Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[volgadon]

The one thing religion simply *cannot* tolerate is diversity within its own doors. Why is that? Very simple. It claims to be the truth, and therefore whatever it teaches is what everyone else ought to simply believe, not question....accept, not challenge, love not question. So long as any organized religion declares it is the truth, there you will, make no mistake about it, there you WILL see intolerance for diversity, especially of thought, belief, and testimony. Without the creed of Mormon testimony, one cannot be a Mormon. It is that simple. And that creed is prescribed by the church. Believe in Jesus, accept the atonement, believe in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, believe in the current prophet being God's spokesman, believe in the temple and temple marriage. All else is simply not acceptable in order to be a Mormon. This rigidity should surprise no one. Every organized religion goes this route. All organized religion says, whether in open, or behind closed doors, either you believe what WE tell you, or your OUT. It's that simple. Do what WE indicate is best for you, or your OUT. It's truly not that difficult to grasp. Now whether it is right or not is irrelevant to me. This is what makes one a Mormon.

And, as with all other religions, this is why it is so divisive. There can not be unity under any umbrella of an organized religion. The assumption being that unity is the desired goal, and anything smacking of otherwise is evil in one form or another. We never stop to ask why unity is so important. Of course, it's a good thing, because we know exactly where unity has never been, nor can go. Religion will never achieve it.

Let me ask you this. How should unity be manifest? In other words, what should unity consist of?

[Paloma]

I should also say that, as a non-LDS Christian, I've had lots of my own thoughts and struggles about including Mormons in the "Christian" tent.

The answer for me is that I just don't see God looking at, dealing with, or caring about "tents".

I believe He cares about people, looks at our hearts, and deals with our behaviour.

Micah 6:8:

He has shown all you people what is good.

And what does the Lord require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

[Kevin Christensen]

You can learn a lot about people by noticing what they select to emphasize and generalize from in relation to what really is available to select and emphasize and generalize from.

Regarding Canard's statement:

I can't accept a notion of a God who sends the majority of his children to an environment where they will have no productive interaction with God.

One of the things I like most about being LDS, as I understand it, is that I don't have to accept such a notion of God. Rather I see something like this:

Regarding those who rejected his claims, Joseph Smith commented that:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.

In another discourse he offered this:

The great designs of God in relation to the salvation of the human family, are very little understood by the professedly wise and intelligent generation in which we live. Various and conflicting are the opinions of men concerning the plan of salvation, the requisitions of the Almighty, the necessary preparations for heaven, the state and condition of departed spirits, and the happiness or misery that is consequent upon the practice of righteousness and iniquity according to their several notions of virtue and vice.

But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.

The one place for certainty comes from the same source that Joseph Smith sought and found it.

If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who upbraideth not, but giveth to all men liberally. (

James 1:5

).

That is a little section from a FAIR paper I wrote a couple of years ago:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Considering_Joseph_Smith/Living_with_Differences_and_Uncertainty

The root of the word religion is related to "ligament" which are the things that hold us together and binds us. So religion is that which we see as binding. Ultimately, reality, things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come, will trump what ever limited conceptions we have, and will ultimately bind us all. One of the inescapable realities that we all face is that our knowlege is imperfect, and, as D&C 1 bluntly states, "in as much as [we] have erred, it shall be made manifest." We all have to open to repentence, not just open to calling others to repent. The Perry Scheme is enlightening on that subject, I think.

Kerry says, "Without the creed of Mormon testimony, one cannot be a Mormon."

Joseph Smith says

I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;" which I cannot subscribe to.

Not only does Joseph assert that “all of them have some truth” here, but in a similar discussion on creeds, he added “It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

He also says,

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.

182

Now I could get all upset upon reading, say Perry's infamous 1998 Ensign article, or McConkie's talk on Seven Deadly Heresies, or Kerry's over generalizations about what religion is or what Mormonism does. But one of the realities I accept is that most people do the best they can with what they have experienced. One of the realities of existence is, I don't have to accept any one else's picture as binding on me. I just have to accept that I don't know everything, and neither do they. Just because I can find a few opinionated Mormons does not mean that Mormonism is closed and opininionated. A false generalization can be built upon true observation by the simple expedient of taking that example as typical. Take that attitude, of generalizing about reality based on atypical examples, to a roulette wheel, and see how far it takes you.

