This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
I have written about many issues that lead people to leave the church. But do these issues really make them leave? I’ve been wondering what really initiates their doubt. Is it the shocking realization that polygamy happened, or is it something deeper? Many have experienced bullying, mistreatment, and disillusionment. But there are also many faithful members who come to terms with painful experiences. What is the intellectual root of skepticism?
I have always thought of justice as a foundation of the gospel, but only lately have I realized that justice is the foundation of apostasy as well. Justice is what belief is all about. If we could reduce to a single phrase the difference between Mormon doctrine and worldly philosophy, going back to the first moment Satan first deviated from God’s plan and developed his premortial plan of universal salvation, and if we could uncover the fundamental paradigm change that those who fall away from the church experience, I think it can all be summed up as social justice versus divine justice.
Mormons get beat up when we talk about these issues, which is why we try not to say anything. ‘Divine justice’ evokes images of the so-called Mormon blood atonement, and social justice inevitably leads to a discussion about politics and social issues like gay marriage. We certainly do not want to alienate fellow LDS members who have different political beliefs and social opinions, and we are not authoritarians who base these things on our religion ideology. But it is hard to ignore that so many apostates do base politics and social issues on their religious ideals. So many faithful members are leaving the church because of gay marriage, feminism, etc. How can we address the problem of apostasy if we don’t address these issues? But I don’t think we even need to talk about specifics like feminist causes if we instead trace the beliefs back to the trunk of the tree where the divergence all starts. All of the specific issues are arborescent from their core ideology.
Satan’s Plan Vs. God’s Plan – We can see the competition between these systems of justice throughout human history: Marxism vs. Communism, Babylon vs. Israel, Cain vs. Abel, etc. It goes back to the beginning of time, to the primordial Plan of Lucifer. Lucifer wanted a system where everyone could be saved by forcing people to conform to a central ideology. That was his justice, and still is. God’s system is one of personal agency.
The reason these two competing plans exist is because truth is not apparent. We can scientifically observe and reason upon laws and operations of the universe–we all agree what gravity is–but how does science determine moral truths? How can we determine what is good and what is bad? It is a matter of faith. Human history has shown that it comes down to these two basic ways to approach this faith, the two primordial plans. Social justice bases moral truth on popular consensus and distributes rights for equal progression. Divine justice considers truth to be an eternal law of nature and looks to God to distribute rewards for our progression based on merit.
Equality & Merit
Today, we often think of the two paths as a matter of equality versus meritocracy. Equality! Everyone is all about equality. I don’t think one must come at the cost of the other, but that’s unfortunately how it is framed today. It is a dichotomy that Greek philosopher Solon articulated many centuries ago: “Men who are noble, Kyrnos, have never yet ruined any city, but when the base decide to behave with hubris, and when they ruin the community and render judgments in favor of things without justice for the sake of profits and for the sake of power, do not expect that city to be peaceful for long.” (Social Justice in the Ancient World, Irani & Silver)
When someone achieves greatness through strength and hard work, at what point do they start being damaging to the community and need to be stopped? Wealthy billionaires and big businesses that takes advantage of the poor will always be a problem. Social justice limits the reward and power of upper-class achievers to ameliorate the rights of the poor. Merit is sacrificed for the sake of equal rights. We all recognize the need for this kind of sacrifice. This is the social contract we all agree to. The early caveman learned that if he stores some of the meat from the elephant he killed he will have some later to eat when he is hungry again. Sacrifice some now for later. Then, the early caveman discovered that if he shares some of the meat with a nearby tribe, they will in turn share some of their meat when he doesn’t have any. We understand that the good of the group is what is better for us individually, and we are willing to sacrifice so we all get along and are all enriched.
Consecration – We Mormons have a unique understanding of the social contract because of the early Mormon practice of communal United Order. Members were asked to contribute their income and resources to the church so that it could be redistributed to the community. The big difference between the United Order and social justice is that the purpose of Mormon stewardship was not to abase the billionaire or some privileged clan, and was not grounded on the idea that successful clans achieved success at the cost of underprivileged clans like Marxists think of it. It did not treat success as a zero sum game and it did not group people by classes. It did not sacrifice merit for equality. It worked on the principle that consecration would lead to even greater personal success. Equality and merit can co-exist–though early attempts at the United Order failed because this is could only be based on individual virtue–it is voluntary and ‘on your honor’–and we simply aren’t there yet.
