The So-Called "Middle Way"

[SilverKnight]

I'm not certain.

It's a shame, really.

He was coming along so nicely.

The shame is Schryver chasing DavidB off.

I don't know the details, but I am very sad to see David go.

It's like when Gandalf left the fellowship.

[WalkerW]

I think the marshall has just entered the saloon . . .

"Why Johnny Ringo...you look like somebody just walked over your grave."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sluJswluQWc

[WalkerW]

BTW I noticed our eager young JeffK/Droopy/RobOsborn-in-training, LDSguy1986, got banned.

How did this happen?

Did he really?

Probably because he derailed almost every worthwhile thread with pseudo-doctrinal claims.

Nothing like being lectured on the meaning of the temple endowment by someone who has never been through it.

[consiglieri]

It's like when Gandalf left the fellowship.

But The Two Towers was just around the corner.

We meet again, at the turn of the tide.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

"Why Johnny Ringo...you look like somebody just walked over your grave."

I'm yoah huckleberry.

[WalkerW]

For a further analysis of the shifting philosophical paradigm in early Christianity, see Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 1994).

[Libs]

Does the truth cause discomfort? Or does pride stop us from knowing the truth, and does the discomfort lie therein?

I think it's a bit unfair, to those who genuinely question, to suggest it's only a matter of pride.

[WalkerW]

I'm yoah huckleberry.

Say when...

[SilverKnight]

Did he really?

Probably because he derailed almost every worthwhile thread with pseudo-doctrinal claims.

Nothing like being lectured on the meaning of the temple endowment by someone who has never been through it.

Well when you come out of the starting blocks claiming breaking priesthood covenants is worse than mass murder, your days are likely numbered around here.

What with all the closet apostates lurking like a 5th column around here.

If only there was an apologist high inquisitor to root them all out.

[Pahoran]

You know, Jeff, if you actually knew your history instead of believing all the false information you've been spoon-fed, you would be aware that the Roman Emperor favored the Arians, but those who supported Athanasius finally overcame that heresy. Constantine was certainly no ally of poor Athanasius, but God was. The Nicene Councils were called to combat various heresies which had raised their ugly heads in the beginning of the Church and the creedal forumla was developed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to combat those errors. Sorry, Jeff, you really need to study history, not pretend to know it.

You know, Servant, if you actually knew your history instead of believing all the false information you've been spoon-fed, you would be aware that the Arian party held the upper hand in the debates, since the New Testament is subordinationist throughout, until the Roman Emperor, who was not a Christian, came down in favour of those who supported Athanasius. Sorry, Servant, you really need to study history, not pretend to know it.

And those are not found within Christianity?

Of course they are; that's what Libs said. Since "Mormonism" is a subset of Christianity, it follows logically that whatever is found within "Mormonism" is ipso facto within Christianity.

The wicked who deny this proven fact are wilfully disobeying the commandment against bearing false witness.

Regards,

Pahoran

[WalkerW]

Better yet, check out Ramsay MacMullen, Voting About God in Early Church Councils (Yale University Press, 2006). I haven't quite completed it myself.

[mercyngrace]

"Why Johnny Ringo...you look like somebody just walked over your grave."

*Swoon* Yep, WalkerW, you got a rep point just for posting Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday.

[WalkerW]

You know, Servant, if you actually knew your history instead of believing all the false information you've been spoon-fed, you would be aware that the Arian party held the upper hand in the debates, since the New Testament is subordinationist throughout, until the Roman Emperor, who was not a Christian, came down in favour of those who supported Athanasius. Sorry, Servant, you really need to study history, not pretend to know it.

Indeed:

With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy. (RCP Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, T&T Clark, 1988: xix.)

For the reasons behind Athanasius' position, see Keith Edward Norman, "Deification: The Context of Athanasian Soteriology," PhD dissertation, Duke University (1980).

Also, see Norman, "Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in Early Christianity," BYU Studies 17:3 (1977).

[WalkerW]

*Swoon* Yep, WalkerW, you got a rep point just for posting Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday.

Ha!

Too bad he never ended up playing Joseph Smith like he was supposed to in Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith.

[The King's Servant]

I think it's a bit unfair, to those who genuinely question, to suggest it's only a matter of pride.

What are you questioning? Christianity? Mormonism? You put up an article that gave suggestions as to why Mormons questioning the LDS Church should REMAIN IN THE CHURCH? Now, if you are a Mormon, I could see why you'd do that. However, if you are a Christian, why would you want to put up an article that encourages people to remain in false doctrine? That, as far as I can tell, would be a grave sin.

A Christian leads folks to Jesus Christ (of the Bible). That is our commission. A Chrisitian does not encourage people to remain in a cultic system because you can find some good things there. You can find some good things in most cultures, including cannibalistic tribes.

Perhaps you are simply questioning Christian doctrine, and believe it to be false. In which case, come out and say so.

[Mars]

What are you questioning? Christianity? Mormonism? You put up an article that gave suggestions as to why Mormons questioning the LDS Church should REMAIN IN THE CHURCH? Now, if you are a Mormon, I could see why you'd do that. However, if you are a Christian, why would you want to put up an article that encourages people to remain in false doctrine? That, as far as I can tell, would be a grave sin.

