Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[Senator]

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

I was specifically speaking about this forum, and perhaps that of an online academic journal. Will moved the goalposts a bit to include the internet entirely.

Do you think a forum such as this is an appropriate place for evangelizing or calling to repentence.

"Preaching (calling to repentence) doesn't create a discussion. It is one sided"

[ERayR]

I was specifically speaking about this forum, and perhaps that of an online academic journal. Will moved the goalposts a bit to include the internet entirely.

Do you think a forum such as this is an appropriate place for evangelizing or calling to repentence.

"Preaching (calling to repentence) doesn't create a discussion. It is one sided"

I see it a little differently than you. I don't think there is any better way to evangelize than a good discussion. To successfully call some one to repentance you must help them change their mind and heart. A good discussion (not an argument) is a good way to do this.

[canard78]

I see it a little differently than you. I don't think there is any better way to evangelize than a good discussion. To successfully call some one to repentance you must help them change their mind and heart. A good discussion (not an argument) is a good way to do this.

What was it Elder Packer said? "True doctrine understood, changes attitude and behaviour."

If, an online blog or discussion leads someone understand true doctrine then it could also change attitudes and behaviour.

But I would agree with Volgadon that the written word is better for delivering a one-way point of view than in having a conversation. It's very hard to have certainty that the 'tone of voice' used to write something is the same tone used to read something.

[William Schryver]

I was specifically speaking about this forum, and perhaps that of an online academic journal. Will moved the goalposts a bit to include the internet entirely.

Do you think a forum such as this is an appropriate place for evangelizing or calling to repentence.

"Preaching (calling to repentence) doesn't create a discussion. It is one sided"

I submit that, in the context of Mormon-related discussions -- no matter in what setting they occur -- everyone is engaged in evangelizing; every day; virtually all the time. Everyone constantly seeks to persuade others to see things their way -- and none more so than those who deny doing it.

Edited January 2, 2013 by William Schryver

[Louis Midgley]

My last post to this thread, which was launched to discuss or dismiss my "Defending the King and His Kingdom," seems to have been ignored. And the conversation, such as it is, has drifted in various other directions. One minor theme has, however, remained constant from the beginning of this thread. I am, I am told, at least not at all Christlike or nice but, instead, naughty for not sufficiently appreciating and hence also validating if not celebrating the uncertainty, doubt, struggles and so forth of former so-called TBMs who now must consider whether they will continue allowing themselves to be known as Latter-day Saints (or, as they put it, stay in the Church), since not staying has become an attractive option. So I am peppered with questions about whether I wrote my essay with the intention of urging conflicted, struggling former TBMs to leave the Church. The answer to this question is that I very much desire all to come unto Christ.

Some, it seems, have been lured into some fancy new and better way of being what is called "Mormon," though they seem to have overlooked the fact that this is a nickname for Latter-day Saint. And hence can ignore that fact that the word Saint, which has a long and venerable tradition, is merely the English for Holy One. And that being such necessarily entails submitting to a regeneration facilitated by submission to the Holy Spirit which includes a purging, purification, perfection, sanctification which must necessarily take place prior to the final judgment, at which time we get justice–that is, what we deserve. So a Bishop who just happen not to have been arrested yet for stealing money from his congregation is certainly not such a one, nor is he seeking to be such a one. Nor is the one who disbelieves in God a Saint merely because her Stake President is not aware of what she posts under a handle on the appropriately titled MAD or RfM, or this board. It is simply absurd to pretend that all is well, and one is right with God, until or unless one is excommunicated. But please notice that I have in mind God and not merely what one can get away with and not get excommunicated. And hence it is fully appropriate for all of us all the time to be called to repentance over our puffed up opinion of ourselves and especially of our questions and struggles and doubts and uncertainties we tend to treasure and celebrate. Instead, we should ask better questions, have deeper and more profound doubts, be much less certain about ourselves and our standing to God. We should consider that it is likely that we do not fully or appropriately seek not the Lord and his righteousness, but we are all tempted all the time to worship various idols. God is not on trial, but we are here and now on probation and hence are being tested. And we live by faith and not sight. Only after the trial of our faith, not on how clever we are in fashioning questions or demanding proofs prior to fully committing ourselves to God, can we be confident that our liberation from the darkness of this world is assured. Our only hope is in divine mercy when we have fully turned to him.

