Liberal versus Fundamentalism

[miss taken]

I just wondered if any of you guys had any thought on this.

A couple of quite high profile posters on FAIR have argued that LDS theology is very liberal. (I hope I am interpreting them correctly)

A few also blame peoples inactivity on their fundamentalistic beliefs. (ie, again if I interpret them correctly, ... people expect the history of the church, of Jesus, or Joseph Smith to have been perfect).

Any thoughts???

Mary

[lunaverse]

I just wondered if any of you guys had any thought on this.

A couple of quite high profile posters on FAIR have argued that LDS theology is very liberal. (I hope I am interpreting them correctly)

A few also blame peoples inactivity on their fundamentalistic beliefs. (ie, again if I interpret them correctly, ... people expect the history of the church, of Jesus, or Joseph Smith to have been perfect).

Any thoughts???


Appologism and blaming the confused person for the religions confusing history and theology.

Most experience the Church to be very fundamentalist. Straight is the path and narrow is the gate, remember?

Why do appologists not remember this? Hold to the rod, Satan is everywhere trying to tempt you, you're supposed to become perfect, avoid the appearance of evil, Choose the Right!

Lehi's vision? Mists, mocking people... there was only ONE way to the tree of life. The message was quite clear.

And it's not like these are minor domgas that are never referenced. We're reminded constantly, to the point of wearing CtR rings.

These appologists are "twisting the truth" (another common Mormon phrase) -- Mormonism as it stands is FAR from liberal. It has the *potential* for liberalism, but the majority of Mormons follow the strong directive to be conservative in their beliefs and behaviors. It is a lie to claim otherwise.

Luna

[hamar]

I just wondered if any of you guys had any thought on this.

A couple of quite high profile posters on FAIR have argued that LDS theology is very liberal. (I hope I am interpreting them correctly)

A few also blame peoples inactivity on their fundamentalistic beliefs. (ie, again if I interpret them correctly, ... people expect the history of the church, of Jesus, or Joseph Smith to have been perfect).

Any thoughts???

Mary

I'm not sure I would charactorize the lds theology as being liberal. If I understand you correctly, that would require members to be willing to accept the lies regarding the BofA, Pluralism and Polandry of their SCProfit, restoration of the preesthood, etc. to be acceptable. For some, over at the FAIRY Tail boards, that is probably true; however, I believe that many are falling away/leaving the tscc because they do not accept these lies nor will they assimilate them into their belief systems. I think it is the reason that boards like these are getting over a 100,000 hits per day and will continue to grow.

As for the commentary about why there are so many inactives, I agree. Is it so unusual for members to expect a certain level of credibility when it comes to the historicity of their church? Especially when their leaders regurgitate that it is the only true and everlasting church? I don't think so; I think the historicity should be able to stand a certain amount of close examination without disintegrating into smoke and mirrors. IMO.

[free thinker]

I predict that eventually the cultural mormon will be dominant, and the fundies the minority.

The history is a complete disaster and this will be the only way to keep the church together under continued intelligent scrutiny.

It is clear to me that the apologists are losing this battle. The truth is too powerful and the public is growing more informed daily.

free thinker

[miss taken]

Thanks for great responses. Hamar and Luna!!!

Free Thinker, how would you respond to the suggestion that you left because of fundamentalist beliefs on the part of yourself, and in fact you had misinterpreted the doctrine and theology of the LDS faith, since it is more liberal than most would allow or assume...????


Mary

[free thinker]

Free Thinker, how would you respond to the suggestion that you left because of fundamentalist beliefs on the part of yourself, and in fact you had misinterpreted the doctrine and theology of the LDS faith, since it is more liberal than most would allow or assume...????


I see your point. I would, of course, vehemently disagree. I think that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a complete fraud.

My experience with the church is that there has never been any room for liberalism of any kind.

I hope that you understand as I have said in other posts, that I think the best thing for everyone involved, would be the complete dissolution of tscc.

I have no sympathies with the liberal mormon culture. I think that they too, are contributing to the success of the greater mormon church. I really would like to see them disengage and stop funding mormonism.

Please accept my apology if you are a cultural mormon. I dont want to offend anyone, but I think the church does at least as much harm as it does good. That has been my experience.

That of course is not going to happen. What you are getting from me above is simply the sad resolution to the fact that I think mormonism is here to stay in one form or another.

I really mean it when I say that I would like to see the church disolve. But I doubt it will. It is an ism now, and carries the momentum and reslove of most ism's.

