Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[canard78]

Hi Scott, I did indeed have a good Christmas break and am looking forward to seeing the new year in with friends. Thanks for your extensive response. I agree with a lot of it. I certainly agree that a teacher/home teacher/sacrament speaker and perhaps even a blogger can teach true, pure doctrine. I agree that Prof. Midgley's intention was probably to do so. Unfortunately all of the above attempts to teach doctrine and call to repentance can sometimes be done in ways that offend rather than entice.

Hi, canard78.

It's now the day after Christmas. I hope you had a very pleasant, rejuvenating and edifying holiday.

Some water has passed under the bridge since you made the above post. I presume you still desire a response from me.

I note that calmoriah and Lou Midgley in the meantime have both given some comment on this topic; I endorse their remarks.

This is one of those instances that happen quite frequently here, I'm afraid, where the conversation has quickly drifted afield from what initially stimulated it. It is therefore helpful, I would suggest, to go back and review the sequence by which we got from there to here.

It began with this post from Professor Midgley:

[emphasis added]

Reacting to the portion I have emphasized here, wayfarer then responded:

The question then is this: Was Dr. Midgley, through what he acknowledged was a "call to repentance," engaging in "hateful deriding of those who question or struggle with faith"? In all sincerity, I don't see it that way. He may have been a bit too direct in his language for some tastes, but his words struck me as an invitation to come unto -- or to return to -- Christ, very similar to the urgent invitation I quoted from Elder Holland in my post #167:

I'm going to reply to Prof. Midgley's latest post directly.

Just prior to that post quoting Elder Holland, I responded to wayfarer's post by saying:

I undoubtedly expressed myself imperfectly here, but I did not have in mind vindictive or self-righteous moralizing, but rather the sort of caring and constructive teaching and exhortation we all engage in when we give talks and lessons in church or when we make comments in class "that all may be edified of all" (see Doctrine and Covenants 88:122). Bill Hamblin alluded to that sort of thing when he posted that he regularly calls members of his high priests group and himself to repentance.

As I implied, I believe such teaching and admonition can occur either in a group or a one-on-one setting.

In your post, you said:

You then quoted President Uchtdorf's April 2012 general conference address relative to judging others.

The scriptures differentiate between righteous and unrighteous judgment.

Leviticus 19:15 reads: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

In John 7:24, Jesus commanded: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment"

The oft-quoted passage from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:1, "Judge not that ye be not judged," was amended in Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible to read, "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."

Calmoriah cited a passage that had occurred to me as well, Matthew 5:22-24, which speaks of being "reconciled to they brother" as a prerequisite for worship. Like calmoriah, I can't help but see the need for some calling to repentance on the part of one or both parties if such reconciliation is to occur.

The very existence of a differentiation between righteous and unrighteous judgment, of course, carries the corollary that there are instances when judgment may appropriately be applied, even required.

As I read President Uchtdorf's talk, I find that in every single instance, the judging he condemns is the unrighteous kind. For example, he proposes the following questions as a self-test:

For those who insist that there are absolutely no circumstances when someone who is not a priesthood leader in authority may call another to account or to exhort a change in behavior, I would ask that they consider the logical extension of their thinking. What if you have a friend or acquaintance who habitually abuses and harms children or who engages in serial theft or continual oppression and bullying of others? Would you always remain silent in such circumstances under the rationale that you must avoid judging others?

Have you ever reported a crime? Would you ever be disposed to do so, conceivably? It is, after all, a responsibility of citizenship, and in effect, it is not just exercising judgment over someone's unacceptable behavior but calling for forcible intervention by the state to halt or punish such behavior.

And by becoming thus involved in the detection of crime and, presumably, facilitating the eventual apprehension and prosecution of a criminal, one is participating in the criminal justice system which, after all, is society's collective means of passing judgment and, yes, endeavoring to induce repentance.

So let's go back to the point we started from, which is Dr. Midgley's call for a "returning to the Lord" (similar to the call that Elder Holland made) I can't agree that there is unrighteousness in this admonition, however sharply it may have been expressed.

