The So-Called "Middle Way"

[The King's Servant]

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.

Yes, I'd say it's good to examine all aspects of the Christian faith - but not on a Mormon board. If you have questions about your faith you might want to thrash them out with the Bible, and with other Christians. Certainly not with those in a cult which denies the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, and salvation by faith alone, and one which adds additional books of "revelation," and follows a false prophet.

[The King's Servant]

As far as the post above suggesting all major Christian leaders, other than Athanasius, believed in subordinationism - I think the poster might want to bone up on what the subordinationist view is, to wit, that Jesus in the Divine Trinity, is subordinate to the Father in terms of office, but not in terms of substance. In other words, He is not inferior to the Father, but willingly subordinates Himself to the will of the Father. This has nothing to do with Arianism, which is what the Mormon cult teaches - that Jesus was not always God, and was in fact, created by the Father (or in Mormon terms, organized by the Father). Mormonism certainly does not teach subordinationism, which is only possible within a Trinitarian belief system - rather, it teaches a bizarre form of Arianism, that even Arius would most likely condemn.

[thews]

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.

I agree.

[Nathair/|\]

I really don't see the point of the "middle way" here. It seems like being invited to a glorious feast and only eating a few saltines you brought with you. There's a bigger, brighter, enchanted world. Aslan is holding the door for you. All you have to do is step through.

[Libs]

I really don't see the point of the "middle way" here. It seems like being invited to a glorious feast and only eating a few saltines you brought with you. There's a bigger, brighter, enchanted world. Aslan is holding the door for you. All you have to do is step through.

What if much of the feast is unfamiliar food or many foods that you dislike?

Still, if you're hungry, you might eat a little of the things with which you're familiar and you know your stomach can tolerate. Better to eat a little than nothing at all...yes?

Does it have to be all or nothing?

[DH]

I really don't see the point of the "middle way" here. It seems like being invited to a glorious feast and only eating a few saltines you brought with you. There's a bigger, brighter, enchanted world. Aslan is holding the door for you. All you have to do is step through.

I see it as quite the opposite. Since I started down the "middle way," I've felt like a lot more has become available to me. Back when my views were more "orthodox" (the quotation marks are meaningful, BTW), they were a lot more restricted. I had a more limited view of the world, and avoided much that I have since discovered to be good. For example, I am now more comfortable listening to and reading the views of people of other faiths, and have learned a lot. Contrary to what some LDS seem to think, they do not already have all the answers. Being able to listen to, and take seriously, what others have to say has greatly enriched my life. It's as though before I was eating only American food, but have since discovered Mexican, Thai, French, and Chinese foods at the feast.

LDS leaders have said that we accept truth from whatever source it may come, and now that I walk a middle way, I find myself much better able to take that concept to heart and apply it in my own life. I'm still LDS. I'm still active. I still accept the Gospel basics. But the world now seems like a much larger and more wonderful place than I used to think.

Peace,

DH

[Nathair/|\]

What if much of the feast is unfamiliar food or many foods that you dislike?

Still, if you're hungry, you might eat a little of the things with which you're familiar and you know your stomach can tolerate. Better to eat a little than nothing at all...yes?

Does it have to be all or nothing?

I see it as quite the opposite. Since I started down the "middle way," I've felt like a lot more has become available to me. Back when my views were more "orthodox" (the quotation marks are meaningful, BTW), they were a lot more restricted. I had a more limited view of the world, and avoided much that I have since discovered to be good. For example, I am now more comfortable listening to and reading the views of people of other faiths, and have learned a lot. Contrary to what some LDS seem to think, they do not already have all the answers. Being able to listen to, and take seriously, what others have to say has greatly enriched my life. It's as though before I was eating only American food, but have since discovered Mexican, Thai, French, and Chinese foods at the feast.

LDS leaders have said that we accept truth from whatever source it may come, and now that I walk a middle way, I find myself much better able to take that concept to heart and apply it in my own life. I'm still LDS. I'm still active. I still accept the Gospel basics. But the world now seems like a much larger and more wonderful place than I used to think.

Peace,

DH

But having a testimony doesn't mean rejecting anything that is good, rather it means accepting more great good into your life. The staylds "middle way" seems to be a matter of attending for appearances sake without getting anything out of it. If you've read my posts, you should know I have no business telling anybody to reject anything that is good.