Does that clarify it a bit Mary?

free thinker

[miss taken]

Free Thinker, how would you respond to the suggestion that you left because of fundamentalist beliefs on the part of yourself, and in fact you had misinterpreted the doctrine and theology of the LDS faith, since it is more liberal than most would allow or assume...????


I see your point. I would, of course, vehemently disagree. I think that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a complete fraud.

My experience with the church is that there has never been any room for liberalism of any kind.

I hope that you understand as I have said in other posts, that I think the best thing for everyone involved, would be the complete dissolution of tscc.

I have no sympathies with the liberal mormon culture. I think that they too, are contributing to the success of the greater mormon church. I really would like to see them disengage and stop funding mormonism.

Please accept my apology if you are a cultural mormon. I dont want to offend anyone, but I think the church does at least as much harm as it does good. That has been my experience.

That of course is not going to happen. What you are getting from me above is simply the sad resolution to the fact that I think mormonism is here to stay in one form or another.

I really mean it when I say that I would like to see the church disolve. But I doubt it will. It is an ism now, and carries the momentum and reslove of most ism's.

Does that clarify it a bit Mary?

free thinker

No problem Free Thinker. I guess I asked the question, because *I* had kind of been accused a couple of times over there of being fundamentalistic in my beliefs. (I always considered myself very liberal but there you go)
I *believe* the LDS church to be founded upon many fraudulant origins, and that it contains many *fraudulent* or incorrect or perhaps not even *helpful* doctrines. I believe that there is much in *error* in the LDS church theologically, doctrinally, (race, lack of eternal progression are two that come immediately to mind but there are many more)and culturally.

I don't think I am a cultural mormon, and I don't think I could ever return. Do you think they would ever accept me thinking that Joseph Smith was a licentious adulterer on occassion, a creative and imaginative thinker, and that the BOM is of 19th origin. Heck I don't even know if Jesus was *GOD*. Some there would engage me in pleasant discourse, but many rank and file members would show me the door no doubt!!! :rolleyes:

I guess the church is liberal in that it doesn't hold to the classic 'the bible came straight from God and is 100% correct' kind of basis. I was always taught that the BOM was the 'most correct of any book'. But I guess even that statement allows for some wiggle room for their to be errors even for the most ardent believers.

I suppose continuing revelation also allows for development and correction of existing practices. You know, what was right at one time, might not be right at another...

In that way, maybe the church can be classed as liberal in its interpretation of scripture and revelation.

I have not thought it to be 'liberal' in many other ways though. Joseph's supposed 1st Vision account (and I know the 1838 is only one and perhaps not the most accurate) throws any hope of liberalism towards other belief systems out the window pretty much. *Abomination* comes to mind.

I'm rambling. Hope you get my drift a bit more. My brain is all over the place at the moment, and its early in the am and I'm hormonal!!!

Take care everyone. Hope you all have a good Sunday

Mary

[why me]

Actually, the church could be considered liberal dúring its early days when JS tried to establish the United Order after Peter's church in the new testament. In fact, JS tried to creat a form of christian socialism into the community of saints. Unfortunately it did not work because of motivated self-interest on the part of many members.

We also need to remember that Robert Owen the British utopian socialist attempted to create an utopian community called New Lanark in the US. It also failed.

In this regard the church could be considered to have socialist roots unlike the republican spirit that can be found in Utah.

But I think that miss taken was speaking about something else in her original thread.

[peter_mary]

I guess the church is liberal in that it doesn't hold to the classic 'the bible came straight from God and is 100% correct' kind of basis. I was always taught that the BOM was the 'most correct of any book'. But I guess even that statement allows for some wiggle room for their to be errors even for the most ardent believers.

I suppose continuing revelation also allows for development and correction of existing practices. You know, what was right at one time, might not be right at another...

In that way, maybe the church can be classed as liberal in its interpretation of scripture and revelation.

Mary
This is where the apologists work their best magic...talking out of context.

See, you've nailed it right above in describing how "liberal" Mormonism is in some regard. Absolutely it is liberal when compared to fundamentalist Christianity: it claims that man is as God once was, and as God is man may become! It claims that the cannon is open, and that the scriptures are continually being added upon, including three other books of scripture! It makes a VERY liberal claim with regard to sexuality in that people will be boinking into the eternities, and with multiple partners (at least the men)!

Compare that to traditional, fundamental Christianity and it makes the Mormons look like friggin' hippies!

But...

