Liberals in the Church


JojoBag
 Share

Recommended Posts

The following quote comes from an April 1971 Sunday afternoon general conference address by President Harold B. Lee.

 

Scoffers in our day

 

There are many who profess to be religious and speak of themselves as Christians, and, according to one such, "as accepting the scriptures only as sources of inspiration and moral truth," and then ask in their smugness: "Do the revelations of God give us a handrail to the kingdom of God, as the Lord's messenger told Lehi, or merely a compass?"

Unfortunately, some are among us who claim to be Church members but are somewhat like the scoffers in Lehi's vision—standing aloof and seemingly inclined to hold in derision the faithful who choose to accept Church authorities as God's special witnesses of the gospel and his agents in directing the affairs of the Church.

 

Liberals in the Church

 

There are those in the Church who speak of themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said, "read by the lamp of their own conceit." (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 373.) One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: "A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony."

Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve and an eminent educator, made a statement relative to this word liberal as it applied to those in the Church. This is what he said:

"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....

"It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth."

And then Dr. Widtsoe concludes his statement with this: "It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth." ("Evidences and Reconciliations," Improvement Era, vol. 44 [1941], p. 609.)

 

Acceptance on faith

 

Here again, to use the figure of speech in Lehi's vision, they are those who are blinded by the mists of darkness and as yet have not a firm grasp on the "iron rod."

Wouldn't it be wonderful if, when there are questions which are unanswered because the Lord hasn't seen fit to reveal the answers as yet, all such could say, as Abraham Lincoln is alleged to have said, "I accept all I read in the Bible that I can understand, and accept the rest on faith."

How comforting it would be to those who are the restless in the intellectual world, when such questions arise as to how the earth was formed and how man came to be, if they could answer as did an eminent scientist and devoted Church member. A sister had asked: "Why didn't the Lord tell us plainly about these things?" The scientist answered: "It is likely we would not understand if he did. It might be like trying to explain the theory of atomic energy to an eight-year-old child."

 

'The iron rod"

 

Wouldn't it be a great thing if all who are well schooled in secular learning could hold fast to the "iron rod," or the word of God, which could lead them, through faith, to an understanding, rather than to have them stray away into strange paths of man-made theories and be plunged into the murky waters of disbelief and apostasy?

I heard one of our own eminent scientists say something to the effect that he believed some professors have taken themselves out of the Church by their trying to philosophize or intellectualize the fall of Adam and the subsequent atonement of the Savior. This was because they would rather accept the philosophies of men than what the Lord has revealed until they, and we, are able to understand the "mysteries of godliness" as explained to the prophets of the Lord and more fully revealed in sacred places.

President Harold B. Lee

Conference Report, Apr 1971, Pgs. 91-92, Ensign, May 1971

 

 

 

Is a “liberal” in the church really an oxymoron? Personally, I agree with Pres. Lee. I cannot see how a person can support “liberal” practices and claim to believe in the Gospel. Many of the liberal practices of today go against what is taught by the Church.

 

Liberals support:

Abortion

Full government control of the economy (socialism)

Euthanasia

Eliminating the right to self-defense (2nd Amendment)

Free health care for all

Ignore laws on illegal immigration

Homosexual marriage

Abolish death penalty

Protect Social Security at all costs

Welfare, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of welfare

Heavy taxation (socialism)

www.studentdailynews.com

 

I'm sure that a good Latter-day Saint won't support some of these policies, but I ask, “Can you be just a little bit liberal?” Isn't it like being just a little bit pregnant? Or maybe I'm wrong in this. I can already hear the keyboards humming from those who say that there are GA's who vote Democrat. (I don't think the republican party is any better) But think about it. In the Gospel, a person cannot pick and choose what they believe. It is an all or nothing situation.

 

 

13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13–14)

 

 

 

The commandments of our Heavenly Father, the structure of the Church are not open to modification because we don't agree with them. “...How strict are the commandments of God” (Alma 37:13). When someone modifies the teachings of the Gospel to suit their beliefs and feelings, what that person is doing is telling God to agree with them, not them agree with God. Heavenly Father is completely inflexible when it comes to us obeying him.

 

For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. (Doctrine and Covenants 3:2)

 

 

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; (Doctrine and Covenants 1:31)

 

 

 

I really am not sure if someone can be a liberal and still have a testimony sufficient to return to their Heavenly father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a BYU professor Dr. Richard D Poll who used the terms "Iron Rod" and "Liahonia" members.  The first group followed the analogy of tightly holding onto rod and there is no variance in that path (conservatives)

The second group saw the Liahona as point to the general direction of where we should go, and gives a broad path as long as we are going in the right direction (liberals).

 

 

 

"The Iron Rod Saint does not look for questions but for answers, and in the gospel he finds or is confident that he can find the answer to every important question. The Liahona Saint, on the other hand, is preoccupied with questions and skeptical of answers; he finds in the gospel answers to enough important questions so that he can function purposefully without answers to the rest."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Poll

 

This was a subject of considerable discussion at the time.  Dr Poll considered himself in the latter group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a huge disconnect. It's quite possible to believe government should and shouldn't regulate certain things without necessarily embracing them.

