I found the citations they used to justify their homophobic restrictions intriguing, and I thought I’d take a look at their statements here.

First, Oaks:

God’s plan, founded on eternal truth, requires that exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman in the holy temple

Then Nelson:

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities.

It’s interesting how strong the language is in both quotes. Oaks says that God’s plan requires that exaltation comes only to a man and a woman who are married in the temple (through their faithfulness). Nelson claims that the Lord clearly taught that “together forever” only comes to a husband and a wife sealed in the temple.

Requires.

Clearly taught.

Those are confident choices.

The problem, however, is that there is absolutely no scriptural evidence for these claims. And the scriptural sources they cite don’t support their argument.

Oaks, for example, cites two scriptures: 1 Corinthians 11:11 and Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20.

Here’s 1 Cor. 11:11:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Paul is not talking about eternal marriage in this passage. Let’s look at the surround verses for context:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

You see, this passage isn’t talking about eternal marriage or exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Rather, it’s discussing the interdependence of men and woman in a relationship. I mean, technically, he’s not even saying “husband” and ”wife”.

Now, let’s look at D&C 132:19–20

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

This passage only says that if a man marries a wife they shall receive exaltation and glory in all things. Granted, it has a few prequisites:

• The marriage has to be done by the Lord’s law
• The marriage has to be done by the new and everlasting covenant
• The marriage has to be sealed the Holy Spirit of promise
• The man can’t commit murder through shedding innocent blood

Regardless, the point being is that it’s speaking about any given man: “if a man marry a wife”. It doesn’t say that a man must marry a wife to “pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things”.

I mean, if I eat take a shower, my body will get wet, but that doesn’t mean I can only get wet by taking a shower. I could go swimming, for example. Or someone could spray me with a hose. Or I could fall into a puddle.

Now let’s look at the scripture that Nelson used to justify is exclusionary claim, which was also found in D&C 132, but this time in verse 7:

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

This isn’t even talking about marriage specifically. It’s just saying that earthly contracts have no effect in heaven unless they are “made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise”. I guess you could make the argument that it implies that marriages performed outside of the temple won’t last into the eternities.

Here’s the thing though. While Oaks and Nelson are suggesting that same-sex couples (and even opposite sex couples, where one of them is trans, if we’re being honest here) are restricted from exaltation (although they don’t explicitly say tha—it is pretty strongly implied), it’s only because the church won’t let them get sealed.

If exaltation of a couple depends on a sealing by the Holy Spirit of promise and that sealing takes place only in the temple (which D&C 132 doesn’t state, but let’s say that current practice is condoned by God), the only reason these couples can’t be exalted together is that church policy prevents them from being sealed in the temple.

We see similar wording in the previous section of the Doctrine and Covenants:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

D&C 131:1–4

Once again, a man must enter in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage to received the highest degree of celestial glory. it doesn’t even say that he needs to marry a woman in this case. Nor does it say anything about women having the same requirements.

Even so, if the so-called “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” refers to temple sealing, then any policy that stops a man from obtaining a temple sealing is also preventing him from attaining the highest degree. of celestial glory.

For decades, the church prohibited Black men from getting sealed in the temple. Had the church not cancelled that racist policy, Black men around the world would continue to be restricted from attaining the highest degree of celestial glory, not because of their own failings, but because of the policies the church itself implemented.

(And, of course, so would all Black people, not just men.)

The current practice to prohibit some queer couples from being sealed is based in policy, not scripture. Just as was the case for the prohibition based on skin colour.

And policies can change.

Oh, and one last thing. Have Oaks and Nelson forgotten that the section they cited—Doctrine and Covenants 132—is outlining the practice of plural marriage? Seems a tad ironic.

As most people probably know, the story opens with the Lord telling Jonah to go preach to the residents of Ninevah, and Jonah abdicates this call by running away.

At the start of the lesson, the instructor asked the class why they thought Jonah was running away from the call, and most of the responses centred around the idea that Jonah was afraid of the Assyrians because of what they did to the Israelites.

But I think the answer to this question comes in verse two of the fourth chapter:

And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

The word for is the key to understanding this verse. This word has many meanings, but one of those meanings is that it is synonymous with the word because.

We could rewrite that part as: “I fled before unto Tarshish because I knew that thou art a gracious God, merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness”.

