Is it possible to be liberal and LDS?

[Vort]

The definition of Liberal and Conservative is lost in American politics.  I snatch a few Rush Limbaugh's here and there and what he calls Liberal is really... just Democrats.

 

There's a thread here a long while ago where somebody (was it Windseeker?) put out a list of "You must be a liberal if..." and I expanded on each and every one to show a lot of it is not really Liberal but simply Democrat... or... not-Republican.  I'll link to it if I manage to find it...

 

The American political Left co-opted the term "liberal"  as a positive self-description. Indeed, in the classical sense of the word, who would not want to be considered "liberal"? But the Left's deception did not work long-term, as most Americans, having figured out that "liberal" simply meant "leftist", started using the word "liberal" as a term of disparagement.

 

So now the Left has switched to "progressive". Hey, who would not want to be seen as "progressive"? That's progress! Good stuff! But it's just a word game, trying to marry a positive adjective to the same old awful sociopolitical view. In another ten years, when "progressive" is used as a derogatory word much like "liberal" is used today, the Left will doubtless have seized onto some other adjective, like "perfect" or "awesome" or "totally sweet" or "what all the cool kids are doing" or the like.

[The Folk Prophet]

Indeed. I don't think the OP's question referred to the classical sense of the word.

[Guest]

Indeed. I don't think the OP's question referred to the classical sense of the word.

 

Which makes it even more irrelevant to the Church.

[The Folk Prophet]

Which makes it even more irrelevant to the Church.

 

You've lost me.

[Laniston]

The American political Left co-opted the term "liberal"  as a positive self-description. Indeed, in the classical sense of the word, who would not want to be considered "liberal"? But the Left's deception did not work long-term, as most Americans, having figured out that "liberal" simply meant "leftist", started using the word "liberal" as a term of disparagement.

 

So now the Left has switched to "progressive". Hey, who would not want to be seen as "progressive"? That's progress! Good stuff! But it's just a word game, trying to marry a positive adjective to the same old awful sociopolitical view. In another ten years, when "progressive" is used as a derogatory word much like "liberal" is used today, the Left will doubtless have seized onto some other adjective, like "perfect" or "awesome" or "totally sweet" or "what all the cool kids are doing" or the like.

It'll probably be "Modern" or "Relevant"

[Guest]

You've lost me.

 

The question is whether it is possible to be Liberal and LDS... or, per your comment, Democrat and LDS... Since Democratic principles change according to the political flavor of the day, then it is even more possible to be Democrat and LDS than classic liberal and LDS...

 

... unless what you're really trying to say is, it's not possible to have an opposing political view than you and be LDS...

[Just_A_Guy]

It'll probably be "Modern" or "Relevant"

 

Whatever they call themselves, they'll never be Right™.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Disclaimer:  Intended as silly word-play and self-mockery, not a slam.  Just_A_Guy Enterprises LLC hereby disclaims liability for any and all social ostracization and resultant withdrawal from church activity that may otherwise be attributable to this post.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

The question is whether it is possible to be Liberal and LDS... or, per your comment, Democrat and LDS... Since Democratic principles change according to the political flavor of the day, then it is even more possible to be Democrat and LDS than classic liberal and LDS...

 

... unless what you're really trying to say is, it's not possible to have an opposing political view than you and be LDS...

 

The OP's question may have been about being politically liberal (Democrat). And I have no issue with that. I know several excellent Mormon faithful stalwarts who are politically Democrats. But being a liberal Mormon is another thing entirely to my thinking. And it's not about being classically liberal and a Mormon. If we go that way with it, I agree with you. But being a liberal Mormon has a pretty distinct meaning I think.

[Guest]

The OP's question may have been about being politically liberal (Democrat). And I have no issue with that. I know several excellent Mormon faithful stalwarts who are politically Democrats. But being a liberal Mormon is another thing entirely to my thinking. And it's not about being classically liberal and a Mormon. If we go that way with it, I agree with you. But being a liberal Mormon has a pretty distinct meaning I think.

 

In this sense I don't understand your usage of Liberal.  What's a liberal Mormon?

 

Jesus' final days was liberal... Jesus' deference to the laws of the Father was conservative...

 

So, I don't really understand what a liberal Mormon is...

Edited December 10, 2014 by anatess

[Backroads]

The Backroads definition of the term is putting individual thoughts beliefs opinions and conclusions above LDS doctrine.

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's see. If I were applying Merriam-Webster to the matter I'd go with:

 

4 :  not literal or strict :  loose <a liberal translation>

5 :  broad-minded; especially :  not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

 

As I think I've said, if this is only socially or politically, then so be it. If it in any way bleeds into doctrinally, then there's trouble. I have yet to see it not bleed into the doctrine, however (from my, admittedly, limited perspective).

