Thanks for the insight, Levi. I know that I credit my exposure to eMormonism, starting with Mormon-L in 1992, with opening my perceptions to a broader understanding of the diversities of sincere Mormon faith and a greater willingness to listen to other seekers and to question authority. IOW to converting me to a more Liahona approach to the church and its members. Sometimes I get quite embarrassed when I stumble across some old Iron Rod post of mine, especially since I considered myself quite liberal even before email Mormonism changed my life.

Thanks for the discussion. I have heard this analogy before and so it is a good to know where it comes from. But I have to admit to having trouble figuring out if it has any value. I mean, I understand that there are different kinds of people, but do the Liahona and the Iron Rod, as presented in the Book of Mormon, typify those kinds? It seems to me that they do not. Rather, the two things are largely symbols of the exact same kind of saint– one who is faithful and diligent.

Reading Alma 37, it appears that Alma sees the Liahona as a simple and straightforward thing. One that will lead us in a “direct course” to Eternal
Life if only we are wise enough to follow its counsel. Meandering is the result of slothfulness and a lack of diligence. So while its clarity did vary with circumstances, those circumstances are the exact same ones that determine the value of an iron rod– namely did you pay attention? Are you faithful and diligent?

Furthermore, the Iron Rod did not reveal itself to its users entirely. They followed it through mists of darkness. Thus in both cases, the path is straight, we follow by faith and diligence, and we cannot see the whole path from the beginning but must have faith.

What exactly, then, is the distinction that comes out of the scriptures from the two? They seem remarkably similar. Or is the distinction not supposed to have a scriptureal basis at all, but rather just an expropriation of the symbols for another purpose?

With respect to your central claim that discourse liberalizes, I think that’s worthy of some thought. What is being a Mormon other than wave after wave of discourse? We read church discourse in magazines, we hear it at General Conference and in other church-wide satellite broadcasts, we experience three hours (!) of it each week on Sunday, we subject each other to it during home and visiting teaching, we create it for ourselves in Family Home Evenings. Has exposure to this torrent of discourse tended to liberalize Mormons, in comparison with (say) non-religious folks? I’m not really convinced that it has…

Instead, I wonder if we could distinguish among kinds of discourse. In particular, it seems to me that there is a great deal of difference between what I’ll call “deliberative discourse,” in which the central goal is to expose oneself to different ways of viewing the world, and “identity-reaffirming discourse,” in which the central goal is to reassure oneself that other ways of viewing the world are wrong.

Clearly, liberal people (in the classical, semi-Lockean sense of people who are interested in promoting individual autonomy and diversity) are more likely to seek out deliberative discourse, whereas nonliberal people may be more comfortable with identity-reaffirming discourse. So the fact that participation in the blog world is voluntary and that people self-select into it makes it hard to conclude that our discourse liberalizes. On the other hand, I expect that persistent exposure to deliberative discourse will have a liberalizing effect on nonliberals.

So, as the blog world grows over time, can we expect it to retain its current focus on deliberative discourse, or will the entry of large numbers of nonliberal folks swamp our discussion with identity-reaffirming discourse? I worry that, in this as in so many other things, the “bad” (from my point of view, of course) will eventually drive out the “good” and not the other way around.

Great post.

I am a big fan of the Bloggernacle, and not just because I blog here (and therefore have a vested interest), but because I really value the community of Saints that call the Bloggernacle home.

I think some ‘Nacle denizens, though, would prefer to think of themselves as “Iron Rod Saints” but only because of a problem of semantics. Inasmuch as “Liahona Saint” is perceived to equal “liberal,” a word that can be used perjoratively, there will be a few who disagree with your conclusions.

But, as you say, this is probably missing the point, or simply a case of getting hung-up on labels. The truth is, the majority of Saints in the Bloggernacle seem to be friendly, faithful members. We can talk honestly about seer stones, for example, without the bile you would find on some boards, and with an overwhelming willingness, I feel, to give the Church and its history the benefit of the doubt. We are Saints who seek faith and understanding (to paraphrase the mission of a certain Mormon organisation). Of course, I am speaking of the Bloggernacle in general.

Inasmuch as Bloggernaclers are willing to discuss things beyond our “Sunday School” parameters, they are all “liberal,” regardless of their own religous or political bent. So, I agree with you on this point. But do you think one can be both a Liahona and an Iron Rod Saint, just as Lehi was? Are we not both, to some degree or another? Active participation in the Church will always require some holding of the Iron Rod when the mists of darkness swirl. At other times, the Liahona guides our way.

Again, great post, and welcome again, Dialogue, to this continued endeavour.

I don’t see any evidence in the scriptures that the compass left you to figure things out. That mountain thing you mention isn’t in the scriptures is it? In fact, in the original Liahona story, Nephi is told exactly where to go (which mountain) in order to find food. And the discussion in Alma does not at all make the Liahona out to be something that leaves you to figure out the details. Or maybe you see something there that I don’t?

I think it is also easy to polarize the liahona and iron rod appellations so that they are mere caricatures. I happen to agree that with Frank that the liahona and the iron rod are scripturally similar. However, I think that there is a valuable analogy that can be drawn with the limited distinctions between the media.

Primarily, the liahona doesn’t always work. It works on faith and righteousness. It allows for deviation in the path. The iron rod does not. Once you let go, you are hosed.

I think education of any sort will tend to “liberalize” individuals. That is the primary difference between neo-cons and the religious right (as I see it). And what we have in the bloggernacle is some sort of dialectic, which is as I see it quite educational.

My bigger problem with the categories though isn’t the horrible twisting of the metaphors, but the connotations given them in the 90′s, with “liahona” typically being equated to those with more doubts and criticisms of church doctrine. (I recognize that this wasn’t always intended – nonetheless the dichotomy quickly obtained this connotation)

What the title “Liahona Saint” intended to convey is a sense of being intellectually liberal, and not necessarily any other kind of liberal.

Rather than arguing over whether “Liahona Saint” or “Iron Rodder” are useful terms, wouldnt it be easier to just say that participants on LDS blogs tend to be more of the intellectually liberal types who tend to be more inquisitive than dogmatic, irrespective of their political/moral/social views?