Make Some Room!
I mentioned in my intro last week that I consider myself to be a social democrat. I have been through several rounds of “the socialism question” around the Bloggernacle and it has been exhausting. Although this is a non-issue to most of us Mormons who live in social democracies, such as I do here in Norway, I have come to realize that it is a different story among American Mormons. It seems that I represent a small minority in the Church, at least among those I have corresponded with online, and I have felt on several occasions that there is no room for my belief. Comments have varied between support and downright disdain, with “communist” and “Satan’s plan” sometimes surfacing. The purpose of this post, however, is not to begin another round of the socialism debate, but to discuss being able to claim the place in the Church that is legitimately ours.
I was chatting to a good friend recently about how difficult it is to claim your place in a church where you feel so outnumbered. He commented how confusing it can be when different scriptures seem to contradict each other. The same can be said from teaching and quotes from General Authorities. The reality is that in many cases, I can read a scripture and receive a totally different answer or impression than another person who reads the same scripture. Is there really only one truth to everything? This of course doesn’t give us a license to rationalize things that we know are right or wrong, but could it be that there is singular “truth” than we believe? Could it be that finding “truth” in something does not require us to automatically exclude other possible “truths?” In other words, that we can have differing views on the same thing and both be right, depending on the time, place, and circumstances? Perhaps there is more leeway in our personal beliefs on a lot of issues than many assume.
I know that many will disagree with me, but I have a hunch that Joseph Smith was, in many ways, a liberal. Although some of his actions trouble me, I find more liberty and openness in many of his teachings than I do in other prophets. Ironically, some of his most fascinating teachings are to be found among his teachings of polygamy, but I think there is wisdom to be found in them in regards to other circumstances that we find ourselves in today. In a letter to Miss Nancy Rigdon from 11 April 1842, he writes:
“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.“
“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added.”
“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says: “Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;” but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.” ( Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136, See also “The Letter of the Prophet, Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon,” Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives)
One of the reasons why I enjoy blogging so much is that in the Bloggernacle, I get the liberal Mormon perspective that would be very hard to get in church. A non-Mormon whose only exposure to Mormonism is the Bloggernacle could be led to believe that the majority of us are fairly liberal, but I think that this is actually very disproportionate to reality. Let’s face it, liberal Mormons are grossly outnumbered in the church. I think that conservatives sometimes feel threatened by liberals and want to quash liberal thinking and ideas, perhaps going as far as to practically chase them out of the Church, while liberals sometimes feel they’re at war with their own fellow members and then end up leaving the Church when they conclude that it has no room for them and they start feeling sorry for themselves.
What I’m about to say may be a hard pill to swallow for both liberals and conservatives.
I believe that we need each other. That’s right, all of you conservatives out there who sometimes drive me nuts with your ideas need to be there for me. And yes, perhaps to your chagrin, that means that you need me too.
I believe that God created us liberal and conservative for much the same reason that He created us male and female. We need each other to survive, to maintain balance and to draw from the strengths of each other. Although our levels of liberalness vs. conservativeness may fluctuate over the course of our lives (mine certainly have), I don’t believe that leaning more towards one side has to come at the expense of the other. In fact, it shouldn’t.
I’m now going to take the liberty of over-generalizing what it means to be liberal or conservative. Of course, there are many, many grey areas, so please don’t accuse me of not seeing them. Most of us (hopefully) maintain a healthy balance of the two. However, as a general rule of thumb, liberals bring the following assets to the table of Mormonism:
- Open-mindedness and willingness to accept multi-interpretations of the same Gospel.
- Compassion and understanding for those who don’t fit the mold.
- Willingness and sometimes even eagerness to change when change is needed.
On the other side of things, conservatives are generally stronger in the following areas:
- Dedication and loyalty to the faith.
- Unwavering testimony even during times of intense doubt.
- Protecting the Church from undue or negative change and influence.
Some of these strengths can also be weaknesses, depending on how we apply them. For example, conservatives may be so concerned about tradition and literal interpretation, that they fail to see the need for change when it’s needed. Were it not so, the priesthood ban would have either never happened or would have probably ended much sooner. On the other hand, the unwavering faith and loyalty to the prophets on the part of conservative members was the glue that kept the Church together during incredibly difficult times in our history such as polygamy and the pioneer journey west. Bottom line: liberals give wings to the Church when it needs to fly, while conservatives keep it grounded when the skies are too stormy to make it safe.
What I’m not asking for is for the Church or the prophet to sanction my personal ideas and opinions. What I am asking for is for fellow members to acknowledge that I can legitimately maintain my beliefs without necessarily being guilty of apostasy, heresy, or spreading false doctrine. I may even be correct in my seemingly wacky views. No one is required to agree with me, but I am required to follow my personal truths as I believe that God has revealed them to me. And when this is done within the frame of reason and acceptability that the Church has deemed appropriate – which allows for more dispute and variation than most members even realize – then I think we need to respect the liberal views of our fellow brothers and sisters: views that may be too liberal for us, but perhaps not so for our Heavenly Father.
So, my conservative brothers and sisters, make some room for us on the teeter totter.
And to my fellow liberals: don’t get off or it’s just going to come crashing down on all of us.
Thank you for this excellent post. It is incredibly insightful, and I feel it very fair to both sides. I think it probably reveals a little of why it is important to go to Church at all.
Comment by SilverRain — November 16, 2008 @ 7:40 am
Thank you for this wonderful reminder! I am printing it out and taping it above my desk as a reminder for whenever I get discouraged and think “what’s the point?” (Especially when dealing with the ultraconservative members of my family).
Comment by Melissa — November 16, 2008 @ 9:04 am
Great post! After reading it I immediately thought of Elder Wirthlin’s talk where he called attention to
I also agree with SilverRain’s comment on how attending church meetings is important. They might be considered one of the best places we can learn to play in harmony, as well as enjoy the different individual sounds from the entire liberal-conservative range of instruments.
Comment by RoAnn — November 16, 2008 @ 9:26 am
This was a great post. Thank you. I have recently been struggling with the question of whether there is room in the church for me. I am a displaced east-coast mormon living (for now) in Utah, and every time I go to church I have to endure listening to my beliefs publically attacked. To be honest, it’s worn thin, and I don’t think I’ve been to church in 2 months. It’s unfortunate, as I used to love church, but since moving to Utah, I can barely stomach it. Reading the FMH blog gives me hope. In the meantime, the mormons here always seem ready and willing to tell me how much I don’t belong. Literally and to my face.
So, thanks for this.