You've listed some examples of people committing crimes. In these cases I'd suggest reporting the individual to the police and the bishop would be the only appropriate course of action. Where they were not crimes, if the individual was a close friend or family member, I might raise my concerns about their welfare. If not, then I would probably say nothing directly. If it was behaviour that needed church discipline I might consider speaking to a priesthood leader about it.

My other question was regarding your post that I initially replied to:

We are on the same page if you agree that a fellow Church member, whether he holds a specific calling or not, can appropriately advise a Church member that his behavior his wrong and he needs to mend his ways. And that this is different from the role of common judge in Israel, which entails such things as holding disciplinary councils, determining worthiness for certain privlieges in the Church, etc.

If the above statement only applied to gross misconduct or crimes then in both cases I would suggest getting a priesthood leader involved. If not, I would suggest removing the beam from your own eye before worrying about the mote in another's.

Out of interest, for clarity, could you list the sins/behaviours you would be willing to 'advise a church member they are wrong to do and advise them to mend their ways?' Could you describe how you would give this advice? And could you list who you would be willing to give this to (e.g. a close member friend, a member who you knew only as a hand-shake in the hall kind of member acquaintance etc?).

As mentioned, giving talks and lessons that teach a principle that might cause someone to bring themselves to repentance is very different to tapping someone on the shoulder in the corridor and telling them their daughter's skirt is too short. I wondered where your 'lines' are?

Thanks

[Louis Midgley]

Well, I just checked in to see if this thread is dead. And I am pleased to see that Volgadon, who I do not know at all, recommend that Latter-day Saints should act in such a way that they will always be inviting others even or especially with “a measure of compassion” to serve and defend the King. I did my best in “Defending” to warn those who have doubts and misgivings about seeking sustenance from those who do not strive to heal that broken hearted with love unfeigned, or who find subtle and attractive ways to deepen the distress of those who are already filled with doubts, or who struggle with temptations, who are drawn to the broad way of the darkness of this fallen world and so forth. As well as I could, in a very brief essay, I sought to offer consolation to the broken hearted.

But my essay was, as I have already explained, directed primarily to those who seem to be or, like me, imagine ourselves to be scholars. And I am painfully aware that the consuming vice of academics is arrogance–that is, what the scriptures call pride. Anyone who has read my essay will see that I am urging so-called scholars to sustain and defend the Kingdom, as they have already agreed to do in solemn covenants we all make with God that launch us on our faith journey in which we need to faithfully endure our probation here below.

One final note. I was pleased that DBMormon, who started this thread, has posted somewhere a list of things he hopes are true. The classical list of so-called cardinal virtues (moderation, courage, justice, wisdom) clearly do not include hope. The reason is that those virtues are aimed at training an excellent human being fit for merely here and now. As such, they clearly have their place. But in the Christian tradition, beginning with our scriptures, there are three additional crucial virtues that fit a human being for eternal life (aka as the fullness of life) in the presence of God. One of these virtues is, of course, hope. But this is not to be understood as “it would be nice if I suddenly found a million dollars” or won “the Lotto.” Instead, hope properly understood is grafted to both faith (understood as trust in God) and steadfast love (which is not eros or even philia. It is, instead, the pure love of Christ which is always necessarily other-regarding. I doubt that anyone who glances at RfM, or MAD, or other less aggressively rhetorically violent internet sources of misinformation and soul-destroying propaganda will claim that they came to Christ by bathing in that slime. Though there have been those who were suddenly so shocked by what they encountered day by day in those places that they turned away from the darkness of this world and to or back to Jesus Christ.

If anyone would care to explain how I could have set out my arguments in “Defending” more clearly and forcefully, I will, of course, give full consideration to their suggestions.

[Bill Hamblin]

Lou, you've got to understand some things.

Some people don't realize that a call to repentance is an act of love. (Or did Jesus not love the world he called to repentance?)

Some people don't realize that a warning about apostasy is an act of love. (Or did the apostles not warn against apostasy?)

Some people don't realize that not only is Infinite tolerance of apostasy not the only virtue, it is not really a virtue at all.

