Jump to content

Utah Culture and the Book of Mormon


Recommended Posts

Can you be a socialist and priest at the same time? I was a socialist priest and got sealed in the Temple with my family. My stake president says it's okay. 

 

Why do members keep sharing talks from fifty years ago to persuade me into their Utah Culture? I love the Book of Mormon and it does not support unregulated capitalism. If anything my sacred scriptures support socialism. I will use the Book of Mormon as my evidence. If you leave a comment, I will not reply to general conference consider cultural doctrine. Use the Book of Mormon to defend your stance of why I can't be a priest in the church.

I love the Book of Mormon because one theme in it is obvious: At their most righteous, the Nephites  were benevolent socialists; at their most depraved, they were greedy free-market capitalists.

In the zenith of Nephite culture, "the Lord called his people Zion because they were of one heart and one mind and they did have all things in common — and there were no poor among them." Having "all things in common" suggests a society invested in public infrastructure and welfare for the whole.

Redistribution is not an anomaly in Mormon scriptures. Joseph Smith declared that "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20).

For any conservative this is surely commie talk! Yet Smith persisted, "If you are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things" (D&C 78:5-6).

Early Mormon leaders advocated a United Order to redistribute wealth for the benefit of all Saints.

Though redistribution is the highest economic order in Mormon scripture, LDS Priest vehemently denounce "democratic socialism." I guess some Latterday Saints seem to believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a de facto 14th Article of Faith: We believe in the unquestioned virtue of unregulated capitalism.

But Mormon scripture makes such a belief indefensible. The notorious villains of Nephite civilization were the Gadianton Robbers, who perpetuated policies that exacerbated class inequality. They eventually "did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God" (Helaman 6:39).

Many politically powerful Latter-day Saints have also turned their back on the poor and working class in this country. They are determined to eliminate the very social programs that have traditionally protected vulnerable populations. Conversely, they are equally invested in protecting the wealthy.

They demand fiscal austerity but are unwilling to fairly tax the super rich. They demand the poor make sacrifices, but are unwilling to end corporate welfare and tax loopholes that keep big business from sharing the burden. They want to cut public funding for education, arts and health care but remain unwilling to defund our military occupations abroad.

They denounce socialism but have no problem when the redistribution of public wealth goes upward into private hands. Gadianton himself would feel right at home amidst Utah's GOP.

My reading of the Book of Mormon is not idiosyncratic. I saw in my sacred texts a spiritual rationale to support my own socialist programs, including a National Health Care System, that Bernie Sanders will give to the people. 

I actually believe the admonition of Jesus, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.

Fair-minded Latter-day Saints must reclaim their sacred texts from free-market fundamentalists. Don't be taken in by the right-wing performance art of a hysterical conservative that puts his politics above his religion. Americans can support both a robust market economy and sustainable safety nets for the meek and humble. But it will require that corporations and affluent citizens invest deeply in public infrastructure.

The Book of Mormon narrative, regardless of its historicity, admonishes contemporary Latter-day Saints to reject riches and to care for the poor and needy. Democratic socialism is the very essence of Mormon theology and scripture. It is our common quest for Zion.

Now it's your turn. Use the book of Mormon to defend unregulated capitalism. 

Link to comment

What sort of a priest were you when you got sealed to your family in the Temple?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Moroni Spagnola said:

Now it's your turn. Use the book of Mormon to defend unregulated capitalism. 

What do you know about the law of tithing and the law of consecration? are these part of unregulated capitalism?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, gav said:

What do you know about the law of tithing and the law of consecration? are these part of unregulated capitalism?

For me, the law of consecration and tithing is similar to "true socialism". I say true because Satan has a counterfeit socialism which force people. True social is like my Temple Work or the Atonement of Christ, we do it voluntarily, we drink the bitter cup and murmur not.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What sort of a priest were you when you got sealed to your family in the Temple?

"I am a priest", not "was". Sorry for the bad grammar. But I am still a socialist priest. Socialism is a part of my culture. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Moroni Spagnola said:

For me, the law of consecration and tithing is similar to "true socialism". I say true because Satan has a counterfeit socialism which force people. True social is like my Temple Work or the Atonement of Christ, we do it voluntarily, we drink the bitter cup and murmur not.

Tithing trains us for the law of consecration. The law of consecration requires a theocracy with a benevolent dictator or a very righteous people to function as intended. They succeeded for a couple of hundred years in 4th Nephi. and a short while in Acts, but there were eventually issues, as there were in Kirtland and Far West etc. Socialism/Communism, all though perhaps great on paper, fail in practice due to human nature. Corrupt leadership or bureaucracies alway end up undermining the best intentions. Greed ultimately brings their downfall as with unfettered capitalism.

