The So-Called "Middle Way"

[William Schryver]

Yes, you're just so wonderfully sophisticated in your thinking. It must be terribly comforting to feel so much smarter than everyone else.

Speaking only for myself: I don't think I ever held to the even more naive notion that "history" is completely fabricated. Just because a story has not come down to us completely pristine, does not mean it didn't happen at all. Shallow all-or-nothing thinking may have its charms, particularly for insecure minds, but it leads to dead ends in every direction.

For example: the notion that you can say "yes to the atonement of Jesus Christ," while rejecting, with such thought-terminating slogans as "dogmatic" and "extreme," the doctrine that the atonement is inextricably linked to real events that actually happened, is an obvious attempt to distract from the unpleasant fact that you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The atonement of Jesus Christ is available for you because Jesus really suffered, really died and was really resurrected. Without those realities there is no atonement, just a bunch of empty sentimental platitudes. If you, in your black-and-white naivete, wish to reject the whole story because there are some unresolved questions about the dating of the events, or some other historical nitpick, then you have chosen the "nothing" in your binary solution set. And you are stuck with it.

Thank you for yet another post, in a drearily endless series of posts, on the vast intellectual superiority of Questing Beast.

Permit me to point out that your self-congratulatory model is itself remarkably naive. Here is an alternative model for you:

So along come the rising generation and they get educated in the prevailing culture. They are thoroughly immersed in its assumptions, which they almost never question, and in its values, such as they are. Conservatively about 100% of them would recognise a photograph of Lady Gaga, while about 40% of them might be able to correctly pick out Wilford Woodruff, because they've also been taught a little religion along the way. At some point, every one of them noticed the tension between the gospel and the world, and many of them decided to follow the majority, a decision which they fondly imagined meant they had "started to think and question for ourselves." They were too oblivious to realise that their oh so "independent" thinking and questioning really amounted to nothing more than surrendering their individuality to the smart set in the great and spacious building. The directions they then struck out in had some variety, but there was still a sameness to them; any path would do as long as it wasn't the Gospel path.

But in each generation there are a few who, at the end of their adolescent rebellion, really do learn to think for themselves. They realise that while the Church is not perfect, the world is in ruins. They start to dimly glimpse the emptiness of the consumer culture, and begin to hear the note of desperation in the laughter of the libertines. The friends who had flattered them that they could be really smart if only they abandoned the faith of their parents start experiencing real troubles in their lives, and their slipshod anything-goes ethos does not help them. These clear-sighted few realise that secular learning offers no certitude, speculative theology is for self-important buffoons, and worldly pursuits can distract them from the important realities for only so long. On their knees, they learn that they really do have a Heavenly Father who loves them, and that leads them to question the comfortable assurances that they are merely biological machines with no real purpose in life but to have fun. And by so doing they come to other conclusions than those which the world asserts are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Which really comes back to what Mortal Man thought was such a "breath of fresh air": a church, by definition, is a community of shared belief. Those who don't share the beliefs of a church but who want to stay part of the community will either try to mould it in their image, or they'll dissemble and be dishonest about what they really believe.

Anyone who answers the Temple Recommend questions with his fingers crossed, because he or she doesn't really believe in God the Eternal Father, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, or assumes them to be "lesser" creations of some abstract "first cause," is a liar.

And anyone whose imagination is so limited as to be unable to grasp how a mere human could ever become truly exalted, and therefore assumes that such a being's divinty must be somehow defective, is trammelled by a pathetically limited intellect that has nothing whatever to teach the Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

At the risk of being labeled as a Pahoran sockpuppet and/or sycophant, I hereby commend and endorse this post.

Well said!

[Analytics]

The article begins with this quote from Elder Jeffrey Holland:

"... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

“I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: ‘This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum.’ ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

“There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church -- firmly, in their mind, in this church -- and the church isn't going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn't going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: ‘Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve.’ At that point, we're going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. ... ‘Patient’ maybe is a better word than ‘tolerant.’ We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can't go. ..."

