Are there still liberal Mormons?

[Dr Exiled]

There are still liberal Mormons. I know a few that are life-long democrats.

[MG 2.0]

There are still liberal Mormons. I know a few that are life-long democrats.

My last Stake President and his wife are life long Democrats. I ministered to them. Salt of the earth people.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

From what I’ve observed of your views and opinions and what you’ve said about your behaviours, I wouldn’t describe you as a liberal in the context you’ve used above.

It doesn’t matter how you see it. I know who I am. You don’t.

A liberal can be an active and believing member of the church.

Hey, if it’s of any consequence, I’m joining Jeff Flake (active LDS) from Arizona and voting for Kamala.

As I said, you don’t get to define ‘liberal’.

The frustrating thing here is to be OVERLY diagnosed as being one thing or another. It’s enough to drive one bananas.

Regards,
MG

Here’s a definition of “liberal” that I agree with:
“Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.”

That isn’t you on this board. I don’t think it’s you in real life.
Do you sustain the First Presidency in issuing the Family Proclamation? Which contains - “We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”

Do you sustain Elder Oaks as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator?
Oaks said. “That is also why the Lord has required His restored church to oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman, and to oppose changes that confuse or alter gender or homogenize the differences between men and women.”

You stated earlier:

I think same sex marriage should be allowed.

You cannot honestly sustain The First Presidency and Elder Oaks, AND support the liberal idea of same sex marriage. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

[Morley]

I’m talking about members who think same sex marriage should be allowed, Who think it’s okay to have a nose piercing, who are relaxed about an unmarried man and a woman cohabiting. Etc.

I see no compelling evidence to support the description of you as a liberal. In any sense of the word.

Again, you don’t get to define words according to your preferences.

I think same sex marriage should be allowed. One of our kids is in a same sex marriage. We have a grandchild with piercings. Two of my brothers have lived with a woman without being married.

To each his or her own.

So does that make me liberal enough FOR YOU?

You guys and your prescriptive therapy and judgment. It seems to be built into your DNA.

Regards,
MG

"I have a gay daughter and a grandkid with piercings. That proves I'm a liberal."

is pulled from the same rhetorical blackhole as

"One of my friends is Black. That proves I'm not racist."

[MG 2.0]

It doesn’t matter how you see it. I know who I am. You don’t.

A liberal can be an active and believing member of the church.

Hey, if it’s of any consequence, I’m joining Jeff Flake (active LDS) from Arizona and voting for Kamala.

As I said, you don’t get to define ‘liberal’.

The frustrating thing here is to be OVERLY diagnosed as being one thing or another. It’s enough to drive one bananas.

Regards,
MG

Here’s a definition of “liberal” that I agree with:
“Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.”

That isn’t you on this board. I don’t think it’s you in real life.
Do you sustain the First Presidency in issuing the Family Proclamation? Which contains - “We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”

Do you sustain Elder Oaks as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator?
Oaks said. “That is also why the Lord has required His restored church to oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman, and to oppose changes that confuse or alter gender or homogenize the differences between men and women.”

You stated earlier:

I think same sex marriage should be allowed.

You cannot honestly sustain The First Presidency and Elder Oaks, AND support the liberal idea of same sex marriage. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

I sustain the 1st Presidency. I also realize that we are all free agents. If a same sex couple marries I am not going to condemn them…but I am going to love them. If a family member decides to pierce their ears I am not going to condemn them…but I am going to love them.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Again, you don’t get to define words according to your preferences.

I think same sex marriage should be allowed. One of our kids is in a same sex marriage. We have a grandchild with piercings. Two of my brothers have lived with a woman without being married.

To each his or her own.

So does that make me liberal enough FOR YOU?

You guys and your prescriptive therapy and judgment. It seems to be built into your DNA.

Regards,
MG

"I have a gay daughter and a grandkid with piercings. That proves I'm a liberal."

is pulled from the same rhetorical blackhole as

"One of my friends is Black. That proves I'm not racist."

As I said to IHAQ, I am a proponent of free will. That in and of itself induces me to respect the choices of others. In my mind that is extending liberality towards all.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

If a same sex couple marries I am not going to condemn them…but I am going to love them.

That statement is materially different to your earlier statement which was:

I think same sex marriage should be allowed

Sustaining the First Presidency and Elder Oaks is you signalling that you approve of their stance on same sex marriage, which is that it’s a sin that should be condemned not condoned. Any member who enters a same sex marriage will be excommunicated.

If you think same sex marriage should be allowed you cannot honestly say sustain the First Presidency and Elder Oaks, because, as a liberal minded fellow, you don’t. You disagree with their policy and think Church members should be allowed to enter same sex marriages in the Church.

I’m guessing you might now choose to amend your statement to now mean that you think same sex marriage should be allowed…outside of the Church. Not within it. And to my mind that refutes your idea that you are a liberal Mormon.

[MG 2.0]

If a same sex couple marries I am not going to condemn them…but I am going to love them.

That statement is materially different to your earlier statement which was:

I think same sex marriage should be allowed

Sustaining the First Presidency and Elder Oaks is you signalling that you approve of their stance on same sex marriage, which is that it’s a sin that should be condemned not condoned. Any member who enters a same sex marriage will be excommunicated.

If you think same sex marriage should be allowed you cannot honestly say sustain the First Presidency and Elder Oaks, because, as a liberal minded fellow, you don’t. You disagree with their policy and think Church members should be allowed to enter same sex marriages in the Church.

I’m guessing you might now choose to amend your statement to now mean that you think same sex marriage should be allowed…outside of the Church. Not within it. And to my mind that refutes your idea that you are a liberal Mormon.

You are correct Sir! I do support the laws of the land. I also support the laws of the church. That doesn’t make me illiberal.

Religious institutions have their own laws and practices. If those religious beliefs and practices are believed to come of God one would not ‘rise up’ to promote change. That is only done within the institutions created by man.

We will have to agree to disagree on this, IHAQ. If you think it is illiberal of me to support the teachings of a religious institution that as members we believe has God’s stamp of approval and his direction, there is really very little I can do or say to relieve you of your illiberal bias (unwilling to be open minded) that prohibit you from accepting the religious practices and teachings of the LDS Church.

I don’t think that you can be the final judge as to my liberality or illiberality. And I don’t think you are in a secure position to judge based on a ‘PC’ definition on what it means to be liberal. I think I have given an adequate reason for you, if you are indeed open minded, to accept me as being liberal in some of my views.

Free will, I notice, was not mentioned in your response. It does play a part in all this, ya know.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I’m guessing you might now choose to amend your statement to now mean that you think same sex marriage should be allowed…outside of the Church. Not within it. And to my mind that refutes your idea that you are a liberal Mormon.

Nailed it

[MG 2.0]

I’m guessing you might now choose to amend your statement to now mean that you think same sex marriage should be allowed…outside of the Church. Not within it. And to my mind that refutes your idea that you are a liberal Mormon.

Nailed it

How so? First sentence, yes. Second sentence, yes. Third sentence, well, according to your restrictive definition of what it means to be liberal, then yes. If you actually read my posts which have a different/refined perspective where free will is factored in, then no.

It’s frustrating when conclusions like ‘nailed it’ are made when the opposite may be true. Unfortunately there is no one here to back me up, only those that support a PC version of what it is/means to be a ‘liberal’.

Oh yeah, I remember, free will doesn’t even exist.

Man, when free will doesn’t exist and God doesn’t exist everything is pretty much up for grabs.

What a life!

Regards,
MG