Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I view James 1:27 in the context of Doctrine and Covenants 59:9

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

Both the formality of God ordained religious rites and the heartfelt initiative of service and love to others are needed for the soul and character to be whole and "to keep oneself unspotted from the world."

Edited December 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm struck by how several here -- I'm not sure whether Paloma is one of them -- have opposed love to a concern for faithful adherence to the teachings of the Church, as if they're incompatible with each other.

That hasn't been my experience.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, I am not your enemy.

That's good to know, I suppose, although the thought had never entered my mind that you were.

I'm not quite sure why you've responded this way to a post that mentioned the shameful (and shameless) false accusations leveled by wayfarer and yootaw.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

Some of us little folk, though, continue to see great value not only in Paul and the rest of the scriptures, but -- and here, I suppose, I reveal my plodding small-mindedness -- in all sorts of very old books. Comical as it may seem, many hundreds of them (from Plato to Shakespeare, from Dante to Aristotle to Milton, from Maimonides to al-Ghazali, from Mencius to Confucius, from Job to Sophocles to Thomas Aquinas) still seem to some of us to have a considerable amount to teach us.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some of us little folk, though, continue to see great value not only in Paul and the rest of the scriptures, but -- and here, I suppose, I reveal my plodding small-mindedness -- in all sorts of very old books. Comical as it may seem, many hundreds of them (from Plato to Shakespeare, from Dante to Aristotle to Milton, from Maimonides to al-Ghazali, from Mencius to Confucius, from Job to Sophocles to Thomas Aquinas) still seem to some of us to have a considerable amount to teach us.

In this holiday season, I'm rekindling my affinity for D i c k ens. I've just finished The Chimes and have begun The Cricket on the Hearth. If I stay at it, perhaps I can attain my longtime goal of reading his collected works within my lifetime.

I believe he was about as inspired as any secular author could be.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

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.

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 get he says those who ridicule the atonement, and while I disapprove of those who do that, I worry this too is not exactly definable and that it would be easy to say a lot of things ridicule the atonement based on one person's definition and that gives too much allowance for this term to be used.... Maybe I think some of the faithful here who are intolerant of those who do not carry their same beliefs or faith are "ridiculing the atonement" Can I label them antichrists?

Did I ridicule the atonement in my first few faith crisis threads?

I just think articles like this put everyone who sees them self as not holding to the textbook definition of Mormon, on edge, feeling even more ostracized then their struggles and faith have already placed them. This article in ways makes those on the fringe feel good about it. It feels polarizing. Maybe I am reading more into the article then is there, that is possible and even likely, but I know despite its verbiage, it has a tone of pushing those who are struggling with reconciliation of faith crisis further off into the abyss.

I have said enough and apoligize for perhaps reading more into the article, then what was there. I just know bouncing around the boards, I ntoiced many LDS who are struggling but faithful were offended by this piece. Yes many who detest the church spoke ill of it as well, but it was not them I was focused on. The in the midst of the dark night of the soul or who have found a faithful "middle way" saw this article as offensive. So I read it. all the way through which led to my notes that started this thread. I made several compliments of it, but also perceived negatives which has led to this being a very active thread. If I overstepped the evidence, again I am sorry, I may comment on the thoughts of those here but will not discuss the article further.

Merry Christmas All!!!!

[Daniel Peterson]

In this holiday season, I'm rekindling my affinity for D i c k ens. I've just finished The Chimes and have begun The Cricket on the Hearth. If I stay at it, perhaps I can attain my longtime goal of reading his collected works.

I believe he was about as inspired as any secular author could be.

I strongly agree.

I recall a conversation that I had with the daughter of some old friends many years ago, who was doing a combined major in art and creative writing. (Both legitimate areas to work in, but both focused on expressing oneself rather than on mastering the works of great predecessors, even if -- perhaps because, at that age, one has developed very little self yet -- the art or creative writing major has almost nothing to express.)

She said that people probably shouldn't read any novels or poems that were more than a generation old, because they couldn't be relevant to our time. And she specifically singled ****ens out as worthless.

It was such a perverse thing to say that I had a very difficult time not responding quite sharply to such idiocy. (And, by the way, I choose the word idiocy very deliberately.)

Edited December 22, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[rongo]

In this holiday season, I'm rekindling my affinity for D i c k ens. I've just finished The Chimes and have begun The Cricket on the Hearth. If I stay at it, perhaps I can attain my longtime goal of reading his collected works.

I believe he was about as inspired as any secular author could be.

