Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for Canards post. I forgot or wasn't aware of his wife's struggles that are similar to mine and so many others out there. Some of the most active true believers fall into this catagory, not too many Jack Mormons have it happen. I know the current leaders of the church see the need for more transparency to innoculate the youth so they won't go through the pangs of feeling lied to with the current curriculum. It's just slow because the curriculum dept across the street are alot slower to see the need or perhaps concerned how it might effect the members.

The notion that the Curriculum Department operates in its own independent sphere apart from the leadership of the Church is ridiculous. The department functions at the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. If things move more slowly than some would like, it is precisely because the department's output is scrutinized and vetted so carefully before it ever sees the light of day.

[William Schryver]

I have been busy today, and I decided to check back to see if this thread was still active. I sense that whatever energy it once had is now gone. But, just in case this is not entirely the case, I want to indicate that I have enjoyed the comments about and also especially the criticisms of my sermon-essay. I must also add that the recent events at the Maxwell Institute have been both painful and very disappointing. I had much invested in that venture One consolation is that in a brief week a large group of volunteers were able to put together a sophisticated substitute for a venture that has been part of my life for over two decades. I wish that whatever it was that took place at the Maxwell Institute could have been done with less intrigue and more grace.

I must also explain that I was never an employee of either FARMS or the Maxwell Institute. I was, instead, merely a volunteer. What I did was a way of placing a modest offering on the altar.

I urge all who have a even a tiny desire to see the Kingdom sustained and defended to keep an eye on and perhaps contributing in some way to the Interpreter.

Lou,

I don't pay much attention to what is going on here anymore, so I had not realized until this morning that you had established an account here with the intent of joining the discussion concerning your recent Interpreter article, Defending the King and His Kingdom.

I must also confess that I have not taken the time to read the many comments regarding your essay, neither on this message board nor on the thread started to criticize you at The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©.

However, I have taken the time to read your essay, and although I am certain my judgment of it will not accord with that of several others, I consider it to very likely be the most significant publication to date in Interpreter - A Journal of Mormon Scripture. I find it rather discouraging that so many of the Saints appear to no longer appreciate the significance of the fact that some of the most solemn covenants we make are in relation to the "Kingdom." The concept of the Kingdom of God upon the earth appears to have fallen into disfavor among many of the rising generation, who are increasingly beguiled by the mos maiorum of the Gentiles. Therefore they not only think to steady the ark, but even to steer the throne in their haste to make tolerance the cardinal (and increasingly, the only) virtue in the land. In their ears, your voice is not a clarion call, but merely the last gasp of a dying breed.

Perhaps so. I would only alert readers to the fact that, based on my interpretation of the decree, it is not necessary for the entire population to have become wicked before the Lord sweeps a people from this promised land:

For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

[Tacenda]

The notion that the Curriculum Department operates in its own independent sphere apart from the leadership of the Church is ridiculous. The department functions at the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. If things move more slowly than some would like, it is precisely because the department's output is scrutinized and vetted so carefully before it ever sees the light of day.

You're right I should have said the Church History Dept. not church leaders, my mistake.

[wayfarer]

....I wrote what has correctly been called a sermon in an effort to set out my reasons for disagreeing with those currently in charge of the Maxwell Institute, who I believe have indicated that they intend to take the Institute in a different direction. Put bluntly, I drafted “Defending the King and His Kingdom” in an effort to have my say on whether defending the faith is a proper academic endeavor for Latter-day Saint scholars.

I question whether a polemic sermon is worthy of inclusion in what purports to be an academic journal.

Interpreter is, if anything, more rigorously peer-reviewed than the Review ever was. The Review was peer-reviewed by readers who acted at the invitation of its editors, but Interpreter has an absolutely independent article-review committee.

Dan, I wonder how 'independent' the article-review committee is, when it allows a polemic sermon against those who differ from the prevailing literalist interpretation of mormonism -- calling such 'anti-christ' -- to cap off an issue of a 'peer reviewed' journal.

My critics have noticed that I use the label cultural Mormon to describe the most radical of the new critics who more of less retain at least a nominal membership in the Church of Jesus Christ. Please notice that I use the label in the “Abstract” (p. 127), and again on p. 140 to describe some critics of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I indicate that some of these now also self-identify as New Order Mormons or use other similar or related labels. And on p. 142 I indicate that cultural Mormons (understood my way) are not genuine Saints. If one finds no good reason to believe in God, or that there was even a Jesus of Nazareth, and hence finds the atonement silly, one can hardly qualify as a Saint. And there is at least one person who has boasted of holding just such an opinion while also giving advice to others about dealing with doubts.

