Liberal In The Church

[filovirus]

Reading a Conference Report given about 40 years ago by Pres. Herald B Lee I was intrigued by the idea of a liberal in the church. Here is the link: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/the-iron-rod?lang=eng

He had some pretty strong words in the talk. Here is a quote

"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.)

What would we consider now days is a liberal in the church?

[Crypto]

Depends on which definition of liberal you are using. I suspect... it is more often used to describe political parties then actual ideology a large portion of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism ?

To nip some contention before it starts. You don't have to subscribe to a particular political party to be a member in good standing. Even if it confuses a few members that it's possible.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Crypto

[The Nehor]

The word liberal was used to replace progressive after failed progressive candidates in the early 20th century. Labeling the political left as liberal really took off in the 80s.

 

In Harold B Lee's time it carried connotations of hippies and communists. From context it seems his definition of liberal is one who worships their own intellect and understanding. Elder Widtsoe appears to see them as groups like "Ordain Women" and the like that see themselves are reformers working within. Neither are complimentary.

 

Today a liberal Mormon probably refers to anyone who is not politically conservative. In extreme cases (talk radio listeners usually) it refers to anyone who does not consider free market capitalism to be God's plan for the earth and wants a government so weak it can be drowned with ease by anyone in the United States. When bombing and invading nations in Asia then it has to be strong and resolute and have lots of aircraft carriers.

 

Note that all definitions apply here to the United States. The word liberal and its translations refer to many other things overseas and in some cases mean almost the exact opposite of what is meant here in the States.

[filovirus]

I don't think the address given had anything to do with political parties. I think it was given in regards to being liberal with Doctrine and trying to change the fundamentals of the church. I think "ordain women" is a good example.

[Glenn101]

   I don't like labels in general. You can't define who are what a person really is by such labels. I prefer to try to understand a person by their "fruits".

 

Glenn

[Gray]

Typically a liberal or a progressive believer (from any religious tradition) is one who generally eschews fundamentalism and embraces good critical scholarship in regards to scripture. 

 

See:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity#Liberal_Christian_exegesis

Edited September 9, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

Liberals in the Church?  Damned to outer darkness.

 

Next question.

 

[The Nehor]

Typically a liberal or a progressive believer (from any religious tradition) is one who generally eschews fundamentalism and embraces good critical scholarship in regards to scripture. 

 

See:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity#Liberal_Christian_exegesis

The question is whether they embrace said scholarship more or less then the promptings of the Holy Ghost and the revelations given by God.

[Gray]

The question is whether they embrace said scholarship more or less then the promptings of the Holy Ghost and the revelations given by God.

 

If you get revelation that contradicts scholarship, you're probably misusing revelation. It doesn't function well in the world of fact vs non-fact, but it (revelation) works well in the world of values and morality and spiritual practices. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Gray

[strappinglad]

Sorry, but scholarship does not just deal in ' facts '. Science and scholarship is constantly in a state of flux and that is how it is supposed to be. What is accepted theory today becomes trash tomorrow when observations lead in a different direction. If a true revelation contradicts scholarship , then in time it will become evident that the scholarship was in error. That is not to say that science is not extremely valuable and has not lead civilization to great achievements. It is and continues to press forward. It is simply NOT set in stone.

[The Nehor]

If you get revelation that contradicts scholarship, you're probably misusing revelation. It doesn't function well in the world of fact vs non-fact, but it (revelation) works well in the world of values and morality and spiritual practices.

Are you seriously suggesting that scholarship is almost always accurate?

I also find that revelation works quite well in the realm of fact and non-fact.

[thesometimesaint]

Science hasn't been kind to those that want to place so called "revelation" ahead of science. There is a dynamic tension between religion and science. They are looking at the same object through different lenses. I expect that someday that tension will be resolved, but that day isn't likely to be today./

 

PS; Is man in space and was he on the moon?

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

 JFS wrote:We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it...
The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

 

Just maybe we should leave science to those that actually know science.

Edited September 9, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

For those who aren't familiar with President Lee, he was definitely on the more "orthodox" end of the spectrum of LDS doctrine...

