The Liberal Agenda of the Book of Mormon

Once upon a time there was a country divided into (more or less) two factions (with very fuzzy edges). The country was full of frequently self-serving people who nevertheless still strove to increase the good in the world. Both sides agreed that with the abundant resources of this very wealthy nation, much good could be done for the want and need of people inside the country, and for the benefit of the whole world. The country had a big, if bureaucratic, heart.

At first, the two factions merely disagreed about how best to make the world better. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting optimism. It was a little frustrating, come election time, to decide which of the old white men to vote for since they both sounded mostly the same and were both too fuzzy on the details to be pinned down.

And then, to solve this problem of vague homogeneity, along came the marketers, publicity analysts, and professional rhetors (also, probably Satan) to give the people what they thought they wanted: a clear choice between two nearly-identical white men. Unfortunately, this clear choice turned what was once a good-hearted scuffle between two well-meaning factions into a desperate and violent military maneuver for the moral high ground.

Last night I had a conversation with two amazing women whom I love. We were talking about President Nelson's recent challenge to the women of the church to read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover in a short period of time. (It doesn't leave a lot of time for pondering, but it's a quick-and-dirty way to gain a testimony that can withstand some of what is happening in the world.) I mentioned more than once in the conversation that we seem to have forgotten that one of the greatest injunctions of the Book of Mormon is to care for the poor. Whole civilizations rose and fell on that concept. But one of the women I spoke with said, "well, Ministering," as if caring for the poor were simply a euphemism for what Visiting Teaching has become.

No.

Because I felt misunderstood (whether I was or not), today I feel the need to be absolutely clear about what I mean. I did a digital search for the word "poor" in the Book of Mormon and it turned up thirty results. 

The prophet Nephi, who started the records which became The Book of Mormon, between prophecies about the coming of the Messiah, spoke about caring for the poor (the curse that comes when we fail to do so, and the act of caring for the poor that marks the difference between a Zion people and a fallen people) nine times. The "bad" church that emerges in the last days is characterized by pride, and that they "rob the poor," not the way we think of it from Disney's Robin Hood, but "because of their fine clothing" and "because of their fine sanctuaries." For this church, amassing wealth while poor people continued being poor was the act which condemned them.

When the book of Nephi quotes Isaiah 14, it includes this prophecy: "What shall then answer the messengers of the nations? That the Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it." (2 Nephi 24:32). When it quotes Isaiah 10, it begins "Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; (2) to turn away the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!" Isaiah also describes Jesus: "But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth" (v4). Jesus is capable of seeing poverty in an eternal perspective, and of seeing poor people as people he loves, and for whom he allowed himself to be crucified. Are we not all sinners? "And the meek also shall increase, and their joy shall be in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel." When Jesus comes, he will bring Zion, and that means that the poor will be raised up, and the proud brought down (how? I don't know. By whom? Hopefully by themselves, but if not. . . And since when can any of us save ourselves?) 

This is Zion. This is what we are trying to build.

In 2 Nephi 9, Jacob (Nephi's younger brother) proclaims "But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world [to be absolutely clear that this isn't a metaphor]. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also."

In looking at the latter days after Christ should come to the Nephites, the prophet looked to the Gentiles, and saw that they "are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, [. . .] and preach up until themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor." The poor are vulnerable and teachable, as Alma will discover much later (see Alma 32:2-4), and those who are greedy can take advantage of it much more readily than those who are sincere.

King Benjamin, whose example to his people included famously laboring for his own subsistence, preached at length on behalf of the poor, pointing out that God has given us everything we have. We will never be out of that debt. Should we not use those resources to those who have been given less? King Benjamin also says that those who withhold their substance from those who need it are under much greater condemnation than those who beg ["putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not] (Mosiah 4:22). "wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him" and of course he clarifies, "I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world." Currency, money, lucre, assets, possessions, precious things, and Bugattis.

After consoling those who do not have enough to give, King Benjamin points out that for "retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God" it is necessary to "impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants" (v. 26). I take "wants" here to describe their lack, rather than either their "needs" (giving as minimally as possible) or their desires or whims (giving without wisdom).

Guys, the Book of Mormon is full of this stuff. FULL.

Jesus himself, when he appeared to the Nephites, emphasized the eternal perspective: that the things of the world are temporary, "But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal" (3 Nephi 13:20). In your heart, know how meaningless (if convenient) wealth is, and how much the association of individuals, even homeless individuals, can fill our lives and our eternities with abundance. Love people. Love God. 

And the results of this way of thinking produced Zion, where there were no poor at all. None.

It didn't happen magically, or invisibly. People changed their minds, and did the thing. They made sacrifices. They asked for sacrifices. They forgave liberally, and did not judge.

So once upon a time, despite our differences of opinion about how to implement our awesome, we used to at least be able to agree that we should - that we have an abundance, and that imparting of our abundance to those who experience want was a good idea, and a thing that would bless everyone: us and them. However we did it - whether we wanted the government to organize it centrally, or whether we wanted to be approached individually by local people and groups in need. Both systems are problematic in different ways, but I believe that success was then, still possible.

I want it to be possible now, but I can't do this alone. We rise or fall together - Democrats, Republicans, Men, Women, Old, Young, Californians, Texans, or Ecuadorians. We are a family, and the success or failure of a family doesn't ride on one sibling.

TL:DR - watch this video that my brother posted to his wife this morning. It's way funny.