Anyhow, over the last 20 years or so, my political views have grown more progressive, and that has accelerated over the last 6 or 7 years, where now I refer to myself as radically left in my politics. If you’re familiar with the political compass, here is where I sit.

As my politics have shifted, I’ve started to notice things in the LDS canon I hadn’t noticed before, seen things from new perspectives. At some point over the last few years, I came to the conclusion that LDS theology is well-positioned for leftist Christians.

The problem, however, is that right-wing politics have invaded Mormon theology over the last few decades as to either ignore or even distort its original social justice nature. That invasion is so pervasive that outsiders see Mormonism as only a conservative religion, with little to offer leftists. Even leftists themselves can’t see the social justice nature of LDS theology and eventually leave the church themselves.

What I wanted to do with this post is highlight some of the more radical elements of LDS theology and tenets, which I hope can then show how it has potential to be a home to leftists Christians, if the right-wing faction within the church can be moderated, if not converted.

Environment

This is one area that sets us apart from many (if not most) other Christian traditions. We have canon that specifically tells us to be wise in our use of the Earth’s resources:

Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;

Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.

And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.

D&C 59:18–20

Used with judgement. Used without excess. Used without extortion.

Right-wing Mormons don’t take this stance, often seeing climate change as undecided, or even a hoax. They do not see our role as stewards of the Earth, rather than owners of it. They may even see it as something to be dominated, rather than something that we must harmonize with.

Consider this video the church released about 7 years ago.

I find it interesting that the above scripture highlights that the resources of the earth aren’t just for use to eat, or wear, or build with, or burn. There are some things on the earth that are simply here as sensory pleasures, things for us to smell and see, things to bring us gladness and enliven our souls. Without conservation, some of the things we enjoy looking at or smelling today may not be there for us in the future.

Racism

The church has a problematic history with race. It banned Black members from holding the priesthood and attending the temple. It took Indigenous children out of their homes and placed them into white homes to be raised by white families. The Book of Mormon is replete with racist messaging. The premise of missionary work has colonial undertones to it.

That being said, there is also an egalitarian component to LDS theology.

As I said, racism permeates the text of the Book of Mormon. However, a careful reading of the text shows that the text isn’t instructing us to be racist, but that it is warning us to not be racist.

Much of the book speaks of racial animosity between two groups of people: one lighter skinned and the other darker skinned. And while there were some periods where portions of the two groups lived in harmony, much of the book has them in opposition to each other.

Except for a period of about 200 years, shortly after Jesus’ visit, when everyone lived in harmony and there was no ethnic or racial delineation.

There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

4 Nephi 1:17

Anti-capitalism

I have heard conservatives use the argument that the law of the harvest (see 2 Cor. 9:6 and Gal. 6:7) to justify their support of free and open markets.

The problem with this argument is that it’s just not true. In a capitalist society, no one reaps all of what they sow unless they’re self employed. Either you reap only a portion of what you sow or you reap a portion of what others sow.

I don’t think that the law of the harvest was meant to be applied to economic theory, but if it was, clearly it would be more closely related to something far more egalitarian than capitalism.

Related to this, Jesus taught at least one rich person to sell everything he owned and give it away to the poor. And when that person refused, he commented that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into heaven. (Mark 10:21–25). And related to that, Jesus taught that we cannot pursue both God and wealth (Matt. 6:24), that we cannot be truly Christian while also exploiting others for our own financial gain.

Plus, King Benjamin gave a profound sermon on caring for the poor, and even chastised those who judge the poor as being morally deficient, something we see even today.

And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon 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—

But 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 forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

Mosiah 4:16–18

In fact, King Benjamin considers caring for the poor so critical that he ties it directly to our ability to retain any remission of sins we receive:

And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—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.

Mosiah 4:26

Queer issues

This one is the trickiest one of all. There is very little in LDS canon that explicitly states that there’s nothing wrong with being queer. That being said, however, there is nothing in it that there’s anything wrong with it either. The canon is fairly silent on queer issues. Heck, they’re silent on sexuality in general.

This lack of commentary has made it very easy for right-wing homophobia to embed itself into LDS tenets, despite the canon being silent. But that lack of canonical commentary means that it’s also possible that the LDS church could instead embrace the queerness of any of its members.

While not explicit to queer issues, there are some scriptures that show us we need to do a better job than we are now regarding supporting queer people, if not downright implementing inclusive policies and practices.