In other words, Jonah knew that the Lord would be able to change the people of Ninevah. You see, Jonah didn’t try to hide because he was afraid of what the Assyrians might do to him if he did as the Lord asked. He tried to hide because he was afraid that the people of Ninevah would repent and, in the process, be spared from destruction.

And because of his own biases and prejudices, he wanted them destroyed.

The first verse of that same chapter tells the reader that Jonah is angry. We sometimes interpret that to mean that Jonah was angry that the people of Ninevah weren’t destroyed.

But check out verse 3:

Wherefore now, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.

When we look at this verse in connection to verse 2, it seems to indicate that he wasn’t angry at the people of Ninevah not being destroyed. Rather, he seems angry at himself. He seems to recognize that his initial response to the prophetic call—to ignore preaching repentance so the people of Ninevah wouldn’t change and then not be saved from destruction—was wrong, and that realization now filled him with anguish.

One other lesson I learned was when the people on the ship that Jonah was travelling on and that was stuck in a violent storm cast lots to see who was responsible for the storm.

Up to this point, Jonah remained silent as to being the reason for the storm, assuming he had realized the connection between the storm and his abdication. He seems to have hid it for as long as he could. Even right up to the point where they are casting lots, he still hasn’t said anything. It wasn’t until the lot fell on him that he comes clean.

But how many of us are like that? How many times have you tried to hide responsibility for something you have done, whether denying it was you, blaming someone else, or just playing innocent, yet even when the evidence is pointing toward you being the culprit, you still dig in and deny your involvement?

At least Jonah had the integrity to come clean. Granted, he could’ve come clean much earlier, too.

I think the story of Jonah has more nuance and complexity than we are normally willing to give it.

No creature is so lowly,
No sinner so depraved,
But feels thy presence holy
And thru thy love is saved.
Tho craven friends betray thee,
They feel thy love’s embrace;
The very foes who slay thee
Have access to thy grace

This verse reminded me of Luke 23:34, when Jesus, hanging on the cross, said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And those two things—the second verse of the hymn and this verse from the Gospels—prompted me to ponder this idea of universal grace.

I was left wondering how if anyone can access Jesus’s grace, even his enemies—those particularly who violently persecuted him—and I am someone who wants to be like Jesus, then perhaps showing grace is something I can do better at.

Perhaps I can show grace for those who are unkind toward me. Perhaps I can be more empathetic and compassionate toward those who try to harm me. Perhaps I can love my enemies, do good to them who hate me, bless them who curse me, and pray for them who despitefully use me.

Which can be tough to do, given that our first instinct is often to lash out, to take offense, to feel hurt, or to seek revenge. And then our heart becomes hardened and our mind preoccupied with harm toward others. The kindness shown to us propagates the unkindness we now show to others.

Grace, I think, can offer us freedom—freedom from anger and retribution. And in the process of extending grace to others, including those who harm us, we can find ourselves on the path to developing the love of Christ.

Here’s the text from that sermon

In the early to mid 20th century, a new kind of gospel began to emerge among various Christian denominations in the United States. Known today as the prosperity gospel, it’s basically the teaching that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God, and that as we have more faith, speak more positively, and donate more to religious causes, our material wealth will increase. In other words, the more righteous you are, the more you’ll be blessed.

The prosperity gospel has a certain appeal to it, particularly among Christians living within a neoliberal capitalist society that emphasizes the importance of self sufficiency, individualism, and the accumulation of wealth.

Even the Book of Mormon has verses, which, if isolated from their context, could be interpreted as supportive of the prosperity gospel.

For example, in chapter 2 of Mosiah, King Benjamin preaches to the people of Zarahemla:

[God] has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments, he doth bless you and prosper you.

Mosiah 2:22

Even then, King Benjamin was echoing the words from generations before when Nephi wrote in what is now the fourth chapter of 1 Nephi:

And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

1 Nephi 4:14

And just as Nephi’s words were written generations before King Benjamin spoke his, Alma the Younger spoke similar words generations after King Benjamin, in counsel he gave to his oldest son, Helaman, found in what we know today as Alma 36:

My son, give ear to my words; for I swear unto you, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God, ye shall prosper in the land.