Reasonable people can have differing beliefs. I hold the position that none of the historical events claimed by the church or Christianity need to have happened literally as they have been reflected in scripture. To be clear, I am one of those you find unworthy to qualify as a "Saint": I categorically reject the creedal definition of God as "omni-whatever", and say that such a being does not exist. I offer that Joseph said as much in the King Follett discourse, but the nuance is lost on most LDS. Whether Jesus ever lived in a town of Nazareth is immaterial to my faith, and I find the literalist definition of the atonement, often taught in the church, that God the Father was so bent on "Justice" that he had to torture and crucify his son to be a silly and contemptable doctrine. And yes, I am an active LDS, and try to share my experience, strength, and hope with those who deal with doubt. My 'Faith' is in understanding the difference between hope and perfect knowledge, in the dimension to which God is a man and we are one with him, and in the singular atonement of Christ as being uniquely relevant to my reconciliation (at-one-ment) with my divine nature in the present as opposed to concerning myself with a specutive outcome for some future state. And, yes, multiple people have returned to the Faith as a result of my Way of expressing the truth as I see it.

So, from my point of view, you have judged people like me unworthy to qualify as a saint and "anti-christ" by virtue of my beliefs. I wonder where the "More Excellent Way" of agape exists amidst your polemic writings about this topic.

Do you require that I subscribe to your creed (in the sense of a defined belief) in order to qualify as a "saint"? While I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and do not preach in a church setting my non-literal beliefs, I do allow all others the same privilege. Hopefully, I let them worship how, where, or what they may.

One thing that has puzzled me about the comments on my essay on both the Interpreter website and on this board is that I have not why I focused on those who deny that there was ever a Jesus of Nazareth. No one seems to realize that doing this was in part my response to a bizarre incidence where Professor Peterson was either ordered or advised not to publish an essay spelling out the recent descent of a former student of mine who even while I was still teaching at BYU in the early 1990s had undergone what he calls a crisis of faith and hence gone missing. My essay contains a subtle reference to some of his recent confident opining about divine things, which include an assertion that (1) there is very little reason to believe that there is a God, (2) that there is very little reason to believe that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, and (3) that it makes no sense to hold that a person has to die to somehow overcome the mistakes some other person has made. This last assertion is, of course, not an utterly absurd misunderstanding of the victory over death both of the body and soul made for us by God, which we call the atonement. Please note that if one does not even think there was a person known as Jesus, it makes no sense at all to talk about his having accomplished a thing for humans all of whom face physical death and the abundance of evils found in this world. Such a crude collection of opinions is, from my perspective, clearly anti-Christ in the way it which that label is used in both the New Testament and Book of Mormon. I am not exactly known for being subtle.

All of this, it turns out, has something to do with the firing of Professor Peterson.

Yes, and very obviously so to those who have been following the events at the Maxwell Institute. But I seriously question whether the invective against John Dehlin ("the former student" you later name in one of these posts) is appropriate in taking exception to the firing within what purports to be an academic journal. It seems gratuitous to me. If the issue you want to take up is the firing, then do so in an open forum. A hidden message in a journal is hardly the way to handle it. If you would like to take up a discussion as to whether a non-literalist point of view is "anti-christ", then let's have that discussion -- that may be more appropriate, but not as a personal invective.

Of all people, I would have expected greater things coming from an academic with intimate familiarity of the teaching of Paul Tillich and others.

You who have such background and credibility do not do yourselves justice calling those of us in the Middle Way your "anti-christ" enemy. Many of us in the Middle Way share a common goal with you: the preservation and enhancement of the LDS faith and culture -- we have different ways of addressing it.

Edited December 14, 2012 by wayfarer

[Scott Lloyd]

You're right I should have said the Church History Dept. not church leaders, my mistake.

The Church History Department is not its own little fiefdom either.

But I won't derail the thread on this point.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's the quote:

It just strikes me as odd that members of a Church that are led by such ideas (these too) would attack the ideas of another member of the Church on the basis of their being "bad science". As if everything we teach is vetted for it's congruence with "science".

I still say it's an extreme case of apples-to-oranges comparison to equate a declaration by an apostle of the very orthodox teaching that the creation of humanity was a God-directed endeavor rather than the result of a random confluence of events with a questionable, debatable and ultimately unsustainable theory about a matter on which the Church maintains an institutional and official silence, namely the precise location of occurrences in the Book of Mormon narrative.