So it is pointless to keep insisting that I seem to want some troubled ones out of the community of Saints. Or to keep asking me if I think that they should not stay in the Church. Those are the sort of questions that those asking them must answer. And it is ridiculous to keep hinting that I am uncaring about you in your particular situation. Even if I am even more evil and confused than Professor Daniel C. Peterson is said to be, that would not justify those lured into some fancy new kind of liberated “Mormonism,” a new “way,” cultural or otherwise, where one can believe or not believe anything and everything, and, of course, where praying and paying and otherwise serving God with all our hearts and minds and at all times and places is optional and hence not necessarily required by “our new kind of god.”

[canard78]

I submit that, in the context of Mormon-related discussions -- no matter in what setting they occur -- everyone is engaged in evangelizing; every day; virtually all the time. Everyone constantly seeks to persuade others to see things their way -- and none more so than those who deny doing it.

A very fair point. The fact that any of us post here is probably because we have a point of view which we hope to bring other people round to.

The tone and language we choose to use can make all the difference.

[Tacenda]

This may be far reaching, but what if the leaders in our church are also seeing some warts in church history that were unknown to even them. Would this have given them pause and atleast allowed some sympathy towards the NOM or Middle Wayer?

[Calm]

the word Saint, which has a long and venerable tradition, is merely the English for Holy One. And that being such necessarily entails submitting to a regeneration facilitated by submission to the Holy Spirit which includes a purging, purification, perfection, sanctification which must necessarily take place prior to the final judgment, at which time we get justice–that is, what we deserve....

[W]e should ask better questions, have deeper and more profound doubts, be much less certain about ourselves and our standing to God. We should consider that it is likely that we do not fully or appropriately seek not the Lord and his righteousness, but we are all tempted all the time to worship various idols. God is not on trial, but we are here and now on probation and hence are being tested. And we live by faith and not sight. Only after the trial of our faith, not on how clever we are in fashioning questions or demanding proofs prior to fully committing ourselves to God, can we be confident that our liberation from the darkness of this world is assured. Our only hope is in divine mercy when we have fully turned to him.

Beautifully stated. Edited January 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

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."

Just to be clear, are there any other churches in existence today, other than the CoJCoLdS, that are not operating in a state of "total apostasy"?

[volgadon]

It is simply absurd to pretend that all is well, and one is right with God, until or unless one is excommunicated.

Of course not, yet unless one has stewardship over that individual, it is overstepping boundaries to decide that for or about the individual.

[Calm]

This may be far reaching, but what if the leaders in our church are also seeing some warts in church history that were unknown to even them. Would this have given them pause and atleast allowed some sympathy towards the NOM or Middle Wayer?

Knowing our leaders, I am certain there is plenty of sympathy towards the "NOM" or "Middle Wayer". Having read and hear Brother Midgley over the years, I am certain there is plenty of sympathy towards them as well.

Sympathy is not always best expressed in comforting words and tone, but just because at times it may sound harsh to those who hear it---such as when a sympathetic doctor tells his patient surgery is necessary if he wants to continue to live---it should not be confused with rejection. If it is, then there will be no opportunity to receive the support and benefits that such sympathy can bring. In my opinion, we need to go through life less protective of ourselves and our egos and more open to the opportunities that people are sincerely offering us even if, or perhaps especially if, such acceptance makes us uncomfortable with ourselves.

And this is from someone who has lost many opportunities in the past because of being too shy and uncertain to reach out and accept what was being offered in less than perfect circumstances and now that I have the emotional desire to accept such, lack the physical ability to do so...thankfully I have the hope of the Atonement restoring all things including lost opportunities so I don't wallow in regrets.

Edited January 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Sympathy is not always best expressed in comforting words and tone, but just because at times it may sound harsh to those who hear it---such as when a sympathetic doctor tells his patient surgery is necessary if he wants to continue to live---it should not be confused with rejection

I absolutely agree with you, but that kind of sympathy is best expressed in person, or at least through a more personable medium.

[Calm]

Of course not, yet unless one has stewardship over that individual, it is overstepping boundaries to decide that for or about the individual.

And if love and the Spirit is telling you to reach out to someone because they are in trouble? It is rarely the difference between "all is well" and "excommunication". Most of us are somewhere in between and need all the help we are willing to accept.

