Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Heretics in the Church.


Ray Agostini

Recommended Posts

I realised the possible connotations when writing up the post, but decided that sometimes you have to risk misunderstanding, and those words/expressions are the venacular used in all these types of discussions. "Liberal", in this context, does not mean political liberal, or even liberal in the usual intellectual sense. It's a liberal in the church, like for example when, I think it was Fielding-Smith or Harold B. Lee, said that "a liberal is one who does not have a testimony".  That's what I want discussion about, and whether there is any place in the church for liberals, in that sense.

The idea that lacking a testamony can, in anyway, be associated with liberialism is just wrong. Period.

I don't care who the quote is from.

Not having a testamony, means that one is either not a Mormon, or is going through a personal spiritual crisis of a particular kind. To use the term 'liberal' just confuses the issue. Its hard to take that quote as being anything other than overtly hostile to people who define themselves in some way as liberial.

But keeping in the spirit of good faith, is there another way to interpert the quote that I am missing, that I don't see? Let me know, for I don't understand how using the term 'liberial' in that sense is of any use to anyone other than those who seek to attempt to discredit liberial thinking by associating it with sipritual failure, apostate views, or losing one's testamony.

Just to be clear, I don't think this hostility belongs to Ray A, but maybe Ray could explain why he thinks this is a valid use of the term liberial.

Link to comment
I don't consider my '"unorthodox" ideas strange. They make perfect sense to me. Most of my "problems" accepting any doctrines or teachings have to do with science. I don't have a problem with most spiritual truths--just teachings that are in conflict with what I know about the natural world.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any LDS doctrines that conflict with science. I'd be interested if you would list a tough one(s) for me to chew on.

Evolution/Big Bang I've already reconciled with science. A local flood seems to work well. The Atonement and resurrection don't count because no proof for something is not evidence against that something.

Link to comment
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any LDS doctrines that conflict with science. I'd be interested if you would list a tough one(s) for me to chew on.

If you don't see any conflicts, my sincere congratulations go out to you. This means that you are able to come up with plausible scenarios that are compatible with science, much the way that LDS apologists or even "liberals" do. It also means that you are not a literalist. We need more people like you!

If you say that the Book of Mormon does not conflict with science, then it likely means that you have had to abandon the traditional views about its origins and historicity, and embrace the "plausible scenarios" that the people at FARMS have come up with (or maybe some of your own). It's fine to do that, if you are satisfied with it.

Link to comment
I don't consider my '"unorthodox" ideas strange. They make perfect sense to me. Most of my "problems" accepting any doctrines or teachings have to do with science. I don't have a problem with most spiritual truths--just teachings that are in conflict with what I know about the natural world.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any LDS doctrines that conflict with science. I'd be interested if you would list a tough one(s) for me to chew on.

Evolution/Big Bang I've already reconciled with science. A local flood seems to work well. The Atonement and resurrection don't count because no proof for something is not evidence against that something.

Maybe "doctrine" is too strong of a word. I'm referring to things that are traditionally taught and seem to be accepted literally by "orthodox" members like the things you mentioned (excluding the atonement and resurrection.)

Link to comment
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any LDS doctrines that conflict with science. I'd be interested if you would list a tough one(s) for me to chew on. 
If you don't see any conflicts, my sincere congratulations go out to you. This means that you are able to come up with plausible scenarios that are compatible with science,

Yep. I am somewhat of a scientist myself. One who believes in the existence of God and that God is LDS.

much the way that LDS apologists or even "liberals" do.

I can't stand the term 'liberal' because it's political connotations are contrary to LDS doctrine in every way. But I think I know what you mean.

It also means that you are not a literalist.

Careful, I take many things in the scriptures to be literal, such as demonic possesion, various miracles etc.

We need more people like you!

Did I mention I am somewhat of an egotist? :P<_<

If you say that the Book of Mormon does not conflict with science, then it likely means that you have had to abandon the traditional views about its origins and historicity,

I don't think I've had to abandon anything.

When I was young, I certainly thought the 'narrow neck of land' was the whole of Central America and the lands northward and southward were the whole American continents. But no one told me that.

Now that I am older, I prefer a limited geography (and one proposed by Robert Pate whose book FARMS did not like at all).

I do not see any conflicts with the origins and historicity of the BoM as taught in the BoM and in JS-H and science.

and embrace the "plausible scenarios" that the people at FARMS have come up with (or maybe some of your own).

More of my own. I rarely read anything on FARMS though it's likely I've been influenced by others who have.

In the BoM case, I came up with the idea of actually looking up the word 'principal' (as in 'principal ancestors') in the dictionary on my own. So whatever DNA senario turns out to be true, it does not change the historicity of the BoM.