Take the words of Alma, when he is about to baptize his followers at the Waters of Mormon

As ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort,

Mosiah 18:8–9

When our queer members are burdened by homophobia and transphobia, we don’t implement an exclusion policy that prevents them from having their children baptized. We bear those burdens; we take their burdens on our shoulders. We alleviate the burden caused by our own homophobia and transphobia. We call out their oppressors, so they don’t have to. We develop empathy for what they’re experiencing. We stand in solidarity with them.

Gender equality

This is another area with a problematic history within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The same church that practiced polygamy (which almost exclusively was a man with multiple wives and rarely a woman with multiple husbands) also marshalled its members to make sure Utah was one of the first places in the United States to allow women the right to vote (well, White women at least).

And certainly, the patriarchal nature of how to priesthood is organized within the church seems to exclude women to some degree. But there is nothing in LDS canon that precludes women from holding the priesthood. At times, they have even practiced it, particularly within the early church, and usually regarding laying on of hands. Even today, women administer certain priesthood ordinances within the temple. So allowing women to hold and exercise the priesthood is not without precedent.

Even Joseph Smith claimed that he was giving the Relief Society keys.

At the foundation of a potentially gender-inclusive priesthood is the belief in a feminine divine, a Heavenly Mother, who theoretically stands in equality with Heavenly Father, and together the two of them comprise what we refer to as “God”.

If Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father can be equal in power and responsibility, then so can men and women with the LDS church in how the hold and exercise the priesthood and fill leadership positions.

Humility

Throughout LDS canon is the idea of humility, but this is not a principle specific to Mormonism. Jesus himself taught it.

And while it may often be portrayed as a principle that encourages submissiveness to hierarchy and patriarchy, I think humility has another role. I believe that as we develop humility—especially those of us who are in positions of privilege—we will be more open to accepting correction and guidance from those we are allies for.

If we are humble, we will be less likely to think we are more right than those marginalized groups who we advocate for. If we are humble, we will be more likely to follow their lead instead of trying to lead them. If we are humble, we are more likely to accept when we are called out by them and more willing to heed their counsel.

And these are just some of the issues I could think of off the top of my head. There are plenty of others. There are very few social justice issues that could not be embraced by LDS theology and canon.

What the LDS church needs is more leftist members, not fewer. As leftist members leave, it further entrenches right-wing politics in its culture, practices, and policies. And these eventually are elevated as de facto doctrines.

No, what we need is for leftist members to stay, to push back, to restore the original social justice nature of the LDS gospel. What we need is to be able to restore LDS church practices to the point that when people ask for an example of what a Christian church really looks like, “the LDS church” is one of the first responses, rather than one of the last.

I have personally found several of the articles encouraging because they cover things I never learned growing up: things I learned only as an adult and only through blogs, podcasts, and anti-Mormon websites.

I don’t know why I never learned these things. What I do know is that I never learned them in Primary, Sunday School, Aaronic Priesthood classes, Seminary, or Institute, or even on my mission. I never read them in a church magazine (although recently a handful of them have appeared in Ensign issues) or lesson manuals.

I present below several recent articles and direct quote from each showing facts and ideas I had to learn through non-official channels.

Book of Mormon Translation

• “The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or ‘seer stone.’”
• “As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.”
• “Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters.”
• “According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.”

First Vision Accounts

• “he wrote or assigned scribes to write four different accounts of the vision.”
• “In addition to the firsthand accounts, there are also five descriptions of Joseph Smith’s vision recorded by his contemporaries.”
• “1832 account . . . He wrote that ‘the Lord’ appeared and forgave him of his sins.”
• “1835 account . . . the appearance of one divine personage who was followed shortly by another. This account also notes the appearance of angels in the vision.”

Race and the Priesthood

• “During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood.”
• “There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.”
• “In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood”
• “Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood.”

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

• “Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records.”
• “Neither the rules nor the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today.”
• “some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. ”
• “None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. ”
• “Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham”

Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints

• Everything in the section about the Danites
• Everything in the section about the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

• “Joseph married many additional wives”
• “The oldest [of Joseph’s wives], Fanny Young, was 56 years old. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph [at 14 years old].”
• “Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married.”
• “Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages in Nauvoo, and she accepted all four of those wives into her household.”
• “[Emma’s] decision to ‘receive not this law’ permitted him to marry additional wives without her consent.”