Comment by Andee — November 16, 2008 @ 10:05 am
Great post. I have been thinking about this a lot lately. For the first 25 years of my life I grew up with a very black and white mentality about the Gospel (the conservative side). I was thinking about the 11th article of faith, how we allow all men the privilege of worshiping according to the dictates of their own conscience. Sometimes I sit in Sunday School and wonder how far we have gone from this? Do we allow other members of the Church to worship according to the dictates of THEIR conscience even when it may be radically different from our own? Do we allow others, not of our faith, to worship according to the dictates of their conscience and not think “less” of them because they don’t accept the Gospel? I think it is very interesting to watch when people become so uncomfortable when people interpret the Gospel differently. Why is that threatening?
Comment by Amanda — November 16, 2008 @ 10:08 am
As a fellow liberal (and a man married to a wonderful Swedish gal!), let me add a hearty “amen” to this great post.
Another progressive, liberal voice was Spencer W. Kimball (environmentalist, anti-war, anti-bigotry, anti-hunting, etc.). And where would the church be without the likes of James Faust and Hugh Nibley? LIke leaven in the bread dough of the Church, we may be a small ingredient, but rather necessary for the overall flavor and texture of the Church body. Diversity is something we should celebrate more often, IMHO.
Comment by Rich — November 16, 2008 @ 10:15 am
I agree entirely with the general thrust of this post. However, I don’t agree that with your categorizations of certain beliefs as “liberal” or “conservative”. I certainly don’t recognize many of the qualities you identify as being either liberal or conservative as either. Those terms are used so differently in so many different contexts that it is meaningless and unnecessarily divisive to try to divide people or their beliefs in that way.
I do believe that almost all qualities and principles are good in some contexts, and bad in others, and that all “good” principles must usually be balanced with other competing “goods”. As a result, we do have great need in the church of people with a great diversity of beliefs to provide the essential balance and force us reexamine our own cherished beliefs.
Comment by Gary — November 16, 2008 @ 10:26 am
I can understand your first paragraph very well. I am also a socialist and live in Europe. I don’t think that many Americans can understand that in Europe and in other parts of the world, latter day saints can be socialist or even communist. And yet, such is the case. There are also many mormon greens in Europe.
I have overcome the conservative nature of american mormons by referring to it as a socialization process which is distinctly american. I marvel at it but I also know that I live in a different part of the world where socialism is more acceptable. However, since you live in Norway and consider yourself a social democrat, I can only hope that you are not a right wing social democrat that supports the unfettered market as many social democrats do when they are in power and speak ’socialist’ only in oppostion to the government in power. I see many social democrats do this in scandinavia.
Everyone has a place in the church and all must accept tolerance and difference. Thanks for the post.
Comment by why me — November 16, 2008 @ 10:45 am
What a great post! After living in Utah all of my life, I recently moved to Indiana. What a difference in the members here! When you are surrounded by non-members or “non-conventional” members you are more able to realize how much diversity is needed and how much more you are able to learn from it. One of the best moments for me was when a lesbian woman, wearing pants and with her head shaved, stood up in testimony meeting and bore her testimony and afterwards everyone thanked her for it rather than judging her for being different.
Comment by Kasi — November 16, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Ahhh, if only my friends and family could (would) read this.
Comment by LisaJ — November 16, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Regarding truth, I think two things are true. Both 1. There is absolute truth, and 2. what you said - that we can have differing views on the same thing and both be right, depending on the time, place, and circumstances. I think the key is trying to be in-tune enough with the Spirit to recognize which situations are which. I also think the key is in leaving our preconceived notions about how we want things “at the door” and just be looking for pure truth as we read the scriptures and listen to the prophet. That goes for both liberals and conservatives. If we use the scriptures to try and “justify” our position, is that really seeking for truth? I think we’ll find what we seek, so if all we seek is justification, I believe we will find it.
I bet you’ll like this talk by Howard W. HunterThe Gospel - A Global Faith. A few key quotes:
Brigham Young once said about such a broad and stimulating concept of religion: “For me, the plan of salvation must … circumscribe [all] the knowledge that is upon the face of the earth, or it is not from God. Such a plan incorporates every system of true doctrine on the earth, whether it be ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical, or civil: it incorporates all good laws that have been made from the days of Adam until now; it swallows up the laws of nations, for it exceeds them all in knowledge and purity; it circumscribes the doctrines of the day, and takes from the right and the left, and brings all truth together in one system, and leaves the chaff to be scattered hither and thither.” (Journal of Discourses, 7:148.)
As members of the Church of Jesus Christ, we seek to bring all truth together. We seek to enlarge the circle of love and understanding among all the people of the earth. Thus we strive to establish peace and happiness, not only within Christianity but among all mankind . . .
It is in understanding and accepting this universal fatherhood of God that all human beings can best appreciate God’s concern for them and their relationship to each other. This is a message of life and love that strikes squarely against all stifling traditions based on race, language, economic or political standing, educational rank, or cultural background, for we are all of the same spiritual descent. We have a divine pedigree; every person is a spiritual child of God.
In this gospel view there is no room for a contracted, narrow, or prejudicial view. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “Love is one of the chief characteristics of Deity, and ought to be manifested by those who aspire to be the sons of God. A man filled with the love of God is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.” (History of the Church, 4:227.)
I find your characterization of liberal and conservative to be over-generalizations (like you said). But, perhaps that means I also need to work on being more open-minded and willing to change. As one of these conservatives you “battle” online, I just want you to know that I appreciate you and the things you share and how you share it. When I am in conversation with someone from church who says, “I just don’t understand how anyone could be a good Mormon and be a liberal” (or something like that), I always say, “Well, I do. I can see where they are coming from”. I don’t agree, but I see the good. So, please don’t feel like there is “no room” for you.
One last thing - I don’t think the priesthood ban was removed because of the political views of Mormons. I think it was removed because that’s what God wanted when He wanted it (and I suspect it was more related to the views and cultural changes of the country as a whole). I don’t necessarily agree with your assertion that change in the church comes because of people. I think it comes when God wants it to come, and our responsibility is to align with his will (and thus, I have just completely fit your characterization of a conservative).
One interesting piece of history to me is that one of the biggest problems the people of Illinois had with the Mormons is that they opposed slavery and wouldn’t hold slaves, and the people of Illinois were afraid of their political power in potentially overthrowing slavery in their state. In that case, Mormons could have been viewed as more “progressive”.
Comment by Stephanie — November 16, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Do we need them? The judicial recallers, the John Birchers and the Chris Buttars of the Conservative movement?
As a rational social democrat I’m a firm believer in having a strong opposition, two or more centrist parties who provide checks on each other. The radical fringe are only there to provide object lessons in free speech, but when they take over we have real problems. I have yet to see a real solution to any social or political problem advanced by the fringes, they remain in the dreamland of ‘nationalize the means of production’, ‘torture the truth out of them’ or ‘nuke them back to the stone age’.
