Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[Pahoran]

Louis,

It's great to see you here. I hope you get to spend more time here.

And, just BTW: great article.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Louis Midgley]

Pahoran:

I appreciate your kind words. I must admit that, when I signed on this board in the hopes of engaging in a rational conversation over something I wrote, I was not at all prepared for the rubbish I have read on this and one other thread. It seems that there are now apologists (operating under various labels) for various forms of cultural Mormonism. They seemed anxious to get their bowels in a knot merely because in my recent essay I described how the label anti-Christ is used in our scriptures.

When I noticed that someone who not even a nominal Latter-day Saint, who made a rather good point, commented on this thread, I was reminded of what I took to be a Yiddish expression--Shanda fur di Goyim-- that a very much annoyed Jewish fellow graduate student used back when I was at Brown when he spotted a poor performance on an examination by some Jewish kid while we were grading papers. He explained that he was very annoyed when he noticed some Jewish student's poor performance on an the examination. That Jewish kid, he explained, had disgraced his people in front of the Gentiles. Well, my friend actually used rather more blunt English language. I am, of course, aware of RfM, but some of what has been posted on the two threads clearly is a Shanda--that is, a disgrace and an embarrassment to those with an itch they simply must scratch.

I have no taste for this kind of jousting. I am, alas, sorry I signed on. I can't see any good coming from this kind of prattle. But then I suppose that those who care to have do a service by showing how empty cultural Mormonism really is.

[Daniel Peterson]

I've been showing up here less and less. Unfortunately, "exchanges" such as I've had over the past couple of days with "yootaw" and "wayfarer" have become far too common, and they tend to drive out real conversation about substantive issues.

[Calm]

You two (and others like Bill and Kevin C. and volgadon) need to resurrect Focused Discussions. Much more of what you were expecting and we just don't have enough of those more focused, academic threads. Posters have to be approved to post there and topics are required to stay much more focused with less rabbit trails. Mods also keep a tighter rein there as well.

Edited December 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Hi Lou,

I'm surprised that you have never met someone who retains church membership to maintain family relationships etc... they may (or may not) have an interest in doctrine/history but are certainly a part of Mormon culture. Someone who chooses to engage Mormon culture without accepting the Church's metaphysical truth claims.

Heck, I know and atheist who regularly attends and engages in service projects for his Elder's quorum in American Fork.

Seth

And quite frankly, despite who I know will disagree with me in what I say here, isn't THIS the Gospel of Christ IN ACTION rather than trying to pigeon-hole people by someone's mere definition of something or other? If the Gospel cannot accomodate, love, and try.....I say TRY to literally bless ALL people by INCLUDING them, then what the hell good is it at all? And I absolutely DON'T mean in just mere "prattling" in written articles either, but in real life action, words, deeds, etc. "Prattling" about what makes a Mormon is worthless compared to loving people, no matter what their skin color, mental abilities, physical location, mental thinking, or nationality. "Prattling" about who is a sinner because someone thinks differently than a "normal" Mormon is not near as valuable or useful as a Christ approach as including is, agreeing that you think differently, but so what. vastly superior in every way is willing to lay down your life for even a mere "Gentile" than making everyone else feel guilty while you are the paragon of righteousness in the flesh. It's cheap and easy to point fingers and say "you are guilty while I am righteous." It takes a REAL Mormon to actually BE a Christian loving person. Reality is in action, not the prattling of words in articles about how righteous orthodox Mormons are and looking to brag about it and constantly point it out to everyone else in order to be admired.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Calm]

And quite frankly, despite who I know will disagree with me in what I say here, isn't THIS the Gospel of Christ IN ACTION rather than trying to pigeon-hole people by someone's mere definition of something or other? If the Gospel cannot accomodate, love, and try.....I say TRY to literally bless ALL people by INCLUDING them, then what the hell good is it at all? And I absolutely DON'T mean in just mere "prattling" in written articles either, but in real life action, words, deeds, etc. "Prattling" about what makes a Mormon is worthless compared to loving people, no matter what their skin color, mental abilities, physical location, mental thinking, or nationality. "Prattling" about who is a sinner because someone thinks differently than a "normal" Mormon is not near as valuable or useful as a Christ approach as including is, agreeing that you think differently, but so what. vastly superior in every way is willing to lay down your life for even a mere "Gentile" than making everyone else feel guilty while you are the paragon of righteousness in the flesh. It's cheap and easy to point fingers and say "you are guilty while I am righteous." It takes a REAL Mormon to actually BE a Christian loving person. Reality is in action, not the prattling of words in articles about how righteous orthodox Mormons are and looking to brag about it and constantly point it out to everyone else to supposedly be admired.

So Kerry, should one just give up on all intellectual/academic/clinical/abstract discussion in favour of going out and serving others?

Where would you be if that happened? At least as bored as I would be, if not more so.

There is learning that comes through action and learning that comes through participating in language exchanges . And as long as language is involved and accurate communication is a goal, then things and people are going to get defined so that communication can actually take place.

If learning is to be eternal, defining and classifying will be as well...especially if that is what leads us all to the act of creation.

And if one doesn't define who is outside of a community however it chooses to define itself, then how is one to know who to go out, seek out and invite out to join one's community?

It would be one thing if the ultimate intent was to limit who was and who wasn't allowed in, but the ultimate goal of the LDS faith community is to invite all to enter in and to welcome all those who sincerely accept the invitation and to recognize those that do not sincerely accept it either through rejection or false pretense so that they can work on the outsiders' hearts both though being better individuals themselves that draw others closer and to help others be better individuals so their hearts will soften and be open to love and the Spirit and ultimately whatever message God has for them through the medium of the LDS faith.

Edited December 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't buy your implicit notion, Kerry, that orthodox believers have chosen orthodox believe in lieu of love and kindness.

I simply see no evidence of that, and none of the contrary (i.e., that more liberal people, unconcerned with clear distinctions or particular beliefs, are more loving).

[Calm]

It's cheap and easy to point fingers and say "you are guilty while I am righteous."

You are quite right and any LDS who believes just by being a believing LDS they are more righteous than any nonLDS doesn't really understand what they claim to believe.

But it is very few in my experience of those who say "I am a LDS and you are not", even those who mean by this "I am a LDS who believes in the core beliefs as taught by LDS Church and you are not even if you claim to be" who interpret this to mean "I am righteous and you are not".

It is kind of cheap and easy to point and say "I am being Christlike because I am going out and serving others and you are not because you want to "just talk about things" (or anything else someone might want to put in the space). Talking about what is wrong with someone is always easier than talking about what is wrong with oneself and much, much easier than trying to do something about it. It is why pretty much all of us slip into the habit of such so easily. It is a habit we must be vigilant against....but we also need to realize that talking about the differences between people is not always talking about what is wrong with the other. We need to be careful to identify the assumptions that terms carry for us personal and not assume that the same assumptions apply for another who is using the same language.

Edited December 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I don't buy your implicit notion, Kerry, that orthodox believers have chosen orthodox believe in lieu of love and kindness.

I simply see no evidence of that, and none of the contrary (i.e., that more liberal people, unconcerned with clear distinctions or particular beliefs, are more loving).

I see very little love or care with liberals or conservatives once one gets the mindset that our religion is being attacked and we must defend it come hell or high water. All it ends up becoming is a spitting contest with lots of bad feelings everywhere. The recent threads here are my evidence. Religion and religious thinking is a narrowing of the ability to accept people for who they are, whether it is an orthodox Christian/Mormon/Muslim, or a New Order Mormon/Christian/Muslim. It's more than obvious that there is only ONE way to be a "good" Mormon..... and as I have noted before, it causes severe judgmental words and actions....i.e. religion divides and causes anger, meanness, divisiveness, anger, and eventually war, if allowed to grow and magnify. The religious argument over who gets to be what is utterly an inept waste of time. Christ will ultimately judge, our mission? Love God, neighbor and self. On THAT hangs everything. It's not about definitions, categories of righteous and wickedness, etc.

[Calm]

I don't buy your implicit notion, Kerry, that orthodox believers have chosen orthodox believe in lieu of love and kindness.

There is no more orthodox belief in the LDS faith than the one that we are all children of God, of one family, literally brothers and sisters and that heaven is about having our families forever, families that if they extend back through eternity must surely also extend out through the present to include all who exist.

If a believer truly believes that so deeply it is in his bones, in her dna, then what wonderful people he and she will be; practically every act, practically every breath will become an expression of love and kindness.

I cannot think of any other belief that could have a greater impact on someone for turning them to love their fellowmen.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

You are quite right and any LDS who believes just by being a believing LDS they are more righteous than any nonLDS doesn't really understand what they claim to believe.

But it is very few in my experience of those who say "I am a LDS and you are not", even those who mean by this "I am a LDS who believes in the core beliefs as taught by LDS Church and you are not even if you claim to be" who interpret this to mean "I am righteous and you are not".

It is kind of cheap and easy to point and say "I am being Christlike because I am going out and serving others and you are not because you want to talk about things" (or anything else someone might want to put in the space). Talking about what is wrong with someone is always easier than talking about what is wrong with oneself and much, much easier than trying to do something about it. It is why pretty much all of us slip into the habit of such so easily. It is a habit we must be vigilant against....but we also need to realize that talking about the differences between people is not always talking about what is wrong with the other. We need to be careful to identify the assumptions that terms carry for us personal and not assume that the same assumptions apply for another who is using the same language.

Fair enough, good points, as always. By the way, this goes for everyone here, I wish you sincerely all the best of Holidays this season of consternation......

[Calm]

I see very little love or care with liberals or conservatives once one gets the mindset that our religion is being attacked and we must defend it come hell or high water. All it ends up becoming is a spitting contest with lots of bad feelings everywhere. The recent threads here are my evidence.

Honestly, a discussion board is not very much of life. If you want to see how someone really treats their fellowmen, then you need to take more into account then just their output on a message board and see how they treat people face to face.

Some people may see such discussions as intimate interactions but many see such discussions as abstractions that discuss the ideals and the definitions and the categories and the limits while in their behaviour outside of these discussions they place little to no limits on who they include in their interactions, don't feel any need to deal with definitions they've been dissecting for hours and hours or years in an intellectual discussion. Debates that occur in a college class can be seen as quite healthy where the same debate if it was held around the dinner table or worse, in a bedroom, would be disastrous for a family. Context of where a conversation is taking place and what it is meant to achieve is as important as the context of what goes on in a conversation. We need to be careful to be clear about each....especially if we intend to judge anyone in terms of morality or righteous behaviour from either.

Kerry, you know how I feel about you so please take that into account when I say this, you appear to me to be standing up and seeing if you can spit the farthest along with anyone else.

Edited December 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Fair enough, good points, as always. By the way, this goes for everyone here, I wish you sincerely all the best of Holidays this season of consternation......

And I wish you peace and tranquility and a sense of brotherhood with all men and women everywhere...even those of us spitting away.

[Calm]

oops

Edited December 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

Religion and religious thinking is a narrowing of the ability to accept people for who they are

I heartily disagree.

It can be that, of course. But so can many other things.

[Calm]

Religion and religious thinking is a narrowing of the ability to accept people for who they are

So when you hear someone is religious or belongs to a faith community these days and you are thinking about who they are, does knowing they are religious help you to accept them for who they are or are you more prone to think of them as narrow thinkers, people who don't take enough time to love their neighbours or some such thing?

[DBMormon]

I've been showing up here less and less. Unfortunately, "exchanges" such as I've had over the past couple of days with "yootaw" and "wayfarer" have become far too common, and they tend to drive out real conversation about substantive issues.

Dan, I am not your enemy. I am not rogue or have a divisive agenda. I even admit that Calmoriah has made some good points that I have pondered which has led to my saying very little the last 24 hours here or on the other thread.

that said - taking a step back and looking at this, here is where I stand.