But Professor Midgley is present on this thread, and I'll leave it to him to defend his assertion and phrasing as he sees fit.

[William Schryver]

"... a polemic sermon ..."

"... what purports to be an academic journal."

"...literalist interpretation of mormonism ..."

"... the nuance is lost on most LDS."

"... invective against John Dehlin ..."

As I have long observed and frequently noted, apostate evangelists are skilled propagandists.

"... To be clear, I am one of those you find unworthy to qualify as a "Saint": I categorically reject the creedal definition of God as "omni-whatever", and say that such a being does not exist."

"... I find the literalist definition of the atonement, often taught in the church, that God the Father was so bent on "Justice" that he had to torture and crucify his son to be a silly and contemptable (sic) doctrine."

Your rhetoric is remarkably similar to that of one of your cohorts:

O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

... ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world—and thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers ... that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be.

"wayfarer" continues:

"... I am an active LDS, and try to share my experience, strength, and hope with those who deal with doubt."

Of course you do! And in so doing, I'm sure you frequently succeed in transforming doubt into hardened disbelief.

"... you have judged people like me unworthy to qualify as a saint and "anti-christ" by virtue of my beliefs."

Your own words, cited above, confirm that your beliefs are "anti-Christ."

"Many of us in the Middle Way share a common goal with you: the preservation and enhancement of the LDS faith and culture -- we have different ways of addressing it."

Within the context of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no such thing as a "Middle Way." There is only the way of everlasting death and the way of eternal life -- two ways; one choice.

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

3 Nephi 27:33

Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein ...

Edited December 14, 2012 by William Schryver

[volgadon]

Wayfarer, welcome back.

[wayfarer]

Within the context of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no such thing as a "Middle Way." There is only the way of everlasting death and the way of eternal life -- two ways; one choice.

The Middle Way of which I speak is the Way of Jesus Christ, as I have come to understand it. He was neither was a sinner, nor did he take the position of the Pharisees: His was the Middle Way between extremes. He personified the Way -- the one of Truth and Life.

Wayfarer, welcome back.

Thanks! Good to see you old friend.

Edited December 14, 2012 by wayfarer

[canard78]

As I have long observed and frequently noted, apostate evangelists are skilled propagandists.

Your rhetoric is remarkably similar to that of one of your cohorts:

"wayfarer" continues:

Of course you do! And in so doing, I'm sure you frequently succeed in transforming doubt into hardened disbelief.

Your own words, cited above, confirm that your beliefs are "anti-Christ."

Within the context of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no such thing as a "Middle Way." There is only the way of everlasting death and the way of eternal life -- two ways; one choice.

Hi, I hope I can address your points in a cordial way. I appreciate that the emotions about the recent transition at NAMI etc and those connected professionally/personally must be quite raw.

While I don't entirely agree with all of the points that wayfarer ever makes about his understanding of deity and Jesus Christ, I do defend and support his ability and opportunity to do so and remain LDS in good standing. Your somewhat uncharitable characterisation of him does not match my experience of reading his thoughtful posts here and elsewhere. I do not consider him to be dragging down faith but building it up. He is not some "stereotyped anti-mormon." Though he can speak for himself, I perceive that his faith journey has brought closer to God rather than further from it.

In my previous post to Prof Midgley, I raised the concern of the divisiveness of his and now your message. The very people who are in the (often painful) process of questioning, doubting, adapting and developing their faith could be very easily turned off by the suggestion that it is your way or the high way. You may alienate those you could instead be helping.

As a sincere seeker of truth and understanding I am comfortable with others doing the same and approaching God accordingly. Given the nature of religion and faith diversity today, our Omnipotent God seems to have designed it that way. He welcomes, I believe a personalised faith, whatever that becomes. While wayfarer, you and I may choose to practice our faith as LDS, God's kingdom extends well beyond the borders of Mormonism.

I appreciate the extensive work done by you and others. As I said to Prof Midgley, it is a great resource. I don't go to those resources seeking a model for living and believing. But I defend your right to do so if that's what you feel is the best use of your time and talents.

[canard78]

(Sorry, previous comment posted twice, down side of using a phone. This one deleted)

Edited December 14, 2012 by canard78

[William Schryver]

The Middle Way of which I speak is the Way of Jesus Christ, as I have come to understand it. He was neither was a sinner, nor did he take the position of the Pharisees: His was the Middle Way between extremes. He personified the Way -- the one of Truth and Life.

