Boiled down,The New Liberalism is a continuation of the pre-mortal war on Agency. Exhibit A is our current liberal federal government!
My biggest problem with this article is that the writer uses fear as a motivational tactic. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is based on love first, and everything else is added onto the principle and virtue of love. When fear is used as a motivational tactic, I believe that we are choosing to go away from love, and vice versa. It is fine to disagree with somebody, and it is fine to have conversations with people you disagree with, as long as your motivation is progress and love. But when fear becomes your motivation, you are not following the most important foundational principle in the gospel, which is love.
I have now read all three parts to this series and I find it disturbing that the author is assuming that if members are truly faithful, we will all agree with each other in our political views. This was something Ancient Greek philosophers also believed: if all of society were logical and moral, then we would all agree with each other. 2600 years later, we can look back and see with absolute certainty that this has never been the case. I look at faithful members trying to reconcile their beliefs with what the world has to offer, and I don't see an amoral philosophy wearing the hollowed out shell of religion: I see people trying to include others who are different than them. Is that really a behavior we want to paint as insidious and amoral?
Liberalism was the perfect word to use here. Well spoken, and sadly truthful. I know our family is grateful for the heads up the Lord has given us!
Thank you so much for pointing out how the definitions of words, "tolerant," "accepting," and "compassionate" have become twisted and corrupted. I don't think liberalism is offering up anything "new," though. Through the ages, there have been men and women who are sure they know more than Prophets of God. I have noticed that these people have zero tolerance for those who proclaim the truth, while demanding tolerance for Godless behavior. Proclaiming the words of modern and ancient Prophets is not "imposing our values." "Imposing your values" is demanding government funding (paid by me) for abortions, demanding legalization of gay marriage, and
labeling me a "hater" because I accept the word of God regarding immoral behavior.
Hancock's question to liberals would be easier to answer if he defined "sacred powers of procreation." Is he talking about sex within the bonds of marriage or sex within the bonds of marriage which results in new life?
Since I'm not Mormon (I'm Catholic) I won't go into how I happened upon this series of articles, but I can very well imagine precisely this article being written about me by certain Catholics, since I am what they like to call a cafeteria Catholic (and I don't mind the term, though it is certainly intended to be derisive).
That said, I just didn't get it. In particular, I don't understand what the test is supposed to do. If I don't accept the proposition, then... what does that show? That I maintain relativistic morality? I think it demonstrates that I recognize the difference between secular and religious marriage.
Really, I found the whole premise strange. Of course I get to define the meaning of my own existence, etc (what Justice Kennedy said). How could it be any other way? Sure, I'm Catholic, but only because I choose to be. If I don't want to be Catholic anymore, should someone compel me to keep going to Mass? That can't be what you mean, but it sure seems to me that's what I read.
Look, "submitting to God" can't just be so casually taken to mean "submitting to a particular church" or I guess adhering to an "authoritative structure of meaning" as you might put it. Churches are made of people. I like my priest, but he's not always right and that's ok. He's not the reason I go to Mass.
So yeah, I'm a liberal Catholic. The Church is, in some measure, a conversation. We here on earth are trying to get a little closer to heaven. The U.S. is like that too - we're trying to form a more perfect union. But you don't get closer to heaven or form a more perfect union by slavishly following the leader and blindly accepting tradition. The Kingdom of Heaven is inside you. I believe that with all my heart.
I think some here have missed the point. This is just "part 3" and when viewed with the others, it is not just about sexual mores. That is only one example within the problem. Another issue that comes to mind that is there, but not so apparent, is the new-liberalism's redefining vocabulary or hiding the severity of wrong-doing by softening the wordage to make something sound more acceptable. My opinion is that the subject that was spoken of here is SPOT ON.
I think what you're failing to get is that progressives aren't moving from "having a moral foundation" to "not having a moral foundation." They're moving from having personal ethics based on tradition, purity, and authority to ethics based on avoiding harm and preserving consent. And they're doing a very good job of pointing out the ways harm is being done to people, and their consent is being overridden, in the name of helping people who care more about (their own) authority and (their favourite) tradition pretend that people different from them don't exist.