When I went through my personal metamorphous, I sat down with my stake presidency, and they had the same welcoming attitude that Holland expresses here: loving tolerance, conditional upon keeping the details of my true beliefs in the closet. They pleaded with me to retain my membership and take the so-called “middle way”. Despite their kind sentiment, I honestly didn’t believe that there is a place in the church for people who would choose the middle way.

To the anti-middle-way crowd here who fantasize about such people rising in Telestial Glory after a stint in hell: thank you for proving my point.

[William Schryver]

Analytics:

When I went through my personal metamorphous, I sat down with my stake presidency, and they had the same welcoming attitude that Holland expresses here: loving tolerance, conditional upon keeping the details of my true beliefs in the closet. They pleaded with me to retain my membership and take the so-called “middle way”.

I have no reason to suppose this counsel was not prudent, under the circumstances.

Despite their kind sentiment, I honestly didn’t believe that there is a place in the church for people who would choose the middle way.

Which, I have good reason to suppose, your priesthood leaders also likely anticipated.

In any event, in the context of what is, whether defenders of the faith make it so or not, an extremely polemical environment, we are not obliged to stand idly by while apostate evangelists such as yourself routinely work machinations designed to undermine the convictions of the faithful. Indeed, were you to have, contrary to counsel, advocated for your views within the context of church activity, I am confident your leaders would not have tolerated it long, but would have required your membership in order to appropriately mark you in the eyes of their flock—as well they should have.

This has nothing to do with:

… the anti-middle-way crowd here who fantasize about such people rising in Telestial Glory after a stint in hell …

But rather is related to the injunction given all the Saints of God:

Alma 5:60

And now I say unto you that the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed.

[ERayR]

I took the expression "the middle way" to mean between extremes of attitude, not just doing the "cafeteria religion" thing.

So yes to the atonement of Jesus Christ; but no to the dogmatic, extreme ("official") doctrine that it must necessarily be literal, by a singular understanding of a historical, literal Jesus Christ.

To me the "Jesus Story" does not require grounding in historical verities or literalness. I long ago discarded the naive notion that "history" is real. Too many less than honest people get their hands on it generations and centuries and millennia before it lands on my plate: people with religious and political agendas. The story, including the Christian one, gets morphed by said-historians and then succeeding generations add to the confusion by interpreting and even "canonizing" it.

So along come the rising generation and they get educated within the religion. At some point at least some of us started to think and question for ourselves. Those with enough curiosity and distress actually go looking for answers "out of the best books" like our spiritual leaders have always counseled us to do. And by so-doing we come to other conclusions than those which the Church asserts are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So, what to do? The "middle way" is the only way to stay IN the Church and at the same time keep learning from every source we turn our attention to. This forum and other public places not supported by or instituted by the Church are available to express what we think and believe. But in our meetings and classes we ought to keep such speculations to ourselves. That is the "middle way" approach to me....

Just exactly what I meant when I said, Me thinks some do over analyze and clutter the playground with distractions.

I do not lack for curiosity but I have also learned to have a little bit of sensitivity to the promptings of the Holy Ghost. Those promptings tell me that Jesus Christ is real and he was crucified and died as an atonement for sin. I sorry that you have cluttered the playground until you have lost your way.

What you are describing is not staying in the church. You are lying to yourself.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

I have no reason to suppose this counsel was not prudent, under the circumstances.

Which, I have good reason to suppose, your priesthood leaders also likely anticipated.

It’s funny. You suppose that they knew I was too far gone to accept the middle path, yet you also suppose that it was prudent for them to counsel somebody so iniquitous to accept the middle path. That doesn’t seem to internally consistent, but I'm sure it makes sense to you because I know you have immense respect for the wisdom and foreknowledge of a stake president who you never met, merely because he was a stake president.

In any event, in the context of what is, whether defenders of the faith make it so or not, an extremely polemical environment, we are not obliged to stand idly by while apostate evangelists such as yourself routinely work machinations designed to undermine the convictions of the faithful.

“Machinations”. Good word! Appropriate for somebody of your imagination.