(emphasis mine)

Of course, you are free to construct and adopt whatever notions of "truth" you find appealing. From the moment Cain said, "Who is the Lord that I should know him?", mankind has devised and embraced sophistries unnumbered in their indefatigable pursuit of purpose and meaning in life.

However, I maintain that truth is the knowledge of things as they really were, as they really are, and as they really will be. As such, the "Way of Jesus Christ," as you have come to understand it, and describe it, bears no resemblance to the true "way," as it has been revealed to mankind through the prophets of the true and living God:

… I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments …

Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh; and the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth. And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; for they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; they seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

D&C 1 (Hiram, Ohio -- November 1, 1831) and D&C 133 (Hiram, Ohio -- November 3, 1831) = Two of the greatest revelations received through the Prophet Joseph Smith. There are, within these two sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, some of the most remarkable prophecies of the restoration -- several of which have already been fulfilled, and the remainder of which will soon be fulfilled.

[William Schryver]

Given the nature of religion and faith diversity today, our Omnipotent God seems to have designed it that way.

It is man, not God, that has brought about "the nature of religion and faith diversity [we see] today." Nephi, the son of Lehi, saw our day, and prophesied concerning it:

2 Nephi 28:9-15

Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them. Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted. Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. … They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men. O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

Speaking of God, you continue:

He welcomes, I believe a personalised faith, whatever that becomes.

My citation from D&C 1 above emphatically contradicts your assertion:

... they seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

Concerning the nature of the Kingdom of God, you assert:

While wayfarer, you and I may choose to practice our faith as LDS, God's kingdom extends well beyond the borders of Mormonism.

As to the Kingdom of God, I will let the King speak for himself:

D&C 76:5-9

... I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end. Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory. And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

D&C 84:33-34

For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

And finally, speaking of the restoration of the priesthood in the latter days, the Lord proclaimed:

D&C 65:2-6

The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth. Yea, a voice crying—Prepare ye the way of the Lord, prepare ye the supper of the Lamb, make ready for the Bridegroom. Pray unto the Lord, call upon his holy name, make known his wonderful works among the people. Call upon the Lord, that his kingdom may go forth upon the earth, that the inhabitants thereof may receive it, and be prepared for the days to come, in the which the Son of Man shall come down in heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory, to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the earth. Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come, that thou, O God, mayest be glorified in heaven so on earth, that thine enemies may be subdued; for thine is the honor, power and glory, forever and ever. Amen.

Edited December 15, 2012 by William Schryver

[canard78]

It is man, not God, that has brought about "the nature of religion and faith diversity [we see] today." Nephi, the son of Lehi, saw our day, and prophesied concerning it:

Speaking of God, you continue:

My citation from D&C 1 above emphatically contradicts your assertion:

Concerning the nature of the Kingdom of God, you assert:

As to the Kingdom of God, I will let the King speak for himself:

And finally, speaking of the restoration of the priesthood in the latter days, the Lord proclaimed:

I'm about to get on a 12 hour flight so unable to answer in detail but: "they seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol"

I'm guessing that you presume that those who follow God and live as Mormons in a way other than you understand it are walking "in his own way" rather than in "His way." This would be to misunderstand my motives. If I feel a closer affinity to God and greater understanding of my relationship to him through a personalisation of theology, I am still walking His way. I don't presume to council God, I hope he councils me. I don't set myself up as some prophet. I follow the council of scriptures and prophets as best I'm able.

[volgadon]

While I don't entirely agree with all of the points that wayfarer ever makes about his understanding of deity and Jesus Christ, I do defend and support his ability and opportunity to do so and remain LDS in good standing.

Absolutely agree with you on this.

[volgadon]

Thanks! Good to see you old friend.

Hope things are a little more settled for you.

The Middle Way of which I speak is the Way of Jesus Christ, as I have come to understand it. He was neither was a sinner, nor did he take the position of the Pharisees: His was the Middle Way between extremes. He personified the Way -- the one of Truth and Life.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll state again that I disagree. The way of truth and life is an extreme, yet there will come a time when all is one. Still, you do present your views intelligently and graciously, which is a wonderful thing.

[Daniel Peterson]

I question whether a polemic sermon is worthy of inclusion in what purports to be an academic journal.

Feel free to question. Feel free to disapprove. Feel free to read or not to read. The editorial committee of Interpreter will steer the journal in the direction they choose, and you're free to choose as you like.

