Heretics in the Church.

[BCSpace]

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.

I hear what you are saying and I agree. However, we are trying to see if the teachings of Christ can be fit into today's definitions of political conservatism or liberalism. And having seen whether or not our ideologies match the doctrines of Christ, it behooves us to modify them so that they do match. That is the value of discussions like these.

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.

I see the deep doctrines same as anyone else, and I find them to be plain and simple, black and white.

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.

I can't think of a single one that would be an affront to today's definitions of conservative values.

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.

Obviously, one cannot gainsay another's experience, but it cuts both ways. However, even in your stated opinion government is not first and the government was not mentioned at all in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I suggest you have your Bishop pull out the CHI and you search lds.org for articles on the subject. It's not difficult to see the teachings against government involvement in individual welfare (as defined by the socialist state).

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Bishops refer members all the time to governmental services all the time.

[BCSpace]

Bishops refer members all the time to governmental services all the time.

Never said they didn't. But you have not related this to your example of the Good Samaritan, which includes no governmental involvement at all, no socialism, just individuals helping individuals in the good old fashioned conservative way.

[Nisfor]

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.

I hear what you are saying and I agree. However, we are trying to see if the teachings of Christ can be fit into today's definitions of political conservatism or liberalism. And having seen whether or not our ideologies match the doctrines of Christ, it behooves us to modify them so that they do match. That is the value of discussions like these.

Exactly! I'm sure that we can all decide that the glorious political philosophy of [us] directly matches up with Christ's teachings - and that the self-serving, amoral excuse for a political party [them] goes against every last one of them!

I can't think of a single one that would be an affront to today's definitions of conservative values.

[Douglas Hunter]

The Parable of the Good Samaritan.

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

A perfect example of what I was addressing in my earlier post. An informed reading of the good Samaritan will place it in the context of the idea of hospitality, one of the most important traditions of middle eastern cultures, its idea that has a powerful history in Jewish thought, in Islamic thought, among nomadic peoples and in persian cultures etc. There is no political ideology functioning in this story, as if to say the issue being addressed is weather or not the government should be involved in the welfare of those in need.

This story takes place in an cultural and intellectual space totally alien to liberial or conservative ideas concerning welfare. The idea of hospitality goes far beyond any contemporary notion of how the needy should be taken care of. Hospitality has been described as a 'radical comitment to the other', something that both liberial and conservative thinking eventually reject, even if they have different thresholds for doing so. The expression of hospitiality in the story of the good Sam. is spiritual and cultural expression of real significance, for us one of the things it does is show the great extent to which our own cultural and our own religion has lost touch with this earlier notion of radical comitment. We do it a great disservice when we place it in a political context.

[BCSpace]

A perfect example of what I was addressing in my earlier post. An informed reading of the good Samaritan will place it in the context of the idea of hospitality, one of the most important traditions of middle eastern cultures, its idea that has a powerful history in Jewish thought, in Islamic thought, among nomadic peoples and in persian cultures etc. There is no political ideology functioning in this story, as if to say the issue being addressed is weather or not the government should be involved in the welfare of those in need.

Not quite right and you are missing the point. Your ideology should not lead you to contradict this principle or add details to it that aren't already there. You can already see that thesometimesaint's usage of it already does this and is (as you have seen) not an example of liberal teaching.

We do it a great disservice when we place it in a political context.

Not at all. Our ideologies are an outward reflection of our spirituality.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Don't be obtuse. I'm comfortably middle class. But there is no way in heaven for me to personally take full financial responsibility for anyone other than my wife, and myself. I pay taxes to contribute but a small portion of the money that that would take. The same with the Church. My tithing is but a small contribution it takes.

[BCSpace]

Don't be obtuse.

It's good to see you backing away from your ill-thought out response of 'The parable of the Good Samaritan'.

But there is no way in heaven for me to personally take full financial responsibility for anyone other than my wife, and myself. The same with the Church. My tithing is but a small contribution it takes.

Amen! Church is good and yet another conservative principle that church should be leaders in this area.

I pay taxes to contribute but a small portion of the money that that would take.

You have little choice in the matter (render unto Caesar), but principles taught by the LDS Church oppose this concept...

The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of wealth, possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.

We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even if we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice of self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence.

In some countries it is extremely difficult to separate earned from unearned benefits. However, the principle is the same in all countries: We should strive to become self-reliant and not depend on others for our existence.

Governments are not the only guilty parties. We fear many parents in the Church are making

[Douglas Hunter]

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.

I hear what you are saying and I agree. However, we are trying to see if the teachings of Christ can be fit into today's definitions of political conservatism or liberalism. And having seen whether or not our ideologies match the doctrines of Christ, it behooves us to modify them so that they do match. That is the value of discussions like these.

Maybe if you removed the phrase "trying to see if the teachings of Christ can be fit into today's definitions of political . . ." there would be some common ground. My reading of your post is that you are still trying to claim Christ for one side or the other, still considering religious, spiritual issue from within the ideological limitations of political thought. this does not in escape the problem I discribed above, in fact the way you worded it, you are falling into exactly what I see as a significant intellectual, religious, spiritual trap. But I do understand that you are will intended, its your suggestion that contemporary politics could be positivly effected by altering them to be more consistent with the teaching of Christ. Again, there are serious theological, historical, intellectual and spiritual difficulities with this. I don't think the conditions of possibility for this exist, but it would take a very long critique to explain why this is the case. Besides there are many books out there that do this better than I could.