PS: I know you are only talking about the extreme case of excommunication, but I wonder sometimes if people in our faith are too concerned about authorized stewardship to speak up as opposed to loving thy neighbour and following the Spirit (not you, I think you are likely practically perfect ). I just know of too many people in the Church who have been hurt because someone did not feel it was their place to warn them about either themselves or a fellow "Saint" who was less than saintly and ended up stealing their money or otherwise making their lives miserable, when it could have been prevented by someone else who knew who could have given warning and yet didn't.

[Calm]

I absolutely agree with you, but that kind of sympathy is best expressed in person, or at least through a more personable medium.

When it is to a specific person, I would agree...face to face is always best or at least somehow private. Publicly counseling someone often results in defensiveness.

However, when one is offering a generic warning either to general humanity or a smaller community of similar souls, I think one should take advantage of any opportunity the Spirit confirms, erring on the side of caution to make sure it is not our ego telling us to speak up rather than the Spirit....but I also don't think one should be too cautious because that just might shut down the Spirit as much as being overly eager to speak out.

[Louis Midgley]

Now I must address another matter before I disappear I stop posting to this thread.

Someone calling themselves Canard78 has at least twice directed questions to me. I have neglected to answer his or her questions. This was intentional. Let me explain why I chose to not answer those questions. I saw the questions as asking me to stand in judgment on this person, which I refuse to do for at least two reasons. First, I do not know this person, not even their real name. I know them only as they appear to me through what I can gather from what I have read and remembered on this thread. They have, of course, been informed that they have struggles, uncertainties, questions, doubts and so forth. That bit of information tells me very little. The reasons is that I also have these sorts of things. And, knowing as well as I can my situation and my own jaded past, about which I decline to gab, since all that is between me and the Lord, I imagine that my doubts and questions are deeper and more profound than those of someone else who I do not know. Be that as it may, my hunch is that my uncertainties, doubts and questions are far greater than those of Canard. One reason is that I had the luxury of being on what might be called "Church Welfare" for 36 years, and I am now living well on a generous pension stemming from having been paid to ask questions and consider alternative possibilities all from your tithing money, if you pay tithing, since I taught at BYU. When folks ask me what I taught, what they want is the name of a department. My answer is always truth and virtue, where virtue is understood as human excellence and truth as ultimately not merely correspondence between a proposition and some observation but aletheia, or what ought to be remembered, and hence not put into the river of forgetfulness. Most things that have been said and done in this disconsolate world have not been recorded even poorly but are now far beyond our recovery. And I trust that God will, if I am genuinely true and faithful, cover my sins with his blood and hence in his mercy forgive me and be my advocate. Now if I desire this for myself, I would be a fool and a failure if I did not genuinely desire and seek as well as I possibly can this same wonderful blessing for all others. This is why I like to say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is very good news even for someone like Hitler or Stalin. I hold out hope that most everyone will eventually come to see and accept the one Way, which is the only real light and life in this world. In this sense I am almost what is commonly called a Universalist. I lean in that direction rather than towards Calvinism, which I think is demonic. I know some who claim to be Five-Point TULIP type Calvinists, but since I know them, I respect them far too much to believe what they say. The reasons is that I see something in their lives that generates, despite their theology, good deeds and am aware of their prayers when they face trials and I sense that, despite what they preach, they plead with God to do for them and those they love what their theology rules out. And I am confident that despite the obvious evils at the top of the social heap there have always been little obscure folks who passed their probation and are right with God. We show our love for those people by doing what we call work for them in our Temples.

The light of Christ (the Gospel), we are told somewhere in our scriptures, shines into the darkness (of this sin bound world), which does not comprehend or accept that wonderful soul ennobling light. But the invitation is always there for all of us to turn to the one–the only name and so forth–who is the Way, Life, Truth, and whose remarkable story is the Light that (should) enlighten our way in the darkness here below.

[sethpayne]

Lou,

You said:

And I trust that God will, if I am genuinely true and faithful, cover my sins with his blood and hence in his mercy forgive me and be my advocate. Now if I desire this for myself, I would be a fool and a failure if I did not genuinely desire and seek as well as I possibly can this same wonderful blessing for all others. This is why I like to say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is very good news even for someone like Hitler or Stalin. I hold out hope that most everyone will eventually come to see and accept the one Way, which is the only real light and life in this world. In this sense I am almost what is commonly called a Universalist.

Very well said. I am in full agreement. I very much consider myself a Universalist and despise Calvinism. If God is a Calvinist I'd rather go to hell than spend one day in the presence of an arbitrary, vengeful, and inconsistent God who saves or damns people at His pleasure. (A side note: this is why I believe the doctrine of the pre-existence is so important and it rings true for me. The thought that God simply created us for (fil-in-the-blank) rather than for the purpose of blessing His children, is incomprehensible to me.)

