One thing about committing to a weekly schedule is that Wednesday comes around no matter what. Capping off an intensely busy work week last week, extreme weather in Toronto caused flooding at the building where my congregation has church, resulting in the cancellation of my Sunday School class. While you might think that would mean I’d have had lots of time to get ahead on my blog post, that didn’t happen. Instead, nothing got done prior to packing and getting on a plane Monday morning. Now we’re here on our first vacation in a long time, visiting Miami Beach to celebrate Mike’s 40th birthday. (This was the destination of our first vacation together 17 years ago, so it’s a special place for us.) Anyway, long story short, I don’t have all my books with me this week, and I think I’m the only person reading the Book of Mormon here on the beach. But at least it’s sunny and 82° F.* (I’ll have to go back later and add the LDS verse references, as I only have my CofC Book of Mormon here; I decided Skousen was too heavy for the beach.)
This week, King Benjamin is wrapping up his sermon and he’s got a message that is pretty explicit about a couple key ideas.
(Point #1) You must give money to beggars when asked. You may have all kinds of ideas about makers and takers in society. You may like to rant about a culture of dependency, but you’re totally wrong. According to King Benjamin, it’s a simple commandment: “ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish” (Mosiah 2:29 CofC).
Got some qualifiers on that? Want to rationalize your way out of this? King Benjamin’s way ahead of you.
Perhaps thou shalt say, “The man has brought himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance, that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just.”
Exactly! I’m good because I give charity freely to other, theoretical people who are “deserving poor” — not this guy in front of me, who is doubtless a welfare king.
Wrongo! According to KB:
“I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this, the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done, he perisheth for ever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.”
O man! For ever. (As an aside, although there’s no room for nuance in King Benjamin’s absolute formulation, I can’t help but reflect that the panhandlers here in Miami Beach have a bit of a different experience than the folks back home in Toronto enduring the polar vortex.)
That aside notwithstanding, the teaching about giving freely to all beggars continues very explicitly (Mosiah 2:37-45 CofC). This kind of personal charity, according to King Benjamin, is directly analogous to God’s grace, which is the other key point in the sermon’s wrap up.
(Point #2) From God’s perspective “are we not all beggars?”
Do we not all depend upon the same being, even God, for all the substance which we have; for both food, and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all all the riches which we have of every kind? (Mosiah 2:32 CofC)
In King Benjamin’s formulation, we are totally dependent on God for everything, but most important of all, we are dependent on God for our salvation. As “unworthy creatures,” who ought to be aware of our own “nothingness” and our “worthless and fallen state,” salvation can only come as a gift freely given by God.
There is none other salvation, save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there conditions whereby man can be saved, except the conditions which I have told you. Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things both in heaven and in earth… Believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he will forgive you…And behold if ye do this, ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins; (Mosiah 2:12-22 CofC)
Theologically, this whole passage struck me as very Protestant. No doubt many a Baptist preacher would like such an explicit description of the idea of grace. In King Benjamin’s formulation, salvation is the ultimate gift. We can’t earn it; we can only receive it if we humble ourselves completely and accept ourselves to literally be on par with the panhandlers.
Narrative Developments
When King Benjamin’s sermon ends, the whole assembly speaks a liturgical formula, which is called a covenant and is functionally like a mass baptism and confirmation, as they all take upon themselves “the name of Christ” (Mosiah 3:11 CofC).
When that’s finished, King Benjamin retires to emeritus status, his son Mosiah becomes king, and the narrative lurches forward. I know that the Book of Mormon is famous for being dull and repetitive — and maybe that will happen when Oliver Cowdery shows up, the dictation speeds up, and the well goes dry — but for now in this early phase, there’s a lot packed into a little space.
Right away King Mosiah sends a guy named Ammon (a descendant of Zarahemla, which was hitherto just introduced as the name of the land) along with fifteen other “strong men” to the “land of Lehi-Nephi” to find out what happened to “the people who went up to dwell” there (Mosiah 5:1-4 Cof C). Presumably, both the story of the people going to Lehi-Nephi and the story of Zarahemla were part of the lost 116 pages.
Ammon and his party find the land of Lehi-Nephi and its king, Limhi, who is the grandson of the leader of the original expedition, Zeniff. King Limhi and his people pay tribute to Laman, King of the Lamanites and hate their condition enough that they’d prefer to be slaves to Ammon’s people (who are being identified as the Nephites here, I think, for the first time) (Mosiah 5:22 CofC).
But there’s more! In addition to the records of his own people, King Limhi has a set of “twenty-four plates, which are filled with engravings; and they are of pure gold” (Mosiah 5:64 CofC). They were found in the wilderness amid the ruins of a desolate battlefield. The record will, no doubt, “give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed” (Mosiah 5:70 CofC).