[Jeff K.]

If we align truth to a feast of great foods, then let us look more closely at the parallels.

The gospel is indeed a feast, it is a feast of the greatest of meats and delicacies. That is undeniable. The question is sometimes whether the food is always good for you or simply tastes good. There are tasty foods available in other tables, that are less helpful. Sometimes in our lives enough friends convince us that these other foods, which may be sugary in nature, are good tasting, and we align ourselves or our tastes with these foods. They taste good, but are they necessarily what is best for us to consume? They are also transitional foods, foods that help us taste less salubrious dishes, even harmful dishes. Eventually we align our bodies (or minds) to being more attuned to the less salubrious foods, after having tasted the less beneficial.

Both bad and good food are acquired tastes. We decide for ourselves which we wish to consume. Carrots are good for you, in my youth I did not like carrots, so avoided them. Candy corn tastes good, but isn't good for you.

So how healthy do you want to be? Listen to our friends tell us how good the less healthy foods are, that contain "some" of the same ingredients that our healthy food has, or do we appreciate the very healthy food in front of us and continue to dine on that which gives us the greatest benefit as we acquire a taste for the healthiest of foods. I like carrots now, I have acquired a taste for them. For some reason candy corn has lost its flavor for me. I don't see a reason to go back.

[DH]

If you've read my posts, you should know I have no business telling anybody to reject anything that is good.

This is a pretty long thread, and I admittedly haven't read every post. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent what you were saying.

But having a testimony doesn't mean rejecting anything that is good, rather it means accepting more great good into your life. The staylds "middle way" seems to be a matter of attending for appearances sake without getting anything out of it.

Everybody's middle path is different, just as active, believing Mormons are all different. What is common to all "middle way" Mormons, myself included, is that we don't necessarily believe everything we hear at church. Some people stop believing entirely, and become atheists, other people still believe in God, and others still have pretty much LDS beliefs, but feel that sometimes people are "full of it," so to speak. I'm more in the latter category--I believe in the Gospel basics, but think people often conflate their own opinions with gospel truth and end up preaching false doctrines at church.

In any case, people who express questions or doubts don't necessarily want to leave the Church. Maybe they stay only for their family's sake. Maybe they have lots of friends and see a lot of good in the Church, or continue believing a lot. In any case, they intend to stay. But sometimes self-styled "true believers" have a more "all-or-nothing" approach, feel uncomfortable with the "middle pathers," and essentially pressure them to leave. In some faiths, like the Jewish, one can express questions, or even doubts, and still be considered a member in good standing--they're just glad you're there with them. I would like to see a similar attitude among Latter-day Saints. Even if you have some doubts you're still welcome to attend with us and enjoy our fellowship. "Big Tent Mormonism."

What I'm saying is that you're partly right--some "middle path" people stay LDS mostly because of their family, and don't personally get a lot out of attending meetings. However, other middle way people do get something from attending, and may share a lot of your beliefs.

[DH]

A bit more about the feast analogy. I agree that a great feast is laid out before us. But I honestly think that most active, believing LDS do not take advantage of it, and timidly taste only a narrow selection of foods. It is frequently repeated at church, "milk before meat," but I have to wonder why so many people seem stuck in the milk phase. There is a time for that, but there is also a time to "grow up" and start eating solid foods.

[Jeff K.]

I cannot argue that most active members of the church do not take part in the feast. In fact we often deny ourselves the opportunity to do so. The only people that I know of who have taken part in the feast fully were in the city of Enoch. Where milk led to meat which led to the most divine of feasts. The knowledge may be more spiritual than literal, the spice may be something few of us have tasted.

[DH]

I cannot argue that most active members of the church do not take part in the feast. In fact we often deny ourselves the opportunity to do so. The only people that I know of who have taken part in the feast fully were in the city of Enoch. Where milk led to meat which led to the most divine of feasts. The knowledge may be more spiritual than literal, the spice may be something few of us have tasted.

Indeed.

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion" (Ps. 137:1).

Sorry, just feeling a bit wistful.

[Jeff K.]

Its a good verse, I will remember it.

