Is it possible to be liberal and LDS?

[Just_A_Guy]

I've got to be careful with the way I word this, because I know that to some degree conservatism suffers from some of the same issues; but . . .

 

My concern is a lot like Bytor's.  There are some elements of liberalism that are important and jibe well with the Church's teaching (concern for the poor and for education, for example).  But there are also elements that are, frankly, morally wrong and in some cases downright evil.  Elective abortion is evil.  Extramarital and/or homosexual sex is evil.  Making divorce easily available is wrong.  Claiming to reduce the number of divorces by in fact reducing the number of marriages, encouraging people to marry later, and encouraging people to limit the number of children they have even when they can realistically manage more--that is, in light of the knowledge we have from the Lord via our scriptures and prophets, wrong.  

 

What I see a lot (not all, but probably the most vocal portion) of Mormon liberals doing is, rather than trying to purge their side of those misguided views--they march in lock-step with those elements of their movement who champion these ideas; prefer to harangue conservative Mormons rather than progressive libertines, seek to import these corrupt ideas into mainstream LDS policy, and openly scheme about scenarios whereby they can use government pressure to punish the Church for its failure to embrace their own social dogma.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[LatterDaySane]

Liberalism has a face to most conservatives. The face looks like Occupy and Answer and Move on, Hollywood elites. etc. It's disruptive, destructive and anti-values and exploits, divides and creates contention. It's built on lies and coercion and Obama and the Democratic Party embrace it and perpetuate it. It does not have the appearance of anything righteous..

 

Want to change perception....change the above. 

 

Wow. So, is it possible to be liberal and LDS? To you, it isn't. Go ahead and get us all excommunicated.

[bytor2112]

My point LDS...is that when you say liberal or even Democrat, conservatives, lds or otherwise tend to associate the loudest and most shrill, which seems to be the face of liberalism as representative of the whole. As far as whether you can have the same values or lack there of, as much of what is today liberalism and be a faithful Latter Day Saint is between you and Heavenly Father. 

 

In the end we all must work out our salvation with fear and trembling and have our natures changed by the Holy Spirit in order to return the presence of the Father. I strongly question whether today's liberalism and Christ's gospel can be compatible.

 

For the record, I don't engage in political discussion at church and caution the brethren of the EQ  (EQP) to refrain from doing so as well.

Edited December 13, 2014 by bytor2112

[LatterDaySane]

 

 

For the record, I don't engage in political discussion at church and caution the brethren of the EQ  (EQP) to refrain from doing so as well.

Amen to that! I have even heard political comments (against Obama) from a Sunday school instructor while giving a lesson. Sigh.

Once again, is it possible to be liberal and LDS? Yes. As long as you can put up with the overwhelming conservative majority.

[Suzie]

Once again, is it possible to be liberal and LDS? Yes. As long as you can put up with the overwhelming conservative majority.

 

Sometimes, you don't even have to put up with anything. The way I see it: I have my views and the other side have theirs and that's perfectly okay with me. I don't have the need to engage in political discussion or prove why I believe the way I do because I am very comfortable with how I think (even if it's not what the majority of LDS people see it, I can live, sleep well  and function perfectly fine) and with all respect and politeness, unless you (generally "you") pay my bills at the end of the month, I don't have to "put up" with anything, meaning I'll let you know politely that I don't wish to engage in a political discussion with you and that's it.

[silarias]

Whatever you may consider yourself, liberal, conservative, etc., what's most important is that you're living the commandments and are worthy for Temple attendance.  One of the questions they ask in a recommend interview is if you are involved/sympathize with any groups whose beliefs aren't in alignment with Gospel standards.  If you are involved with such a group, there's a problem.  If you're to involve yourself in any group, but you still want to live worthily, be careful who you choose to associate yourself with.

 

I consider myself conservative, and I think there are some good liberal values out there.  It's progressive liberalism I don't like.

[carrotsails]

I believe I am both liberal and conservative depending on the topic and even the argument within a topic. The question posed doesn't give enough information. Simply being liberal is very vague. Furthermore, what evidence is there that these people fell away as a result of their being liberal? Their explanation for falling away seems to be assumed that it was because they were liberal when in fact it could have been something completely unrelated.