[Louis Midgley]

Bill:

The problem is that, when you spell out the content of our scriptures, you will be accused by New Order or Muddled Way types of driving them out of the social club that has no creed, meaning one can do or believe anything or nothing and still remain what they call a "Mormon." Or they will claim that they have been offended and threaten to go missing..

[DBMormon]

Bill:

The problem is that, when you spell out the content of our scriptures, you will be accused by New Order or Muddled Way types of driving them out of the social club that has no creed, meaning one can do or believe anything or nothing and still remain what they call a "Mormon." Or they will claim that they have been offended and threaten to go missing..

Mr. Midgely, they are mormon until their Bishop or ecclesastical Leader excommunicates them, otherwise they are as mormon as you and I. Your interpretation of exactly where the line is is just that, your definition.

If I was Middle Way and you called me "Muddled" Way, I would not see you acting out of Love. If I was a NOM and you mentioned that they are only in the church as a social club, I would not see you acting out of love (some are in for social aspects, many of which is their fear their wives will divorce them, and their family will shun them.... and it happens a lot) and in most cases it is uncalled for"

You can call to repentance all you want and calling itself is not bad but when love is not conveyed, all is lost for both the unrepentant and also the other.

Edited January 1, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bill Hamblin]

Mr. Midgely, they are mormon until their Bishop or ecclesastical Leader excommunicates them, otherwise they are as mormon as you and I. Your interpretation of exactly where the line is is just that, your definition.

If I was Middle Way and you called me "Muddled" Way, I would not see you acting out of Love. If I was a NOM and you mentioned that they are only in the church as a social club, I would not see you acting out of love (some are in for social aspects, many of which is their fear their wives will divorce them, and their family will shun them.... and it happens a lot) and in most cases it is uncalled for"

You can call to repentance all you want and calling itself is not bad but when love is not conveyed, all is lost for both the unrepentant and also the other.

Lou,

If I were so inclined I would say that DBMormon was being unchristlike, not acting out of love, trying to silence your opinions, drive you from the community, and call you to repentance without authority.

Thank God I'm not so inclined.

[ERayR]

Lou,

If I were so inclined I would say that DBMormon was being unchristlike, not acting out of love, trying to silence your opinions, drive you from the community, and call you to repentance without authority.

Thank God I'm not so inclined.

Bill, As one who has challenged DBMormon on several occasions I must at least agree with him in part. A call to repentance does not include name calling (muddled way). It may be true but a little diplomacy is in order.

[Louis Midgley]

DB opines as follows: "Mr. Midgely [sic], they [that is, those who are clearly muddled about the Way] are mormon [sic] until their Bishop or ecclesastical Leader excommunicates them, otherwise they are as mormon [sic] as you and I. Your interpretation of exactly where the line is is just that, your definition." This is rubbish. The problem is not where to draw some line but what our scriptures refer to as the Way to life and light in the Kingdom of God. I have demonstrated how the early followers of the Way pictured those who turned away. To talk about a fancy new so-called "middle way" is at least intellectual confusion, if we wish to follow our scriptures.

ERayR: Our scriptures are loaded with what you seem to think is name calling. And please notice the violent language on various boards and blogs in which people blast away at individuals whose arguments they cannot touch. I did not insult any particular person, since I have exactly no idea who is behind the loose talk about a so-called middle way. And I have seen no explanation of what exactly the polar opposites between which it is somehow situated. What we have is what appears to be still another slogan to identify an ideology. Slogan thinking is useful in political battles in which power and gain are the object. If I am wrong, and we have on a website something more than a slogan detached entirely from our scriptures and fashioned for political purposes, then someone needs to provide a full, coherent explanation of a concept. .

[volgadon]

And I am pleased to see that Volgadon, who I do not know at all, recommend that Latter-day Saints should act in such a way that they will always be inviting others even or especially with “a measure of compassion” to serve and defend the King. I did my best in “Defending” to warn those who have doubts and misgivings about seeking sustenance from those who do not strive to heal that broken hearted with love unfeigned, or who find subtle and attractive ways to deepen the distress of those who are already filled with doubts, or who struggle with temptations, who are drawn to the broad way of the darkness of this fallen world and so forth. As well as I could, in a very brief essay, I sought to offer consolation to the broken hearted.

