Mystery Meat Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Or a conservative Mormon for that matter. I know, I know that headline is quite pot stirring. But this has become a philosophy for how I view my relationship with the Kingdom of God on Earth, and I believe it to be the way the Lord intends for all of us to view ourselves. To be clear, I do not think it is bad to be a liberal. Or a conservative. Nor do I think someone who is a libertarian, communist, socialist, environmentalist, monarchist, anarchist, Labour, Liberal Democrat, or member of just about any political party in any country, be made to feel like they have no place in the Kingdom of God on Earth (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). All too often, we as a culture, have made those among our members who are in a political minority feel like they are sinful or outcasts for merely having a different take on the political and outside social world. That is not right. I also feel as though in recent months and years those in such political minorities within our membership have started to push back in an effort to make the Church (and its culture) resemble their political and social philosophies. I think this is equally wrong. One of the recent trends we have seen in the Church (which I believe is safe to say comes as a direct result of revelation) is the further establishment and use of counsels. The new teacher's counsels in each ward is the most recent example of this. We have also recently seen the expansion of renewed emphasis on the Ward Counsel. Elder Ballard recently spoke about family counsels and their import and function. Of course Presidencies and quorums have long since been a good example of the counsel system. I point out counsels to show that people have voices. There are mechanisms in place to influence Church leaders minds and hearts as they prepare to receive revelation. No, it is not on social media, or on a blog. Nor is through public pressure campaigns or a podcast. The Lord's established process for participating in these processes is through counsels. Make no mistake, counsels do not represent some form of democracy. That would be a political construct. The Kingdom of God is not a political construct (at least not in the way a democracy is). Some, I am sure, will cry that even counsels give them no effective way to directly advocate before the highest bodies of the Church--or the people who are making huge policy and doctrinal decisions that effect the entire Church. This is true (more or less). Others have indicated that they can't survive in a Church where there is no place for them to advocate for changes they see as good and necessary. But, as John Widtsoe once said: Quote “The self-called liberal . . . 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.” ... “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. As it relates to the Kingdom of God, there is no loyal opposition as Elder Oaks has said. Only opposition. One of the fundamental principles and guiding philosophies of the Kingdom of God is revelation and authority. We are guided by revelation by those holding authority. Seeking to change the Kingdom by methods outside those means is contrary to the revealed word of God. Some don't like the application of the principle of "arc steadying", but it applies. I love the Church and its people. I have never seen an organization do so much good. Its influence for righteousness far exceeds it manpower. There are lots of things, with my limited perspective, vision and wisdom, that I disagree with. But, as I said, I am not the one the Lord is going to be revealing His desired direction for this, His Kingdom, to take. If the brethren, my bishop, quorum president or any other duly called and authorized servant get any detail wrong, the correct process is to trust that the Lord is not only powerful enough to correct it, but that he has called men and women humble enough to accept that correction when it comes. 1
stemelbow Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Sure. Thanks to Elder Oaks' position and others it's clear the church in many ways wants to push people out, thus settling more in an exclusive and insular spot. I question whether I fit, for sure. If Elder Oaks had his way, I might be out. But I'm here. I don't know if I'm welcome. It's a mixed bag on that. I guess we'll see. Sometimes I get encouraged that we are becoming open, thoughtful and helpful. Other times I get discouraged as it seems many in the Church want me out, hoping to secure themselves a more comfortable place called Church. I'm not sure what to make of this. Thanks for your thoughts though. 4