Right now, I want principled opposition. I don’t think the current Republican party in the US is providing that. I’m sick of being called a traitor or a communist for thinking differently.
Comment by bloggernacleburner — November 16, 2008 @ 11:40 am
#3 RoAnn, I agree. We have to keep going to church, even though it can be difficult. When I’m struggling, I allow myself to take a break from the pressures of callings, talks, etc. But I’ve never seriously considered stopping going to church. I’ve never really made it a serious option for myself and I hope that I will be able to hold myself to that.
#4 Andree, I have great admiration for members such as you who are truly a minority. My branch, and perhaps even to an extent my ward at home in Canada, is pretty apolitical. Political discussions tend to be pretty rare in church, which is probably a good thing. Living in a place where there are so very few members, I’m the minority in society. But you are the minority both in and outside of the Church. In many ways, I think it’s much harder to be the minority in in the Church.
#7 Gary said: However, I don’t agree that with your categorizations of certain beliefs as “liberal” or “conservative”. I certainly don’t recognize many of the qualities you identify as being either liberal or conservative as either.
I did warn you that I was going to over-generalize. That’s what I did. There is little that fits perfectly into the “liberal” or “conservative” category.
#8 Why Me, I’m pretty moderate in my views, I think. I don’t think we should let the market run loose like a pack of wild horses, but I don’t believe it should be tethered too tightly either.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 16, 2008 @ 11:45 am
You know, I started harassing you guys in March of this year. Since then, as I have studied the scriptures, some of my views have changed. The two on the top of my head are the death penalty and the Iraq War. I used to fully support both the death penalty and the Iraq War, but now I think both are mistakes. It wasn’t actually anyone online or any arguments put forth that changed my mind, it was praying before I read the scriptures that I would find truth and hear what the Lord needs me to hear and then reading them. But, I do think that more of an effort to be open-minded and to try to see what others see in the scriptures has helped. In other areas, I have become much more strong in my conviction.
But, honestly, with regard to political parties, I feel that I am seeing the good and seeing the evil more clearly. I think that is one big reason why the church doesn’t endorse one party over the other - neither one fully aligns with the gospel. They both have good and bad. (And, in saying this, I have to admit in shame that I used to view the Republican party more as “God’s party”, so I am grateful that all of you have been patient and kind to me while I grow)
Comment by Stephanie — November 16, 2008 @ 11:46 am
>
Thankyou for saying what is in my heart, I am going to print your post, laminate it and put it on my fridge.
Comment by KFJames — November 16, 2008 @ 11:49 am
#11 Stephanie, thanks for your comment. I want you to know that even you and I disagree most of the time, I give your views a lot more thought than I probably let on. It’s very rare that I dismiss anyone’s comments, no matter how outrageous they may appear on the surface. Sometimes I really get a different perspective on things by digging below the surface of comments from others. Sometimes I don’t. I guess it depends on the situation.
I understand what you’re saying about the priesthood ban, but I have to respectfully disagree. I will not claim infallibility in this, because I don’t think we will ever know for sure in this life, but from all the research I have done on the subject, it appears that it was a policy that was on the verge of being overturned years before it actually was, but could not be in the end because the apostles were not unanimous (it took a re-vote among First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 to defeat the proposed change already in 1969). So I do think that that was a particular change that was delayed because of certain people. One of my favourite bloggers, Mormon Heretic (don’t let the name scare you off, he’s a great guy
) did a very well-researched, in-depth post about this a few months ago. Anyone who is curious about the history can read it here but be warned that it’s a very long read.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 16, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
#14 Stephanie, excellent point about political parties. I agree completely.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 16, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Another fantastic post.
It’s true that the terms liberal and conservative are difficult to use in describing all the various shades of black, white and in between that we church members adhere to in our thinking. That may be because our frame of reference is politics, where our label is determined more by a specific set of positions we hold.
You are absolutely right to point our that the two mindsets need each other. We have a lot to learn from people who approach things differently than we do; to always presume that their approach is based on error is a huge mistake.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — November 16, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Thanks, FD. I think that I will read that link when I get a chance (but right now I am late getting the kids ready for church).
Comment by Stephanie — November 16, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
While you’re in there FaithfulDissident, please make some room in the Church for families like mine too. Thanks!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 16, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
My husband directed me to your blog. As an LDS person living in California this has been an extremely trying political season and may rifts have been formed. There are times when I listen to the things people say in church meetings and say to myself “how can I call myself one of these?”, “how can we be reading the same scriptures, professing to believe in the same gospel and have such different views on so many things?”. Our family did live in England for five years and the experience opened my eyes to many different ways of viewing the world, the gospel and the people in it. Probably the most important was being able to look at my country from a distance, with the reactions of the people in our neighborhood, my husband’s school, my artist friends. Again, my perspective on America and It’s politics, social problems, education etc. grew from the size of a small coin to to at least the size of a dinner plate. There are so many people that I fee would find themselves more liberal if they just had a little more experience of the world. So many conservatives wrap themselves and their families in fear of anything different from themselves. Thank you for your well spoken blog.
Comment by serena Potter — November 16, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
#10 - “Ahhh, if only my friends and family could (would) read this.”
I think this is exactly the sort of mistake I make, too. It’s too easy to think “Yeah! If only THEY would understand and live this!” without realizing that each of us are “they”.
Comment by SilverRain — November 16, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
#21 Serena, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I wish to also commend you on your artwork, which I have just taken a look at. I especially love the one called “Wildwood Walk.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 16, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
FD, great post.
I was just reading the Nancy Rigdon letter this past week (sort of as an antidote to the JS lesson we had on his letters to Emma), and I was struck with the many doctrinal truths therein.
You give us great hope in an extremely divisive time for the Church.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — November 16, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
What a wonderful, thoughtful post (likewise for the comments).
I do find it interesting that no one has (yet) made mention of the United Order/Law of Consecration, which I think is at least tangentially relevant to one aspect of this discussion.
(BTW, this is my first post here; I’m a long-time lurker–feminist, ex-Mormon, gay–who has greatly appreciated the generally high level of civil discourse here. Thank you all.)
-Scott
Comment by SLK in SF — November 16, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Everywhere I’ve lived that is predominately Mormon liberal meant no calling or one where you are not seen or heard.
Comment by Lori — November 16, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
It may be interesting for all you Utah- (and other ultra conservative) Mormons who happen to read this, that there is a large number of devout members outside of the United States who are extremely relieved to see a new era of politics entering the scene in your country!!! After having spent quite some of time in both Utah and other other parts of the US, I have come to understand that many members there seem to think that being a good member equals voting republican. But that is not so! I am not saying that it is WRONG to vote republican if you truly believe in what they teach. But it is very WRONG to say/think that anyone who doesn´t is an outcast and a dissident! There are strong tendencies to get cultural patterns confused as core gospel principles. We need to be very careful with that kind of mindset, or a large part of good people around this globe will never embrase the wonderful gospel of Christ.