Thanks

[DH]

[Pahoran]

Yes, I'd say it's good to examine all aspects of the Christian faith - but not on a Mormon board. If you have questions about your faith you might want to thrash them out with the Bible, and with other Christians. Certainly not with those in a cult which denies the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, and salvation by faith alone, and one which adds additional books of "revelation," and follows a false prophet.

What a remarkable statement.

To characterise the Church of Jesus Christ as "a cult which denies the Deity of Christ" is an obviously counterfactual assertion that even the most extreme anti-Mormon cannot plausibly claim to believe in good faith.

Apart from that, since there is no point, according to you, in discussing "aspects of the Christian faith" with Latter-day Saint Christians, what are you doing here?

If you really think it is pointless, feel free to leave. There are other internet fora where bigotry like yours is not only welcomed and encouraged, but is the prevalent view. I think you would be comfortable there.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Questing Beast]

I think that the "middle way" is the way of the ecumenical non-dogmatic Mormon. It can be difficult however if one feels the need to express "heretical" beliefs in church. Fortunately I do not feel such a need. In church I am silent. Except when asked to speak.

I gave a talk in sacrament meeting this morning, perhaps the second since my "departure" c. seven years ago. The last time the subject assigned was tithing. It was rather easy to speak to that subject, since I remain a full tithe payer and am converted to the principles and disciplines that paying tithes and offerings teaches. The talk this morning was a bit more troublesome (there are some/many subjects that I would refuse to speak on at all): "The Creation, Fall and Atonement". I referenced Bruce R. McConkie's "The Three Pillars of Eternity". And I intended to quote most of his scripture references and some of his commentary, leaving out the more flamboyant, dramatic indulgences that Bruce R. was so typically fond of (he was and remains too flamboyant, dramatic and also dogmatic for me). What ended up happening is that I laid out c. nine pages of yellow highlighter and notes, and used almost none of it. I referred to Bruce R. maybe three times in the c. 25 minutes my "talk" occupied: we went five minutes overtime as it was. What I gave was only a beginning, and concentrated 90% on "the fall" and did not address the creation at all. I did say up front that I wasn't going to talk about the atonement, since I expect someone to do so next week. But I had every intention of speaking to the reason for the creation but it didn't happen. Toward the end, as I knew that I wasn't going to go there, I apologized to the congregation, and excused myself by explaining that "the fall", after all, is HERE and NOW with us: it is mortality, so speaking about here and now is more needful and useful than speaking of what came before. I made a closing remark about the atonement being "God's love" for his creation, and I quoted Bruce R. as he admitted that no language can possibly be framed to do the subject any proper justice. If he felt inadequate in trying to explain the atonement I can certainly do no less!

And then it was over and I sat down next to my wife and felt agreeable that it was over and done, but I had so much more to say and had only just gotten started. I'm out of practice fitting into the allotted time. The main issue while I was speaking, the wrestle I was having, was to not say anything like blatant false doctrine. And such are the challenges of "the middle way"....

[Nathair/|\]

This is a pretty long thread, and I admittedly haven't read every post. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent what you were saying.

Everybody's middle path is different, just as active, believing Mormons are all different. What is common to all "middle way" Mormons, myself included, is that we don't necessarily believe everything we hear at church. Some people stop believing entirely, and become atheists, other people still believe in God, and others still have pretty much LDS beliefs, but feel that sometimes people are "full of it," so to speak. I'm more in the latter category--I believe in the Gospel basics, but think people often conflate their own opinions with gospel truth and end up preaching false doctrines at church.

In any case, people who express questions or doubts don't necessarily want to leave the Church. Maybe they stay only for their family's sake. Maybe they have lots of friends and see a lot of good in the Church, or continue believing a lot. In any case, they intend to stay. But sometimes self-styled "true believers" have a more "all-or-nothing" approach, feel uncomfortable with the "middle pathers," and essentially pressure them to leave. In some faiths, like the Jewish, one can express questions, or even doubts, and still be considered a member in good standing--they're just glad you're there with them. I would like to see a similar attitude among Latter-day Saints. Even if you have some doubts you're still welcome to attend with us and enjoy our fellowship. "Big Tent Mormonism."

What I'm saying is that you're partly right--some "middle path" people stay LDS mostly because of their family, and don't personally get a lot out of attending meetings. However, other middle way people do get something from attending, and may share a lot of your beliefs.

