pmccombs1 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 For me, the following passage from the article provides valuable insight into its justification: When we pray for a testimony and get the answer that this church is exactly what it claims to be—the restored gospel of Jesus Christ—then we need to embrace every part of it. For sister Hilton, the church and the gospel are one and the same. Church policy and church rules are therefore "the restored gospel." A "testimony" entails a wholesale endorsement of every last aspect of the church. Here is another interesting quote: Former Young Women President, Elaine Cannon, once said, “When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.” This is because the prophet is speaking for God and telling us what He would have us hear. He is not just the president of a corporation, giving us his personal views. This sounds quite familiar to another statement once published in the Deseret News: When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan- it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. If I am not mistaken, the prophet at the time made an apology for letting that bit of Satan's little rule-book get published, as if it were part and parcel of "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" of which we are to fully "embrace." 1
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 For sister Hilton, the church and the gospel are one and the same. Church policy and church rules are therefore "the restored gospel." A "testimony" entails a wholesale endorsement of every last aspect of the church. Exactly. For such people, the gospel becomes a set of rules instead of a faith and hope that inform everything we do. Some people prefer a gospel of checklists.
Buckeye Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 FWIW, here are Sister Hilton's criteria for being a "liberal mormon"_ doesn't "honor" the Sabbath_ wears less-than-modest clothing_ doesn't like something the Prophet says_ dodges Gospel Doctrine because of "by-the-book" teachers_ disagrees with "several points" in the Proclamation to the World_ says no to callings because the calling "insults their intelligence"_ has own opinion on the methodology God will use to judge us_ thinks bikinis are "fine"_ thinks iced tea is a "tasty drink"_ thinks R-rated movies are often "artistic" and "worth seeing" (presumably watches them too)_ does not read scriptures daily_ does not attend temple_ does not help people move_ does not Home Teach or Visit Teach with regularity I'll play the game too. I try to honor the Sabbath, but then I remember it's really the Sabbath that's supposed to honor me. So far the Sabbath has honored its covenants pretty well. I grew up in the "long-shorts" generation of the 90s so never had much of a problem. The only immodest clothing I own is a gaudy Rush Limbaugh tie. I admit I don't like some things the Prophet says. But I still take those things to the Lord for better understanding. Thankfully, my callings for the past decade have helped me avoid GD. I only disagree with 2 points in the Proclamation. I think that's less than "several"? So far I've avoided being asked to be the missionary meal coordinator. If that ever happens I may be guilty of this. Guilty. I've never worn a bikini. I prefer to go topless. I've never had ice tea. My wife loves the herbal stuff, but I can't stomach it. I can recommend some worthy R-rated movies. Most are bunk. But compared to other movie ratings, I'd say R-rated movies generally have more artistic value than all other ratings except for G. Guilty. I average about 4.7 days/week. Just got my 2-year pass renewed. Go as much as possible. Didn't Elder Oaks tell us to stop helping people move? Oh well, I guess I'm a cafeteria mormon on this one too. I just can't say no. I'm in the 92nd percentile for HT stats. Bishop has warned me that if I drop below 90th then I'll be called to be missionary meal coordinator.
Buckeye Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I just finished reading the article and skimming the comments. On the bright side, most commenters express a negative reaction to the article. However, the article also currently has 1,200 + "likes" on facebook. Discouraging.
Stargazer Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 "Invariably liberal Mormons do not read their scriptures every day." Dang. I didn't know I was liberal. I could have sworn I was a libertarian, though.
mormonnewb Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 The contrarian in me (after all, I am a LIBERAL Mormon) makes me want to ask the following question: Why are we so quick to condemn Sister Hilton for taking a stance that has been taken repeatedly by church leaders in general conference talks? After all, what is so different from this article than the acclaimed Follow the Prophets talks, such as this one (someone ALWAYS wants a reference). http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/follow-the-prophets In my short time in the church, I've heard at least a half dozen of these "it's all or nothing" talks in General Conference and yet, when this sister makes similar remarks, she is castigated. I wonder why we're so critical of our fellow members but so much more accepting of our leaders. Doesn't scripture instruct us that "To whom much is given, much is required"? So if we don't always require an open and accepting tone from our leaders who have been given much in the way of revelation, then why should we require such grace from our dear sister, who has received far less? And for the record, this isn't a call for criticism of the Brethren, but rather a call for grace for Sister Hilton. I could not disagree with her more, but she does seem to have some support for her position among at least a few of the Brethren. And if we want to have a big tent church (and I think we must), we have to make room for not just the "liberal" Mormons but the "by the book" Mormons as well. Just a contrarian thought ...