In Nibley's essay Brigham Young and the Enemy, we get this from Brigham the 'tyrant.'

There is one virtue, attribute, or principle, which, if cherished and practiced by the Saints, would prove salvation to thousands upon thousands. I allude to charity, or love, from which proceed forgiveness, longsuffering, kindness, and patience. But the short-sightedness and weakness in some are marvelous. . . . People come here from different parts of the earth to make this their adopted country, and the old residents expect them to at once conform to and adopt their manners, customs, and traditions. . . . In other words, "If every man, woman, and child does not act, think, and see as I do, they are sinners." It is very necessary that we have charity that will cover a multitude of what we may suppose to be sins.

227

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

You can learn a lot about people by noticing what they select to emphasize and generalize from in relation to what really is available to select and emphasize and generalize from.

Repeated for truth.

[Calm]

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.

I think particular attention should be paid to the bold and underlined segment when reading this quote to avoid drawing conclusions that are more expansive than Joseph intended.

[Cobalt-70]

Answer: footnote 17 refers to Ron Meldrum, a faithful LDS who promotes a North-American based geography for the Book of Mormon that is popular among many members of the Church.

"Bad science" or not, including Meldrum on a list of "attacks on the faith and the Saints" is absurd, and the editors of "The Interpreter" should be embarrassed to have such a charge appear on their site.

It's hilarious when advocates of one fringe theory accuse advocates of another fringe theory of using "bad science." As soon as one of the two camps publishes a Book of Mormon-related article in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, then I will accept their right to comment with any kind of academic authority on what is good and bad science.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

There are two approaches in dealing with and talking about Mormons who have a non-literalist faith, who are agnostics, who have doubts, or who simply see things differently:

1. Welcome them into the fold. Engage them in constructive, respectful, and tolerant dialogue. Love them. Actually listen to what they have to say. Don't be offended or dismissive if they disagree with you. Be overjoyed that they have at least some faith, and some desire to remain part of the fold.

OR

2. Call them antichrists. Accuse them of trying to destroy the Kingdom, and of hating the church. Tell them they have to make a binary choice, and if they don't accept 100% of the Mormon creed (whatever that is, and assuming it exists), then they are in the power of Satan.

Does anybody have any thoughts about which of the above two choices is more consistent with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament?

[Calm]

There are two approaches in dealing with and talking about Mormons who have a non-literalist faith, who are agnostics, who have doubts, or who simply see things differently:

Please point out anyone who is claiming that one should call all those who have a nonliteralist faith, who have doubts or "simply see things differently" "antichrist" and to treat even those who deny that Christ came in the flesh in the way you describe.

You are the one insisting on others having a binary choice, to treat others in one of those two ways. I have seen no evidence that anyone stipulating that there is a set of people out there who are antichrist because they deny that Christ came in the flesh that they all must be treated in identical ways beyond a simple identification that the bible defines those who deny Christ came in the flesh are "antichrist".

[Tacenda]

There are two approaches in dealing with and talking about Mormons who have a non-literalist faith, who are agnostics, who have doubts, or who simply see things differently:

1. Welcome them into the fold. Engage them in constructive, respectful, and tolerant dialogue. Love them. Actually listen to what they have to say. Don't be offended or dismissive if they disagree with you. Be overjoyed that they have at least some faith, and some desire to remain part of the fold.

OR

2. Call them antichrists. Accuse them of trying to destroy the Kingdom, and of hating the church. Tell them they have to make a binary choice, and if they don't accept 100% of the Mormon creed (whatever that is, and assuming it exists), then they are in the power of Satan.

Does anybody have any thoughts about which of the above two choices is more consistent with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament?

I'll attest to the 1st scenario and without it I might be a lost soul to be sure.

[canard78]

You can learn a lot about people by noticing what they select to emphasize and generalize from in relation to what really is available to select and emphasize and generalize from.

Regarding Canard's statement:"I can't accept a notion of a God who sends the majority of his children to an environment where they will have no productive interaction with God."