Indeed, were you to have, contrary to counsel, advocated for your views within the context of church activity, I am confident your leaders would not have tolerated it long, but would have required your membership in order to appropriately mark you in the eyes of their flock.

I’m totally agreeing with your point here. The church just isn’t designed for people who sincerely disagree. If you sincerely disagree, you are relegated to sitting on the back row, quietly and dishonestly feigning belief, as a second-class Saint. But what's a second-class Saint in the kingdom of God? It’s inherently doesn’t make sense. Be hot or cold—God will spew out the Luke-warm.

—as well they should have.

You see people who are taking the middle path as being ravenous wolves who mustn’t be tolerated—I get it. Again, that was my main point. But still, that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy imagining what God’s going to do to the ravenous wolves after they are dead. Admit it, you get a kick out imagining the final judgement when us evil machinators really get what's coming to us, don't you.

[William Schryver]

Analytics:

You see people who are taking the middle path as being ravenous wolves who mustn’t be tolerated—I get it.

No, you obviously don't get it--or else you're consciously dissembling.

I'm not talking about any "middle path." Your use of the term, as it applies to you and those who share your convictions, does not describe a posture anywhere near the "middle" of anything. You have quite clearly chosen a "side," and are actively involved in evangelizing others to that side, especially those who are truly somewhere near the "middle" of the path, i.e. those who are struggling with orthopraxy and/or orthodoxy, but who are still fully within the spiritual circle of fellowship.

Your stake president did precisely the right thing in telling you were still welcome, but enjoining you to not evangelize your disbelief to others in your ward and stake. Of course, you knew that was not going to be possible, because you are moved by the uniquely discernible apostate evangelist motive power.

[Nathair/|\]

The article begins with this quote from Elder Jeffrey Holland:

When I went through my personal metamorphous, I sat down with my stake presidency, and they had the same welcoming attitude that Holland expresses here: loving tolerance, conditional upon keeping the details of my true beliefs in the closet. They pleaded with me to retain my membership and take the so-called “middle way”. Despite their kind sentiment, I honestly didn’t believe that there is a place in the church for people who would choose the middle way.

To the anti-middle-way crowd here who fantasize about such people rising in Telestial Glory after a stint in hell: thank you for proving my point.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was advocating leaving the Church if anyone is struggling. I just don't understand why someone in that position would not want to apply Alma 32 and gain a witness. Especially when the Fruit of Lehi's tree just tastes so exquisitely good.

[William Schryver]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was advocating leaving the Church if anyone is struggling. I just don't understand why someone in that position would not want to apply Alma 32 and gain a witness. Especially when the Fruit of Lehi's tree just tastes so exquisitely good.

I could not concur more whole-heartedly.

[Pahoran]

The article begins with this quote from Elder Jeffrey Holland:

When I went through my personal metamorphous, I sat down with my stake presidency, and they had the same welcoming attitude that Holland expresses here: loving tolerance, conditional upon keeping the details of my true beliefs in the closet.

I love the way you do that, Analytics. You pretend to be baring your soul, but really you are engaged in polemical manipulation. "Keeping the details of my true beliefs in the closet;" what an evocative image! How redolent of oppressive downtreading! And describing love as conditional upon your silence; what a controlling lot they must have been! What a cunning way to smear the Church and your former leaders, even while portraying yourself as a splendidly fair-minded fellow!

What they really offered was: love and acceptance. There was also an invitation to you to maintain your membership in a community of shared belief, on condition that you did not exploit your membership as a platform from which to attack that belief.

Are you genuinely fair-minded enough to admit that that's what was really happening?

They pleaded with me to retain my membership and take the so-called “middle way”.

And is that what they called it?

Despite their kind sentiment, I honestly didn’t believe that there is a place in the church for people who would choose the middle way.

To the anti-middle-way crowd here who fantasize about such people rising in Telestial Glory after a stint in hell: thank you for proving my point.

Actually, as you perfectly well know, they "prove" no such thing. They merely provide you with a convenient excuse, which of course you exploit to the maximum.