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 "Invariably liberal Mormons do not read their scriptures every day." Dang. I didn't know I was liberal. I could have sworn I was a libertarian, though.I am a flaming liberal then. I try to read them. I have done better lately with my kids. But that is one area I just suck at right now.
mormonnewb Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Now, you done done it! The article has been taken off the website.
canard78 Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 "Invariably liberal Mormons do not read their scriptures every day."Dang. I didn't know I was liberal. I could have sworn I was a libertarian, though.Welcome Stargazer, it's great on this side, we wear bikinis and celebrate European art.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) In my short time in the church, I've heard at least a half dozen of these "it's all or nothing" talks in General Conference and yet, when this sister makes similar remarks, she is castigated. These talks when they are given in GC are generally not followed up by a list of requirements. I mean I think all of us have an idea of what it means to be apostate. And even the best of us have a little bit of apostacy in us. I just fail to see how this list is going to help anyone. That is the whole reason I disagree with her or how she is going about it. There are things in my life I need to do better in. I know that. I sure the heck don't need her telling me that. And again I am not sure how a list helps anyone. Lets look at it this way. I have a friend he drinks iced tea. What good would it do for our relationship and for him in general if I told him that he should not be drinking iced tea. He already knows he should not do it. I should I start calling him a liberal mormon? How would that help him? Instead I will be his friend and try to be a good example. If he ever asks me what I think about it I would tell him. Edited October 31, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
pmccombs1 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I just finished reading the article and skimming the comments. On the bright side, most commenters express a negative reaction to the article. However, the article also currently has 1,200 + "likes" on facebook. Discouraging. It seems the article has been taken down. What is discouraging to me is that whatever takes its place, if anything does, will not seem genuine. There was, at least, a refreshing candor in the article. In spite of our ideals, this is what we are up against. I found it instructive. 1
pmccombs1 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 ... And if we want to have a big tent church (and I think we must), we have to make room for not just the "liberal" Mormons but the "by the book" Mormons as well. Just a contrarian thought ... Which is why I'm disappointed that the article has apparently gone missing. It's great fodder for discussion and argument, to which I am not adverse.
mtomm Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Based on the comments, she represents 0 Mormons from what I can see, so I'm wondering why all the outrage given that she is standing alone over there. I don't happen to think she stands alone. Example: Last Sunday the HP Group leader teacher went off on a diatribe about Democrats and Pres. Obama. One fellow got up and left. When he was out the door the teacher said, "good riddance." My DIL's first day of her Book of Mormon class at BYU-Idaho was stunned when the professor's commentary included the words, "filthy gays." Just because people aren't commenting in agreement does not mean that she stands alone. Edited October 31, 2013 by mtomm
canard78 Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 It seems the article has been taken down. What is discouraging to me is that whatever takes its place, if anything does, will not seem genuine. There was, at least, a refreshing candor in the article. In spite of our ideals, this is what we are up against. I found it instructive. True - but what's encouraging, in spite of the 1000 likes was that in every social media forum I visited (both orthodox and less orthodox) it was roundly condemned. For a long time I've presumed her attitude was the the majority. But maybe hers is the vocal minority. It's just a matter of us being less silent in the presumption that we're the ones that are different. This thread on the most popular conference talks also suggests the same:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62069-most-liked-conference-talks-will-this-affect-themes-in-future/
canard78 Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 I don't happen to think she stands alone. Example: Last Sunday the HP Group leader teacher went off on a diatribe about Democrats and Pres. Obama. One fellow got up and left. When he was out the door the teacher said, "good riddance." My DIL's first day of her Book of Mormon class at BYU-Idaho was stunned when the professors commentary included the words, "filthy gays." So just because people aren't commenting in agreement does not mean that she stands alone. She certainly doesn't stand alone. But increasingly she will stand in the minority. Once everybody is on the dancefloor it's the people left at the edges who start feeling silly. We just need to get on the dancefloor together and let the vocal minority realise THEY are the ones on the fringes. None of those messages you mentioned, and none of what she said in her article are messages you would hear from the church leaders. They need to get on board with the direction of the ship.