But my essay was, as I have already explained, directed primarily to those who seem to be or, like me, imagine ourselves to be scholars. And I am painfully aware that the consuming vice of academics is arrogance–that is, what the scriptures call pride. Anyone who has read my essay will see that I am urging so-called scholars to sustain and defend the Kingdom, as they have already agreed to do in solemn covenants we all make with God that launch us on our faith journey in which we need to faithfully endure our probation here below.

Personally, I find the internet a very difficut medium for use in bearing testimony or admonishing. It can be incredibly impersonal, lacking in just the elements that make face-to-face interractions so much more spiritual. I think, therefore, that extra caution must be excersized.

[Louis Midgley]

Volgadon has set out at least part of the problems that afflict all of us when we opine on boards and blogs. We prance upon our little stage scoring points when we most often simply do not know what we are talking about. I am about through with this thread and this board simply because there are far too many anxious to pick a fight with those they do not know at all. Since I faced students and hence know about being misunderstood despite my best efforts, I can overlook a lot of what has been posted on this and one other thread, but I must admit that some of it has been a bit irritating. I have a growing urge to ignore the silly opining that takes place. It is for me especially painful to know that Latter-day Saints, and also those who insist on self-identifying as some variety of "Mormon," to see us stinking up the place with the possibility that Gentiles are observing our antics.

[Calm]

I have a growing urge to ignore the silly opining that takes place. It is for me especially painful to know that Latter-day Saints, and also those who insist on self-identifying as some variety of "Mormon," to see us stinking up the place with the possibility that Gentiles are observing our antics.

a good part of the Bible provides the same sort of observations for Gentiles.

[canard78]

Well, I just checked in to see if this thread is dead. And I am pleased to see that Volgadon, who I do not know at all, recommend that Latter-day Saints should act in such a way that they will always be inviting others even or especially with “a measure of compassion” to serve and defend the King. I did my best in “Defending” to warn those who have doubts and misgivings about seeking sustenance from those who do not strive to heal that broken hearted with love unfeigned, or who find subtle and attractive ways to deepen the distress of those who are already filled with doubts, or who struggle with temptations, who are drawn to the broad way of the darkness of this fallen world and so forth. As well as I could, in a very brief essay, I sought to offer consolation to the broken hearted.

But my essay was, as I have already explained, directed primarily to those who seem to be or, like me, imagine ourselves to be scholars. And I am painfully aware that the consuming vice of academics is arrogance–that is, what the scriptures call pride. Anyone who has read my essay will see that I am urging so-called scholars to sustain and defend the Kingdom, as they have already agreed to do in solemn covenants we all make with God that launch us on our faith journey in which we need to faithfully endure our probation here below.

...

If anyone would care to explain how I could have set out my arguments in “Defending” more clearly and forcefully, I will, of course, give full consideration to their suggestions.

Just before Christmas I asked some questions that you may have missed:

"When you give the final message of "We all should answer the clear call of the trumpet of the Lord, and not be toying with the silly question “why stay”?" it suggests to me that you consider my struggles, my challenges, my fears and ultimately my wrestle with reasons for and against staying in full fellowship to be 'silly.'

My reality is that I do indeed need to ask myself the question "why stay." While I am not some raging critic on the internet, trying to pull people away from the church and I am no Dehlin disciple, I also cannot speak with the level of certainty you adopt and ask for and have to consider the good that remains which outweighs the negatives I still am unable to resolve. That is "why I stay." I agree that my "trumpet gives a very uncertain sound." Why? Because I am riddled with uncertainty. Does that make me "against the one whom made a solemn covenant to defend and sustain."?

If you have the time, I'd appreciate knowing whether the position of uncertainty I find myself in, which leads me to finding a balance of reasons to stay is one you would describe as "silly."

