The So-Called "Middle Way"

[Jeff K.]

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.

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

The only vapid debates are yours. You choose to mindlessly presume that results are what God judges instead of motivations, when the error of such a view is expressed to you, you retreat to empty rhetoric repeating your point with rhetoric instead of discussing the point made.

Such an act is baseless, and when done with knowledge is once again, little more than baiting.

I supply the entire context of my post to show exactly how poorly you debate the issue. It reflects how you have decided to throw out intellectual honesty in order to retreat to editorialized posts and sadly, repetitive parroting without acknowledging or responding to points raised.

[Libs]

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.

Really trying to understand what you are saying here. I think the problem is in the comparison. I don't think we can compare a conscious choice of man (to do something against his brother...in the name of God, no less) with an "act of nature". They are really two different things. Man has a will and intellect that guides his decision making. He has choices and the ability to think them through and not only think them through, but pray about them and receive guidance from God. He may have the best of intentions, but if he makes poor choices, they do have consequences, both to him and to those he has harmed. An inanimate thing like an earthquake will reap no consequences whatsoever, because it's not a tangible entity with a soul. If our choices reap evil, then we are responsible, IMO.

[Jeff K.]

Really trying to understand what you are saying here. I think the problem is in the comparison. I don't think we can compare a conscious choice of man (to do something against his brother...in the name of God, no less) with an "act of nature". They are really two different things. Man has a will and intellect that guides his decision making. He has choices and the ability to think them through and not only think them through, but pray about them and receive guidance from God. He may have the best of intentions, but if he makes poor choices, they do have consequences, both to him and to those he has harmed. An inanimate thing like an earthquake will reap no consequences whatsoever, because it's not a tangible entity with a soul. If our choices reap evil, then we are responsible, IMO.

That is exactly what Consig is doing. He states the act defines the wickedness. I point out the act does not define wickedness anymore than a natural disaster defines wickedness. Rather it is the motivation of the individual.

Now was Saul motivated by evil intent?

Saul being a man of the Old Testament if you will, or someone who followed the dictates of the Torah and the Mosaic law saw heresy and how the response should be (which was exactly what he did). He did so based on his faith in God. Did he hate those who became Christian, or did he hate Christianity as a heretical sect that would destroy the church.

He followed the law and defended the church. Are those evil motivations?

However when the Lord appearted to him and asked why Saul prosecuted Him, Saul immediately understood and his faith and actions changed according to God's will.

The Jesuit (Father Paul coincidently) and I discussed motivation, and why I left the church and whether my leaving was motivated by evil or good. He felt the results were wrong, even as the motivation was good and so I would one day be judged by my motivations and not my results. The discussion of Saul becoming Paul was part and parcel with that discussion.

[bluebell]

Really trying to understand what you are saying here. I think the problem is in the comparison. I don't think we can compare a conscious choice of man (to do something against his brother...in the name of God, no less) with an "act of nature". They are really two different things. Man has a will and intellect that guides his decision making. He has choices and the ability to think them through and not only think them through, but pray about them and receive guidance from God. He may have the best of intentions, but if he makes poor choices, they do have consequences, both to him and to those he has harmed. An inanimate thing like an earthquake will reap no consequences whatsoever, because it's not a tangible entity with a soul. If our choices reap evil, then we are responsible, IMO.

The scriptures always talk about needing to have clean hands and a pure heart. When I think about saul/paul, see him as someone who had very dirty hands, but in a sense, a pure heart. His actions were often atrocious, but his motives-his heart-was pure in the sense that he sincerely believed he was doing God's will (just as most of us do in the choices we make).

His actions were obviously wicked, but he did them in ignorance (he did not know they were wrong) so that would seem to impact whether or not HE was wicked or if it was only his choices which were.

His case is just one of those that is way to complicated to really judge.

[Jeff K.]

Poor choices are those that exist by motivation, not by results. If you attempt to save a life and instead the life dies because of your actions, are you a murderer? Or were you simply inadequate to the very righteous task you attempted?

