The So-Called "Middle Way"

[DH]

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.

FWIW, since starting on the middle way, I find that I have actually become more spiritually engaged than before. Carrying on a personal relationship with God is rather different than merely "going with the flow" at church because you're "supposed to."

[CV75]

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

This seems to be on a par with the glenbeckers, tentcitiers, stephencoviers, franklinplanneriers, etc. who see themselves as a

[LDS Guy 1986]

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.

Did someone forget that the KJV is a translation from the Hebrew?

The word that is translated in the KJV from the Hebrew, has a deeper meaning than just kill, it means to kill the innocent, or more appropriately in English , to murder.

If you have the LDS KJV the footnotes state that Hebrew mean murder not kill, you can check the footnotes here: http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/20?lang=eng

In fact more modern translations us the word murder instead of kill in most cases, you have to understand that KJV is a translation from the Hebrew and one must understand that in this case they didn't use the most appropriate word, murder is the proper translation not kill.

If it was kill, how come you are commanded by God to be killed for braking the commandments in Leviticus? Why, would God command Israel to break a commandment for breaking a commandment?

Why would God command Israel to break commandments to follow his commandment regarding the people's of Canaan?

You take the scriptures out of context, and make up stuff that isn't in there.

Please tell me where does Christ tell us to "sacrifice ourselves" for the unrighteous?

Christ taught me that he was coming back to kill the unrighteous, if they wouldn't repent.

He tells us to love our neighbors, and if they slap us in the face to turn the other check, he never says to let your enemies kill you though.

It doesn't seem odd to you that Christ had armed bodyguards if he was such a peaceful person, you think of his promises of return to destroy the wicked his joking?

Christ doesn't seek violence, but it is incorrect to think that Christ said one is to die when they are attacked by people seeking to harm them.

The Bible is a book of war, it has been a Book of war since Adam and Eve ate the apple and started there eternal progression, with the Restored Gospel we know that this war started even before the world was formed, that Lucifer lead a third of the Spirits in Heaven in rebellion against God. Did God say let them destroy us? No, he defeated them in battle, and we continue to fight them till they are defeated once and for all.

We are to love, but doesn't even the most loving parent chastise there child when they do wrong?

Stopping evil is not evil, it is the righteous work of God, the problem is we also have to love each other and respect the agency of man. If one desires to live an evil lifestyle that is there choice, if that evil life style though threatens the life of another person then we are sinning if we do not intervene.

[Brade]

I would say that's it's worse than simply being not valiant in one's testimony which itself would relegate one to the Terrestial glory. I would say that it's an outright rejection of the testimony of Jesus and notwithstanding that one is a member of the Church (a requirement for both the Celestial and Terrestial glories) in this case I believe one would rise in the Telestial glory, possibly after a stint in hell.

I'm curious. Who do you believe God approves of more? A man who sincerely believes they have a testimony, but who occasionally verbally abuses his wife and children, gets grumpy if he doesn't have sex as much as he wants, and employs ethically questionable business practices in order to make money; or, a man who sincerely disbelieves the foundational claims of the Church, remains active, and is an otherwise upstanding citizen, husband, and father.

[consiglieri]

I'm curious. Who do you believe God approves of more? A man who sincerely believes they have a testimony, but who occasionally verbally abuses his wife and children, gets grumpy if he doesn't have sex as much as he wants, and employs ethically questionable business practices in order to make money; or, a man who sincerely disbelieves the foundational claims of the Church, remains active, and is an otherwise upstanding citizen, husband, and father.

Well, if Jesus has anything to say about it in the New Testament . . .

[ELF1024]

I'm curious. Who do you believe God approves of more? A man who sincerely believes they have a testimony, but who occasionally verbally abuses his wife and children, gets grumpy if he doesn't have sex as much as he wants, and employs ethically questionable business practices in order to make money; or, a man who sincerely disbelieves the foundational claims of the Church, remains active, and is an otherwise upstanding citizen, husband, and father.

I think they are equally condemned by their actions.