Seth

Edited January 2, 2013 by sethpayne

[Louis Midgley]

Seth and others:

The very theme that you mention is one that I have written about many times. And the new review essay that I will have published in entitled "Evangelical Controversy: A Deeply Fragmented Movement." This essay will appear in Interpreter 3 (2013): 63-94, I expect that this essay will be posted either on 21st or 28th of January. But I am not sure. This is a review of a book entitled Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan 2011). It contains the opinions of three distinguished evangelical scholars and one moderate fundamentalist. Al Mohler, the current leading light among Southern Baptist Convention theologians and a vigorous anti-Mormon, insists on the standard Protestant Penal Substitution theory of the atonement, and he also speaks for and defends the so-called new Calvinism that is all the rage among younger preachers in the SBC.

I must add that the strictly English word "atonement" only appears once in the New Testament where hardly fits the concept that it was originally crafted to convey in the earliest English translations of the Bible. And, in addition, the English word atonement does not give even a hint at what is described as taking place at Yom Kippur, when the priest took blood and smeared it on the horns of the alter and begged God to see in this ritual act a clear indication that Israel desired to have their sins forgiven. This helps make sense of the frequent use of the term atonement in the Book of Mormon (see especially Mosiah 3, where the blood of one called Lord Omnipotent (YHWH?), "who shall come down from heaven" and do a series of things including bleeding for his people so that "the blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent" will atone for sins Elsewhere in the Book of Mormon this same Messiah figure is said to have vanquished death by opening the door to the future universal resurrection of all of mankind from that awful monster death. This victory over death--in three places in the Book of Mormon the word victory is used in place of atonement--includes both physical death and the death of the soul brought on to all who do not turn to the Lord Omnipotent and accept is mercy. This offering is a sinless offering and hence it is not anything like Penal Substitution, though it does two things for everyone--one is conditional--that they cannot possibly do for themselves. And it is the ultimate act of love by God to all of us, as we are pictured in the covenant-making and renewing drama found in Genesis and elsewhere where the figures of Adam and Eve represent in this drama all of mankind before we came to this earth to experience actual good and evil and not, as we all had previously done merely talked about things we had not experienced. We moved from talking about nice food to actually tasting a well-grown Rio Oso Gem Peach. And we could actually feel hatred in our gut, and know what disappointment really is like. Well, all this is obvious. And, in addition, it provides a nice explanation for evil in ;the world.

None of this means that the larger story reaching a back even to before this earth was formed does not leave a host of questions unanswered. But it seems to me to answer what Hugh Nibley liked to call the Terrible Questions. I suppose that everyone knows what they are.

[canard78]

Now I must address another matter before I disappear I stop posting to this thread.

Someone calling themselves Canard78 has at least twice directed questions to me. I have neglected to answer his or her questions.

I've mentioned 'my wife' several times in my posts and at least twice directly to you and also that I'm an active church member. One might be able to draw appropriate conclusions. But in this age I suppose one can also not make too many presumptions, so I guess you're covering your bases. For what it's worth, it's 'his questions.'

This was intentional. Let me explain why I chose to not answer those questions. I saw the questions as asking me to stand in judgment on this person, which I refuse to do for at least two reasons. First, I do not know this person, not even their real name. I know them only as they appear to me through what I can gather from what I have read and remembered on this thread.

I am no-one of any particular consequence. I don't live on your continent and knowing my name wouldn't help you know me better. I choose to post anonymously, as to many others here, but my thoughts and experiences are mine and are genuine.

I appreciate you don't want to pass judgement on me specifically. My intention was to share personal experience as an illustration to a general point responding to your post. You are still welcome to answer them generally, rather than specifically.

They have, of course, been informed that they have struggles, uncertainties, questions, doubts and so forth. That bit of information tells me very little. The reasons is that I also have these sorts of things. And, knowing as well as I can my situation and my own jaded past, about which I decline to gab, since all that is between me and the Lord, I imagine that my doubts and questions are deeper and more profound than those of someone else who I do not know. Be that as it may, my hunch is that my uncertainties, doubts and questions are far greater than those of Canard.

You're entitled to your hunch. They may well be. I don't consider that to diminish the importance of mine, to me.

