I’ve come to think there are a lot less “perfect” members out there than we see on the surface. I’m glad for diversity in this way, and I don’t mind people who are more orthodox or conservative than me. I don’t really even care if they think less of me at times. I have learned in the past couple years to feel very comfortable with the Savior and with my Heavenly Father. That’s all I really need.

For example, if I speak of “being in tune with the Holy Ghost” and they speak of an “in-dwelling of the Spirit” why shouldn’t I use that terminology to explain what I mean? After all, in standing by our core, unique doctrines there is no reason to ignore (or even downplay) our real commonalities. Frankly, I don’t see the leadership moving us toward being just another mainstream Protestant church so much as understanding more clearly than in past generations that we really do have MANY points of agreement – and it’s good to admit that and work together where we can do so.

Personally, I like that move – even though I as am adamant about our differences as anyone.

Great post. From a self-proclaimed liberal Mormon, I applaud all attempts to better understand the dynamics we experience within the Church. I find it amusing that people reject descriptive labels like liberal or conservative Mormon yet embrace the “pigeonholing” of the term Mormon. I am proud to be called Mormon yet find that that label alone does nothing to nail down the similarities and differences I have with other Church members. Especially when we are conducting conversations between Church members, these labels become even more important to understand, avoid, or mediate conflict.

In fact, I would appreciate even more precise classification: what kinds of liberals, conservatives, and moderates are there out there?

I noticed that Richard Bushman, a liberal Mormon as far as I can tell, is more of a restorationist liberal than I am, as was Eugene England. I lean more towards what we share with other, especially mainline Christians, but they didn’t. They emphasized eternal progression and other concepts of the Restoration which the Church is downplaying. This can be classified as liberal because it emphasizes the human aspects of religion, not the transcendence of God.

http://oldtestamentmovies.wordpress.com/

As people of faith we open the door to learning by other means than by the scientific method. We believe in receiving knowledge by the “Spirit”. In this realm of inquiry the Lord uses labels to refer to His followers. Those who are converted. Those who are born again. Those who have received the Holy Ghost. Those who have power in the priesthood. Those who are a son or daughter of Christ. Those who have and use the gifts of the Spirit. Those who are saviors on mount zion. There are many more ways the Lord defines His followers. I’d like to suggest that we might get a better idea of who we are and where we are as a follower of Christ if we think of ourselves in the terms the Lord uses to describe His followers instead of using political terms.

I thoroughly believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as I understand it,) but I really don’t like many of the cultural aspects of Mormonism. I’m not enthusiastic over Jell-O, especially the green (lime) flavor. I don’t feel a need to wear dresses made with a small floral print, or being primarily pink. There may be many other issues like this.

I was a teen-ager in the ’60′s when “Women’s lib” was a big issue. I laughed at it, precisely because my experience in the church, and at home with my parents, showed no need for liberation in any degree. Who ever heard of a Mormon husband asking his wife to bring him a beer while he watched sports? But, really, even if there were abuses to the system, I am thoroughly converted to the idea that there is something substantially wrong with the concept that anyone can independently go out and organize their own church and claim that it is Christ’s.

I am rather intellectually inclined, but the older and more experienced I get, the more firm I become in one of my favorite beliefs: Compared with Heavenly Father, the smartest person on the face of this earth is like a mere two-year-old child.

I’m also glad that he loves each of us wayward brats.

Ok, I’ll explain in more detail how I got to this opinion. I was 7 months along in a pregnancy, when I was energetically running up the stairs two at a time. (There was a more complicated reason behind this, and I know it sounds unbelievable.) Anyway, I slipped on the step and fell, breaking my foot. It was not a great trial, but I didn’t exactly look at it as a blessing until 5 years later. My daughter I was expecting then, was born on her due date at 5 lbs. 15 oz.–and I finally realized after 5 years that if I had not broken my foot at that time, she may have had a lower birth weight, and may have been saddled with more problems as a result–or may not have survived at all. My point is that if I can’t tell the difference between a trial and a blessing for as long as five years, how can I claim to know anything at all? But I don’t think I am alone in this.

I am neither pro or con on evolution, but I think that: A flea has as much chance of understanding the life cycle of the dog on whose back it lives, than man has of understanding what the earth was like a million years ago. And I really rather suspect God used evolutionary principles in creating the earth.

I think Joseph Smith was greater than any other fully mortal man. Why? Because he prayed. He found out how great it was to gain wisdom from God when he prayed the first time, and he kept at it. He prayed about dangerous things–like polygamy. It never stopped him; he just kept praying. He was never embarrassed to admit his failings and imperfections, but he never gave up either.