A Christian leads folks to Jesus Christ (of the Bible). That is our commission. A Chrisitian does not encourage people to remain in a cultic system because you can find some good things there. You can find some good things in most cultures, including cannibalistic cultures.

Perhaps you are simply questioning Christian doctrine, and believe it to be false. In which case, come out and say so.

Libs' response was a direct response to Jeff K's assertion that the only reason someone like consiglieri might not like him (Jeff K) is because of pride.

Not a response to you.

[Jeff K.]

I think it's a bit unfair, to those who genuinely question, to suggest it's only a matter of pride.

Consig shows a great deal of pride in his knowledge, even when its wrong.

[WalkerW]

A Christian leads folks to Jesus Christ (of the Bible).

Whatever that means...

A Chrisitian does not encourage people to remain in a cultic system because you can find some good things there. You can find some good things in most cultures, including cannibalistic tribes. Perhaps you are simply questioning Christian doctrine, and believe it to be false. In which case, come out and say so.

A good number of those who leave the Church become skeptics or atheists.

[SilverKnight]

A Christian leads folks to Jesus Christ (of the Bible). That is our commission. A Chrisitian does not encourage people to remain in a cultic system because you can find some good things there. You can find some good things in most cultures, including cannibalistic tribes.

"Chrisitians" - rescuing the innocent from cannibalistic cults like mormonism.

[Jeff K.]

Still waiting for the Pontifex Maximus question to be answered........

[WalkerW]

"Chrisitians" - rescuing the innocent from cannibalistic cults like mormonism.

We all know Christians are cannibals:

And now, as wickeder things advance more fruitfully, and abandoned manners creep on day by day, those abominable shrines of an impious assembly are maturing themselves throughout the whole world. Assuredly this confederacy ought to be rooted out and execrated. They know one another by secret marks and insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one another; everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes.

Nor, concerning these things, would intelligent report speak of things so great and various, and requiring to be prefaced by an apology, unless truth were at the bottom of it. I hear that they adore the head of an ***, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion, a worthy and appropriate religion for such manners. Some say that they worship the genitals of their pontiff and priest, and adore the nature, as it were, of their common parent. I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve.

Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily - O horror! they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence.

From Minucius Felix, Octavius, R. E. Wallis

[Libs]

Consig shows a great deal of pride in his knowledge, even when its wrong.

Ah, sorry, I took that as a more general accusation.

No comment on Consig, except to say I haven't seen that. I rather enjoy his skepticism on some subjects. (Guess I am a bit of a born skeptic, myself)

[Libs]

What are you questioning? Christianity? Mormonism? You put up an article that gave suggestions as to why Mormons questioning the LDS Church should REMAIN IN THE CHURCH? Now, if you are a Mormon, I could see why you'd do that. However, if you are a Christian, why would you want to put up an article that encourages people to remain in false doctrine? That, as far as I can tell, would be a grave sin.

A Christian leads folks to Jesus Christ (of the Bible). That is our commission. A Chrisitian does not encourage people to remain in a cultic system because you can find some good things there. You can find some good things in most cultures, including cannibalistic tribes.

Perhaps you are simply questioning Christian doctrine, and believe it to be false. In which case, come out and say so.

Perhaps, you are reading much too much into my words.

I was genuinely interested in knowing what active LDS thought about this "middle way", that had been proposed, on the site I linked. It was something I HAD BEEN interested in, a couple of years ago, but as I said (if you had read the whole thread) it did not work for me. It was kind of like having one foot in the church and the other on the outside. Not a very comfortable place to be, IMO.

I do question aspects of Christianity, especially conservative Protestantism, and Reformed theology, in particular. Is that a problem for you? You certainly believe LDS should question their faith. I think we should all question what it is we are putting our faith in, or embracing. I think God wants us to do that, which is why he gave us a brain.

[mtomm]

I think the middle way has a legitimate place. The tent should be cast wide.

[Brade]

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

I can't remember if I already posted in this thread or not, and I'm too lazy to bother searching to see if I have, so I might be repeating myself. First, I'm not a currently active Latter-day Saint, so my opinion isn't exactly of the sort being requested here; but I'll offer in anyway.

This might sound a bit odd to people on both sides of the divide, but I think that the leaders of the Church are sufficiently clear about what is required to fully participate in Mormonism (i.e. hold certain calling, go to the temple, baptize, bless, etc.), and I think that to adopt a middle-way strategy where one internally reinterprets the relevant teachings, but externally goes on as if one accepts the leaders' interpretations is unfair to the leaders of the Church of whom I think it's clear would like things to go a certain way. I think that to the extent one finds oneself at odds with the relevant leaders' interpretation of Church matters one ought to be honest about such disagreements and accept the leaders' consequences of such disagreement in terms of what one can or can't do in the Church.

I understand the idea of reaching for a level of spirituality where one's spiritual life comes in less conflict with, say, secular matters by way of reinterpreting troublesome teachings in some metaphorical way. I think if one finds a sense of peace through that practice, then fantastic! But, it seems to me clear that the relevant leaders of the Church do not view putative troublesome teachings as metaphor, and I think there's good evidence to suggest that they see such a practice as a pollution of the relevant teachings. One may disagree with them, but they are the ones in charge of the Church, like it or not. And I think their position with respect to the Church ought to be respected.