I see the deep doctrines same as anyone else, and I find them to be plain and simple, black and white.

First off, in most forms of Christianity a very small amount of doctrine is derrived from the teaching of Christ, as found in the scriptures. our church is pretty much the same. Second, doctrines may seem simple and black and white in the abstract but in specific context, when one's own behavior is in question the application of Christ's teachings or of Church doctrine appears to become more complex for many people. On the level of language, with a close reading or rigorous consideration of how doctrine is articulated, the meaning of the doctrine becomes more interesting and sometimes less black and white. In addition Church culture encourages us to assume that we know what the doctrine is before we read it, so we bring specific assumptions to doctrine in the form of recieved wisdom without seriously and personally engaging the doctrine. But saying all this is not threat to doctrine only that seeing it as always being black and white probably misses a great deal of the spiritual ritchess within and lead to a less significant engagement with said doctrine. Please don't take any of this as a personal attact because it is in no way meant as such.

I can't think of a single one that would be an affront to today's definitions of conservative values.

of course you can't. But are you really interested in learning to read in a way that leaves you open to the political challenges that sacred texts might hold for you? I've never met anyone who is. I suspect that like everyone else you bring your political assumtions to your reading of the texts as an apriori. Developing a critical reading methodology that allows one to reject political apriori is a very difficult task. We are after all talking about ideology, so its not a simple matter of saying "I'm going to read objectivly now." That's impossible for a number of reasons. Simply put its almost impossible to be fully aware of all the different assumptions, contexts, etc that we bring to our engagement with sacred scriptures.

I realize that one reading of my words would take them to be harsh or a personal attack. That is not the tone I intend here. Imagine if a close friend was addressing you in this way, speaking out of love and you will understand the tone I intend.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

"but principles taught by the LDS Church oppose this concept..."

Articles of Faith

12...We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

[Douglas Hunter]

Not quite right and you are missing the point.  Your ideology should not lead you to contradict this principle or add details to it that aren't already there.  You can already see that thesometimesaint's usage of it already does this and is (as you have seen) not an example of liberal teaching.

We do it a great disservice when we place it in a political context.

Not at all. Our ideologies are an outward reflection of our spirituality.

But your comment on the story suggests that you do not understand the principles and ideas that are found there in. And you, just as thesometimesait does add details that aren't already there, when you attempt to contextualize it as you did. That is a dimension that you are bringing to the story.

Sorry if I offend you but this is a very niave way of thinking about the realtion between ideology and spirituality. granted that would be the best case example if political ideology resulted from a deeply spiritual, personal, intellectual engagement with scripture and theology but clearly this is not the case. Political ideologies are learned along side religious beliefs and the way the two are intermingled can't be placed in linear terms.

[BCSpace]

My reading of your post

As should be your reading of thesometimesaint's posts. Don't put this all on me.

is that you are still trying to claim Christ for one side or the other, still considering religious, spiritual issue from within the ideological limitations of political thought.

No, Christ claims one side or the other. Either your ideology accepts some or all of the doctrines of Christ, or it doesn't. The real questions are which and how many.

in fact the way you worded it, you are falling into exactly what I see as a significant intellectual, religious, spiritual trap.

I think you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

But I do understand that you are will intended, its your suggestion that contemporary politics could be positivly effected by altering them to be more consistent with the teaching of Christ.

Exactly. It appears that you have not considered this line of thinking before and therefore you are uncomfortable with it. I can understand that.

Again, there are serious theological, historical, intellectual and spiritual difficulities with this.

None at all (else you would have elucidated them). Just because we do not address a deeper aspect of the scriotures does not mean we have ignored it.

Now there are all sorts of parallels and lessons in the Good Samaritan (such as the Atonement) but the question at hand is what, if any, welfare principles are in the example of the Good Samaritan? thesometimesaint has inferred (by being of liberal ideology) incorrectly that the governement dole is shown in this parable.

I see the deep doctrines same as anyone else, and I find them to be plain and simple, black and white.

First off, in most forms of Christianity a very small amount of doctrine is derrived from the teaching of Christ, as found in the scriptures. our church is pretty much the same.

You don't seem to be speaking of the same Church I am....D&C 1:38

Second, doctrines may seem simple and black and white in the abstract but in specific context, when one's own behavior is in question the application of Christ's teachings or of Church doctrine appears to become more complex for many people.

For many people they do. But they have not yet learned how to break down each issue into a set black and white questions. The doctrine itself remains black and white as are all the choices along the path to salvation.

I can't think of a single one that would be an affront to today's definitions of conservative values. 

of course you can't. But are you really interested in learning to read in a way that leaves you open to the political challenges that sacred texts might hold for you?

Yep. That is part of the reason I am here. Challenge me.

I suspect that like everyone else you bring your political assumtions to your reading of the texts as an apriori.

