NOM

I decided to start this after reading the thread "How much does the Prophet really matter?" The process of choosing General Authorities seems to strongly favor conservative candidates. People like Lowell Bennion, and O.C. Tanner were brilliant, ground-breaking leaders, but they were not church-broke, GA material. Have there been any liberal General Authorities since Hugh B. Brown?

DFU was probably was probably in the same solar system as liberal, but still an outer planet and we see what happened to him. Doesn't look like anything will change anytime soon.

I do not mean political liberal or conservative. Sadly, the word liberal gets a bad rap. It's almost as volatile as the word 'cult' here in Utah.

I Should have labeled this thread "Theologically Liberal General Authorities." What I mean by theologically liberal, is a person who would say, "You don't have to believe exactly as I do," while a theologically conservative would say, "my understanding is right, or my world view is the only real world view. That's why I used the examples of someone like Lowell Bennion and O.C. Tanner, who were known as, "swearing Elders" opposed to a Bruce McConkie. Check out this article. https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/053-08-13.pdf Where are the "Swearing Elders" of today. Certainly not in leadership! And where are the "Swearing Sisters?"

Hinckley was a journalists. Journalists are mostly Democrat. Democrats are mostly liberal. So, maybe Hinckley in his own way. Certainly was brave to speak with the press.

Also, JS was liberal, at least with his wives.

At this point I think they are all virtually Church Broke or they wouldn't be there.

For a while there I thought the Bednar was the guy...he was the one to show kindness and tolerance. Oh, how I was disappointed.

I use to think Marvin J. Ashton was the kind one. He gave some VERY conservative talks, and those talks now serve as very good tools to show hypocrisy in the leading authorities, particular Ashton's talk on telling lies.

The who ideal of "conservative" to me has less to do with thought conformity than it does with the idea that the ends justify the means, or that if you lie to protect "the good name of the church", then it ain't no lie.

God "justifies in committing a little sin"...as long as its for the Chruch.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:59 am People like Lowell Bennion, and O.C. Tanner were brilliant, ...

Lowell Bennion certainly impressed me as being brilliant, but his ethical stand that those of African descent should not be excluded from full participation in the LDS Church put him on the enemies list of the 'Brethren with impaired ethics'.

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:44 am Lowell Bennion certainly impressed me as being brilliant, but his ethical stand that those of African descent should not be excluded from full participation in the LDS Church put him on the enemies list of the 'Brethren with impaired ethics'.

Lowell Bennion was liberal AF. And by "AF", I mean "American Fork".

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:32 am Lowell Bennion was liberal AF. And by "AF", I mean "American Fork".

Could you explain the American Fork reference? If one is a liberal AF, what does that mean?

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:01 pm

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:32 am Lowell Bennion was liberal AF. And by "AF", I mean "American Fork".

Could you explain the American Fork reference? If one is a liberal AF, what does that mean?

I had a Cobb salad recently in AF and they certainly applied a liberal amount of blue cheese dressing. They can be quite liberal in AF.

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:01 pm

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:32 am Lowell Bennion was liberal AF. And by "AF", I mean "American Fork".

Could you explain the American Fork reference? If one is a liberal AF, what does that mean?

No LDS people in AF are liberal! The point of the mountain would slip off!

Pen Guin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:01 pm

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:32 am Lowell Bennion was liberal AF. And by "AF", I mean "American Fork".

Could you explain the American Fork reference? If one is a liberal AF, what does that mean?

Hold on Mr. Guin, I suggest your age is showing and that you need to consult the Urban Dictionary to fully understand such abbreviations as AF.

Hope that helps.

I am not convinced the church becoming more liberal would be good for the church. Would be good for certain members I am sure. But more members would be upset than happy. The reality is it is going to take a lot more than some liberal ideas to stop the bleeding. What that is I am not sure, but it is more than being a little more tolerant for certain lifestyles

The bigger problem is the church is boring the hell out of its members. I think more people leave because of boredom than any conservative policy.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:03 am I am not convinced the church becoming more liberal would be good for the church.

How would you define "good for the church"? And how would you know if such a thing had been achieved?

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:17 am

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:03 am I am not convinced the church becoming more liberal would be good for the church.

How would you define "good for the church"? And how would you know if such a thing had been achieved?

I am not defending the church or it policies. It’s just my opinion the church as an entity would lose as many members as it gains by going liberal. It is not a judgement of right or wrong just what reality is.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:11 pm

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:17 am

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:03 am I am not convinced the church becoming more liberal would be good for the church.

How would you define "good for the church"? And how would you know if such a thing had been achieved?

I am not defending the church or it policies. It’s just my opinion the church as an entity would lose as many members as it gains by going liberal. It is not a judgement of right or wrong just what reality is.

Ah, if that's your measure, then I think I would agree with you. That's a value judgement -- that having more members is good for the church. I suspect lots of people would share that same value. I doubt that becoming more liberal would help them better retain more members. Or convert new ones. Though the evidence suggests their having some troubles with that anyway.

On the other hand, if they get too conservative, that may also drive away more members. If, as some people predict, Nelson takes the church in a more conservative, hard-line direction you may well see the exodus increase.