Alma 36:1

There is a danger, however, in trying to wedge a 20th-century idea into a gospel originating in the humble and selfless life of Jesus.

Consider the believing saints of Ammonihah, in the Book of Mormon, who were burned alive because they believed in the word of God. How did their unwavering faith increase their material wealth?

Or the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who took an oath of pacivity, burying their weapons deep in the earth and prostrating themselves on the ground before the advancing armies, only to be violently slaughtered by the hundreds for their dedication. How was their physical health enhanced through their righteous devotion?

Clearly righteousness doesn’t always lead to material prosperity.

Consider also the examples of Alma the Younger, King Mosiah’s sons, and Saul, all of whom were persecuting church members of their time when they received divine visitations. Certainly, righteousness isn’t a requirement for divine intervention.

And yet, how often have we heard from the pulpit that if we pay our tithing, for example, we will be blessed financially? 

I’ve always been a faithful tithe payer—always—yet when Mary and I were new parents standing in a grocery store with our last $20, trying to decide between buying food for us or diapers for our newborn, I didn’t feel like we were prospering. When I was scrounging through the furniture to scrape together enough change to buy one bag of fruit for Mary, who was pregnant with our oldest child, I didn’t feel like we were prospering. When we were trying to live off of $5000 in student loans for an entire year and the income from a part-time, minimum-wage job, I didn ’t feel like we were prospering. When I had to go to the bishop to get a food order, I didn’t feel like we were prospering. When I went to that same bishop a second time because our financial situation hadn’t changed and we were still hungry the next month, but he shamed and humiliated me for not working hard enough and so I never went back for a food order from that bishop or any of the other 6 bishops we’ve had since then, I didn’t feel like we were prospering. When I was laid off from two jobs in three years, I didn’t feel like we were prospering. When I had to walk downtown from the Westside to cash my paycheque because we had no money for a single bus ride and there were no banks on the Westside at the time, I didn’t feel like we were prospering. But I never missed a tithing payment.

Furthermore, I’ve never drank even one cup of coffee, never smoked even one cigarette, never drank even an ounce of alcohol, yet my osteoarthritis, kyphosis, asthma, and scoliosis don’t feel like I’ve been blessed physically for my obedience to the Word of Wisdom. I literally cannot run without being weary. Having knees and ankles and hips where the cartilage has worn away means any extensive running I can do results in sore joints for hours, if not days. And that’s assuming I am able to overcome the overwhelming burning of my asthmatic lungs while running.

I believe that the prosperity gospel—the idea that we see material gains because of our righteousness—is out of place in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It sets people up to believe, like I did all those years ago, that if bad things happen to them, it’s because they haven’t been righteous enough.

Jesus Christ taught, in contrast, that we should live our lives independent of the accumulation of wealth.

When the rich ruler came to him, asking, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”, Jesus answered, “Lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” (see Luke 18:18–22)

In our study of the Come Follow Me curriculum two weeks ago, we read the words of Isaiah, in chapter 55, that we are not to “spend money for that which is not bread and [our] labour for that which satisfieth not”. (v. 2) The prophet Jacob, one of Nephi’s younger brothers, echoed this counsel in the ninth chapter of 2 Nephi, when he said, “Do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy.” (v. 51)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns his followers that it is impossible for us to follow both God and mammon, or riches. He then counsels us that we’re to “take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.” (Matt. 6:25) He advises us that there‘s more to life than what we eat and that what we wear doesn’t determine the worth of our body. The entire point of this part of his sermon isn’t that the Lord will bless us with more if we’re more righteous, but rather that he’ll take care of our needs if we seek first his kingdom.

The early saints, at least according to the second and fourth chapters of Acts, seemed to follow this counsel, selling all their possessions, redistributing the proceeds to others according to their needs, and living together communally, having all things in common.

The people of the Americas, following Jesus’s visit, lived in a similar economic system, where all things were held in common and they had abolished wealth inequality. Plus, there was no longer any crime, there were all sorts of miracles, they had eliminated racism, and they continued to keep the commandments, to fast, to pray, and to meet together often to learn of God. (see 4 Nephi)

Over a century before, the people of Alma the Older, who baptized them at the waters of Mormon, were taught to “impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had”: in other words, those who had more abundantly were to impart more abundantly. (Mosiah 18:27)

It seems to me that Jesus taught us that it’s impossible to serve both God and riches because the pursuit of riches interferes with our ability to serve God.