King Limhi can’t “translate” the gold plates, but Ammon is aware that King Mosiah has inherited that capacity, which “is a high gift from God” (Mosiah 5:75 CofC). Specifically, King Mosiah is a “seer” — which is to say a man commanded by God to look at things called “interpreters” “wherewith that he can look and translate all records that are of an ancient date” (Mosiah 5:72-73 CofC). Moreover, Ammon goes on to explain:
…a seer is greater than a prophet… a seer is a revelator, and a prophet also, and a gift which is greater, can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. But a seer can know of things which have past, and also of things which are to come; And by them shall all things be revealed, or rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them; And also, things shall be made known by them, which otherwise could not be known… Doubtless, a great mystery is contained within these plates; and these interpreters were doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men… (Mosiah 5:77-83 CofC).
Thus we will be treated to a story within the story — gold plates within gold plates. And with King Mosiah the seer and his interpreters, we have a precedent for Joseph Smith the seer and his seer stones.
Next week: I’ll be reunited with my books in the winter wonderland of Canada and our reading will be Mosiah 6-8 CofC/Mosiah 9-16 LDS.
_______________
* At least it was that temperature Tuesday when I was doing my reading, not so today as I’m posting.
Wheat & Tares 
John,
I’d be curious to hear your reaction to Nate Oman’s take on King Benjamin here:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/04/king-benjamin-and-the-moral-irrelevance-of-panhandlers/
Read the whole thing (it’s short), but here’s the most relevant section:
“I think that King Benjamin is saying that it is sinful to withhold our support from the poor on the basis of a belief that the poor deserve their poverty and are getting their just resorts. King Benjamin makes this claim not because he believes that all poor are deserving poor and none have brought their suffering upon themselves. Rather, as I read him, he is saying that the beggar who brings poverty upon himself is an everyman. We have all done unwise and sinful things that leave us as beggars before God, and if God is unwilling to ultimately make his decisions based on the idea of desert, then neither should we.
It is, however, consistent with King Benjamin’s teachings to withhold from the panhandler if one believes that giving him money is going to be destructive. This is where I think that Becket’s response to Henry is fatuous. It is presented as a kind of moral purity, a willingness to love in the face of human foibles. Ultimately, however, I think it is actually a form of indifference. Becket’s ultimate choice in the scene is not about trying to alleviate poverty. It is about trying to perform a virtuous act, in the most shallow sense of a virtuous act. By this I mean an act that reveals the good intention and good character of the actor without regard to the effect or consequences of the act in the world.
But if our duty is to succor the poor it ought to matter to us a great deal whether our act helps or harms. We ought to engage in acts that help, and we ought shun acts that harm. This means that we need to make judgments about those for whom we have an obligation to care. We are not making judgments about whether they are worthy of our concern. We should, however, have a realistic sense of their character. If we know that they will sell the blanket for drink, we ought not to give them the blanket. Not because selling the blanket for drink makes them unworthy of our concern, but because indifference to whether the blanket helps or hurts them is ultimately not an act of concern, but a kind of moral narcissism.”
I’m also interested in how you think a believer should, or even could, realistically operationalize King Benjamin’s teachings with respect to panhandlers, assuming for the sake of argument that your description of the “unqualified” nature of Benjamin’s injunction is the best reading. Isn’t it inevitable that each and every potentially donee on the street has limited resources (at least on his person), and that some set of criteria for donating to recipients vs. non-recipients is going to be employed? What would be a, or THE, appropriate criteria according to Benjamin, per your reading?
(“donee” should be “donor”)
I have long found passages like Benjamin’s quite challenging. Not out of any sense that the poor are deserving of their fate, but out of a sense of stewardship over my resources. The scriptures are replete with passages urging to never refuse the beggar, yet from my own study of poverty, to actually be most constructive in alleviating the hardship of the poor we must address the systemic issues that creates it. This kind of thinking has led me to be more generous to organisations like Outreach International whose work is designed to remove the systemic causes of poverty.
It is perhaps helpful here to remember the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
“True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. ”
He is not saying compassion doesn’t fling a coin to a beggar. It just goes further.
I also find the comparison with God’s grace instructive, and a comparison with 1 John is probably apt:
“If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” – 1 John 3:17-18
We are called not just to establish justice but to show compassion, and to be a reflection of God’s love to our neighbours. We must see them as God sees them.
A lot of the sustaining problems of poverty come from the loss of a sense of dignity and self-belief and a big part of helping them can be to show them respect and compassion as human beings. Flinging a coin alone might not do this, but embracing the message of this text would call upon a person to give of themselves as a reflection of a belief in the worth of all persons.
Showing this level of compassion to all that cross our paths is surely a really difficult thing, which is, I’m sure, the reason that so many people try to reinterpret such clear commandments so that they can have more wiggle room. But like Bonhoeffer on the Sermon on the Mount, I believe reinterpretation dilutes the truth and simplicity of the commandment.