So, what am I? Conservative? Moderate? Liberal?

Marianne has just given us the new LDS snack sensation!

Heck, I always have all the answers (in fact, I am pretty sure I do right now). The biggest issue I have with the church is that it isn’t a church as much as a club at its most liberal (perhaps a ‘He-man, women haters club’), a community for the independent, or a Kingdom for the conservative. I think all may be right on some level, but it ultimately doesn’t help me when all are so mutually exclusive and when all are necessary but not necessarily tied up with extra doctrine that arguably doesn’t advance my development much. Much of what is supposed to define the church is about as important to my spiritual development as how many angels can dwell on the point of a needle.

Read, ponder and pray are arguably the core tenants of Mormonism, but aren’t often followed. The lamp of my own conceit, like many others, lets my political, social and educational beliefs flavor results of my spiritual efforts. But, when everybody gives their own story – honestly trying to dissect the revelation from feeling – I think the differences are not that important and I begin to figure out what is really at stake.

Your point about the foundational ideals being different is interesting. Do you care to elaborate? Here’s one way I see that: some liberals are JS restorationists, but the church has evolved since JS’s day. Or do you mean the introduction of non-LDS principles (e.g. the philosophies of men mingled with scripture) by liberals into their ideals?

On your 3rd point about historical accuracy, I should clarify. The article pointed out examples of this that might be useful comparisons. The conservative view of American history is one of idealistic, hard-working Pilgrims escaping religious persecution. The liberal view asks, what about the damage their intrusion did to the country or to the natives? The conservative view says the founding fathers were great men who made a stand for liberty. The liberal view asks, what of the slaves they owned or their adultery?

So, within the church, I’m not sure it’s a question of historical accuracy. Both viewpoints are valid. It’s a question of focus and intent with regard to history. Conservatives emphasize the glorious history, justifying the past and skipping the nasty bits. Liberals don’t like a history that is incomplete and want to know “the rest of the story.” They want accountability for past wrongs. When it comes to history, I think both sides get it wrong. There has to be a happy medium on this.

G.K. Chesterton once noted that “the problem with the pessimist is not that he chastises both gods and men but that he does not love that which he chastises…he lacks that primal and supernatural loyalty to things.” If we portray “orthodoxy” (what is commonly seen as ‘conservatism’) as something “heavy, hum drum, and safe,” Chesterton notes, we fool ourselves. “There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic.” To be orthodox is not to attend church every week, pay your tithing, and go to the temple once a month. A monkey can be trained to do such things. To be orthodox is not to stand up and declare Jesus Christ to be your Savior, that Joseph Smith restored his gospel–and then proceed to quote from a first edition Mormon Doctrine. An blithering nitwit–indeed, a con man–can say the same.

I personally have found that one need not sacrifice the intellect to the pagan god of orthodoxy…Chesterton, Hafen, Hugh Brown, and Maxwell…they all similarly refused. The church members I know (and I actively seek to stir up these discussions) generally care about evidence…they WANT documentation for all accounts and are generally willing to cast aside old lore that is not supported by the documents and to engage those that are. Unfortunately, the self-styled “intelligentsia” of the Church seldom want to give up this strong political ground of broad-mindedness…it undercuts what they see as their purpose to “reform,” to “question assumptions.” Heaven help us if surrender such strength to good ole’ Brother Jones the mechanic last week who, in the same breath, declared Joseph Smith both a prophet while feeling disappointed about Joseph’s failed business endeavors. “He must be fooling himself into sugar-coating it,” I’ve heard too many critics scoff. Might I suggest that critics could be allowing their criticisms to be marinading in bitterness? That even if they uttered the same words as the mechanic, they would be uttering different testimonies altogether…if only because of a lack of love? As Chesterton sums up: It may be that twelve hundred men…are down with smallpox; but we want to know whether this is stated by some great philosopher who wants to curse the gods, or only by some common clergyman who wants to help the men.”

a) it assumes that Conservative Mormons are all more devoted to the institution than the conservative ideals that the institution currently espouses. I disagree–I think even conservatives have their “barometers of institutional apostasy” (as BCC recently put it). I certainly have mine.

b) it presupposes that the foundational ideals of Mormonism are one and the same as the current ideals of Liberal Mormons, which I think is debatable.

c) it seems to assume, a priori, that most major “liberal” interpretations of history are the “correct” view, and that conservatives who hold opposite views have merely digested the institutional church’s propaganda.

In short, the characterizations revolve around the idea that only liberals actually think.