Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[wenglund]

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.

Careful. This is kind of openness to criticism and conciliatory spirit will likely not bode well for your reputation as the meanest man in Mormonism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Louis Midgley]

Wade:

Well, you might be right. I realize that I cannot control the way in which others will read what I write. But one can still learn from critics of all types. What can I learn from a critic on another very hostile board where I found the following curious item from someone called "harmony":

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:51 am

MODERATOR

Who is the King being referred to?

[volgadon]

Wade:

Well, you might be right. I realize that I cannot control the way in which others will read what I write. But one can still learn from critics of all types. What can I learn from a critic on another very hostile board where I found the following curious item from someone called "harmony":

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:51 am

MODERATOR

Who is the King being referred to?

More importantly, is the kingdom actually an empire state?

[volgadon]

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.

Tell them it is the ghost of Stanislavskys past.

[wenglund]

Wade:

Well, you might be right. I realize that I cannot control the way in which others will read what I write. But one can still learn from critics of all types. What can I learn from a critic on another very hostile board where I found the following curious item from someone called "harmony":

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:51 am

MODERATOR

Who is the King being referred to?

This kind of breath-taking question is to be expected from one who styles herself as 'harmony", and yet is anything but. It comes from drinking deep from the irony-deficient watering hole of jackals who yap and snip incessantly at the heels of faith-defenders they mistakenly consider to be meanies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 24, 2012 by wenglund

[Louis Midgley]

Perhaps volfadon needs to find somewhere else to play, since some who visit this thread, including me, might enjoy a conversation rather than banter.

[Louis Midgley]

Wade:

I here some of Dan's stories. But I have not gotten into blogs and boards very much. I have looked around a little today. What I found was instructive in a negative way. Ignorance and hatred, coupled with smugness, are a dangerous mix. The product is, however, amusing. Well it is amusing to see folks who think that the scriptures are trash quoting them against the faithful. Or complaining about tone. Or a host of other things that their own words convict them of. Simply amazing.

[wenglund]

Wade:

I here some of Dan's stories. But I have not gotten into blogs and boards very much. I have looked around a little today. What I found was instructive in a negative way. Ignorance and hatred, coupled with smugness, are a dangerous mix. The product is, however, amusing. Well it is amusing to see folks who think that the scriptures are trash quoting them against the faithful. Or complaining about tone. Or a host of other things that their own words convict them of. Simply amazing.

Honest self-reflection and fair and proportionate external perspective are not their strong suite. However, they are unmatched when it comes to the laudable qualities of victimology and ark-steadying. Their frustration with apologists is only exceeded by their angst that few others appreciate and acknowledge their presumed unrivaled intelligence as much as they do. Most astonishing is how well they are able to stomach each other's socially repelling behavior for so long. Perhaps their is some powerful form of co-dependent cohesion in shared dysfunction. Whatever the case, it makes for a fascinating human study that, if one is not careful, can be addictive (ask Daniel)--like rubber-necking a train wreck.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Louis Midgley]

For those who might have a look at this thread from what seems like the asylum known as MAD, or who self-identify as New Order or Middle Way types, and who even, it seems, wonder about the identity of the King who offers all of us the only genuine hope of liberation from a disconsolate world in which we all face the eventual death of our bodies and right now of our souls, I urge them to read John 18:36. This should remind them of who the real King is.

This is, of course, a call to repentance, where that word means, as it does in our scriptures, turning to (returning to) the Lord, or of having a mighty change of heart and mind. All of us, of course, have to give up the illusion that the community of Saints is a kind of social club in which anything goes. Perhaps, I hope, during this season something might have softened hearts and opened minds to the exceedingly good news that may never have been fully grasped and is now being ridiculed and mocked on various dreadful blogs and boards.

[wayfarer]

After careful review of all the posts in this thread and the other thread about "so called Middle Way", I stand behind each statement I made with two exceptions: (1) I recind my apology to Dr. Peterson, for I find all my statements accurate and in no need of apology, and (2) I erred in thinking Drs Peterson, Midgley, and Hamblin as representing the Church. I had forgotten that Peterson was removed from his position at Maxwell Institute, meaning whatever this group is, it does so outside of official LDS sanction.