I believe it also dilutes Benjamin’s point about grace:
“For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have? For both food and raiment and for gold and for silver and for all the riches which we have of every kind? (2:32 CofC)
As you said John, we can’t earn it. It is a gift given to us with no expectation of services provided in return – and perhaps our issues with the commandment are as much about our own struggle with feeling unworthy to receive such a gift, as it is about our struggle to give as freely as that gift was given.
One thing I’ve found interesting over the last few years is the comparison between Joseph Smith and Mohammed. It seems clear that Smith was familiar with Mohammed by at least 1838 (to the point where he may have even made the comparison himself), but what isn’t clear to me is how much he would have been familiar with the basic tenants of Islam.
There is a significant amount of these early Mosiah passages that are focused on submission to God – a concept very familiar to Muslims. Additionally, while I was thinking of that comparison I noticed the conversion process described in the events surrounding Benjamin’s sermon, i.e. conversion by statement.
Regardless of Smith’s level of familiarity with the life and works of Mohammed, these kinds of points show a shared understanding of one of the key characteristics of a faithful life, and may be worth remembering by those wishing to explore interfaith relations with Islam.
A few interesting Christology points:
-The summary of the gospel according to the slain prophet (5:43) also neglects Christ’s teachings.
– Jesus created in the same image as Adam (5:44). It is interesting to compare this to later efforts to identify figures in the pre-existence with those in their earthly existence, although the main point is probably more saying that Jesus is human as human was created to be – which raises profound christological questions.
Additionally, the reference to the destructive ‘east wind’ stood out to me. Not being totally familiar with the weather systems of all of the Americas, I am aware that those familiar with New England, as Smith was, would have been familiar with Nor’easters. I’m not sure if there is a broader understanding that the east wind can be treacherous, or if Smith was simply drawing from his own family’s experiences with some of the more treacherous parts of weather in the North Eastern USA.
This could have an impact on how Joseph Smith saw the geography of the Book of Mormon peoples (which, in my opinion is more interesting than relevant to the book’s use).
In a recent discussion in our ward about the panhandler video that revealed many of them were working in groups and giving false stories (Slumdog Millionaire is another cautionary tale even scarier in its implications, and I saw similar exploitation of children in Asia), someone made a great suggestion. If you are in doubt about giving directly to panhandlers, give indirectly to them by donating to soup kitchens and shelters and give them pass along cards to the nearest one.
If I stood on a corner with a sign that said “I am broke. Need money for dope.” Would you give it to me? That may be rationalizing, but I’m guessing King Benjamin’s idea of beggar was different than the way we use it today.
That may be rationalizing No kidding!
This woman said one time if I give money to people on the street There will be two of us out there
Giving money to people on the street keeps them on the streets
I suspect that the attitude toward giving Benjamin talks about goes beyond just giving your money, but must show that person that they are of worth to us (as they are to God).
Therefore to say you’re a beggar, but some beggars are addicts so I won’t give to you is not a sufficient response. Addicts are as much victims in need of compassion as anyone else.
A more wholistic approach to each beggar might be one that does not simply fling them a coin, but helps them in some small way to feel acknowledged as a person. Approaching the vulnerable in this way is the essence of Christian ministry.
Of course there are crucial questions about how to do this in a way that helps them, preserves your safety and represents a sensible use of your resources. Hawkgrrrl’s suggestion of giving through homeless services seems like a reasonable minimal step. Our work then must go beyond that, but it might be a decent step to help those we’re less able to immediately help.
I don’t know Nate Oman, but he seems very intelligent. You need a certain amount of cleverness to argue that a passage of scripture actually means exactly the opposite of what the text explicitly says.
Which isn’t to say that I’m not often guilty of exactly the sorts of rationalizations Benjamin dismisses, but I’d never be so bold to pretend that Mosiah somehow justifies my behavior.
I remember a quote from Melvin J. Ballard in “Three Degrees of Glory” about it being better to feed 10 unworthy than to starve one worthy. Too bad that so many in the Church have gone against this thought.
I spent 9 months studying the US homeless, some of it literally on the streets the rest in cheap motels. If they appear tired, dirty or lame chances are they really do need your handout because it indicates they haven’t been in a shelter for some time. I generally keep a few one’s available, offering them creates a chance to have a bit of a conversation and learn more, then I offer food or more money if I perceive they need it.
I also frequent an In-N-Out in an affluent neighborhood that has some very rested and well dressed panhandlers and I generally pass them by.
Posting that last comment reminded me of a time a few years ago I had almost forgotten, it was the time I gave the most money ever to a beggar. It was Christmas eve, snow was beginning to fall. The beggar was a bruised and tattered young women, the mother of two children. I gave her enough money to take her kids to a motel for a week and buy them something to eat and a couple of toys to celebrate Christmas. She had been begging for hours at the north entrance to Temple Square just across the street from the Conference Center without much luck. I watched as well dressed people passed her by as they entered and left, it was as if she didn’t exist!