I think we need to be careful here too. While many LDS and even apostles in times past preached what I call 'Mormon mythology', the fact remains that none of it was officially sanctioned or defined by the Church itself.

It's fine to do that, if you are satisfied with it.

Very satisfied so far. If the LDS Church is not true, then God does not exist.

However, I am always truely interested in anything someone can come up with to scientifically challenge my notions. My expertise is not in the DNA area, so I let others work that debate (though perhaps soon I shall bring myself up to speed on it). But I think the definitions of the word 'principal' (especially the primary one) precludes the DNA debate from mattering at all.

Sort of like the word 'merdian' (as in 'Christ came in the merdian of time') Meridian does not mean middle, it means 'highest' or 'greatest' or 'peak'.

Link to comment

The idea that lacking a testamony can, in anyway, be associated with liberialism is just wrong. Period.

I don't care who the quote is from.

Not having a testamony, means that one is either not a Mormon, or is going through a personal spiritual crisis of a particular kind.  To use the term 'liberal' just confuses the issue.  Its hard to take that quote as being anything other than overtly hostile to people who define themselves in some way as liberial.

But keeping in the spirit of good faith, is there another way to interpert the quote that I am missing, that I don't see?  Let me know, for I don't understand how using the term 'liberial' in that sense is of any use to anyone other than those who seek to attempt to discredit liberial thinking by associating it with sipritual failure, apostate views, or losing one's testamony.

Just to be clear, I don't think this hostility belongs to Ray A, but maybe Ray could explain why he thinks this is a valid use of the term liberial.

I don't know what you believe, nor what your motives are, either. And most of all, I don't understand what you're driving at. With most of the posters on the BB I know who they are, what they believe, or don't believe, and what they are driving at. It helps greatly to formulate a reply that is more meaningful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

Uses of the term "liberal" as applied to theologians and authors, and where it becomes problematic for the church:

Liberal theology is individualistic, and as such values personal and subjective religious experience above doctrines, Church authority or the literal word of scripture.
Liberal Christian theologians and authors

Protestant

    * Marcus Borg, New Testament scholar and Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

    * Charles Augustus Briggs, Hebrew scholar

    * Rudolf Bultmann, Biblical scholar

    * Peter Carnley, Anglican Primate of Australia

    * William Ellery Channing, pioneering liberal theologian in the USA, who criticized the doctrine of the Trinity and the strength of scriptural authority, in favor of more rationalistic and historical-critical beliefs

    * John B. Cobb, author of many texts on process theology. Considered to be (along with philosopher, David Ray Griffin) a founder of process theology.

    * Harvey Cox, Harvard theologian and author of The Secular City

    * Harry Emerson Fos****, Baptist pastor of Riverside Church in New York City

    * Karl Heinrich Graf, Old Testament scholar

    * Adolf von Harnack, a German theologian who sought to return Christianity's focus to the teachings of Jesus, away from complex structures of thought about Jesus and faith.

    * John Hick, Presbyterian Clergyman, Philosopher of Religion, and seminary professor.

    * Martin Luther King, Jr., African-American Baptist minister of the Social Gospel, Gandhian non-violence, and personalism; leading activist and most prominent icon of the American Civil Rights Movement

    * Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), critic of industrialized state who related faith to modern life

    * John Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich, author of Honest to God

    * Paul Tillich, synthesized Protestant Christian theology with existential philosophy

    * Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, often called the "father of liberal theology", he claimed that religious experience was introspective, and that the truest understanding of God consisted of "a sense of absolute dependence"

    * Albert Schweitzer, missionary and New Testament scholar

    * John Shelby Spong, heterodox Episcopal bishop.

    * Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, process theologian, author of God, Christ, Church, and professor emerita at Claremont School of Theology.

    * Leslie Weatherhead, English preacher, and author of The Will of God and The Christian Agnostic

    * Julius Wellhausen, Biblical scholar

    * Rowan Williams, theologian and current Archbishop of Canterbury.