Dr. Midgley's statement, above, implies that he is in a position to call people like me to repentance, which is in opposition to church doctrine: he is not my bishop, stake president, nor anyone in authority to make such a judgment. I note that John 18:36 speaks of a kingdom not of this world, for which servants do not fight, so again, his own scripture condemns this hateful deriding of those who question or struggle with faith. I am reminded of Luke 18:10-14.

And to consider this a christmas greeting from Dr. Midgley? no thanks.

[Daniel Peterson]

I recind my apology to Dr. Peterson

Which was . . . where, exactly?

If it ever existed, I certainly never saw it.

[Louis Midgley]

Dan:

It seems that the wayfarer flees when no one is after them. And he quotes scripture while doing so.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think you're right. He complains about how I've made him feel unwelcome here, but he won't point to anything I said that does so.

He refuses to accept my "terms" for participation here, but won't explain what those supposed terms are and won't identify where I supposedly dictated them or laid them down.

He's certainly prone to making dubious claims and then refusing to back them up.

He accused me of covering him with "insults" and "invective" but has refused multiple requests to supply even a single example of this.

Now he's claiming to have apologized to me, but has ignored two requests to show where that apology occurred.

He's also prone to writing really, really nasty and unjust things about us over on his home message board, to the applause of those who frequent it.

Shame on him.

[Teancum]

Wade:

I here some of Dan's stories. But I have not gotten into blogs and boards very much. I have looked around a little today. What I found was instructive in a negative way. Ignorance and hatred, coupled with smugness, are a dangerous mix. The product is, however, amusing. Well it is amusing to see folks who think that the scriptures are trash quoting them against the faithful. Or complaining about tone. Or a host of other things that their own words convict them of. Simply amazing.

.

Indeed smugness and ignorance are a dangerous mix. As are smugness and arrogance. Or even smugness and overt piety. All combine to diminish the ability to communicate and to put ones self in another shoes. I often wonder these days about how mere humans really know what God thinks, says, how God acts, what God really does expect. There are a lot of opinions about just why God does what God does that are posted on many message boards. God expects this out of us, or that, or some other thing. Yet here we are fallible human beings opining quite often with certitude that we really understand the mind and will of God. Sure we have scripture but we argue that even scripture is fallible. As Latter day Saints we argue that we also have prophets and apostles. Yet we also argue that they are fallible and at least I see much of what has been said by them that we may not like today as being opinion. Last of all we do believe we have the Holy Ghost to reveal God's will to us. Yet that experience can only be certain and unique fornthe person who experiences it. And even then I am sure many of you like me have seen fellow saints claim some pretty astounding things in the name of personal revelation. I think it is tough to really know what God wants, thinks or expects.

As for who is and is not anti Christ, well sure, as I noted briefly on the other thread discussing this same thing there does have to be a standard for at least determing the orthodoxy of any faith system. The LDS Church is entitled to that. But keep in mind the same method some propose to us to determine who really should be called a Mormon is simply used by Orthodox Christians who want to exclude Latter day Saints from Christianity. Are those who set parameters for who is a true Mormon willing to abide such methods when used against us? And how about those dastardly FLDSers. They sure believe in God, accept Jesus as the Christ, accept Joseph Smith as prophet of the restoration as well as the Book of Mormon. Do Brother Hamblin or Brother Midgley accept the FLDS saints as Mormon.

And while we toss around a flammatory term like anti Christ we should remember we sure don't like others calling us a cult. And how about all those fine Jewish and Muslim scholars some of you LDS scholars hob nob with? Using a strict read of the apostle John I guess such persons would also be anti Christ as well. Tough words really. But hey I see here many think it great that Jesus and Paul were not weak need mambsy pambsy types. Should we let Jews and Muslims know they are anti Christs?

