The So-Called "Middle Way"

[kolipoki09]

I was cleaning out some old files and I found this link that I have had for a couple of years or more. The middle way was something I became a bit interested in, before I left the church, when I was looking for reasons to stay. I did, ultimately, leave the church, but I think I have, finally, embraced many of the principles stated in this article....basically, clinging to that which was good and leaving the rest (those issues with which I had problems).

Just wondering what currently active LDS think about this way of being in the church...

http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html#Foreword_and_Disclaimer

Last summer during a trip to Logan, Volgadon and myself had the chance to sit down and have lunch with John Dehlin to discuss (among other things) this very subject. Though I am not sure if he still stands behind his website, John had indicated at the time that he wasn't sure if the "Stay LDS" approach was the best thing for everyone, though it may still work for some.

I think all of us are cafeteria Mormons to a degree when it comes to the nuances, but when a person remains in the Church merely for social convenience, I think it may lead to more problems in the long run.

If someone isn't willing to be your friend outside the Church, they're probably not worth befriending in the Church. Former Latter-day Saints (especially those who remained active for 40+ years) often still embrace portions of Mormonism, while rejecting other parts. D. Michael Quinn's "DNA Mormon" address at the 2003 Sunstone Conference illustrated this point rather well.

I cannot help but feel compassion for those who have felt as Quinn does (having read much of his work and subsequent critiques thereof).

[Biz]

Libs,

I am some what in your shoes at the moment other than I am still in the church. Recently, I have taken an extreme objective look at the church regarding issues related to church doctrine, history, social function, leaders, policies and procedures, and member of the church in general. I hit the middle road approach for about 6 months while still holding a calling. It did not work for me. However, with that said it did not work because I had lost the testimony I once had regarding lots of doctrinal issues I have with the church. My current plan is to regain my testimony in all the areas I lost it. If I fail to regain my testimony I may be out the door so that is a consideration.

I have had quite a few experiences in my life that has led me to believe in the church. These are undeniable to me and I don't think I can explain them away the psychology and human behavior. There are doctrines of the church that I love but how the church received the doctrines and changed them over time is difficult for me. It sounds like your main issue maybe with the leaders of the church. I don't blame you. II have serious issues with leaders of the older LDS church and some with the new. However, none of my current issues are with our apostles and prophets. My issues are with rank and file leaders. The ones who take the policy in the church book over their compassion for the individual. The ones who are really ignorant on how things really are and if you are not TBM you are not good enough. Well that's fine for me and also it is my problem because I don't need half these people or care about half of these people. I am not in the church for social utility. You have to distinguish what are human problems and what are church problems. Our church suffers from a lot of human problems and frankly so does every other faith that requires you to actually interact with each other.

So to make it to my point. As I have studied the reasons why I am a member and what my testimony was or is I was shocked at the result. First, the people who influenced me in the church are some of the greatest people I have ever known. They are the Salt of the Earth. While I am very independent I do not think I could have made it through some parts of my life without them. In my book they make up maybe 10% of the church. I have no idea they may actually be 70% or even 2%. But if they were only the 2% they would be worth going to church to associate with. Second, I studied my conversion to the gospel. Mind you at this point in my skeptical view of the church I feel angry, misled, and at times I feel I have been subject to almost fraud. As I look at how all of these things have been taught to me I feel disillusioned. Here is the shocker as I read my journals which I have about 4 of them I discovered something I consider a miracle. My testimony revolves around Jesus Christ, Heavenly Father and their love for me. That is honestly about it. In my journal I testify to myself of the love God has for me and the role he plays in my life. How grateful I am for a Savior who has forgiven me and suffered on the cross for me. My journals speak about how much I love my family both the members and non members. The foundation of my testimony is not Joseph Smith (I don't even really mention the guy) it is not about my personal priesthood I have received through a full direct line. My testimony is not how great our prophets are or are not. Simply put my testimony and my journal writing reflect my belief in God, His Son, and what they have done for me.