 

What I have found, regardless of political offiliation, liberal vs conservative stance, or religious belief, that there seems to be a problem in accepting people for who they are and for our differences of opinion. We seem to forget that people have their free agency, and that is included in an opinion opposite of our own. That challenge in and of itself is enough to build barriers and push people away.

[jana7]

It is my experience with a son that has turned to atheism, that though he started out fairly conservative in his thoughts and views, the longer he is into atheism, the more liberal his take on life becomes.  He does feel that we humans should choose good, not evil, but not in a religious sense, just in being a decent human being. He doesn't believe in guilt over morality choices such a living with a girlfriend outside bounds of marriage; but he is highly honest and truthful in his dealings with others (while still falling for the outrageous lie that atheism is).  He claims to have his own views, but an internet friend of his is highly atheist, and when my son talks to me, a lot of his friend's philosophy has now become my son's take on existence.  It has been my conclusion from loving this son while my heart is deeply breaking, that indeed the further he leans to the ways of 'worldly', the more liberal he has become.

[Windseeker]

If the OP is troubled by hard expression of Political beliefs during Church, then in that setting I can certainly agree. Every single Elders Quorum I attended in  3 different wards in Washington state each had a loud mouth liberal with a maw and accompanying spittle reminiscent of Chris Mathews. These individuals were so loud and so emotionally tied up that after a while no one would bother arguing with them, rather they were quietly ignored and the lesson resumed. 

 

In one ward our family was invited to a members house for dinner. They were a mixed race family like ours and our daughters did gymnastics together. As we arrived I noticed they had John Kerry stickers on their cars. I literally turned to my wife and told her I have a bad feeling about this (because I did). The dinner ended up being a cover for trying to persuade us to vote for Kerry and me and my wife felt attacked. We didn't argue just stated we were voting for Bush, and when asked why told them generally how we felt his stance on the economy, the middle-class and family values aligned with ours, even though we disagreed with the war. Their response was chilling. I have not felt such horrible feeling of contention before or since then. The hosts were shaking with rage and all but calling us baby killers. We remained polite but made our way out as quickly as possible.

 

So I do understand in a way how the OP feels. I don't doubt that the conservatives make up a slight, and I really mean slight, majority. But I do know what it's like to feel attacked for my political views. 

 

I've mentioned before that my Bishop hosted Mitt Romney while here, and he refused to put any political stickers on his car to ensure he didn't discourage members from seeking his aid. 

 

If there is a point to all this, It's that we should accept our fellow-members and exercise tolerance and long-suffering when it comes to our political differences. But at the same time we need to keep in mind that politics is important and necessary. 

 

I'll leave with this. We need to be involved in Politics. Please consider this quote by Charles Krauthammer.

 

 

While science, medicine, art, poetry, architecure, chess, space, sports, number theory and all things hard and beautiful promise purity, elegance and sometimes even transcendence, they are fundamentally subordinate. In the end, they must bow to the sovereignty of politics. Politics, the crooked timber of our communal lives, dominates everything, because in the end, everything--high and low, and especially, high--lives or dies by politics. You can have the most advanced and efflorescent of cultures. Get your politics wrong, however, and everything stands to be swept away. This is not ancient history. This is Germany 1933....

 

Turns out we need to know one more thing on earth: politics--be-cause of it's capacity, when benign, to allow all around it to flourish, and it's capacity, when malign, to make all around it wither. 

 

This is no abstraction. We see it in North Korea, whose deranged Stalinist politics has created a land of stunning desolation and ugliness, both spiritual and material. We saw it in China's Cultural Revloution, a sustained act of national self-immolation, designed to dethrone, debase and destroy the highest achievements of five millennia of Chinese culture. We saw it in the Taliban Afghanistan, which, just months before 9/11, marched it's cadres into Bamiyan Valley and with tanks, artillery and dynamite destroyed it's magnificent clif-carved 1,700-year-old Buddahs lest they--like kite flying and music and other things lovely--disturbe the scorched-earth purity of their nihilism. Of course, the greatest demonstration of the finality of politics is the Holocaust, which in less then a decade destroyed a millennium-old civilization, sweeping away not only 6 million soluls but the institiutions, the culture, the very tongue of the now-vanished wolrd of European Jewry. 

 

The only power comparably destructive belongs to God....The most considered and balanced statement of politics' place in the heirarchy of human disciplines came naturally, from an American. "I must study politics and war" wrote John Adams, "that my sons may have the liberty to study mathmatics and philosophy, geography, natural history, and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study paiting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain".