Tack för ditt underbara och kloka inlägg, faithful dissident! Says your neighbour, a faithful Swede (who never voted for the Social democratic party here, but know many good, faithful members who have, and who still feel very lost among the ultraconservates of this church)
Comment by Tina — November 16, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
I wish I had something pithier to say than “Amen” to this one. I really appreciate it, FD, and I love the way that this perspective helps me shift my viewpoint from sometimes feeling misunderstood and persecuted to feeling like both my perspective and other ones are important to help me individually and us as a church to grow.
Comment by Shelah — November 16, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
#27 Tina, tusen takk for dine hyggelige ord. Hilsen fra Norge.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 16, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
What a dead bore if everyone thought and said the same thing. Speak and live your truth and hope that you are among mature enough people who can appreciate that fact. If not, at least you’ve livened things up a bit.
Great post.
Comment by Kimberly — November 16, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Thanks for the post! This election was particularly difficult for me. We recently moved into a new ward that is pretty homogeneous and in more ways that one, I do not conform. It was so much easier back in High School when voicing my opinion was looked at like I was just a slightly rebellious teenager. Now as a thirty year old mother of four, sometimes, I’m met with bulging eyes and outright rejection . I’ve taken to only saying things, when directly questioned. Unpleasant things tend to happen more often otherwise. My husband likes to call us closet liberals. While being funny, it still hurts me that it is sometimes necessary to be that way.
Comment by grateful — November 16, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
It is tough being in the minority. A few years ago my dh allowed to another ward member that he was glad Church authorities didn’t say much about politics. The friend replied he wished they would say more. We laughed because it was clear he thought they would agree with him and would tell everyone to vote the way he does.
I’m glad that they don’t because that gives those who are willing to study the issues the opportunity to inform themselves and make decisions based on their own inspiration.
We walk a bit of a tight rope. We have agreed to disagree with the majority and with the rest we quietly agree in public and just don’t argue with people. This provides opportunities to practice good listening skills. We recognize that their interpretation of scriptures and statements by the leadership tell us more about them than to about the gospel. We look forward to the day when things will change. It wasn’t always like this and I doubt it always will be as it is now.
Comment by Claudia — November 16, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
I really appreciated this post today, as I am “on a break” from church for a little while so that I can get my head around living in the church, believing in the Gospel, and being very liberal as compared to my LDS friends.
Comment by Xena — November 16, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
If our religion is so right then why are we only 0.28 percent of the world?
Comment by doubter — November 16, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Great post! Someone who knows how should find and link the Lowell Bennion article on why he was a liberal. I had a class from him 30+ years ago and it bent me from my father’s politics, and a lot of other things.
Comment by Karen — November 16, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
#34 - My guess is found in Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
D&C 132:22 expounds a bit more - For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.
Comment by Stephanie — November 16, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
But I didn’t find it. I was just born into it and now I’m thinking most people (about 90 percent) just stick to what they’re born into. Not sure if my doubts will go away. I don’t feel I have control over them. I wish God wrote the bible himself. There’s a lot of crazy stuff in that “good” book that upsets me. (Like light before the sun in Genesis.)
Thank you for your posts!!
Comment by doubter — November 16, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Makes me wonder how many “one true” religions there have been throughout time.
I live in California and praying for those fighting fires.
Comment by doubter — November 16, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Speaking as a mostly conservative (at least in comparison to my friends and neighbors) Mormon in Canada, I have to say two things.
1) You’re not alone in feeling diminished, ostracized, ignored or looked down on for your views. I don’t face this in the church so much but with so few members here at all, it’s very easy to feel overwhelmed by all everything else — the newspapers, the tv shows and etc.
2) THANK YOU for this post. Especially this bit: Bottom line: liberals give wings to the Church when it needs to fly, while conservatives keep it grounded when the skies are too stormy to make it safe.
I hear at least as much whining on the Bloggernacle about the conservatives and how mean, non-inclusive, rigid and even backward they are as I hear complaints about liberal Mormons who don’t support the leadership.
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — November 16, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Ha. You have never been to the Berkeley, CA ward! Anyway, God loves us all. I think that as the church becomes more international, we will be leaving behind some of the old rhetoric.
Comment by Katie — November 16, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
views that may be too liberal for us, but perhaps not so for our Heavenly Father.
The same may also be true for certain conservative views…
Comment by queuno — November 16, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
Simply Beautiful Post
Comment by The Captain — November 16, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
I agree that, as tough as it can feel to remain in the Church when one is liberal, we need to make that extra effort. Until about fifteen years ago, I was your typical, reflexively-conservative Utah Mormon. It was largely my study of the scriptures (supplemented by historical studies) which lead me to see liberalism as the more Gospel-oriented path. I’ve been outspoken about supporting liberal causes for two reasons. Firstly, to show the typical, reflexively-conservative Utah Mormons that there is no contradiction between liberalism and the Gospel, despite the erroneous indoctrination of our culture–in reality, liberal ideology is firmly supported by the scriptures.
Secondly, to show the liberals who have come to see conventional religion (such as the LDS Church) as contrary to liberalism that religious people are not inevitably opposed to progress, and that liberals can and should reach out to the religious community.
The more of us, like Faithful Dissident, are willing to take that stand and make that case, the more likely we are to bridge those divides and truly unite the nation and world.
BTW, re: 6; don’t forget the inestimable Hugh B. Brown!
Comment by Derek — November 16, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
An interesting quote. Since a lot of the self proclaimed “Liberals” that post here also self-proclaim that they don’t follow some of the more basic commandments (especially the WofW), does that mean that we should ignore any personal revelation that they tell us they may have had?
Comment by J.D. — November 16, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
Talk talk talk. Action brings change. Individuals, even lots of them, do change, the mormon church will never change. As long as you support it, it will continue to use your own money to underwrite efforts to control your life and mine as well. It has already chosen the next fight, to take away rights of women to make their own reproduction decisions right there in Utah. I hope the demonstrations against that church start now and continue until LDS is defeated and forced out of secular business.
Comment by Ruby — November 16, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Ruby, please read the comment policy. Your last sentence is one of the most flagrant violations of that policy and simple common decency I have read on any Mormon-themed blog.
Also, please have at least a jot or tittle of an idea about the Mormon Church before you say things like:
The mormon church will never change.
If that weren’t so laughable, it would be offensive. As is, it’s just an uninformed caricature.