My and my wife's favorite novel of all time is David Copperfield. We are going to do a special family trip when our children are older, buy everyone their own copies, and read it as a family while on the trip ----- and use it to talk about choosing a spouse, being absolutely loyal once you have chosen, even if you made the wrong choice, etc. The high highs and low lows of life are really powerfully portrayed in that book, too.

I studied "A Christmas Carol" with my 7th and 8th grade English classes during the last two weeks of school before break. I've been waiting for angry parents up in arms about forced Christianity in school, but the literature textbook has a fantastic stage adaptation by Israel Horowitz (pretty ironic, that) that closely follows the novel and the George C. Scott film. One thing we've used it for is to glean exact quotes and to use them in referring to and analyzing the work. But, it has provided a good platform for discussing profound issues. Surprisingly, many more students than I would have thought have no exposure to the story. Those who do know the Disney cartoon or some recent Jim Carrey version. It's been nice to see some kids become thoughtful about their past, present, and future as they see Scrooge's tragic mistakes.

[volgadon]

I shared some thoughts on this in the middle way thread.

[DBMormon]

That's good to know, I suppose, although the thought had never entered my mind that you were.

I'm not quite sure why you've responded this way to a post that mentioned the shameful (and shameless) false accusations leveled by wayfarer and yootaw.

Because, It is easy in this environment to be lumped with those who share the same opinions as you on a topic. It is hard on a board like this to keep all individuals personalities and opinions separate from others who are commenting as well. I want you to be aware that I like you, respect you, and have been blessed by some of your work. But that like Wayfarer I do disagree with the tone of the Interpreter's article that seems to hint at folks like Dehlin, staylds, New Order Mormons, Podcasts such as Mormonstories, Mormon Matters, ect... (The fact he isn't specific about who he is speaking at but uses generalizations like "Podcast" & "Message Boards" leaves a lot up to conjecture)

And what happens is that members who are struggling and have found an outlet to work through their issues using these resources named above, feel like they are part of what is being denigrated. I think if Mr. Midgely had named speifics like "Mormonthink" or "Exmormon.org" then it would have been easier to see where the line was drawn, instead he left all who feel they are struggling to be in the tent of mormonism to wonder if this was pointed at them.

Did I just break my rule of not talking about the article?

Edited December 22, 2012 by DBMormon

[wayfarer]

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 get he says those who ridicule the atonement, and while I disapprove of those who do that, I worry this too is not exactly definable and that it would be easy to say a lot of things ridicule the atonement based on one person's definition and that gives too much allowance for this term to be used.... Maybe I think some of the faithful here who are intolerant of those who do not carry their same beliefs or faith are "ridiculing the atonement" Can I label them antichrists?

...

Merry Christmas All!!!!

Thank you, Bishop, for summarizing the heart of concern. Dr. Midgley's comment above is cruel and false. there is a vast difference between "ridiculing" and "questioning", which is what John Dehlin (and others like him, including me) has/have done, stating some obvious concerns with the topics mentioned. Even moreso, many saints seek to know truth, and in the process find many church claims wanting. This is a long way from the behavior that St. John, in scripture, called "anti-christ". If we look at early Christian history, certain propaganda campaigns were conducted by jewish and roman leaders to outright deny that Jesus was divine in any way, claiming that he was the illegitimate child of a roman centurion, or that he never existed as a person. these are the specific "anti-christs" referred to. members who wished to remain christian, but debated what that meant were not yet considered anathema until after the councils in the fourth to sixth centuries.

So, Dr. Midgley has taken a scripture out of its specific context, and applied uncharitably toward those who, like the ebionim, docetists, or arians, differed from what the specific literalism is about certain church claims. (Curiously, the writer of the Gospel of John also pointed out the absurdity of literalism). As well, Dr. Midgley accuses those who leave and publish exit stories as really leaving because they want to violate their covenants. Dehlin published a study, specifically accurate to the class of people that Dr. Midgley referred to, that overwhelmingly demonstrates that Dr. Midgley's claim is patently false.

I have tried to present to this forum that it is offensive, inaccurate, and harmful to call those who question as "anti-christ" or "violators of covenants". I have done so, however poorly, and I remain unconvincing to any here. It angered me to be mocked as I tried. I simply wanted to demonstrate that such things offend those who have a different, yet faithful view of mormonism.

You all have your well defined notions of what a mormon is and isn't. Evidently, that does not include people like me. After sincerely apologizing to Dr Peterson, he continues to make accusations against me. Dan, I got the message: I'm not welcome. And you know? You're absolutely right: I want nothing to do with any of this. And please do not conclude that I am offended. the word is "embarrassed" or "ashamed" that i belong to such an intolerant community. So message received. Thank you.