Commutative Justice
This is the first big problem with Social Justice, it treats success as a zero sum, like a pie that has only so much to go around and needs to be split up equally. This leads to the Marxist assertion that the individual is limited by the class to which he is a member. If one clan has all the meat and the other clan has no meat, how could a member of that other clan possibly be well-fed? Makes sense, right? But in the scriptures we find all kinds of examples of people breaking from the limits of their society. Abraham diverged from the idolatry of his father and found God in a totally godless society. Lehi forsook his land and sailed to a promised land where his posterity thrived. Joseph Smith did not fall in line with churches that said the heavens were closed. It turns out the mansions of heaven are infinite and applied on an individual basis, not by class.
Yet there are collective laws we must follow, aren’t there? We often get mixed up by the question of individual vs. collective. Should we treat people on a strictly individual basis, or should there be some kind of general standard, and what is the balance? The reason this becomes so confusing is because individual (commutative) justice has been completely erased from our literature and thinking. It’s been literally torn out our dictionary, like a word that we are forbidden to speak, down the memory hole, like we’ve read about happening in George Orwell’s book ‘1984’. Don’t believe me? Look at how the dictionary definition of justice has changed between 1828 and now:
| 1828 Websters Dictionary 2018 Websters Dictionary 1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due; practical conformity to the laws and to principles of rectitude in the dealings of men with each other; honesty; integrity in commerce or mutual intercourse. justice is distributive or commutative. Distributive justice belongs to magistrates or rulers, and consists in distributing to every man that right or equity which the laws and the principles of equity require; or in deciding controversies according to the laws and to principles of equity. Commutative justice consists in fair dealing in trade and mutual intercourse between man and man…. 1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments meting out justice social justice b : judge a supreme court justice —used as a title Justice Marshall c : the administration of law a fugitive from justice; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity a system of justice…. |
They flat-out make social justice the first definition and replace the lengthy explanation for what commutative justice is. What is commutative justice? If you look it up in Wikipedia, you only get a single tiny sentence: “The state resulting from fair and free exchange.” So Wikipedia doesn’t really tell us anything. If you look up the legal definition on USLegal.com you find that it has to do with “that which is owed between individuals” and does not involve “what individuals owe to society for the common good.” Then it says something very interesting: “Restitution in moral theology signifies an act of commutative justice by which exact reparation as far as possible is made for an injury that has been done to another.”
It is very important to understand this concept of justice and separate it from distributive justice. You cannot perform exact reparation for injury through distribution or the social contract, no matter what the dictionary says. Distribution does not heal injury. Commutative justice on a very basic level means you have a responsibility to be civil and do good to those around you beyond the expectation of receiving rewards for your communal sacrifice or being compelled to behave this way. That is the only real basis for civil society. It is very unfortunate that this concept has been erased from our dictionaries and literature today. I believe this is why we have racial and tribal conflict.
