You are very perceptive.

Joseph Smith said that God’s brightness and glory defied all description. John in Revelations 1:16 says his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. Both accounts were limited in their description by the terrestial mind. Given the amount of scriptural revelation on the nature of the celestial body and details of the celestial kingdom, I don’t see how anyone could have more answers than questions, nor should they pretend to.

2. “somewhat less certain that God exists”

Unless one has had a “Brother of Jared type experience” then this statement rings true.

3. “I am very certain that being a Mormon makes me a better and happier person”.

This certainty does not necessarily make any Mormon a “real Mormon”. James 1:26-27: “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the Fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Service and keeping covenants are the ultimate obligations whether a practitioner of liberal or conservative theology. And is it possible to be totally of one side or the other? Don’t most conservatives have their own personal liberality and most liberals cling to a certain favorite conservative tendency?

One can liberally define these propositions and still answer affirmatively. (I have quite a few heretical or heterodox LDS friends who do.) But if anyone’s experience is like mine, having gone through this with three different bishops before I changed faiths, if one chooses not to attend the temple because of quandaries with one (in my case #3) one will quickly find that the popular “conservative” position is the only one that anyone wants to hear. So it seems to me that any liberalized interpretation is a “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy, which just didn’t set well with me when I was grappling with my questions, letting both belief and practise follow accordingly.

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Liberal Mormons could hold completely orthodox beliefs and therefore honestly answer all four of these questions affirmatively. But let me assume for the purposes of your question that the liberal Mormon in question has some unorthodox beliefs. I’ll start with question 4 because to my way of thinking this is not a belief question at all, but a sustaining question. For even a heterodox person of a liberal persuasion, I don’t see any difficulties with this question. For instance, if the liberal Mormon in question didn’t believe that the historical evidence for John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, Elijah, Moses, Elias, etc. conferring priesthood keys on Joseph Smith and others was strong enough to warrant belief in the existence of these keys in the modern Church in a literal way, she could still sustain the president of the Church as the only one authorized to exercise the use of symbolic keys and to preside over the Church, along with her local leaders. This is a question designed, I think, to get at the other end of the belief spectrum, those who might think that Lorin Woolley, Ervil LeBaron, Owen Allred, or Warren Jeffs REALLY have the keys, if you catch my meaning.

So much for question 4.

The first three questions are a little trickier. The first question asks about faith and testimony, the next two ask for only testimony. Testimony is defined by Merriam-Webster’s as an open acknowledgment or as a public profession of religious experience. I’m not sure which version the First Presidency is trying to get at, and why it is not worded simply as believe, but oh well. Holding to the second definition, profession of religious experience, a liberal Mormon could again answer in a completely orthodox way the first three questions in the temple recommend interview, because his reason and the evidence he has encountered convince him that these three propositions are all true. Assuming again an unorthodox set of conclusions to these propositions, on the other hand, the liberal Mormon could think to himself that he has experienced God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost symbolically through human beings who speak their words, carry out the acts of love they would do if on the earth, and therefore has an indirect faith and testimony in them. That being said, the poor bishop or counselor just wants to hear a Yes! and does not want or need to be overwhelmed by a description of one’s entire faith journey. The questions about the Atonement and Jesus Christ and the restoration of the gospel could all be answered affirmatively and honestly in the fashion I have outlined for question 1.

Again, liberal Mormons are not those who hold a unitary set of beliefs which are the simple negation of traditional Mormon beliefs. That is the last thing I have tried to suggest in this post, and the dispelling of that myth is one of the motivating factors for me in writing this in the first place.

In my schema, liberal Mormons are those who prioritize reason and objectively verifiable phenomena over subjective phenomena when evaluating truth propositions. The subjective response to religion is entirely separate from the truth or falsity of these propositions.

I empathize with your evolution of belief post-mission. Regarding the new word in the BOM intro, I think most active members won’t even notice it. For those of us that do, it is a pleasing recognition that scholarship is being slowly assimilated into our religious truth claims.