As for middle way, NOMers, etc....well my take is leave it to their bishops and stake presidents. And let the First Presidency and the Twelve set the parameters for what must be accepted to be considered a Mormon. Really as for orthodoxy, I think we have that already in the form of a temple recommend interview.

[Scott Lloyd]

Dr. Midgley's statement, above, implies that he is in a position to call people like me to repentance, which is in opposition to church doctrine: he is not my bishop, stake president, nor anyone in authority to make such a judgment.

I'll have to issue a CFR on this. What documentation is there for the notion that Church doctrine only allows an individual's bishop, stake president or someone in "authority" (whatever the intended meaning of that is) to call someone to repentance?

Missionaries certainly call people to repentance constantly when they teach and encourage prospective converts to give up smoking, obey the law of chastity, observe the Sabbath, etc. as a condition for baptism.

Parents, in correcting wayward children, call them to repentance.

Beyond that, it would be appropriate for a caring person, observing destructive and sinful behavior in a friend or relative, to urge the person for the good of himself and others to forsake such behavior.

I don't know where the notion comes from that only a priesthood leader can do that. It is true that such a "common judge in Israel" has the role of determining worthiness for temple recommends, holding callings, priesthood advancement and such. But certainly any sensible person can observe the need for and urge correction or improvement in another.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

I'll have to issue a CFR on this. What documentation is there for the notion that Church doctrine only allows an individual's bishop, stake president or someone in "authority" (whatever the intended meaning of that is) to call someone to repentance?

Missionaries certainly call people to repentance constantly when they teach and encourage prospective converts to give up smoking, obey the law of chastity, observe the Sabbath, etc. as a condition for baptism.

Parents, in correcting wayward children, call them to repentance.

Beyond that, it would be appropriate for a caring person, observing destructive and sinful behavior in a friend or relative, to urge the person for the good of himself and others to forsake such behavior.

I don't know where the notion comes from that only a priesthood leader can do that. It is true that such a "common judge in Israel" has the role of determining worthiness for temple recommends, holding callings, priesthood advancement and such. But certainly any sensible person can observe the need for and urge correction or provement in another.

Hi Scott,

I don't know of any specific guideline but I think some may consider it to be outside one's stewardship to call others to repentance. In my ward, it is the Bishop who is the Judge in Israel. Not me. So, I suppose it would require extraordinary circumstances for me to feel comfortable in admonishing someone outside my family.

Thinking of a few examples in the scriptures it calls to repentance came from who had been explicitly called to proclaim repentance. I'm sure there are circumstances where this is not the case, though.

Anyway, I think may be what wayfarer is referring to. Just a guess.

Seth

[Scott Lloyd]

As I recall, the words of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland have been quoted in this thread (or perhaps it was the "new-order Mormon" thread.)

As it happens, Elder Holland's talk from the most recent general conference, the one in October of this year, was the basis for our high priests group lesson yesterday morning. As we pondered it, it struck me that some portions of that talk are applicable to the discussion at hand here on this thread, pertaining to Dr. Midgley's Interpreter article on defending the Kingdom and the King, and to the associated thread on so-called "new order Mormons" or "middle-way Mormons."

I will herewith quote passages from the talk, giving bold-face emphasis to what I see as pertinent phrases and lines.

In doing this, I hasten to add that I strongly disapprove of the frequent practice among antagonists and critics of the Church to quote Church leaders out of context, and I am anxious to avoid doing that here. I will try to reproduce long-enough passages that the speaker's intended context is as clear as can be reasonably ascertained. Moreover, I provide this link to the written text of Elder Holland's talk on lds.org and invite -- nay, urge -- everyone reading this to go read the text in its entirety. Better yet, click on the video link so as to have the benefit of the speaker's intonation, facial expressions, etc., thereby striving to receive the message in the most accurate way possible.