Dan, I wonder how 'independent' the article-review committee is, when it allows a polemic sermon against those who differ from the prevailing literalist interpretation of mormonism -- calling such 'anti-christ' -- to cap off an issue of a 'peer reviewed' journal.

Your agreement or disagreement with an editorial decision has, of course, precisely no relevance to the question of whether or not the article-review committee is independent.

What does have relevance is this: I'm the chairman of the board of The Interpreter Foundation, and I'm not sure that I could even name all of the members of the committee. And I've certainly had no input, to date, regarding their decisions. (They've even rejected at least one submission, thus far, that I would have been inclined to accept.) They are, thus, indisputably independent from me.

And your rather pejorative use of the term literalist is striking. To be a "literalist" in your view is to think that something actually happened in the real world. Thus, for example, I'm a Civil War literalist because I believe that the Civil War really occurred:

I hold the position that none of the historical events claimed by the church or Christianity need to have happened literally as they have been reflected in scripture. . . . Whether Jesus ever lived in a town of Nazareth is immaterial to my faith

This scarcely sounds like the Christianity of, say, Paul. Unless, of course, you mean Paul Tillich.

While I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and do not preach in a church setting my non-literal beliefs, I do allow all others the same privilege. Hopefully, I let them worship how, where, or what they may.

And so do we at Interpreter.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Calm]

I question whether a polemic sermon is worthy of inclusion in what purports to be an academic journal.....

Reasonable people can have differing beliefs....

Do you require that I subscribe to your creed (in the sense of a defined belief) in order to qualify as a "saint"? While I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and do not preach in a church setting my non-literal beliefs, I do allow all others the same privilege. Hopefully, I let them worship how, where, or what they may.

But you seem reluctant to allow (if you had any say in the matter) an expression of that worship because you view it as "polemic". This desire to limit how others express their beliefs seems contrary to your claim.

[canard78]

It is man, not God, that has brought about "the nature of religion and faith diversity [we see] today." Nephi, the son of Lehi, saw our day, and prophesied concerning it:

Speaking of God, you continue:

My citation from D&C 1 above emphatically contradicts your assertion:

Concerning the nature of the Kingdom of God, you assert:

As to the Kingdom of God, I will let the King speak for himself:

And finally, speaking of the restoration of the priesthood in the latter days, the Lord proclaimed:

To address two scriptures you quoted:

2 Nephi 28:9-15

Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them. Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted. Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. … They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men. O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

Given this has a strong focus on 'churches' do you only include christian church apostasy in this? Is "the nature of religion and faith diversity [we see] today" entirely and exclusively the cause of man? The faiths of Hinduism and Buddhism and ethical systems of Confucianism, Taoism guide the moral decisions and personal development of billions of God's children. All of them pre-date Christianity by 100s of years. Those who have been educated and guided by such systems have a deep moral compass, consideration for their neighbour and desire to worship God as best they feel able to. Do you sincerely believe that God had no influence over such great religious leaders of the past?

I know too many people who are influenced by such belief systems to believe they aren't part of God's broad kingdom. While your scriptures support the notion that Mormonism is within firmly within His kingdom, I don't see anything in those that asserts that the kingdom is exclusive to Mormonism.

D&C 76:5-9

... I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end. Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory. And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

The ultimate goal of Hiduism for example is to develop an understanding of one's union with God, one's eternal relationship with God, unselfishness and a detachment from worldly desires. Does that desire and aspiration leave them still outside his kingdom? I can't accept a notion of a God who sends the majority of his children to an environment where they will have no productive interaction with God.

[canard78]

It is man, not God, that has brought about "the nature of religion and faith diversity [we see] today." Nephi, the son of Lehi, saw our day, and prophesied concerning it:

Speaking of God, you continue:

My citation from D&C 1 above emphatically contradicts your assertion:

Concerning the nature of the Kingdom of God, you assert:

As to the Kingdom of God, I will let the King speak for himself:

And finally, speaking of the restoration of the priesthood in the latter days, the Lord proclaimed:

To address two scriptures you quoted:

2 Nephi 28:9-15

Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them. Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted. Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. … They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men. O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

Given this has a strong focus on 'churches' do you only include christian church apostasy in this? Is "the nature of religion and faith diversity [we see] today" entirely and exclusively the cause of man? The faiths of Hinduism and Buddhism and ethical systems of Confucianism, Taoism guide the moral decisions and personal development of billions of God's children. All of them pre-date Christianity by 100s of years. Those who have been educated and guided by such systems have a deep moral compass, consideration for their neighbour and desire to worship God as best they feel able to. Do you sincerely believe that God had no influence over such great religious leaders of the past?