[Libs]

That is exactly what Consig is doing. He states the act defines the wickedness. I point out the act does not define wickedness anymore than a natural disaster defines wickedness. Rather it is the motivation of the individual.

Now was Saul motivated by evil intent?

Saul being a man of the Old Testament if you will, or someone who followed the dictates of the Torah and the Mosaic law saw heresy and how the response should be (which was exactly what he did). He did so based on his faith in God. Did he hate those who became Christian, or did he hate Christianity as a heretical sect that would destroy the church.

He followed the law and defended the church. Are those evil motivations?

However when the Lord appearted to him and asked why Saul prosecuted Him, Saul immediately understood and his faith and actions changed according to God's will.

The Jesuit (Father Paul coincidently) and I discussed motivation, and why I left the church and whether my leaving was motivated by evil or good. He felt the results were wrong, even as the motivation was good and so I would one day be judged by my motivations and not my results. The discussion of Saul becoming Paul was part and parcel with that discussion.

Okay, thanks for the further explanation, Jeff. I think, I better understand what you're saying, now. It has to do with our actions in accordance to the light we have received. I don't really disagree with that. Not sure exactly how it works, in God's eyes, but I do know there is scripture to back it up.

[Libs]

The scriptures always talk about needing to have clean hands and a pure heart. When I think about saul/paul, see him as someone who had very dirty hands, but in a sense, a pure heart. His actions were often atrocious, but his motives-his heart-was pure in the sense that he sincerely believed he was doing God's will (just as most of us do in the choices we make).

His actions were obviously wicked, but he did them in ignorance (he did not know they were wrong) so that would seem to impact whether or not HE was wicked or if it was only his choices which were.

His case is just one of those that is way to complicated to really judge.

Yes, I agree. Thanks Bluebell.

[consiglieri]

That is exactly what Consig is doing. He states the act defines the wickedness. I point out the act does not define wickedness anymore than a natural disaster defines wickedness. Rather it is the motivation of the individual.

So it's cool the Pharisees got Jesus crucified as long as it was in the name of God?

Just wondering how long you are willing to commit yourself to this odd position, Jeff.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

The only vapid debates are yours. You choose to mindlessly presume that results are what God judges instead of motivations, when the error of such a view is expressed to you, you retreat to empty rhetoric repeating your point with rhetoric instead of discussing the point made.

Such an act is baseless, and when done with knowledge is once again, little more than baiting.

I supply the entire context of my post to show exactly how poorly you debate the issue. It reflects how you have decided to throw out intellectual honesty in order to retreat to editorialized posts and sadly, repetitive parroting without acknowledging or responding to points raised.

Geez, now you are parroting my own words.

Is there no end to this aping?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. "Repetitive parroting" is redundant.

[Hamba Tuhan]

An interesting metaphor. Thank you. I was wondering what you believe is necessary, in order to be "fully engaged" in the Church?

As in so many things, I suspect that being 'fully engaged' is an ideal. The closer we come to it, though, the better it is. For me personally, the tipping point would be when the blessings of my engagement outweigh the 'sacrifices' of the same. To give a specific example, if I get up at 5:30 on a cold, dark winter's morning to get ready for church in time to pick up a carful of Young Men and take them there, but then sacrament meeting turns into a revelatory experience, where every five minutes or so one of the speakers says something that triggers a burst of inspiration/answer to prayer, then I feel I'm engaged enough. If, instead, I wake up at 5:30 on a cold, dark winter's morning to get ready for church in time to pick up a carful of Young Men, and then I'm so disengaged that I spend most of my meetings counting down the minutes on the clock, I'm going to burn out. If my life is filled with miracles, revelation, the gifts of the Spirit, forgiveness of sin and change of heart through Christ, the power of the priesthood, etc., though it's quite probable that I could enjoy all of the above more fully, I'm still going to be OK, and I'll be motivated to keep seeking for even greater blessings.