 

Adams saw clearly that poltics is the indispensable foundation for things elegant and beautiful. First above all else, you must secure life, liberty and the right to pursue your own happiness. That's politics done right, hard-earned, often by war. 

[OhThatMatty]

I would say that the Church is predominantly "conservative" politically, but this is only in the United States. Elsewhere, Zion and its saints seem less politically homogenous. Morally, the Church is definitely on the "conservative" spectrum; however, with its humanitarian efforts; more inclusive view of salvation/afterlife (i.e., the kingdoms of heaven); and emphasis on both religious AND secular education, it sometimes delves into more "liberal" principles. Additionally, the very thought that ALL humans are literally spirit sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father (i.e., a common human family) also evokes a "liberal" way of thinking. Many Christians do not view their fellow humans as fellow brothers and sisters unless they are believers in Christ, or a Christian as defined by a particular denomination or theology. 

[unixknight]

The times I experience conflict myself is knowing how to vote.

 

One school of thought says that you should vote with an entirely secular mind, because it's a secular Government.  So check your religion at the door.  I can see where some people find that to be reasonable, but usually it's a view espoused by people who are afraid of how I'd vote if I simply voted my conscience.

 

On the other hand, you can vote your conscience, because for most of us, our understanding of right and wrong is bound to our religion and cannot be parsed separately.  In the event that this produces a law that's unconstitutional, well we have a mechanism in place for resolving that.

 

I generally go with the latter view, although sometimes I'll make exceptions.  I tend to vote against nanny state laws, because to me individual liberty (which is how we manifest free agency) is more important than most other issues.  I'd vote to legalize marijuana whether I use it or not because that's individual liberty over nanny state thinking, for example.

[The Folk Prophet]

The times I experience conflict myself is knowing how to vote.

 

One school of thought says that you should vote with an entirely secular mind, because it's a secular Government.  So check your religion at the door.  I can see where some people find that to be reasonable, but usually it's a view espoused by people who are afraid of how I'd vote if I simply voted my conscience.

 

On the other hand, you can vote your conscience, because for most of us, our understanding of right and wrong is bound to our religion and cannot be parsed separately.  In the event that this produces a law that's unconstitutional, well we have a mechanism in place for resolving that.

 

I generally go with the latter view, although sometimes I'll make exceptions.  I tend to vote against nanny state laws, because to me individual liberty (which is how we manifest free agency) is more important than most other issues.  I'd vote to legalize marijuana whether I use it or not because that's individual liberty over nanny state thinking, for example.

 

Having a law against something doesn't have any bearing on free agency whatsoever. Eternally there is a law and a punishment affixed. And yet we know we have our agency. So it would be with temporal laws too. Having a law that punishes the user of marijuana doesn't keep said person from using marijuana. It simply makes them accountable to the law and the punishment if they do so. Just as sin will make us accountable at judgment day.

 

Using "free agency" to justify not having laws against any given thing is an invalid argument.

[Vort]

Totally invalid, but very popular among Latter-day Saints, especially younger ones.

[unixknight]

Using "free agency" to justify not having laws against any given thing is an invalid argument.

 

You might disagree with the argument, but that doesn't invalidate it.

 

Besides, if you're going to say a law doesn't impact free agency on the grounds that people won't necessarily obey the law, then all laws are pointless and that's often been used as an argument for anarchy.

[The Folk Prophet]

You might disagree with the argument, but that doesn't invalidate it.

 

My agreement has nothing to do with the matter. The scriptures teach very clearly that there is punishment attached to sin. Read 2 Nephi 9 and Alma 42. This is not a matter of opinion.

 

Besides, if you're going to say a law doesn't impact free agency on the grounds that people won't necessarily obey the law, then all laws are pointless and that's often been used as an argument for anarchy.

 

The law very, very much DOES impact agency. Without a law, and without punishment, then agency cannot exist. Once again, read the scriptures I suggest. Having punishment for behavior is key to our agency. Taking away punishment for action is as sure a way to remove someone's agency as taking away their freedom to choose would. Fortunately, we cannot take away another's agency, as they will always have the ability to choose morally, and they will always end up facing punishment for sin. The reality is that the legality of any given thing or not has absolutely nothing to do with agency. But if it were, somehow, an ensample of agency, then certainly, per the scriptures that teach us agency, having punishment for behavior is a more appropriate ensample then a free-for-all-with-no-consequences-attached structure.