Edited December 22, 2012 by wayfarer

[Scott Lloyd]

My and my wife's favorite novel of all time is David Copperfield. We are going to do a special family trip when our children are older, buy everyone their own copies, and read it as a family while on the trip ----- and use it to talk about choosing a spouse, being absolutely loyal once you have chosen, even if you made the wrong choice, etc. The high highs and low lows of life are really powerfully portrayed in that book, too.

I studied "A Christmas Carol" with my 7th and 8th grade English classes during the last two weeks of school before break. I've been waiting for angry parents up in arms about forced Christianity in school, but the literature textbook has a fantastic stage adaptation by Israel Horowitz (pretty ironic, that) that closely follows the novel and the George C. Scott film. One thing we've used it for is to glean exact quotes and to use them in referring to and analyzing the work. But, it has provided a good platform for discussing profound issues. Surprisingly, many more students than I would have thought have no exposure to the story. Those who do know the Disney cartoon or some recent Jim Carrey version. It's been nice to see some kids become thoughtful about their past, present, and future as they see Scrooge's tragic mistakes.

I make it a point to read it to my loved ones at Christmas time. It's not like I'm forcing them to consume it, but it's hard to escape my booming voice in the house. And I enjoy going over the top with method acting, particularly with Marley's ghost. My two younger boys admit that it puts them on edge.

We watch some of my favorite screen adaptations, including the George C. Scott version and the 1951 version with Alistair Sim, the one that introduced me to the novel back when I was 9 or 10.

They have their favorite adulterations, such as "Muppets' Christmas Carol," but that's OK. It acquaints them with the plot points and some of the dialogue and narration, so they can enjoy the book all the more.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I strongly agree.

I recall a conversation that I had with the daughter of some old friends many years ago, who was doing a combined major in art and creative writing. (Both legitimate areas to work in, but both focused on expressing oneself rather than on mastering the works of great predecessors, even if -- perhaps because, at that age, one has developed very little self yet -- the art or creative writing major has almost nothing to express.)

She said that people probably shouldn't read any novels or poems that were more than a generation old, because they couldn't be relevant to our time. And she specifically singled ****ens out as worthless.

It was such a perverse thing to say that I had a very difficult time not responding quite sharply to such idiocy. (And, by the way, I choose the word idiocy very deliberately.)

I was called up for jury service a few weeks ago. During the voir dire process, we each had to tell about ourselves, including our reading preferences. I was disappointed that out of a pool of 60 or so potential jurors, I was the only one who expressed an interest in classic literature.

[Scott Lloyd]

Because, It is easy in this environment to be lumped with those who share the same opinions as you on a topic. It

I've seen the preamble "I'm not your enemy" a time or two on this board, and it has struck me as passive-aggressive rhetoric. It carries the implied accusation that the person to whom it is directed has been behaving like an enemy when such may or may not be the case.

[Paloma]

I'm struck by how several here -- I'm not sure whether Paloma is one of them -- have opposed love to a concern for faithful adherence to the teachings of the Church, as if they're incompatible with each other.

That hasn't been my experience.

I certainly don't oppose love to faithfully following Christ. (Since I am a non-LDS Christian, I would see adherence to teachings differently - or rather I would see teachings and requirements somewhat differently! - but I respect the principle of following teachings within a specific context.). I don't believe that love and faithful adherence to teachings and requirements are intrinsically incompatible with each other.

I read the teachings of Jesus (especially in the Sermon on the Mount) and the New Testament epistles and I get an overwhelming sense that love is much greater than a defensive posture toward orthodoxy. (I understand that love is essentially wanting the best for someone, and that may include challenging people as in "speak the truth in love".)

My interest here was to look at what the Bible says about ''religion' since that came up in discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I certainly don't oppose love to faithfully following Christ. (Since I am a non-LDS Christian, I would see adherence to teachings differently - or rather I would see teachings and requirements somewhat differently! - but I respect the principle of following teachings within a specific context.). I don't believe that love and faithful adherence to teachings and requirements are intrinsically incompatible with each other.

I read the teachings of Jesus (especially in the Sermon on the Mount) and the New Testament epistles and I get an overwhelming sense that love is much greater than a defensive posture toward orthodoxy. (I understand that love is essentially wanting the best for someone, and that may include challenging people as in "speak the truth in love".)