Totally off topic, but where can I get a CofC Book of Mormon? I would be interested to read that. I went to the main website and could not figure where or if a link existed to get one. Does anyone know?
EOR (#16),
Your surest bet is through the CofC publishing arm: http://www.heraldhouse.org
Howard (#15),
When I’ve visted Salt Lake I was struck by the beggars at the gates to Temple Square. Having recently read Amos and his multiple charges that people are neglecting the needy at the gates (e.g. 5:12), the calling of the inheritors of that religious tradition to bring justice to the poor could not be more clear.
Thank you for sharing your stories. Far too many people need reminding that the homeless and the vulnerable are human beings and our brothers and sisters.
Top panhandlers in San Francisco can pull upwards of $750 in one day
I was in SF for Christmas and toured Glide a shelter that provides medical care, 2400 meals a day, arranges shelter reservations (yes, reservations!) and they had just given out 6,000 bags of groceries for Christmas. I didn’t notice anyone making a good living from it even the Glide employees but I didn’t notice anyone who was unhappy either.
It’s impossible to dismiss the needy based on a few scammers who take advantage without going willfully blind to the need and closing you mind to the issue.
I would rather support social service agencies that work to end homelessness rathet than give money to people on the street
Well Jon, I understand your sentiment and social service agencies would completely agree with that but having actually spent some time on the street I can tell you that there are many needy people who fall outside those agencies’ net. Typically it is because they do not have the clarity of mind or the discipline to access the help that is available to them. That is why I give something to the sleepy, dirty and lame. Btw, the exchange of giving can be a jarringly real experience for the giver if you’ll allow eye contact and communication and an act of respect to those in need.
I avoid giving panhandlers any money and feel no compunction for (not) doing so. A local homeless shelter here in Sacramento is well-known for their unstinting services. Several years ago, they were issuing cards which were good for meals and clothing (donations strongly suggested). It’s far better to support these worthy charities as well as make one’s Fast Offerings generous.
The trouble with giving in to panhandlers is that they’re skilled at exploiting guilt. The problem is, giving them a few bucks here and there will only keep them on the street. If they’re lazy and irresponsible, then their misbehavior is only promulgated with a handout. How does that help them? If they suffering from alcoholism or drug addictions, then obviously giving them money only furthers their self-destructive behavior. Finally, if neither laziness nor addiction seems to be the primary reason for their misfortune, but they’re mentally ill, then keeping them on the streets is cruel. It’s a shame that many states have cut their social services, or in a mistaken sense of “rights” that many who would otherwise be in a sanitarium roam the streets, becoming a hazard to themselves and possibly others. Those who are sane and otherwise decent who are simply down-on-their-luck benefit more by being directed to social services than given a token handout.
One other thing ought to be considered: do you consider yourself sufficiently street-smart and capable of defending yourself to deal with someone who is likely to be unpredictably violent? It’s one thing for myself, a 50-something who works out and benches his weight and boxes and trains in martial arts (and packs)…it’s another for some meek, slightly built woman (though the one I know best, a formerly Olympic gymnast, packs a consider punch in her 97 lb. frame!) to risk her personal safety. And I can cite another tragic example of where misplaced compassion wrought havoc in a good LDS family’s life…that of the Smarts of SLC and their daughter Elizabeth. Sure, Brother and Sister Smart’s desire to help the down-and-out they encountered about SLC was highly laudable. Bringing them to their family home to perform chores for hire was asinine, as it gave one Brian Mitchell an opportunity to case the house for his later heinous crime(s). Sadly, they all, but especially their daughter Elizabeth, paid dearly for their misjudgment (dear Elizabeth is one plucky and well-adjusted young lady, and I wish her and her new husband nothing but the best). Word to the wise…let the professionals deal with the nutcases. Most can best show their compassion by opening their checkbook.
Many repurable charities try to discourage people from giving money to people on the streets
Yes I know. In some ways it’s self serving because they would prefer you give them the funds. Some believe that if they do control the funds the needy will be forced to come to them and they can better take care of them. Which may be true to a point but this logic falls short with those who aren’t mentally clear enough to access the charity or shelter so while this notion is well meant it doesn’t cover everyone who needs help.
If you don’t want to give money that’s fine, give food but money is so much easier to carry around! I typically only give a dollar or two as a conversation starter, often that settles it but other times I go further if they seem to need it like buying them food and some cities have a homeless resource card that tells them where or how find what they need, those cards are great to give out.