[Backroads]

Some things that creep up in religiously liberal Mormon conversation:

Don't pay your tithing if you don't feel like it/prefer the money spent a specific way.

Feel free to consider all scripture as mere myth.

Covenants aren't necessary.

Use your temple recommend as a bargaining chip.

Liberal Mormons seem to me as the "do what you want if it feels good and doesn't harm too many others" crowd that crop up in other churches.

I'm all for being a good person, but I disagree with the push to declare it as full superior to being a good person AND following law and covenants.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Backroads

[The Folk Prophet]

Don't follow the prophet if you disagree

 

It's okay to use social pressure to try and change church doctrines and policies

 

Don't worry about wearing a white shirt to church even if you've been directly asked to by your local leadership

 

Local leadership is inherently flawed and may be generally disregarded in anything you dislike

 

Porn isn't that big of a deal

 

Homosexual families are just as beautiful and capable of loving as hetero

 

Joseph Smith (although a prophet) was actually a womanizer and a con man.

 

Polygamy was just a big mistake that the church will surely correct some day.

 

...and on and on and on it goes...

 

Heck, pretty much anything that used to be prescribed only to antis can now be openly declared my the liberal "faithful" Mormon.

[Guest]

The Backroads definition of the term is putting individual thoughts beliefs opinions and conclusions above LDS doctrine.

 

Okay, let's take this definition...

 

We are, of course,  assuming that each person is not gifted Faith for free.  So that, Faith needs to be arrived at precept by precept and you are not voted off the reservation if you lack some.  Also, God's laws are absolute - we may not think it is true, but it is true nonetheless.  So, we do not have the agency (such as voting power or power to appeal) to change the laws - we can only abide by it or get kicked off the kingdom... So, in that sense, Gospel Doctrine is neither Liberal nor Conservative - it just is.  So the only thing that can be considered Liberal or Conservative is the Priesthood's interpretation/application of Gospel Doctrine and how it relates to the LDS members.

 

So, having the Priesthood Organization set up the guidelines on the proper application of doctrine and have it binding on the members is a Conservative principle.  BUT... there is Personal Revelation... the ability for each individual to apply the doctrine to their lives... that's a Liberal Principle.  The Priesthood may have the power to be the judge of Israel, discern right and wrong and guide the individuals according to the law... but, in the end, the Priesthood does not have power over the Individual's Agency and, therefore, cannot mete out ultimate judgement.  Conservative and Liberal... in balance.

 

Do you see?

Edited December 10, 2014 by anatess

[Guest]

Don't follow the prophet if you disagree

 

It's okay to use social pressure to try and change church doctrines and policies

 

Don't worry about wearing a white shirt to church even if you've been directly asked to by your local leadership

 

Local leadership is inherently flawed and may be generally disregarded in anything you dislike

 

Porn isn't that big of a deal

 

Homosexual families are just as beautiful and capable of loving as hetero

 

Joseph Smith (although a prophet) was actually a womanizer and a con man.

 

Polygamy was just a big mistake that the church will surely correct some day.

 

...and on and on and on it goes...

 

Heck, pretty much anything that used to be prescribed only to antis can now be openly declared my the liberal "faithful" Mormon.

 

 

See, this is what I mean by "your Team" and "my Team"...  those are complete mis-representation of Liberalism... there are many, many, many, faithful liberals who do not align with ANY of that thinking.  Because, those are not "liberal" thinking.  Those are... "unfaithful" thinking.

 

To illustrate... the opposite of those would be painting Conservatives as sheeples...

Edited December 10, 2014 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

See, this is what I mean by "your Team" and "my Team"...  those are complete mis-representation of Liberalism... there are many, many, many, faithful liberals who do not align with ANY of that thinking.  Because, those are not "liberal" thinking.  Those are... "unfaithful" thinking.

 

To illustrate... the opposite of those would be painting Conservatives as sheeples...

 

I am proudly a sheep.

 

Maybe you missed it...but I was continuing a list by Backroads that started with, "Some things that creep up in religiously liberal Mormon conversation:"

 

I was not painting anyone any given way at all.

[Backroads]

I think that in order to truly adhere to a church one ought to accept the majority of stated doctrine. One can be a political liberal and still hold faithful to covenants and doctrine.

I'd agree personal revelation to be termed a liberal notion, but in my example that personal belief trumped revelation from even the prophet. The notion of consistently and constantly placing personal beliefs above and disregard for the revelation of those with stewardship over one is not a good one for a church member.

[Guest]

I am proudly a sheep.

 

Maybe you missed it...but I was continuing a list by Backroads that started with, "Some things that creep up in religiously liberal Mormon conversation:"

 

I was not painting anyone any given way at all.

 

Sorry, I missed that.