 

I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.

 

I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”

 

She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”

 

I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”

 

She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/find-the-answers-in-the-scriptures?lang=eng

[Gray]

Sorry, but scholarship does not just deal in ' facts '. Science and scholarship is constantly in a state of flux and that is how it is supposed to be. What is accepted theory today becomes trash tomorrow when observations lead in a different direction. If a true revelation contradicts scholarship , then in time it will become evident that the scholarship was in error. That is not to say that science is not extremely valuable and has not lead civilization to great achievements. It is and continues to press forward. It is simply NOT set in stone.

 

The attempt of scholarship is to deal with and understand objective facts (laden with interpretation of course). And that's the appropriate tool for that purpose. Revelation is not an appropriate tool for that purpose. 

 

As with any human endeavor, new information may upend older ideas. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Are you seriously suggesting that scholarship is almost always accurate?

I also find that revelation works quite well in the realm of fact and non-fact.

 

Of course not. I'm suggesting that scholarship is the appropriate tool to understand history, the physical world, properties of matter, etc. Revelation has never shown any utility for that task (quite the opposite). History does not become uncovered by spiritual revelation, for instance. 

 

Revelation works best in discerning subjective but important truths. How we treat ourselves, how we treat others.

 

Scholarship and revelation in the hands of imperfect people will of course yield imperfect results that need continuous reevaluation and correction

Edited September 9, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

Are you seriously suggesting that scholarship is almost always accurate?

I also find that revelation works quite well in the realm of fact and non-fact.

 

Whoops!

[mtomm]

A simple view might be those who live by the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. 

[The Nehor]

Of course not. I'm suggesting that scholarship is the appropriate tool to understand history, the physical world, properties of matter, etc. Revelation has never shown any utility for that task (quite the opposite). History does not become uncovered by spiritual revelation, for instance. 

 

Revelation works best in discerning subjective but important truths. How we treat ourselves, how we treat others.

 

Scholarship and revelation in the hands of imperfect people will of course yield imperfect results that need continuous reevaluation and correction

I would argue that revelation is the best tool for understanding history, the physical world, and the like. We do not use it much because we cannot control it or force it. We can control scholarship.

[The Nehor]

A simple view might be those who live by the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

The true saints just cut through the question and live both.

[stemelbow]

Leaders aren't whining about liberals these days, so I'd say Pres Lee was speaking presumptuously. Or they are and I've missed it, hearing only that which I want to hear.

[stemelbow]

The true saints just cut through the question and live both.

The true pharisaical saints you men. The rest of the true saints think people you see it that way are as silly as those who would stick to the letter of the law in all things.

[The Nehor]

The true pharisaical saints you men. The rest of the true saints think people you see it that way are as silly as those who would stick to the letter of the law in all things.

I am going by what the Savior said when he told the Pharisees they neglected the weightier matters of the law and then told them to do these and not leave the parts of the law they were doing right undone. The Savior rebuked people going too far off one side of the horse so like drunks we see that they were slip by overcompensating and falling off the other side.

C.S. Lewis talked a lot about this tendency while speaking as his fictional devil Screwtape:

“The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of the mere ‘understanding’. Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey.”

Every age has pet virtues and pet vices.

[Gray]

I would argue that revelation is the best tool for understanding history, the physical world, and the like. We do not use it much because we cannot control it or force it. We can control scholarship.

 

I've never seen an example where revelation was successfully employed in that task. Surely if it were the best tool it would have the best track record? 

[Avatar4321]

If you get revelation that contradicts scholarship, you're probably misusing revelation. It doesn't function well in the world of fact vs non-fact, but it (revelation) works well in the world of values and morality and spiritual practices.

That makes me think you dont understand revelation

[Gray]

That makes me think you dont understand revelation

 

I think I understand it better than I used to. It can't be used like a Ouija board or a diving rod, for one thing (if you use it that way, you get similar results as you would with the other tools). Revelation is tied up in the subjective, and completely separate from the objective. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Gray