Do you need to have a testimony of every single teaching and concept presented there?

No. As I said to one of my mates just a few days ago during a gospel conversation, we're all heretics to a greater or lesser degree. The key is simply to be a faithful one.

Faith/pistis, of course, means trust/loyalty, so that's what I mean by being faithful. Sometimes I shudder at what I could have thrown away blessing/testimony wise if I hadn't been trusting/loyal enough in the past. And I'm still in the midst of this whole amazing enterprise, with more to come.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Someone following every teaching, blindly, without thought, could be considered lukewarm in "spirit".

In fact, I think thoughtlessly going through the motions whilst being at least partially disengaged spiritually is one of the most damaging things one can do, as I tried to express in my analogy above.

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.

Agreed!

[DH]

Ok, I'm back!

I try to walk a middle way. Part of what that means to me is that I don't automatically accept everything Church leaders say as true, just because they are Church leaders. Rather, I try to heed what Brigham Young said: "The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord." Prophets, apostles, and other Church leaders are human like the rest of us, and are not infallible. Sometimes they say or do things that are wrong, and I am under no obligation to follow them when they do.

However, I also try to avoid the other extreme of rejecting everything they say or do. In other words, by avoiding the extremes of either blind obedience or apostasy, I try to walk a "middle way." I think it's a good idea to pay heed to the prophets, but to heed them does not necessarily mean to agree with or obey them, it means "to give consideration or attention to" them (Merriam-Webster dictionary definition).

As I understand God's plan for us, he wants us to progress and become more like him. Put another way, he wants us to "grow up" and become like him, our parent. In the earlier stages of childhood, it is necessary that we learn to listen to and obey our parents, for our own safety and well-being. However, if we remained at that stage forever, we would stagnate and never grow up, sort of a Peter Pan syndrome. Healthy human development involves eventually learning to think for ourselves, judge for ourselves what's best, and act on our own. Indeed, the scriptures tell us it is not meet that we should be commanded in all things. Of course we should continue listening to other people and checking ourselves to make sure that our own judgment is not off, and I see that as one role that prophets play, people who presumably are wise and receive communications from God and can help guide us on our way. But where the rubber meets the road, we need to make our own decisions, because ultimately, we are the ones who receive the consequences for our decisions. If we follow bad advice given to us by a prophet, we pay the price, not him. But if we follow good advice given by a prophet, we benefit. But it's up to us to discern, and no one else, just like Brigham Young said.

</sermon>

[LDS Guy 1986]

But if we follow good advice given by a prophet, we benefit. But it's up to us to discern, and no one else, just like Brigham Young said.

I was always taught if the Prophets could lead us away from salvation (which LDS doctrine says cannot happen, that doesn't mean mistakes are not made just the mistakes made will not cause us to fall into apostasy again), that such things would be on the Prophets head and not so much ours, if we honestly followed the Prophet's as the lord asks us to and are not doing something that is an obvious violation of his commandments any potential misinformation we come to believe is no the prophet because he is the one responsible for leading us.

We use the same thing when we talk about home teaching, if we as teachers neglect to teach our families and they fall away from the Gospel there sins are our heads more than it is on there's because we were called to guide and lead them.

Added by Edit:

I agree to that in all things the membership must seek confirmation about the words and revelations from the prophets. But this is a confirmation not a dispute, we are still expected to follow the prophet in all things since he is the chosen prophet of God.

[ERMD]

Beat me to it.

[TAO]

And these are bad things to learn . . . ?

No, they are not bad things to learn; they are essential to learn... taking the middle route is difficult indeed.

It is fine to question I think, but one should not underestimate how hard that road will be.

It was mentioned earlier by Biz... a testimony of the small and simple things. I would say that is the best piece of advice, indeed I would. If you can get a testimony of the small and simple things, the rest will sort of fall into place. Because the small and simple things... the atonement... eternal families... repentance.... kindness... service.... those sort of things... if you can get a testimony of those in the church, the rest seems... like it doesn't matter so much any more =).