For instance, I'm okay that government makes the consumption of alcohol legal, but that doesn't mean I embrace drinking or think being an alcoholic is okay.

Edited by jerome1232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire OP is a false premise.  The "liberal" that is spoken of is not a political or social liberal.  It is one who wishes to use the philosophies of men to inform (read: alter) the Word of God rather than vice-versa.

 

Context matters.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "liberal" that is spoken of is not a politIt is one who wishes to use the philosophies of men to inform (read: alter) the Word of God rather than vice-versa.

 

 

 

Yeah, a liberal.  Liberals are all about using the philosophy of men to live by.

Edited by JojoBag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From google's dictionary (since it's important that if we're gonna discuss a topic like this, it would be best first to agree on which definition we're going by):

adjective
    1.
    open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
        favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
        (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
        of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
        (in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democrat Party.
        Theology
        regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
    2.
    (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

    3.
    (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.

    4.
    given, used, or occurring in generous amounts.
        (of a person) giving generously.

noun
    1.
    a person of liberal views.
        a supporter or member of a Liberal Party.

...and cuz the very next paragraph in John A. Widtsoe's book after the "It is folly..." bit, starts with this sentence:

Under the true definition of liberalism, the Church of Jesus Christ is preeminently liberal.

...or maybe I should just go make popcorn, in case this is an action-adventure thread... :popcorn: (minutes later: "Wow! Who knew there were so many smiley faces to choose from!)

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a liberal.  Liberals are all about using the philosophy of men to live by.

Yeah, a conservative. Conservatives are too enamored by their philosophies of men to listen to the holy ghost. Does stuck in their ways ring a bell?

[You see how that works? I can play the blame game too. (Before I get accusations, I don't actually identify as an american Liberal either)]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In California to be an attorney you have to pass a test, at 70%.  California is liberal, you only have to know 70% of it.  I suppose it's the same for doctors.  70% is good enough.

Accountants, I think it's higher, 75, 80 or 90% or it used to be, but that's a national test.

Do you believe God is a liberal, that he will accept 70% of the 10 Commandments?  You only have to obey 70%? 

I doubt it.

And area 70 described at Stake Conference last week, take a paper cup when you are bbqing.  It will burn in the fire.  Fill another paper cup half full of water.  It will also burn in the fire.  But fill it 100% full and it won't burn.

I think God is the same way.  100% or nothing.  A conservative.  Not to follow the philosophy of man, but to adhere to a policy of strict construction, of complete compliance or adherence. 

I think religion is a test where you have to have 100% to pass.

Now, I understand that there are other churches out there that don't believe that, because they want more members, or because they are 'liberal' or whatnot.  I call them 'easy churches'.  Once you are 'saved' that's all it takes.  Just show up on Sunday and you're good to go.

It seems to me this church is not like that.  That there's more to it than that.

dc

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, there is instances of 100 % compliance, but let's take some examples where there is some flexibility ==>>

 

1. how do you judge the income for tithing -- net vs gross, for example.  In my case I had been paying tithing on gross income, so do I pay tithing on social security benefits?

 

2. Word of Wisdom is a well known example.  No need to detail it here.

 

3. What about the theory of evolution.  Of course it is clear that we are the descendants of Adam, but what about the rest of it?  Death before Adam?

 

Regarding the Liahona vs Iron Rod, it did not tell Nephi each step that he had to take.  The Iron Rod implies not so much flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

You know, it occurs to me we should clarify what we mean by "Liberal" .... are we talking about politics?  Or are we talking about people who call themselves "Liberal Mormons".  The difference is important, because I am Liberal in many of my political views, but I am not a "Liberal Mormon" the way I understand that term.  The OP seemed to use the two as if they are interchangeable, and they are not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

You know, it occurs to me we should clarify what we mean by "Liberal" .... are we talking about politics?  Or are we talking about people who call themselves "Liberal Mormons".  The difference is important, because I am Liberal in many of my political views, but I am not a "Liberal Mormon" the way I understand that term.  The OP seemed to use the two as if they are interchangeable, and they are not.  

 Correct. Huge difference between being a liberal (I am not) politically and being one theologically 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world. I should probably get some popcorn too, but...there are so many topics to addess here.

 

I cannot see how a person can support “liberal” practices and claim to believe in the Gospel. Many of the liberal practices of today go against what is taught by the Church.

 

Liberals support:

Abortion

Full government control of the economy (socialism)

Euthanasia

Eliminating the right to self-defense (2nd Amendment)

Free health care for all

Ignore laws on illegal immigration

Homosexual marriage

Abolish death penalty

Protect Social Security at all costs

Welfare, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of welfare

Heavy taxation (socialism)

www.studentdailynews.com

 

I consider myself "liberal" in many ways, and definitely "believe in the gospel".

 

What in the world is your problem with "free health care for all"? Keep in mind that I live in a country where a free public health system operates alongside private health schemes and hospitals. People have the right to free care, but they also have a choice of taking the private option if they prefer. 

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