The aim of Caleb Smitherson’s article “Scriptural Support for Taxation” is “to show that the scriptures authorize taxation” and is based, somewhat ironically, on the stewardship principle. This raises the immediate question of how an individual could justly take (i.e., steal) from another based on, of all things, stewardship. The principle of stewardship is derived from properly recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate owner, as Creator, of the earth, and that man is accountable and responsible for temporary ownership of His property. But how does one make the enormous leap that one man can then take from another man because the Lord owns the earth? Wouldn’t it be true that man would have even less justification for taking from another as he would ultimately be taking from the Lord? Can some men not be accountable and responsible for taking from another? Say it ain’t so!
Nevertheless, Caleb’s method is a worthy one: to use the scriptures as support for the assertion that the case can be made for a just tax, or as Caleb writes, “justified in the eyes of the Lord.” Hence, my reply to his article is to show that the scriptures he uses can actually be employed to justify the opposite conclusion: the scriptures do not authorize taxation.
Taxation in the Book of Mormon
Caleb’s first example is to use Alma 11:3, but verses 1-3 give a bit more context[i]:
1 Now it was in the law of Mosiah that every man who was a judge of the law, or those who were appointed to be judges, should receive wages according to the time which they labored to judge those who were brought before them to be judged.
2 Now if a man owed another, and he would not pay that which he did owe, he was complained of to the judge; and the judge executed authority, and sent forth officers that the man should be brought before him; and he judged the man according to the law and the evidences which were brought against him, and thus the man was compelled to pay that which he owed, or be stripped, or be cast out from among the people as a thief and a robber.
3 And the judge received for his wages according to his time—a senine of gold for a day, or a senum of silver, which is equal to a senine of gold; and this is according to the law which was given.
From verse 3 Caleb contrasts what he calls a judge’s “set wage,” according to time spent in government, with a lawyer’s “market wage,” or “wages according to… employ.” He believes this means the “set wage” was somehow a uniform tax upon the people that was taken and given to the judges. Yet the passage merely says judges received wages according to time spent in the judgment seat. How is this different than paying for any service on the market? Paying someone for a specified amount of time, e.g., 4 hours of court time, is certainly not the same thing as a tax upon those who do not even use such services. The passage does not say their remuneration is necessarily in the form of a tax.
Verses 1 make this clear and points out the judges received wages according to time—not as employees of a government who receive taxes for their entire subsistence—but only for actual services performed. Verse 2 even gives an example of such a service. A man was found guilty of theft and was compelled to pay “that which he owed” as restitution. The judge received money for time spent on this trial. But, again, this is simply an example of how any service is performed in the market, not definitively an example of a tax. Had the judge finished the trial and gone to the beach for the rest of the day he would not have received a wage.
Caleb believes it can be “inferred” that judges’ wages were “obtained from tax revenue.” But this inference is certainly not correct as is shown through the context of verses 1 and 2 (and even, as Caleb uses, only verse 3). In fact, the opposite conclusion can be drawn: judges explicitly did not (and therefore should not) receive taxes as income; they only receive money—voluntarily—for time spent and services provided, probably by those who use them. Such services do not require a state or taxation to exist, as is demonstrated by any voluntary service (e.g., a back massage) in the market. (Incidentally, the libertarian idea of non-aggression is also demonstrated through the use of someone being made an outcast, or “cast out… as a thief or robber.”)
The next scripture Caleb uses is Alma 30:33. To provide context, Korihor is causing people to “lift up their heads in wickedness” and “commit whoredoms” (Alma 30:18). For this and other offenses he is brought before Alma and the chief judge. Verse 31 shows the accusation made against Alma by Korihor:
31 And he did rise up in great swelling words before Alma, and did revile against the priests and teachers, accusing them of leading away the people after the silly traditions of their fathers, for the sake of glutting on the labors of the people. (emphasis added)
In other words, Korihor is saying Alma is using the “labors of the people” (similar to a tax) for his support. Alma’s response is instructive:
32 Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people. (emphasis added)
Alma defends himself against Korihor’s accusation by pointing out that he labored with “[his] own hands for [his] support.” But this is referring to when he is preaching the gospel and performing other duties of the church. What about support for those who serve as judges?
