Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[Scott Lloyd]

Proof positive of addiction....

Alas, I am a wretched creature.

[canard78]

Proof positive of addiction....

Indeed, as is logging on at just gone midnight now that all the family are sleeping. All I want for christmas is (the peace of mind to know that if I step away from MDDB for 48 hours the Mayan end of the world won't happen after all on a slightly delayed schedule).

It 00:00 here. Isn't that Marley's curtain call?

[Calm]

It 00:00 here. Isn't that Marley's curtain call?

Here he is, right on cue:

Edited December 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[canard78]

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.

Dear Prof. Midgely. I appreciate your continued engagement with this topic. I want to share why, for me, your article was frustrating and alienating. It might not have been your intention to do so, but here's why it has had that effect anyway.

As I mentioned to you, my wife has left the church for intellectual reasons. In an effort to help her, I have lent heavily on the deep resources of the apologetic and pro-LDS historicity websites (FAIR, NAMI, Mormanity and MI).

As I have studied I have also found many unanswered questions. I have been hit with my own faith crisis. I have been emotionally torn to shreds as I've discovered information that is entirely new to me as a life-long member (mostly on apologetic, not critical, websites. The latter I've tried to avoid as much as possible).

This hasn't been some casual abandonment of valuable gospel principles and neither have I forsaken my covenants. I have studied many hours over articles, reviews and commentaries. The new information has weakened my confidence in the personal experiences I had always been taught to attribute to the spirit. I still have unresolved questions that undermine my faith in the gospel and church historicity and even the existence of God. I have reached no conclusions. I hope it's true, but at this stage I do not feel that I can say "I know." I hope to rediscover this certainty one day. Does this make me an anti-christ or anti-mormon? Not yet I hope. Would it if I stayed in this active but uncertain 'middle way' for many years to come? Again, I hope not.

Much of what I read on MI is part of the re-balancing process of helping me stay. I don't want to leave the church. I love the beauty and gifts of the gospel. I love the association of the saints. It saddens me to consider the option of leaving.

But when I read your article, I felt like I wasn't welcome there. Even if you didn't intend to, I (and apparently many others) felt judged, criticised and marginalised by your approach. I know that some here have suggested that those offended should: 'get over it' or 'get on with it' - I'm simply trying to share with you the perspective of one whose faith is shaken and who is desperately looking for a way of maintaining my church association while squaring the issues that I've still not found satisfactory answers to. Perhaps I am moving towards an adapted faith or a 'middle-way.' But I do that as a coping mechanism to not leave entirely. If full faith is not possible to me at present, would you prefer I find an adapted continued activity or for me to leave the church completely?

When you give the final message of "We all should answer the clear call of the trumpet of the Lord, and not be toying with the silly question “why stay”?" it suggests to me that you consider my struggles, my challenges, my fears and ultimately my wrestle with reasons for and against staying in full fellowship to be 'silly.'

My reality is that I do indeed need to ask myself the question "why stay." While I am not some raging critic on the internet, trying to pull people away from the church and I am no Dehlin disciple, I also cannot speak with the level of certainty you adopt and ask for and have to consider the good that remains which outweighs the negatives I still am unable to resolve. That is "why I stay." I agree that my "trumpet gives a very uncertain sound." Why? Because I am riddled with uncertainty. Does that make me "against the one whom made a solemn covenant to defend and sustain."?

So finally, when I read your article I hear a voice of criticism and lack of compassion for the challenge of having ones faith undermined. I used to go to MI and the like as a resource to help overcome the uncertainty. But if I'm considered by you and your colleagues to be "silly" at best and an "anti-christ" at worst, then why would I want to engage in the rest of your content? I don't consider myself to be NOM, I may not yet be 'middle way,' but your divisive sermon made me feel I am not "MI Way." You risk alienating the very audience that could benefit most from your content.

One final question. Who is MI's intended audience? Is it those who are in a personal struggle to resolve their doctrinal and historical concerns? Are you reaching out directly to the very people who need apologists to help them in their time of spiritual need? Or are you supporting the amateur LDS apologists and joining your associate Stephen Smoot in giving them a rallying call to continue the "Wild West" style fight for good against the evil "intellectual gutter holes" on the internet. If it's the second, there's a risk that the weapons you use in the fight will cull the people who are still in a position not yet ready to reach a final verdict one way or another. If they feel unwelcome interacting with the "MI way," then they may well be pushed further out towards a new way when there's no need to do so.