Mystery Meat Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Sure. Thanks to Elder Oaks' position and others it's clear the church in many ways wants to push people out, thus settling more in an exclusive and insular spot. I question whether I fit, for sure. If Elder Oaks had his way, I might be out. But I'm here. I don't know if I'm welcome. It's a mixed bag on that. I guess we'll see. Sometimes I get encouraged that we are becoming open, thoughtful and helpful. Other times I get discouraged as it seems many in the Church want me out, hoping to secure themselves a more comfortable place called Church. I'm not sure what to make of this. Thanks for your thoughts though. I don't want you out. I don't even mind disagreement. But I do think, however, that needing a place to try and usurp revelation as the appointed means to effectuate change in the Kingdom is harmful to the Church, its membership and most importantly the individual. My hope is not that people feel compelled to leave, but that such people can learn to trust the Lord in his power, wisdom and ability to direct the Church and those He has called, including their humility and willingness to accept correction and change when the Lord so desires. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 13 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: Or a conservative Mormon for that matter. I know, I know that headline is quite pot stirring. But this has become a philosophy for how I view my relationship with the Kingdom of God on Earth, and I believe it to be the way the Lord intends for all of us to view ourselves. To be clear, I do not think it is bad to be a liberal. Or a conservative. Nor do I think someone who is a libertarian, communist, socialist, environmentalist, monarchist, anarchist, Labour, Liberal Democrat, or member of just about any political party in any country, be made to feel like they have no place in the Kingdom of God on Earth (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). All too often, we as a culture, have made those among our members who are in a political minority feel like they are sinful or outcasts for merely having a different take on the political and outside social world. That is not right. I also feel as though in recent months and years those in such political minorities within our membership have started to push back in an effort to make the Church (and its culture) resemble their political and social philosophies. I think this is equally wrong. One of the recent trends we have seen in the Church (which I believe is safe to say comes as a direct result of revelation) is the further establishment and use of counsels. The new teacher's counsels in each ward is the most recent example of this. We have also recently seen the expansion of renewed emphasis on the Ward Counsel. Elder Ballard recently spoke about family counsels and their import and function. Of course Presidencies and quorums have long since been a good example of the counsel system. I point out counsels to show that people have voices. There are mechanisms in place to influence Church leaders minds and hearts as they prepare to receive revelation. No, it is not on social media, or on a blog. Nor is through public pressure campaigns or a podcast. The Lord's established process for participating in these processes is through counsels. Make no mistake, counsels do not represent some form of democracy. That would be a political construct. The Kingdom of God is not a political construct (at least not in the way a democracy is). Some, I am sure, will cry that even counsels give them no effective way to directly advocate before the highest bodies of the Church--or the people who are making huge policy and doctrinal decisions that effect the entire Church. This is true (more or less). Others have indicated that they can't survive in a Church where there is no place for them to advocate for changes they see as good and necessary. But, as John Widtsoe once said: As it relates to the Kingdom of God, there is no loyal opposition as Elder Oaks has said. Only opposition. One of the fundamental principles and guiding philosophies of the Kingdom of God is revelation and authority. We are guided by revelation by those holding authority. Seeking to change the Kingdom by methods outside those means is contrary to the revealed word of God. Some don't like the application of the principle of "arc steadying", but it applies. I love the Church and its people. I have never seen an organization do so much good. Its influence for righteousness far exceeds it manpower. There are lots of things, with my limited perspective, vision and wisdom, that I disagree with. But, as I said, I am not the one the Lord is going to be revealing His desired direction for this, His Kingdom, to take. If the brethren, my bishop, quorum president or any other duly called and authorized servant get any detail wrong, the correct process is to trust that the Lord is not only powerful enough to correct it, but that he has called men and women humble enough to accept that correction when it comes. Disagree Agree There are so many examples of bottom up change in the church. Expecting everything to come top-down fails to recognize the strength of the church. 1
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Thanks to Elder Oaks' position and others it's clear the church in many ways wants to push people out, thus settling more in an exclusive and insular spot. I don't see why this is seen as a negative though. Inclusivity that requires a change in correct principle is not a good thing. There is no gospel principle that allows for a change in our standards so that more people are comfortable. Sorrow should be felt for every soul that leaves, especially if they choose to follow an incorrect path. And repentance should be encouraged. But just as the Father did in pre-mortality, if the rules make you too uncomfortable to follow then leaving is the only option. It's NOT mean, unfeeling, unchristian or any other negative to hold fast to correct principle. It is a great sin to give up correct principle to please the majority, or even the minority. 2