For this very reason I have decided to stay with two feet in at the moment and regain the testimony that I had lost regarding the nit picky stuff. This is only because I discovered my real testimony and the one I still have which is a testimony of the basics and that is really all you need. Hope this helped it at least helped me. I don't think you can really manage the middle road and be happy. The middle road you will hate half the people like I do, but these people are necessary for us we must learn to love our brothers and sisters unconditionally. If there is a heaven you will either start working on loving these people here or there and why not get a head start.

All the best, Biz

[consiglieri]

Indeed. A wise man said that just last week on this very board I believe.

It's members like you that keep me hanging around.

A penny's worth of mercyngrace outweighs a pound of Obiwans and Schryvers.

And thus we see that mercy can overpower justice.

The Book of Mormon is true.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

I believe it has been said the wicked man is closer to God than the righteous.

The premise is false. Saul was never wicked, he carried out what he believed to be the will of God and sought earnestly after it. Saul was very faithful and when he received a revelation correcting his view, he did not hesitate to embrace it. A wicked man would have rejected God and continued on holding the honor and self esteem of his people above that of knowing what is right and true.

I had an interesting discussion with a Jesuit from Loyola regarding that very same issue.

[WalkerW]

I think mercyngrace and kolipoki are right. I think it is better to be constantly learning, reflecting on one's beliefs, and being willing to shift one's paradigm. I recently had an email exchange with Don Bradley, in which he asked me about myself and my thoughts on the Church. This was (part of) my response:

My interests incorporate a lot so I

[LDS Guy 1986]

Last summer during a trip to Logan, Volgadon and myself had the chance to sit down and have lunch with John Dehlin to discuss (among other things) this very subject. Though I am not sure if he still stands behind his website, John had indicated at the time that he wasn't sure if the "Stay LDS" approach was the best thing for everyone, though it may still work for some.

I think all of us are cafeteria Mormons to a degree when it comes to the nuances, but when a person remains in the Church merely for social convenience, I think it may lead to more problems in the long run.

If someone isn't willing to be your friend outside the Church, they're probably not worth befriending in the Church. Former Latter-day Saints (especially those who remained active for 40+ years) often still embrace portions of Mormonism, while rejecting other parts. D. Michael Quinn's "DNA Mormon" address at the 2003 Sunstone Conference illustrated this point rather well.

I cannot help but feel compassion for those who have felt as Quinn does (having read much of his work and subsequent critiques thereof).

I don't see why he felt that he had to leave the Church, I feel that homosexuals can love each other and that they deserve civil protections under the law just like heterosexual couples (I do not support SSM but gays couples deserve the same civil protections as straight couples, I feel the Government should stop violating the constitution and get out of marriage, instead simply legally recognize couples without stealing religious ceremonies), I know that Prophets are not always inspired, I know that Prophets make mistakes, I know that the Church isn't infallible (in fact any Mormon that acts like the Church is perfect is not reading the scriptures at all), his examples are poor, he reasoning is flawed beyond comprehension, and ultimately this is just another whine session because someone wanted to tell the Church how to do it's job instead of allow the Lord to run his Church through his chosen leadership.

I am always disappointed by these ex-Mormon videos, I alway hope to hear a intelligent and provoking discussion about the issues that face this Church and it always is a whining session from someone who left beacuse they didn't get what they wanted!

[Mark Beesley]

I was cleaning out some old files and I found this link that I have had for a couple of years or more. The middle way was something I became a bit interested in, before I left the church, when I was looking for reasons to stay. I did, ultimately, leave the church, but I think I have, finally, embraced many of the principles stated in this article....basically, clinging to that which was good and leaving the rest (those issues with which I had problems).

Just wondering what currently active LDS think about this way of being in the church...

http://staylds.com/d..._and_Disclaimer

Interesting article. I didn't read it thoroughly -- too darned long. But some sections I read carefully, and the rest I skimmed.