Hi Kevin, firstly thanks for your excellent post. I always enjoy reading your balanced and rarely inflammatory comments.

I wasn't sure whether this was a criticism directed at me and perhaps a misreading of what I actually meant (or me misreading what you said).

To clarify, I wasn't saying that I thought God WAS sending people to places where they would have no interaction with him - rather, I was refuting the notion that he did. The idea that God's kingdom, presence and influence only extends to the borders of Mormonism was the idea that I can't accept (an idea that seemed to be promoted by others on this thread). I very much believe that those of other faiths (including non-Christian ones) are still a part of God's kingdom (perhaps just a different principality) and are still able to have a very meaningful and productive interaction with Deity.

One of the things I like most about being LDS, as I understand it, is that I don't have to accept such a notion of God. Rather I see something like this:

That is a little section from a FAIR paper I wrote a couple of years ago:

http://en.fairmormon...and_Uncertainty

The root of the word religion is related to "ligament" which are the things that hold us together and binds us. So religion is that which we see as binding. Ultimately, reality, things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come, will trump what ever limited conceptions we have, and will ultimately bind us all. One of the inescapable realities that we all face is that our knowlege is imperfect, and, as D&C 1 bluntly states, "in as much as [we] have erred, it shall be made manifest." We all have to open to repentence, not just open to calling others to repent. The Perry Scheme is enlightening on that subject, I think.

...

Not only does Joseph assert that “all of them have some truth” here, but in a similar discussion on creeds, he added “It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

...

But one of the realities I accept is that most people do the best they can with what they have experienced. One of the realities of existence is, I don't have to accept any one else's picture as binding on me. I just have to accept that I don't know everything, and neither do they. Just because I can find a few opinionated Mormons does not mean that Mormonism is closed and opininionated. A false generalization can be built upon true observation by the simple expedient of taking that example as typical.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I loved the rest of your quotes from Joseph Smith. I sometimes forget what incredible theology Joseph Smith was able to deliver. Those who can't accept the prophetic nature of his claim should instead marvel at his impressive grasp of the meaning of life and God's love for his children everywhere.

Some of my favourite lines from the longer quote you gave include these:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do...

But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard...

He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law.

...and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.

The question, of course, will be whether a 'Middle Way Mormon' or 'NOM' or 'Jack Mormon' will be judged by the same law as all Mormons. Either way, in the end we will admit that "He has done right." I'm glad I don't have to make that call. What I do know is that my intention is to love and worship God in the best way I possibly can, based on the understanding I have of Him and his expectations for me.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Let me ask you this. How should unity be manifest? In other words, what should unity consist of?

A GREAT question! Thanks for asking it. I have always wondered why we think we should take the scriptures literally or seriously since it was just their own particular views they present. It is the scriptures which say God thinks unity is vital, imperative, important, necessary, etc. I just don't see it. WHY assume unity is the important thing? I suppose this is the question to discuss before we get to your excellent question.

[canard78]

I have been busy today, and I decided to check back to see if this thread was still active. I sense that whatever energy it once had is now gone...

Hi Prof. Midgley. I'm not sure if your schedule means that you've moved on from checking this thread. In post no. 48 I asked a question about this statemet in your article:

Has the Jesus-myth ideology had any impact on Latter-day Saints? Probably not, since most of the Saints who go missing do so for other than genuinely intellectual reasons. Their stereotyped exit-stories indicate that they look for intellectual support for their rejection of their faith only after they have made the decision not to be faithful to their covenants.

I was genuinely interested to know whether this statement is based on any quantifiable research or your perception of their process? I won't repeat it all again, but I shared some perspectives on why I think we as members sometimes jump to this conclusion and how it helps us cope with the issue of reasons for leaving.

As mentioned, it was not the way round you describe for my wife but I wondered if you had evidence to prove she is the minority?