SAP,

LOL! I’m glad someone commented on the video. I thought it was an appropriate song for my post. Greg Graffin does look a bit like Costner now that you mention it. I chose the acoustic version over the plugged version of the song to please John Dehlin and other lurkers who might be wooed to Bad Religion through a softer, singer-songwriter, James Taylor approach to their material.

You raise an interesting question about the temple recommend interview. I must say that the liberal Mormon theology I sketched out above was not a set of beliefs, and certainly not the negation of the temple recommend propositions, but a method for arriving at a set of beliefs. To specifically answer your question, though, I’ll need to dig up what the first four questions are!

I suppose my concern is how point 4 works when it comes to the first 4 temple recommend questions about testimony. They are not asking whether you have a testimony about whether being a Mormon makes you a better, happier person. So how might a “Liberal Mormon” respond to those questions?

There is at least one recent example of “the church” being not quite as dogmatically tied to a historical position where scientific evidences are piling up. Mentioning the significance of the new word “among” at the beginning of the Book of Mormon in a gospel doctrine class showed me that “the church” is certainly more liberal than a lot of its members.

you make an interesting point about covenants. Inasmuch as covenants are a concept which other Christians would probably associate with the Old Testament more than the New, although there are some in the New, a religion built on covenants comes off as very traditional and therefore conservative. However, an emphasis on making and keeping covenants in the LDS Church tends to focus on the individual and their relationship to God and thus fits in nicely with the subjective strand of liberal theology. Of course, some covenants are made corporately, and these would seem more conservative to me…

I like that you have associated faith with struggle, which rings true for me. On the other hand, I know people for whom the scriptural passages alluding to faith as a gift are true as well. Faith comes more easily to some than others and perhaps takes a different form as a result. Thanks for the insights.

P.S. I don’t really think Nate Oman has a problem with me, I just wanted readers to be aware of the prior Bloggernacle discussion of this topic. And it made for a more sensationalist lead-in to my post

Recently I’ve been thinking a bit more about the emphasis people like President Eyring and Elder Holland have placed on covenants. There’s something powerful about that concept. Is there such a thing as a conservative or liberal approach to a covenant? Is a focus on covenants a more conservative approach to religion in general or more liberal? That’s where my thoughts are right now, I guess.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

~

It is hard to judge the decline of mainline Protestantism just based on my own experience. Based on the Pew Forum, it seems that the regionalization of many faiths probably speaks to what you raise, that Protestant mainline churches are not serving as well as cultural and ethnic havens as once was true. On the other hand, the Pew report does indicate that mainline Protestant churches ages skew older than average, so beside the “ethnic” nature of affiliation in past, it may also indicate the inability of said churches to resonate on matters of faith or practice beyond such traditional ethnic affiliations. Nevertheless, non-denominational Christianity and “unaffiliated” are the only segments not posting net losses.

It’s hard for me to judge what the character of all the non-denominational Christian churches is, and why they are appealing to so many Americans. The one we attend is small (about 800-1000), and very mission-, program- and bible-centered. On the other hand, you also have Joel Osteen’s stadium-sized megachurch, which besides being very uplifting and application-oriented, has been criticised for not being centered enough on preaching from the Bible. While at our church the theological atmosphere is liberal-friendly, especially on minor praxis points, I would hesitate to classify us as a “liberal” church on core/creedal doctrinal matters. I could only guess that these churches in general shake up traditional PRAXIS in order to try to serve their congregations more creatively. (And it does seem that member ages, on average, skew younger as well, which may speak to serving generational needs better.) But until Pew’s belief and practice study is released later this spring I don’t have enough data to form a concrete opinion why non-denominational Christian churches are bucking the trend.