Edited by gav
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Moroni Spagnola said:
2 minutes ago, gav said:

Tithing trains us for the law of consecration. The law of consecration requires a theocracy with a benevolent dictator or a very righteous people to function as intended. They succeeded for a couple of hundred years in 4th Nephi. and a short while in Acts, but there were eventually issues, as there were in Far West etc.

Socialism is dangerous in the hands of natural men. But in the hands of our Prophet, you can see that it does a great thing and helps us build up Zion. 

 

Link to comment

This thread strays awfully close to politics, but nevertheless I'll jump in.

I decline your challenge because I agree. The Book of Mormon does not support "unregulated capitalism" as you put it (though I would also scoff at the idea that "unfettered capitalism" exists anywhere in the world in our days). Indeed, the scriptures seem to endorse an all-things-in-common model, though only when conducted under the auspices of the Holy Priesthood. 

In context, however, 50 years ago when all those talks were being given, the face of socialism was its most successful spin-off, Marxism-Leninism or Soviet Communism. That was and remains unacceptable to the Church, primarily due to its often-callous disregard for citizen life and its state-mandated atheism.  Surely you can see why the Church has a problem with that. When Ezra Taft Benson goes off on socialism, Soviet Communism, "hard socialism" forcibly imposed by the state, was his target. He likely didn't think of the softer "democratic socialism" which is what generally passes for "socialism" these days after the fall of the Iron Curtain. 

This is not to say that Benson was politically neutral - he wasn't. Interestingly, he wasn't the biggest fan of military buildup either - you might find some common ground there. He said we trusted too much in gods of steel. 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Moroni Spagnola said:

"I am a priest", not "was". Sorry for the bad grammar. But I am still a socialist priest. Socialism is a part of my culture. 

It wasn't a grammatical question.  What sort of priest were you when you got sealed to your family in the Temple?

P.S.: You're a Melchizedek Priest who is a socialist?

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By blueglass
      Black, White, & Mormon II Conference Panel 2: Getting Past the Racial Past.  
      Nancy Tessman Auditorium, Salt Lake Public Library, June 30, 2018.
      Dr. Paul Reeve UofU, primary writer of the Race and Priesthood essay.  Book:  Religion of a Different Color Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness.    https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Mormon-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPWb5xj9jO8&feature=youtu.be&t=23m2s
      New justifications for the previous priesthood and temple bans
      We should just move forward? 
      "Obiously you are talking to an historian and an historian will never believe that we should just move forward without actually understanding our racial past." 
      "The LDS church disavowed in 2013 the theories advanced in the past from the 19th century about the curse of cain, fencesitters, less valiant in the war in the heaven, however, what does this mean since 1978? 
      What I have seen is a variety of new justifications for the previous priesthood and temple restrictions crop up to replace those that had been disavowed and its like playing whack a mole at the carnival!"
      If we don't understand our racial history we will continue to try these kinds of justifications. That's why the history matters.  Let me give you some examples:
      New false justifications:
      1.  Spread the gospel in stages first jews then gentiles as parallel to first the gospel got go go to the white people and then to black people.  Refutation:  The first documented black person joined the church in 1830 the founding year of the faith.  There was no parallel to jews first then gentile as it was always taken to black people and black people were ordained in the early days of the church.  
      2.  God has always discriminated in distributing priesthood power to the tribe of Levi as parallel.  The tribe of levi analogy is a false parallel because none of the other tribes were prevented from partaking of the ordinances necessary for their salvation like temple and priesthood restrictions prevented black people of African descent from doing.  The levites were in essence the old testament equivalent of modern day temple workers, not the equivalent of modern day priesthood holders.  
      3.  Giving black people access to temple and priesthood would have brought down the church.  This idea suggests that conforming to American racial norms and prejudices was necessary for the church to survive.  However, the same year 1852 that Brigham Young openly announced the racial priesthood ban the church openly acknowledged that its members believed in and practiced polygamy.  Polygamy brought considerable scorn from the nation and did not end until the federal gov nearly ground the lds church into dust, and yet lds leaders willfully stood against the curse of derision for what they believed was a divine principle.  Why would conforming to racial prejudices be necessary?   standard of truth from wentworth letter:  "the standard of truth has been erected . . so no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing . . . . "  and yet treating black people equally would have? "  
      4.  Revelation removed the restriction therefore a revelation must have started it.  This idea suggests that the ending of the restriction explains the beginnings.  I do not have to first tell my children to touch a hot stove before I tell them don't touch that it's hot!"  If there was a revelation to begin the restriction - can we read it?  Will someone show it to us?    can anyone point to it?  Where is it? There is a total of 1 revelation on race and the priesthood in the canon and it came in june 1978 and returned mormonism to its racially universal roots. 
      5.  God will not allow the prophet to let the prophet lead the church astray.  Taken within in its proper context this comes out of wilford woodruff in 1890 who was defending the manifesto ending polygamy as a revelation in the face of accusations from fellow mormons that he was a fallen prophet and had merely bowed to political pressure.   Assuming that a prophet is infallible is a violation of the central tenet of agency.  If a prophet has agency a prophet can make mistakes. 
      6.  mormon leaders were trapped by historical circumstances - everyone was racist back then.  this idea is based on the premise that we should not judge historical figures by the standards of today, but by the standards of their day.  Presentism as historians define it is superimposing present day values and understandings on the past.  It is not an act of presentism to hold those leaders accountable for their choices because people in the past argued against slavery and for racial equality including eventually joseph smith.  Also joseph smith sanctioned the  ordination of black men to the priesthood, he was not trapped by historical circumstances.  brigham young said, in 1847, we don't care about the color.  therefore when he started to care about color he was not trapped by the views of the time because he had already expressed an open view.  brigham young said we have one of the best elders - an african (Walker Lewis) 
      7.  We don't know why. 
      brigham young said he knew why.  5 feb 1852.  If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before i tell you this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of cain.  I know that they are.  I know they cannot bear rule in the priesthood in the first sense of the word."  April 2006. Gordon b Hinckley "how can any man [Brigham Young, Joseph F Smith] arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? "  
      In my personal life since I was born just barely after 1978, I have heard all of these at one time or another.  Many in just the last few months.  Question is what can we do to abandon these justifications for the ban proposed >1978?  Who are the primary proponents of these justifications?  Can we identify the sources and push back against further proliferation?  
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I know this has been discussed previously (but couldn't find the thread). I recently came to the realization that every 4th Sunday for 6 months will be based on 1 topic. The first 6 months of 2018 happens to have the topic of Sabbath worship- keeping the Sabbath day holy. Regardless of what one thinks about that particular topic, is it reasonable to expect 6 lessons on consecutive months on the same topic to be stimulating to the membership? I struggle to see how even the most dedicated member could be excited about hearing the same topic (presumably with a different spin) for 6 straight months.
      Has anyone been involved in the pilot programs for this approach (which also used Sabbath Observance as the topic- so you get another 6 months...yay!!)? How did it work? Were eyes more glazed over than usual on the 5th and 6th month? Seriously, is anyone looking forward to this? I will be thrilled if someone can show me that I have misunderstood this teaching approach and it won't really be 6 months of the same topic.
       