My sense is that that the so-called middle way primarily addresses what we believe and not how we act. The risk I see is that when we start to rely on our own beliefs and/or interpretations of scripture, we might err in ways that negatively impact our actions. The Word of Wisdom is the obvious example. Interestingly, the article did not have a lot to say about the Word of Wisdom, yet. It is apparently a work in progress. It will be interesting to see what they have to say. Will they come down on the side of adopting a belief that the meat-eater who eats meat in the Spring is in equal violation of the Word of Wisdom as the occasional drinker of Chardonnay? Or will will they come down on the side of a belief that the occasional glass of Chardonnay should not be a deterrent to a Temple Recommend?

The one thing that I think the article does which is good is it seems to recommend increasing one's spirituality. If we are consistently led by the Spririt in the things we do, I think we can pretty much believe what we want. (I can believe that socialism can be good, and no one in the Church can do a darned thing about it. )

[mercyngrace]

*begins packing bags*

*blocks the door*

It's members like you that keep me hanging around.

--Consiglieri

Right back 'atcha.

[consiglieri]

I had an interesting discussion with a Jesuit from Loyola regarding that very same issue.

I can only pray he didn't agree with you that persecuting and killing Christians in the name of God is something other than wicked, in spite of our best attempts to justify Saul's actions due to the change he made on the road to Damascus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mercyngrace]

I think all of us are cafeteria Mormons to a degree when it comes to the nuances, but when a person remains in the Church merely for social convenience, I think it may lead to more problems in the long run.

We used to teach (back in the day) that the first conversion was a social one. When people notice there's something different about members or something valuable and unique about the community and the sociality that exists among LDS. That's a common beginning point for new members, why should we abandon long term members who are at a similar spiritual place? I can't imagine pushing anyone who desires to stay toward the doors.

If someone isn't willing to be your friend outside the Church, they're probably not worth befriending in the Church.

And their discipleship is lacking, IMO.

I cannot help but feel compassion for those who have felt as Quinn does (having read much of his work and subsequent critiques thereof).

As do I.

[consiglieri]

*blocks the door*

That's how nine out of ten domestic violence assaults get started.

You are the best!

--Consiglieri

[Libs]

I don't have the time right now to give a proper response to your question, but here are a couple of things that I find relevant. The first is something I read while attending BYU (it was being given out in pamphlet form to honors students), by Thomas Plummer: Diagnosing and Treating the Ophelia Syndrome

The other one is by Orson Scott Card, from last September: Exploring Faith and Knowledge

I'll try to come back later when I have more time.

Thank you, DH. LOVED "The Ophelia Syndrome"..that was interesting! Loved the part about the students sitting around discussing a subject they had learned, as a final exam. Reminded me of the many times, in my youth, sitting around on the floor with a group of friends, exploring all kinds of ideas. We would turn those ideas upside down and inside out and deeply enjoyed every moment. Very exhilarating times. As I merged into adulthood/parenthood, etc, it seemed I had less and less time for that kind of creative thinking. Much easier to just slip into the black and white thinking or not think much at all, and go with the flow. I guess, that is always going to be a part of the danger of belonging to any organization whose goal is to teach you something (school, church, even family). It is very easy to just accept ideas without thinking and lose yourself (and the whole point) in the process. But, we do, sometimes, run the risk of alienating ourselves, with questions about things that some believe should not be questioned.

I had previously read the Orson Scott Card article. That's a very good one, as well. Thank you.

[Libs]

I was actually pondering this question and the best answer i could come up with was-i don't know.

I think sometimes when we live a life that is not completely truthful (when we have to hide our beliefs and pretend to believe something else) it can cause us spiritual harm, regardless of where we are when we are doing such. I was asking myself, why would the Savior rather someone be cold concerning His gospel, than lukewarm? Maybe it's because he can work with people who are cold concerning Him (like saul/paul, for example) but that lukewarm people, He can't?

On the other hand, maybe staying in the church could help someone regain a testimony when they would not have been able to do so if they left?

So many variables to consider....

Yes, I think the answer is going to be different for each person (of those who are struggling). My main area of struggle was with Joseph Smith and whether or not he was a true prophet. That issue was so basic to all of the rest (a foundational issue) that it was difficult to put it on a shelf. For others, the issues may be much smaller and not so central to the faith, thus, easier to put aside.