One reason is that I had the luxury of being on what might be called "Church Welfare" for 36 years, and I am now living well on a generous pension stemming from having been paid to ask questions and consider alternative possibilities all from your tithing money, if you pay tithing, since I taught at BYU. When folks ask me what I taught, what they want is the name of a department. My answer is always truth and virtue, where virtue is understood as human excellence and truth as ultimately not merely correspondence between a proposition and some observation but aletheia, or what ought to be remembered, and hence not put into the river of forgetfulness. Most things that have been said and done in this disconsolate world have not been recorded even poorly but are now far beyond our recovery. And I trust that God will, if I am genuinely true and faithful, cover my sins with his blood and hence in his mercy forgive me and be my advocate. Now if I desire this for myself, I would be a fool and a failure if I did not genuinely desire and seek as well as I possibly can this same wonderful blessing for all others. This is why I like to say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is very good news even for someone like Hitler or Stalin. I hold out hope that most everyone will eventually come to see and accept the one Way, which is the only real light and life in this world. In this sense I am almost what is commonly called a Universalist. I lean in that direction rather than towards Calvinism, which I think is demonic. I know some who claim to be Five-Point TULIP type Calvinists, but since I know them, I respect them far too much to believe what they say. The reasons is that I see something in their lives that generates, despite their theology, good deeds and am aware of their prayers when they face trials and I sense that, despite what they preach, they plead with God to do for them and those they love what their theology rules out. And I am confident that despite the obvious evils at the top of the social heap there have always been little obscure folks who passed their probation and are right with God. We show our love for those people by doing what we call work for them in our Temples.

The light of Christ (the Gospel), we are told somewhere in our scriptures, shines into the darkness (of this sin bound world), which does not comprehend or accept that wonderful soul ennobling light. But the invitation is always there for all of us to turn to the one–the only name and so forth–who is the Way, Life, Truth, and whose remarkable story is the Light that (should) enlighten our way in the darkness here below.

I appreciate you sharing your convictions and testimony. I still feel there are some asked and unanswered questions that stem from your article. I would still be interested in an answer. I'm very happy for you to answer them generally rather than personally and individually. I'll ask them generally if that would help.

- If a Latter-day Saint develops uncertainty, to the point where the convictions they once had are no longer strong enough to embrace all aspects of church history, church teachings and the gospel as taught and applied by the LDS today, should they leave, or should they weigh up the benefits and find reasons to still remain a part of the fold? If a member does not have the certainty that you and others express, but still wants to find reasons for staying active and involved, why are they "silly" for finding a positive balance of reasons to "stay lds?"

- If a Latter-day Saint was unable to resolve their doubts and uncertainties but could live faithfully, while doubtfully, would you encourage them to stay, for whatever reason they can find. Or do you think the doctrine invites them to leave entirely and reject all fellowship with their Mormon associates?

- What I mean is, you say: "From my perspective, their trumpet gives a very uncertain sound" and advise these people to "answer the clear call of the trumpet of the Lord, and not be toying with the silly question “why stay”?" What if they are not able to follow this last piece of advice? What if the uncertainty they have means they feel unable to fully and wholeheartedly answer that clear call? What then? Should they still find reasons to stay and partly answer the call, in their uncertainties, or should they ignore the trumpet call entirely and walk an entirely different 'way?'

[Louis Midgley]

Someone asked what I meant when I called something silly. I will try to explain. I will do so by borrowing liberally (freely) from a book I have worn out trying to learn something about the richness of the English language. Some, including me, have insisted that calling political science a science is just plain silly. Keep in mind that I taught in a department that shifted for many years to calling itself, with my approval, government rather than political science.

Now with this in mind, let me begin. One could argue that the history of what is called political science could be written in terms of the word silly. How so? Let us begin with the Old French word seely. And then turn to the German saelig, both of which mean, I think, "blessed." Now one can imagine that with the victory at Hastings by the Normans (or originally north-men from Denmark but then later from Normandy, which we all know is a place in France that was for a while...well let us skip the details, and just say that when William the ******* when in France became William the Conquerer at Hastings, when he defeated the Saxons (a word that sounds like we are talking about a people from somewhere in what we now call Germany), he managed to bring with him a French speaking class that with him that had nothing more to do all day than hunt and play. They were, if you have followed me this far, what we might call the "idle rich," or blessed--remember that German word saelig may mean blessed rather than those cursed to work, or it may even indicate something like the fun one has when all one has to do is play all day.