Mormons believe a single great and infinite sacrifice by God himself provides the grace so to restitute for mistakes we make, which we can’t repay on our own, which class dynamics can’t repay. Elder D. Todd Christofferson explained: “Without His Redemption from death and from sin, we have only a gospel of social justice. That may provide some help and reconciliation in the present, but it has no power to draw down from heaven perfect justice and infinite mercy. Ultimate redemption is in Jesus Christ and in Him alone.” (‘Redemption ‘ April 2013 General Conference)
Mercy
We are taught in the scriptures that divine mercy satisfies the demands of divine justice. Unfortunately though, popular understand of mercy was already long ago torn out of the dictionary by the time the writers of the 1828 dictionary put their pens to ink: “1. That benevolence, mildness or tenderness of heart which disposes a person to overlook injuries, or to treat an offender better than he deserves; the disposition that tempers justice, and induces an injured person to forgive trespasses and injuries, and to forbear punishment, or inflict less than law or justice will warrant. In this sense, there is perhaps no word in our language precisely synonymous with mercy That which comes nearest to it is grace.” (1828 Websters dictionary)
Grace means treating someone better than he deserves, yes, but it absolutely does not mean overlooking injuries. This is the pitfall that mainstream Christianity long ago fell into: overlooking justice for the sake of mercy. Grace does not mean overlooking problems. A parent does not raise a successful child by overlooking misdeeds. This is a perverted idea that still thrives . Fake mercy leads people to administer that which is sacred to those who are not worthy to receive it, for the sake of being “inclusive” or “not judgemental.” Fake mercy leads people to encourage destructive behavior in people. Fake mercy leads people to claim that all love is equal. Is it love to tell someone they are perfect just the way they are so that they will never progress? Does a good big brother tell you that you don’t need to obey your parents? That is not love. Fake love is the basis for the “grace alone” idea that leads so many Evangelical Christians to oppose Mormonism, and it is the basis for many social justice crusades that lead progressives to write nasty blog posts about Mormons.
Mercy comes from the Latin merced which means ‘wages to be paid.’ This is a different concept than we commonly think of today. There are wages to be paid for all behavior, consequences to actions, and mercy is the act of paying them. That’s how mercy satisfies justice: it produces the reaction that the action demands. Mercy can even be brought about through atrocity and crime. When someone murders, justice demands that mercy provide wages for the perpetrator as well as the victim: “For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.” (Akna 60:13)
This is an advantage for the system of divine justice, because what is social justice’s alternative solution to murder? How does divine justice provide positive mercy? Either ignore the crime or take away all weapons so that it is impossible to commit murder. Take away people’s ability to commit sin rather than pay any kind of wage. If an individual does commit a crime, it must be because of some inequality between classes. Either the hoarding of resources led him to steal from the rich, or he was a privileged class seeking to disenfranchize another class. There is no individual responsibility and no individual punishment or reward. The only solution is to strip someone of some advangtage and inflict some kind of social exomology.
Example: Baptizing Children Of Gays – Here is an example that somebody recently asked me about. If in the church we operate on an individual basis, why is there this sweeping rule that children of gay couples must wait to be baptized? Some apologists say this “policy punishing innocent children of gay parents is the biggest mistake that is currently on the books.” I completely disagree. It is very unfortunate anytime a person must wait to be baptized, especially when it isn’t their fault. But people have to wait to get baptized because of circumstances out of their control all the time. That’s life. And it isn’t punishment. The church decided it is important for a child to respect their parents and joining a church that teaches homosexual behavior to be apostasy undermines that respect for parents. We do not want to undermine a child’s relationship with their parents. The only other solution to this moral dilemma would be to declare homosexual behavior to be not sinful, and that would be overlooking an important problem–that would be fake mercy. So as I understand it, that’s why this policy exists. There is an eternal moral standard and there are wages to be paid on a societal basis as a consequence of behavior. People can always appeal to priesthood leadership on an individual basis for exceptions, but the sweeping nature of moral law often leads to standard policy such as this. The basis of this policy is not a social contract where personal liberty must be sacrificed for the greater good. That’s not what it’s about. It is what is best for the individuals–the parent and the child–based on immutable natural law. ‘Grace’ does not mean we wave our hands in the air and cease to encourage behavior that helps us progress.
Sacrifice
Social justice proponents strongly disagree with this policy of baptizing children of gays because to them social evolution happens the closer we come to equality. If one class of people, regardless of their behavior, receives baptism on an equal basis with every other class then that is certain to produce growth. Under divine justice, equality of classes is certainly to be desired, yes, but is it the product not the instigator of growth. Our capacity for justice increases through divine instruction, not social equality, and divine instruction comes as we more closely mimic God.