I have indeed logically calculated according to the information at hand. Do you have any new information?

Developing a critical reading methodology that allows one to reject political apriori is a very difficult task. We are after all talking about ideology, so its not a simple matter of saying "I'm going to read objectivly now." That's impossible for a number of reasons. Simply put its almost impossible to be fully aware of all the different assumptions, contexts, etc that we bring to our engagement with sacred scriptures.

That's certainly a long winded way of showing that you are erroneously confusing strong beliefs with closed-mindedness.

I realize that one reading of my words would take them to be harsh or a personal attack. That is not the tone I intend here.

Not at all. I challenge and expect to be challenged back.

Imagine if a close friend was addressing you in this way, speaking out of love and you will understand the tone I intend.

Well, I wouldn't take it that far as it sounds too much like an antiMormon telling me that I am going to hell because he loves me enough to tell me so.

But I do appreciate the sentiment.

[BCSpace]

Not at all. Our ideologies are an outward reflection of our spirituality.

But your comment on the story suggests that you do not understand the principles and ideas that are found there in.

How so?

And you, just as thesometimesait does add details that aren't already there, when you attempt to contextualize it as you did.

How so? Government assistance it not there, so thesometimesaint certainly added to it. I merely stated (correctly) that instead of government assistence, it is an example of an indivdual helping an individual (it's more than that of course but stay on topic) which happens to be a conservative value. No adding on my part.

Sorry if I offend you but this is a very niave way of thinking about the realtion between ideology and spirituality.

I am not offended, but we do not need to go into all the Atonement parallels and customs etc. for this to be an effective example against liberalism because it was incorrectly used as an example of such.

granted that would be the best case example if political ideology resulted from a deeply spiritual, personal, intellectual engagement with scripture and theology but clearly this is not the case. Political ideologies are learned along side religious beliefs and the way the two are intermingled can't be placed in linear terms.

Sure they can. Does the Church (or the scriptures) teach the goodness of government assistance or not? They do not. Simple as that. You can obfuscate all you want to try and make blurry distinctions in order to justify your pov, but such distinctions don't exist.

[BCSpace]

Douglas,

In order to convince me that it's more complicated than I think, you're going to have to come up with some applicable examples.

[Douglas Hunter]

is that you are still trying to claim Christ for one side or the other, still considering religious, spiritual issue from within the ideological limitations of political thought.

No, Christ claims one side or the other.

Putting it in these terms is a defining characteristic of the intellectual trap I have been describing.

But I do understand that you are will intended, its your suggestion that contemporary politics could be positivly effected by altering them to be more consistent with the teaching of Christ.

Exactly. It appears that you have not considered this line of thinking before and therefore you are uncomfortable with it. I can understand that.

Quite the contrary, I very much believed in your line of thinking years ago, its not new to me at all. But I'm far more experienced, educated and religious then I used to be. I see such thinking as symptomatic of very well intentioned (although I admit, not always) but nonetheless extremely niave thought since it is incapable of detecting the difficulties with its own project. It allows one to go on asserting a specific politics without critical engagement.

None at all (else you would have elucidated them).

[Cold Steel]

I don't consider my '"unorthodox" ideas strange. They make perfect sense to me.

I don't know to what extent we're judged on what we believe or what we disbelieve, but it stands to reason that our own thoughts would make sense to us. To not believe something because it doesn't make sense may limit our ability to progress, but it's fairly normal for people who believe what they want and discard the rest. If they teach their own views over the church's, and in criticism of the church, they may face discipline, but that's another matter.

C.S.

[Cold Steel]

A sad case, but I still don't comprehend why the blessings were restored. For family reasons? J. Golden Kimball is said to have given many a man a ticket to salvation (in eulogies) that he knew wouldn't get them more than half way.

Further information: The Dundee Sermon caused little excitement until 1867, when someone brought it to the attention of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. After being confronted by the brethren, Lyman published a retraction in the Deseret News. Within a few months, however, Apostle Lyman was again preaching sermons that repudiated the Atonement. Later that year, he was dropped from the Quorum of the Twelve and in 1870 excommunicated from the Church. Amasa Lyman had experimented with Spiritualism after joining the Church and was particularly influenced by the ideas of Andrew Jackson Davis. Davis taught that the shedding of blood by Jesus was unnecessary. Eventually, as Loretta Hefner has written, Lyman's "loyalty to spiritualism had surpassed his loyalty to the Mormon church." George Q. Cannon and the British Mission by Donald Q. Cannon , BYU Studies, vol. 27 (1987), Number 1 - Winter 1987, p.101

Hmmmm.

C.S.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Simplistic thinking will get you nowhere. If The Scriptures are not applicable to the group as well as to the individual they are of little to no value to me.

[Moksha]

...how do you manage the members who are more orthodox?

I'd like to know how "liberals" handle themselves in the church atmosphere.

I remembered this thread which I think can shed some light on this question - Click Here. It is indeed an important question for many of us, for we all are Brothers and Sisters in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps.

[Moksha]

You can tell the heretics by their colored shirts: true or false?

[e=mc2]

Moksha:

You can tell the heretics by their colored shirts: true or false?

TRUE! They always wear white shirts.............