King Benjamin, in what is now the fourth chapter of Mosiah, warns us about hoarding our accumulated wealth and refusing to redistribute it to those who need it. First, he commands us to give to those in need.

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.

Mosiah 4:16

Then, King Benjamin warns us against withholding our substance from those in need, based on nothing but our own prejudices and biases:

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

Mosiah 4:17

This is precisely what I was talking about earlier regarding the dangers of the prosperity gospel. Believing that we are blessed materially reciprocal to our obedience can foster within us a bias towards those who suffer materially, judging that they do so because of personal moral failings. “They didn’t work as hard as I did, so why should I give them some of my hard earned money?”.

However, King Benjamin harshly chastises those who harbour such prejudices:

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.

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?…  And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance…

I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.

Mosiah 4:18–23

Even the law of consecration, which we covenant in the temple to observe, requires that we consecrate all with which the Lord has blessed us towards the establishment of Zion, a society where the pure in heart live together in unity. 

Our motivation for being more righteous should never be the accumulation of blessings. We shouldn’t pay tithing because money might arrive unexpectedly in our mailbox so we can afford the rest of our bills, or live the Word of Wisdom so we might run faster than our teammates, or live the mission rules so we can marry a beautiful spouse. The bestowal of blessings isn’t a sticker chart, where we trade in our tasks of obedience for a pouch of silver or gold.

Our motivation for being more righteous should be, instead, a sincere desire to become more like Jesus, to develop a pure love for everyone, regardless of their political stripe, their sexuality, their ethnic background, or their economic status; a pure love that nurtures a sincere desire to succor those who need succor, mourn with those who mourn, comfort those needing comfort, and yoke ourselves to the burdens of others (Mosiah 18:8–9); a pure love that motivates us to lay down our life for our new friends (John 15:13), whether literally, as Jesus had done, or figuratively in a life of selfless service.

The prosperity we should seek isn’t the riches of the world, but the glory of God.

In section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord promises us that if “ye keep my commandments you shall receive of his fullness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.” (v. 20) 

Grace for grace. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, for that is how Jesus received his glory. John the Beloved, in that same chapter, said of the Saviour:

I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness.

D&C 93:11–13

When God does bless us materially, it isn’t for us to accumulate wealth or increase status, to elevate ourselves above others. The Lord has admonished us that it is his will that the first shall be last and the last shall be first, (Matt. 20:16) that those who exalt themselves shall be abased and those who are humbled shall be exalted (Matt. 23:12). The Lord wants an egalitarian society, one free of class division, where no one has more than another, where there is no rich and poor and no bond and free, but all are alike unto God.

When we are sitting around the Thanksgiving supper table tomorrow, reciting all the blessings we are grateful for, perhaps we can take some time to ponder on why we’ve been blessed with those things. Was that blessing for our material benefit or for us to use for the material benefit of others?

This term is often seen in progressive Mormon circles to refer to active, stereotypical members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rarely is it ever used by those to whom it is meant to refer.

But I’ve been thinking about this recently, and I’m questioning its usage.

Why is a member of the LDS church only true believing if the follow right-wing talking points?

Why don’t we call someone TBM who comforts those who need comfort, who bears others’ burdens, or who mourns with others (Mosiah 18:8–9)?

Why don’t we call someone TBM who advocates for the use of the earth’s resources to be done without extortion or excess (D&C 59:20)?

Why don’t we call someone TBM who advocates for the redistribution of wealth (4 Ne. 1:3; Acts 2:44–45)?

Why don’t we call someone TBM who stands up for queer people, both within and without the church, despite there being nothing in LDS canon that says queerness is wrong?

Why don’t we call someone TBM who prays to Heavenly Mother?

Why don’t we call someone TBM who believes in a universal priesthood, especially given that Joseph Smith seemed to indicate that he was giving the Relief Society members the priesthood?

And so on.

The whole premise of “TBM” just further underscores the idea that there is only one way to be a Mormon, and it others (and pushes away) those who don’t fit into that mold, those who try to follow their faith as expressed in the scriptures.