Comment by Ray — November 16, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
doubter, if those are sincere questions, there are plenty of easy answers in the scriptures - especially the Bible.
Comment by Ray — November 16, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
FD, I absolutely LOVE this post.
Fwiw, I think there are LOTS of members who appear to be conservative based on your definitions (and who vote conservative regularly or even exclusively) who actually are quite liberal when it comes to their understanding of the Gospel. I have seen that in so many instances, when I actually was able to discuss things like grace, judgment, respect, etc. I think that’s because the Church is a fascinating mixture of a tightly focused and conservative organization preaching an incredibly liberal theology - gay marriage notwithstanding. It really is mind-boggling how liberal the theology is at its core.
Comment by Ray — November 16, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
#10 - LisaJ, do what I do. Post links on your own blog to amazing posts by others in the Bloggernacle. This one is going into the queue tonight - to appear sometime in the future when those who visit my blog will have forgotten about it and benefit from the reminder.
If your family and friends don’t read your blog, it won’t help - but at least you will have done what you could to promote the message.
Comment by Ray — November 16, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
re: 48
Wow, what a great comment. I agree with you Ray especially your last two sentences. The theology, the history, the Restoration…that’s what keeps me in the Bloggernacle and keeps me hoping that someday I’ll actually be back in the Church (not holding my breath on that the last few weeks though….).
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 17, 2008 @ 12:56 am
It’s MUCH better in Philadelphia than the other areas of the country; however, if you’re not so lucky… I found the following helpful out west and in the south: Try to draw some strength from the fact that very few Americans actually know what socialism is. Most of us think it’s what the Russians had. If you can just remind yourself that the people upset by your political leanings are just uninformed, then it’s like talking to someone who shares your political views and is upset by the fact you and other Mormons pray to Joseph Smith
Comment by Eric — November 17, 2008 @ 2:22 am
This is a thought-provoking post. It’s easy in self-protection or even discomfort when faced with something or someone ‘different’ to dismiss the differences (or the person) altogether.
And I agree that differences (and strengths and weaknesses) can help us grow, individually and collectively.
What I am asking for is for fellow members to acknowledge that I can legitimately maintain my beliefs without necessarily being guilty of apostasy, heresy, or spreading false doctrine.
I do think there is a caveat to this, though (although I am not saying that you don’t agree). One may not necessarily be guilty of apostasy, heresy or spreading false doctrines by holding to certain beliefs or actions. But one could be, and I think one possible way one can cross that line is summed up in a quote from Pres. James E Faust I stumbled upon tonite.
I just thought this was worth throwing in the discussion. I like how he distinguishes between private belief and public declaration of that belief in a way that could undermine Church leaders or doctrine. To me, that suggests that private belief (even doubt) is ok. Expressing it publicly in a way that criticizes the leaders or the doctrine can risk crossing a line.
Comment by m&m — November 17, 2008 @ 3:54 am
#37 doubter, I sympathize with your doubt. There are loads of things in the scriptures that bother me, especially in the Bible. May I make a suggestion? I read The Bible For Dummies a few months ago. Great book, it answered a lot of my questions. Not all, but I got a lot of great insight and understanding that I hadn’t gotten anywhere else. The “Dummies” series is really good, right now I’m reading “Catholicism for Dummies.” Not as basic as it sounds, the books provide some amazing insight. I even learned a lot from “Mormonism for Dummies,” including about Mormon blogging. FMH was mentioned in it.
#39 Proud Daughter of Eve, greetings to a fellow Canadian.
I hear you about whining from both sides on the Bloggernacle. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of it myself at times. And I’m sure I’ll be guilty of it again.
#43 Derek, I was also once very conservative. I assumed I had to be and never really questioned it. I remember as a teenager looking down on my friends who called themselves “liberals.” Little did I know I was one. I think I always was, but didn’t really know it or what it was really about. But the older I got, the more varied life experience I got, the greater variety of people I met, the more that a more liberal approach to the Gospel felt right to me. I still call myself “conservatively liberal” for a reason though.
I think that balance is important.
#44 J.D. said: “Since a lot of the self proclaimed “Liberals” that post here also self-proclaim that they don’t follow some of the more basic commandments (especially the WofW), does that mean that we should ignore any personal revelation that they tell us they may have had?”
None of us follow all of the commandments and I would even dare to say that most of us don’t even follow all of the most basic commandments, whether it would be violating the WoW, stopping at Wal-Mart to pick up something on a Sunday, or having dirty thoughts when the sexy neighbour comes to borrow something (I don’t have any sexy neighbours but one look at my doctor and I’m sure I start to blush
) . I hope that all of us are giving a 100% honest effort to stop violating even the most basic commandments, but hopefully we can look beneath the surface. I remember years ago visiting a less-active sister with the sister missionaries who was living common-law with her boyfriend. This woman was taking the time to go through and summarize each and every verse in the BoM, something that I cannot claim to have even attempted to do. Although I don’t doubt that her sin would prevent her from having further knowledge, I have a hard time doubting that the Lord would deny her any personal revelation because of the obedience that she was able to demonstrate.
#48 Ray said: “It really is mind-boggling how liberal the theology is at its core.”
I agree whole-heartedly, Ray! Our theology really is amazing and I think that’s really what attracts and holds those few liberals who are able to see beyond the sometimes prickly exterior of the Church. Unfortunately, those who automatically dismiss the Church because of the things that scare them off (whether it be Prop 8, ERA, etc.) never dig deep enough to discover one of the world’s richest and most fascinating theologies.
#51 m&m, you bring up an interesting point. I’ve asked myself many times, what is the difference between what we do as bloggers and what Peter Danzig did? Are we guilty of the same things? I hope not and I don’t think so, but I cannot say for sure. I know that blogs are public, but at the same time, I view them as a sort of private community of Mormons who are simply writing things that they would say if they had someone to discuss it with. I know that I can be blunt and sometimes I have been very critical. My motive, however, has never been to bring down the Church or its leaders. My motives are: connecting with other Mormons who struggle with the same things (blogging is essential to this because I don’t know any Mormons personally that I connect with in quite this way), motivating Mormons to examine themselves and how we are sometimes guilty of hypocrisy and other negative traits, and lastly, I admit that I am one of those who would like to see certain things change within the Church. I don’t demand it, but I do ask for it, knowing full well that I will probably never get it because, after all, it’s simply not my job. All I can say is that if the leadership finds something like FMH or other Mormon bloggers objectionable, they would be closing off an outlet that is vital to survival in the Church for some of us. I think back to where I was even just a year ago, before I started blogging. Now I can’t imagine going back to that isolation.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 17, 2008 @ 4:57 am
In response to TheFaithfulDissident post #13, I can say that I am rather on the left and no fan of the free market. One of the problems with rightwing social democrats, and my country has many of them, is that they are forgetting the social and catering to the market. As I see it, Faithful Dissident, you seem to be a progressive democrat on the american spectrum. Still a minority among american mormons but no off the political mainstream. Whereas, I am pretty far off the mainstream both in my country and in the USA.
