Are You A Liberal Mormon?

[Stargazer]

Wouldn't it be better to let the article die and be buried rather than standing round its carcass spitting on it?

 

But it's so much more fun beating dead horses, Mr. Spoilsport!

 

 

My ADD compels me to go off on a tangent about beating an Ox to within an inch of its life.  I present a short vignette from my mother-in-law's story of life in a Soviet labor camp in the Ural Mountains after World War 2.

 

 

One time in the winter when it was particularly cold, I had to go out by myself with this one ox named Belschi into the peat field to remove the snow so that the peat under it could be cut the next day.  After working all day in the cold I finished what I was required to do, and finally I could go home.  I was exhausted.  So I hitched the ox back to the sled and we started back the several kilometers towards the barracks.

 

Now, my Belschi must have been tired from the work, too, or else hungry and thirsty.  All of a sudden he stopped and refused to move any further.  “Oh, my goodness,” I thought, and tried to get him moving again, but he refused to take one more step.  I shouted at him and pounded on him but it did not help.  I grasped him on the front of the head and tried to pull him, and beat on him some more but he just stood there as stubborn as he could be.

I didn’t know what else I could do, but I knew I had to return to the camp by the appointed time or I would be in serious trouble.   I knew the peat-cutting team was waiting for word that the snow had been cleared, and I was desperate.  I was cold and it was freezing, and I also couldn’t just stand there. There was no choice at all, I had to go on, I simply had to.  I resumed beating on the animal, and I beat that animal so long and so much to get him going, that I thought either I freeze here to death or I am going to beat the animal to death.  I beat and beat on that ox until in his confusion he finally started trotting down the road.  I thanked God, and continued to guide him until finally we came back to the camp.

 

Now I was tired and confused; I just took him to the corral and then headed off to my bed.  I didn’t say much of anything to anyone and in my exhaustion quickly fell asleep.  On the next day I was told that Belschi could not be used for any work, because he was sick, they said.  The poor animal could not get up, I had beaten it so severely.

 

Fortunately for me, nobody connected the animal’s state with my having used it the day before, and apparently nobody noticed any marks on it.  I would have been severely punished if I could have been blamed for the ox’s condition, but luckily, if anyone thought I might have been responsible, they didn’t say anything. 

 

Did the ox recover?  I don’t remember any longer what finally happened to the animal, if it got healthy again, or not.

The book this is out of is "The Bones of My People" and I will get the thing published by the end of November if it is last thing I do. I said this about October, too, and look what happened. Criminy.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Stargazer

[thesometimesaint]

So, to your way of thinking, a label is only exclusionary or judgmental based on who is doing the labeling, and not on the merits of the labels themselves?

 

I ask because if so, that seems to be characteristic of some liberal thinking. It seems that when certain liberals put certain labels on conservatives or non-liberals (like racist or bigot or narrow minded, etc.), in their minds that is perfectly fine, but when conservatives and non-liberals put the same labels or others on liberals, it is very wrong. What a lovely and self-serving double standard.

 

I find the outrage here against the article somewhat amusing--as one who is often of the small minority in the comments section on the Huffington Post.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Liberal is being open to new ideas and ways of doing things. Conservative is holding onto old ideas and ways of doing things. Not all new things are good, just as all things old are not bad. Each must be evaluted in context. I'm politically liberal, religiously conservative, and morally(it is more than just sex) more straight-laced than must LDS that I know. Those facts about myself make for interesting HP group discussions.

[cinepro]

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:

It's great they took the article down, but from their statement I think Meridian totally missed the point of the article. It wasn't about "liberal/conservative" in the traditional sense.

Although it would be awesome if someone could explain to me how Elder Faust was a "liberal Mormon" in the way that Hilton defined it...   

Edited November 1, 2013 by cinepro

[Buzzard]

cinepro, you hit the nail on the head. She wasn't talking about "Mormons who are politically liberal", she was talking about Mormons who pick and choose the commandments they agree with and want to follow. I would not call them liberal Mormons, I'd call them part-time members, or cafeteria members. 

On the one one hand, I freely admit I don't keep all the commandments, even some on her list. But I know I should and I am trying to do better. I suspect her definition fits people who are proud to disobey some commandments, even point out to others the ones that they have chosen to flaunt.

BTW, the Bikini one took me aback. I am sure that some members wear them, but a true bikini is so immodest that I have a hard time understanding how even a cafeteria member could be seen in public wearing one. Maybe if it's just you and your husband, and the pool has a high fence, but still....My particular peccadillo, I suppose.  

[mtomm]

In their apology they referred to Elder Faust as being a liberal Mormon.  They might want to take that back now that they defined "liberal" for the article.  It's just b.s backpedaling now.  