    • By Benjamin Seeker
      I started a thread earlier this year addressing some verses in D&C 86 on Joseph Smith and lineal priesthood. I recently followed up on it and put the puzzle pieces together.
      D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that Joseph Smith had the priesthood through birthright. An early hint of JS' beliefs about his lineage come from 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel), and though the lineage of Ephraim is one of leadership, it's not apparent that there is a lineal priesthood associated with it like there is for the Levites or the sons of Aaron. However, a Smith family lineal priesthood authority is actually well attested. JS established the position of Patriarch of the church, which originally was something akin to second in command, as a lineal position given to the eldest in a direct line from Joseph Smith Sr. This clear example of a lineal priesthood eventually disappeared when the position of church Patriarch was done away with due to conflict between the church Patriarch and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (EDIT: Robert points out later in this thread that the absence of the Church Patriarch can be seen as a result of the homosexual status of the second to last patriarch, and that the position may still be filled at a future point. Radio Free Mormon, and others I'm sure, have made other arguments, but this point is pretty peripheral to the discussion).

      The position of Patriarch to the church is only half of the story. D&C 113 states, "What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power." It is common in Mormon thought to believe these verses apply to Joseph Smith, and that seems to be a correct assumption. The line of Jesse refers to the kingly line of David, and significantly, JS prophesied "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage," which apparently referred to one of JS' offspring. He made this clear when he prophesied that his unborn son, David, would be a "church president and king over Israel."