An interesting book was published a few years ago by Anthony Giddens called the The Third Way. It outlined a new path for social democracy in europe and many including Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and certain social democrat groupings seem to follow that book. But they all stressed the market at the expense of the social. Something that social democracy is suffering from at this moment. At times they can be more conservative than the conservative parties in Europe when they are in power.
I think we need people like you in the lds church. And there is no reason why someone with your political leaning should leave the church. The lds church needs diversity among its membership.
Comment by why me — November 17, 2008 @ 6:31 am
Re # 52:
“But I cannot help wondering if members of the Church do not place themselves in some spiritual peril when publicly disparaging the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith …”
Joseph Smith:
“With regard to elections, some say all the Latter-day Saints vote together, and vote as I say. But I never tell any man how to vote or whom to vote for. But I will show you how we have been situated by bringing a comparison. Should there be a Methodist society here and two candidates running for office, one says, ‘If you will vote for me and put me in governor, I will exterminate the Methodists, take away their charters,’ etc. The other candidate says, ‘If I am governor, I will give all an equal privilege.’ Which would the Methodists vote for? Of course they would vote en masse for the candidate that would give them their rights.”
How sad is it that contemporary Mormons have now utterly failed to live up to their civic duty in the eyes of their original prophet?
Comment by Chino — November 17, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Re: 48
Absolutely true, Ray! I think there are a great many in our faith whose beliefs are fairly liberal, but who don’t realize it because of the indoctrination of the conservative noise machine. They simply can’t recognize the incredible liberality of the Gospel message.
Re: 52
Publicly challenging conventional wisdom or the actions of the Church do risk crossing that line. On the other hand, hushing up alternative thought and conscientious objection, or automatically following the party line risks crossing another line.
We have to balance those concerns in our minds, do some serious introspection, and, of course, seek the counsel of the Lord.
re: 53
FD, I personally don’t see any need to call myself “conservatively liberal” because liberalism itself is expansive enough to include all of the meaningful traditional values which conservatives like to claim for themselves. For example, liberal ideology fully embraces traditional families for those who choose that model. So the “conservatively” part of the title is superfluous.
As to the balance, I agree in theory. However, I don’t believe balance necessarily means one finds a middle ground. In our political climate, our nation is still so far on the right that the true balance is perceived to be far left
Comment by Derek — November 17, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
I read once that describing one as liberal or conservative said more about what they are not than what they are. There is a column in the Washington Post today
One interesting paragraph from the article:
Comment by Cyclingred — November 17, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
FD, obviously, every person has to decide where he/she will draw the line about how much to express publicly.
But ultimately, I think that some of the effects of ‘crossing the line’ will be personal, not just public. Elder Oaks talked about not only the potential cost to others, but also that criticism of leaders can rob one of the Spirit. So one gut check could be “is the Spirit offended by what I am doing/saying? Am I still feeling the Spirit in my life?”
The internet makes this all more challenging…to figure out where those lines are. In the end, I’m not sure the leaders will be the ones to decide for people where those lines are — it’s part of our own agency — weighing pros and cons and potential consequences — in most cases, imo.
56
The use of that quote always sort of cracks me up (it is probably one of the most-used quotes in the ‘nacle)…but to me doesn’t fully capture how Brigham Young felt about things. (Not that I disagree with the bulk of your comment, Derek).
BY also said the following:
Just another fun quote to throw in there.
Comment by m&m — November 17, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
#37 (off-topic comment to Doubter): But… there was light before the sun in the Universe… long time before the sun..
Electromagnetic radiation comes into existence as soon as an atom reacts with its surroundings, one way or another.
As for the topic of this thread: I’d be very interested in seeing statistics on church members’ political views vs citizenship (something I’d just have to wish for, I guess…) It is my personal experience, that American members are very different from the rest of the world in political opinion (compared to Europe, at least Sweden) and the way it’s being expressed (compared to Canada). Am I wrong? What do people from other countries say? And, I’d like to chime in to the comments of the writings of my fellow Scandinavian living in Canada (if I understood it correctly), that this post is just totally excellent!
Comment by Polaris — November 17, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Polaris, other way around! Canadian living in Scandinavia.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 17, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
And you’re right, Polaris, it would be fascinating to see such statistics. I see value in both the American and European way, so I think that being Canadian suits me very well since Canada often feels like somewhere in-between the US and Europe poltically and culturally. I have to admit that before I moved to Europe and really started to feel more at home in Scandinavian culture, I was too quick to dismiss the European way as “evil, godless, liberal.” I now see it in a new light.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 17, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
i’ve been hanging around fmh for years and i can’t think of anyone who has openly admitted to not obeying the WOW.
Comment by mfranti — November 17, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
I think Americans (members and non-members alike) are very different from the rest of the (Western) world in political opinion. The United States as a whole is further to the right than much/most of the rest of the developed world. And within American culture, the LDS Church has carved out a niche for itself that is right of the already-right centre of American politics. So, it shouldn’t really come as a surprise that American members are more right-wing than non-American members.
Having said that, there is a sociological experience whereby, the further you get from the geographical centre of an organisation, the more fanatical some followers become, because they think that is what is expected of them. I’m not really phrasing it the right way and I’m sure someone who actually knows their sociology better than me will come give be a bitch-slap and correct my terminology. (Which is okay. Really.) Thus, I’ve had the sad misfortune of meeting some Australian Mormons who are so far to the right, I think if you parachuted them into Utah the Mormons there would say, “You’re way too conservative.” (Except in a nicer way, because Utah Mormons are nothing if not polite.) My gut feeling is that the more conservative elements of LDS doctrine, like the emphasis on family, attracts more conservative converts, so that pulls the church further to the right in those areas that don’t have a sizeable base of Mormons who have been in the church for a couple of generations.
Comment by Quimby — November 17, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Thank you Faithful Dissident for the compliments!
Comment by serena Potter — November 17, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
This is a beautiful post. Thank you!
Comment by Chelsea — November 18, 2008 @ 8:15 am
#55 Joseph Smith:
“With regard to elections, some say all the Latter-day Saints vote together, and vote as I say. But I never tell any man how to vote or whom to vote for. But I will show you how we have been situated by bringing a comparison. Should there be a Methodist society here and two candidates running for office, one says, ‘If you will vote for me and put me in governor, I will exterminate the Methodists, take away their charters,’ etc. The other candidate says, ‘If I am governor, I will give all an equal privilege.’ Which would the Methodists vote for? Of course they would vote en mass for the candidate that would give them their rights.”
