, enforce by law, such a spirit of justice and tolerance that innocent persons will not be in prisoners, and even guilty ones will have humane treatment and opportunity for restoration to normal social life. There is likewise the civic duty of providing industrial or social insurance, widows’ pensions, free public education, and other similar measures in justice to all. Were such provision made, the widow and the fatherless would have less need of that charity which is manifest in providing material aid to the destitute.”

All of the the things mentioned here are things that Christ taught. Loving the sinner, while enforcing the law. Helping the widow and the destitute. Teaching children to know and love the scriptures and to gain as much knowledge as they can. Having as much as possible to offer to those who need food, clothing, medical care, and the love and support of fellow followers of Christ.

Julia
Poetrysansonions.blogspot.com

First, I did not mean to imply that the people who set up or currently administer government social welfare programs are the same kind of murderous robbers described in the Book of Mormon. Rather, I observe that the reign of judges was enlightened in the beginning, but after 163 years, it had rather departed from the ideals of Mosiah and Alma. I do mean to claim that there are and have been similar corrupting influences in contemporary US government (not just at the federal level) and they can, have, do, and will attaint anything our current governments set up and administer. I don’t believe the morality of a program can be properly considered without accounting for the immorality of those who participate in it, whether as architects, administrators or beneficiaries.

Second, by alluding to later LDS leaders, I had J. Reuben Clark and Harold B. Lee more in mind than Ezra Taft Benson, although I might have been more explicit and supplied quotes. Perhaps they will come up later.

Third, I did address at least one of the questions in the original post (4e). The NT’s condemnation of the selfish rich is even more forceful in the Book of Mormon and the D&C, although it’s not emphasised much in contemporary teaching. But more specifically Mormon are the specific and explicit condemnations of the covetous poor, although Jesus did address that subject, too.

I certainly am not someone who believes that if it was said decades ago it still must apply . . . but when it is said over thousands of years by many, many prophets and apostles I think it fits the “by the voice (singular) of my prophets (plural)” definition of the voice of the Lord. I also think the entrenched arguments you oppose in your comments probably are the core reasons the current global leadership is stressing social justice right now – even if they aren’t using that term in order to avoid political division.

I also would ask whether it truly is voluntary if it is part of the now four-fold focus of the LDS Church, added by the Church President, of whom the most conservative members sing at full voice, “Follow the Prophet!!” It’s absolutely fascinating to me to see the contortions that are required to pound others with that stick and then turn around and do one’s best to explain how that particular emphasis is the opposite of their condemnation of “non-voluntary” giving – as if there was a difference before the President of the LDS Church made it an official, primary focus of the entire church.

I think the religious tension is caused by a mis-application of the “prosperity gospel” to individuals instead of communities (of all sizes), where I believe it belongs based on the actual scriptures in which it is taught. It’s that bastardization of a divine principle that denies the divine requirement to redistribute wealth in such a way that the poor are exalted and the rich abased – and the poor no longer exist in Zion.

Fundamentally, based on the reality of our current lives and religious communities, I think we as a people simply have no clue how to make it happen, because we collectively have bought into a false version of the prosperity Gospel. We’ve watered down King Benjamin’s majestic address and, just a bit, bought into Korihor’s “management of the creature” ideology.

There are Mormons today who identify themselves as politically liberal *because* of their Mormonism, not *despite* their Mormonism. There always have been such Mormon believers in practical liberality, who find their inspiration within their religion.

It is taken for granted in many parts of the bloggernacle, and in many Gospel Doctrine classrooms, that the Church and its doctrine are politically conservative, that there is no room within Mormonism for members to be guided by something other than whatever is currently being shouted by the most extremist Republican voices. This assumption is so fixed that some members — including participants in this thread — cannot conceive of the barest possibility that Mormonism might lead someone to different political conclusions than their own, and their only explanation for lessons such as this one must be an aberration, a mistake, a perversion of Mormonism. Thing is, there are so many, many such lessons, talks, and editorials in the church publications of earlier eras. You might fairly dismiss one or two as aberrations, but not all of them, taken as a whole. I have many more to post in this series.

I’m not trying to convert anyone here. I want only to provide the evidence that such a way of looking at the world, and of interacting in social and political and economic spheres, is possible, and once was an accepted and unremarkable part of Mormonism.

Trouble is, too many of those who disagree with the ideas expressed in these posts are using them merely as an excuse to disagree and to sing another chorus of that tired old ditty called “you can’t force me to be good — that’s Satan’s plan.” You’re welcome to disagree, and even comment on your disagreement, but please respect my request that you engage the Mormonness of the old documents.

No more “it must have been a mistake, because those ideas are foreign to Mormonism.” They aren’t foreign to Mormonism. There they are, right in the manuals and magazines. And they’re being lived today by your fellow Saints, who probably don’t talk about them a whole lot in order to avoid the kind of comments that have been posted by some here.

I thought the comments from both ends of the political spectrum above were (1) quite moderate compared to other corners of the bloggernacle (2) quite religious and (3) very, very Mormon. (Who else but a Mormon would bring up the Gadianton robbers in a discussion of government agencies? Outrageous!) FWIW, I thought the discussion of agency, the war in heaven, merits of voluntary v. involuntary giving etc. was very thought-provoking in a positive way.

BUT… I can see that’s not the direction you want the discussion to go, so I’m becoming a passionate lurker.

I still heart this blog!