I know too many people who are influenced by such belief systems to believe they aren't part of God's broad kingdom. While your scriptures support the notion that Mormonism is within firmly within His kingdom, I don't see anything in those that asserts that the kingdom is exclusive to Mormonism.

D&C 76:5-9

... I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end. Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory. And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

The ultimate goal of Hiduism for example is to develop an understanding of one's union with God, one's eternal relationship with God, unselfishness and a detachment from worldly desires. Does that desire and aspiration leave them still outside his kingdom? I can't accept a notion of a God who sends the majority of his children to an environment where they will have no productive interaction with God.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

The one thing religion simply *cannot* tolerate is diversity within its own doors. Why is that? Very simple. It claims to be the truth, and therefore whatever it teaches is what everyone else ought to simply believe, not question....accept, not challenge, love not question. So long as any organized religion declares it is the truth, there you will, make no mistake about it, there you WILL see intolerance for diversity, especially of thought, belief, and testimony. Without the creed of Mormon testimony, one cannot be a Mormon. It is that simple. And that creed is prescribed by the church. Believe in Jesus, accept the atonement, believe in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, believe in the current prophet being God's spokesman, believe in the temple and temple marriage. All else is simply not acceptable in order to be a Mormon. This rigidity should surprise no one. Every organized religion goes this route. All organized religion says, whether in open, or behind closed doors, either you believe what WE tell you, or your OUT. It's that simple. Do what WE indicate is best for you, or your OUT. It's truly not that difficult to grasp. Now whether it is right or not is irrelevant to me. This is what makes one a Mormon.

And, as with all other religions, this is why it is so divisive. There can not be unity under any umbrella of an organized religion. The assumption being that unity is the desired goal, and anything smacking of otherwise is evil in one form or another. We never stop to ask why unity is so important. Of course, it's a good thing, because we know exactly where unity has never been, nor can go. Religion will never achieve it.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[DBMormon]

Believe in Jesus, accept the atonement, believe in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, believe in the current prophet being God's spokesman, believe in the temple and temple marriage. All else is simply not acceptable in order to be a Mormon.

I agree with these having to be believed.... but what level of belief? how do you define belief in these things? would any other member believe these the exact same way you do.... nope. There has to be room for people to believe this list but to define that belief differently. Otherwise only one can stay and the rest of us are out!!!! Can I be the One?

Edited December 18, 2012 by DBMormon

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I agree with these having to be believed.... but what level of belief? how do you define belief in these things? would any other member believe these the exact same way you do.... nope. There has to be room for people to believe this list but to define that belief differently. Otherwise only one can stay and the rest of us are out!!!! Can I be the One?

That, precisely, is why ultimately trying to define what makes one a Mormon fails, just as surely as trying to define what makes one an American. I honestly don't see why it is so important to try and narrow things down to only certain views and beliefs or else one is a heretic and worthy of death (literally or figuratively). Such lack of charity is certainly seen in the past bastions of history. The question is, will we ever learn from history, or simply repeat trying to define people by our own narrow views, and yet cause more division? I suspect religion has no choice. It bears the fruit of its own failure within its own veins. It can never unite all peoples.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[DBMormon]

How come whenever someone wants to decide the size of the tent, they are always in the tent?

[Paloma]

That, precisely, is why ultimately trying to define what makes one a Mormon fails, just as surely as trying to define what makes one an American. I honestly don't see why it is so important to try and narrow things down to only certain views and beliefs or else one is a heretic and worthy of death (literally or figuratively). Such lack of charity is certainly seen in the past bastions of history. The question is, will we ever learn from history, or simply repeat trying to define people by our own narrow views, and yet cause more division? I suspect religion has no choice. It bears the fruit of its own failure within its own veins. It can never unite all peoples.

What you said above resonated with me a lot ... and especially the two sentences i bolded here.

There's so much in the history of Christendom (past and present!) that does indeed give "religion" a very bad name!

In the last 10 years or so, I've been interested to see the emergence of books by people of strong Christian faith who see great value in relational faith in Jesus Christ and little to no value in "religion".

I'm thinking of books such as these:

Religious No More by Mark Baker

Repenting of Religion: Turning from Judgment to the Love of God by Gregory A. Boyd

The End of Religion: Encountering the Subversive Spirituality of Jesus by Bruxy Cavey