The notion that the anonymous opinings of internet strangers are really able to drive from the Church anyone who ever had the slightest intention of staying is such an obvious canard that I can see exactly why it is so popular over on the sty.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was advocating leaving the Church if anyone is struggling. I just don't understand why someone in that position would not want to apply Alma 32 and gain a witness. Especially when the Fruit of Lehi's tree just tastes so exquisitely good.

For what it's worth, I appreciate the sentiment. My comments weren’t aimed at you.

My position has consistently been that if the fruit tastes good to you, then by all means feast upon it. But if it doesn’t, you should feel free to eat the parts of the buffet that are appetizing, and to go elsewhere if the whole thing isn’t your gig. I have no problem with people following the dictates of their own consciousness when it comes to the church—they are the ones who have to live with the results, and thus the decision should be theirs.

Of course a few people around here consider me amongst the most wicked of the machinators, because I deviously pretend to be a nice guy, and pretend to be in favor polite and sincere dialogue, when my true motivation is the superlatively evil “apostate evangelist motive power,” which is all the more despicable because of my disingenuous charade of being a nice guy.

[USU78]

And is that [the "middle way"] what they called it?

A very astute question. Everybody has doubts from time to time and everybody moves from lesser to greater activity and back again across a lifetime. Persevering through the low points of the sine curve as it oscillates both above and below the "x" axis is what I believe the "middle way" advocates were advocating for. And it's simply good manners not to push your doubts onto others by bringing them up at inappropriate times in inappropriate settings. Recognizing "appropriateness" as something that has value, and advocating for persevering through tough times are not the same thing at all as the spin the OP imposes.

Experience teaches the above is likelier than what the OP spun.

'course, I wasn't there. Anything's possible.

[William Schryver]

For what it's worth, I appreciate the sentiment. My comments weren’t aimed at you.

My position has consistently been that if the fruit tastes good to you, then by all means feast upon it. But if it doesn’t, you should feel free to eat the parts of the buffet that are appetizing, and to go elsewhere if the whole thing isn’t your gig. I have no problem with people following the dictates of their own consciousness when it comes to the church—they are the ones who have to live with the results, and thus the decision should be theirs.

Of course a few people around here consider me amongst the most wicked of the machinators, because I deviously pretend to be a nice guy, and pretend to be in favor polite and sincere dialogue, when my true motivation is the superlatively evil “apostate evangelist motive power,” which is all the more despicable because of my disingenuous charade of being a nice guy.

Another misrepresentation designed to further advance your underlying agenda.

My observation has been that the most capable of those moved upon by the "apostate evangelist motive power" are frequently as "nice" as can be. In fact, I'm sure I could enjoy a fine face to face conversation with any and all. But on the battlefield of words and ideas, of which this message board is a small part, an entirely different set of parameters obtains. I recognize that reality and adapt my tactics accordingly.

[William Schryver]

Everybody has doubts from time to time and everybody moves from lesser to greater activity and back again across a lifetime. Persevering through the low points of the sine curve as it oscillates both above and below the "x" axis is what I believe the "middle way" advocates were advocating for. And it's simply good manners not to push your doubts onto others by bringing them up at inappropriate times in inappropriate settings. Recognizing "appropriateness" as something that has value, and advocating for persevering through tough times are not the same thing at all as the spin the OP imposes.

Quoted for truth.

[Analytics]

I love the way you do that, Analytics. You pretend to be baring your soul, but really you are engaged in polemical manipulation. "Keeping the details of my true beliefs in the closet;" what an evocative image! How redolent of oppressive downtreading! And describing love as conditional upon your silence; what a controlling lot they must have been! What a cunning way to smear the Church and your former leaders, even while portraying yourself as a splendidly fair-minded fellow!

What they really offered was: love and acceptance. There was also an invitation to you to maintain your membership in a community of shared belief, on condition that you did not exploit your membership as a platform from which to attack that belief.

Are you genuinely fair-minded enough to admit that that's what was really happening?