So I believe that the word “silly" in something like this way, which was clearly broad and crooked, came to mean idle. So what? The growth of the democratic ethos came to give a new dignity to labor or perhaps what we call work rather than what the idle rich could do all day--that is, merely hunt or play. So the idea got launched that to be idle and not work by helping in the growth of industry was mere fooling around which idle people do all day. Now I have introduced into my tale the word “foolish,” which is a rather powerful word, which is powerful much like the term antichrist, is it not? Be that as it may, those who were once blessed because they could be idle were now considered foolish. What was originally considered even a divine blessing came to be seen as being foolishly idle. And for me unthinkingly idle in resolving whether they care to place their trust is Jesus Christ rather than some alternative or perhaps just brush aside the Terrible Questions and muddle along.

I hope this helps. Spelling this out in this way has been for me fun. And I rather like fun. This is why I liked teaching rather than growing peaches or peddling used cars or whatever. But others might think that my idea of fun involves an insult directed if not at them directly then at least at something they value. And it might, I suppose. But it does not amount to an ad hominem since that sometimes is a logical fallacy and not merely a sly insult aimed at a person. The reason is that an insult is not a logical argument and hence cannot be a logical fallacy. And some personal considerations are clearly appropriate in judging whether to rely on someone without proper medical credentials when looking for treatment for one’s cancer or dental training when looking for someone to save your hurting tooth. Or someone who really knows population genetics when one would like to have help in sorting talk about DNA and the Book of Mormon, or someone other than a Paul Pry Jr to give an insider’s account of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and so forth. This is my way of saying that some people are silly in the sense of being foolish when not owning their faith. But this opens still another can of worms, does it not. Please notice that I said foolish, which we all are here below, and not simply a fool, which is a naughty thing to say, I am sure. In responding in this way I am being seriously playful, or playfully serious. If we take ourselves seriously, then we will not end up taking the gospel of Jesus Christ seriously. We are on trial and not God.

[volgadon]

And I rather like fun.

Exposing banter as one of the cardinal ills plaguing modern civilisation (the ghost of Bertie Wooster) is even funner.

[volgadon]

I am pretty sure that silly has little to do with the idle rich. As meaning "touched in the head," it is the equivalent of the term "blessed" used in other languages to describe holy foolery, fools-for-Christ like St. Basil the Blessed who had a rather fine line in basilicas.

[Louis Midgley]

Volgadon is right that silly as blessed does sometimes mean, and this has a long history, appearing a fool for (not against) one's God. I like the reference to St. Basil. And, of course, those who have become famous as Saints, like St Basil, in several traditions continuing the idea that the followers of Jesus Christ were to be Holy Ones, including our own, have appeared to the dog like cynics or the sneering skeptics as fools (or at least profoundly foolish) because they have chosen to be slaves to what appears to the critic to be illusion or delusion. This means that in the heavily skeptical academic world one must end at times up running against the grain, as I believe Spencer Kimball advised some of us. But I am also told that Elder Kimball was a nice old man and a prophet, but he knew nothing about universities or academic matters. He was, it seems, a fool for Christ. But this being a fool for Christ It is also what made Kresimir Cosic a national hero in Croatia. On a visit to that land I found that everyone I met knew of and love Cosic, who they described as a very spiritual man. After playing basketball at BYU, and meeting Hugh Nibley, he turned down the opportunity to make lots and lots of money in the NBA and returned, instead, to his home in Zageg where he became the first and the finest LDS missionary in the land.

[Tacenda]

I read once where Steve Benson, during his early faith crisis, had a meeting with one of the apostles at the time, and was told, if the church isn't true it's still a good way to raise your family. How do we know that some don't have a perfect knowledge but one of faith only and the belief that it's a great religion for families. Wouldn't this almost be in the category of a middle wayer? Isn't a middle wayer one who goes by faith also, like almost everyone?

Edited January 3, 2013 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I do not believe there is any middle way. You either are or you are not. If you are not you may still choose to affiliate for whatever reason you seems good to you and at some time you may catch the vision and become a believer.

[Louis Midgley]

Canard has asked me what my response to the following more general questions: "If a Latter-day Saint develops uncertainty, to the point where the convictions they once had are no longer strong enough to embrace all aspects of church history, church teachings and the gospel as taught and applied by the LDS today, should they leave, or should they weigh up the benefits and find reasons to still remain a part of the fold? If a member does not have the certainty that you and others express, but still wants to find reasons for staying active and involved, why are they "silly" for finding a positive balance of reasons to "stay lds?"