I have appreciated many of the other articles written to date on MI and NAMI before it (including some of yours). Given the very positive work available on the site, it would be a shame if those who can benefit best from it are driven away because they feel the writers dismiss and diminish the reality and challenge of their uncertainty and their attempts to find a resolution and reasons to stay while they seek it.

[canard78]

I really will now disappear for a day or two. Tomorrow is Christmas day and belongs solely to my family.

I also realise that my detailed description above may confirm to some their perceptions of me as a doubter and could cause some caution around me.

Please be assured that my participation on this site is with the best of intentions. I am here seeking positive solutions and resolutions. I am not here to drag down any other person's faith. Despite uncertainty, I continue to keep covenants, fulfill my calling, sustain leaders and speak positively of the gospel to those around me at church. I consider this a 'safe' environment to discuss some of the difficult topics and welcome your future input.

[volgadon]

Alas, I am a wretched creature.

Careful, you might need to find a new playground for your banter, too.

[volgadon]

I really will now disappear for a day or two. Tomorrow is Christmas day and belongs solely to my family.

I also realise that my detailed description above may confirm to some their perceptions of me as a doubter and could cause some caution around me.

Please be assured that my participation on this site is with the best of intentions. I am here seeking positive solutions and resolutions. I am not here to drag down any other person's faith. Despite uncertainty, I continue to keep covenants, fulfill my calling, sustain leaders and speak positively of the gospel to those around me at church. I consider this a 'safe' environment to discuss some of the difficult topics and welcome your future input.

Wish you all the best, Merry Christmas.

[DBMormon]

http://www.lds.org/g...al-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.

Beautiful way to put it.

[Peppermint Patty]

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.

Kerry,

Excellent point. If I look at the very best LDS that I know, their lives are all about action, being inclusive and not judging. That is what the Savior expects from each of us. I know I fall short of this ideal, but it's something that I'm always trying to achieve.

[wenglund]

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

I am guessing he is insinuating this about me. If so, it is a false assumption that, like with invidious denigration of leading apologists, seems to play endlessly over there almost to the point that it has become a cult phenomena--a rite of passage, so to speak, demonstrating that the insinuator is approaching the final stages of Novack's rule and has manifest sufficient social toxicity and unwitting banality to fully ingratiate himself into fledgling pack. Evidently, wayfarer has found a fitting place to call home.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

^{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.}

I appreciate the irony of you calling people to repentance for them calling other people to repentance. Oh...the paradox of board nannies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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

While correct, you are getting into the realm of nuances that may be beyond the pay grade of your average board nanny. So, don't expect cognition on their part. Instead, expect seemingly agitated requests for you to lighten up. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kenngo1969]

Here he is, right on cue:

That's Jacob Marley?! Whodathunk?!!

[Senator]

While correct, you are getting into the realm of nuances that may be beyond the pay grade of your average board nanny. So, don't expect cognition on their part. Instead, expect seemingly agitated requests for you to lighten up. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I wish you well, Wade.

[wenglund]

I wish you well, Wade.

Blessed Christmas to you and your's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Hi, canard78.

It's now the day after Christmas. I hope you had a very pleasant, rejuvenating and edifying holiday.

Some water has passed under the bridge since you made the above post. I presume you still desire a response from me.

I note that calmoriah and Lou Midgley in the meantime have both given some comment on this topic; I endorse their remarks.

This is one of those instances that happen quite frequently here, I'm afraid, where the conversation has quickly drifted afield from what initially stimulated it. It is therefore helpful, I would suggest, to go back and review the sequence by which we got from there to here.

It began with this post from Professor 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.

[emphasis added]

Reacting to the portion I have emphasized here, wayfarer then responded:

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.

The question then is this: Was Dr. Midgley, through what he acknowledged was a "call to repentance," engaging in "hateful deriding of those who question or struggle with faith"? In all sincerity, I don't see it that way. He may have been a bit too direct in his language for some tastes, but his words struck me as an invitation to come unto -- or to return to -- Christ, very similar to the urgent invitation I quoted from Elder Holland in my post #167:

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.