In particular I'd be interested in sources and references on these two statements:

"most of the Saints who go missing do so for other than genuinely intellectual reasons"

"they look for intellectual support for their rejection of their faith only after they have made the decision not to be faithful to their covenants"

That's not an official MDDB 'CFR' as the statements above weren't originally made on this message board. It is an inquiry of interest to know if such research exists that allows you to be confident in your "most of the saints" and "only after" statements.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I have been busy today, and I decided to check back to see if this thread was still active. I sense that whatever energy it once had is now gone. But, just in case this is not entirely the case, I want to indicate that I have enjoyed the comments about and also especially the criticisms of my sermon-essay. I must also add that the recent events at the Maxwell Institute have been both painful and very disappointing. I had much invested in that venture One consolation is that in a brief week a large group of volunteers were able to put together a sophisticated substitute for a venture that has been part of my life for over two decades. I wish that whatever it was that took place at the Maxwell Institute could have been done with less intrigue and more grace.

I must also explain that I was never an employee of either FARMS or the Maxwell Institute. I was, instead, merely a volunteer. What I did was a way of placing a modest offering on the altar.

I urge all who have a even a tiny desire to see the Kingdom sustained and defended to keep an eye on and perhaps contributing in some way to the Interpreter.

Why? Do you really think this is the only viable way to do so is write online articles? I think it would be vastly superior for Mormons to start loving everyone instead of trying to pigeon-hole others who are different than we are, who think different than we do, who dress different than we do, who actually live different than we do. This group think-act-be mentality is perhaps the worse thing we can be engaging in. Mere articles exploiting differences does fundamentally NOTHING to build the kingdom, but it sure does do the religious thing and DIVIDE it.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[canard78]

However, I have taken the time to read your essay, and although I am certain my judgment of it will not accord with that of several others, I consider it to very likely be the most significant publication to date in Interpreter - A Journal of Mormon Scripture.

Hi, given we exchanged messages about the article and you've been strongly supportive of it, I'd also welcome your perspective on my questions in posts 48 and 87. Is it perception or a provable reality that those who cite 'intellectual reasons' as their cause for breaking covenants have actually done it in reverse and intellectual issues only provide justification to avoid repentance for the sins committed first?

As mentioned before, this has not been my perception of the people I know, nor the experience I have had (FWIW, my covenants remain intact!). I appreciate I'm working from a limited sample so welcome other research.

[volgadon]

A GREAT question! Thanks for asking it. I have always wondered why we think we should take the scriptures literally or seriously since it was just their own particular views they present. It is the scriptures which say God thinks unity is vital, imperative, important, necessary, etc. I just don't see it. WHY assume unity is the important thing? I suppose this is the question to discuss before we get to your excellent question.

I am mainly interested in your answers to the questions, but if you feel it necessary to discuss these issues first, I'm happy to oblige.

I must confess that I'm not entirely clear on your position here. On the one hand, it seems that you are saying that unity is bad. On the other hand, you claim that divisiveness is bad.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I am mainly interested in your answers to the questions, but if you feel it necessary to discuss these issues first, I'm happy to oblige.

I must confess that I'm not entirely clear on your position here. On the one hand, it seems that you are saying that unity is bad. On the other hand, you claim that divisiveness is bad.

The unity is bad (that is, the attempt to make everyone think and act and be alike) because it attempts to make authentic people inauthentic for a tradition or for conformity sake or worse of all, because it's supposed to be necessary in a specific religious belief. Just WHY cannot diversity be simply accepted since that is precisely how God made it? Divisiveness is bad when it causes others to feel less than, not as good, not as smart, not as included, etc. Religion causes this more than any other singular cause on this earth. Organized religion is singularly the worse thing for our planet. It has never helped a world wide cause, and has always caused divide people. The evidence is overwhelming with the over 8,000 religions all vying and trying to "take away" everyone else's converts. They try to outshine the others and rarely, if ever, work together in all things for a common good. Organized religion's concern with the common good appears to be ONLY within its own tradition. It is far more exclusivist than anything else I know of. So, I don't have any answers, I just have observations.

[volgadon]

The unity is bad (that is, the attempt to make everyone think and act and be alike) because it attempts to make authentic people inauthentic for a tradition or for conformity sake or worse of all, because it's supposed to be necessary in a specific religious belief.

One of my very good friends used to be a junkie who was imprisoned for a few years over stealing cellphones to support his addiction. After his release he discovered the church, was baptised, served a mission, went back to school, and married another convert. He is very happy now, is making something of himself, will be raising a family, and is doing much good both inside the church and out of it. Which one, do you think, is the authentic person?