How sad is it that contemporary Mormons have now utterly failed to live up to their civic duty in the eyes of their original prophet?
Chino: This statement from Joseph Smith is taken completely out of context. It says nothing about doing anything except voting personal or collective interests. How have contemporary Mormons done anything different? How have the denied anyone else the privilege of doing the same? The groups in Illinois that claimed that Joseph was a King manipulating the electorate engineered his death and then protected his murders from justice. The did everything they had accused him of in order to manipulate the court the system. When the lost elections they refused to accept the results. Little has changed since then.
You can’t use the statement made by Joseph Smith to his persecutors while his brother was telling people how to vote and then say contemporary Mormons who speak out on the issues of the day are not living up to their civic duty.
Comment by Claudia — November 18, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Hey, Faithful Dissident, I consider myself a social democrat ideologically. (Obviously, I don’t have the opportunity to vote that way here in the U.S.). Just so you know - and wow, it’s a pain explaining to people here that social democracy is not equivalent to, say Maoism. (That’s a conversation I’ve had in the bloggernacle, even). Fun, no?
Comment by Serenity Valley — November 18, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Serenity Valley!
Hopefully, you belong to a social democrat organization. For example, there is the Democratic Socialists of America which can be found at:http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html and here is an interesting article: http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/Socialism%20is%20Not%20Communism.html
Comment by why me — November 19, 2008 @ 6:47 am
There have been great comments on here regarding this post and to most I concur. I just want to take a second to rant regarding the misconception of the war in heaven and what most Mormons’ idea of Satan Plan was.
This idea that Satan was going to force us to do good is so asinine it is not even funny. Just because some GA said it back in the 1800s does not mean it is true. Satan’s plan was to destroy the agency of man.
That does not mean we were not going to have choice, but that we would not have Agency. Agency is not Agency without Accountability. Imagine Satan’s pitch now.
You will go down to earth and do whatever you want without consequences and then you will return because you did not have the knowledge to be accountble for your action.
Now that is a plan that I can see a third leaving God’s side over. Either way, when I hear people compare Satan’s Plan to SOcialism I just cringe. It is just plainly an ignorant statement, both Politically and Doctrinally.
Comment by Sam Sneed — November 19, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
Sam, Is it possible to be accountable without choice?
Comment by Claudia — November 21, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Claudia,
I do not believe so. In order to have a choice you must choose between two options. But if you did not know the results or consequences for those options, then there is no accountability. At least not accountability as we understand it for eteranl consequences. And so my point is that to have agency one must have different options that have different results and they must have the knowledge of the differnt results in order to be accountable for the actions and thus that is agency. I know that in life you are still accountable for the laws you break in most circumstances regardless of knowledge. But eternally, it does not work that way.
And that is why I have a hard time believeing that this fool convinced 1/3 of the hosts to follow him on the force plan. Who likes to be forced. But the no accountability plan, now that is one i would like to follow. You see my drift.
Comment by Sam Sneed — November 22, 2008 @ 3:13 am
Sam: I agree with you that Satan’s plan was not to make everybody do good. It is hard for us to envision a situation where we have no options. Yet, it seems to me that that he was proposing to save everyone and that in order to do that he would have to limit everyone’s options in some way.
According to Lehi agency is free choice, and that choice results in consequences. Those consequences are a form of accountability. After reading about some of the ways various governments have limited choices it was a lot easier for me to see that Satan’s plan was to make us miserable and to thwart the works of the Father. In order to do that he had to make us believe that we have no choices.
It is surprising to me how many of my friends believe that their life is all laid out for them and that each choice they will make is known from the moment they are born. They don’t seem to see the paradox that creates when it come to agency and choice. How can we possibly be held accountable for our choices when we have not freely made them. We can’t. That would not be just.
Comment by Claudia — November 22, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Sam, I’ll bet you’ve read a book titled, “Satan’s War on Free Agency” with the word “free” crossed out. Or maybe you had an institute class from Greg Wright, who is the book’s author. Am I right?
I do agree that “agency” is not the same as “free choice”. It has everything to do with accountability, though. I see agency as the legal foundation upon which our accountability rests. I disagree slightly with some of the reasoning found in Bro. Wright’s book, but for the most part I really liked it.
Comment by Matthew Andreasen — November 22, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
Claudia, I can easily conceive of a plan that Satan could offer wherein people would have plenty of options and yet still be ’saved’. It would not require them to be forced to be good either. In fact, there are many alive on this earth today who exercise free choice, transgress God’s laws, and yet, when they die, they are saved, even receiving the celestial kingdom. The scriptures call them, “little children”.
Little children have free choice (which is not agency), but they do not have accountability (which is made possible because of the law of agency). I can conceive of Satan proposing a world of opposites and freedom and experiences, but telling us that we would not be held accountable. Would many buy that? You bet. Could he actually have done it? Not the way God could. Satan may have ’saved’ us in some form, but it may not have equalled a celestial glory, and certainly could not have allowed us to attain an exaltation in the highest level of that kingdom and enjoy the type of life that God lives.
Comment by Matthew Andreasen — November 22, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Claudia, Satan can tell us that we have no real choice (that is true, tell me a lie he is not willing to tell). But he also tells the lie that it is okay to do wrong (i.e., he denies accountability by saying that there is no accountability, or no consequences, or that it is okay, or that God will forgive of anyway).
Look at one of his first temptaions way back in Eden. He told Eve, “Thou shalt not surely die.” He denied the consequences that God clearly defined! That’s just the first of many were he tries to deny our accountability and subsequent consequences, but he actually is using agency and our accountability against us. If we listen to him and sin and don’t repent, we will in fact be held accountable because of the law of agency.
I disagree that Lehi said that agency was free choice. The word agency is not in the text of the Book of Mormon. (And the headings and footnotes do not count since they were not on the golden plates.)
Comment by Matthew Andreasen — November 22, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Matthew: OK, you got me on that one. The word agency does not appear in the Book of Mormon. But choice and free to choose appears multiple times. It looks like the problem is the definition of agency as well as what one means by free. If by free one means that there there is no cost, consequences or penalty there is not such thing as free agency. If free means one is at liberty to make a choice by enticement or persuarsion rather than by being coerced then there is such a thing as free agency; and it only exists where there is a an opposite choice. If there is no opposite choice then there is no liberty to choose. A poor man is not free to dine at the Ritz even though it may be open to the public.