 

Agency (or "free" agency) means that we're responsible for ourselves, not that we're free to do whatever we want without consequence.

 

Besides, if you're going to say a law doesn't impact free agency on the grounds that people won't necessarily obey the law,

 

I didn't say anything of the sort.

Edited January 2, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

IMHO:  "Free agency" and "liberty" are two different things.  Both are generally desirable, but for different reasons.

[The Folk Prophet]

IMHO

 

Not to be too obstinate on the matter, but it's not a matter of opinion. :) Liberty and/or freedom is distinctly a different thing than agency or "free" agency. The one is partial component of the other (we must be, at some level, free to choose to have agency), but complete freedom is not agency and complete agency is not freedom.

 

Prisoners, slaves, those in bondage, etc. all have agency, completely and fully. But their liberty/freedom is limited. We all have our freedoms limited in some regards. Our agency is, conversely, not limited unless we have managed to son-of-perdition ourselves out of it. Until then, we are free to choose eternal life or eternal death.

Edited January 2, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[unixknight]

My agreement has nothing to do with the matter. The scriptures teach very clearly that there is punishment attached to sin. Read 2 Nephi 9 and Alma 42. This is not a matter of opinion.

 

What sin is being committed in the voting booth?

 

 

The law very, very much DOES impact agency. Without a law, and without punishment, then agency cannot exist. Once again, read the scriptures I suggest. Having punishment for behavior is key to our agency. Taking away punishment for action is as sure a way to remove someone's agency as taking away their freedom to choose would. Fortunately, we cannot take away another's agency, as they will always have the ability to choose morally, and they will always end up facing punishment for sin. The reality is that the legality of any given thing or not has absolutely nothing to do with agency. But if it were, somehow, an ensample of agency, then certainly, per the scriptures that teach us agency, having punishment for behavior is a more appropriate ensample then a free-for-all-with-no-consequences-attached structure.

 

Agency (or "free" agency) means that we're responsible for ourselves, not that we're free to do whatever we want without consequence.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying here, but I don't see how it relates to legal matters.  Remember, secular law has nothing whatsoever to do with sin.  Plenty of sinful activities (like fornication or watching porn) are perfectly legal, and plenty of illegal activities (like speeding and double parking) have no spiritual implications apart from the simple act of breaking the law itself.

 

 

I didn't say anything of the sort.

 

Then did I misunderstand you when you said this:

 

 

 

Having a law against something doesn't have any bearing on free agency whatsoever. 

[yoyoteacher]

I think it is very possible to have more progressive viewpoints and still be a Latter-day Saint. One of the strongest families I know from growing up are very much in the liberal/democrat/whatever label you want to give it camp. Three of their five children have served or are serving missions. The two eldest girls are married and raising beautiful families of their own. Every single one of them is committed to the gospel and is living it in their daily lives. They are compassionate, giving, empathetic people.

 

I think there's a tendency to focus on specific issues when we generalize what it means to be on the left side of the political spectrum. It's not all pro-choice, pro-equality over here, though I will admit that those are major tenants of the democratic party. There is so much humanitarianism to progressive policies and that's what draws me to the left side just a little bit more. That and, being an educator, the democratic party has a tendency to have an easier-to-swallow education platform.

 

It's not all liberal baby killing, and believe me I had that phrase slung at me in my youth by other church members to know that many people look at it that way. I don't believe I have any right to tell someone how to live their life. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be an example or share my testimony, but I shouldn't resort to something that may come across as high and mighty to the listener either, because that sure as heck won't get them to be receptive to the gospel (ask me how I know).

[The Folk Prophet]

What sin is being committed in the voting booth?

 

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying here, but I don't see how it relates to legal matters.  Remember, secular law has nothing whatsoever to do with sin.  Plenty of sinful activities (like fornication or watching porn) are perfectly legal, and plenty of illegal activities (like speeding and double parking) have no spiritual implications apart from the simple act of breaking the law itself.