The thing is, Pahoran, why would they want me to be a member in their "community of shared belief" when I didn't share their beliefs? And why would I want to be a member of a such a community? It seemed to me that by severing the relationship completely, I maintained my own integrity, and the integrity of the church.

That said, I have a lot of respect for these folks, and I'm flattered and appreciative that they wanted me as a member. And yes, they were in fact being unqualifiedly reasonable in the conditions they laid out for my continued membership.

Remeber Pahoran, you are the one who said, Those who don't share the beliefs of a church but who want to stay part of the community will either try to mould it in their image, or they'll dissemble and be dishonest about what they really believe. It’s ironic that you defend somebody who encouraged me to be such a person, while you scold me for making a clean break.

And is that what they called it?

No, I don’t recall them using that word, but they certainly were advocating what that article calls “the middle path.”

Actually, as you perfectly well know, they "prove" no such thing.

Of course your attitude doesn’t literally “prove” my point, despite the fact that it was expressed so succinctly by you when you said, Those who don't share the beliefs of a church but who want to stay part of the community will either try to mould it in their image, or they'll dissemble and be dishonest about what they really believe.

Nevertheless, it is quite true that sometimes I regret leaving the church, and wonder if it would have been better to retain some connection with my cultural heritage. I know that many people I like and respect would welcome me. But then I consider your attitude, and I become very confident that I made the right choice.

[Analytics]

Another misrepresentation designed to further advance your underlying agenda.

My observation has been that the most capable of those moved upon by the "apostate evangelist motive power" are frequently as "nice" as can be. In fact, I'm sure I could enjoy a fine face to face conversation with any and all. But on the battlefield of words and ideas, of which this message board is a small part, an entirely different set of parameters obtains. I recognize that reality and adapt my tactics accordingly.

It sounds like you're admitting that you yourself are moved upon by the "apostate evangelist motive power", yet because you recognize certain parameters you chose not to pretend to be nice in this forum.

In any case, I personally believe that the golden rule applies universally--even here.

[William Schryver]

... I don’t recall them using that word, but they certainly were advocating what that article calls “the middle path.”

So you say. More likely they were not really cognizant of the degree or your disaffection nor of your proclivity to work to bring about the disaffection of others.

Nevertheless, it is quite true that sometimes I regret leaving the church, and wonder if it would have been better to retain some connection with my cultural heritage.

Nothing prevents that, even now.

I know that many people I like and respect would welcome me.

So long as you adhered to the conditions previously established for your continuing fellowship.

But then I consider your attitude, and I become very confident that I made the right choice.

I'm inclined to agree.

[William Schryver]

It sounds like you're admitting that you yourself are moved upon by the "apostate evangelist motive power", yet because you recognize certain parameters you chose not to pretend to be nice in this forum.

This is incoherent.

In any case, I personally believe that the golden rule applies universally--even here.

Non sequitur.

This has nothing to do with the golden rule. It has to do with not suffering wolves to prey upon the flock. It's truly nothing personal, but there is no other way to more accurately characterize the situation than in those terms divinely provided to describe it.

[Analytics]

So you say. More likely they were not really cognizant of the degree or your disaffection nor of your proclivity to work to bring about the disaffection of others.

They had read my letter of resignation, so I'm quite sure they understood where I was coming from. Of course it is a misunderstanding that I work or have a proclivity to work "to bring about the disaffection of others." While it's true that my opinions are available to those who seek them out, I personally have no desire whatsoever to encourage people to be dissatisfied with their religion. I had enough of that when I was a Mormon missionary.

Nothing prevents that, even now. So long as you adhered to the conditions previously established for your continuing fellowship.

While I genuinely appreciate the sentiment, I appreciate the benefits of my current path much too dearly to take you up on it.

[William Schryver]

They had read my letter of resignation, so I'm quite sure they understood where I was coming from. Of course it is a misunderstanding that I work or have a proclivity to work "to bring about the disaffection of others." While it's true that my opinions are available to those who seek them out, I personally have no desire whatsoever to encourage people to be dissatisfied with their religion. I had enough of that when I was a Mormon missionary.