I also asked on the 24th Dec:

"Who is MI's intended audience? Is it those who are in a personal struggle to resolve their doctrinal and historical concerns? Are you reaching out directly to the very people who need apologists to help them in their time of spiritual need? Or are you supporting the amateur LDS apologists and joining your associate Stephen Smoot in giving them a rallying call to continue the "Wild West" style fight for good against the evil "intellectual gutter holes" on the internet. If it's the second, there's a risk that the weapons you use in the fight will cull the people who are still in a position not yet ready to reach a final verdict one way or another. If they feel unwelcome interacting with the "MI way," then they may well be pushed further out towards a new way when there's no need to do so.

I have appreciated many of the other articles written to date on MI and NAMI before it (including some of yours). Given the very positive work available on the site, it would be a shame if those who can benefit best from it are driven away because they feel the writers dismiss and diminish the reality and challenge of their uncertainty and their attempts to find a resolution and reasons to stay while they seek it."

You mentioned above your article was directed at other scholars. Does that mean it's not written for the amateur apologist, the general membership, or the uncertain/doubting member who by necessity finds an adapted, middle or even 'silly' way of staying active in the gospel?

One more question. Supposing I'm never able to resolve my uncertainties and do not feel I can change my trumpet's timbre... what would you have me do? Find reasons to stay or leave entirely?

Edited January 1, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Bill:

The problem is that, when you spell out the content of our scriptures, you will be accused by New Order or Muddled Way types of driving them out of the social club that has no creed, meaning one can do or believe anything or nothing and still remain what they call a "Mormon." Or they will claim that they have been offended and threaten to go missing..

I agree that those who have been openly insulting towards you have done themselves a disservice. For what it's worth, the 7 or 8 you named in a previous post are, I would imagine, a vociferous but minority voice of people who feel uncertainty and seek a good answer to 'why stay.'

I do indeed feel muddled, I am seeking answers and resolutions. I am riddled with uncertainty. One day's good and another's bad.

I think you misunderstand many people who identify with places like staylds.com or people who answer the question "why stay." It's not some casual club that I jumped into on a whim. I don't want to have a creedless association with the church. I love the gospel, I love the scriptures. It hurts that I am faced with this uncertainty. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

I seem to continually hear from you that my situation and considerations are 'silly.' Have I misunderstood you?

I have a growing urge to ignore the silly opining that takes place.

We all should answer the clear call of the trumpet of the Lord, and not be toying with the silly question “why stay”?

Would you care to let us know which definition of silly you're using, as I wouldn't describe my situation nor considerations as any of these:

sil·ly adjective \ˈsi-lē\

1 archaic : helpless, weak

2 a : rustic, plain

b obsolete : lowly in station : humble

3 a : weak in intellect : foolish

b : exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment

c : trifling, frivolous

4 : being stunned or dazed <scared silly>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly

[canard78]

Lou, you've got to understand some things.

Some people don't realize that a call to repentance is an act of love. (Or did Jesus not love the world he called to repentance?)

Some people don't realize that a warning about apostasy is an act of love. (Or did the apostles not warn against apostasy?)

Some people don't realize that not only is Infinite tolerance of apostasy not the only virtue, it is not really a virtue at all.

As a lifelong dedicated member of the church it is painful for me to be in the middle of experiencing doubt and uncertainty.

Given this uncertainty, am I "silly" for asking myself and then answering the question "why stay?"

As I asked Prof. Midgley, if I'm unable to reconcile and resolve my doubts and uncertainties, would you rather I found good reasons to stay, or would you have me leave entirely? Do you only want active members whose trumpet is clear or who can answer the "clear call" with certainty? If my "trumpet gives a very uncertain sound" would you prefer me "out of," not "in" the church permanently?

[DBMormon]

DB opines as follows: "Mr. Midgely [sic], they [that is, those who are clearly muddled about the Way] are mormon [sic] until their Bishop or ecclesastical Leader excommunicates them, otherwise they are as mormon [sic] as you and I. Your interpretation of exactly where the line is is just that, your definition." This is rubbish. The problem is not where to draw some line but what our scriptures refer to as the Way to life and light in the Kingdom of God. I have demonstrated how the early followers of the Way pictured those who turned away. To talk about a fancy new so-called "middle way" is at least intellectual confusion, if we wish to follow our scriptures.