After Alma responded how using another man’s labor when preaching the gospel is not just, he refers to services performed by a chief judge. This is where Caleb uses verse 33:
33 And not withstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment seat; and then we received only according to the law for our time.
Similar to his understanding of Alma 11:3, Caleb uses the following reasoning: “These wages were obtained in government service. The money to pay the wages was obtained through taxation.” This passage is essentially no different than the verse above. Judges were paid according to time for their service according to law, but how and by whom this payment was made is not explicit. The law specified the amount they were paid per day if their time was spent in the judgment seat (Alma 11:3), but not that the method of collection would be a tax.
To assume the above verses implies a tax would require understanding how taxes would fit with other passages in the Book of Mormon that treat the issue more explicitly, making no radical inferences necessary. (Other, perhaps less direct, although equally valid, scriptures such as “thou shalt not steal” would also need to be reconciled with Caleb’s contention.) Every time taxes are levied in the Book of Mormon (i.e., every time “tax” is mentioned) they are by wicked men and viewed as keeping the people in bondage and captivity—as slaves—and usually contrasted with the concepts of freedom and liberty. There are four passages that treat this issue (see here for more elaboration on this), three of them definitively negative, and one of them illustrative of how a righteous king did not use taxes so as not to burden his people.
For example, in Mosiah 7:15 we read of how taxation is viewed as being in bondage, turning people into slaves—hardly a concept that would come from someone who said the truth shall make us free (John 8:32):
15 For behold, we are in bondage to the Lamanites, and are taxed with a tax which is grievous to be borne. And now, behold, our brethren will deliver us out of our bondage, or out of the hands of the Lamanites, and we will be their slaves; for it is better that we be slaves to the Nephites than to pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites.
There is also the classic example of wicked King Noah (Mosiah 11:2–3):
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.
3 And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.
And in Ether 10:5–6 we find a tax system essentially the same as the US system in the sense that those who did not pay would be put into prison:
5 And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings.
6 And he did erect him an exceedingly beautiful throne; and he did build many prisons, and whoso would not be subject unto taxes he did cast into prison; and whoso was not able to pay taxes he did cast into prison; and he did cause that they should labor continually for their support; and whoso refused to labor he did cause to be put to death.
Finally, in recognizing the burden of taxation, King Benjamin provides a counter-example and shows how part of his righteousness came from not levying a tax (Mosiah 2:14):
14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
Caleb would have to explain how the scriptures he uses mesh with other scriptures in the Book of Mormon. Not only has he not done this, but I think the task is impossible. The Book of Mormon simply does not support and justify the use of taxation.
The Old Testament and Taxation
But perhaps the Old Testament will be more supportive of Caleb’s view. He uses Exodus 18 while correctly noting that “[it] does not mention in that chapter whether the judges are paid for their labor or not.” However, Caleb’s overall intent is to show whether the scriptures provide support for taxation as a means to support government, presumably applying this to modern-day governments. But Exodus 18 is about the system of judges that Moses, a Prophet of God, chose from “able men out of all Israel” (Exodus 18: 25) to teach people the laws, statutes, and commandments of God. Even if a tax were specified in Exodus 18 it would not be correct to apply this to “non-Israelites” in a modern-day setting.
Caleb then proceeds to what he considers the strongest support for his argument. He uses statements made by Samuel and, again, believes “it can be inferred that the judges were paid in a manner similar to the Nephites (according to their time). . . . with money acquired from tax revenue.” Caleb points out that Samuel is rehearsing to the people what the Lord had told him, including all of the evils the king would commit if the people so chose—because they had already rejected the Lord as King (1 Samuel 8:7). Most of these evils included what the king would take, i.e., steal, from the people. Among this list were sons, daughters, fields, vineyards, menservants, and maidservants, hardly the example of righteousness. Samuel then says the wicked king would also take a “tenth of [their] seed… vineyards… [and] sheep” (Exodus 18:15, 17).