My answer is that none of this is clear to me. First, I do not understand what it means for a Latter-day Saint to develop uncertainty. Why? The fact is that we all live with uncertainly unless we have what has been called a primitive naive faith--that is, a faith that has not encountered other alternatives. Virtually every LDS family has experiences this. When children discover, as they do in our society, that there are other possible ways of being in this world, some and even many choose some other way. But no one who come to faith from outside the circle of faith can have this common experience. And in our profoundly secular world, which includes sometimes almost rabid critics of our faith, it is hard to imagine anyone who could be entirely unaware that both the content and historical grounds of the new faith they have freely chosen is not challenged by other possibilities. In some way countercultists may even do us a favor in helping to weed out those who otherwise would not know what they were getting into. And secular critics do the same thing. When we face those challenges, which I believe most of the Saints in one way or another we all eventually face, we undergo a crisis. I believe that I explained that a crisis commonly identifies a point at which one either lives or dies, in this case in faith. (I have written about this in several essays.)

If and when we find ways of resolving a crisis, we end up with a stronger and more thoughtfully sound and resolute and mature faith. Somewhere our scriptures call this sort of thing a test of our faith, after which we can see a blessing.

I do not at all advocate a kind of cost-benefit analysis in which we size up how much more disposable income or free time we would have if we bagged going to boring meetings on Sunday over against having friends and a kind of handy social club and a group we can call upon to load and unload our possession if and when we move our residence, or a group we can peddle insurance to, and so forth. I do not think that these are the items one ought to weighs. I do not know I do not know what you weigh. And I don’t see how or why you use the word balance. I think you may mean choice. If so, I am all the way with you.

I addressed something like what you might have in mind in an essay entitled "The Utility of Faith Reconsidered," in the Festschrift for Truman Madsen. It turns out that even some of the most careful thinkers who themselves do not believe in the reality of God can see the social utility of faith in God. For some like Alexis de Tocqueville the utility of faith (or what they call religion) is its truth. I think we need to join forces with those types in opposition to those who trace all the many evils in this world back to what they designate and then denigrate as religion.

The fact is that our faith–what can be called the prophetic truth claims–is historical. Let me explain. We we live by and in stories. I have written a lot about this. When we confront historical accounts, and the gospel is such an account, we cannot have proof. This is why I argued that everyone is an apologist for whatever they believe, if they are at all rational. And also why I make a big fuss about the absurdity of talk about objective historians and history. When any of us tell stories, there is always necessarily both uncertainty and a perspective. And, in addition, all all the attempts to explain away the grounds and contents of the faith of the Saint are also challenged by uncertainties.

I am, of course, troubled by much in our past. I don't like what happened at Mountain Meadows, and a host of other things like the idea that Blacks could not be ordained to the priesthood. But I do not get my bowels in a knot over these sorts of things, which are merely public relations problems for the community of Saints, unless we wrongly expect what our current ideological horizon sees as perfection in ourselves and our leaders. Unfortunatly at times we approach these issues from what is a mirror image of a Protestant fundamentalist heresy about both human and divine things.

You then put your question differently: "If a Latter-day Saint was unable to resolve their doubts and uncertainties but could live faithfully, while doubtfully, would you encourage them to stay, for whatever reason they can find. Or do you think the doctrine invites them to leave entirely and reject all fellowship with their Mormon associates?" I don't feel a burning need to try with my limited intellectual gifts to resolve my doubts and uncertainties. I have looked for as many reasons to doubt the gospel as I could find. Doing this sort of thing is what I did with my students while teaching at BYU.

I began my academic career by taking a long and very hard look at the most radical challenge to my own faith that I could find. This then became the topic for my dissertation. In the second issue of Dialogue one can find a sketch of my way of dealing with Paul Tillich's challenge to my then still somewhat naive faith. And subsequently I have been on the hunt for the best possible sectarian and secular challenges to my faith. As I said in “Defending,” no one wants or should want their faith to be merely wishful thinking. And so we all should be gearing up to give a response to one like Tillich or Dawkins or whoever who demands from us even indirectly the reasons for our faith. Put another way, we are or should be apologists for what we believe. Hence the title of my essay. And the energy and emphasis in it, which I know annoys some because they see me as a mindless ideologue bent on harming those trying their best to hold onto the iron rod on their faith journey.