“If ye love me, keep my commandments,”¹⁴ Jesus said. So we have neighbors to bless, children to protect, the poor to lift up, and the truth to defend. We have wrongs to make right, truths to share, and good to do. In short, we have a life of devoted discipleship to give in demonstrating our love of the Lord. We can’t quit and we can’t go back. After an encounter with the living Son of the living God, nothing is ever again to be as it was before. The Crucifixion, Atonement, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ mark the beginning of a Christian life, not the end of it. It was this truth, this reality, that allowed a handful of Galilean fishermen-turned-again-Apostles without “a single synagogue or sword”¹⁵ to leave those nets a second time and go on to shape the history of the world in which we now live.

I testify from the bottom of my heart, with the intensity of my soul, to all who can hear my voice that those apostolic keys have been restored to the earth, and they are found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To those who have not yet joined with us in this great final cause of Christ, we say, “Please come.” To those who were once with us but have retreated, preferring to pick and choose a few cultural hors d’oeuvres from the smorgasbord of the Restoration and leave the rest of the feast, I say that I fear you face a lot of long nights and empty nets. The call is to come back, to stay true, to love God, and to lend a hand. I include in that call to fixed faithfulness every returned missionary who ever stood in a baptismal font and with arm to the square said, “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ.”¹⁶ That commission was to have changed your convert forever, but it was surely supposed to have changed you forever as well. To the youth of the Church rising up to missions and temples and marriage, we say: “Love God and remain clean from the blood and sins of this generation. You have a monumental work to do, underscored by that marvelous announcement President Thomas S. Monson made yesterday morning. Your Father in Heaven expects your loyalty and your love at every stage of your life.”

Edited December 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

I don't know of any specific guideline but I think some may consider it to be outside one's stewardship to call others to repentance. In my ward, it is the Bishop who is the Judge in Israel. Not me. So, I suppose it would require extraordinary circumstances for me to feel comfortable in admonishing someone outside my family.

Thinking of a few examples in the scriptures it calls to repentance came from who had been explicitly called to proclaim repentance. I'm sure there are circumstances where this is not the case, though.

Anyway, I think may be what wayfarer is referring to. Just a guess.

Seth

Seth, I'm not sure you quite understand me.

Did you get the part where I drew a distinction between the role of a common judge in Israel (determining worthiness to hold Church callings, be admitted to the temple, advance in the priesthood, etc.) and simply urging a person to forsake bad or sinful behavior?

I acknowlege that priesthood leaders have certain formal roles in this regard, but that does not preclude an earnest call to repentance from one who is merely a caring friend or fellow Latter-day Saint.

To apply it to the point at hand, I don't see that it requires a specific calling in the Church to appropriately make an expression such as Dr. Midgley did in his post.

[sethpayne]

Seth, I'm not sure you quite understand me.

Did you get the part where I drew a distinction between the role of a common judge in Israel (determining worthiness to hold Church callings, be admitted to the temple, advance in the priesthood, etc.) and simply urging a person to forsake bad or sinful behavior?

Hi Scott,

I think we are on the same page. In all the examples you gave the person admonishing repentance held stewardship over the person being admonished.

I acknowlege that priesthood leaders have certain formal roles in this regard, but that does not preclude an earnest call to repentance from one who is merely a caring friend or fellow Latter-day Saint.

I would extend your formal definition -- at least in general practice -- to a combo of formall/informal demarcations of stewardship.

To apply it to the point at hand, I don't see that it requires a specific calling in the Church to appropriately make an expression such as Dr. Midgley did in his post.

I haven't read Lou's article and thus, have no opinion one way or another in this specific case. And even if I did, what would it matter? If Lou feels inspired to write such an article than he should follow the promptings and write it. I'm certainly not going to discourage him from writing anything he feels important enough to address. 1) Lou doesn't care who I am, nor should he. Thus, my views on him should be considered meaningless -- if considered at all. 2) If I personally don't like what Lou writes I probably won't read it. 3) Why should I be concerned over what Lou may, or may not, think about people like me? Sounds like an interesting article with some good points. Perhaps I'll read it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

I think we are on the same page. In all the examples you gave the person admonishing repentance held stewardship over the person being admonished.

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

[sethpayne]

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

Well, I suppose I do agree but I think this would be the very rare exception given that the Lord has put an organizational structure in place to ensure calls to repentance come from the steward.

I'm trying to think of an example of where it would be more appropriate for a person to call someone to repentance rather than that person's bishop. But, I suppose the Lord could aim from two directions.

As I said, I think people need to do what they feel is right and write what they feel inspired to explore.

[canard78]

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.

Dear Dr Midgley, thanks for replying directly to my question. I appreciate you can't comment directly on my wife's case - I hadn't meant you to as I appreciate you don't know the details. I fully agree with your statement of "patient, genuinely caring steadfast love is always appropriate." This, more than anything else, has allowed our relationship to strengthen in the midst of her transition.

What you describe above as reasons for leaving I can broadly agree with. But I'm not sure it addresses the statement you made in the original article.

You said:

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.

As mentioned before, the first couple of sentences fits with your descriptions in the recent response. As you mentioned, most people who leave the church or go inactive, join and then leave with almost no awareness of 'intellectual issues' or an interaction with a 'middle-way' or 'new order' minority. Those 'middle/NOM' members are not representative of the majority of those who leave.

Was your statement above directed towards all inactives or the NOM/middle wayers who cite intellectual reasons?

To clarify... let us take as our 'base' the people whose "stereotyped exit-stories indicate that they look for intellectual support for their rejection of their faith" (and not the majority who have probably have nothing to do with intellectual issues on their way out). Are you saying that most/all of these people have "made the decision not to be faithful to their covenants" first and then "look for intellectual support" later?

If so, on what basis can you say this? How do you know the personal behaviour and covenant keeping of these people? If you don't feel able to comment on my wife's story, why those who post their "stereotyped exit-stories?"

I may have misunderstood the whole meaning of that paragraph, and perhaps you were simply saying that most people leave the church for other reasons, not intellectual ones. If so, the original wording is easy to misread.

You say in your response above that some are "washed out of it by a flood of stuff that they cannot possible answer" but you then seem to contradict yourself when you also say "arguments and evidences may not have caused the choice and they will most likely not change a disposition."

By saying they "may not" I appreciate you seem to be at least acknowledging that in some cases the evidences also "may have" caused the choice and disposition.

In reality, as you say, God will judge, not us. It may only be my perception, but the paragraph from your article I quoted above suggests to me that you've not followed your own advice. If I'm wrong and it's merely a mis-writing or mis-reading I'm happy to say otherwise.

[canard78]

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

I see no role for the general membership to go around judging and correcting others. None at all.

To quote a recent general conference talk:

This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following:

Stop it!

It’s that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children. God is our Father. We are His children. We are all brothers and sisters. I don’t know exactly how to articulate this point of not judging others with sufficient eloquence, passion, and persuasion to make it stick. I can quote scripture, I can try to expound doctrine, and I will even quote a bumper sticker I recently saw. It was attached to the back of a car whose driver appeared to be a little rough around the edges, but the words on the sticker taught an insightful lesson. It read, “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-merciful-obtain-mercy?lang=eng

Can you point out where, anywhere in scriptures or even the church handbook of instruction that gives approval for you, without calling, to "advise a Church member that his behavior his wrong and he needs to mend his ways."

There are certain specific roles in the church where stewardship is given to judge. Beyond that... regard not the mote in your brothers eye. Judge not that ye be not judged. I thought that was among the most basic of gospel principles?

The fact that imperfect church members think it IS their right and responsibility to go around commenting on other people's imperfections is a poison throughout our church and will do more damage than many other behaviors.

[Tacenda]

My previous bishop, turned Stake Pres., knew of my faith crisis because I turned down a teaching calling in the Primary and told him why. Yesterday the new bishop's counselor asked if I could sit with a handicap boy each Sunday in primary but not teach. So they're aware now. I accepted because I had said give me a service calling that doesn't require teaching. And that's just what they did! So I believe it's definitely possible for "middlewayers" to remain in the church. Who's to say they won't regain a testimony of some kind again?

Edited December 24, 2012 by Tacenda

[Hestia]

Wayfarer is taking a break from this thread.