Just prior to that post quoting Elder Holland, I responded to wayfarer's post by saying:

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.

I undoubtedly expressed myself imperfectly here, but I did not have in mind vindictive or self-righteous moralizing, but rather the sort of caring and constructive teaching and exhortation we all engage in when we give talks and lessons in church or when we make comments in class "that all may be edified of all" (see Doctrine and Covenants 88:122). Bill Hamblin alluded to that sort of thing when he posted that he regularly calls members of his high priests group and himself to repentance.

As I implied, I believe such teaching and admonition can occur either in a group or a one-on-one setting.

In your post, you said:

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

You then quoted President Uchtdorf's April 2012 general conference address relative to judging others.

The scriptures differentiate between righteous and unrighteous judgment.

Leviticus 19:15 reads: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

In John 7:24, Jesus commanded: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment"

The oft-quoted passage from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:1, "Judge not that ye be not judged," was amended in Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible to read, "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."

Calmoriah cited a passage that had occurred to me as well, Matthew 5:22-24, which speaks of being "reconciled to they brother" as a prerequisite for worship. Like calmoriah, I can't help but see the need for some calling to repentance on the part of one or both parties if such reconciliation is to occur.

The very existence of a differentiation between righteous and unrighteous judgment, of course, carries the corollary that there are instances when judgment may appropriately be applied, even required.

As I read President Uchtdorf's talk, I find that in every single instance, the judging he condemns is the unrighteous kind. For example, he proposes the following questions as a self-test:

Do you harbor a grudge against someone else?

Do you gossip, even when what you say may be true?

Do you exclude, push away, or punish others because of something they have done?

Do you secretly envy another?

Do you wish to cause harm to someone?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may want to apply the two-word sermon from earlier: stop it!

For those who insist that there are absolutely no circumstances when someone who is not a priesthood leader in authority may call another to account or to exhort a change in behavior, I would ask that they consider the logical extension of their thinking. What if you have a friend or acquaintance who habitually abuses and harms children or who engages in serial theft or continual oppression and bullying of others? Would you always remain silent in such circumstances under the rationale that you must avoid judging others?

Have you ever reported a crime? Would you ever be disposed to do so, conceivably? It is, after all, a responsibility of citizenship, and in effect, it is not just exercising judgment over someone's unacceptable behavior but calling for forcible intervention by the state to halt or punish such behavior.

And by becoming thus involved in the detection of crime and, presumably, facilitating the eventual apprehension and prosecution of a criminal, one is participating in the criminal justice system which, after all, is society's collective means of passing judgment and, yes, endeavoring to induce repentance.

So let's go back to the point we started from, which is Dr. Midgley's call for a "returning to the Lord" (similar to the call that Elder Holland made) I can't agree that there is unrighteousness in this admonition, however sharply it may have been expressed.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Louis Midgley]

Scott Lloyd seems to have brought this conversation to an end by fashioning a fine summary of a crucial disputed point in my essay. In addition, Scott is also correct that the conversation has moved away from what I wrote and become, among other things, an excuse for opining on other topics. For example, I have noticed that some insist that the community of Saints needs to validate their questions, concerns, and doubts (even about whether there was an historical Jesus). Put another way, some of those attracted to something called a recent movement know as a New Order or Middle Way. These folks seem to want their unfaith celebrated and endorsed by the Saints, and made a part of our worship services. It seems that some of these folks don’t see the name "Mormon" requiring that they believe much of anything. So a call to renewed trust in the King seems ridiculous, sinister, unchristlike, and so forth. Hence signs of resistence to their insistence, such as found in my essay, brings out the complaint that what I wrote is wrong because it provides, among other things, still another reason for not caring to stay in the community of Saints. This saddens me.

