Liberals in the Church


JojoBag
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's not really free.  Someone is paying for it. 

 

Exactly. As long as everyone fully understands that the health care is not "free", any more than the public roads are "free", then I think I have no principled objection to publicly-funded health care. But it is in no good sense a right or (as the US government likes to name things) an entitlement.

 

EDIT: Let me add a clarification to this. Public roads are a legitimate concern of government. I am not at all convinced that health care is a legitimate government concern. But if the people want the government to regulate health care and, specifically, want the government to collect taxes which are then spent for health care, I may not have a principled objection. But no one should confuse this with a "right" to health care insurance. There exists no such right, either in the US or anyplace else in the world. That is not what the word "right" means.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I disagree with some liberal values, but I can't imagine that you can't be a member in good standing if you are a liberal. Of course you can be. 

 

Do you believe in the book of Mormon? Yup. Was Smith a prophet? Yup. If you agree with those two, you are LDS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been hovering around the LDS forums for the past while and I have decided it is finally time to speak my mind.

 

First of all - seriously? 'Liberals in the church' is a topic of discussion? 

One of the reasons I left the church was because of this kind of negative stereotyping and dissent of people who aren't the status quo Mormon (pro-right, caucasian-centric, holier-than-thou attitude, etc). And let me emphasize that I am not criticizing the teachings of the church itself at this time, I am criticizing its many judgemental and often self-righteous members who ruin the reputation of the entire church for people outside of it.

 

One of the reasons I believe the church continues to get a bad rap (and will continue to have a bad rap) outside of Utah is because of this limited, Utah/conservative-centric point of view when it comes to politics and culture. In this global age of communication, church members need to be more embracing, or at the very least more considerate of outside points of view - many of those who are interested in joining the church often come from, and live in a culture that some on this board would call "liberal", or "socialist", etc. I myself hail from South Korea, and I very much appreciate our higher quality, cost-effective, all-encompassing "socialist" healthcare, because the US healthcare system is seriously one of the worst things I have ever had the inconvenience of experiencing, thank you very much, but I digress. Point is, when non-Utah church members listen to this kind of rhetorical slander from mainstream mormons, it creates a divide between Utah, and everywhere else. 

One of the reasons I joined Buddhism in the long run is because unlike the church, Buddhism and its practitioners do not emphasize contemporary political squables over its core doctrine. This means a conservative from Utah is free to practice, as is a liberal from Denmark without any reservations towards their political affiliations. This can also be said for, say, Catholocism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. While their members may be majority conservative or liberal, ideological affiliation is certainly not a litmus test for faithfulness. 

In a nutshell, petty contemporary politics should not replace core doctrine, because the latter will outlast the former. That is all I will say here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If individuals would have read all of the content provided by the OP, they would have read the description of what "Liberal" means and is being discussed.

 

Here it is, ""The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs.... He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations...."

 

A core concept would be marriage, marriage between a male and female is the only marriage ordained by God.  An individual who would teach otherwise obviously would have liberal leanings.

 

A core concept, we are commanded to be virtuous and that sexual relationships are only between a male and female who are lawfully married (husband and wife).  Anything outside of this is sin, and should be avoided.  A member who believes, "Sexual relations should be practiced before marriage so that you may be a better companion to your spouse," obviously would have liberal leanings.

 

This tends to be true.  A liberal Mormon will have a hard time remaining Mormon because they will continually fight against core principles (i.e. Marriage), which substantiates the notion they don't have a testimony of the core principles and doctrines.

 

Also note the stipulation, they set out to reform (change) the core value to suit their beliefs, thus when the rains come, and the storms beat, their faith is upon a sandy foundation.

 

Edit: Thus, President Harold B Lee has more to do with "which way you face" rather than political leanings.  

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been hovering around the LDS forums for the past while and I have decided it is finally time to speak my mind.

First of all - seriously? 'Liberals in the church' is a topic of discussion?

One of the reasons I left the church was because of this kind of negative stereotyping and dissent of people who aren't the status quo Mormon (pro-right, caucasian-centric, holier-than-thou attitude, etc). And let me emphasize that I am not criticizing the teachings of the church itself at this time, I am criticizing its many judgemental and often self-righteous members who ruin the reputation of the entire church for people outside of it.