[DH]

I was always taught if the Prophets could lead us away from salvation (which LDS doctrine says cannot happen, that doesn't mean mistakes are not made just the mistakes made will not cause us to fall into apostasy again), that such things would be on the Prophets head and not so much ours, if we honestly followed the Prophet's as the lord asks us to and are not doing something that is an obvious violation of his commandments any potential misinformation we come to believe is no the prophet because he is the one responsible for leading us...

I agree to that in all things the membership must seek confirmation about the words and revelations from the prophets. But this is a confirmation not a dispute, we are still expected to follow the prophet in all things since he is the chosen prophet of God.

Even though you advocate obedience to the prophets, you still qualify your statement by adding "and are not doing something that is an obvious violation of his [the Lord's] commandments." By that standard, the Israelites should not have obeyed certain commands from Joshua during the conquest of Canaan, because genocide is an obvious violation of God's commandments. You give me hope, my friend!

[bjw]

I found the website mentioned in the OP helpful in helping me stay in the church. I went through a crisis of faith that I'm sure a lot of LDS go through once they learn the truth about church history and other flaws with the church. I decided to stay because I believe our church, despite its flaws, is still the best church around. I still believe the church is true but I believe it is led by flawed human beings.

I think all LDS eventually get to a crossroads and have to decide whether to stay or leave. All, especially with the advent of the internet, eventually learn the truth about church history, controversial issues, politics in leadership, etc. and have to decide if they can still keep their testimony in spite of these things. I think accepting the church as true but not infallible helped me to stay in.

Consider Alma 32 in the BoM, where it says if you can decide you want to believe and do not cast out the seed by your unbelief, eventually the seed will grow. I think the people at Stay LDS, New Order Mormon, and similar sites that stay in the church in spite of disagreements with some things are at least giving the church a chance for the seed to grow. They are not "casting it out" by their unbelief. They may be having doubts now, but give the Spirit another decade or two to work on the person as they stay in the church and they may get a more sure testimony.

I think my view of the Book of Mormon is a good example of this. We've all heard the stone in the hat translating method that many Mormons didn't know about until they saw South Park. I believe JS already knew the story and the stone reminded him of it so he could articulate it into words for the scribe. There are records of JS telling the story to his family of the tribes, their customs, etc. to his parents while growing up, I think it was in Lucy Mack Smith's diary. I think JS's choice of words was influenced by other documents, like Alma 40 and the Westminster Confession, as well as the Captain Kidd moneydigging lore. I still believe the BoM is true, but I have come to accept it is not the infallible text as the church presents it. I still can answer the temple recommend questions with good conscience because I still sustain my leaders and believe in the Gospel, I just think it is not always the way it is presented.

My view is that the church should move toward full disclosure of history, no matter how contraversial. I think in the long run we will get a better convert retention rate. Its like why parents tell their kids about sex, so that they don't hear about it from someone else and get wrong ideas about it. When members learn history from hostile sources like South Park, they feel betrayed and wonder why they weren't told by the church. I believe if we had full disclosure, we would have less need for sites like Stay LDS and NOM.

[DH]

No, they are not bad things to learn; they are essential to learn... taking the middle route is difficult indeed.

It is fine to question I think, but one should not underestimate how hard that road will be.

Oh, the Middle Way is not as hard as all that! (I said "the Middle Way," but "a Middle Way" is probably more accurate--we're not terribly dogmatic folk!)

It was mentioned earlier by Biz... a testimony of the small and simple things. I would say that is the best piece of advice, indeed I would. If you can get a testimony of the small and simple things, the rest will sort of fall into place. Because the small and simple things... the atonement... eternal families... repentance.... kindness... service.... those sort of things... if you can get a testimony of those in the church, the rest seems... like it doesn't matter so much any more =).