mormonstories Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 The article has been taken down. Here's the original text:http://mormonstories.org/meridian-magazines-are-you-a-liberal-mormon-by-joni-hilton/
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Invariably liberal Mormons do not read their scriptures every day. They do not attend the temple, they do not show up to help someone move, and they do not Home Teach or Visit Teach with regularity. They view those who do as quaint minions who never question authority and who follow the rules like mindless sheep. The one thing they do subscribe to with gusto, however, is free agency. In fact, free agency is their justification for the Designer Gospel they have refurbished to suit their individual tastes. Let me be more specific in my critisms. This is specifically about putting people in a box and judging them. If I don't read my scriptures and I don't go to GD then that means i view "those who do as quaint minions who never question authority and who follow the rules like mindless sheep". When the truth is that those things are the furthest from my mind. This is really were she is quite wrong in what she is saying.
mtomm Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 She certainly doesn't stand alone. But increasingly she will stand in the minority. Once everybody is on the dancefloor it's the people left at the edges who start feeling silly. We just need to get on the dancefloor together and let the vocal minority realise THEY are the ones on the fringes. None of those messages you mentioned, and none of what she said in her article are messages you would hear from the church leaders. They need to get on board with the direction of the ship. I really do hope that is the case. I'm just supremely happy she is not my Relief Society president. That saying about "church is a hospital for sinners not a museum for saints" would not be a rallying cry for Sister Hilton and her followers.
omni Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I am a flaming liberal then. I bet this is the first time those words have ever left your mouth...er, I mean keyboard.
Popular Post cinepro Posted October 31, 2013 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2013 Frankly, I'm a little mystified on the focus of her article. If the article were castigating LDS for not helping those in need, gossiping and being socially exclusive, being materialistic and prideful with our houses, cars, clothes and other possessions, I would actually be quite supportive of it. The problem with the Church isn't that some people wear tank-tops and don't do our home teaching. The problem is that we think it's the name of the Church that makes us "christian", and not the way we act towards others. 6
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Frankly, I'm a little mystified on the focus of her article. If the article were castigating LDS for not helping those in need, gossiping and being socially exclusive, being materialistic and prideful with our houses, cars, clothes and other possessions, I would actually be quite supportive of it. The problem with the Church isn't that some people wear tank-tops and don't do our home teaching. The problem is that we think it's the name of the Church that makes us "christian", and not the way we act towards others. The focus of her article is on herself. 1
juliann Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 On the bright side, most commenters express a negative reaction to the article. However, the article also currently has 1,200 + "likes" on facebook. Discouraging. That is disturbing.
juliann Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 The article has been taken down. Here's the original text:http://mormonstories.org/meridian-magazines-are-you-a-liberal-mormon-by-joni-hilton/If only you would take down Kate Kelly's shocking ad hominem attack on Neylan, Fiona, and Young..... 3
Stargazer Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Welcome Stargazer, it's great on this side, we wear bikinis and celebrate European art. You would be emotionally scarred for the rest of your life if were to see ME in a bikini. Fortunately, I don't wear them out in public.
canard78 Posted November 1, 2013 Author Posted November 1, 2013 The article has been taken down. Here's the original text:http://mormonstories.org/meridian-magazines-are-you-a-liberal-mormon-by-joni-hilton/ Wouldn't it be better to let the article die and be buried rather than standing round its carcass spitting on it? Anyway, Meridian have said: Email from Meridian Magazine: "The team in charge of editorial today was not on the top of things and we agree that this article is extremely offensive and it will be taken down. It has been removed from the homepage and will be completely deleted from the site before long. There may still be a cached copy if you don't clear your cache, but it will be removed in the next few hours. God loves everyone, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative. James E. Faust was a liberal Mormon too. We are embarrassed that it slipped through somehow." 1
Recommended Posts