 

 

Then did I misunderstand you when you said this:

 

You're not understanding me, I think. I'm simply saying that using the concept of free agency to dictate how we vote for something -- using it to justify legalization of something -- is invalid.  The concept of free agency does not, in any way, indicate that we should have legal freedoms. Nor does it imply that we shouldn't. It is unrelated. You stated that you would vote to legalize marijuana because "individual liberty (which is how we manifest free agency) is more important than most other issues." I'm saying that is not how we manifest free agency. If it were, it would mean that those in oppressive societies have less agency than those in free countries. This is entirely false. Being legally restricted has no bearing on our agency. Those with greater legal restrictions still have free agency in full measure. I also entirely disagree with the idea that individual liberty is more important than most other issues...but that's a different point entirely. Even were I to agree with that concept, individual liberty is not a manifestation of free agency, and saying it is implies that you do not understand what agency is. It implies that you believe that agency equates to liberty. It does not. So I'm attempting to clarify the matter for you.

 

Agency is not liberty. Agency is accountability (which does require some liberty...but not full liberty). It is accountable for the choices we do make...and does not mean we have the ability to make any choice we want. Moreover, having a law against something does not take away choice or accountability. It can increase temporal accountability, yes...but what's wrong with that?

 

Another way to look at agency is that it's the exact same concept as stewardship. We know that we do not all have the same stewardships given to us. Some have greater stewardships than others for a number of reasons -- political freedoms being one potential reason -- and we are accountable before God based on those stewardships. That pretty much describes agency to a T. Those who have less are not accountable for that which they do not have. But they are still just as accountable, in every way, for that which they do have. This plays into every level of life, including political freedoms.

 

Then did I misunderstand you when you said this:

 

Yes.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't believe I have any right to tell someone how to live their life. 

 

Politically speaking, this is a very conservative thing to say.

[yoyoteacher]

On my phone so I can't quote directly. In a way it is, but one look at conservative social policies tells me that it's not a total conservative belief.

If anything, I would probably classify myself as libertarian light.

[yjacket]

Agency is not liberty. Agency is accountability (which does require some liberty...but not full liberty). 

??

 

“Four great principles must be in force if there is to be agency: 1. Laws must exist, laws ordained by an Omnipotent power, laws which can be obeyed or disobeyed; 2. Opposites must exist—good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong—that is, there must be an opposition, one force pulling … the other. 3. A knowledge of good and evil must be had by those who are to enjoy the agency, that is, they must know the difference between the opposites; and 4. An unfettered power of choice must prevail."

 

Agency isn't accountability, just like it isn't liberty.  Agency exists outside of our temporal existence. The laws referred to when discussing agency are not referencing mortal, temporal, man-made laws but are references to eternal laws by God.

 

The challenge that I see many people have is that they take eternal God-made laws and try to impose those God-made laws on all their fellow man . . .in essence they substitute themselves for God. I believe that a foundation of natural law allows man to discover which eternal laws by their very nature require temporal punishment and what type of temporal punishment. Marijuana is a good example, I believe based upon eternal law that marijuana in most cases is bad for the body and one should not partake.  Based upon natural or temporal law, I see no justification for putting my neighbor in jail for partaking of marijuana. 

 

What do I do in the voting booth? I vote for maximum liberty for all even if the conduct violates what I believe to be eternal law. Unless the eternal law requires an associated temporal law (which I believe can be discovered through study of natural law) I do not vote for it.

 

I support others right to be wrong 100% of the time, I'll even fight and die for it (as long as it doesn't violate natural, temporal or base law).  Now, unlike yoyoteacher, I do believe I have the right to tell, explain, or discuss with others how to live their life (although unless what their doing violates either a natural or eternal law, I generally don't); I just don't have a right to force them to live their life like I believe.

[The Folk Prophet]

??

 

“Four great principles must be in force if there is to be agency: 1. Laws must exist, laws ordained by an Omnipotent power, laws which can be obeyed or disobeyed; 2. Opposites must exist—good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong—that is, there must be an opposition, one force pulling … the other. 3. A knowledge of good and evil must be had by those who are to enjoy the agency, that is, they must know the difference between the opposites; and 4. An unfettered power of choice must prevail."

 

This describes accountability.

 

Agency is accountability. You are an agent unto yourself -- representing yourself -- and thereby accountable for your own choices and actions.

[PolarVortex]

I don't believe I have any right to tell someone how to live their life.

 

Perhaps not now, but someday you will be a mother-in-law...