3 Nephi 13 (matthew 6:16)

16 Moreover, when ye ^afast be not as the ^bhypocrites, of a sad countenance, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.

[consiglieri]

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.

You go too far, LDS Guy.

Disagreeing with one aspect of the Old Testament (i.e., that God ordered genocide) does not "destroy" the Old Testament. It might actually improve it.

It may challenge a preconceived notion you have about this one aspect, but that is hardly destruction.

God is the one who destroys.

DH just wants a little space to breathe the sweet air of religious freedom.

It feels so good not to be trammeled.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I think they are equally condemned by their actions.

But the one thing we know for sure is God approves most of the wicked man who recognizes his sins.

(I'll let you find the reference for that one.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Brade]

I think they are equally condemned by their actions.

3 Nephi 13 (matthew 6:16)

16 Moreover, when ye ^afast be not as the ^bhypocrites, of a sad countenance, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.

There's just something very intuitively unsatisfying about your view that God treats a bad-behaving-believer the same as a good-behaving-disbeliever.

[ELF1024]

But the one thing we know for sure is God approves most of the wicked man who recognizes his sins.

(I'll let you find the reference for that one.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thats ok Consig, my CDS is acting up today, and I don't feel like playing.

[consiglieri]

There's just something very intuitively unsatisfying about your view that God treats a bad-behaving-believer the same as a good-behaving-disbeliever.

Indeed.

Has fundamental evangelical theology so permeated the ranks of Mormonism?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ELF1024]

There's just something very intuitively unsatisfying about your view that God treats a bad-behaving-believer the same as a good-behaving-disbeliever.

The one has rejected the blessings of the Gospel. He has a better chance of being able to accept the gospel in the future, should he have a change of heart.

The other is a hipocrite, claming to believe, but clearly does not choose to live how he claims to believe. Where much is given, much is expected.

Luckily, I'm not the judge, I just don't see much difference between rejecting the Gospel, and not living the Gospel.

Additional:

It may have been better for the one to have rejected the gospel than to have claimed to believe, but not followed thru on his belief.

[Jeff K.]

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.

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

You should study the srcriptures more closely otherwise you would have known that the motivation of the pharisees and sadducees was not based on a desire to carry out God's intent, but for their own venile reasons. They even circumvented their own laws in order to try him and undermined their system of justice, which they supposedly espoused.

I am amazed that someone who has taught gospel doctrine for years was unaware of such a thing.

[Brade]

The one has rejected the blessings of the Gospel. He has a better chance of being able to accept the gospel in the future, should he have a change of heart.

The other is a hipocrite, claming to believe, but clearly does not choose to live how he claims to believe. Where much is given, much is expected.

Luckily, I'm not the judge, I just don't see much difference between rejecting the Gospel, and not living the Gospel.

Fair enough. I'm simply claiming that to believe that such a deity exists is too great a strain on my sense of fairness, rightness, and wrongness. And, to the extent that that is the view of God that is advanced by Mormonism, or any other group or individual, I reject that view of God. I don't mean that with any disrespect. If you happen to sincerely believe that God judges in that way, then we obviously have different intuitions about what's at issue.

[ELF1024]

Fair enough. I'm simply claiming that to believe that such a deity exists is too great a strain on my sense of fairness, rightness, and wrongness. And, to the extent that that is the view of God that is advanced by Mormonism, or any other group or individual, I reject that view of God. I don't mean that with any disrespect. If you happen to sincerely believe that God judges in that way, then we obviously have different intuitions about what's at issue.

Well, God is perfect, and thus it is very unlikely that he will agree with little ol' me. God has a perfect knowledge of us and our motivations and reasons; that is the only reason why he can judge perfectly. My lousy human understanding is unlikely to merit scripture.

[consiglieri]

There's just something very intuitively unsatisfying about your view that God treats a bad-behaving-believer the same as a good-behaving-disbeliever.

I had been thinking about starting a thread regarding this very subject, Brade, and your comment was the needed impetus.

[Jeff K.]

Indeed.