There is ANOTHER alternative…make panhandling either a crime again or evidence of the perp needing to be confined on a ‘5150’ basis. I’d rather see a street vagrant given a wee “working over” by the cops, then taken to jail, allowed to sober up in the drunk tank, hosed down, his clothes either well-disinfected or replaced with servicable items, then given a shave and a buzzcut, then packed off to the “Jesus Saves” mission with a monitoring device on his ankle…so that save he avails himself of help to return to employement, sobriety, and responsibility, he’s headed back to the “gray-bar hotel” for “three hots and cot”. Kinda tough? Well, having to run a gauntlet of smelly bums shouldn’t be part of one’s experience in any American city center! They don’t exist b/c there’s economic hardship, they exist b/c liberals that typically run most big city politics are too gutless to enforce traditional standards…they’re too worried about “rights” or appearing to be heartless.
I say take Nick Lowe’s advice from 1979…”Ya gotta be cruel to be kind”.
You can buy $5 gift cards to McDonalds, W,Mart, etc or wherever you see homeless and pas the cards out, knowing they’ll get food………
Great idea Sherry!
I live in a developing country and there are many beggars as well as church members who ask for money for a number of causes. My issue is that when I go to church I am not befriended by those who are asking for money for the sake of friendship, rather because I am someone who can fund them. (I meet someone and they ask for my number so they can speak to me on a matter outside of church) For beggars, especially children, I buy bananas and hand them out one at a time. I am afraid that any money I give them will go to those who “take care” of them, or to drugs. At least with a banana they are getting some nutrition. I’m not sure what to do about the church members. I’ve always taken Mosiah’s counsel seriously, but it’s not practical to give at anytime someone asks, nor is it fair to only give to one or two.
Having studied and working in development, I am very much in line with the principle of give a fish they eat for a day, teach someone to fish and they eat for a life time… But how do we do that? The church has a good humanitarian program, I’ve met the director Sharon Eubank- she is a principled lady who is trying to move the missionary couples beyond the mentality of only helping those with potential to join the church into a strictly humanitarian opperation, but it’s a slow process. I’ve also heard members say they give tithing and fast offerings and that counts for their “good deeds”, but I have to ask, is it enough? Are there people around us that can use our help that wouldn’t be reached by these church programs? Yes! Always.
There is the other side that needs to be developed further- is my aid enabling them to stand still and not progress? Are they dependent on my help out of choice? Is that my place to judge? Is giving to street children encouraging their parents to send them out to “earn” money instead of to school? There are so many complications to giving, that we need to ultimately allow the spirit to guide our decisions.
also, i think it important to mention that Mosiah says that if we can say with a clear conscience that if I had then i would give, then we are guiltless.
…is my aid enabling them… Yes this is a very good question to ask and teaching how to fish is generally better than giving a fish but there are people who are so low in life that fishing lessons are impractical because they are facing death or near death do to malnutrition, thirst or easily curable disease. It’s pretty hard to fish in the middle of the desert. Malnutrition is a multi-generational fix that requires handing out a lot of fish before teaching how to cast will have any effect. People on the bottom need a way to become self sustaining. In spite of the wonderful job the church does for it’s own members and for disaster relief this is the segment of the world population that goes largely ignored by the LDS church.
#30 – Howard, that’s utter tripe and has little relevancy to the OP. The OPer asserted that King’s Benjamin’s exhortation to succor the poor and not get overly concerned about the REASON(s) why the poor man is “on the skids” (from the context, it seems more a rebuke against stinginess than commanding to disregard moral hazards, something he as a wise king would be more than familiar with), so, he concludes that we as LDS MUST give the panhandlers a handout. I say, not only is that an extremely foolish and twisted interpretation of the BoM prophet’s sermon on charity, it flies in the face of common sense. The only thing I can agree with both King Benjamin, the OPer, and prophets both ancient and modern, is that we have a personal responsibility to remember the poor and give of that which our Lord have so abundantly blessed us. I would say that the one that struggles to put a roof over his family’s head and can put but “Top Ramen and turkey franks” on the dinner table, as long as they’re not malnourished, can give two meals worth of THAT, since it’s all they have. For someone like myself who can take the crew out to dinner once a month, at, say, The Elephant Bar and spend $100, and once to breakfast a month at IHOP and spend $50, a reasonable fast offering is $150 (the value of the best that I allow myself and family). For someone whose means make mine look pitiful, let them ratchet it up accordingly as they are blessed, it’s still giving of their superfluous and not the “widow’s mite” as the Savior himself cited.
But NOWHERE could I ever find any interpretation that says we’re to support mendicancy. It’s a red herring most of the time, anyway. Just as in my pizza-schlepping days I found that Democrats were lousy tippers (see a Boxer ’92 campaign sign or an NEA sticker and you know your getting stiffed…), so charitable contributions in “Blue” states are noticably lower than in “Red” ones. Higher taxes, or hypocrisy? Who knows? But I’d like to see how many folks that are beating the drum about give a buck or two to the street hustlers are actually doing it! I’ll wager most of you that have are just blowing smoke…and I don’t care where it’s being directed.
Is the King Benjamin scripture meant to be taken literally? Does it say in the doctrine and covenants that it pleases the Lord to use meat sparingly? Not too many people follow that one.