 

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/13499

Edited November 1, 2013 by mtomm

[Buckeye]

In their apology they referred to Elder Faust as being a liberal Mormon.  They might want to take that back now that they defined "liberal" for the article.  It's just b.s backpedaling now.  

 

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/13499

 

Good point.  I can't see anyone accusing Elder Faust of not attending the temple, drinking tea, wearing a bikini, or any other indicia of "liberal" that Hilton raises.  Elder Faust was a well-known democrat, but Hilton expressly said she was not talking about political views.  So where is the parallel?  Also, even talking politics, I don't think it accurate to label Elder Faust a liberal democrat, at least by 21st-century standards. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Wouldn't it be better to let the article die and be buried rather than standing round its carcass spitting on it?

 

I agree.

 

I see no point in posting what is probably an unauthorized reprint of it other than to prolong divisiveness and contention.

 

Not a wholesome aim, say I.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I agree.

 

I see no point in posting what is probably an unauthorized reprint of it other than to prolong divisiveness and contention.

 

Not a wholesome aim, say I.

 

Not sure I quite get Mormonstories, but isn't it's purpose, in part, is to point out these types of stories?  To me it's kind of an embarrassing and laughable article written by an LDS person.  But to some other Mormons its something to cheer for, and like on Facebook, I guess--perhaps even carry with him/her to share with others and articulate in gospel Doctrine class or something. 

 

The sad commentary here is that the views expressed in the article ring true to many a faithful member.  Or maybe I'm just one of the ones that are completely wrong and hopelessly liberal. 

Edited November 1, 2013 by stemelbow

[canard78]

Not sure I quite get Mormonstories, but isn't it's purpose, in part, is to point out these types of stories?  To me it's kind of an embarrassing and laughable article written by an LDS person.  But to some other Mormons its something to cheer for, and like on Facebook, I guess--perhaps even carry with him/her to share with others and articulate in gospel Doctrine class or something. 

 

The sad commentary here is that the views expressed in the article ring true to many a faithful member.  Or maybe I'm just one of the ones that are completely wrong and hopelessly liberal. 

 

I'd say that the most encouraging thing about this whole 'episode' is that the vast majority of responses to this article, from a very broad spectrum of Mormon communities (including this one) is one of not supporting the tone of the article.

 

It really matters very little whether she used the label 'liberal mormon' 'jack mormon' 'cafeteria mormon' or 'whatever-any-other-label-you-like mormon.'

 

The point is that the tone of the article was aggressively divisive and judgemental. She has no idea of the life and background of the person who struggles to support the house move, or who doesn't hold a weekly family home evening, or who feels uncomfortable in a sunday school class or who wears clothes differently to her.

 

There could be any number of reasons why a person displays an outward behaviour that is different to what she considers important for her. To group all people who struggle to live a particular aspect of the gospel into one big group is unhelpful and unsupportive and is certainly not in line with the tone of some of the talks over Conference (such as President Uchtdorf's and Bishop Caussé's).

[Scott Lloyd]

Not sure I quite get Mormonstories, but isn't it's purpose, in part, is to point out these types of stories?

And thereby foment discord? Perhaps.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd say that the most encouraging thing about this whole 'episode' is that the vast majority of responses to this article, from a very broad spectrum of Mormon communities (including this one) is one of not supporting the tone of the article.

 

Hence I see little that is good or productive in leaving up an unauthorized copy when the publisher of the article itself has removed it.

 

If it's possible, "mormonstories" has just fallen a couple of notches in my esteem.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Brenda]

How does Meridian Magazine publish this stuff?!

 

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/13489

 

 

I am a liberal and I'm a Mormon. I hold a calling, a turn up at house-moves, I try to hold family home evening, I study daily and I'm looking forward to going to the temple next month.

 

After the amazingly inclusive talk from Elder Uchtdorf a few weeks ago it makes me sad that members can be so narrow minded as to feel they are in a position to both label, judge and categorise their fellow-member.

 

She has no idea the "degree of difficulty" that someone carries with them into church on a Sunday. She looks on the outward appearance but thankfully God looks on the heart. This sort of labeling and criticism is not helpful.

Well, there are people who fit this description, but who's to say what's liberal?  One person's definition might be vastly different than another person's.  So while these people exist .... I don't think it's helpful to categorize people.  Best leave that to God.  

[Stone holm]

Hence I see little that is good or productive in leaving up an unauthorized copy when the publisher of the article itself has removed it.

 

If it's possible, "mormonstories" has just fallen a couple of notches in my esteem.

Not being familiar with any of this, could you explain?

[pmccombs1]

Hence I see little that is good or productive in leaving up an unauthorized copy when the publisher of the article itself has removed it.