The Gospel Principles manual, as an example, states that “repentance is the way provided for us to become free from our sins and receive forgiveness for them.” It goes on to outline 5 steps of the repentance process: admission, affliction, renunciation, confession, and restitution.

And when seen from this perspective, it can be easy to conclude that Jesus, who “did no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22), had no need for repentance.

But what if we’re looking at repentance wrong?

I mean, surely repentance does entail—at least to some degree—retribution and renouncement. But it is also much more.

For example, Dale Renlund said that “repentance also includes a turning of our heart and will to God”. The Standards for Youth manual offers a parallel exposition: “It is a change of mind and heart.”

In the New Testament, the word repentance is often translated from the Greek ???????? (metanoia), a combination of meta, meaning something like “after” or “with”, and noeo, meaning something like “to perceive” or “to think”. In its compound form, then, metanoia means something like “to think differently after”.

And that’s the meaning I want to focus on.

We often view repentance as a series of steps—which I summarized above—that gets us away from sin and toward righteousness, perfection (or sinlessness) even. But I think that perspective is flawed.

See, those 5 steps aren’t the foundation of repentance—they are byproducts of repentance.

When we focus on admitting our sins, suffering for them, renouncing and confessing them, and paying restitution for them, our intentions are misguided.

What we should focus on instead is seeking that true change of mind, or what Alma the Younger referred to as becoming “new creatures”. When we do, the admission, affliction, renunciation, confession, and restitution come naturally.

So, admission, affliction, renunciation, confession, and restitution aren’t repentance per se but rather a result of repentance.

And if repentance is less about renunciation and restitution and more about changing and becoming, then did Jesus repent?

I propose that he did.

For example, Luke 2:52 tells us that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man”.

D&C 93 says that the fullness of grace and truth Jesus was known for was not inherent to him, rather it was something he acquired over time, receiving “grace to grace, until he received a fullness”.

At some point between when he gave the Sermon on the Mount and when he gave the Sermon at Bountiful, he became perfected. In the former, he counselled us to become perfect, as the father is. In the latter, he likewise counselled us to become perfect, but as he himself is.

Jesus changed.

We know little of what he was like when he was younger, but we know he was different from the type of person he was during his ministry. He became a new person.

And even though we know that he did receive a fullness of glory and truth, we don’t know when he did.

At some point, he forsook whatever life he had been living—however humble or temporal or contemporary—and embarked on a new one, sparked by baptism and internal cleansing.

If we truly want to maximize the benefits of repentance, perhaps we should follow the example of the master repenter.

My religious beliefs have changed over the years. I’m far from your typical Mormon. I have easily dismissed traditions and cultural artefacts of right-wing Protestantism found within modern-day Mormonism. And I’ve found that Mormon scripture often coincides with my political stances, even if Mormons in general dismiss those scriptures in practice or belief.

Here are a few examples to illustrate:

Personal responsibility

One thing that conservatism espouses is that each of us has a personal responsibility for our own success. If we’re not successful yet, we need to work a little harder to overcome our circumstances.

The problem with that is it completely contradicts the many scriptures that advocate helping the poor. I don’t have time to go through them all, but consider at least Matthew 19:21, when Jesus counsels the young, rich man:

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Related to this is an idea I see many of my conservative Mormon friends express: we should be careful giving to the poor because they may just use the money for drugs and alcohol. King Benjamin addressed this in Mosiah 4:17–18,22:

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. . . and if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God

It is not for us, as Christians, to judge what people do with the resources we give them. Whether that be money, or clean needles, or anything else. Our responsibility only is to give. We must give food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, and shelter to the stranger, and we are to visit the sick and imprisoned (Matt. 25:35–36). We will not be judged for what others do with the resources and time we donate to them.

Capitalism and wealth

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.

Environmentalism

Conservatives are more likely to disagree with the commonly held belief that climate change is heavily influence by human behaviour. They are also more likely to favour economic generation over environmental conservation (it’s okay, for example, to rip up tens of thousands of square kilometres of boreal forest and peat bogs to extract valuable petroleum).

While it’s true that the scriptures teach that all things were made for our use, Mormon scripture specifically teaches that that use has limits:

“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)

Scripturally speaking, Mormonism encourage the wise use of the Earth’s resources, that we should use them with judgement, without taking more than we need and without extorting such resources.