There is a whole other way to look at it. First, as Luna was talking about, there are OTHER things to look at when comparing to Christianity, such as the claim of authority, a rigid hierarchy, and a very specific set of ritualized steps required to attain salvation. Classic Christianity says all you have to do is accept Christ as your Savior and you are "born again," but the Mormons say, "Nope, not good enough. You ALSO have to: Be baptized by the proper authority; receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands; attend your meetings faithfully; attend the temple once for yourself, and then forever afterward in the stead of others; be married for time and eternity; fulfill every calling with honor; and endure to the end. This is a long list (and an abbreviated one) of all the "have-tos" that you have to fulfill as a Mormon in order to achieve salvation. So in that regard, Mormonism is a very conservative faction.

In addition, they interepret MANY scriptural passages literally: The Garden of Eden and the creation myth in it's entirety; Noah's Ark and the great deluge; Jonah and the whale; Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac; Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on written stone tablets on Mt. Sinai; the story of Job; the virginal birth of Jesus; the miracles of Jesus and on and on. These stories are frequently considered allegorical among the more liberal Christian churches, but are swallowed hook, line and sinker by Mormonism just as they are among Fundamentalist Christians.

My point is, that liberal, conservative or fundamentalist is really more a matter of where you stand and look. Mormons can fit all three descriptions, depending on what you want your audience to think and feel. The truth is, they ARE all three.

Fundamentalism in Mormonism therefore is more an intra-faith phenomenon rather than an inter-faith phenomenon. In other words, if you want to evaluate the fundamentalism of a given Mormon, you compare them to Mormons, not other Christians.

Toss that in the FAIR pot and see what comes out...

Peter_Mary

[miss taken]

This is where the apologists work their best magic...talking out of context.

See, you've nailed it right above in describing how "liberal" Mormonism is in some regard. Absolutely it is liberal when compared to fundamentalist Christianity: it claims that man is as God once was, and as God is man may become! It claims that the cannon is open, and that the scriptures are continually being added upon, including three other books of scripture! It makes a VERY liberal claim with regard to sexuality in that people will be boinking into the eternities, and with multiple partners (at least the men)!

Compare that to traditional, fundamental Christianity and it makes the Mormons look like friggin' hippies!

But...

There is a whole other way to look at it. First, as Luna was talking about, there are OTHER things to look at when comparing to Christianity, such as the claim of authority, a rigid hierarchy, and a very specific set of ritualized steps required to attain salvation. Classic Christianity says all you have to do is accept Christ as your Savior and you are "born again," but the Mormons say, "Nope, not good enough. You ALSO have to: Be baptized by the proper authority; receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands; attend your meetings faithfully; attend the temple once for yourself, and then forever afterward in the stead of others; be married for time and eternity; fulfill every calling with honor; and endure to the end. This is a long list (and an abbreviated one) of all the "have-tos" that you have to fulfill as a Mormon in order to achieve salvation. So in that regard, Mormonism is a very conservative faction.

In addition, they interepret MANY scriptural passages literally: The Garden of Eden and the creation myth in it's entirety; Noah's Ark and the great deluge; Jonah and the whale; Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac; Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on written stone tablets on Mt. Sinai; the story of Job; the virginal birth of Jesus; the miracles of Jesus and on and on. These stories are frequently considered allegorical among the more liberal Christian churches, but are swallowed hook, line and sinker by Mormonism just as they are among Fundamentalist Christians.

My point is, that liberal, conservative or fundamentalist is really more a matter of where you stand and look. Mormons can fit all three descriptions, depending on what you want your audience to think and feel. The truth is, they ARE all three.

Fundamentalism in Mormonism therefore is more an intra-faith phenomenon rather than an inter-faith phenomenon. In other words, if you want to evaluate the fundamentalism of a given Mormon, you compare them to Mormons, not other Christians.

Toss that in the FAIR pot and see what comes out...

Peter_Mary

Brilliant response thanks for engaging me on this Peter_Mary!!

I'm with you on pretty much most of what you have to say. One thing I 'have' learned from the FAIR boards though is that the thinking isn't as conservative as it once was, that there are many questioners and doubters (pity they only have the anonymous internet as an outlet, but there you go!), and that many of the more 'liberal' mormons, do reject much of the OT as allegorical. Perhaps Grant Palmer is an example of how Mormons wish to look at their history objectively whilst at the same time not wishing to reject it all out of hand?

I don't know. Against the background of it all either being true or false (which I know has been espoused by many LDS leaders) is there no room for it to be partly true and partly false. Is it worth saving on that basis?

I know I have got off the point here. I am afraid, unlike you and many others on this board Peter_Mary, I do not have the command and wonderful use of the English language that you seem to have, in supplying a good coherant argument. In truth, I am often out of my depth, and am happy to admit it. Oh well. Never too late to learn!!!

Mary