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

• “Under exceptional circumstances, a smaller number of new plural marriages were performed in the United States between 1890 and 1904”
• “Of the 315 marriages recorded in the ledger, research indicates that 25 (7.9%) were plural marriages . . . . Of the 25 plural marriages, 18 took place in Mexico, 3 in Arizona, 2 in Utah, and 1 each in Colorado and on a boat on the Pacific Ocean.”
• The entire section on The Second Manifesto.

I see these new articles as a step in a positive direction, where the Church has begun accepting the fact researchers have known for decades. I’m happy to see the Church moving towards openness and transparency on topics for which historians were excommunicated just a few short years ago.

I am happy my children can potentially grow up in a Church where these things are taught readily.

In God’s plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women.

In the October 1977 general conference, Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave a talk that was later titled “The Ten Blessings of the Priesthood”. Here are the 10 blessings he discussed:

1. We are members of the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth, and we have received the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
2. We have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, and we are entitled to receive the gifts of the Spirit—those wondrous spiritual endowments which set us apart from the world and raise us above carnal things.
3. We can be sanctified by the Spirit, have dross and evil burned out of us as though by fire, become clean and spotless, and be fit to dwell with gods and angels.
4. We can stand in the place and stead of the Lord Jesus Christ in administering salvation to the children of men.
5. We have power to become the sons of God, to be adopted into the family of the Lord Jesus Christ, to have him as our Father, to be one with him as he is one with his Father.
6. We can enter into the patriarchal order, the order of eternal marriage, the order which enables the family unit to continue everlastingly in celestial glory.
7. We have power to govern all things, both temporal and spiritual kingdoms of the world, and the elements and storms and powers of the earth.
8. We have power, through the priesthood, to gain eternal life, the greatest of all the gifts of God.
9. We have power to make our calling and election sure, so that while we yet dwell in mortality, having overcome the world and been true and faithful in all things, we shall be sealed up unto eternal life and have the unconditional promise of eternal life in the presence of Him whose we are.
10. We have the power—and it is our privilege—so to live, that becoming pure in heart, we shall see the face of God while we yet dwell as mortals in a world of sin and sorrow.

While several of these blessings seem clearly available to all, a handful don’t.

Consider #4, for example. We can stand in the place and stead of the Lord Jesus Christ in administering salvation to the children of men. Can women stand in the place of Jesus in administering salvation?

Or #7: We have power to govern all things, both temporal and spiritual kingdoms of the world, and the elements and storms and powers of the earth. Given that women are endowed to become queens and priestess, I think it is obvious they will be able to govern in the spiritual kingdom, but what about the temporal kingdom? Can women govern in the church?

What do you think? Are all blessings of the priesthood equally available to all members of the church?

Women don’t currently have the priesthood in the LDS church (well, some argue that some women have it but can exercise it in the temple endowment). Unless you’ve lived under a rock for the past month, you’re probably fully aware of this fact. It was all over the news, blogs, and social media.

I don’t want to hash out any of the related events that have occurred—there are are plenty of others who have done that. What I am interested in doing is exploring what the LDS church would look like if LDS women did receive the priesthood. (I have no idea if they ever will. Presumably, we’ll just have to wait to find out.)

Let’s assume at general conference this fall, President Monson announces that all females 12 and up were eligible to receive the priesthood. Here are some questions that I wonder about regarding such a scenario:

1. Would people fall away from the church?

I presume that there are some people who believe that the priesthood will always be given to males only. It has been a decades-old practice, and decades-old practices often become elevated to the status of doctrine even if there is no scriptural basis for them. As such, these same people might be convinced that women will never receive the priesthood. In our hypothetical example, what effect would such a change have on these people?

2. Would people label Thomas S. Monson a false prophet?

Wilford Woodruff’s Manifesto created a schism in the LDS church, eventually leading to the formation of factions that still supported polygamy. They felt polygamy was instituted of God, and President Woodruff denouncing it made him not of God.

3. Would people accept it?

When Spencer Kimball announced in 1978 that priesthood ordination would no longer be based on race, the majority of the church accepted it. It created no schism like Woodruff’s announcement did. Undoubtedly, some left because of racist attitudes toward priesthood, but statistically, there was no fallout from it.

4. How would it affect sex-based discourse in the church?

If women and older girls received the priesthood, what would it mean for sex-based discussions in the church?

• Motherhood–priesthood parallel
• Fathers presiding vs. women nurturing
• Mission ages and service duration
• Personal Priesthood Interview dynamics
• Motherhood being the noblest calling
• Young Women values
• Home teaching dynamics
• Role of men specifically in the church
• And so forth

There seems to be a lot missing from the current dichotomous discussion online. Rather than talking about whether men should hold the priesthood, perhaps we need to start talking about what things would like like if women held the priesthood.