This is what baptism is all about. This is why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected while Abel’s was accepted. Why was Cain rejected? This is something theologeans have been arguing about since forever, and Joseph Smith provided the simple elegant answer. Burnt offerings and sacrifices weren’t about submitting to God. They weren’t about recognizing that we need to sacrifice personally for the greater good of society. They were about emulating God and recognizing the atonement of Jesus Christ as the basis for our redemption. Improper sacrifice does not recognize this, therefore it is not done as an act of faith, therefore it is of zero effect.
Joseph Smith said: “But that man was not able himself to erect a system, or plan with power sufficient to free himself from a destruction which awaited him, is evident from the fact that God, as before remarked, prepared a sacrifice in the gift of His own Son who should be sent in due time, to whence he had been cast out for disobedience. From time to time these glad tidings were sounded in the ears of men in different ages of the world down to the time of Messiah’s coming. By faith in this atonement or plan of redemption, Abel offered God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and it was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith, he could have no faith, or could not excercise faith contrary to the plan heaven. It must be shedding the blood of the only Begotten to atone for man; for this was the plan of redemption, and without the shedding of blood was no remission; and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be excercised, because redemption was no purchased in that way, nor the power of atonement instituted after that order; consequently Cain could have no faith; and whatsoever is not faith, is sin.” (Akna 60:13)
For me, this is one of the most profound things Joseph Smith ever taught. I can read it again and again. It is not about our contribution to the greater good of society. It is not about going through the motions that the laws dictate and being merely obedient. It is about individual faith, and faith grows through behavior that recognizes Jesus Christ and accepts his grace. This behavior trickles down to societal stability and equality of classes. This is the individual virtue that would make the United Order work. It is the foundation for Zion.
Man by himself erects this system of social justice to free himself from the destruction that awaits him because of human fallibility. Devoid of God it must inevitably be a system of compulsion that forces man to fall in line with what is good for all society. Equality must be the catelyst for bringing the masses in line. It was religion that invented this social justice system; the Jesuits codified it and Marxists perfected for the latter-days. But after all, it is a system that leads ever back to human fallibility because it does not construct faith in divine redemption and does not increase the individual’s capacity for justice. It uses an autoritarian power, whether it be a king or a big central government, to keep the people sinless. And very often it is camoflaged as theology.
Temple Of God vs. Mammon – In the scriptures we read of the holy temple and the great and spacious building. A good building versus a bad building. Both stand high in the air. Both stand near the tree of life. But they are separated by an awful gulf, which Nephi told us is the destruction of hell caused by the justice of God which separates the righteous from the wicked. Justice is divisive. Socialists believe it is the other way around, that justice unites everyone in a universal salvation.
The great and spacious building attracts followers with wealth, mirth, and shaming those who don’t join. The holy temple attracts followers with promises of special instruction for salvation, which skeptics find awfully exclusionary. Why can’t salvation be universal? The great and spacious building fits everything into a single ideology, a mass of equal-sized rooms, while the holy temple proceeds little by little, line upon line, a progression of ever-larger rooms.
Both buildings use their own system of justice for the basis of design. The great and spacious building may appear high and mighty, but it turns out it is difficult to find your way around inside. Everything looks the same. Promises of personal liberty become a prison as the individual finds himself restricted by society’s needs. You have to build your little part of the building this way. But in the holy temple rather than having restrictions placed upon you, the basis is personal agency. You follow an example of how to build and are free to build on your own. The holy temple has a sure foundation, and we measure and construct the rest of the temple from that cornerstone of justice. That foundation keeps us stable. “Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.” (Isaiah 28:16-17)
Why Social Justice Must Fall – The great and spacious building, we know, is destined to collapse into the awful chasm because there is no mechanism to redeem sin. It has no foundation, just a strict ideology for how you may build on it.
We can frequently see how followers of social justice fulfill their sacrifice for the greater good under the social contract. Facebook experiences historic stock market losses after reportedly placing censorship on conservative opinions. Twitter likewise. Starbucks closes stores after caving in to politically-correct demands.
We shake our heads at these daft decisions, but wasn’t attitude behind this behavior the same attitude that got these corporations to the top of their industry? I mean, aren’t censorship and political correctness values of social justice that a big corporation needs to succeed? So, you win some, you lose some. Sacrificing some conservatives from your media platform and closing some stores is the price they pay for busineses. It is like their tithing. It goes back to the social contract. They understand that they need to sacrifice for the greater good to establish the social justice system in the world, and that this social justice system is good for their business.