My interest here was to look at what the Bible says about ''religion' since that came up in discussion.

I appreciate your contribution, especially because it gave me the opportunity to contextualize the teaching in James with what Mormons regard as latter-day scripture.

[DBMormon]

I've seen the preamble "I'm not your enemy" a time or two on this board, and it has struck me as passive-aggressive rhetoric. It carries the implied accusation that the person to whom it is directed has been behaving like an enemy when such may or may not be the case.

In this case not true. My first question to Dr. Peterson was answered with a "Stop Hyperventilating". I simply felt like they started us on the wrong foot.

Part of the issue is that at time this board is supposed to allow for intellectual discussion but stay above the fray of emotion (talk about these issues at a studious level) and yet many bring their heart and fellowship here and the conversations positively or negatively take on a real relationship to them. I simply didn't want Dr. Peterson to here my pleas and feel like I was making it personal. I have tried real hard to not do that (admittedly I also fail at it a lot).

[Calm]

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 get he says those who ridicule the atonement, and while I disapprove of those who do that, I worry this too is not exactly definable and that it would be easy to say a lot of things ridicule the atonement based on one person's definition and that gives too much allowance for this term to be used.... Maybe I think some of the faithful here who are intolerant of those who do not carry their same beliefs or faith are "ridiculing the atonement" Can I label them antichrists?

I know that there is a psychological tendency among those already feeling defensive about a particular subject or attribute or activity to expand on or read into what someone else says. Where appropriate we need to take this tendency into account so as to not interefere with our attempts to communicate with those having issues in their life, especially if our attempt is to help them in some way.

However, I am not sure it is necessary or appropriate to treat each discussion that touches on areas where individuals have issues or even specifically discusses issues in the same way. How would psychologists, for example, be able to efficiently and clearly talk about psychological issues in ways that allow them to become better at treatment if they treated each discussion as a conversation with patients or one that involved novices or those completely unaware of the history of psychological treatments?

Serious, not rhetorcal question: If Midgley's article was written for an audience that understood how he was using and limiting his terms, etc. where such limitations would have eliminated the readings that have expanded his comments into insults, is it fair to criticize him for unintended consequences from those he was not writing to just because they had access to the article and he would likely have known they would have access (the article being printed on the Internet in a public forum)?

Edited December 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

I was called up for jury service a few weeks ago. During the voir dire process, we each had to tell about ourselves, including our reading preferences. I was disappointed that out of a pool of 60 or so potential jurors, I was the only one who expressed an interest in classic literature.

I was trying a case once. Jared Diamond was one my veniremen. I was the only one in the courtroom to have read his books and to have known that he had won a Pulitzer. I gave myself a big pat on the back that day, for all it was worth. (Nothing, but I did win.)

[Bob Crockett]

In this case not true. My first question to Dr. Peterson was answered with a "Stop Hyperventilating". I simply felt like they started us on the wrong foot.

I wonder who "they" are.

Midgley's piece is excellent in the way it states its case.

The Christianity advanced in the gospels and the Pauline epistles isn't all touchy-feely New Age agape.

Jesus called a Palestinian mother and her child "dogs" because his ministry was strictly to the Jews, whose leadership he condemned as hypocrites and whited sepulchers. Jesus entered the Garden of Gethsemane with an armed retinue. When the gospel was opened up to the Gentiles, Paul called Peter a "false brother" for not going along with Peter's own revelation regarding Cornelius. There's a lot of conflict between Jesus's Christianity and the practitioners of disobedient godless tradition. Both Jesus and Paul had little patience with people who said one thing and did another, if that "doing another" was contrary to the love of God.

So, for that reason an entire teaching has arisen about "antichrists" and who they are and what they do. That teaching would be worthless if somehow we can't apply it to our own circumstances to identify the antichrists amongst us because somehow such would "drive people away" or offend people.

The New Age Jesus is one who loves without condition, qualification or condemnation. He'd never condemn an adulterer, a child abuser or a murderer. He would grant salvation [Mormon: exaltation] without regard to your attempt to be obedient, so there is no reason to be obedient, is there? He'd never say a disparaging word to your godlessness (the generic "you," not you personally). And so forth.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Daniel Peterson]

After sincerely apologizing to Dr Peterson,

Where can this apology be found? Seriously. Where is it? I haven't seen it.

I may have missed it, but I surely didn't miss your repeated false accusations that my posts responding to you were full of "insults" and "invective," your claim that I probably suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, and the like.

he continues to make accusations against me.