Ah, yes, the obligatory "I am not an evangelist" disclaimer from the lips of the apostate evangelist. Permit me to disabuse you of your dissembling on this point: you see, everyone on these Mormon-related message boards, virtually without exception, is an evangelist for their particular perspective(s) on the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as transmitted through the Prophet Joseph Smith. There is, as has been famously noted, no middle ground when it comes right down to it:

Daniel Tyler recalled: “Soon after the Prophet’s arrival in Commerce (afterwards Nauvoo) from Missouri prison, Brother Isaac Behunin and myself made him a visit at his residence. His persecutions were the topic of conversation. He repeated many false, inconsistent and contradictory statements made by apostates, frightened members of the Church and outsiders. He also told how most of the officials who would fain have taken his life, when he was arrested, turned in his favor on forming his acquaintance. He laid the burden of the blame on false brethren. …

“When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked: ‘If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.’

“The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’ ”

Daniel Tyler, in “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile Instructor, Aug. 15, 1892, pp. 491–92; punctuation and grammar modernized.

Oh, to be sure, the evangelistic approaches formulated and pursued by each person differ with the individual. There is no "Preach My Anti-Gospel" or "Mormon Apostate Evangelism for Dummies" to effect a "correlated" approach to the work. But that work goes on, virtually 24/7--a little doubt sown here and a little scorn cast there--all pursuant to the objective of eroding the foundations of faith.

I've observed how it works for the better part of my life. I remember the returned missionary who was one of my first bosses as a young teen employee at the Lagoon amusement park in Farmington. He had long since veered from the "middle path" to align himself on the side of the apostates--although his interests always seemed more related to hedonism than questions of church history or esoteric theological concerns. He evangelized every day I knew him (that is, until he died in a small plane crash in southern Utah on his way back from a weekend of bacchanalian revelry in Vegas). Not that he would have viewed or described things in those terms, any more than you or the others of your clan do, but, notwithstanding his failure to acknowledge it, apostate evangelism was an integral component of his everyday existence.

Mormon apostates are, almost without exception, obsessed with persuading others to view things the way they do. It becomes the sub-conscious "prime imperative" of their lives. And they are patient--extraordinarily so--in their pursuit of this end. I have often noted that it is gratification enough for them to implant a single, almost imperceptible doubt, or instill a single, almost indiscernible disposition to find fault. It's like watching the slow, but steady progress of an orb weaver at work. In a way, we who evangelize from the other side of the "middle path," could take a lesson from our apostate former brethren.

In any event, no matter how much the apostate evangelist seeks to repudiate the appellation; no matter how much he (or she) seeks to assure us "I am no devil, for there is none," yet his (or her) work goes on. And, of course, I would have it no other way. The wheat and tares must be divided, and the apostate evangelist is one of many agents effecting that end.

[Jeff K.]

Being less than honest with people you consider friends seems somehow wrong to me. Allow me to illustrate.

I have friends who do not believe the church is true. I respect their stance because I know they are sincere in their beliefs, and I do not laugh at them, nor would I demean their trust in me by attempting to show that I somehow agree with them. To be insincere makes me a false sounding board. It means they cannot truly trust my reaction because I will always be calculating their reaction rather than extending my trust to them.

Then we consider those we influence. You may be well liked and even looked up to in your ward or stake. They see you as a good member instead of a pretended good member. So when suddenly they see you in a situation that they know is wrong, what effect would your influence be on their lives? You can say, it is their choice, but family, friends, and those who are in contact with us are often influenced by us. The question then becomes how much you care about anyone and what you do to them, not simply what you are doing to yourself.

I can understand the desire for social cohesion, at times I have bitten my tongue rather than say something in sharp contrast to what I disagree with, but that doesn't negate the fact that others know where I stand on issues, all the while respecting the differences, and having enough respect for others around me to be honest with my view.

Disengenuousness is poor substitute for honesty in relationships.