ERayR: Our scriptures are loaded with what you seem to think is name calling. And please notice the violent language on various boards and blogs in which people blast away at individuals whose arguments they cannot touch. I did not insult any particular person, since I have exactly no idea who is behind the loose talk about a so-called middle way. And I have seen no explanation of what exactly the polar opposites between which it is somehow situated. What we have is what appears to be still another slogan to identify an ideology. Slogan thinking is useful in political battles in which power and gain are the object. If I am wrong, and we have on a website something more than a slogan detached entirely from our scriptures and fashioned for political purposes, then someone needs to provide a full, coherent explanation of a concept. .

The scriptures also speak of women not speaking in the church.... is that doctrine or was Paul speaking out of line? I could name dozens and dozens of scriptures and quotes from Church leaders speaking in the capacity of their office that we do not consider Doctrine today. That said we all pick and choose what we see as official. In reality though, one is LDS as long as their leaders do not excommunicate them. Any pick and choosing of the scriptures goes both ways. Since you do not speak for the church, you are incapable of deciding which scriptures are doctrine and which are not. Elder Anderson said Doctrine is that which all 15 men today teach openly, and since Elder Holland and Elder Jensen and Elder Uchtdorf have all asked us to be more patient and none of the current 15 have spoken in words you are using I would venture to ask who is outside of the realm of Doctrine?

The doctrine is 2nd Nephi chapter 31 and most of the rest are appendages to it

Elder Holland - There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church -- firmly, in their mind, in this church -- and the church isn't going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn't going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: "Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve." At that point, we're going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. ... "Patient" maybe is a better word than "tolerant." We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can't go. ...

Elder Uchtdorf - Unfortunately, from time to time we also hear of Church members who become discouraged and subsequently quit coming to and participating in our Church meetings because they think they don’t fit in.

I hope that we welcome and love all of God’s children, including those who might dress, look, speak, or just do things differently. It is not good to make others feel as though they are deficient. Let us lift those around us. Let us extend a welcoming hand. Let us bestow upon our brothers and sisters in the Church a special measure of humanity, compassion, and charity so that they feel, at long last, they have finally found home.

Elder Jensen - So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what's brought them to the point they are at. What they have read, what they are thinking is, and try to understand them. Sometimes that alone is enough to help someone through a hard time. But beyond that, I think we really need to figure out a way to live a little bit with people who may never get completely settled."

This is what they are teaching, and last I checked new prophets and apostles overrule deceased one when there is a difference in tone or teaching.

Also your reasoning for dismissing my comments reminds me of a dialogue from a TV conversation

[sheen says] “I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.”

[woman responds] “I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination Mr. President. The Bible does.”

[sheen] Yes, it does. Leviticus.”

[woman] “18:22″

[sheen] “Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it ok to call the police?”

you can defend this as being old testament and therefore the old law, but once you do so I will show new testament scriptures and you will have shown the weakness in your argument.

Since one is able to find scriptures to defend their position from any angle one is left with the Holy Ghost being where real truth comes from, not scriptures ( scriptures are a lot of God inspired truth mixed with the frailities of men) therefore not a perfect standard of surety. Since we both can claim our opinion is sanctioned by the Holy Ghost, we are simply left to agree to disagree.

These comparisons are over the top in a Godwin Law way, you are out of the thread.

[Senator]

Personally, I find the internet a very difficut medium for use in bearing testimony or admonishing. It can be incredibly impersonal, lacking in just the elements that make face-to-face interractions so much more spiritual. I think, therefore, that extra caution must be excersized.

Thank you for more gracefully expressing what I, at least in part, was trying to say in an earlier post. Rather than addressing the point I was trying to make, it was derailed by accusations of irony and hypocrisy.

Preaching(proselityzing), bearing testimony and calling people to repentence are akin and all very emotionally and spiritually charged actions. I was calling into question the appropriateness of such actions in mediums such as this, and perhaps in an academic leaning journal.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Senator

[Svawd]

Didn't JS lead the way in being a New Order Christian?

[William Schryver]

Didn't JS lead the way in being a New Order Christian?

No, he did not. Quite to the contrary, he announced that none of the Christian churches then in operation were "the way," but that "the way" had long since been lost and that Christendom was operating in a state of total apostasy from "the way."