Gray Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: Or a conservative Mormon for that matter. I know, I know that headline is quite pot stirring. But this has become a philosophy for how I view my relationship with the Kingdom of God on Earth, and I believe it to be the way the Lord intends for all of us to view ourselves. To be clear, I do not think it is bad to be a liberal. Or a conservative. Nor do I think someone who is a libertarian, communist, socialist, environmentalist, monarchist, anarchist, Labour, Liberal Democrat, or member of just about any political party in any country, be made to feel like they have no place in the Kingdom of God on Earth (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). All too often, we as a culture, have made those among our members who are in a political minority feel like they are sinful or outcasts for merely having a different take on the political and outside social world. That is not right. I also feel as though in recent months and years those in such political minorities within our membership have started to push back in an effort to make the Church (and its culture) resemble their political and social philosophies. I think this is equally wrong. One of the recent trends we have seen in the Church (which I believe is safe to say comes as a direct result of revelation) is the further establishment and use of counsels. The new teacher's counsels in each ward is the most recent example of this. We have also recently seen the expansion of renewed emphasis on the Ward Counsel. Elder Ballard recently spoke about family counsels and their import and function. Of course Presidencies and quorums have long since been a good example of the counsel system. I point out counsels to show that people have voices. There are mechanisms in place to influence Church leaders minds and hearts as they prepare to receive revelation. No, it is not on social media, or on a blog. Nor is through public pressure campaigns or a podcast. The Lord's established process for participating in these processes is through counsels. Make no mistake, counsels do not represent some form of democracy. That would be a political construct. The Kingdom of God is not a political construct (at least not in the way a democracy is). Some, I am sure, will cry that even counsels give them no effective way to directly advocate before the highest bodies of the Church--or the people who are making huge policy and doctrinal decisions that effect the entire Church. This is true (more or less). Others have indicated that they can't survive in a Church where there is no place for them to advocate for changes they see as good and necessary. But, as John Widtsoe once said: As it relates to the Kingdom of God, there is no loyal opposition as Elder Oaks has said. Only opposition. One of the fundamental principles and guiding philosophies of the Kingdom of God is revelation and authority. We are guided by revelation by those holding authority. Seeking to change the Kingdom by methods outside those means is contrary to the revealed word of God. Some don't like the application of the principle of "arc steadying", but it applies. I love the Church and its people. I have never seen an organization do so much good. Its influence for righteousness far exceeds it manpower. There are lots of things, with my limited perspective, vision and wisdom, that I disagree with. But, as I said, I am not the one the Lord is going to be revealing His desired direction for this, His Kingdom, to take. If the brethren, my bishop, quorum president or any other duly called and authorized servant get any detail wrong, the correct process is to trust that the Lord is not only powerful enough to correct it, but that he has called men and women humble enough to accept that correction when it comes. It seems to me faintly ironic to make a call for a return to fundamentalism but at the same time deny that liberals exist. If fundamentalists exist, so do liberals. 2
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 12 minutes ago, Gray said: It seems to me faintly ironic to make a call for a return to fundamentalism but at the same time deny that liberals exist. If fundamentalists exist, so do liberals. True. But which one is the unchanging eternal God?
Gray Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: True. But which one is the unchanging eternal God? Ask 10 different people, get 10 different answers. 1
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Ask 10 different people, get 10 different answers. Ask God (and try to leave your own bias behind) and trust his answer. 1
Mystery Meat Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Gray said: It seems to me faintly ironic to make a call for a return to fundamentalism but at the same time deny that liberals exist. If fundamentalists exist, so do liberals. I never claimed that liberals don't exist, but trying to turn our membership into the Church into a mixture of our faith (Mormonism) and our political/socio philosophies (liberalism, conservatism, etc.) is where we get into trouble and derail. If you view the Kingdom of God through a political or sociological lense, you will be in trouble no matter your political philosophy. A liberal Mormon or a conservative Mormon is an oxymoron. One label will trump the other. Edited August 19, 2016 by Mystery Meat 1
Gray Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Ask God (and try to leave your own bias behind) and trust his answer. 10 different people ask God, they get 10 different answers. That's life!