Largely ignored by the LDS church. Howard you are the lds church you share as much blame anybody else
Well, yes and no, I can’t direct the use of church funds and resourses I can be only influence so that’s why I work to raise consciousness about this issue Jon. Personally I donate to several causes that focus on these problems. How about you?
Just did my reading assignment…am late to the discussion and don’t have interest in the panhandler discussion. I did have a couple of verses I was interested in bringing up for discussion:
One is Mosiah 8: 20.
“they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that she rule over them!”
As many times as I have read this verse, I had never noticed that wisdom is referred to as “she”. So I searched “wisdom she” and see that there this is also an Old Testament trait, having been used in Proverbs. If you google, “why is wisdom referred to as she” you will find numerous explanations that are offered. I will quote this one from the Jewish Women’s archive:
“Why the female personification? Perhaps in part because, in Hebrew, wisdom is a grammatically feminine noun. Grammar does not fully explain, however, Proverbs’s interest in repeated and varied development of the female persona, which contrasts with the only incipient personification in Job. The female imagery for Woman Wisdom is also closely connected to her negative counterpart in Proverbs, that embodiment of evil referred to as the “loose woman” (“strange woman,” or “Woman Stranger”).”
So here we have another ‘how do you explain” element for those who say Joseph Smith authored the BoM with his own intellect. Was he so familiar with the occasional or rare Old Tesament description of wisdom as a “she” that he saw the need to describe wisdom in that manner in Mosiah 8 to make his text seem more legitimate?
The following summary from the JWA is also interesting:
“Attempts to understand the significance of Woman Wisdom in ancient Israelite life and in the canonical and deuterocanonical traditions underscore her deep ambiguity: to feminist thought, whether historically or theologically inclined. At worst she represents the domestication of a powerful goddess into a good wife who supports her man and whose honor depends on his willingness to give her public recognition. Along with her counterpart, Woman Stranger, she may be seen as part of patriarchy’s perennial classification of all women as either all-good or all-evil, and her apparent power but a mouthpiece for the voice of the fathers. On the other hand, it is difficult to read Proverbs’s paeans to the power of both wisdom personified as woman (Chapters 1–9) and of woman as the ideal representative of wisdom (Chapter 31) without imagining some related social reality at their base. One likely context for such open recognition of women’s contributions—as well as perceived danger from “loose women”—is the period after the Babylonian exile, as the Judeans struggled for a new definition of “Israel” as a people identified by family households rather than a monarchic polity. Especially notable is the editor’s choice to open and close the Book of Proverbs with female imagery. Whatever one might make of it—whether ultimate co-optation or ultimate subversion—this quintessentially male book is framed with a woman’s voice. ”
From the LDS perspective, this brings into question the existence of scriptural support for a Mother in Heaven. Some blog participants have doubted the existence of Mother in Heaven because of lack of scriptural support. This gives me something to ponder.
I wish some people would be as keen to reinterpret passages like Lev 18:22 as they are to reinterpret the command to care for the poor.
It’s rather interesting to see which passages people believe must be taken literally and which ones should be disregarded or interpreted so broadly as to render them less meaningful.
One of the first things I learned when I worked in development is that the “teach a man to fish” analogy is good and well, but the issues are rarely that simple. What if the fishing grounds become polluted because of a factory upstream? What about any licensing fees, or the costs of buying equipment? What if some well-resourced fishermen overfish the grounds leaving this new fisher with very little to gain from fishing?
In the case of panhandlers/beggars there are often issues that go beyond the systemic challenges and go into the realms of psychology – making them even more difficult to overcome.
From my time among the working poor of the United States, living with secondary homelessness (not being able to afford our own housing, we had to rely on others’ generosity), I’ve witnessed how devastating an effect poverty can have on the human psyche – as well as how much of an impact it makes when people take an interest in you as a person of worth going through a difficult time.
This is a big part of why it’s so important to be a reflection of God’s grace in our interactions with all people: in many cases there is not much more than good fortune in life’s circumstances that has made them poor and you not.
Despite the rhetoric, America is not some place where if you work hard enough you can be rich. No place is. Heck, many of the hardest working, most capable people I’ve seen are still poor. God does not will such brutal inequality, and if He is to be a force for poverty’s eradication he’ll need us to better reflect what is his will.
Benjamin is pretty clearly on the ball on this one.
And while I say all of that, I should also confess that I tend to withhold my change too. King Benjamin’s words are not easy, even for those who agree.
…thoroughly enjoying and also challenged by our time together here. Thanks to all!!
…knowing that our limited time on each designated ‘reading’ requires that we select a few main points to discuss; our consideration of the ‘beggar’ and acknowledgement that we are all ‘beggars’ certainly deserves our attention. However, these comments have brought questions that might be foundational to our discussion: was King Benjamin’s definition of a beggar consistent with our definition of a panhandler? …and, was Joseph Smith’s understanding of a beggar consistent with our understanding of a panhandler? Was there even the word ‘panhandler’ extant in their day??
