Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[volgadon]

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?

Amen to that.

[Daniel Peterson]

Wayfarer is taking a break from this thread.

Although I didn't see it, I'm guessing that this "break" comes because wayfarer posted something else here, and that, once again, it neither provided specific examples of the supposed "insults" and "invective" that I allegedly aimed at him nor, failing that, apologized for his false accusations. Having had some experience with him by this point, I expect that it was probably chock full of invective and quite insulting. (And, yes, I could, on request, point to specific actual invective and insults from wayfarer, who courageously embraces frank hypocrisy without concern for what others might think of him.)

Right now, having plainly found a different venue not bound by my alleged "terms," one that is more welcoming to his style of discourse (which has recently included his amateur diagnosis that I'm mentally ill), he's busy on his new home message board insinuating that at least one of his critics here (not me) is a homosexual.

Plainly, Wayfarer has very, very high standards for online conversation.

With that set-up in place, I'm now prepared to provide an example of a Church member without specific stewardship appropriately calling another to repentance:

Wayfarer, you should stop bearing false witness. Just stop it.

[volgadon]

he's busy on his new home message board insinuating that at least one of his critics here (not me) is a homosexual.

Wow. No matter what way one espouses, that is just plain nasty.

[Senator]

^{I know that the board rules don't specifically state this, but in my mind, "calling others to repentance" is in the same catagory as "proselytizing", and therefore not appropriate for a forum as this.}

^{But that's just me.}

Edited December 24, 2012 by Senator

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm HP group teacher, and I call my group (including me) to repentance every week. No one has ever objected.

[Senator]

I'm HP group teacher, and I call my group (including me) to repentance every week. No one has ever objected.

I wish I could be in you HP group for the mere reason to be the one to offer objection!

[canard78]

I'm HP group teacher, and I call my group (including me) to repentance every week. No one has ever objected.

I think someone called to teach a lesson is also in a position to teach general principles that would include messages that would call for a change in behaviour.

I would suggest that's quite different to a peer to peer correction and different to Scott Lloyd saying it's ok to: ”advise a Church member that his behavior is wrong and he needs to mend his ways."

As I've said before, there's also an issue of appropriate time and place. The MI's most productive work and best audience should be those who are suffering a faith crisis. If they feel attacked by the environment where they hope to find reassurance and reffuge from the emotional battering of challenging historical information, then there's a chance they won't come back again, thereby undermining the very work MI is setting out to do.

Even though the article has been since clarified as not targetting a doubter, it still reads like that for a lot of people with fragile faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

^{I know that the board rules don't specifically state this, but in my mind, "calling others to repentance" is in the same catagory as "proselytizing", and therefore not appropriate for a forum as this.}

^{But that's just me.}

Did Senator just issue a call to repentance?

Edited to add:

And in a large font, to boot.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

Did Senator just issue a call to repentance?

Edited to add:

And in a large font, to boot.

No

[canard78]

Did Senator just issue a call to repentance?

Edited to add:

And in a large font, to boot.

Hi Scott, I think he's simply referering people to board rules.

By the way, did you get the chance to review my reply to you. In light of Elder Uchtdorf's talk do you still believe it's fine for a peer with no calling giving them the authority to make a judgement of another members behaviour and to: ”advise a Church member that his behavior is wrong and he needs to mend his ways."

To advise them they're wrong, one would first have to judge them and their behaviour. Is this appropriate?

I still maintain that this type of judgemental behaviour and criticism of others has no place among the general membership.

I'm not trying to tell you how to behave (else I'd be contradicting myself), but I want to discuss whether your statement does have a doctrinal foundation. I want to explore whether our doctrine permits/encourages this kind of general correction without calling.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wish I could be in you HP group for the mere reason to be the one to offer objection!

By objecting to Bill's teaching, wouldn't you be calling him to repentance?

[Senator]

By objecting to Bill's teaching, wouldn't you be calling him to repentance?

No

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott, I think he's simply referering people to board rules.

By the way, did you get the chance to review my reply to you.