There is something ironic about those boasting that their deep doubts about their even being a Jesus should arouse concern among the Saints. But the name of the community to which they are presumably at least nominal members carries the name Jesus, and also identifies this person as a special kind of King.. Why, they ask, is it necessary to be known as their special brand of “Mormon” must they like true believers actually believe that their was a Jesus, or that he was resurrected? Why should the believers--those they mock with the RfM label TBM--find meaning (and profound consolation and hope) in the story of redemption from sin and death by the Holy One of Israel? And, of course, this new kind of “Mormon” would be a much better kind than those they loathe precisely because they would not be stuck in some literalist way of understanding the past, and hence would not be bound even by an informal creed that entailed that their actually was a Mormon whose name they use as part of their own New Order “Mormon” religion. And yet, since they are proselyting for their unfaith, they sense that they need to be seen as members of the Church of Jesus Christ, even while doubting or flatly denying that their even was a Jesus of Nazareth, or that he was resurrected, or that the atonement makes sense, and so forth. Amazing.

[Teancum]

Scott Lloyd seems to have brought this conversation to an end by fashioning a fine summary of a crucial disputed point in my essay. In addition, Scott is also correct that the conversation has moved away from what I wrote and become, among other things, an excuse for opining on other topics. For example, I have noticed that some insist that the community of Saints needs to validate their questions, concerns, and doubts (even about whether there was an historical Jesus). Put another way, some of those attracted to something called a recent movement know as a New Order or Middle Way. These folks seem to want their unfaith celebrated and endorsed by the Saints, and made a part of our worship services. It seems that some of these folks don’t see the name "Mormon" requiring that they believe much of anything. So a call to renewed trust in the King seems ridiculous, sinister, unchristlike, and so forth. Hence signs of resistence to their insistence, such as found in my essay, brings out the complaint that what I wrote is wrong because it provides, among other things, still another reason for not caring to stay in the community of Saints. This saddens me.

There is something ironic about those boasting that their deep doubts about their even being a Jesus should arouse concern among the Saints. But the name of the community to which they are presumably at least nominal members carries the name Jesus, and also identifies this person as a special kind of King.. Why, they ask, is it necessary to be known as their special brand of “Mormon” must they like true believers actually believe that their was a Jesus, or that he was resurrected? Why should the believers--those they mock with the RfM label TBM--find meaning (and profound consolation and hope) in the story of redemption from sin and death by the Holy One of Israel? And, of course, this new kind of “Mormon” would be a much better kind than those they loathe precisely because they would not be stuck in some literalist way of understanding the past, and hence would not be bound even by an informal creed that entailed that their actually was a Mormon whose name they use as part of their own New Order “Mormon” religion. And yet, since they are proselyting for their unfaith, they sense that they need to be seen as members of the Church of Jesus Christ, even while doubting or flatly denying that their even was a Jesus of Nazareth, or that he was resurrected, or that the atonement makes sense, and so forth. Amazing.

Brother Midgely your missive above so misses the points at least of what I have been trying to say and discuss that I am left speechless. I see attempt to bridge the gap is pointless. I assume though in the future when an evangelical orthodox Christian excludes the LDS Church from being considered Christian you won't be so puzzled. Your requirements for someone to be called Mormon are not all that different in technique and style as theirs for someone to be called Christian.

Also, your stereotype does not apply to every person who may consider themselves NOM. These people run the gambit. But used you are struggling to grasp that.

[Louis Midgley]

Dear Brother Teancum:

I have read your remarks on this and one other thread on this board. I frankly do not see the point of your remarks, except perhaps to distance yourself from me for reasons that are not at all clear. You seem to summarize your opinion by now insisting that what you call my “stereotype does not ]apply to every person who may consider themselves NOM. These people run the gambit [sic]. But used [sic] you are struggling to grasp that. ” It seems that you do not doubt that those who self-identify with the “New Order” or “New Hope” slogans disagree on many things and don’t even agree on much of anything except that those LDS scholars who defend the gospel of Jesus Christ have produced something, in wayfarer’s opinion, “toxic to the mind.” And also that “Midgley is a self-righteous git that would want all doubting Mormons to leave and never come back so that his little elite club can remain exlusive [sic],” and so forth.

