teachings for the young, the rich and the beautiful
Chapter 44: 4 Nephi 1
.
For most Christians in North America, the problem with traditional liberation theology is that it cannot speak to them. Not being poor, they are not the people of God. However, the Book of Mormon’s theology of liberation speaks to the powerful, prideful, and privileged. It warns of their damnation. For it is clear that in the Book of Mormon, the people of God (i.e. the Nephites, the righteous, the Church, etc.) continually become evil and wicked due to their pride and wealth. The righteous’ turn to pride inevitably leads to a socio-economic division, which is inherently sinful. The wealthy of contemporary society should see their reflection in the text. The text is a warning to the people of God, describing how they will fall (have fallen) from grace.
.
.
In order to defend my claim that the Book of Mormon supports a unique theology of liberation in which the powerful and rich are the people of God and must divest themselves of their power and wealth, I will look at 4 Nephi. Nephi will provide us with a standard with which we can begin our interpretation of the rest of the Book of Mormon. A text must be read in terms of its purpose. The Book of Mormon is supposed to tell us how to live our lives. If so, then we should look at the part of the book in which the people successfully build a Christian community as a guide to an interpretation of the rest of the book: 4 Nephi.
Not only is this section the paradigm of righteousness, it is a microcosm of the whole Book of Mormon. It is a story that parallels the entire history of the Nephites and Lamanites condensed into several dozen pages. Some, like Nibley, argue that wealth is not inherently sinful (Since Cumorah, p.355). It is certainly not necessarily the case that being wealthy is sinful. But when it is coupled with inequality it is always sinful in the Book of Mormon. See also D&C 104. Indeed, the title page says that it was written so that the Gentile (among others) would not be destroyed.
At the very beginning of the book, we are reminded that Jesus has formed the Church and the people have repented and become “members.” The first thing this leads to is that …there were no disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things in common among them; therefore there were not rich nor poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. (4 Nephi, 1: 2-3) The lack of disputations signals the extent to which this is now a community and not just a bunch of people living together.
.
all things in common among them
Community involves a social cohesion that is not a necessary element in a society. Society is necessarily social but not necessarily communal. Community involves a social cohesion that is largely destroyed by the individualist ethic in our modern capitalist society. It is a state of communion, such as that found in the most ideal familial relationships. It is based on the pure love of Christ.
Sometimes it is argued that the lack of disputations indicates only the lack of any theological disputations. It is not at all clear that this refers to theological disputations. There is no mention of doctrinal disputes. Moreover, this claim is put in an explicitly political and economic context, being framed by the questions of justice and economic distribution. It is more likely that the disputations being discussed are of a social nature and not a doctrinal one.
This people also have “all things in common among them.” At the very least, this is the claim that there is an economic egalitarianism in the community. It may also involve the stronger claim that there is no private property at all. It is clear that “substance” includes material substance, since in verses 24 and 25 it is the accumulation of unnecessary wealth that leads to them not having “their goods and their substance” in common any longer. This also leads to the society being divided into classes––i.e., where there are poor and rich among them. Clearly, some kind of economic communism is afoot.
Additionally, there are no bond and free. Every one is free. No one is enslaved or imprisoned. Indeed, later when the economic class division begins to occur again, among the first events is that the powerful create prisons and imprison the people of Christ (4 Nephi 1:30). Conspicuously absent is the lack of any mention of a government or hierarchy of any other kind. To be sure, a church is formed with disciples. But no organizational structure is mentioned. No kings, prophets, or judges are mentioned. It would be an argument from ignorance to suggest that this fact alone is reason to think that there was no government or institutional hierarchy. But we may suggest that the economic communism and political freedom seems to be more important to the author than any element of church or governmental organization. It is also important that the terms “power” and “authority” are mentioned as something taken by the unrighteous to dominate the righteous (4 Nephi 1:30). These terms are not used to describe the position of the disciples in the society of Christ’s church.
It is significant that this chapter starts off with a description of the political and economic conditions of the people of Christ’s church. Where is the discussion of personal and/or individual morality? The morality that matters here is a communal morality. Here there is a focus on the moral issues that affect the community. In fact, the drama of righteousness and unrighteousness is played out on the communal stage. It is not an individual matter. There is no discussion of individuals’ stories, only the initially wonderful but eventually tragic story of a community of Christ. To be sure, there are evils perpetrated by individuals, but what matters are the institutional evils that are the result of a radically evil form of life.