I find it interesting that this specific 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

One particular event has overlapped the two election campaigns, bring further light to the racist leaning of conservative policies: refugees. Refugee crises bring out the worst in people, and I have been astounded at the racist and anti-Muslim rhetoric being used by people who consider themselves Christian. Their hate-filled diatribes and meme-sharing go against the foundations of pure Christianity to love all.

Even in his inaugural Sermon on the Mount, Christ was clear in his instructions for us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who persecute us (Matt. 5:44). Paul echoed this sentiment throughout his epistles.

“Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.” (Rom. 12:14)

“Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink.” (Rom. 12:20)

“Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Rom. 14:13)

“We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.” (Rom. 15:1)

Blaming refugees or so-called “illegal immigrants” for the jobs lost in your country, for crime in your country, for high taxes in your country, and for every social ills in your country is only possible when you lack love for such people.

Religion in schools

This has been particularly prominent in southern Alberta as some schools were recently debating whether to allow such things as the Lord’s Prayer in school. While support for this often falls under the freedom of religion camp, it almost always is Christian-centric. In fact, when the issue arises of other religious practices occurring in schools, the same people clamouring for respect for religious freedom fear for the eroding of Canadian (or American) values.

Joseph Smith was clear that government should not favour one religion over others:

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (D&C 134:9)

Marriage equality

While there are Mormons who support marriage equality, you will be far more able to find one who opposes it. One need only read up on Prop 8 in California to see the level of involvement of Mormons and—to some degree—the LDS Church.

However, even Joseph Smith stated that our religious beliefs should not infringe on the rights of others:

“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others” (D&C 134:4)

And if a supreme court should rule that all people have the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, we should not infringe upon those rights.

As I said, these are only a few examples. There are far more examples. Christianity, at its core, is about helping each other, not taking advantage of them (whether economically, socially, or any other way). Early Christians lived in societies where they had no poor, all things were common, and everyone was equal (see Acts 2:44–45; 4 :32–35; and 4 Nephi), things that don’t occur in today’s capitalist societies.

What do you think? Is Mormonism opposed to conservatism?

This is a rebellious people . . . which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits

Isaiah 30:9–10

As I read it, my mind immediately thought upon members of the church and how they might interpret this scripture.

First, I can see them saying that this “rebellious people Isaiah speaks of certainly isn’t them. Second, I can see them saying that the “right things” Isaiah are the commandments, or other things church leaders ask us to do. Finally, because this rebellious people are asking the seers and prophets to speak “smooth things” and “deceits”, I can see them thinking that the rebellious people is unfaithful members, apostate members, ex-Mormons, and even secular people who have never been members of the church.

But as I considered it some more, I wondered if maybe mainstream members—what the Bloggernacle refers to as TBM (true blue members)—could be considered this rebellious people.

You see, Mormons only see their beliefs and practices as hard or difficult from the perspective that the outside world doesn’t live that way. But Mormons are raised to believe and practice these things; they aren’t hard for them. It’s never a real challenge to not smoke, or to fast, or to not swear. It’s not a real sacrifice; we’re not really giving up something to believe or do these things.

And when we are asked to do something new, it still isn’t that difficult. Switching from home teaching to ministering, or implementing Come Follow Me curriculum, or doing a Book of Mormon challenge are recent examples of things church leaders have asked members to do. None of them require us to drastically change our behaviour or mindset.

Contrast that with what Jesus taught.

For example, to the young, rich man: “Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor”. (Matt. 19:21) Can you imagine patriotic, Republican, American Mormons heeding this counsel if it came from the prophet?

Or to those gathered for the Sermon on the Mount: “Judge not”. (Matt. 7:1) Mormons are the judgiest people I know. I can only imagine how difficult this commandment must be for them.

Or to the church in D&C 49:20, when he says “it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another”. How could Mormons—with their incessant drive for wealth seeking through NuSkin, doTERRA, Melaleuca, and others—ever give up the potential for riches so that everyone could have their temporal needs met?

No, honestly, these verses in Isaiah easily could be talking about TBMs. They want commandments and admonitions that underscore their current ways of life, that never challenge their paradigms or how they view outsiders.

This was something that was important to me, and one of the main reasons I have stayed in the church for the last 3.5 years, despite being in the middle of a faith crisis that entire time (still am, actually).