Just to make it clear where I am coming from, I've shared on here before that I am a student of Druidry and Ceremonial Magic. I am also a bit of a Pagan in that I believe many of the beings often called gods exist and can be ethically interacted with. I have no problem seeing this boulder or that mountain or the tree over there or the spring around the bend as fully alive and fully divine. However, I still consider myself a TBM because I have a testimony of everything in the standard works and the temple and I fit everything else into an LDS paradigm rather than try to adapt the teachings of the church into my other beliefs. So, I don't feel that I am on a middle way in the sense of the OP. If I am anything less than fully engaged, it is only because of my laziness and lack of social skills.

Yours under the faithful but culturally heretical oaks,

Nathair /|\

[DH]

Nathair, for those of us not familiar with Druid ways, would you explain what the symbol /|\ means? Just curious.

[DH]

I had so much more to say and had only just gotten started. I'm out of practice fitting into the allotted time.

Questing Beast, are you, by any chance, on the High Council?

Whenever I speak or bear my testimony, I tend to focus on Christ and God's love. Sometimes I think Jesus gets short shrift in our meetings! Also, when giving talks or doing home teaching, I go out of my way to include quotations from non-LDS sources, just to "broaden horizons" and show some of the good stuff that's out there. Nobody's complained so far--in fact, people seem to appreciate hearing something different!

[Nathair/|\]

Nathair, for those of us not familiar with Druid ways, would you explain what the symbol /|\ means? Just curious.

Sure, it represents the Awen (in Cymry) or Imbas (in Gaeilge); the principle of poetic and prophetic inspiration. The wikipedia article is a fairly good introduction. Strictly speaking, the tradition should be called meso-druidry or revival druidry. Neo-druidry or reconstructionism attempts to recreate as closely as possible the ancient pagan religions whereas the revival is more a whatever works kind of thing, stealing good and useful ideas wherever we can find them.

Neo-Druidism

In some forms of Neo-druidry the term is symbolized by an emblem showing three straight lines that spread apart as they move downward, drawn within a circle or a series of circles of varying thickness, often with a dot, or point, atop each line. The symbol was invented by Iolo Morganwg and adopted by some Neo-Druids.

The Neo-Druid symbol of Awen

Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD) describe the three lines as rays emanating from three points of light, with those points representing the triple aspect of deity and, also, the points at which the sun rises on the equinoxes and solstices - known as the Triad of the Sunrises. The emblem as used by the OBOD is surrounded by three circles representing the three circles of creation.^[2]

Various Neo-druid groups and individuals have their own interpretation of the Awen. The three lines relate to earth, sea and air; body, mind and spirit; or love, wisdom and truth. It is also said that the Awen stands for not simply inspiration, but for inspiration of truth; without Awen one cannot proclaim truth. The three foundations of Awen are the understanding of truth, the love of truth, and the maintaining of truth. The rays also stand for the letters from which all others evolved: I, O, and U. It is said, "No one without Awen from God can pronounce these three letters correctly." ^[3]

[edit]

Oh, and Nathair is Gaelic (both Scots and Irish) for serpent. For me, it represents the snake Moses raised on the pole, the one on the Don't Tread on Me flag and the ones St. Patrick drove out of Eire.

Yours under the syncratic oaks,

Nathair /|\

The

[Jeff K.]

Chuckle, and here I thought it was a play on your name "nasal hair"

Kidding really.....

[ERayR]

What middle way? The gospel of Jesus Cchrist is that Christ has atoned for our sins. The church organization is for service and self improvement. What is the middle way? Does the middle way mean you don't accept the atonement or that you don't believe in service or self improvement?

Me thinks some do over analyze and clutter the playground with distractions.

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast, are you, by any chance, on the High Council?

...

I probably would fit right in if I were. My speaking is quite "dry", or so it seems to me.

[Questing Beast]

What middle way? The gospel of Jesus Cchrist is that Christ has atoned for our sins. The church organization is for service and self improvement. What is the middle way? Does the middle way mean you don't accept the atonement or that you don't believe in service or self improvement?

Me thinks some do over analyze and clutter the playground with distractions.

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....

[Pahoran]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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