 

...

 

And anyway, as I got thinking about it, I realized that I have a habit of shooting my mouth off and being very critical at times, though usually it's on the opposite side from Joni Hilton. But this poor lady has been raked through the coals by now, and maybe it's justice; but it seems to me a hard thing. Those who give offense rarely mean to consciously do it. Our malice is something that just bubbles out sometimes, and then it takes us by surprise.

 

So maybe sister Hilton is feeling pretty bad right now, with all of the uproar and her article being pulled and what not. I know I would be feeling kind of down. So I hope she is doing OK. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Not being familiar with any of this, could you explain?

I mean simply that my opinion of Dehlin's project was pretty low before, and now it's even worse.

[mormonnewb]

I mean simply that my opinion of Dehlin's project was pretty low before, and now it's even worse.

If it weren't for John Dehlin's Mormon Stories, I probably would have never converted to the Church, so it just goes to show that we need ALL kinds of Mormons to advance the work of The Lord (both Brother Dehlin and our dear Sister Hilton).

[Calm]

Well, there are people who fit this description, but who's to say what's liberal?  One person's definition might be vastly different than another person's.  

If all language was treated this way though, there would be no communication.

 

I think it is extremely problematic when someone chooses to use a commonly used word in an unusual way without recognition of it, especially if it is then referred to as if it were the commonly used way.

 

This article was quite confusing, imo, and did nothing to promote actual understanding and therefore would be useless for teaching and correction.

[Calm]

 

So maybe sister Hilton is feeling pretty bad right now, with all of the uproar and her article being pulled and what not. I know I would be feeling kind of down. So I hope she is doing OK. 

A kind thought.  

[Stone holm]

I couldn't get the article to download, so don't know exactly what it said, but if the comments accurately reflect it she has a pretty warped view of what it means to be politically liberal, and I assume that a liberal Mormon is meant to be a Mormon who is politically liberal.

[canard78]

I couldn't get the article to download, so don't know exactly what it said, but if the comments accurately reflect it she has a pretty warped view of what it means to be politically liberal, and I assume that a liberal Mormon is meant to be a Mormon who is politically liberal.

No, she didn't mean politically liberal at all. She could have used the label "moderate/part-time/casual/independent/whatever-other-label-of-convenience... Mormon.

She seems to have lumped all the ills and frustration she has with Mormons who are different to her and don't appear to worship like she does and called them liberal.

The label is actually immaterial. It's not the liberal label that was problematic. It was the willingness to look at other members' behaviour and say "you're not good enough."

I would have disagreed with the article whatever label was used. I think it just upset even more people because of the "liberal politics" insinuations.

[stemelbow]

And thereby foment discord? Perhaps.

 

Perhaps.  That is why I say I'm not sure I get the purpose of Mormonstories. 

 

But I think its fair to talk about.  I think there is a level of unfair judgment pronounced by Mormons on fellow Mormons.  The effects often mean very little.  But other times it seems to cause some fellow saints to feel unwelcome, unloved, unappreciated.  All of that.  It seems worth talking about.  Sister Hilton isn't alone with her views.  There are plenty who feel similarly, even with the disapproval of it here, and the comments to her article where it was published. 

[Stone holm]

No, she didn't mean politically liberal at all. She could have used the label "moderate/part-time/casual/independent/whatever-other-label-of-convenience... Mormon.

She seems to have lumped all the ills and frustration she has with Mormons who are different to her and don't appear to worship like she does and called them liberal.

The label is actually immaterial. It's not the liberal label that was problematic. It was the willingness to look at other members' behaviour and say "you're not good enough."

I would have disagreed with the article whatever label was used. I think it just upset even more people because of the "liberal politics" insinuations.

Yeah, I think the use of the term liberal then was inappropriate.

[stemelbow]

I'd say that the most encouraging thing about this whole 'episode' is that the vast majority of responses to this article, from a very broad spectrum of Mormon communities (including this one) is one of not supporting the tone of the article.

 

 

Sure there is some encouragement to find in that.  But the sampling of folks here or those who commented on the article do not make up all that many Mormons and can't really be regarded as a random sample of Mormons to say anything significant.  So, we're still left with people who express the type of views she does to the discouragement of many a silent Mormon who feels unappreciated.  How prevalent is her view?  I don't know.  I'd say there are plenty in my ward who would read her article and come away vindicated for their own strong feelings against other Mormons.  But that's just my guess. 

[ERayR]

Exclusionary only if you are broad minded, and judgmental if you lack judgment.

 

That pretty well includes everybody but me and you and right now I am wondering about you.

[mtomm]

If she didn't mean politically liberal the editors really messed up with the first apology then.

Edited November 4, 2013 by mtomm