"The terms Liahona and Iron Rod would be better left to the meanings assigned by God, rather than those assigned by Poll."

I couldn't possibly agree more. Creating a false opposition between these two scriptural ideas distorts scriptural teachings and results in a great many misconceptions about and misunderstandings of the Gospel.

The Rod better represents scriptural knowledge while the Liahona symbolizes spiritual direction, but both designate the Word of God. Both in harmony help navigate through the "mists of darkness" of the modern world, and both are necessary.

There's danger in creating the (false) opposition and then pretending to favor one over the other. A too-tight grip on the Rod would produce rule-bound traditionalism, while there's rich yet tragic irony in self-professed "Liahona Mormons" pointing the finger of scorn at those who hold to the Iron Rod!

Rather, in an appropriate understanding of the symbols, those who TRULY hold fast to the Iron Rod would surely never reject the Liahona. The Liahona would never direct one to abandon the Iron Rod, though it might clarify where to tighten the grip and where to move along.

Excellent clarification!

On Friday, the Deseret News ran a story about the exact same topic by writer McKay Coppins. You're too late.

Cats, you may wish to click and read the whole story before you comment. This story is a response to McKay Coppins.

The best thing the article had to say: "The Liahona and Iron Rod are *approaches.* They are means to come to God."

I agree that the labeling game has very little good in it, and can do a lot of harm. However, there is some truth behind it, and I can see how these labels came up.

Generally speaking, people in LDS circles who ask too many questions, have intellectual angst, or attempt to explore the contradictions of religious faith are considered troublemakers. The automatic assumption of the vast majority of members is that these people have let go of the "iron rod" of the gospel and must be brought back because the reality of it is right there in the scriptures, it boils down to commandments that cover right and wrong, and everyone is obligated to follow them as closely as possible.

On the other side of the coin, those whose natural inclination is to question and intellectualize become frustrated and disillusioned because they still have faith, they don't intend to ruin anyone else's, and to them the majority of the congregation starts to seem like sheep blindly following something they don't truly understand.

Personally, I reject the idea that God defined these terms. Besides which, even if God defined them, our human understanding of them is bound to be wandering and imperfect, right?

But I do think this article has a couple of good points to make, though the writer doesn't quite get to the full point.

First, creating labels and shoe-horning people into them is not a good way to do things: right on.

Second, we should look at the liahona and the iron rod as metaphors for how people APPROACH religion: close.

It doesn't escape the problems inherent in labeling, but it helps.

Whether in religious or secular pursuits, people have different ways of arriving at similar truths. Both ways are perfectly fine -- as long as they're not taken to extremes.

The danger of the iron rod is fundamentalism and extreme intolerance. (Al Qaida, anyone?) The danger of the liahona is the intellect operating without a moral anchor. (Hitler justified the Holocaust with logic and [poor] science.)

But if they're not taken to extremes and people always keep the best welfare of others in mind, there's room in life and in religion for both.

McKay Coppins covered everything and more regarding this topic in his last Friday article.