Beyond Neutrality: "I would prefer not to raise what may be vexing political questions in religious contexts. I certainly would not give a talk about The New Liberalism or any other political tendency in Sacrament Meeting. Nor would I make a point of bringing up such a subject as a home teacher, and of course not in the context of an ecclesiastical interview."
This unwillingness to openly and intelligently discuss such topics that you claim to be important to the general, orthodox membership of the church is exactly what creates division and disillusionment within our congregations and among our people. With your "neutrality", you are creating an "us v. them" mentality and approaching this from a very passive aggressive stance. We are one! We are the body of Christ and when you refer to "them", you reinforce the division that is rapidly growing inside the church. Perhaps, we should seek understanding before we seek to be understood. God loves all his children no matter where they sit on political and moral issues and issues as petty and insignificant as two men or two women wanting to love each other. When has love ever been immoral? We have bigger fish to fry like the millions upon millions of people living in poverty who need to be fed - physically and spiritually. I think that's what Jesus would want us to do.
Believe it or not, a certain conception of the Good always prevails in society. It shifts with time (just ask Elder Hales, who spoke of this in the last GC), and it is molded by those voices willing to speak up to help shape and influence the direction of public mores. So in a very real sense, someone's idea of the Good is always imposed or enforced upon others, and upon us. Neutrality is a myth. To say nothing as social morality goes down the drain -- or, worse yet, to promote evil as good under the guise of tolerance and pluralism -- is to hand the birthright over for a mess of pottage. It is neither Christlike nor compassionate; it is cowardly.
I tire of these leftist propagandists masquerading as members of the church. If you find the teachings of the restored gospel so reactionary and prejudicial, then quit. No one is in the church against their will, if you aren't happy then leave. If you think women should be ordained, that sodomy should be on the same moral level as marriage, that the Book of Mormon isn't historically true, or the church is wrong because most members don't vote the way you do then there are other churches. Many mainline churches have women clergy, bless gay marriage, and think those that vote for Republicans are evil, so the hipster, intellectually inbred clique at patheos they should all just become Episcopalians they would be much happier taking up residence in Babylon.
I do not question the doctrine of the Proclamation to the World, but is it appropriate to enforce our beliefs on others? The LDS church does not believe in drinking coffee or sex before marriage yet these are not outlawed. It is a sin to to restrict others agency - unless they are using their agency to deprive others of theirs (ie rape, murder, theft, etc). When religion tries to force itself on others there will be retaliation that religions will not like. Either simply loss of popularity which harms missionary efforts or a push for further separation between church and state.
Amen! Amen! and Amen!
Finally someone has put this in print.
Thank you, thank you and thank you!
Orson makes a point. The New Liberalism or relatvism or atheistic existentialism is certainly not just about sexual mores. How about the rationalization of the murder of the unborn by the New Libs? A woman's "right to choose" (to kill babies) is a major plank in today's progressive agenda.
What Orson said. ^ Thank you. It really gets tiresome hearing over and over again that in order to be "righteous" or a "good" member of the church, you also have to be an ultra-conservative right-winger. Can we say "holier than thou?" Sheesh.
You are so right about this subject.
Does it not seem problematic to you to reduce ALL of "morality" to just sexual politics?
Could we not just play your silly "ask a liberal this one question" game on a conservative?
"Ask a conservative what they think about camels and the eye of a needle. It is a very good bet they will recite some phony-baloney nonsense about a gate with low overhead clearance."
As the church's statement, "The Mormon Ethic of Civility" states, there are good principles to be found in the platforms of all major parties. There are many ways to be immoral besides breaking the law of chastity.
How could I be the first to comment on how correct this article is?
Amen says it all.
As an long-time Utah Democrat, I am surprised at how much I agree with Ralph Hancock's assessment. This New Liberalism (I would call it atheistic existentialism) is stripping the cores out of many theistic philosophical and political arguments. Latter-day Saints across the political spectrum would do well to consider his thoughts carefully.
Ralph, I am disappointed you would use "liberalism" to describe the trend addressed in the article. "Relativism" seems more appropriate, rather than demeaning a wonderful word (liberal)which is used to define the Divine, God, and a sought-after attribution.
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.