I just saw it a short time ago. I'm trying to post on an iPod while getting dressed prepatory to complying with my wife's urging to go do last-minute Christmas shopping. Replying to your post requires more time than I can give it just now.

Patience, Iago.

[Scott Lloyd]

No

Why? Wouldn't you be expressing displeasure with his behavior and, in effect, urging him to change it?

[Senator]

Why? Wouldn't you be expressing displeasure with his behavior and, in effect, urging him to change it?

You seem to have an incessant need to debate. Did you not see my little emoticon. Lighten up, man!

[Scott Lloyd]

You seem to have an incessant need to debate. Did you not see my little emoticon. Lighten up, man!

Senator just issued another call to repentance. That's three times I've seen in less than an hour.

[canard78]

Senator just issued another call to repentance. That's three times I've seen in less than an hour.

And no smiley?

Enjoy your shopping trip, I'll look forward to your response to my question above.

I'm a good few hours ahead of you and about to sit down to Christmas Eve dinner and may, as a gift to my family, turn off all electrical devices until 26th, so likely to not reply to your reply until 26th

[Senator]

Senator just issued another call to repentance. That's three times I've seen in less than an hour.

You have a rather quirky criteria for what constitutes a call to repentance.

(and yes that is similar to something you've said before, lest two years from now, in a totally unrelated topic, you'll find the need to suggest that subconsciously I was referencing what you said)

But, like you I'm off for some last minute shopping. I, however, do not have smartphone from which to reply. So, take care Scott, and have a Merry Christmas.

[Bill Hamblin]

There is greater joy in heaven from one who repents than a whole message board that has no need of repentance.

[Louis Midgley]

On whether preaching repentance is appropriate for others than Bishops and Stake Presidents and the Brethren, What can we make out of language in our scriptures about repentance? Do we not find somewhere in our canon the strong admonition to “preach nothing save repentance and faith”? Or to “say nothing but repentance unto this generation”? And is it not true that “all those who repent shall find mercy”? Is this language to be casually or dogmatically tossed aside as rubbish?

We are, I believe a little search will reveal, told that “all members must repent, for all are under sin.” And we are also told that they who belong to the kingdom of the devil “must be stirred up unto repentance.” And we are told that the “gate is repentance” are we not? The gate to what? The Kingdom of God, which I believe I have demonstrated that anyone worthy of the name Saint, has made a covenant to defend and sustain. The point is made in strong language when he are told that “the Lord commands his people to persuade all men to repent.” I believe that somewhere in our scriptures we are informed that a “way is prepared for all men if they repent and come unto the Lord.”

What alarms us about talk about repentance is that we see any mention of it as a infringement of our identity. Or as pointing fingers because we enjoy from time to time white bread or a DP. This notion of being called on the carpet by someone puffed up with their own self-righteousness over such things seems to me to be behind at least some of the confusion over this matter. What our scriptures indicate is that, since we are all sinner lost in a disconsolate world, we all must turn to God, which is what preaching repentance means, and then we must put our trust in him. Only God can save us. He has a gift for us on certain conditions. And we are here below on probation being tested to see what we desire most. In this sense a call for repentance is a call all of us should welcome, even when we are the vehicle through which the call is made.

Now if we have determined with our powerful minds that the talk about repentance and trusting in God is rubbish, since it is either clear to us that the scriptures are merely human artifacts and hence merely contain wishful thinking in the face of our eventual death, or silly ways of coping with our unreasonable guilt over our failures to pleasure ourselves well, or the efforts of those in power to exploit us for their gain, or whatever the argument fashioned or borrowed from others, then we will not listen to the invitation to turn to the Lord and put our trust in him.

Now, to return to my essay, if someone what once was baptized and hence has her name on the records of the Church decides that they no longer or never did believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth and so forth, then they may mock and ridicule talk about repentance. How can one come unto Christ if there never was such a one, and God-talk is an illusion or delusion, or a vehicle for manipulating people for power and gain.