One of the reasons I believe the church continues to get a bad rap (and will continue to have a bad rap) outside of Utah is because of this limited, Utah/conservative-centric point of view when it comes to politics and culture. In this global age of communication, church members need to be more embracing, or at the very least more considerate of outside points of view - many of those who are interested in joining the church often come from, and live in a culture that some on this board would call "liberal", or "socialist", etc. I myself hail from South Korea, and I very much appreciate our higher quality, cost-effective, all-encompassing "socialist" healthcare, because the US healthcare system is seriously one of the worst things I have ever had the inconvenience of experiencing, thank you very much, but I digress. Point is, when non-Utah church members listen to this kind of rhetorical slander from mainstream mormons, it creates a divide between Utah, and everywhere else.

One of the reasons I joined Buddhism in the long run is because unlike the church, Buddhism and its practitioners do not emphasize contemporary political squables over its core doctrine. This means a conservative from Utah is free to practice, as is a liberal from Denmark without any reservations towards their political affiliations. This can also be said for, say, Catholocism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. While their members may be majority conservative or liberal, ideological affiliation is certainly not a litmus test for faithfulness.

In a nutshell, petty contemporary politics should not replace core doctrine, because the latter will outlast the former. That is all I will say here.

So what you're saying is that belief in a religion has absolutely nothing to do with, well, religious beliefs and a testimony but everything to do with social views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I'm not sure how one can separate their religious views from their political views. The former should guide one's thinking on the latter.

The way I see it there are no "bad guys" or "good guys" here. Conservatives and Liberals all look at our problems and want to resolve them, where they differ is in the HOW. It is the same form members of the church. I can't understand why all LDS people don't feel the same way I do about some political issues, but they don't. Both sides are trying their best to follow the Savior but we have different ideas about how to best do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it there are no "bad guys" or "good guys" here. Conservatives and Liberals all look at our problems and want to resolve them, where they differ is in the HOW. It is the same form members of the church. I can't understand why all LDS people don't feel the same way I do about some political issues, but they don't. Both sides are trying their best to follow the Savior but we have different ideas about how to best do that.

Husband and I are both LDS. We both feel religuous/spiritual beliefs help drive political views. I consider myself conservative to moderate, Husband sees himself as conservative. I have some definite sympathy for some liberal views and Husband despite his conservative label has a few views that would make a liberal hippy in a community blush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it there are no "bad guys" or "good guys" here. Conservatives and Liberals all look at our problems and want to resolve them, where they differ is in the HOW. It is the same form members of the church. I can't understand why all LDS people don't feel the same way I do about some political issues, but they don't. Both sides are trying their best to follow the Savior but we have different ideas about how to best do that.

 

Well that sounds about like the description of the war in heaven. Both sides saw a problem and wanted to resolve it, they just differed in how.

 

How matters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that sounds about like the description of the war in heaven. Both sides saw a problem and wanted to resolve it, they just differed in how.

 

How matters!

At least six times in the D&C the Lord says how doesn't matter (search for "mattereth not").  So at least sometimes, it doesn't matter how we do something, just that we do it.  (I think this is where that "anxiously engaged" principle comes in.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least six times in the D&C the Lord says how doesn't matter (search for "mattereth not").  So at least sometimes, it doesn't matter how we do something, just that we do it.  (I think this is where that "anxiously engaged" principle comes in.)

 

Well, yeah. Sometimes it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure the Lord doesn't care if you choose bacon or sausage for breakfast. Of course that has no application whatsoever to my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article I wrote for the Examiner that got picked up by Mormon Times, Deseret News, and some other sites.  I think the only surviving version of it now is on this site:

 

http://www.ldsliberty.org/partisans-and-the-saints-choosing-a-side-or-choosing-the-right/

 

Using politics to divide the Church is dangerous.  The Lord will take care of dividing the sheep from the goats.  There are people on the extreme right and left in the Church who have the spirit of apostasy.  Both sides criticize the General Authorities.  The left criticizes them for their stands on same-sex marriage, etc.  The right says that the General Authorities aren't telling us about the "Illuminati" or other conspiracies.  Both of these extremes will take themselves out of the Church eventually.  In the middle, where there are liberals and conservatives who believe and follow the leaders of the Church, they will find common ground and build Zion.  The partisanship and rancor lead us away from Zion.  

 

I figured out a long time ago that the Church thrives in the tension that exists between the two sides.  If either side gained dominance, left or right, it would destroy the Church.  The sectarian Christians already tried to do this in the 19th century. If they held complete political power without opposition, we'd never get approval to build another temple.  They would use their political clout to block the work.  Likewise, if the left had all the power without effective opposition, we'd face similar efforts to hinder the kingdom's progress.  We benefit from the tension between both sides keeping each other at bay so that neither gets a monopoly on power.