?¢‚Ǩ?ìThe man that honors his priesthood, the woman that honors her priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 17, p. 119)

I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on this.

Everyone seemed to be content with that comparison until someone mentioned men in the church also have the role of fatherhood.

It would seem that fatherhood would be more directly related to motherhood than priesthood is. If that is so, then what female role would be parallel to the male role of priesthood bearer?

———————————————

?Ǭ†After President Hinckley finished with the sustaining of the officers
?Ǭ†of the church during the Saturday morning session, Elder Eyring had
?Ǭ†moved into his new seat on the stand. Unfortunately, they didn’t show
?Ǭ†this on TV, but when President Hinckley turned around, he stood there
?Ǭ†for a moment looking at Elder Eyring (probably with the little twinkle
?Ǭ†in his eye), then picked up his cane and “knighted” him on his
?Ǭ†shoulder and head. Truly one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen
?Ǭ†him do.

?Ǭ†Here’s the picture from it. I love how Elder Erying looks just like a
?Ǭ†little boy….
?Ǭ†
http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/4668085.jpg?Ǭ†

We were treated to this twice yesterday before our bishopric’s first counselor got up and pointed out the error to the frustrated, young priest.

?Ǭ†Then, we heard the following:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat it in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

At which point the first counselor nodded his approval, not wanting to drag out the scene any more. (The bishop and?Ǭ†second counselor were away, so “Number One” was flying solo.)

After the sacrament was done and the Aaronic priesthood were dismissed, “Number One” felt inspired to give us a short, five minute talk about how valiant, and worthy, and diligent the young men were in performing their sacramental duty.?Ǭ† I think this was meant to somehow help the young priest save face, although it was just out of place and awkward to listen to.

But why go through all the effort of correcting him the first time, and why give the little speech at the end if you are?Ǭ†ultimately going to let the prayer be said incorrectly??Ǭ† What harm would there be to having him do it a fourth time, to hopefully get it right??Ǭ† Why was he more concerned about hurting the young fella’s feelings than getting the ordinance done correctly?

Which makes me wonder… does it really matter if the prayer was said correctly??Ǭ† If three wrong attempts are good enough, then surly two would have done the trick.?Ǭ† Did all 200 of us yesterday actually renew our covenants or did we just have a snack?

On a weekly basis, I get a few more drops of courage to actually raise my hand.

?Ǭ†Why is it that we don’t oppose when it’s how we feel sometimes??Ǭ† I must admit, I have never done it in a public meeting.?Ǭ† The closest I ever got was a few weeks ago when I had a PPI / HT interview with the EQP.?Ǭ† I told them point blank that I opposed a number of things they were doing in the quorum.?Ǭ† I didn’t try to be a jerk about it, but I let them know how I felt and why.?Ǭ† And, then to make it clear, I told them if they continued, I could not sustain them.?Ǭ† I / They left it there.?Ǭ† Nothing has changed.?Ǭ† They now know where I stand.

So, I’m thinking about our ward and stake conference that are comming up, where I’ll have another chance to oppose in public.?Ǭ† Honestly, I don’t know that I have the guts to do it.?Ǭ† I think I’d be more inclined to not raise my hand to sustain and afterwards, go to whoever and voice my opposition.?Ǭ† I admit that is the easier way out.

Today, we have the recitation of the “Purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood”. I first noticed this about 5?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú6 years ago. After priesthood opening exercises, we would all stand and some poor deacon would go up to the front and recite the purposes one at a time while the rest of the priesthood congregation would follow.

I will strive to fulfil the purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood by:

• Becoming converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and live its teachings,
• Serve faithfully in priesthood callings and fulfill the responsibilities of priesthood offices,
• Give meaningful service,
• Prepare and live worthy to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and temple ordinances,
• Prepare to serve an honourable full time mission,
• Obtain as much education as possible,
• Prepare to become a worthy husband and father,
• Give proper respect to women, girls, and children

I’ve seen this in every ward I’ve attended since. I can recite these by memory now. I’m sure this is some feeble attempt to help raise the bar. Who knows, perhaps it is having some positive effect.

But after the recitation, some young priesthood holder will get up and report on the last young mens activity.

I guess what I can’t figure out is how a LAN party or playing paint-ball fits into any of those purposes.