Has fundamental evangelical theology so permeated the ranks of Mormonism?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It isn't an evangelical theology that I am aware of. I wouldn't cast such a view upon their church and I dare say I am more informed to their belief system (or lack thereof since its rigidity is not concise) than you Consig. My cousins husband in Virginia is a pastor and his wild gestations aside during sermons he is fairly thoughtful on his doctrinal stance.

[consiglieri]

I am amazed that someone who has taught gospel doctrine for years was unaware of such a thing.

While I am amazed at the lengths someone will go to justify the most heinous behavior on the part of Saul of Tarsus simply because he turned it around on the road to Damascus.

Do you think Paul would share your pollyanna view of his Christian persecutions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Fair enough. I'm simply claiming that to believe that such a deity exists is too great a strain on my sense of fairness, rightness, and wrongness. And, to the extent that that is the view of God that is advanced by Mormonism, or any other group or individual, I reject that view of God. I don't mean that with any disrespect. If you happen to sincerely believe that God judges in that way, then we obviously have different intuitions about what's at issue.

My father had that same sense that somehow the idea of fairness cannot exist and to presume a fair God is to presume what he felt did not exist. Within the context of this mortal life, and with nothing else to go on, I would have to say that you present a strong argument. But I think it too nihilistic (respectfully and in my view) to presume self awareness comes with a timer that goes away at a certain second or interval. If there is an extention, it becomes very plausible that the extension beyond this life, does provide for some leveling of the field based on how we have lived.

In my view of course.

[consiglieri]

It isn't an evangelical theology that I am aware of. I wouldn't cast such a view upon their church and I dare say I am more informed to their belief system (or lack thereof since its rigidity is not concise) than you Consig. My cousins husband in Virginia is a pastor and his wild gestations aside during sermons he is fairly thoughtful on his doctrinal stance.

Yes, Jeff.

You know more about Mormonism than I.

You know more about the scriptures than I.

You know more about Church History than I.

And now you know more about evangelical theology than I.

Why am I not surprised?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDS Guy 1986]

While I am amazed at the lengths someone will go to justify the most heinous behavior on the part of Saul of Tarsus simply because he turned it around on the road to Damascus.

Do you think Paul would share your pollyanna view of his Christian persecutions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Just want to make sure here that this is a joke, right?

Saul of Tarsus is Apostle Paul, there is no justification for what he did, but that doesn't matter since he repented and was forgiven of those sins.

[Jeff K.]

You should study the srcriptures more closely otherwise you would have known that the motivation of the pharisees and sadducees was not based on a desire to carry out God's intent, but for their own venile reasons. They even circumvented their own laws in order to try him and undermined their system of justice, which they supposedly espoused.

I am amazed that someone who has taught gospel doctrine for years was unaware of such a thing.

While I am amazed at the lengths someone will go to justify the most heinous behavior on the part of Saul of Tarsus simply because he turned it around on the road to Damascus.

Do you think Paul would share your pollyanna view of his Christian persecutions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You haven't addressed the issue, you have only attempted to cast aspersions to what I stated. Try to stick to the question.

It would appear Consig that you do not have a response of worthy of posting in response to your rather weak attempts to attribute the actions of Pharisees who broke their own laws to persecute Christ, and Saul who applied the law correctly (or do you claim the Mosaic law took no stance upon heretics and their actions, if so I suggest you reread the Old Testament).

It appears that what you call pollyana, ie faith in Christ reflects a certain lack of the fundamentals in understanding the Old and New Testaments. If you have something of note, or worth that advances your position that God decide to choose a homocidal maniac who was evil, over my position that God chose a man who was truly faithful to the law and carried it out, I would appreciate the question being raised instead of your normal arrogant baiting. Of course you were never much of a student of history anyway. So what we are seeing may be the best you've got.

[consiglieri]

Saul of Tarsus is Apostle Paul, there is no justification for what he did, but that doesn't matter since he repented and was forgiven of those sins.

LDS Guy, meet JeffK.

[consiglieri]

Of course you were never much of a student of history anyway.

And you know more about history than I.

[consiglieri]

I suggest you reread the Old Testament.

And the Old Testament.