Gray Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 12 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: I never claimed that liberals don't exist, but trying to turn our membership into the Church into a mixture of our faith (Mormonism) and our political/socio philosophies (liberalism, conservatism, etc.) is where we get into trouble and derail. If you view the Kingdom of God through a political or sociological lense, you will be in trouble no matter your political philosophy. A liberal Mormon or a conservative Mormon is an oxymoron. One label will trump the other. Well, it's not really about politics. It's about how we approach spirituality. Liberalism, conservatism and fundamentalism exist within any religious tradition. Being a liberal Christian doesn't mean you're politically liberal. It's more about how you interpret scripture and tradition. 2
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gray said: 10 different people ask God, they get 10 different answers. That's life! I truly don't believe that. God cannot lie. Is it possible that 10 different people might need 10 varying answers of the same truth based on where they are in life? Sure, that makes sense. Is it possible for God to say something is true to one and not true to another? No, that would make God a liar. If two people get different answers that are directly contradictory from God one of them is wrong and their answer was not from God. Edited August 19, 2016 by JLHPROF
Gray Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I truly don't believe that. God cannot lie. Is it possible that 10 different people might need 10 varying answers of the same truth based on where they are in life? Sure, that makes sense. Is it possible for God to say something is true to one and not true to another? No, that would make God a liar. If two people get different answers that are directly contradictory from God one of them is wrong and their answer was not from God. Wherever the answers are coming from, people DO get different ideas by personal revelation. It could be that God is telling people different things, it could be that 9/10 are mistaking something else for a message from God, or even 10/10. It could be that God doesn't communicate in words at all. Who knows! Maybe the average person is unable to separate their own ideals from the ideals of God, and only exceptional individuals can receive revelation. The possibilities are endless. Edited August 20, 2016 by Gray
Jeanne Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 If one is liberal..in love, they are good to go. Love is the literal law of God. 1
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: If one is liberal..in love, they are good to go. Love is the literal law of God. True. But so few take the application of this to the full extent of its meaning. They prefer to stick to the fuzzy feeling aspect. 2
Sky Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 You say that you don't think it's bad to be a liberal, Mystery Meat, but then go on to explain why liberalism in the Church is not a good thing... Some things in the Church have changed for the better. I don't think any of us wants to go back to the days of black men not being able to get the priesthood... There are some times when liberalism can be a good thing, and times when fundamentalitic interpretations are outdated and harmful. 1
The Nehor Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Everyone needs to define which definition of the word liberal they are using or this is going to degenerate quickly. 2
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 46 minutes ago, Sky said: You say that you don't think it's bad to be a liberal, Mystery Meat, but then go on to explain why liberalism in the Church is not a good thing... Some things in the Church have changed for the better. I don't think any of us wants to go back to the days of black men not being able to get the priesthood... There are some times when liberalism can be a good thing, and times when fundamentalitic interpretations are outdated and harmful. Liberalism in the Church is bad when it represents nothing other than the progressive change of society and has no foundation in revealed truths. The idea that revealed truths are full of errors waiting to be fixed by our progressive morals and societies is a truly scary notion. 1
rockpond Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: Or a conservative Mormon for that matter. I know, I know that headline is quite pot stirring. But this has become a philosophy for how I view my relationship with the Kingdom of God on Earth, and I believe it to be the way the Lord intends for all of us to view ourselves. To be clear, I do not think it is bad to be a liberal. Or a conservative. Nor do I think someone who is a libertarian, communist, socialist, environmentalist, monarchist, anarchist, Labour, Liberal Democrat, or member of just about any political party in any country, be made to feel like they have no place in the Kingdom of God on Earth (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). All too often, we as a culture, have made those among our members who are in a political minority feel like they are sinful or outcasts for merely having a different take on the political and outside social