…some other possible ‘talking points’ from this week’s reading in passing:
….we know we have not always done that which is right; have mercy on us, we believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ creator of heaven and earth who shall come down among the children of men.
….because of their faith they had joy and peace of conscience in the Gospel.
….put your trust in the Lord, be diligent in keeping the commandments, and continue in faith throughout your whole life.
….the Spirit of the Lord has brought a mighty change in our hearts; desiring to do good continually; willing to enter into a covenant with God to do his will in our lives.
….because of your covenant you shall be called the children of God; sons and daughters.
….there is no other name whereby salvation comes; take upon you the name of Christ.
….be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in good works.
Hey folks, thanks for all the replies. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to immediately participate as I was on vacation and then playing catch up at work in the aftermath of my vacation. This is obviously a topic that people have formed opinions about. In fact, when we did this lesson in my Sunday School class, we did not actually have a chance to treat any other topic from the reading. Every person in class had something to say about charity and especially about panhandlers here in Toronto.
I’m starting in on responses…
Aaron (#1): Regarding Nate Oman’s essay, the movie “Becket” is among my favorites, but I think this is a somewhat weird comparative setting to stitch together into a discussion of King Benjamin’s teaching.
The perspective presented by Becket is that of an early 1960s Anglo-American screenwriter and late 1950s French playwright, imagining how a worldly, secular noble, might make a big show of conversion to religious sensibilities on recieving a major ecclesiastical appointment. (We should note that they seem to know very little about actual Medieval history.)
The only active player in the Becket scenario is Becket, who is fabulously wealthy in comparison to the people to whom he is providing charity. Unlike King Benjamin’s sermon, we don’t hear the petitions of those in need, just the denigrating observations from the jaded clergymen that the beggars won’t use the goods provided and alleging (without evidence) that they will sell cloaks for drink. This passage was written without empathy for people on both sides of the charitable transaction. The only person here is the giver; those in receipt of charity are merely the “other”.
The perspective presented by King Benjamin’s sermon is that of Joseph Smith in the 1820s imagining a perfect prophet-king of scripture. The Smiths were a downwardly mobile family who had suffered several setbacks in their hardscrabble lives on the American frontier. Joseph had experienced poverty and had experience being forced to rely on the charity of others. This perspective, perhaps, allows King Benjamin to see both sides and to identify with people as people in both sides of the charitable transaction.
Maybe Nate substituted the Becket scenario for his exegesis on King Benjamin because as someone whose worth is $250 an hour for legal advice, it’s harder for him to envision Joseph Smith’s perspective of living close to and on both sides of the charitable transaction? I admit it’s much harder for me. I have it ingrained in me from childhood to never ask anyone for anything. I’m pretty well hardwired to never accept charity under any circumstances; more than once I’ve preferred to walk miles than ask for rides. And I think this is a moral problem. If I so look down on asking for help when I could actually use help, than what is the judgment I express, however inadvertently, when I make offers of charity, no matter how selfless the intent?
Regardless, I have to say that I personally think Nate’s reading of King Benjamin’s teaching alters the author’s intent. Which is not to say that Nate has or has not come up with a good principle of his own; just that I don’t see much evidence that his principle is King Benjamin’s principle.
Aaron (#2): I actually don’t think believers should operationalize King Benjamin’s teachings. I don’t believe that scripture is a set of inerrant rules that should be operationalized.
Rather, I believe scripture is a collection of inspired human responses to the Divine that point us to God and challenge us to live meaningful lives. King Benjamin here has a different perspective than I do. Rather than re-read him to say what I already believe, I’m attempting to allow his perspective to challenge my complacency. For example, in the way I’ve stated above: can I be truly charitable if my own middle-class biases against receiving charity make it apparent that I associate charity with shame? I need to overcome that.
In the same way, one of Community of Christ’s five mission initiatives is “Abolish Poverty, End Suffering.” In some ways, this initiative is totally unattainable and unrealistic. It’s not going to happen in a literal sense in my lifetime. But I don’t need it to be realistic for it something meaningful to build toward in my lifetime.
For myself, I’m not going to go out and obey King Benjamin’s counsel as given. With the panhandlers I see every day in the city, my personal policy is that I seek not to dehumanize them. I try to make eye contact, smile, nod, listen, and talk, and most always will say “I can’t today, but I wish you well” because I agree that it may well be counterproductive of destructive to give out money without knowing people’s circumstances.
And not giving out money directly, I want to volunteer my time and talents to provide real help addressing poverty in the city. I’ve joined the board of directors for my church’s social housing charity, which helps provide housing for people in the city with extremely limited resources, who are often facing mental health and other issues. It’s a new experience for me, and I’m challenged by the people I’m meeting, and excited about the opportunities for me to learn.