You see, my dad never ordained me. He baptized me, ordained me a deacon, ordained me a teacher, and ordained me a priest. But by the time I was ready to go on a mission, he wasn’t active in the church, and for whatever reasons that was, he wasn’t in a position to ordain me. For that matter, he wasn’t my escort in the temple either.

And I vowed that no matter what, our sons(s) wouldn’t miss out on that.

That is one thing I like about the LDS church: the democratization of the priesthood. Ordinances and sacraments aren’t in the hands of only a small group of people. A lay priesthood allows rank and file members to act as conduits with heaven, and that makes cultural milestones—such as baptism, Aaronic Priesthood ordination, and Melchizedek Priesthood ordination—that much more meaningful when fathers can be the mouthpiece.

(Granted, mothers and daughter are still left out of this process, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Anyhow, as I was reflecting on what I would say in the blessing, several scriptures came to mind.

“And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures”

D&C 20:41

“20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.”

3 Nephi 27:20

“Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost. And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life”

2 Nephi 31:17–18

“Whoso cometh in at the gate and climbeth up by me shall never fall; wherefore, blessed are they of whom I have spoken, for they shall come forth with songs of everlasting joy.”

Moses 7:53

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:5

What I realized from these scriptures is that the Melchizedek Priesthood allows its bearers the ability to act as Jesus in ways that the Aaronic Priesthood doesn’t. Melchizedek Priesthood holders can be proxies of Jesus in real, concrete ways, allowing them to play the role of saviour in two specific areas: sanctification and exaltation.

Melchizedek Priesthood holders have not only the power to baptize by water—as they had as priests—but also the power to baptize by fire, or rather to invoke the Holy Spirit, which does the actual baptism of fire. Since they have the ability to officiate in the complete baptism, they also can facilitate the sanctification of the soul Jesus spoke of in the 3 Nephi quote mentioned above. That sanctification is impossible with only the baptism of water.

The other savioural role Melchizedek Priesthood holders play is in guiding others to eternal life. As those who can preach faith and repentance and officiate in the baptisms of water and fire, they hold the keys to unlock the gate for those who wish to enter the strait and narrow path that leads to eternal life, or the Kingdom of God.

As we learn in Moses 7:53, it is Jesus who is not only the iron rod that people must use to climb the strait and narrow path, but he is the gatekeeper. As his representatives on the earth, Melchizedek Priesthood holders fill that role for him, not necessarily as judges determining worthiness for passing through the gate, but as the ones who open the gate as the conduct the ordinances of baptism and confirmation.

Further to that, though, I believe that the role of Melchizedek Priesthood holders goes beyond just seeing that others make it through the gate; they must also ensure that those people know where the path is and where the iron rod is, as well show them how to “cling” to the iron rod (to use the word Lehi describes in 1 Nephi 8:24).

I think that somewhere along the lines, we’ve forgotten the esoteric aspects of the priesthood. It’s become more of a performative priesthood, rather than a transformative priesthood. Hopefully those of us who hold it can deeply and meaningfully reflect on its purpose each time we are called to use it.

I used to think it was acceptable. Society and my peers taught me that. But for some reason, I’ve never done it.

Maybe it’s because I get uncomfortable around women in intimate situations, like if I’m sitting next to a woman and our knees touch. Or if we’re laughing about something and she touches my arm or leg. Or she hugs me as a hello.

I mean, if I can’t handle a woman touching my arm, I can’t imagine how I’d be able to handle a fling.

I had a girlfriend once who broke up with me after a week because I hadn’t kissed her yet.

Or maybe it’s because I’ve had adult women proposition me when I was younger.

The first time was when I was 14, and the receptionist at my orthodontist said it with a laugh. Because apparently it’s humorous to hit on someone who’s half your age and a minor.

The second time was when I was 18. It was a friend of my girlfriend’s mother, who I had agreed to drive home. She didn’t say it as a joke, but she *was* drunk.

In both instances, I was alone with these women, one in a waiting room and one in the front seat of my car. Both times, I had no idea how to respond, so I didn’t. I just kind of ignored it. And nothing more happened.

It was super weird. And super uncomfortable.

So, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I know it’s wrong, or maybe it’s because I get so uncomfortable, or maybe because I know how it feels. Or maybe it’s all three.