Now as to the rise of secularism, the Pew Study does cite that while this category is the fastest rising, it is not accurate to describe this segment as “secular.” Only about a quarter of the “unaffiliated” consider themselves athiest or agnostic; the balance as spiritually non-defined. Furthermore a recent, excellent lecture by Tim Keller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9fmKSwuoDE) on Belief in an Age of Skepticism addresses this point well. It seems America is becoming polarized instead of turning secular. (This also is supported by what you’ve noticed with the liberal/conservative schisms in mainline Protestantism.) Post-modernism and other relativist rationales undoubtedly contribute to many who now consider themselves spiritual but religiously unaffiliated. Anyhow, I found Keller’s point interesting: he argues that it was once thought that secularized Europe was the “future” of societies who outgrew religion. In contrary the data show it is the exception. Religiosity is quite vibrant everywhere else, including countries like China and Russia where it was made illegal. Therefore I am inclined to believe that we need to find better ways to explain and answer the spiritual call(s) of a modernizing culture rather than assume that secularism is the answer. And certainly “liberalism” and “conservatism” don’t seem to explain much either beyond the fracturing that can be observed.

I am one of those who drives many skeptical intellectuals nuts, since I am so adamant in my ability to say, “I know.” Otoh, I also drive some conservative members nuts, since I am so adamant in my inability to say, “I know.” Frankly, however, I admire those who can’t be comfortable saying they “know” the Church is true but live the precepts and attend faithfully every bit as much as those who can make that claim based on powerful, miraculous experience – since, in the end, it is by our fruits (NOT our stated beliefs) that we shall be known. (“Not everyone that sayeth unto me, “Lord, Lord . . .”) Also, I have a deep admiration for anyone who can live the life they want to believe but struggle to do so, since I believe that is the penultimate example of true faith (“the substance of things hoped for”).

“Are liberal Mormons real Mormons?” Certainly, as long as they are trying their hardest – to the best of their ability – to “Come unto me,” “Keep my commandments,” “Take my yoke upon you,” etc. I’m just saying it’s not my place, since I currently am not a bishop, to make that judgment about anyone else – even by slapping a label on them, since it’s true of ALL Mormons regardless of label.

I agree with you 100%. I think I was just playing around a bit. I think the church has spent a majoity of its life being somewhat liberal. I that Joseph Smith was a free thinker and invited all to join him to explore the gospel with an open mind.

I think that dogmatic thinking was introduced with JFS and continued on with BRM and some others.

But again, I agree 1000%.

Nick, just stop it!

“I would like to see Mormonism become like Judaism”

I think you have taken it out of context. Adding the “where we each have more autonomy in our interpretation of how we want to live it and worship”, I feel, carries with it the message I was trying to put across.

The problem with thinking one has all the right answers is that one becomes fundamentalist and dogmatic with the archetypal example being, in my opinion, Bruce R. Mconkie. A versatile Mormonism is not at odds with eternal truths. By over-dogmatizing our beliefs we are in danger of producing a 21st century fossilized mormonism that, as John Hamer has said before, will be anachronistic.

I want to emphasize that dogma is important in maintaining a set of beliefs but nevertheless will again say that eternal truths also allow for a flexible and adaptive religion. I think David O’Mackay understood the balance that was needed in bringing the church into the 20th century and he, in my unimportant opinion, was fairly liberal.

Mormonism must be accomodating and robust whilst also producing wonderful Christlike people who can function in the world around them. However each member does this, whether it be liberal or conservative, is fantastic.

Also, while I admire Ray’s live and let live disposition … ultimately you follow out to whatever voice you’re giving heed. And if that isn’t the voice of the Saviour, there you go. There is no foundation to your belief, and when the rains come down and the floods come up: does it really matter whether you have labeled yourself a Mormon or not? I think we have some responsibility as believing members to encourage – never compel, manipulate, foist, berate, but gently encourage, sin palabras even, those around us to heed that voice. If ony by are muddling example, we have the responsibility. And, according to the scriptures, there are signs that follow those who are heeding that voice. I don’t think it is wrong or destructive – rather instructive, actually, to watch that play out. To just say, I don’t know because I don’t share your subjective experience doesn’t seem a sufficient … mode of observation.

~

If in the church we can never DISAGREE about doctrine, in Judaism, you can never AGREE. Maybe, you heard that old saying if you have a discussion with 2 Jews, you get 3 opinions. :0)