[Libs]

Last summer during a trip to Logan, Volgadon and myself had the chance to sit down and have lunch with John Dehlin to discuss (among other things) this very subject. Though I am not sure if he still stands behind his website, John had indicated at the time that he wasn't sure if the "Stay LDS" approach was the best thing for everyone, though it may still work for some.

I think all of us are cafeteria Mormons to a degree when it comes to the nuances, but when a person remains in the Church merely for social convenience, I think it may lead to more problems in the long run.

If someone isn't willing to be your friend outside the Church, they're probably not worth befriending in the Church. Former Latter-day Saints (especially those who remained active for 40+ years) often still embrace portions of Mormonism, while rejecting other parts. D. Michael Quinn's "DNA Mormon" address at the 2003 Sunstone Conference illustrated this point rather well.

I cannot help but feel compassion for those who have felt as Quinn does (having read much of his work and subsequent critiques thereof).

I feel compassion for Quinn, as well. I read some of his stuff, after I left the church. Interesting man. I think it would be much more difficult to be excommunicated while still a believing Mormon, than to leave of your own free will.

[Libs]

I don't have the time this evening to read the entire website, but my concern about any kind of 'middle way' is something I like to call the 'principle of the clutch.' If a clutch is disengaged, the car goes nowhere, but there's also no wear to the clutch. If a clutch is fully engaged, the car moves at full efficiency, and there is also no wear to the clutch. If, however, one 'rides the clutch,' keeping it partially engaged, the car, though it makes progress, does so with reduced efficiency, and the clutch wears out, eventually burning out completely.

Based on personal experience, I think it works roughly the same way in the Church of Jesus Christ. If I'm completely disengaged, I go nowhere, but I also don't burn out. If I'm fully engaged, I race ahead with power and ease, and I also don't burn out. But if I'm only partially engaged, I kind of piddle along, wear and tear mounting, and then I burn out.

Another way of looking at it is that those who are partially engaged make many of the same sacrifices but reap almost none of the benefits, creating huge dissonance in their lives. Repeatedly, I've seen the outcome of this be disillusionment and disenchantment.

For example, a man who never serves a mission never enjoys any of the blessings of serving a mission, but he also remains totally undamaged by the experience. A man who serves a mission with his whole 'heart, might, mind, and strength,' exercising unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, experiences a progression of blessings and miracles such that it's difficult ever to doubt or question again, and these benefits completely overshadow the 'sacrifices,' like being away from home, not dating, being disconnected from media, etc.

A man, however, who completes a mission but never really engages makes almost all of the same sacrifices: absence from family, from girls, from his MP3 player; spartan living; etc. At the same time, he will miss out on most of the divine blessings that come from genuinely giving one's heart fully to Christ, and all he'll have left is memories of how hard it all was, mitigated, hopefully, by some benefits, like learning people or language skills or deloping an appreciation for a new culture. On a very practical level, this sets him up perfectly to conclude that, because the experience wasn't what he thought it would be and clearly should have been, there wasn't really anything there to start with. It's all just something someone made up, and other people claim to have had different experiences just because they're afraid to buck the system and admit the truth.

I don't think a person can last very long in that position.

An interesting metaphor. Thank you. I was wondering what you believe is necessary, in order to be "fully engaged" in the Church? Do you need to have a testimony of every single teaching and concept presented there?

[CV75]

Just wondering what currently active LDS think about this way of being in the church...

I am offended that the middle way does not address the needs of those who veer, even occasionally, to one side or the other. How can one possibly stay on center with exactness and feel good about their faith in such an exacting principle?

[ELF1024]

I was cleaning out some old files and I found this link that I have had for a couple of years or more. The middle way was something I became a bit interested in, before I left the church, when I was looking for reasons to stay. I did, ultimately, leave the church, but I think I have, finally, embraced many of the principles stated in this article....basically, clinging to that which was good and leaving the rest (those issues with which I had problems).

Just wondering what currently active LDS think about this way of being in the church...

http://staylds.com/d..._and_Disclaimer

Rev 3: 15 -16

15 I know thy ^aworks, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art ^alukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will ^bspue thee out of my mouth.

