Comments on: BOM Lesson 15

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Sun, 04 May 2008 14:49:54 +0000

Robert---I'm trying to follow this on the road, as you know. I like how you answer your wife's "stumper question." By totally over-doing his side of the economics, God makes it very clear that we have no way to keep up with him in the quid pro quo. (Romans 4:4)

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:30:27 +0000

Great comments, all---thanks. My wife asked me a good stumper question I thought I'd add to the discussion: if God is "breaking" any notion of an economic relation with him, as I've roughly been reading Mosiah 2:23-24, why is it that Mosiah talks about God blessing us each time we obey in rather economic terms, or in terms that seem to preserve an economic mindset? Why wouldn't God bless us, say, more randomly rather than blessing us each time we are obedient, and in such explicitly economic terms (cf. "immediately" and "paid you" in v. 24)? I think there's something very important going on here, that God doesn't just break from an economic relation with us, but that he breaks our economic relation by over-filling (ful-filling? saturating?) his economic obligation to us---or something.. Hmmm.....

By: robf

robf — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:39:10 +0000

Anthropologically, its quite possible that the small non-stratified society of "king" Benjamin was actually a big-man system or small incipient chiefdom governed by an economy of reciprocal gift giving (think potlatches, New Guinea pig feasts, the Kula Ring, etc.). I'll have to reread these chapters again with this in mind...more later.

By: RuthS

RuthS — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:59:33 +0000

Ok, Robf didn’t say anything about gift giving. Sorry about that. Robert kind of mentioned it when I have understood him correctly.

By: RuthS

RuthS — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:56:34 +0000

robf, it is interesting that you think that gifts don’t come with any expectation of a return. I ran across a statement by Tacitus some time ago and stuck it up where I can see it. It says, “Good turns are pleasing only in so far as they seem repayable; much beyond that we repay with hatred not gratitude.” The fact that the greeting card industry does so well at Christmas time is a testament to the truthfulness of this statement.

The desire to give back and stay even in terms of gift giving and greeting card sending seems to be a part of human nature. It must have something to do with place holding and status in a community. It is virtually impossible to send a card or gift and not receive something in return. So I think the problem Benjamin could be addressing is not the economic relationships as such as much as he is the pride of those who think they can get even with God by paying him back for their blessings. I don’t think he is saying God perceives any indebtedness. It is they who perceive the indebtedness. So looking at it through their eyes they will be eternally in God’s debt because they will never by on the same level as he is in terms of eternal progression.

While they cannot resurrect themselves, we are told that those who do not accept Christ and repent will have to suffer for their own sins, doing anything of that magnitude is pretty much out of the question.

By: JennyW

JennyW — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:15:13 +0000

Robert, this was very helpful. Thank you. I thought your discussion of indebtedness in terms of the family relationship brought out some interesting points. This “mutual bond” created within the family seems related to the specific form of kingship that Benjamin describes earlier in the chapter. Benjamin describes kingship as a relationship that is not founded on economics (he emphasizes that he hasn’t sought money or taxes) but rather on service, a service designed not to be paid back to Benjamin himself, but to be replicated out in service toward each other (v. 18). The closest his people can come to “paying” Benjamin back is not payment, but recognition of him and his service—they may thank him (v. 19). His kingship, then, is designed to bind himself to his people as they become like him in action by serving one another and acknowledge their bond to him as they thank him. This example of earthly kingship, service, and indebtedness underlies the discussion of man’s relationship to God in the verses that follow.

Regarding the discussion of being eternally indebted, I especially liked your comments on the “radical breaking of any merit-based view of works.” I think it’s easier in some ways to think that I can pay back God,, at least in part, if I just work hard enough (do enough visiting teaching, go to the temple enough, etc.) because holding such a view allows me to see myself as “good”—a good worker, a team player, etc. It’s harder to see things as they really are here in these verses: I can’t pay back God no matter what I do, or don’t do. This view is harder because it allows me to see myself as I am, in the infinitude of my falleness. It’s much easier to think of myself as a good worker than as fallen and in need.

Freeing my works from an economic relationship changes them, although I’m not certain into what. Given Benjamin’s discussion of kingship, though, I’m tempted to say that it changes them into praise. I don’t work to pay God, I work to praise.

Another view might be works as repayment shifting into works as refinement. To become like God, to become kings and queens, we must learn kingship, which is another way of saying we must reconfigure our understanding of who we serve and why we serve them. God serves us not to pay us, but in order to forge a familial bond. We serve God not to repay him, but to recognize Him as God, to forge our own familial bonds so that we may become like Him. I’m still playing around with these ideas, but perhaps I might leave it there for now. Thanks for all the good questions.

By: K Cryder

K Cryder — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:06:36 +0000

Robert,
I like that you liken indebtedness to God to your wife—and not because i’m a wife and mother. As a wife and mother, I do ALOT for my family. I’m constantly going, sleep deprived, and working 24/7 —-which thing i do voluntarily and happily. I just want my family to be happy, healthy, and thriving in all areas of life and i gain so much satisfaction out of helping and nurturing them. The only time I don’t feel satisfied is when they occasionally take me for granted or act unappreciative. It is during those few moments that I might question,(to myself and sometimes verbally), “Why am I knocking myself out, doing all this to bless their lives if they don’t even care?” Followed shortly thereafter is a Hug or an “Im sorry” and I’m instantly recharged. I know that my husband and children could never do what I do and I never wish for that—only a little appreciation and a little help now and again (whether solicited or not). So, Because God is a Father I have to wonder if He ever feels the same. Happy to bless our lives, knowing that we could never repay Him—but does expect (and deserves) some gratitude and a little help (solicited and of our own free will).
I’m thankful for your example because it helped me to go back to the simple beauty of the plan–the love of a Father for His children.

By: robf

robf — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:14:33 +0000

Thanks Robert. Lots to think here about indebtedness. What does it mean for us to be eternal beings that are eternally indebted? Does our indebtedness go back before the fall (“in the first place”) to another “first place” before this mortal life?

I’m also starting to think about the term “prosper” as it occurs in these verses (and the OT covenants), and yesterday added a comment on the wiki about the Hebrew sakal–”to prosper” which doesn’t necessarily mean to gain physical comfort or wealth, but seems to deal with gaining wisdom and being able to handle complex situations. Interesting how we are repeatedly told to seek for wisdom rather than riches. Seems that prospering means something different for the Lord than in our popular culture.