    * Rev. Canon Adrian Alker, parish vicar of St Mark's Church, Broomhill (Sheffield, UK) and leader of the Centre for Radical Christianity (CRC)

Maybe when you tell me a bit more about yourself, what you believe, and what you're driving at, I will better understand. You've made terse blanket statements from which I could draw 300 interpretations. I don't know whether you are:

a) A liberal

b ) A Mormon

c) An ex-Mormon

d) An anti-Mormon

e) A Political conservative

f) A Political liberal

g) A troll

h) Just fighting insomnia

Link to comment

Ray A:

1) Do you identify more with the pacifist Anti-Nephi-Lehis than with the patriotic Captain Moroni? (situational, I wish we had a Capt. Moroni right now to take care of these kingmen)

2) Would you rather crazy glue sensitive parts of your body together than go to school at BYU? (No)

3) Do you struggle with the idea of Nephi beheading the unconscious Laban (at God

Link to comment
I don't know what you believe, nor what your motives are, either.  And most of all, I don't understand what you're driving at. With most of the posters on the BB I know who they are, what they believe, or don't believe, and what they are driving at. It helps greatly to formulate a reply that is more meaningful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

Uses of the term "liberal" as applied to theologians and authors, and where it becomes problematic for the church:

Liberal theology is individualistic, and as such values personal and subjective religious experience above doctrines, Church authority or the literal word of scripture.

Maybe when you tell me a bit more about yourself, what you believe, and what you're driving at, I will better understand. You've made terse blanket statements from which I could draw 300 interpretations. I don't know whether you are:

a) A liberal

b ) A Mormon

c) An ex-Mormon

d) An anti-Mormon

e) A Political conservative

f) A Political liberal

g) A troll

h) Just fighting insomnia

Can't tell if this entire post was directed at me. But it should go without saying that who or what I am personally has nothing to do with the definition of Liberal in the theological sense. Nor does it have any bearing on the quote about liberials not having testamonies.

Also note that the link and quote above, as problematic as they may be, make no refrence to testamony. Its perfectly reasonable to expect that different individuals have different priorities, ways of understanding doctrine, scripture etc, but all can have healthy testamony, and within certain limits are all within the pale of orthodoxy.

There was nothing terse in my post, in both my replies I emphasize the importance of acting in good faith, and reamining open to other possibilities concerning the interpertation of the quote about liberals not having testamonies.

The question at hand as defined by the quote in question is not weather or not there are liberal understandings of scripture, liberial faith, and practice of Christianity. Of course there are. The question is, Is a church leader correct in linking that kind of practice with not having a testamony. For me this linkage is totaly mis-informed at best and an overt attack at worst.

Link to comment
The question at hand as defined by the quote in question is not weather or not there are liberal understandings of scripture, liberial faith, and practice of Christianity. Of course there are. The question is, Is a church leader correct in linking that kind of practice with not having a testamony.

If such an understanding of the scriptures, no matter how you label it, is contrary to doctrine, then said church leader (or anyone else) would be correct in saying that such an understanding (being contrary to doctrine) means one does not have a testimony of that doctrine at least.

Link to comment

Ray A,

> From what I gather, some posters here are active Mormons who have liberal views. By "liberal" I mean that they do not necessarily believe all the doctrines and would be considered heretics by some more orthodox members.

==First, I have never heard the term "heretic" used by Latter-day Saints in this way.

==Second, I think Latter-day Saints are, in the main, reluctant to label other members for their theological views. And to the extent such labeling does occur, the label would be "apostate," not "heretic."

==Third, I think the "apostate" label would be reserved for those members of the Church who actually espouse ideas about and interpretations of doctrine that are adverse to or contradict the position of the LDS Church.

==Fourth, I think "apostate" ideas about and interpretations of doctrine only garner attention when the doctrines are central to the LDS belief system. Opinions abound about peripheral or speculative doctrines, and such opinions don't create many problems.

For example, I have a fried who is an ardent believer in a form of the Adam-God Theory (I say "a form" because I think there is no single unified "Theory" on this subject). I've had several conversations (a few lasting several hours) with him on this subject and find his ideas and scripture exegesis fascinating (though not, ultimately, compelling). Would most Latter-day Saints not accept his views on this subject? Probably not. Does that matter? No, because it's not a doctrine central to the faith.

On the other hand, an acquaintance who rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ, or who denies the necessity of baptism, is more susceptible to the "apostate" label. These doctrines are central to the faith.

> So to you who fall into this category, semi-believer, or believer with unorthodox ideas, how do you manage cognitive dissonance, and how do you manage the members who are more orthodox?

==Your question presumes that I have a problem with "cognitive dissonance." I don't.

==I think the LDS paradigm allows members broad latitude to believe all sorts of things. That latitude allows folks to avoid the "conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions" that is, I think, what you refer to as "cognitive dissonance."

> I should comment that this phenomenon is not new. It's been around as long as the church has. One of the early Twelve Apostles, Amasa Lyman, developed some "strange ideas"

==I think Amasa Lyman is a good example of what I mention above. It's one thing to argue that Adam didn't have a belly button or that the Holy Ghost will get a body one day. Those concepts are peripheral and speculative. Amasa Lyman, however, denied a core, the core, tenet of the faith: the Atonement.