[Jeff K.]

I can only pray he didn't agree with you that persecuting and killing Christians in the name of God is something other than wicked, in spite of our best attempts to justify Saul's actions due to the change he made on the road to Damascus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That would be a weak argument given that God himself often ordained attacking enemies in the Old Testament, and Saul was indeed a Saul of the Old Testament. Your focuse as the Jesuit and most others will tell you, is false in the sense that you view only the results and not motivations of actions. One presumes from your tact that you think volcanoes and tsunamis are "evil". They are not, their motivations are not evil, their actions are neither evil nor good, they simply "are".

Saul acted only with the knowledge he had, and thought he was carrying out the will of the Lord. His motivations were not evil. Saul in effect, upon being corrected by the Lord, had neither pride nor the hatred towards any individual. It was an immediate conversion because he knew the course needed to be changed. Indeed, he was ready to have his life taken by those very allies he once helped.

So yes, it is indeed something "other than wicked". One would have hoped your understanding and presumed depth of knowledge regarding the time and context would have made such an observation more obvious.

[consiglieri]

So yes, it is indeed something "other than wicked". One would have hoped your understanding and presumed depth of knowledge regarding the time and context would have made such an observation more obvious.

I should think that wicked acts done in the name of God are among the most wicked of all.

[Libs]

I've seen this suggestion in a couple of posts, that the middle way would be a state of "lukewarm", in regards to the church, but I am not sure that's the case, always. Someone following every teaching, blindly, without thought, could be considered lukewarm in "spirit". I've been there. But, when you allow yourself to become more open and explore and consider what you've been taught, even if you are in disagreement for awhile (or forever), allow yourself to question and pray about it, developing a real relationship with God, I think you move from "lukewarm" to very hot in a spiritual sense.

Questioning the faith doesn't, necessarily, make one lukewarm, IMHO.

[Biz]

I've seen this suggestion in a couple of posts, that the middle way would be a state of "lukewarm", in regards to the church, but I am not sure that's the case, always. Someone following every teaching, blindly, without thought, could be considered lukewarm in "spirit". I've been there. But, when you allow yourself to become more open and explore and consider what you've been taught, even if you are in disagreement for awhile (or forever), allow yourself to question and pray about it, developing a real relationship with God, I think you move from "lukewarm" to very hot in a spiritual sense.

Questioning the faith doesn't, necessarily, make one lukewarm, IMHO.

I could not have said it any better.

[Jeff K.]

I should think that wicked acts done in the name of God are among the most wicked of all.

Wicked acts are all acts carried out with evil motivations, not the results. Evil men remain evil and their acts remain evil, even when the Lord turns those evil acts towards his righteous purposes.

Are you telling me that earthquakes are evil because of the results? I do not believe so. Evil is based on wicked intention, not erroneous results.

Empty rhetoric is not how we become enlightened consig.

I suggest you reread my posts so you can avoid repeating the errors you are making.

[ELF1024]

I've seen this suggestion in a couple of posts, that the middle way would be a state of "lukewarm", in regards to the church, but I am not sure that's the case, always. Someone following every teaching, blindly, without thought, could be considered lukewarm in "spirit". I've been there. But, when you allow yourself to become more open and explore and consider what you've been taught, even if you are in disagreement for awhile (or forever), allow yourself to question and pray about it, developing a real relationship with God, I think you move from "lukewarm" to very hot in a spiritual sense.

Questioning the faith doesn't, necessarily, make one lukewarm, IMHO.

I would agree that questioning faith does not make one lukewarm. I myself have done plenty of it in my own life.

Which is why I presented the scripture that came to mind without commentary.

[consiglieri]

Empty rhetoric is not how we become enlightened consig.

Then do tell me how it is we become enlightened, Jeff.

Is it by agreeing with you in every instance?

Is it by mindlessly parroting the vapid debate techniques of Pahoran?

Just wondering . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

Maybe we should reconsider our condemnations of the ex-mo who has gone "cold", seeing this is a viable/preferable position in the Lord's eyes over such remaining unhappily in the church?

No doubt in some cases, we should.