Despite Samuel’s explanation that the king would take 10% for his own nefarious purposes, Caleb somehow sees this as a justification from the Lord for a 10% tax rate! He believes if it was really evil it would be higher than 10%. Caleb writes:
Why only ten percent? If the king is so tyrannical, why would he stop at ten percent, why not twenty or thirty percent? I believe this verse reveals a key limitation imposed upon the government, by the Lord, on the rate of taxation.
But Exodus 18 is portraying the king as evil because he is taking 10%, not because he isn’t taking 20%! How can this be used as a justification for government taking 10%? I think this is because Caleb assumes that because 10% is used it must somehow be the tithe. But obviously tithing is not taken but given voluntarily, and the passage clearly demonstrates that the king is evil because he is taking the property and labor of the people. The only connection between tithing and the tenth in Exodus 18 happens to be the number 10.
Surely this passage is anything but a justification for what Caleb is arguing: a just 10% tax. Remember, this is an evil king that is given because the people rejected the Lord. How can this somehow be designated as approved by the Lord?
Conclusion
Caleb believes his conclusion—that there is scriptural support for taxation—can be inferred from the verses he has used. The examples of chief judges who received wages according to time and a wicked king are used as supporting evidence. Yet these do not hold up to further scrutiny. (He later even makes an argument from non-evidence: that there is likely support for his case from the plain and precious parts that were removed from the scriptures.)
Caleb “believe[s] these concepts are in the scriptures for a reason” yet I do not think they are in there to support taxation, as a proper understanding of them shows they actually contradict what he is advocating and that one can more legitimately reach the opposite conclusion. While Caleb’s intention and method are noble, I believe his understanding is off the mark. The scriptures he uses simply do not authorize taxation and do not fit with other scriptures and gospel principles. And while a 10% tax is certainly better than an 11%—as the Book of Mormon and other scriptures show—no slavery is better than even a little.
[i] It needs to be pointed out that there are many forms of government in the Book of Mormon, and this is merely one form, i.e., no justification is given for why it is the (only) correct one.
D&C 101:79–80
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
D&C 109:54
54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.
D&C 98:4–10
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
Perhaps the US Constitution should be what we derive if and what “taxes” should be paid… If the founders of this country were good and wise men perhaps their example of what we do should be followed. The real debate should be what amendments are Constitutional and existed at the time of Joseph. All men act according to their understanding… what better understanding than to repeal an unConstitutional 16th amendment and show others that perhaps there are too many burdensome taxes and dwindle them down. Will we be required to submit to those that want a global tax and government not authorized or intended by the US Constitution?
I could not agree more with your advocacy of the Constitution, and especially “at the time of Joseph”!. This is preciesly the crux of where we are, and gives us exact bounds within which to properly frame the argument. Not only is the 16th ammendment unlawfull under the constitution, but so is much of today’s current Federal government structure, and especially “Old Age Survivor and Disability Insurance” (commonly known as Social Security), and the Medicaid/Medicare legislation passed by LBJ in 1965. Modern day prophets have been very vociferous against the rise of the state, and the peoples dependence on the government. Review the words of men of God such as Heber J. Grant, David O. McKay, Ezra Taft Benson, or even the teachings of th eProphet Joseph.
Even while Christ walked the Earth, he told his disciples to render unto Ceasar that which was Ceasar’s. This was a response to his disciple asking about taxes, and why should Christ have to pay. We know that we are subject to those kingdoms and places in which we are born. As a people born within the United States, we have much more say as to what should be taxed, and we have the ability to be much more involved in the process of saying “No!”, than anywhere else.
Therefore, it is our God given responsibility to do all that we can to halt the abuses of the tax man, and, if possible, minimize the further erosion of the value of our dollar by placing safeguards upon it. Perhaps a fixed tax is best. We then would have less money going to the employees of the IRS (I think there might be a major lay-off), and a lot more to those things which our federal government has Constitutional rights spend it on. There might even be so much available money, our national debt would start to decrease!