 

But it still stands... Liberal and Conservative are both GOOD principles.  You need one and the other - the theory of opposites keeping things in balance.

 

It bugs me when people use the terms as bludgeons instead of discussions.  And assigning all those statements to Liberals to paint them as the bad guys is a disservice to the Liberal principle.  It goes the same for the other crowd.

 

Let me give you a perfect gospel example of these things in balance:

Conservative = The sin is on the parents if they don't teach the kids gospel principles.

Liberal = Each child is to come to his own testimony of the gospel principles.

 

They both need to be there.  You can't remove one away from the other.  So that, there is a time when the child will have to just accede to the parent's principles even without understanding...  and there is a time when the child will have to go away from the parent's testimony to build their own.

 

This is the exact same in government.  Seceding from England is a very Liberal thing to do and is the foundation of the nation... establishing the Constitution is a very Conservative thing to do and is also a basic foundation of the nation.  And out of that you got the representative government which has to decide whether Liberal or Conservative principles are better suited in each given situation.  Blanketing Liberals into bad and blanketing Conservatives into bad is this "Team" politics I'm talking about.

[Guest]

I think that in order to truly adhere to a church one ought to accept the majority of stated doctrine. One can be a political liberal and still hold faithful to covenants and doctrine.

I'd agree personal revelation to be termed a liberal notion, but in my example that personal belief trumped revelation from even the prophet. The notion of consistently and constantly placing personal beliefs above and disregard for the revelation of those with stewardship over one is not a good one for a church member.

 

Agreed.  From a mortal standpoint.  Not from an eternal standpoint.  Because, knowledge comes from testimony.

 

I guess this is very clear to me coming from Catholicism.  If I never questioned Catholic Teacing, I wouldn't be LDS now.  The LDS Church is True not because I quit challenging it... it is True because it stands against my challenges.

Edited December 10, 2014 by anatess

[Backroads]

Like you said, anatess, both are good. I'd say one must use liberal personal revelation to come to the gospel. When good reins, I'd say we have a veritable yin yang balance.

[Guest]

Like you said, anatess, both are good. I'd say one must use liberal personal revelation to come to the gospel. When good reins, I'd say we have a veritable yin yang balance.

 

Yep!

 

So... calling somebody (rather than a specific solution to a specific issue) a liberal is simply saying that this person solves majority of the issues by applying liberal principles - that is, relying mainly on their individual testimony rather than general conference.  This does not necessarily make them bad Mormons... especially if their individual principles are aligned with Christian principles.  So yes, I contend that you can be a liberal Mormon and still be a faithful Mormon.

Edited December 10, 2014 by anatess

[Backroads]

I'll submit the nastiness in my example to be bad results of liberal principles rather than intrinsically bad principles.

Still, those who call themselves liberal Mormons too often have such problems with the church.

I don't care if you are chaining yourself to trees with your union whilst shouting for universal health care as long as you are humble where the gospel is concerned.

[Guest]

Ohhh... I just saw this on FB just now:  God is Pro-Life.

 

This is a perfect thing to apply this Conservative/Liberal thing to.

 

Yes, God is Pro-Life.  But guess what... God is also Pro-Choice!

 

So, can you be a Mormon and believe the abortion needs to be legalized?  Yes!   Because, abortion is allowed in the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit through your bishop.

So, can you be a Mormon and believe abortion needs to be illegal?  Yes!  Because, you believe abortion should not be normalized in society.

 

Another thing:  Capital Punishment.  God commands people to kill, God says thou shalt not kill.

 

So can you you be a Mormon and be anti-Capital Punishment?  Yes!  Because, you may believe that killing should be authorized through Priesthood power.

Can you be a Mormon and be pro-Capital Punishment?  Yes!  Because, you may believe that governments are under God's command.

 

And so on and so forth.

[Guest]

I'll submit the nastiness in my example to be bad results of liberal principles rather than intrinsically bad principles.

Still, those who call themselves liberal Mormons too often have such problems with the church.

I don't care if you are chaining yourself to trees with your union whilst shouting for universal health care as long as you are humble where the gospel is concerned.

 

This mainly stems from the basic principle of liberalism - where individual liberty trumps social mores.... you know, the thing that caused people to remove themselves from the Church of England and make their own colony.

 

But, the people who are nasty about the church are doing it not because they're liberals but because... either they're just nasty people or they're just faithless people... or both.

[ItsRoger]

I am a bleeding heart liberal who has never endorsed a GOP candidate for president. With that said, I am a Latter Day Saint above all. My faith will always override my political views. 

 

I should also note that being a liberal does NOT mean you have to be pro-choice, or accept same sex marriage. Unfortunately, these social issues often act as a red herring to political fiscal issues. Perhaps me being a convert of the Church leads me to have vastly different views than many members politically.