Just WHY cannot diversity be simply accepted since that is precisely how God made it?

Diversity is not inherently an enemy of unity. In the words of Rabbie Burns,

"Then let us pray that come it may,

(As come it will for a' that,)

That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,

Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.

For a' that, an' a' that,

It's coming yet for a' that,

That Man to Man, the world o'er,

Shall brothers be for a' that. "

My wife and I are very close, we share much of the same interests and tastes, but we aren't carbon copies of each other. There are things I like that she can't stand, just as she enjoys some things that bore me to tears. We are stil united, sharing a common goal. More so, we are deeply attached to each other, what happens with each other matters to us, and we want each to be happy. Does it matter if I consider "Quiet Flows the Don," one of the best novels ever written, and she detests it? Does it matter if she watches reality shows once in a while that I think are a waste of perfectly good broadcasting resources?

Divisiveness is bad when it causes others to feel less than, not as good, not as smart, not as included, etc. Religion causes this more than any other singular cause on this earth.

I would love for you to support that statement.

Organized religion is singularly the worse thing for our planet.

Reminds me a lot of the people who've told me that diabetes is far worse than cancer.

It has never helped a world wide cause,

Baloney. Must you keep making those kind of absolutist, fundy declarations? They don't help your argument.

[Calm]

Divisiveness is bad when it causes others to feel less than, not as good, not as smart, not as included, etc. Religion causes this more than any other singular cause on this earth.

I think teenage hormones are a much stronger candidate for worse singular cause of divisiveness.

[wenglund]

WHY assume unity is the important thing?

And, conversely, WHY assume that diversity is the important thing?

I suggest that our respective answers to these two questions will depend upon what we each may set as our ultimate objective and who or what we are centered on.

For me, and I suspect most other believing members, the end goal is to become like Christ, or in other words to become one with the Son as he is one with the Father. We are centered on him. As such, unity is important to us because it is the direction to which we are ultimately headed, and increasingly the means by which we attain that ultimate end. As we progress, individually and collectively, the more we will turn to Christ and strive to become, and may become, of one mind and heart.

I will let you answer for yourself as to what is your ultimate objective, who or what you are center on, and WHY diversity may be important in relation thereto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

Organized religion is singularly the worse thing for our planet.

Good grief, Kerry. Good grief.

[William Schryver]

Hi, given we exchanged messages about the article and you've been strongly supportive of it, I'd also welcome your perspective on my questions in posts 48 and 87. Is it perception or a provable reality that those who cite 'intellectual reasons' as their cause for breaking covenants have actually done it in reverse and intellectual issues only provide justification to avoid repentance for the sins committed first?

As mentioned before, this has not been my perception of the people I know, nor the experience I have had (FWIW, my covenants remain intact!). I appreciate I'm working from a limited sample so welcome other research.

I seriously doubt that a methodology could be devised in order to obtain reliable data, especially given that apostate Mormons are notorious for denying that "sin" had any part in their alienation from the restored gospel. I will say this, however: in my experience, sin (most commonly pride) always precedes the pretense for the alienation. In literally every instance of which I am aware, that has been the case.

[canard78]

I seriously doubt that a methodology could be devised in order to obtain reliable data, especially given that apostate Mormons are notorious for denying that "sin" had any part in their alienation from the restored gospel. I will say this, however: in my experience, sin (most commonly pride) always precedes the pretense for the alienation. In literally every instance of which I am aware, that has been the case.

Thanks for getting back to me William. Working in market research, I'd agree that any such survey would be challenging and probably unreliable, but I was curious to know whether "they look for intellectual support for their rejection of their faith only after they have made the decision not to be faithful to their covenants" was based on anything beyond his perception of other people's very personal decisions.

In which case it might be better to at least acknowledge that "in our personal experience and based on our judgement of those who have fallen away" sin appears to have preceded what you call the "pretense."