      In Mormon theology, a King in the kingdom of Israel is a priesthood position. Notably, JS himself was ordained as a King in this sense in the Council of Fifty, also known in revelation as the "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." According to Nauvoo theology the priesthood role of King was the ultimate leader of the Church, and according to contemporary accounts, Hyrum Smith was to fill JS' shoes should he die. All of this together gives a pretty clear answer to the lineal priesthood mentioned in D&C 86. The Smith family was a royal family in Israel destined to lead the restoration.
    • By Benjamin Seeker
      If it's worth anything to anyone, so far I've come to the following conclusion on the earliest doctrines on reception of the Priesthood, so 1829-1830ish:
      The verbal call from God is paramount in receiving the Priesthood (as far as I can tell, there is no reference to angelic ordination in this time period). Evidences include: Description of receiving the priesthood in JST Gen 14, dictated sometime between mid 1830 and early 1831: "29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name." Adam's reception of the priesthood in Moses 6, dictated in November-December 1830: "66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever; 67 And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. 68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen." Verse 67's declaration that he is after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years is a declaration of priesthood. The Book of Mormon and JST frequently use holy order or after the order of the son of God to reference priesthood. The without beginning of days or end of years is included in the discussion on priesthood in JST Gen 14, referenced above, in Alma 13, referenced below, and is rooted in the description of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7. Description of receiving the priesthood in Alma 13, dictated in 1829: " 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such." (Later evidence) The introduction of JS' 1832 history, which reference three events, the reception of the "Holy Priesthood" through the ministering of angels, the "confirmation and reception of the High Priesthood," and the "keys of the kingdom conferred upon him." (Later evidence) The 1838 history clarifies the most likely meaning of the "confirmation and reception of the High Priesthood." The 1838 history states, " We now became anxious to have that promise realized to us, which the Angel that conferred upon us the Aaronick Priesthood had given us, viz: that provided we continued faithful; we should also have  the Melchesidec Priesthood... we had not long  been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came  unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, and that he also  should ordain me to the same office, and then <to> ordain others as it  should be made known unto us, from time to time: we were however comman ded to defer this our ordination untill, such times, as it should be practicable  to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled  together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other..." There is an ordination, but it's the Holy Ghost that makes the ordination effective, not neccessarily, or ever explicitly stated, an unbroken line of priesthood ordinations back to Adam or God. Evidences include: Description of the ordination of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons from the Articles and Covenants revelation (April 1830, see D&C 20:60): " Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon,  is to be ordained according to the gifts  and calling of God unto them by the pow er of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one  who ordains them." Description or ordination of teachers and priests in Moroni 3 (1829), "4 And after this manner did they ordain priests and teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto men; and they ordained them by the power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them." There is no reference to lesser and greater priesthood; however, there is a clear delineation between the authority to baptize and the authority to give the Holy Ghost. See 3rd Nephi 11 and Moroni 2. Baptism is also associated with receiving the Priesthood. Evidences include: Description of reception of the priesthood in Alma 49 (1829): " 30 Yea, and there was continual peace among them, and exceedingly great prosperity in the church because of their heed and diligence which they gave unto the word of God, which was declared unto them by Helaman, and Shiblon, and Corianton, and Ammon and his brethren, yea, and by all those who had been ordained by the holy order of God, being baptized unto repentance, and sent forth to preach among the people." Description of reception of the priesthood in Alma 13 (1829): " 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such." This preparatory redemption most likely references repentance and baptism (see D&C 84:27, dictated in 1832). Adam's strongly linked baptism in water, fire, and reception of the priesthood in Moses 6 (1830): "64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water. 65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man. 66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever; 67 And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. 68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen." (later evidence) Description of John the Baptist's ordination to the lesser priesthood in D&C 84 (1832, original wording here): "...and the lesser,  priesthood continued which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministring of Angels and the  preparetory gospel which gospel is the gospel  of repentance and of baptism and the remission  of sins and the law of Carnal commandments  which the Lord in his wrath swore caused to continue with the house of Aaron, among the children  of Israel until John, whom God raised up being filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb for he was baptized while he was yet in the womb, and was ordained by the Angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews  and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face  of his people to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in  whose hand is given all power" While the discussion here could be seen as only reference to John's mission as forerunner, it can also be easily interpreted as speaking specifically to the Aaronic Priesthood. The passages about John are in the context of describing the lineage of the Aaronic Priesthood, and as illustrated by the Book of Mormon and JST Moses examples, baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost are strongly correlated with reception of the Priesthood (Also, thank you Hope for pointing me to the original wording which makes the chronology of baptism-ordination extremely clear!). (EDIT. I almost forgot...) Joseph and Oliver's own reception of the priesthood directly correlated with baptism. See Lucy's history, JS' history, etc. The fact that the official history has them ordaining each other again after baptism doesn't have so much to do with them being members of the church per se, as Joseph Fielding (or F.?) suggests, but instead is fulfilling this doctrinal imperative that reception of the Priesthood follows baptism or a preparatory redemption. Some of the above is dependent on the secondary sources being discusses in the other priesthood thread right now, but some of these are just my personal conclusions based on the primary sources. I don't believe that this negates the possibility of JS and Oliver believing they had experiences with angels associated with priesthood. If that is the case, the interpretation of those events was likely still evolving and they weren't discussing them, even with other insiders, as Dan Vogel has clearly documented.
      I'll post more on later developments as I find them and have time. The concept of angelic ordination and priesthood lineage introduced in 1832 is next...
×
×
  • Create New...