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

As for those who would question the internet as an appropriate medium for evangelizing, I submit that it is, in fact, the means by which the gospel of Christ is now, for the first time in history, being preached to every kindred, nation, tongue, and people. Via the world wide web, we are seeing the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken in D&C 1:

For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated.

Of course, the internet is also being employed by the modern evangelists of apostasy. Therefore it is essential that the defenders of the kingdom not permit themselves to be silenced by those who seek to persuade them that they should stick to the old methods of preaching the gospel, and leave this new unprecedentedly powerful tool to the exclusive use of those who evangelize unfaith in Christ and in his restored gospel.

Those who advocate for this "muddled way" are, quite naturally, offended by the words of those who are moved upon by the Spirit of the Lord to speak against it. Sin and disbelief demand tolerance in this generation, but we are not obliged to grant it. Rather, we must work to expose their subtle methods in the eyes of those more susceptible to their artful persuasions. The notion that we should remain silent while the purveyors of doubt go unhindered is false. It is a pernicious lie designed to further the objectives of the adversaries of the kingdom, and to impede the establishment of Zion in the last days.

Edited January 1, 2013 by William Schryver

[DBMormon]

No, he did not. Quite to the contrary, he announced that none of the Christian churches then in operation were "the way," but that "the way" had long since been lost and that Christendom was operating in a state of total apostasy from "the way."

As for those who would question the internet as an appropriate medium for evangelizing, I submit that it is, in fact, the means by which the gospel of Christ is now, for the first time in history, being preached to every kindred, nation, tongue, and people. Via the world wide web, we are seeing the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken in D&C 1:

Of course, the internet is also being employed by the modern evangelists of apostasy. Therefore it is essential that the defenders of the kingdom not permit themselves to be silenced by those who seek to persuade them that they should stick to the old methods of preaching the gospel, and leave this new unprecedentedly powerful tool to the exclusive use of those who evangelize unfaith in Christ and in his restored gospel.

Those who advocate for this "muddled way" are, quite naturally, offended by the words of those who are moved upon by the Spirit of the Lord to speak against it. Sin and disbelief demand tolerance in this generation, but we are not obliged to grant it. Rather, we must work to expose their subtle methods in the eyes of those more susceptible to their artful persuasions. The notion that we should remain silent while the purveyors of doubt go unhindered is false. It is a pernicious lie designed to further the objectives of the adversaries of the kingdom, and to impede the establishment of Zion in the last days.

Porter Rockwell, J Golden J Kimball, Hugh B Brown, and many others would be considered "muddled" by your standard. I see no record of intellectuals calling them out to repentance and defining the gospel in a way that excluded them.

[Bob Crockett]

The scriptures also speak of women not speaking in the church.... is that doctrine or was Paul speaking out of line?

Bad example The IV corrected that.

I could name dozens and dozens of scriptures and quotes from Church leaders speaking in the capacity of their office that we do not consider Doctrine today.

Then it isn't doctrine. We believe in living prophets, not dead ones.

That said we all pick and choose what we see as official. In reality though, one is LDS as long as their leaders do not excommunicate them.

You're licensed to drive until a judge or cop in Ohio takes your license away. That is no compelling a standard.

Any pick and choosing of the scriptures goes both ways. Since you do not speak for the church, you are incapable of deciding which scriptures are doctrine and which are not. Elder Anderson said Doctrine is that which all 15 men today teach openly, and since Elder Holland and Elder Jensen and Elder Uchtdorf have all asked us to be more patient and none of the current 15 have spoken in words you are using I would venture to ask who is outside of the realm of Doctrine? The doctrine is 2nd Nephi chapter 31 and most of the rest are appendages to it

You seem to do a lot of picking and choosing and speaking for the church. I don't really begrudge you that, but it seems rather obvious that you can't criticize people for getting on their high horses without you getting on yours.