Having said that, we're all daily sinners - so the statement you make would be accurate for every single person in the church whatever direction their belief in the church is heading. I got the impression from Prof Midgley's article that a "decision not to be faithful to their covenants" was something more than the sin of pride which according to President Benson is something we are all sometimes guilty of: "Pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Yes, pride is the universal sin, the great vice."

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/05/beware-of-pride

If Prof Midgley is still participating in the thread (and I appreciate some people have genuinely better things to do with their time ), I'd be interested to know if Pride was what he had in mind regarding covenant breaking and if, as you mentioned William, the generalisation in his article was also based on his personal perception of other people's falling away and not on anything empirical which (you rightly state) would be difficult to gather and prove.

In defining Pride President Benson said: "The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.” It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us."

I can accept those who fall away citing intellectual reasons may, during the process, commit the sin of pride. It's also reasonable to say that for some, the perception that they have been misled and deceived may be the trigger to the development of the enmity. I'm not saying that's ok and each individual falling away is a tragedy, but I still can't accept that we can judge others and know whether the sin of pride or intellectual problems came first. Your personal experiences may of course tell you otherwise. But for my research clients, my experience counts for a little and the ability to accurately represent the experience and opinions of the masses counts for a lot.

[DBMormon]

There are two approaches in dealing with and talking about Mormons who have a non-literalist faith, who are agnostics, who have doubts, or who simply see things differently:

1. Welcome them into the fold. Engage them in constructive, respectful, and tolerant dialogue. Love them. Actually listen to what they have to say. Don't be offended or dismissive if they disagree with you. Be overjoyed that they have at least some faith, and some desire to remain part of the fold.

OR

2. Call them antichrists. Accuse them of trying to destroy the Kingdom, and of hating the church. Tell them they have to make a binary choice, and if they don't accept 100% of the Mormon creed (whatever that is, and assuming it exists), then they are in the power of Satan.

Does anybody have any thoughts about which of the above two choices is more consistent with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament?

Mr. Cobalt....... me me me me me me...... I want to try....please!!!!

[DBMormon]

Please point out anyone who is claiming that one should call all those who have a nonliteralist faith, who have doubts or "simply see things differently" "antichrist" and to treat even those who deny that Christ came in the flesh in the way you describe.

You are the one insisting on others having a binary choice, to treat others in one of those two ways. I have seen no evidence that anyone stipulating that there is a set of people out there who are antichrist because they deny that Christ came in the flesh that they all must be treated in identical ways beyond a simple identification that the bible defines those who deny Christ came in the flesh are "antichrist".

Calmoriah - Midgely is saying what you claim he isn't

his quotes

Some vocal cultural Mormons, busy asking themselves “why stay,” claim that it is not at all probable that there is a God, or that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. They also ridicule the Atonement. In the language of our scriptures they are antichrists

- I could conclude it is not probable that Jesus existed but choose to believe or at least hope he did. yet if not probable in my mind then I am antichirst according to him.

This same dynamic also explains why the label antichrist turns up in letters in the New Testament (1 John 2:18–26; 4:1–6; compare 2 John 1:7–15), where it is said that there were those who had gone “out from us” because “they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us” (1 John 2:19 NRSV). Some on the fringes of the primitive church were antichrists because they denied that the Lord (even YHWH) had come in the flesh to vindicate Israel by opening the way leading to life and light (John 14:6).⁶

seems to want to interpret the scripture on his own. Not sure how going out from must mean they were still in the church, rather then left it completely in apostacy

While he uses the language as to take the though from his mind and place responsibility on the scriptures he is itching to label those with less belief as shown in bold.

Edited December 19, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

Calmoriah - Midgely is saying what you claim he isn't

Can you please point out where he called anyone who didn't hold the position of denying Christ is Christ an antiChrist? In the first example you give, he is talking about those who state "it is not at all probable that there....was a Jesus of Nazareth. They also ridicule the Atonement." Are those not according to scripture "antichrist"? Is not ridiculing the Atonement denying the ability of Jesus to be the Christ?

What I am saying is that those who simply have doubts or are nonliteralists in areas not having to do with Christ being Christ or who "see things differently" but do not deny that Jesus was and is the Christ with what that implies are not being labeled as "antiChrists". Your quotes confirm this rather than demonstrating otherwise.

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah