I’ve thought a great deal ultimately on the establishment of Zion here on the earth. Hugh Nibley’s book “Approaching Zion” has thrown a new light on the subject for me, as did Elder Christofferson’s recent conference talk.
Nibley makes the point that Zion is a possibility and that “the instant one realizes that Zion is a possibility, one has no choice but to identify himself with the program that will bring about the quickest possible realization of its perfection.” (p. 28) I agree with this statement and believe it includes Elder Christofferson’s charge: “to care for the poor and needy with such effectiveness that we eliminate poverty among us. We cannot wait until Zion comes for these things to happen—Zion will come only as they happen” (“Come to Zion;” General Conference October 2008)
We know from Elder Christofferson’s talk and the scriptures that the establishment of Zion means the elimination of poverty. We know that in Alma’s early church, they were blessed because, “in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need” (Alma 1:30). King Benjamin asks the powerful question: “Are we not all beggars?” (Mosiah 4:19). He makes it clear that we are not to judge a person for why they happen to be in poverty, but only to help them get out of it. The Lord Himself taught the Church in the early days that “it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” (D&C 49:20). Some of the best people to walk the earth came in the generations following the Lord’s appearance to the Nephites. One of the defining passages about them describes that there were “no manner of –ites (among them); but they were in one, the children of Christ” (4 Ne. 4:17). I could go on with many other examples, but it is clear that Zion can only be established where there is equality among people.
After a brilliant discourse on the evils of wealth and coveting, Nibley states, “All my life I have shied away from these disturbing and highly unpopular--even offensive—themes (the uses of money). But I cannot do so any longer, because in my old age I have taken to reading the scriptures and there have had it forced upon my reluctant attention, that from the time of Adam to the present day, Zion has been pitted against Babylon, and the name of the game has always been money—‘power and gain’” (p. 58).
Satan taught Korihor principles of the free competitive market when he said, “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17). Does this not bring to mind our capitalistic society?
In 1875 The First Presidency stated in a letter to the Church that “The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice.”
This contrasts with President Benson’s statement (then a member of the quorum of the twelve) that, “a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism! . . . It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity” (“A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion;” BYU Devotional 1977). Perhaps giving taxes to help the poor does not constitute "charity," but until the day comes when we willingly live the law of consecration, it seems that the welfare system serves a decent, albeit distant, substitute.
Nibley states that "the man who devotes himself to tiring routines of business should be rewarded, but should all others be penalized who do not engage in that particular line of work?" He quotes Joseph Smith in the first chapter saying, "Here are those who begin to spread out buying up all the land they are able to do, to the exclusion of the poorer ones who are not so much blessed with this world's goods, thinking to lay foundations for themselves only, looking to their own individual families . . . now I want to tell you that Zion cannot be built up in any such way." I figure we should strive for Zion, even if it's an unlikely outcome, and that the welfare system works toward a Zion outcome more than the alternative.
It seems that whether we lift up the poor by our own free will, or whether it is mandated by the Church, or whether it is mandated by the government—it needs to happen. I hear people say that they would give more if they were taxed less. Perhaps, but that doesn’t seem to be our inclination as a collective group, at least in my personal experience. I’d rather my taxes go to the welfare system and help people by mandate, than me keep more and maybe give an additional $10 to fast offerings every month. I think our unity and our holiness (the other two pillars discussed by Elder Christofferson), are getting better and better as a church. It’s the third pillar, that of “caring for the poor” where I feel we are falling further and further behind. I saw it personally in my inner-city mission; perhaps that is why I feel so strongly on the subject.
Thoughts?