[Nathair/|\]

Ah, yes, the obligatory "I am not an evangelist" disclaimer from the lips of the apostate evangelist. Permit me to disabuse you of your dissembling on this point: you see, everyone on these Mormon-related message boards, virtually without exception, is an evangelist for their particular perspective(s) on the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as transmitted through the Prophet Joseph Smith. There is, as has been famously noted, no middle ground when it comes right down to it:

Oh, to be sure, the evangelistic approaches formulated and pursued by each person differ with the individual. There is no "Preach My Anti-Gospel" or "Mormon Apostate Evangelism for Dummies" to effect a "correlated" approach to the work. But that work goes on, virtually 24/7--a little doubt sown here and a little scorn cast there--all pursuant to the objective of eroding the foundations of faith.

I've observed how it works for the better part of my life. I remember the returned missionary who was one of my first bosses as a young teen employee at the Lagoon amusement park in Farmington. He had long since veered from the "middle path" to align himself on the side of the apostates--although his interests always seemed more related to hedonism than questions of church history or esoteric theological concerns. He evangelized every day I knew him (that is, until he died in a small plane crash in southern Utah on his way back from a weekend of bacchanalian revelry in Vegas). Not that he would have viewed or described things in those terms, any more than you or the others of your clan do, but, notwithstanding his failure to acknowledge it, apostate evangelism was an integral component of his everyday existence.

Mormon apostates are, almost without exception, obsessed with persuading others to view things the way they do. It becomes the sub-conscious "prime imperative" of their lives. And they are patient--extraordinarily so--in their pursuit of this end. I have often noted that it is gratification enough for them to implant a single, almost imperceptible doubt, or instill a single, almost indiscernible disposition to find fault. It's like watching the slow, but steady progress of an orb weaver at work. In a way, we who evangelize from the other side of the "middle path," could take a lesson from our apostate former brethren.

In any event, no matter how much the apostate evangelist seeks to repudiate the appellation; no matter how much he (or she) seeks to assure us "I am no devil, for there is none," yet his (or her) work goes on. And, of course, I would have it no other way. The wheat and tares must be divided, and the apostate evangelist is one of many agents effecting that end.

There is a "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book."

[William Schryver]

There is a "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book."

The kind of anti-Mormonism to which that essay refers (to the extent I remember it--it's been a long time since I read it) is all but dead--or at least mostly impotent--in our day. It may influence the uninformed to eschew Mormonism, but it has little effect on those already in the Church. You see virtually no one leave Mormonism to join another Christian sect. Once a man (or woman) comes to disbelieve in Mormonism, there is no other religious belief sufficiently comprehensive to fill the hole left behind. Therefore, most ex-Mormons turn to some flavor of secular humanism, or its many variants.

[ERayR]

It’s funny. You suppose that they knew I was too far gone to accept the middle path, yet you also suppose that it was prudent for them to counsel somebody so iniquitous to accept the middle path. That doesn’t seem to internally consistent, but I'm sure it makes sense to you because I know you have immense respect for the wisdom and foreknowledge of a stake president who you never met, merely because he was a stake president.

“Machinations”. Good word! Appropriate for somebody of your imagination.

I say you could not accept the "middle path" because ther is no middle path. What you are describing as the middle path is really only hanging onto the social aspects of the church. Their council was meant to keep you in contact with the church thereby giving you a chance to get outside of yourself and learn what the gospel is really about.

I’m totally agreeing with your point here. The church just isn’t designed for people who sincerely disagree. If you sincerely disagree, you are relegated to sitting on the back row, quietly and dishonestly feigning belief, as a second-class Saint. But what's a second-class Saint in the kingdom of God? It’s inherently doesn’t make sense. Be hot or cold—God will spew out the Luke-warm.

The church is not supposed to be designed by you but by God. If you sincerely disagree with it why do you want to have anything to do with the church? Why not find one you can agree with? It really is above yours and my pay grade to dictate what the church should be.

You see people who are taking the middle path as being ravenous wolves who mustn’t be tolerated—I get it. Again, that was my main point. But still, that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy imagining what God’s going to do to the ravenous wolves after they are dead. Admit it, you get a kick out imagining the final judgement when us evil machinators really get what's coming to us, don't you.

