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.

But—you may ask—couldn’t we say the same thing about men? If all men walked off the job, wouldn’t the same thing happen?

Absolutely. However, workforce labour is only a portion of the female labour.

Women do most of the work at home. In fact, in Canada, they perform 50% more of the unpaid household work than men do. They are more likely to cook the meals, do the laundry, do the dishes, clean the house, and so on.

And full bellies, clean clothes, and a healthy home are critical for a productive workforce. Without the labour of mothers, wives, girlfriends—and even daughters and sisters—the male members of the workforce would be less productive.

And on top of that, some of those women performing the unpaid household labour also participate in the workforce. So they are contributing to the economy directly through their own paid labour and indirectly through their unpaid labour that helps keep the males productive

And let’s not forget the primarily women-led industries that workers rely on to be productive, such as childcare (daycare, nannies, babysitting, etc), teaching (84% of elementary school teachers in Canada are women), errand running (concierge, housecleaning, laundry, etc), and so on.

The economy thrives on the labour of women: both in the workforce and in the home. It‘s time we start recognizing that.

And maybe in the process, the men can do more to ease that burden.

Resources

• Labour Force Survey, November 2018 https://buff.ly/2B0vPkU
• Women spend 50% more time doing unpaid work than men: Statistics Canada https://buff.ly/2FLEnAb
• Back to school… by the numbers https://buff.ly/2FIey3X

Video

It’s frustrating to hear her speak of the reality of what it means to be a woman in this faith. I think it’s her intention to let other women know they aren’t alone in feeling like they belong to a man’s church but I’m curious what this audience thinks she is trying to say, and why do you think she’s saying it?

[youtube http://youtu.be/SSYTbvAyHuY]

The audio is compiled from episode 576 of the Mormon Stories podcast.

(Via Thoughts on Things and Stuff)

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.

Let us assume that a large family could be classified as a family with five or more kids. These children, if all births are not multiples, can be born in a period not less than five 40 week intervals plus four 4 week periods to become impregnated again. This works out to 216 weeks or 4 years, 2 months. That’s a pretty tight schedule to keep, but possible I guess if one were motivated enough. The time from the birth of the first child until the exit from the home of the last child would be a period not less than approximately 22 and one half years (assuming a good synchronization with a school schedule or a home schooled family).

The world we live in now changes at an ever-increasing rate. There is evidence of exponential rates of change in industries and technologies used by employees and researchers the world over. The education you receive today may, depending on the field of study, not be useful or meaningful in 5 years time. Especially if you plan to work in a technical industry or in a research position. How much out of touch would you be if you were to cease your studies for 5 years? 10 years? Just imagine how hard it would be to initiate a job search in your field after leaving it for more than 20 years.

The description of a women’s role in the ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’ is that “women are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children” while men “are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.” This is familiar territory for many families with Dad being the breadwinner and Mom working in the home with the children. Most devout LDS women who work in the home go so far as to be available through the day for their children even when they are in secondary school or choose to home school their children themselves. Both of these behaviours offer little to no availability (or motivation) for additional work outside the home.

Given that raising a large family can span over two decades and that education now has an ever-decreasing shelf life, does it make sense for a young LDS women to attend a post secondary institution at all?

Let us, for a moment, consider other reasons one might wish one’s LDS daughters to attend a college, trade school or university if their education is not of a primary concern.

One argument is that being out on one’s own is a character building experience. True enough but one does not necessarily need to pay tuition to live outside one’s parent’s home.

Perhaps the argument is that all their friends are going off to school and they don’t want to be left behind or miss out on the shared experiences of their peers. Arguments that ‘everyone else is doing’ lead invariably in my mind to an exercise in bridge-jumping and at their core hold very little weight in regard to the best activities for youth in life experience and development of coping skills. In fact, leaving the pack can often be the child’s first experience of making their own decisions and developing coping strategies of their own.

Another argument is that attendance at one of the private LDS post secondary institutions is the best way for a young LDS lady to meet and be courted by a returned missionary and in time evaluate to what extent he takes his career studies seriously; not to mention the safety of being surrounded by members of one’s own faith during that courtship. This does have some sense to it, but the question remains; would it not be more cost efficient and time saving for the young lady to simply live in Provo or Rexburg until they’ve met the man they feel is ‘the one’? Many a parent may want to keep their daughters busy while they are in search of a life partner and simply enroll them so they have something to do during the search. But is this really an efficient and effective way of facilitating such a search? And what happens when she is wed and wishes to immediately start a family? Does the education she’s started simply be thrown away? Would this not lead to issues with her self esteem and self worth?

Would it not be more fair and effective if LDS parents were to instruct their daughters who have expressed interest in leading life as an observant LDS Mother of a large family, to not bother with post secondary education altogether?

?¢‚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?

A [USA] survey . . . published in The Journal of the American Dietetic Association found that 57 percent of those polled said that women should not have a right to breastfeed in public.

Only 10 percent of mothers who work full-time [still breastfeed] their baby at 6 months, according to a 2005 CDC report.

The Journal of the American Dietetic Association’s survey found that only 47 percent of [employers] favored longer maternity leaves, and only 43 percent supported giving women a private room to pump in at work.

A mom should breastfeed her baby for at least the first year of life, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.. . . In 2004 . . . about 70 percent of U.S. mothers reported that they had tried breastfeeding, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That’s up from 55 percent in 1993. . . . At 6 months, only 36 percent were still nursing. At 12 months, the number dips to 17 percent

Oh, and thanks to fMh for posting the link.

It seems that the Church always focuses pornography talks to men, that recovery programs are designed for men, that discussions revolve around wives helping men.

But I wonder, do women get addicted to porn? I admit that I do not know a single woman who has looked at porn, let alone been addicted to it. For that matter, I have never heard of a woman being addicted to porn. Yet, somehow, I cannot seem to fathom that women do not deal with the same addictions.

If there are women who are addicted to porn, why is it we never hear about it? Is there a societal stigma attached to such women?