So, that’s my own personal policy, not King Benjamin’s.
Rick (#4): Amen! I just want to cut and paste everything you wrote and write “amen” after each line.
“A lot of the sustaining problems of poverty come from the loss of a sense of dignity and self-belief and a big part of helping them can be to show them respect and compassion as human beings. Flinging a coin alone might not do this, but embracing the message of this text would call upon a person to give of themselves as a reflection of a belief in the worth of all persons.”
Amen! Thanks for your thoughts!
Rick (#5): Hmmmm… I find it unlikely he’d have much (if any) familiarity. Someone would have to make some stronger connections for me.
Rick (#6): Nice catch on Limhi’s summary of Abinadi’s gospel. I should have a highlighter out for each time we get the word “Christ”.
Hmmm… the Christ/Adam same image thing here is really interesting as a precursor of later developments. Thanks for pointing that out, I totally missed that.
Yeah, we’ll certainly get to talk about Book of Mormon geography one of these weeks.
hawkgrrrl (#7): Yes, there are lots of cautionary tales. I guess the additional caution I still want to struggle with is cautioning ourselves against dismissing people by just making our minds up about cautionary tales. But your idea about donating directly to support institutions obviously parallels my own policy above (#42).
Howard (#14 and #15): Thanks for your sharing your experiences.
Douglas (#26): That’s an absolutely horrific idea — not only for the individuals, but for all of society.
SPatty (#29): Thanks for sharing all your struggles and the perspective from where you live. I agree that this isn’t a simple issue, but it’s obviously important to struggle with its complexity to do the most good.
Rigel (#35): No worries about delays — I apologize that it took me a week to respond to the comments. I think your idea about Sophia (“Wisdom”) as the feminine Divine (“Heavenly Mother”) is definitely worth pondering.
For the rest, I want to remind you that in this project, we’re not going to argue about non-historicity or Joseph Smith authorship. I’m taking both of those as premises, not things we’re out to prove. To answer your question, I think it’s fairly easy to chalk that usage up to common contemporary knowledge based on the Bible, including the New Testament.
For example, in Matthew 11:19, we read: “The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.”
Perhaps coincidentally, in next week’s reading we hear that King Noah became a “wine-bibber”. That term only appears in the King James Bible in the Matthew quotation that talks of wisdom using the feminine pronoun (and it’s corresponding verse in Luke). It’s not a stretch to imagine Joseph had recently read that verse and both terms were on his mind.
Bob (#39): Since I’m talking about author’s intent, I agree that you’re right to call me out for equating Joseph Smith’s idea of a “beggar” with the 21st ideas we may all have about “panhandlers”. It may well be that in doing so I’m guilty of a bit of pot-stirring. Nevertheless, I agree with Rick (#36-38) that talking about charity to Christians tends to yield a torrential response, as people have a lot to say on the topic and a lot of ways to interpret scriptures on the subject.
This is far after the fact–I’m a little late to the party–but I’m just going to start throwing my comments in at this point because I’m committed to this great project (though starting late) and will catch up soon.
Mosiah 5:12 (LDS) “I say unto you: I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also the name by which he shall call you.”
“In the name of [Christ]” is a phrase we use to the point of triteness in the Church, and it’s really easy to associate different personal meanings (or just not worry about what it actually means) to it in different contexts. However, this particular passage has always struck me as one where it is harder to do this and seems to demand a more concrete answer. Benjamin is indicating that the name needs to be remembered so that the people “_hear_… the voice” and know the name by which _he *shall* call you_.” This seems like a description of a discreet instance of calling. Of course the meaning could be extended abstractly (as we like to do), but what is the discrete event or abstract period or situation that “shall call” seems to be leading up to? It sounds like the people will actually be _identified_ as “Christ.” What does that mean or imply for personal identity within such a covenant? Or for “Christ” as an entity?
If anyone happens to read this, I’d love to hear your thoughts. These discussions have been wonderful, and I’m excited to catch up and participate in real time. Thanks, John!
And, dang it, I just can’t leave the beggar thing alone, either. I tend to agree with John’s assessment of the explicitness of what Benjamin is saying here.
I find interesting, in light of some counterarguments, verse 4:26 (LDS):
“…I would that ye should 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_.”
Now, syntactically, the “their” of “their wants” could be interpreted as specifically referencing “the sick,” but the Book of Mormon seems to be so syntactically wonky to me at times that I’m not entirely convinced it’s not referring to the poor in general.
I think what makes me even consider the possibility is references in the D&C to the Law of Consecration (for example in Section 51 – LDS) that repeatedly refer to distribution of property according to “wants” with needs rarely mentioned. Of course that could be the sense of the word back then, and I’ve never really read in depth to make the comparison, but that seeming abundance of addressing “wants” rather than “needs” (perhaps trying to internally create some kind of distinction between Consecration and “communism” with its “…to each according to his needs) has always stood out to me.