The Iron Rod - Harold B. Lee - Liberals

[Sunain]

50 years ago, President Harold B. Lee gave an address delivered at General Conference Sunday afternoon session on April 4th, 1971. He talked about liberals and the liberal mindset. This talk was relevant then and it's very prophetic today. It is a very good talk and I recommend you read or watch the entire thing. Below are some highlights.

The Iron Rod - Harold B. Lee
Unfortunately, some are among us who claim to be Church members but are somewhat like the scoffers in Lehi’s vision—standing aloof and seemingly inclined to hold in derision the faithful who choose to accept Church authorities as God’s special witnesses of the gospel and his agents in directing the affairs of the Church.

There are those in the Church who speak of themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said, “read by the lamp of their own conceit.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 373.) One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”

Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve and an eminent educator, made a statement relative to this word liberal as it applied to those in the Church. This is what he said:

“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. …

“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”

And then Dr. Widtsoe concludes his statement with this: “It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth.” (“Evidences and Reconciliations,” Improvement Era, vol. 44 [1941], p. 609.)

[Bronco73idi]

They don’t understand the hypocrisy of being a liberal and a Christian.

“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”

Plain and simple truth.

[madvin]

[dreamtheater76]

We refer to them as Libtards today. I would not want to confuse a Thomas Jefferson liberal with a progressive. The hippies were a huge problem during this time period.

[Telavian]

This entire concept presupposes that the 1950's church had everything right. If they had anything wrong and you advocated for a change then you were a "liberal".
The church had been in a state of apostasy almost since the very beginning.

[Mindfields]

“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. …

Let's correct this statement.

“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; because they were all lies and sets out to reform it because it's without a foundation. …

“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.” This is laughable.

“It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth.” Exactly what the Mormon church was built upon, sand. The death of the Mormon church, Truth.

Prophetic not.

[Niemand]

We refer to them as Libtards today. I would not want to confuse a Thomas Jefferson liberal with a progressive. The hippies were a huge problem during this time period.

Modern Americans calling themselves "Liberal" tend to be illiberal. Total misnomer.

[Bronco73idi]

This entire concept presupposes that the 1950's church had everything right. If they had anything wrong and you advocated for a change then you were a "liberal".
The church had been in a state of apostasy almost since the very beginning.

What do you think of the parable of the talents?

Our Lord and Savior gave this parable to liken it unto the kingdom of heaven. Ie he is the lord, so who were the 3 servants of the parable?

Before he gave the parable of the talents he gave a parable starting with “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins” ie a parable about a polygamist wedding.

If someone didn’t like something, would they liken it unto heaven?

Let’s believe our lord and savior and not keep saying “that’s not what it means” which is saying it only means what I want it to mean…..

[Telavian]

What do you think of the parable of the talents?

Our Lord and Savior gave this parable to liken it unto the kingdom of heaven. Ie he is the lord, so who were the 3 servants of the parable?

Before he gave the parable of the talents he gave a parable starting with “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins” ie a parable about a polygamist wedding.

If someone didn’t like something, would they liken it unto heaven?

Let’s believe our lord and savior and not keep saying “that’s not what it means” which is saying it only means what I want it to mean…..

You confused me. I really have no idea how the parable of the talents or the ten virgins establishes the correctness of everything the LDS church teaches. If you feel it does, then please enlighten me.

On the parable of the talents though, the master told the last servant that he should have at least taken the money and invested it so the master could use the interest. Today the LDS church takes and Lord's money (tithing), invests it, and uses the interest for their own purposes. They are literally stealing from the master.

In this parable do you think the master would have been okay if the servant invested the money and then took the interest for his own purposes? No I don't think so.

[Bronco73idi]

What do you think of the parable of the talents?

Our Lord and Savior gave this parable to liken it unto the kingdom of heaven. Ie he is the lord, so who were the 3 servants of the parable?

Before he gave the parable of the talents he gave a parable starting with “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins” ie a parable about a polygamist wedding.

If someone didn’t like something, would they liken it unto heaven?

Let’s believe our lord and savior and not keep saying “that’s not what it means” which is saying it only means what I want it to mean…..

You confused me. I really have no idea how the parable of the talents or the ten virgins establishes the correctness of everything the LDS church teaches. If you feel it does, then please enlighten me.

On the parable of the talents though, the master told the last servant that he should have at least taken the money and invested it so the master could use the interest. Today the LDS church takes and Lord's money (tithing), invests it, and uses the interest for their own purposes. They are literally stealing from the master.