If I remember correctly, and you should correct me if I am wrong, you have insisted that not all of those who subscribe to New Order-New Hope movement currently operating on the fringes of the Church of Jesus Christ agree on much of anything. You may be correct in that statement. It is also possible that you by making this point you wish to indicate that you, much unlike others in the movement with which you identify, do not insist (1) that there are no good reasons to have faith in God, (2) that it is very unlikely that there even was an historical Jesus of Nazareth, and (3) that talk about the atonement is silly. If I am correct about you, and I sincerely hope I am, and despite your fondness for the slogan New Order, you actually affirm that Jesus is the Christ–that is, the King whose deeds won a victory over mortal death and sin, and that, among other things Joseph Smith was his prophet, and one named Mormon was the redactor of a genuine history of a tragic people, then you ought to be in substantial agreement with my “Defending the King.” If I am right about this, then I cannot figure out what your objections are to my essay, or even if you have objections. Nor can I imagine why you would want to identify with those who blasted away at my essay on the NOM webpage.

Now you may have some positive suggestions for correcting or otherwise improving my efforts to jar some LDS scholars into seeing that it is their duty to God to defending their faith in him. We can and should be open to improving our defense of our faith. There are only a few things I have written that I have been satisfied with after they were published. So I am very much open to helpful suggestions.

[Teancum]

Brother Midgley

First I apologize for all my typos. I typed the last post rapidly on my iPad and did not proof it. I will try to do better. This is also from an iPad.

My own personal beliefs are likely closer to orthodoxy than some and perhaps further than others. I cannot say I know all the things that make up an LDS testimony as I used to. But I have faith in some of those things and doubts about others. For The Father and the Son I have faith peppered with lots of questions that mainly revolve around the problem of evil, human suffering and an all loving God. I also struggle with the idea of a literal Adam and Eve.

As for the restoration I do have serious questions about Joseph Smith and the role of prophets in general. I have trouble with the concept of one true church. But I like religion, I prefer Christianity and for me Mormonism is the best expression of religion and Christianity that I have found. There is much from Joseph Smith that I hold true and dear.

Where that leaves me in light of the positions in your essay I do not know.

Having spent most my life in full fledge activity in the church and I think as devoted as any active member and having as well as what one would term a full faithful I know LDS testimony I can tell you it has been agony to go through what I have and ending up where I am. So I have empathy for anyone going through a faith crisis regardless of where they are at.

I do not know exactly what to tell you on how best to defend the faith. I will share with you only this. I did have the opportunity to once serve as a bishop. I took that call on with great caution. I actually knew that many members would listen to me and do what I said. I also realized that my authority really only extended to an individual directly as far as they would allow or accept it. As for those on the fringe, less active or in outright rebellion I tried to minister to them in love with hand extended for them to grasp when they were ready. They knew it was extended for them to grab if they wanted but it was never forced upon them and that it was there with love for them. My suggestion is whatever you do make sure it is motivated by love of the soul you wish to impact for good,

[Tacenda]

Brother Midgley

First I apologize for all my typos. I typed the last post rapidly on my iPad and did not proof it. I will try to do better. This is also from an iPad.

My own personal beliefs are likely closer to orthodoxy than some and perhaps further than others. I cannot say I know all the things that make up an LDS testimony as I used to. But I have faith in some of those things and doubts about others. For The Father and the Son I have faith peppered with lots of questions that mainly revolve around the problem of evil, human suffering and an all loving God. I also struggle with the idea of a literal Adam and Eve.

As for the restoration I do have serious questions about Joseph Smith and the role of prophets in general. I have trouble with the concept of one true church. But I like religion, I prefer Christianity and for me Mormonism is the best expression of religion and Christianity that I have found. There is much from Joseph Smith that I hold true and dear.

Where that leaves me in light of the positions in your essay I do not know.

Having spent most my life in full fledge activity in the church and I think as devoted as any active member and having as well as what one would term a full faithful I know LDS testimony I can tell you it has been agony to go through what I have and ending up where I am. So I have empathy for anyone going through a faith crisis regardless of where they are at.