You make a good point here. Although it can be fun, useful, and even instructive to ponder and speculate about all kinds of different things, for the most part I try to focus on the essentials, those things that are most important like simple kindness to our fellow beings. I hear a lot of "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" being thrown around sometimes at church, but I feel safe in disregarding them as long as I focus on Jesus and the simple truths of the Gospel.

Peace.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Even though you advocate obedience to the prophets, you still qualify your statement by adding "and are not doing something that is an obvious violation of his [the Lord's] commandments." By that standard, the Israelites should not have obeyed certain commands from Joshua during the conquest of Canaan, because genocide is an obvious violation of God's commandments. You give me hope, my friend!

Where is it a violation of God's commandment's to disregard the commandment of God?

God commanded the destruction of the Canaanites et al, the failure of Israel to destroy the wicked people of Canaan is why Israel must suffer so much today. God commanded them to invade Canaan destroy everyone and everything and be his chosen people. Israel failed, they didn't obey wandered for 40 years, then invaded Canaan but didn't do as God said. Because Israel didn't follow through with there end of the covenant, God left the wicked people among them to prove them forever.

When God orders you to wipe out the wicked you do it, Israel didn't and they are constantly in conflict because of it.

Your position is anti-biblical, God ordered the destruction of the Canaanites every man, woman, and child, to go against this is to destroy the OT.

[DH]

Where is it a violation of God's commandment's to disregard the commandment of God?

That question makes no sense. The obvious answer is disregarding God's commandments is a violation of God's commandments.

God commanded the destruction of the Canaanites et al, the failure of Israel to destroy the wicked people of Canaan is why Israel must suffer so much today. God commanded them to invade Canaan destroy everyone and everything and be his chosen people. Israel failed, they didn't obey wandered for 40 years, then invaded Canaan but didn't do as God said. Because Israel didn't follow through with there end of the covenant, God left the wicked people among them to prove them forever.

When God orders you to wipe out the wicked you do it, Israel didn't and they are constantly in conflict because of it.

Your position is anti-biblical, God ordered the destruction of the Canaanites every man, woman, and child, to go against this is to destroy the OT.

Did somebody forget the Seventh Commandment? God teaches us to be good to each other, to refrain from violence against each other, and even to sacrifice of ourselves for others' good, even if those people are not righteous. Jesus himself set the perfect example.

I believe the Israelites tried to justify their violent actions by claiming that God told them to do it. Unfortunately, that excuse is all too common. In virtually every war in history, both sides claim God sides with them or tells them to do it!

[TAO]

I think the people at Stay LDS, New Order Mormon, and similar sites that stay in the church in spite of disagreements with some things are at least giving the church a chance for the seed to grow. They are not "casting it out" by their unbelief. They may be having doubts now, but give the Spirit another decade or two to work on the person as they stay in the church and they may get a more sure testimony.

I believe if we had full disclosure, we would have less need for sites like Stay LDS and NOM.

StayLDS I have no idea about... but I would not suggest that other site, that I wouldn't =/.

[Libs]

StayLDS I have no idea about... but I would not suggest that other site, that I wouldn't =/.

I'm not very familiar with New Order Mormon, but is sounds very similar to the StayLDS philosophy (from the little I've read).

http://www.newordermormon.org/

[Libs]

In fact, I think thoughtlessly going through the motions whilst being at least partially disengaged spiritually is one of the most damaging things one can do, as I tried to express in my analogy above.

Agreed.

I would rather be questioning and in doubt...even serious doubt, than to numbly follow alone, with little feeling about any of it.

I don't think I ever went through that, but I knew some people who appeared to be in that state. I was afraid I would get there, myself, if I just turned off all of my questions and decided to stay, no matter what.

[DH]

I'm not very familiar with New Order Mormon, but is sounds very similar to the StayLDS philosophy (from the little I've read).

http://www.newordermormon.org/

I highly recommend NOM. If you're not familiar with it, but interested in knowing more, take a gander. If it's not your thing, that's ok, too--it's not for everybody.

[DH]

.