In this parable do you think the master would have been okay if the servant invested the money and then took the interest for his own purposes? No I don't think so.

I don’t disagree with the apostasy of the church from 1890 to today. They have slowly roasted their way to today’s church. The “drunkards of Ephraim”

I think the 3 servants were JS, BY and JT. I hope you don’t think I’m slandering JT. If he had the vision that WW said he had of Jesus and Joseph then it fits to a T….

[Telavian]

I don’t disagree with the apostasy of the church from 1890 to today. They have slowly roasted their way to today’s church. The “drunkards of Ephraim”

I think the 3 servants were JS, BY and JT. I hope you don’t think I’m slandering JT. If he had the vision that WW said he had of Jesus and Joseph then it fits to a T….

I see. The first 3 presidents of the church.

In the Luke version, Luke 19, the master calls 10 servants and tells them to "Occupy till I come". The accounting from 3 servants is likely just for simplicity in the record. The JST corrects a few things however it seems to fit perfectly with D&C 101 which has the parable of the tower. The servants fled and didn't "occupy" therefore they don't get a reward.

"For I say unto you that unto everyone who occupieth, shall be given; and from him who occupieth not, even that he hath received shall be taken away from him."

[gkearney]

I feel that I must disagree with President Lee here. Any faith that teaches universalism as the Latter Day Saints do is by definition liberal in the classical sense of the word.

[Luke]

They don’t understand the hypocrisy of being a liberal and a Christian.

“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”

Plain and simple truth.

The LDS Church has, then, adhered to liberalism since circa 1890.

[Luke]

I don’t disagree with the apostasy of the church from 1890 to today. They have slowly roasted their way to today’s church. The “drunkards of Ephraim”

I think the 3 servants were JS, BY and JT. I hope you don’t think I’m slandering JT. If he had the vision that WW said he had of Jesus and Joseph then it fits to a T….

I see. The first 3 presidents of the church.

Not only the first three presidents of the Church, they were also the Keyholders, and the only three men to have been anointed as the Prophet, Priest, and King over the House of Israel and Kingdom of God—the fullest expression of the Keyholder position.

[Telavian]

Not only the first three presidents of the Church, they were also the Keyholders, and the only three men to have been anointed as the Prophet, Priest, and King over the House of Israel and Kingdom of God—the fullest expression of the Keyholder position.

Brigham Young was never a High Priest and Apostles are Elders and not High Priests. I think things deviated far earlier then 1890.

[Luke]

Not only the first three presidents of the Church, they were also the Keyholders, and the only three men to have been anointed as the Prophet, Priest, and King over the House of Israel and Kingdom of God—the fullest expression of the Keyholder position.

Brigham Young was never a High Priest and Apostles are Elders and not High Priests. I think things deviated far earlier then 1890.

True, and, to be fair, I used to adhere to the view that that actually mattered—but it didn’t. By the Nauvoo period, the offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood became completely equal, so it didn’t matter what office you held in that Priesthood—you had the same authority just different primary responsibilities.

What actually mattered when it came to Brigham Young’s succession was the fact that he had received his Second Anointing, actually supported (and lived, when applicable) the doctrines Joseph Smith was preaching, and was elected and anointed as Prophet, Priest, and King by the Council of Fifty.

Later, we see the same problem around the 1890-1920 period when the Church begins abandoning various doctrines such as the law of adoption and plural marriage. The keys left the Church by virtue of a special appointment which came from a special dispensation that Joseph Smith had given to Benjamin F. Johnson in Nauvoo to appoint his birthright heir out of his adopted posterity, since his own children by blood had completely turned from the faith.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

Later, we see the same problem around the 1890-1920 period when the Church begins abandoning various doctrines such as the law of adoption and plural marriage. The keys left the Church by virtue of a special appointment which came from a special dispensation that Joseph Smith had given to Benjamin F. Johnson in Nauvoo to appoint his birthright heir out of his adopted posterity, since his own children by blood had completely turned from the faith.

I know the LeBaron's and their offshoots claim that the birthright was passed from Joseph Smith to BFJ and then from BFJ to one of his grandsons, but is there a source from BFJ directly that claims this? Does he mention it in his Life’s Review, the letter to Gibbs, or a similar source?

[Telavian]

What actually mattered when it came to Brigham Young’s succession was the fact that he had received his Second Anointing, actually supported (and lived, when applicable) the doctrines Joseph Smith was preaching, and was elected and anointed as Prophet, Priest, and King by the Council of Fifty.

This may be getting in the weeds, however by Nauvoo Joseph and the church was already off the rails. Therefore, I am not sure that a second anointed actually mattered at that point. I don't think God is bound by the best of intentions. The council of fifty was another sign that Joseph was deviating from what God wanted.

[Bronco73idi]

I don’t disagree with the apostasy of the church from 1890 to today. They have slowly roasted their way to today’s church. The “drunkards of Ephraim”

I think the 3 servants were JS, BY and JT. I hope you don’t think I’m slandering JT. If he had the vision that WW said he had of Jesus and Joseph then it fits to a T….

I see. The first 3 presidents of the church.

In the Luke version, Luke 19, the master calls 10 servants and tells them to "Occupy till I come". The accounting from 3 servants is likely just for simplicity in the record. The JST corrects a few things however it seems to fit perfectly with D&C 101 which has the parable of the tower. The servants fled and didn't "occupy" therefore they don't get a reward.

"For I say unto you that unto everyone who occupieth, shall be given; and from him who occupieth not, even that he hath received shall be taken away from him."

I find it peculiar that Luke 19 only has the lord mention the outcome of the first 3 servants. One could say he mentions the last 7 as “followers” in verse 25.

Does any of those words really matter? Are they not like our leaders today, just words of pretty and void meaning?

Then again the lord told the Samaritan woman he that his words are a “well of water springing up into everlasting life.” In John 4:14

So I think they have real meaning and we should seek them out so we can be counted as a disciple.

Matthew 13
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.


This parable of the mustard seeds has an ending similar to Luke 19, hmmmm

[Luke]

Later, we see the same problem around the 1890-1920 period when the Church begins abandoning various doctrines such as the law of adoption and plural marriage. The keys left the Church by virtue of a special appointment which came from a special dispensation that Joseph Smith had given to Benjamin F. Johnson in Nauvoo to appoint his birthright heir out of his adopted posterity, since his own children by blood had completely turned from the faith.

I know the LeBaron's and their offshoots claim that the birthright was passed from Joseph Smith to BFJ and then from BFJ to one of his grandsons, but is there a source from BFJ directly that claims this? Does he mention it in his Life’s Review, the letter to Gibbs, or a similar source?

I’m going to do a post about it in my “Succession” series. But yes, BFJ alludes to it in his writings, making the issue a little more obvious to the objective student.

[Luke]

What actually mattered when it came to Brigham Young’s succession was the fact that he had received his Second Anointing, actually supported (and lived, when applicable) the doctrines Joseph Smith was preaching, and was elected and anointed as Prophet, Priest, and King by the Council of Fifty.

This may be getting in the weeds, however by Nauvoo Joseph and the church was already off the rails. Therefore, I am not sure that a second anointed actually mattered at that point. I don't think God is bound by the best of intentions. The council of fifty was another sign that Joseph was deviating from what God wanted.

Respectfully, I completely disagree, but I understand your perspective.

[ransomme]

I feel that I must disagree with President Lee here. Any faith that teaches universalism as the Latter Day Saints do is by definition liberal in the classical sense of the word.

Not exactly. The Church was a restoration, a reboot, not an evolution of an existing Church

[gkearney]

I feel that I must disagree with President Lee here. Any faith that teaches universalism as the Latter Day Saints do is by definition liberal in the classical sense of the word.

Not exactly. The Church was a restoration, a reboot, not an evolution of an existing Church

I didn't say it was an evolution of an existing Church, I said we teach universalism (lowercase U). That is not the same as saying we originated from the Unitarian/Universalist faith tradition (uppercase U)

[nightlight]

I feel that I must disagree with President Lee here. Any faith that teaches universalism as the Latter Day Saints do is by definition liberal in the classical sense of the word.

Not exactly. The Church was a restoration, a reboot, not an evolution of an existing Church

I didn't say it was an evolution of an existing Church, I said we teach universalism (lowercase U). That is not the same as saying we originated from the Unitarian/Universalist faith tradition (uppercase U)

No....
LDS teach there are unforgivable sins

[Telavian]

No....
LDS teach there are unforgivable sins

Really I don't understand how anything can be unforgivable. If we take an extreme example like Satan himself, if he all of a sudden lived exactly like Christ would, then what would that mean?
If I was a terrible person in every way and then a trillion years later improved everything, then am I still to be held according to my much earlier actions?