Midgely's article definitively states he is speaking to those who are among the members of the church who define their belief as those who doubt or perhaps even believe that Christ was divine. I completely agree that one can interpret the scriptures to define these people as antichrists. He even names Dehlin as one of these. I also am aware he guides the article more to those who share their less then literal beliefs through podcasts and discussion boards.

But I also know that anyone who sees themselves as having a more open approach to the faith is offended by this article. That in a sense it makes enemies of those it may not be directed to. Now you will say that is unfair that the article is being blamed for offending those it is not meant for, but it comes down to the rhetoric in the article being very dividing and placing any who have come through a phase of shifting views on the church and readjusting their belief, as they have become aware of troubling issues they never knew existed, to feel like articles this this are trying to label them. It is too personal. antichrist is a strong word and the article leaves too much up for misunderstanding and it is easy to see oneself as part of the group being criticized.

I think we ought to worry about those in our own backyard whom we can first build relationships and work with individually and leave the calling of antichrists to bishops, Stake Presidents, Apostles, and prophets (who for some reason have chosen not to do what Midgely feels very comfortable throwing out there).... and they don't who am I to define someone's faith as being in the tent or being an antichrist. It is just too close to home for many of these folks to throw this label around.

[Bob Crockett]

It takes a REAL Mormon to actually BE a Christian loving person. Reality is in action, not the prattling of words in articles about how righteous orthodox Mormons are and looking to brag about it and constantly point it out to everyone else in order to be admired.

Too much New Age hubris. A couple of days reading the Gospels and the Pauline epistles will cure you of that.

[Paloma]

So when you hear someone is religious or belongs to a faith community these days and you are thinking about who they are, does knowing they are religious help you to accept them for who they are or are you more prone to think of them as narrow thinkers, people who don't take enough time to love their neighbours or some such thing?

Calmoriah, it's interesting to see how the Bible refers to the term "religion/religious". It is scarcely used (4x in total, I think) and at least a couple of times refers to adherence to a religious system. However, the clearest statement of its essence in terms of what God appreciates and values is here:

James 1:26-27:

"If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless.

Pure and undefiled religion before God our Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."

What James says here reminds me of what Paul says in ! Corinthians 13 about potentially having the gifts of eloquent speech and deep understanding and knowledge and even faith ... but without love, these are nothing.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Too much New Age hubris. A couple of days reading the Gospels and the Pauline epistles will cure you of that.

You've GOT to be kidding right? The Pauline epistles? Ayiyi....... why would I value his opinionated views as if they represent reality? He is but a man who spouted all sorts of interesting things that ended up being quite irrelevant once it became obvious that Jesus was not coming back for a second time like everyone in Paul's day thought. Paul thought more so than any of them, hence his vehement silliness based on wrong information and belief about Jesus' quick return. His entire paradigm was skewed by that, and hence is made all the more useless for our age, since he was wrong, and his ideas are based on a fundamentally way different reality than our day is in. And yes, I know, I know, one can find all sorts of things to take out of context and pretend there is universal relevance and hence Paul must be true and all that sort of jazz. I have been there, done that, not impressed.

[DBMormon]

Too much New Age hubris. A couple of days reading the Gospels and the Pauline epistles will cure you of that.

Do Pauline Epistles trump Christ and his words and behavior?

[volgadon]

Do Pauline Epistles trump Christ and his words and behavior?

Look at what precedes "Pauline epistles" in Bob's post.

[Calm]

Midgely's article definitively states he is speaking to those who are among the members of the church who define their belief as those who doubt or perhaps even believe that Christ was divine.

you may have done it before, but if not, then for sure and if you have, to be helpful to us who have a hard time keeping track of a conversation spread over several days, quotes where Brother Midgeley states what you claim would be nice.

[Calm]

James 1:26-27:

"If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless.

Pure and undefiled religion before God our Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."

What James says here reminds me of what Paul says in ! Corinthians 13 about potentially having the gifts of eloquent speech and deep understanding and knowledge and even faith ... but without love, these are nothing.

I would totally agree.

[Paloma]

I would totally agree.

And I would expect that you would!