.
one cannot be exalted on one’s own
Here I am appealing to a difference between individual morality and community morality, individual sin and communal sin. It seems clear to me that these are distinct and that one cannot reduce communal morality to individual morality. Mormonism’s soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is clearly committed to a notion of communal morality. The argument for this is based on the premise that exaltation is the state of being in the presence of one’s family and God. However, if one’s other family members choose not to be exalted then this is not possible. Obviously, one cannot fulfill this obligation alone.
So, it follows that it is a communal obligation. One cannot be exalted on one’s own. It is true that personal sin is intimately connected with communal sin, and hence is present in proportional degrees with the latter in society. This explains why 4 Nephi mentions the lack of sexual sin in this communal society (4 Nephi 1:16), but does so 13 verses after mentioning the economic morality of this community of Christ. Indeed, there are sociological reasons to believe that personally destructive behavior in the form of sexual promiscuity, drug or alcohol abuse, theft, domestic violence, and the like is directly linked to economics. Capitalism is a system in which one is urged to look out for one’s own needs and ignore, if not neglect, others’ needs. If this attitude is taken from the economic realm to other areas of behavior, then we should not be surprised if our society has an abundance of personal moral sin.
As I argued above, liberation theology emphasizes the communal or societal aspect of the sin that leads to oppression. Right-wing Christians argue that all problems in society can be traced back to individual or personal sins. Such a view is incomplete in its understanding of the nature of the human fall. In his seminal work of liberation theology, Gustavo Gutiérrez says,
[I]n the liberation approach sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality––asserted just enough to necessitate “spiritual” redemption which does not challenge the order in which we live. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of fellowship and love in relationships among persons, the breach of friendship with God and with other persons, and, therefore, an interior, personal fracture. When it is considered in this way, the collective dimensions of sin are rediscovered. (A Theology of Liberation, (Orbis Books: 1988): 102-3)
The communitarian approach to interpreting 4 Nephi is confirmed by the fact that when the people fall, the first thing they do is abandon economic communism. Indeed, one could go so far as to identify the fall with the change in the economic form of life.
.
the beginning of the end
As Hugh Nibley puts it, ‘The beginning of the end for the Nephites came when they changed their pattern of life: “And from that time forth they did have their substance no more common among them”(4 Nephi 1:25). Now the interesting thing about this change was that it was economically wise, leading immediately into a long period of unparalleled prosperity, a business civilization in which “they lay up in store in abundance, and did traffic in all manner of traffic” (4 Nephi 1:46). The unfortunate thing was that the Gadianton outfit got complete control of the economic life again. And the economic life was all that counted. The whole society was divided into economic classes (4 Nephi 1:26)… Such an economic order in which everyone was busy trafficking and getting rich was not, according to 4 Nephi, a free society. It was only under the old system, he tells us, that [they were] … “partakers of the heavenly gift” (An Approach to the Book of Mormon, pp.398-9).
This fallen society is clearly very similar to Western European and American society. It is this economic inequality and competitiveness that is the fundamental social sin, and is the downfall of the Nephite community. Similarly it will be our downfall unless we undergo a change in the form of our life.
.
________________________________
The above text is taken from an essay on Liberation Theology in the Book of Mormon, written by R. Dennis Potter, associate professor of philosophy at Utah Valley University. The essay may be found in its entirety at the following link: http://research.uvu.edu/potter/bomliberation.pdf
4854derrida 04:44 on January 29, 2010 Permalink |
Hello
I’ve just uploaded two rare interviews with the Catholic activist Dorothy Day. One was made for the Christophers [1971]–i.e., Christopher Closeup– and the other for WCVB-TV Boston [1974].
Day had begun her service to the poor in New York City during the Depression with Peter Maurin, and it continued until her death in 1980. Their dedication to administering to the homeless, elderly, and disenfranchised continues with Catholic Worker homes in many parts of the world.
Please post or announce the availability of these videos for those who may be interested in hearing this remarkable lay minister.
They may be located here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/4854derrida
Thank you
Dean Taylor