What accusations? That you falsely claimed that I had replied to you with "insults" and "invective," and that you suggested that I suffer from "narcissistic personality disorder"? But . . . well . . . umm . . . you did.

Yet I said nothing even remotely comparable about you.

Dan, I got the message: I'm not welcome.

Not from me you didn't.

And you know? You're absolutely right: I want nothing to do with any of this. And please do not conclude that I am offended. the word is "embarrassed" or "ashamed" that i belong to such an intolerant community. So message received. Thank you.

You just couldn't resist laying down a final baseless parting misrepresentation, I guess.

.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Louis Midgley]

DBMormon, in a rather kindly response, among other things explains that while “bouncing around the boards,” which is something I do not do, he “noticed many LDS who are struggling but faithful [who] were offended by this piece” that I wrote entitled “Defending the King and His King.” He is, he indicates, also aware of “many who detest the church” who did not like my essay, but he paid no attention to them. Instead, he focused on those “who have found a faithful ‘middle way’ [who] who saw the article as offensive.”

DB’s remarks interests me. Why? I am only aware of comments on two threads this board, and some helpful comments on the Interpreter website, where anyone has commented on my essay. The fact is that authors often enjoy and benefit from comments and carefully set out criticisms.. At least I am interested in how various audiences react to what I write. Hence I would very much appreciate knowing where I can have a look at these many comments. The reason for taking a careful look at criticisms is that one can something discover how better to address certain stock issues that are brought up, and so forth. If DBMormon would like to bring these to my attention by email, I can be reached at l.midgley@comcast.net. Or by phone. I think I am still in the phone book.

[Louis Midgley]

In glancing through the comments on this thread again today, I must indicate that I don’t believe that anyone is going to turn away from their covenants with God because of what I wrote. I would be pleased, however, if some were to move a bit beyond seeing the Church, which is or should be a community of faithful Saints, and not a social club one outgrows when it does not meet their own needs, would think seriously about what it means to be a Saint in God’s Kingdom. Put another way, I write with the hope that some may even turn to or return to God because they see more clearly the alternatives. With the usual stereotypes about dreaded apologists cluttering the minds of those who complain about my tone, I am, however, not at all sure how to address the question of the tone of what I write, since that seems to me to be primarily within the control of the way one reads something. There have even been some guarded admissions that one or two have perhaps read into my essay things clearly not there merely because they were impacted by stereotyped images of dreaded apologists.

There is exactly nothing I can do to communicate with those in the “wine and cheese” world of the elite snobbish rejection of divine things. I have known those who were into that world who the emptiness of such a world and hence both turned to or returned to God. I am always hoping to leave open and recommend his way (and not some vague middle way between RfM and Dan Peterson).

[Louis Midgley]

Glancing through the items posted on this thread indicates that I have not responded to Canard78's urgent request that I address his description of his wife's leaving the Church. I am not in a position to venture an opinion on this particular instance. I know none of the details. And God, who is both merciful and just, is the judge in such matters. I can say that I argued in my essay that we never know very much about more than a few things, and hence never can make a fully informed decision. God does not seem to be testing our intellectual capacities, but our moral dispositions. Put in the language of ancient philosophy, the crucial questions for us are not theoretical but practical--that is, given what little we really know, how ought we to live? In addition, It is obvious that some join the Church and then are washed out of it by a flood of stuff that they cannot possible answer. Others never get much beyond what might be called the Junior Sunday School stage and this leaves them vulnerable. And others, while decent and so forth, never really own their faith. They are always at the level of "I was told by my Sunday School teacher, or the missionaries, or Mission President this and that, and then when the foods came, they were not grounded on what our scriptures call the Rock--the doctrine of Christ (see the last part of 3 Nephi 11 and compare it with 3 Nephi 27). But obviously this is just a very preliminary beginning of a list of ways in which people come not to care to be part of the People of God.

I also believe that in many instances it is not at all wise to try arguments to deal with defection. One reason is that arguments and evidences may not have caused the choice and they will most likely not change a disposition. Patient, genuinely caring steadfast love is always appropriate, however.

[Calm]

DB’s remarks interests me. Why? I am only aware of comments on two threads this board, and some helpful comments on the Interpreter website, where anyone has commented on my essay. The fact is that authors often enjoy and benefit from comments and carefully set out criticisms.. At least I am interested in how various audiences react to what I write. Hence I would very much appreciate knowing where I can have a look at these many comments.

Put your waders on. There is often a lot of good stuff out there, but it is often mixed in with a load of fertilizer....