As Elder Gay said in the last conference: "This is the exchange the Savior is asking of us: we are to give up all our sins, big or small, for the Father’s reward of eternal life. We are to forget self-justifying stories, excuses, rationalizations, defense mechanisms, procrastinations, appearances, personal pride, judgmental thoughts, and doing things our way. We are to separate ourselves from all worldliness and take upon us the image of God in our countenances." We have to clean up our personal acts in order to gain the great reward. That is doctrine.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Senator]

As for those who would question the internet as an appropriate medium for evangelizing, I submit that it is, in fact, the means by which the gospel of Christ is now, for the first time in history, being preached to every kindred, nation, tongue, and people. Via the world wide web, we are seeing the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken in D&C 1:

Your observation is true and interesting. However, I don't know of anyone who has posed the question of whether "the internet is an appropriate medium for evangelizing".

[ERayR]

Your observation is true and interesting. However, I don't know of anyone who has posed the question of whether "the internet is an appropriate medium for evangelizing".

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

[canard78]

As Elder Gay said in the last conference: "This is the exchange the Savior is asking of us: we are to give up all our sins, big or small, for the Father’s reward of eternal life. We are to forget self-justifying stories, excuses, rationalizations, defense mechanisms, procrastinations, appearances, personal pride, judgmental thoughts, and doing things our way. We are to separate ourselves from all worldliness and take upon us the image of God in our countenances." We have to clean up our personal acts in order to gain the great reward. That is doctrine.

Are you making the presumption that 'middle way' Mormons have not given up all their sins? "self-justifying stories, excuses, rationalizations, defense mechanisms, procrastinations, appearances, personal pride, judgmental thoughts, and doing things our way" - this is as much an instruction to the so-called 'true believer" as it is a member acting with uncertainty.

When I speak of answering the question "why stay", that does not include ways of justifying unrighteousness. A "middle way" for me does not mean partial obedience to the standards of living, but reaching a middle ground between faith and doubt.

[volgadon]

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

I suppose Will meant my comments. In which case, a closer reading should show that I suggested no such thing. My concerns are about the strongly impersonal element of the internet. It tends to be easier to misunderstand each other than it would be face to face, the lack of tone and body language contributing strongly to that. I personally feel that is usually much more effective to bear testimony or admonish someone in person than it is through mass media. The medium, after all, is the message. A person is much likelier to percieve your correct attitude towards them with those elements present. Otherwise, they will be filling in the blanks far more heavily, as in the old story about the letter home which each person read into their own relationship with the sender. What I am saying is that when we use the internet, we need to be more sensitive to the fact that it is impersonal communication, and thus take better care not to come out offensive. I've not been a perfect example, I'm sure I having posts that might make me seem a jerk, but I won't look for excuses. I fully intend on posting with greater care so as not to give unnecessary offense, pushing away instead of drawing people closer to understanding my POV.

So, as a sound bite, I'm not saying that we should not use the internet, but that we ought to guard ourselves better when employing that medium to "defend the King and His kingdom."

A Pyrrhic victory is simply not worth it.

Edited January 2, 2013 by volgadon

[ERayR]

I suppose Will meant my comments. In which case, a closer reading should show that I suggested no such thing. My concerns are about the strongly impersonal element of the internet. It tends to be easier to misunderstand each other than it would be face to face, the lack of tone and body language contributing strongly to that. I personally feel that is usually much more effective to bear testimony or admonish someone in person than it is through mass media. The medium, after all, is the message. A person is much likelier to percieve your correct attitude towards them with those elements present. Otherwise, they will be filling in the blanks far more heavily, as in the old story about the letter home which each person read into their own relationship with the sender. What I am saying is that when we use the internet, we need to be more sensitive to the fact that it is impersonal communication, and thus take better care not to come out offensive. I've not been a perfect example, I'm sure I having posts that might make me seem a jerk, but I won't look for excuses. I fully intend on posting with greater care so as not to give unnecessary offense, pushing away instead of drawing people closer to understanding my POV.

So, as a sound bite, I'm not saying that we should not use the internet, but that we ought to guard ourselves better when employing that medium to "defend the King and His kingdom."

A Pyrrhic victory is simply not worth it.

I don't know I seem to be misundersood in all most any medium in which I attempt communication. I seem to have my foot in my mouth all the time.