See Above there is no middle path. The ravenous wolves are those trying to destroy the church from within.

[Questing Beast]

Nasty. It has turned nasty.

Judgment has been rendered and I have been weighed in "your" balance and am found wanting.

Analytics has it pegged: candor is treated as sophistication; openness is called "proselytizing"; the prevailing sentiment of the "actives" at Church does not welcome ANY ideas that might open discussion to a wider view.

@Pahoran:

The atonement of Jesus Christ is available for you because Jesus really suffered, really died and was really resurrected. Without those realities there is no atonement, just a bunch of empty sentimental platitudes. If you, in your black-and-white naivete, wish to reject the whole story because there are some unresolved questions about the dating of the events, or some other historical nitpick, then you have chosen the "nothing" in your binary solution set. And you are stuck with it.

As in all things, "it depends". What is the basis of your own B&W faith? What under-pinning defines your testimony? Is it faith in the BoM, ergo in Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration? Or are you a Christian first, Mormon second? What if you are a Mormon first, a Christian second? What does that mean to other Christians of the world if you are only a "Christian" because Joseph Smith's revelations make that possible? (Of course, we both know that "they" do not consider you a Christian at all.)

...But in each generation there are a few who, at the end of their adolescent rebellion, really do learn to think for themselves. They realise that while the Church is not perfect, the world is in ruins.

Judging again without any factual basis for even making such a judgment. In this case, you assert here that I do not think for myself; that rather I just mindlessly go along with the "world in ruins", whatever "it" says, I swallow it all hook, line and sinker.

This is a waste of energy, but I'll say it anyway: I was born into and raised within the Church by faithful, reliable, consistent parents who remained married and actively involved in the Church to the end of their days. In other words, everything in my early life prepared me for a lifetime of active belief and service within the Church. I served a mission. I am married in the temple. All of our children are BIC. I have never gone through an "inactive" phase in my whole life. Along the way, I learned other things about the "world in ruins" (which perspective I not only shared for over half a century, but I actively taught such a perspective countless times): that people are far more good than bad, all the time, everywhere, and always have been according to the evidence of history and my own senses and experience; that religions share far more in common than they do irreconcilable differences; that "the world" is not in ruins but is rather the ideal venue for learning by opposition (there is no purpose in the mythical utopian, egalitarian society where opposition has been done away because everyone "sees eye to eye"); that there is far more to "God" than any single dogmatic definition has to offer, etc.

How this perspective can be rendered into your "black-and-white naivete" is a puzzlement to me. But as I opined already, you are making judgments of others (me) without knowing them in the least. The written word does not convince, so you must dismiss it with assertions about the author that, I promise you, are as inaccurate as calling light darkness....

[Analytics]

Not that he would have viewed or described things in those terms, any more than you or the others of your clan do, but, notwithstanding his failure to acknowledge it, apostate evangelism was an integral component of his everyday existence.

Mormon apostates are, almost without exception, obsessed with persuading others to view things the way they do. It becomes the sub-conscious "prime imperative" of their lives. And they are patient--extraordinarily so--in their pursuit of this end. I have often noted that it is gratification enough for them to implant a single, almost imperceptible doubt, or instill a single, almost indiscernible disposition to find fault. It's like watching the slow, but steady progress of an orb weaver at work. In a way, we who evangelize from the other side of the "middle path," could take a lesson from our apostate former brethren.

In any event, no matter how much the apostate evangelist seeks to repudiate the appellation; no matter how much he (or she) seeks to assure us "I am no devil, for there is none," yet his (or her) work goes on.

Of course I disagree with your assessment of the objectives of apostates, but I do understand why it would appear this way to you. Maintaining belief the truth-claims in the Mormon Church is like keeping a house of cards from falling down. Any motion, bump, sneeze, loud noise, or breath comes across as a deliberate attempt to undermine the whole thing. I’m sure it’s frustrating trying to champion such a fragile cause, so I have empathy for why you’ve become so cynical.