Regardless, we must each ask God what he would have us do, and then put our shoulder to the wheel in faith. Bless you all, and keep your powder dry!
Kevin (Son of Jefferson) Decker
The imposition of tax upon citizens, those who are beneficiaries of government’s protection actually rendered to it’s citizens, and to pay for services government may provide as well, may have provisional justification, so long as, in the system of the United States of America, the people are able to retain their right to accept or reject services offered and to consent or not consent to accepting the protections offered, making the taxation consentual and voluntary.
Citizenship in this country is a political decision. Commitment to become a citizen is a matter of becoming subject to political manipulations of political factions and is an understanding lost to most American’s minds where “good citizenship” is taught to be an unquestionable foundation stone of being a worthy member of society.
Gabriel cannot be taken seriously, for he makes connections where none exist and finds justification for taxation upon people without clearly analyzing the cites he refers to. His perspective would quickly allow taxation to be imposed upon everyone and everything to the point of annihilating any distinction between a subject of political gangs and a supposed freeman. Unfortunately his thinking is all too common in a society steeped and conditioned for a lifetime in the apologies and ongoing usurpations for taxation of a free people.
The assumptions implied by the theme quotes this website posts as points of departure are also insufficiently clear, standing by themselves, to offer a sustainable defense against usurpations from many fronts, and leaves the believer defenseless against them.
Deeper analysis of the subject is necessary. The LDS church has taken on attitudes and policies that assume everyone is a citizen, is subject to taxation, and must file and pay in order to be in good standing. Such a generalized policy leaves discussion and analysis lost in the rush to conformity, and seems to be a disservice to members, who, above all people, ought to be left to their own private mental analysis and conscientious decisions as to where they personally stand in the politicized landscape.
The LDS church has taken on attitudes and policies that assume everyone is a citizen, is subject to taxation, and must file and pay in order to be in good standing.
—————————————————————————————————————
I have never understood that this was a sentiment that was held as any church policy or
“understanding”. To the contrary, I feel that the leaders of the church have encouraged people to seek wisdom from the best books. I hold to the position that the Spirit being the revealer of all truth and the ultimate Teacher, will instruct every man to the extent that he is able to understand truth. The principles of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Fedralist Papers, and other works of the Founders, are self-evident eternal truths, that everyone needs to understand. For this reason, I say that for myself, I know that the overreaching Federal Government as currently constituted, with the volumes of unconstitutional rules, regulation and administrative red tape should be abolished if we are to ever restore this country to a true land of freedom. Currently we do not know freedom as intended by God or the Founders, and we will not unless we as individuals, and families can begin to understand these basic truths for ourselves, then teach them to all who are willing to lend a listening ear, not unlike the need to proclaim the Gospel to all those who will hear.
Karson said, “The LDS church has taken on attitudes and policies that assume everyone is a citizen, is subject to taxation, and must file and pay in order to be in good standing.”
I wonder how much of that is because doing such keeps us out of jail and able to fulfill our covenants (to God and our families)? Though it may be right to resist your illegitimate master, it may not always be wise.
Have any of you read Jesus Is an Anarchist (A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is–otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.) by James Redford?
Read it here: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
Any thoughts?
I have read that and found it a very interesting look at the life of Christ. I’m actually planning (hopefully) a short article on the relevant parts and Christmas. ^_^.
I too found it very interesting and very logical. I am not sure what to make of this line of thought. Am I being deceived by the sophistry of men?
I don’t think so. It just goes to show how short the governments of men fall compared to the Kingdom of God.
Pingback: But King Mosiah Levied a Tax – A reply to Chris Brown | LDS Freemen
My response and dismissal of the conclusions reached by Chris is located here:
http://www.ldsfreemen.com/kingmosiahstax/
Pingback: Libertarianism – A Correction To Caleb Smitherson | LDS Freemen