What we see happening in Eden between Satan and Eve is something quite different from the war in heaven. What we see in the garden is Lucifer’s plan B. The war in heaven is the result of plan A. That plan is to save everyone and take all the credit and glory to himself. Plan B is to take the bodies created for Adam and Eve and their offspring for himself and his followers. In order to do that he has to deny them the resurrection. Plan A failed when he was cast out of the father’s presence. Plan B failed when Christ completed the atonement and resurrection.
Moses 4:3 uses the word agency. What did agency mean when Joseph Smith put it in the inspired version? This is a version that does not depend on any words or text that Joseph was using. I submit that it’s meaning was not very different from what it is today. It means the ability to act on ones own behalf. Scripturally it means to have the liberty to choose freely between available choices, presumably good and evil. If Lucifer intended to destroy man’s agency his plan was to leave him no choices other than what he might present.
Children are not accountable because Satan has no power to tempt them and they are not subject to the law until they reach the age of eight when they become accountable, not because they suddenly know good from evil, but because for the first time they are subject to temptations.
Lucifer’s plan C is to deceive as many mortals as possible in order to make them miserable and to keep them from making righteous choices in order to thwart God’s plan.
Comment by Claudia — November 23, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
I wasn’t trying to argue. I was simply trying to support Sam’s previous point that agency is tied to accountability. Agency is not synonymous with choice or freedom. (Look it up in a thesaurus or dictionary, and tell me what you find. I invite anyone out there to try it.)
When I brought up little children, it was merely an example of people that have choices available, and can and do in fact make wrong choices, but are not held accountable, and are therefore saved. This tells me that Satan could easily have proposed something similar that could have been very enticing to many. (Again, one of Sam’s points.)
McConkie in Mormon Doctrine lists 4 things necessary for agency to exist: 1) Law, 2) Opposites, 2) Knowledge of Good and Evil, and 4) Free Choice. Take any one away, and agency does not exist. Everyone focuses on 4) Free Choice (actually most equate agency with free choice even though McConkie says it’s only one of fourth things necessary for agency to exist), but what if Satan was saying that he would prevent us from understanding good and evil? That would destroy agency as well. That leads back to my example of little children. They lack a knowledge of good and evil, and because of that, they are not accountable and therefore saved. (By the way, it’s the lack of the knowledge of good and evil that prevents little children from being accountable, not Satan’s temptations.)
My example of Satan telling Eve, “Thou shalt not surely die,” was to show how enticing the idea of non-accountability is. He uses that temptation quite frequently. Again, it goes with the theme that he knows that non-accountability is a great temptation, whether he uses it in the pre-mortal existence or in mortality.
I do not believe that the plan he offered in the pre-mortal existence is the same one he is now using, so on that we agree. In the pre-mortal existence he sought to destroy agency. In mortality he lies to us (as he did to Eve) saying that there is no accountability or consequences, but he does that knowing full well that there is. As I said, he seeks to use our agency against us, not take it away.
Comment by Matthew Andreasen — November 23, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
“What did agency mean when Joseph Smith put it in the inspired version?” Here are Noah Webster’s definitions from his An American Dictionary of the English Language (published in 1828) for Agency related words in toto:
A’GENCY, n. [L. agens. See Act.]
1. The quality of moving or of exerting power; the state of being in action; action; operation; instrumentality; as, the agency of providence in the natural world.
2. The office of an agent, or factor; business of an agent entrusted with the concerns of another; as, the principal pays the charges of agency.
A’GENT, a. Acting; opposed to patient, or sustaining action; as, the body agent. [Little used.] Bacon.
A’GENT, n. An actor; one that exerts power, or has the power to act; as, a moral agent.
2. An active power or cause; that which has the power to produce an effect; as, heat is a powerful agent.
3. A substitute, deputy, or factor; one entrusted with the business of another; an attorney; a minister.
A’GENTSHIP, n. The office of an agent. [Not used.] We now use agency.
I believe that we should be using the dictionary definition and not the definition of “free agency” which is a philosophical term and describes a type of agency (not determined by necessity or constraint) but does not define what agency actually is.
Comment by Matthew Andreasen — November 23, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
Matthew: I don’t want to argue either. I think we are basically in agreement and the differences are mostly semantic. What is clear though, even in keeping with one of your cited definitions, “A’GENT, n. An actor; one that exerts power, or has the power to act; as, a moral agent.” is that Satan’s plan would have denied the spirit children of our Father in Heaven the power to act.
Accountability is necessary but not sufficient for agency to exist.
Comment by Claudia — November 29, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Claudia: If by “the power to act” you mean that Satan’s plan would take from mankind the ability to “act for themselves” as the Book of Mormon says, or to be “agents unto themselves” as the D&C and Book of Moses say, then it probably is just semantics.
The idea of being an agent unto oneself is where I get agency as the foundation on which accountability rests. In law, an agent serves a principal, and the principal is bound by the actions of his/her agent. Everytime the scriptures speak in a general sense of men (mankind) being “agents”, they are always defined as “agents unto themselves”. I see the word “unto” defining who the agent is serving (i.e., who is designated as the agent’s principal) So it follows, using the dictionary, that we are our own agents. We have the right to represent ourselves and follow our own directions, just as an agent in law follows the wishes of the principal. But the other side of the law stipulates that the principal is bound by the actions of his agent, therefore, we are bound to the consequences of our actions and that constitutes our accountability.
When you say, “Accountability is necessary but not sufficient for agency to exist,” that seems backwards according to my understanding as outlined above. I see accountability as the natural outgrowth of agency.
I’ve often learned new ways to look at things by hearing others’ ideas, though, so can you tell me what you mean by the above statement? What is you understanding of agency, accountability, and the way they relate to each other?
Comment by Matthew Andreasen — November 30, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
This is a little bit like asking which came first the chicken or the egg. They exist together and compliment each other. I too see accountability as an outgrowth of agency. I am also convinced there are some people who are not held accountable even though they are acting for themselves.
A person who suffers from dementia or some other mental or physical condition that makes it difficult if not impossible to make informed decisions about the course of their own lives are, according to the laws of our land, still in possession of the right to act as their own agent. While they experience the natural consequences of their actions they are not held legally accountable for lets say a refusal to take medication that would enhance their ability to make more sound and informed decisions. The laws of society only get involved when someone safety is at stake.
So, I see a difference in kinds of accountability, one kind being the experience of natural consequences and the other a more formal kind of accountability where some consequence is imposed such as a logical consequence. That is why I think that accountability is necessary but not sufficient. Free will is sufficient. As I see it, without free will there is no neither agency or accountability.
Comment by Claudia — December 1, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Have any of you ever read Journal of Discourses, volume 13, pages 282-3? There Brigham Young compares Satan’s plan to those today who simply say, “I repent and believe on the Lord” and are saved. Very interesting . . .
Comment by Rich H. — April 19, 2009 @ 10:14 pm