 

Liberalism is a state of mind.  It is a way of life, a life style that cannot be disconnected from the person and is not in harmony with the gospel.  It espouses concepts that are in direct conflict with the revealed word of God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I'll have more time to respond tonight when all of you are sleeping, but for now--I'm not talking about abortion. I'm solidly against abortion. And I favor gun rights. :)

A good example of what I mean is illegal immigration. My views on that are definitely Liberal. And, I feel my view is closer to the Leaders of the church (they urge compassion) than Conservatives.

So that is a case where I can't imagine why other LDS people don't agree with me. But we know they don't.

One problem, different ideas about how to resolve it. I don't think either side is endanger of losing their testimony.

What if I were in support of gun control, would that make me an less faithful in my testimony? No...its another issue of different solutions, neither one evil...

That's how you can have Liberal view and still be a good Latter-Day Saint. Now if you'all would just repent of your views on immigration you could be good Latter-Day Saints too. I'm kidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberalism is a state of mind.  It is a way of life, a life style that cannot be disconnected from the person and is not in harmony with the gospel.  It espouses concepts that are in direct conflict with the revealed word of God. 

Whether all of that is true depends on which liberalism you're talking about, which is why I suggested a definition of the term be applied for this thread.  As Elder Widtsoe pointed out, the term has been erroneously re-defined for political purposes, and if you mean political liberalism, you'd be better off saying something more like "the left end of the democratic party" (or all of it, if that's how you feel).

 

The "favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms" definition is highly compatible with the revealed word of God.  Even "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values" is compatible with the revealed word of God - particularly when it comes to on-going revelation and, for example, what Joseph Smith did in discarding erroneous tradition and restoring the truth.

 

This definition: "(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform" can be argued compatible - we do believe strongly that people should be free to exercise their agency.  Or you could say it sounds too much like anarchy or selfishness.

 

The right wing are all the time complaining about liberal education, but read this definition: "(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training" - how could anyone object to that?

 

You get the idea (I hope).  The word is often misused and more-often means different things to different people (left-wing politicians vs the libertarian party).  So instead of sticking with a word which cannot be agreed upon by all, how about come up with a definition or other specifics which can be discussed with meaning rather than raging opinions...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could very easily say that based on Section 134 that only two national parties in the US even come close to Lord's position on government.  And neither of them is the Democrat or Republican party.  In fact (depending on definitions) it isn't even the overall philosophy of liberalism or conservatism modern practices neither by party leaders nor grass roots.

 

My opinion:  Libertarian or Constitution Party.  But how many of either of those parties are there?  About 3%?  Most of us would be considered apostate if I were to weigh in based on that criterion.

 

Yes, talk about the individual issues.  But to in all seriousness label a political philosophy or party the party of the devil would require some direct quotes and strong evidence.  And there is none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion:  Libertarian or Constitution Party.  But how many of either of those parties are there?  About 3%?  Most of us would be considered apostate if I were to weigh in based on that criterion.

I wish more people would research this and vote their conscience rather than vote based on who they think might win - then better people might win (it's that whole catch-22 thing: I'm not doing that cuz no one's doing that).  I have decided that for me it's less important whether the person I vote for wins and more important whether the person I vote for supports the things I know to be true (of course, subject to divine approval via prayer).

 

I did the same research and felt that the Constitution party is a closer match to the entirety of Gospel principles than the Libertarian party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have more time to respond tonight when all of you are sleeping, but for now--I'm not talking about abortion. I'm solidly against abortion. And I favor gun rights. :)

A good example of what I mean is illegal immigration. My views on that are definitely Liberal. And, I feel my view is closer to the Leaders of the church (they urge compassion) than Conservatives.

So that is a case where I can't imagine why other LDS people don't agree with me. But we know they don't.

One problem, different ideas about how to resolve it. I don't think either side is endanger of losing their testimony.

What if I were in support of gun control, would that make me an less faithful in my testimony? No...its another issue of different solutions, neither one evil...

That's how you can have Liberal view and still be a good Latter-Day Saint. Now if you'all would just repent of your views on immigration you could be good Latter-Day Saints too. I'm kidding.

I disagree. I have a niece who us in favor of gay marriage and is very near to losing her testimony completely over how the church treats the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share