==A big difference. All the difference in the world, even.

-Smac

Link to comment
I think "apostate" ideas about and interpretations of doctrine only garner attention when the doctrines are central to the LDS belief system. Opinions abound about peripheral or speculative doctrines, and such opinions don't create many problems.

Okay, let's see if I would be labeled an "apostate" based on the following beliefs that I have. These are just a couple of examples:

1. The Book of Mormon is not an account of an actual civilization that lived on the American continent. It's not historical. I do believe that it contains the word of God, but that its historicity is irrelevant.

2. Polygamy was never a part of God's plan.

3. The priesthood was denied to people of African descent due to racist attitudes that prevailed in the 19th century, and that the ban remained in force until 1978 because the General Authorities were reluctant to contradict earlier statements by church leaders.

4. I doubt that Peter, James, and John actually laid their hands on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's heads. I think that this is a myth that was perpetuated to add credibility to Joseph Smith's call as a prophet. I still think of Joseph Smith as a prophet, but I think that some mythology has arisen surrounding the history of the restoration.

I am an active member and I still enjoy church. I think there is a lot of truth in the church, but that myths could also have become official church positions. Am I an apostate?

Link to comment
The ultimate conservatives were the Pharisees. Look what they did to The Liberal.

I see you conceed the doctrinal route but want to go the preservation route. I don't blame you because the doctrinal route is an impossible task for your pov.

As for preservation, it was the Pharisees who changed the laws, but it was Jesus who brought them back into balance by communicating their true meaning and bringing about again the Gospel law which was in operation before the Mosiac Law (liberals being punished and constrained). Once again it is shown that Jesus is the ultimate Conservative.

Link to comment
I see you conceed the doctrinal route but want to go the preservation route. I don't blame you because the doctrinal route is an impossible task for your pov.
BCSpace:

From a doctrinal POV. If you take all the verses that advocate for Liberal causes from the Scriptures you'd have just the correct size for Rush Limbaughs drug use.

:P Now I see that you have no route to take at all....

Not even the scriptures will help you because you will selectively quote tham and not take all verses on the subject into account.

Pick a topic, any topic, and start a new thread, and we'll debate it. Scriptures and words of the prophets from official works of the Church only.

Link to comment

The question at hand as defined by the quote in question is not weather or not there are liberal understandings of scripture, liberial faith, and  practice of Christianity.  Of course there are.  The question is, Is a church leader correct in linking that kind of practice with not having a testamony.  For me this linkage is totaly mis-informed at best and an overt attack at worst.

Thank you, DH, I am now much clearer. Maybe I'm just a bit of a dim lightbulb at times, but I couldn't see what your main point was. Now I do. And I agree with you. One of the most sincere LDS, and a man with one of the most powerful testimonies of the BoM I have ever "met" (through many years of snail mail correspondence in the 80s, and who sent me volume after volume of his books to try to help this wayward "liberal"), Eugene England, was by the definitions of many a "liberal", yet he had the same qualms as you about the use of this term, and once wrote a Sunstone article decrying the use of the term. So did Lavina Fielding Anderson, another I corresponded with but not as extensively, and she considered herself completely orthodox, so she told me, though she was branded as a "liberal" by many. She was not backward in coming forth in her criticisms of the church hierarchy, and, in fact, was excommunicated for it.

So whether or not we like or disagree with the use of the term, it is used by some members and leaders. The funny thing is that I am a conservative voter, and though I live in Australia I responded to the Republican question in comparative terms. So in most areas I am politically conservative, and it is kind of funny to be classed as a religious liberal, when in fact I am not, in most areas. Crossan and Borg don't turn me on intellectually. In fact, I'd read Nibley before I read them. But that's what I'm exploring in this thread - definitions. And perhaps realities. Most of us are too complex to be defined into a category, especially here on FAIR.

None of my replies to you were meant as an attack. I just get frustrated when I'm foundering and not understanding a poster's message.

Link to comment
The Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Caring for the welfare of others without governmental involvement. An excellent example of conservatism. Thank you very much!

Edit: Btw, if you've ever taken the time to study LDS doctrine on welfare or been to a welfare meeting, you would know that, while the Church does not prohibit you from 'going on the dole', it does actively preach against it and as a last resort at best. It is we as individuals, families, and the Church who are to take care of the poor and those are conservative values.

Link to comment

Doctrinal Engineer,

>> I think "apostate" ideas about and interpretations of doctrine only garner attention when the doctrines are central to the LDS belief system. Opinions abound about peripheral or speculative doctrines, and such opinions don't create many problems.