world. That is not right. I also feel as though in recent months and years those in such political minorities within our membership have started to push back in an effort to make the Church (and its culture) resemble their political and social philosophies. I think this is equally wrong. One of the recent trends we have seen in the Church (which I believe is safe to say comes as a direct result of revelation) is the further establishment and use of counsels. The new teacher's counsels in each ward is the most recent example of this. We have also recently seen the expansion of renewed emphasis on the Ward Counsel. Elder Ballard recently spoke about family counsels and their import and function. Of course Presidencies and quorums have long since been a good example of the counsel system. I point out counsels to show that people have voices. There are mechanisms in place to influence Church leaders minds and hearts as they prepare to receive revelation. No, it is not on social media, or on a blog. Nor is through public pressure campaigns or a podcast. The Lord's established process for participating in these processes is through counsels. Make no mistake, counsels do not represent some form of democracy. That would be a political construct. The Kingdom of God is not a political construct (at least not in the way a democracy is). Some, I am sure, will cry that even counsels give them no effective way to directly advocate before the highest bodies of the Church--or the people who are making huge policy and doctrinal decisions that effect the entire Church. This is true (more or less). Others have indicated that they can't survive in a Church where there is no place for them to advocate for changes they see as good and necessary. But, as John Widtsoe once said: As it relates to the Kingdom of God, there is no loyal opposition as Elder Oaks has said. Only opposition. One of the fundamental principles and guiding philosophies of the Kingdom of God is revelation and authority. We are guided by revelation by those holding authority. Seeking to change the Kingdom by methods outside those means is contrary to the revealed word of God. Some don't like the application of the principle of "arc steadying", but it applies. I love the Church and its people. I have never seen an organization do so much good. Its influence for righteousness far exceeds it manpower. There are lots of things, with my limited perspective, vision and wisdom, that I disagree with. But, as I said, I am not the one the Lord is going to be revealing His desired direction for this, His Kingdom, to take. If the brethren, my bishop, quorum president or any other duly called and authorized servant get any detail wrong, the correct process is to trust that the Lord is not only powerful enough to correct it, but that he has called men and women humble enough to accept that correction when it comes. In theory, I think that the counsels are a wonderful way of giving a voice to all. I think the challenge for us as a church is going to be to get a diversity of experience, faith, and thought onto those counsels. I think that human nature causes us to tend to select people for those counsels who match our own experience, faith, and thought. Obviously there are some exceptions, like the good bishop who decided to pull this heretic in as one of his counselors. 1
Sky Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Liberalism in the Church is bad when it represents nothing other than the progressive change of society and has no foundation in revealed truths. The idea that revealed truths are full of errors waiting to be fixed by our progressive morals and societies is a truly scary notion. Equal standing and regard for the African human race is one example where the LDS Church and our society eventually got on the same page with. But I think that society got there a little sooner than the Church did. Thank goodness that the Church has now disavowed all past racist teachings (i.e. Less valiant in the pre-existence, etc.)! I think liberal societal forces may have had a hand in that! Blasphemy, I know. 1
carbon dioxide Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 5 hours ago, stemelbow said: Sure. Thanks to Elder Oaks' position and others it's clear the church in many ways wants to push people out, thus settling more in an exclusive and insular spot. The Church does not want to push people out. The problem might be that some might want to be in the Church while also be of the world. There is a straight and narrow path to eternal life. We live in a world that some want to add a few extra lanes on the path. Make it a little broader I guess so that more people can be on the path but broadening the path is not going to work.
carbon dioxide Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Jeanne said: If one is liberal..in love, they are good to go. Love is the literal law of God. God's view of love. Not necessarily "love" as defined by society,. 1
Jeanne Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: God's view of love. Not necessarily "love" as defined by society,. Of course. And His love extends to all of us.
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: Of course. And His love extends to all of us. Even to the casting us off if necessary.
Recommended Posts