Why is social justice good for business? This is something most conservatives just don’t get. They fall down at the altar of the free market and think manna will trickle down from the sky if big corporations are free to do whatever they want. They have been carefully trained by conservative media to think this. The Book of Mormon’s allegory of the orchard gives a very good picture of society. If one branch becomes too lofty it encumers other trees and branches. Big corporations want more consumers so they can grow and become more dominant. They want cheaper production. They shift society away from divine justice toward the social justice diagram of economics, where justice and mercy are a matter of economic participation and distribution. We individually make this shift as well.
This is why big corporations heavily promote social justice causes, promote social justice agendas in the media, and punish those who dissent from social justice. The big corporations get more consumers and cheaper production as they propogate the ideology, but this is at the cost of everyone else. It’s like an orchard where a few trees have grown huge and blocked sunlight from everyone else. Society revolves into an oligarchy, where feudal lords rule mass classes of serfs, and this is where we are now. Is this sustainable? Well, feudalism in Europe lasted for quite a while. The Dark Ages didn’t end in total collapse, but there were many times it should have, when invading armies and pestilences should have destroyed them. Take a look at Venezuela today.
That is why social justice fails. It takes a strong authoritarian power to force people to be equal, and people were not made to be equal. We are not robots. You can say the word “diversity” all you want as you force standards of equality upon the people, it does not make it so. We were made to grow up in families with parents, not raised by the government, and we were made to emulate those parents, and look to our Parents in Heaven as our foundation. If we are not emulating those Parents, as Cain refused to do, our sacrifices end up doing little good and our countenance will fall and we will end up in that awful chasm.
Tithing – This is why Socialists hate our tithing and will very soon force us to pay a church tax to the government. Just like in the Dark Ages, the Socialists who run our government have already approved the church tax and it is coming. Tithing represents everything they hate about divine justice. Poor people have to sacrifice their grocery money for tithing while the church builds megamalls! Oh, the humanity! They demand a ‘progressive’ tax, which actually leads to wealth disparity. This hatred for tithing is why Socialists in the church don’t pay tithing, ex-Mormons complain about tithing, and activists will soon force the church through government taxes to perform Socialist-style tithing.
Stop The Satanic Religion
That is what is very soon coming, and it will only get worse after that. We will continue to slide as a society and nation into decline until we put the correct definitions of justice and mercy into our dictionaries. We need to change completely how we think about spirituality and a religion. Social justice is a religion. Social justice groups are churches, including “progressive” groups inside our very own LDS church. The media is full of fake news–we know that–but do we recognize that they are priests in churches? “Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.” (Will Rahn)
When Nephi saw the many churches in our day, did he see a bunch of spires on church buildings or did he see feminists, environmentalists, atheists, civil ‘rights’ groups, socialists, etc.? When Nephi said there were two churches only–the church of Christ and the church of Satan–did he mean all righteous Christians opposed to all social justice proponants?
This is why I am concerned when I see Socialists infiltrate Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. For example, the Society of Biblical literature reportedly banned a press from participating in a convention because of their “orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality.” It is not enough to pervert Christian teachings, social justice proponents expel and censor those who don’t agree.
In conclusion, here is my list of nine problems with social justice ideology. You may think of more. I try to pay close attention for hints of these problematic ideas in films, TV, church talks, and school lessons:
- Considers success as zero sum. Equality paramount.
- Considers individual as limited by society he is in.
- Believes ‘rights’ give us meaning, not personal responsibility.
- Treats the human race as a virus that is destined to destroy itself, as if Satan is an internal enemy rather than external.
- Determines truth through dialectic and by broadening definitions.
- Treats each individual as having equal abilities and equal needs.
- Finds capacity for growth in equal classes rather than mimicry of an ideal form.
- Believes justice unites rather than separates.
- Believes death is the end and there is no justice to be found in an afterlife.