> Okay, let's see if I would be labeled an "apostate" based on the following beliefs that I have. These are just a couple of examples:

> 1. The Book of Mormon is not an account of an actual civilization that lived on the American continent. It's not historical. I do believe that it contains the word of God, but that its historicity is irrelevant.

==That's an excellent example, DE. Personally, I don't think that a person can legitimately claim that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be in one respect (a historical record of real people) but is what it claims to be in another ("the word of God").

==For example, if the Nephites didn't exist, then Moroni didn't exist. If Moroni didn't exist, then Joseph lied or was deluded when he said that Moroni appeared to him. And the witnesses were likewise lying or deluded when they claim to have seen/hefted the plates that - in your view - did not exist because the authors of it are fictional.

==Rejecting the BoM's historicity, in my view, necessarily requires rejecting the BoM's status as scripture. I don't think that a coherent good faith argument can be made otherwise.

==Elder Oaks has a rather succinct criticism of your opinion:

There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship.

...

The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived.

Also consider this comment from Kent P. Jackson (from same link as above):

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be "true," in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?

==Nevertheless, are you going to be labeled an "apostate" for this? Well, that depends on you. What do you have to say about the ramifications of this opinion (such as the lying/deluded state of Joseph and the Witnesses)? Do you openly preach this to others?

> 2. Polygamy was never a part of God's plan.

> 3. The priesthood was denied to people of African descent due to racist attitudes that prevailed in the 19th century, and that the ban remained in force until 1978 because the General Authorities were reluctant to contradict earlier statements by church leaders.

> 4. I doubt that Peter, James, and John actually laid their hands on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's heads. I think that this is a myth that was perpetuated to add credibility to Joseph Smith's call as a prophet. I still think of Joseph Smith as a prophet, but I think that some mythology has arisen surrounding the history of the restoration.

==Good examples all.

> I am an active member and I still enjoy church.

==Good on ya.

> I think there is a lot of truth in the church, but that myths could also have become official church positions. Am I an apostate?

==Dunno. To be honest, I'm not too interested in that question. I'm more inclined to ask not whether you are apostate, but whether you are correct.

-Smac

Link to comment

If such an understanding of the scriptures, no matter how you label it, is contrary to doctrine, then said church leader (or anyone else) would be correct in saying that such an understanding (being contrary to doctrine) means one does not have a testimony of that doctrine at least.

Yes, of course, from a certain point of view, on that level its a no-brainer, although looking at the nuances it may get more complex. Regardless there is a world of difference between what you write above, and the very braod statement that being liberial = no testamony.

The list leaves out the most important liberal Jesus the Christ.

Actually, looking at his doctrine and teachings, Jesus the Christ is the ultimate conservative.

Both of these statements are problematic. While its a natural urge to want to synthesize one's religious ideology with political or intellectual ideologies that we hold dear, to call Jesus a liberial or conserative is to project back in time notions that we are fond of now but that could not have existed in the same way then, if at all. For example, as Michele Foucault has famously pointed out, one can go to a university and get a degree in Midevil litrature but the idea of litrature did not exist in the midevil period. In other word people of the time thought about writing and story telling and the use of language differently than we do after the idea of litrature has been instutionalized and is a commonly understood idea.

I think this is a similar case. Perhas there is a chance that these ideas of 'liberal' and 'conservative' existed in some form at the time of Christ, but if they did they had very different meanings and implications.

Further, applying these ideas to Christ's teachings is problematic because Christ's teaching were so much more complex than all that. Even if we see in an account of his life, an act, or teaching that we agree is consisten with what we would call liberal or conservative, its impossible for an intellectualy & spiritually rigorous reading of scripture to simply condense Christ to fit into a ideological box of human creation. There are ways in which Christ's teaching can (and I would argue should be) interperted as a direct affront to the intellectual, political, theological catagories of both liberal and conservative.

Link to comment
it does actively preach against it and as a last resort at best. It is we as individuals, families, and the Church who are to take care of the poor and those are conservative values
Not in the wards I've been. The procedure of reliance is first self, then family, then government and then Church except in the case of a one time temporary need. In some cases, church members help others with the paperwork and processing to participate in government aid. Not exactly "actively preaching against" it, imo.
Link to comment
To be honest, I'm not too interested in that question. I'm more inclined to ask not whether you are apostate, but whether you are correct.

I'm not too interested in the question, either. I was just trying to make a point that the "apostate" label doesn't really have any objective criteria for its use, in my mind. Maybe apostasy, for the purposes of the church courts, is characterized more by your actions than your thoughts, such as publishing a book as opposed to just privately thinking something. Anyway, thanks for the response.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...