Since DBMormon mentioned that he had been bouncing around the web and had noticed much concern about the harm my essay has done and is like to do to those who have doubts, I have been having a look around. What I have found is the ranting of angry people who have not addressed my arguments. It is not an argument against my essay that someone believes that telling the truth will harm those people who are suffering through a bout of doubt. I am sure that there are people who suffer through a period of doubt. It simply can’t be a proper, loving, merciful, truthful way of helping such people to flatter them by telling them that their doubts are justified, and that they have been tricked, lied to, led down the garden path, sold a load of rubbish and so forth as a means of keeping their names on the rolls of the Church. Cultural Mormons who make this proposal and insist that evil apologists are driving little abused people out of the Church are poor apologists for their own New Order of things. The next steps can be seen on something called MAD, and then on RfM. The fruits of rebellion against God (including the notion that the Church of Jesus Christ ought to encourage individualized theologies or everyone to fashion their own god) can be seen in the moral miasma manifest in the language and deeds of those who mock. I think our scriptures tell us that fools will mock but that eventually they will mourn. God is the Judge, and his judgments are always just, while ours are often controlled by self-interest narrowly conceived. Clearly the call to repentance is not an attempt to harm anyone or to lord it over anyone, unless it is a manifestation of bizarre self-righteousness. So we should all answer the call and not resent it, or blast away at those who issue it.

[Calm]

I'm trying to post on an iPod while getting dressed prepatory to complying with my wife's urging to go do last-minute Christmas shopping.

Proof positive of addiction....

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Please do. I don't know what bothers me more about Meldrum's position, the jingoism, or the aspersion that those who disagree are unworthy church members.

True, only God can (to a degree, a Bishop as it an admin function) who is worthy. Those who point the finger at others do so in an attempt to insure the finger is not pointed at themselves.

[Calm]

How do we decide where our repentance should be focused? When a loved one or friend suggests things we need to change, the natural man in us sometimes pops up his head and responds, “Oh, you think I should change? Well, let me tell you about some of your problems.” A better approach is to humbly petition the Lord: “Father, what wouldst Thou have me do?” The answers come. We feel the changes we need to make. The Lord tells us in our mind and in our heart.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/repent-that-i-may-heal-you?lang=eng

Correction done with love and the spirit is significantly different than correction done just because one thinks he or she sees someone else in need of repentance. I don't think we should ever rule out the first, though we should be very careful that we are moved by the Spirit to speak and nothing else.

[Calm]

Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

How can you be reconciled with your brother (fellowsaint, neighbour, anyone in the whole wide world) if you don't work with him/her on what needs to be corrected in both of you? Edited December 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

Brother Midgley, I personally have no concern about you crying repentance. I may be one of those hideous New Order Mormons your essay took target at. Goodnees knows i am in need of constant repentance.

Now There is a problem with the term New Order Mormon however. NOM types run the gambit of beliefs. Some are close to the orthodoxy you and Brother Hamblin seem to be promoting here. Others appear to be a long way off. Also a lot of it has to do with delivery. You know that overly smugness thing that you mentioned a number of posts ago.

I did a post here about this. I observed comments on this thread about persons who post an another board that so many here seem to loathe. And not only do they loathe that board. They seem to loathe many of the posters on that board. One of those posters was brought up by name in a post where the person posting here was very smug. What is a servent of Christ supposed to make of that? If I recall the gospel teaches the worth of souls is precious to the creator of all things. The problem seems to be that more often than not the call to repentance by self appointed defenders of the faith, some of whom post here certainly does not reflect the idea that souls are precious. When this is pointed out those self proclaimed defenders suggest that the Savior was not a weak kneed touchy freely preacher of righteousness and the typical proof texts are brought out to prove it. Thus the self proclaimed defended congratulates himself when he uses wit, sarcasm, cynicism, criticism and biting words to score points in their self appointed defense of the faith. And I agree that Jesus was sharp at times. But there is a difference. He knows our hearts. The self proclaimed defenders do not. In other words the apologists are not Christ.

Whether your essay falls I to such stylistic rhetoric you can decide for yourself. Personally for me I try to remember more that and beam thing that Jesus talked about.