I do not know exactly what to tell you on how best to defend the faith. I will share with you only this. I did have the opportunity to once serve as a bishop. I took that call on with great caution. I actually knew that many members would listen to me and do what I said. I also realized that my authority really only extended to an individual directly as far as they would allow or accept it. As for those on the fringe, less active or in outright rebellion I tried to minister to them in love with hand extended for them to grasp when they were ready. They knew it was extended for them to grab if they wanted but it was never forced upon them and that it was there with love for them. My suggestion is whatever you do make sure it is motivated by love of the soul you wish to impact for good,

Teancum you just voiced several who are on NOM's predicament. And love is key. They just need to know that there is a hand for help. So many feel like it's only belief or the highway. They need to know there is a place for those with doubts, Not necessarily to voice them publicly but with their bishop. So many feel the need to fake it. Afraid to be authentic with their feelings. And in doing so they turn themselves inward and it festers to become what some see as maybe anti. Edited December 29, 2012 by Tacenda

[Louis Midgley]

Tracenda has it right--the key is always love unfeinged. And, to borrow from one of my favorite hymns, we are the keepers of the lower lights for all those lost out there in the great deep who are trying to make the harbor. This is why we are all obligated by covenants we have made to the Lord to defend and sustain the King and his Kingdom. This goes for, as I emphasized in my essay, those who strive to be or imagine themselves scholars.

I am not sure that asking a Bishop "Teancum" (who tells us he is undergoing a test of his faith, as we all do sooner or later and in one way or another, to talk to his Bishop will help. He must already know that having questions that he cannot answer does not disqualify one seeking to be a Saint (understood as a Holy One who is anxious to be purged, cleansed, purified and sanctified to be readied for the final judgment with a full hope of being justified by the Lord he strove to serve.

If one cares to see that which does not manifest love but something rather debasing and crude, please have a look at the responses of Remo, CrazyHamster, True Believer, Inquiring Mind, Jenny, wayfarer, EternityIsNow, cwald and alas to my essay, all of which can be found at http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29154. Then one might be able to see exactly why I find these marginal movements on the fringes of the community of Saints less than helpful, if not actually demonic. The lure is that they suck people into a maze by promising a "safe space" to ventilate their doubt and misgivings. The comments on my essay and much else about these factions is that they fly a false flag, and their trumpet gives an uncertain sound at a time when we need something much better.

[Tacenda]

Tracenda has it right--the key is always love unfeinged. And, to borrow from one of my favorite hymns, we are the keepers of the lower lights for all those lost out there in the great deep who are trying to make the harbor. This is why we are all obligated by covenants we have made to the Lord to defend and sustain the King and his Kingdom. This goes for, as I emphasized in my essay, those who strive to be or imagine themselves scholars.

I am not sure that asking a Bishop "Teancum" (who tells us he is undergoing a test of his faith, as we all do sooner or later and in one way or another, to talk to his Bishop will help. He must already know that having questions that he cannot answer does not disqualify one seeking to be a Saint (understood as a Holy One who is anxious to be purged, cleansed, purified and sanctified to be readied for the final judgment with a full hope of being justified by the Lord he strove to serve.

If one cares to see that which does not manifest love but something rather debasing and crude, please have a look at the responses of Remo, CrazyHamster, True Believer, Inquiring Mind, Jenny, wayfarer, EternityIsNow, cwald and alas to my essay, all of which can be found at http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29154. Then one might be able to see exactly why I find these marginal movements on the fringes of the community of Saints less than helpful, if not actually demonic. The lure is that they suck people into a maze by promising a "safe space" to ventilate their doubt and misgivings. The comments on my essay and much else about these factions is that they fly a false flag, and their trumpet gives an uncertain sound at a time when we need something much better.

I found it safe on NOM when in my angry mode. Misery loves company. But found if I stayed too long it might lead me away from striving for answers and having faith. Stay LDS might be a good niche for strugglers. But I found a place here among mostly believers for some reason. And although my bishop turned SP, knows of my faith crisis he didn't have answers or atleast didn't bring them up but he couldn't have been more loving. Therefore the need for apologetics like this place and Fairlds, which I utilized for awhile.

[volgadon]

There is a story told of R. Avraham Yehoshua Heschel of Apt who lived in the first half of the nineteenth century. He was known as the Ohev Israel (the one who loves Israel) because of the emphasis he placed on the role of loving one's fellow members in the Jewish community. One day he was approached by a woman who was known to have sinned. The Ohev Israel rebuffed the woman's request, calling her a sinner and turning his back on her. She cried bitter tears, asking the Ohev Israel why he had to disgrace her in public when God Himself, the righteous judge, had not done so. The Rebbe, filled with remorse, told his disciples that this woman had bested him.

In defending the King and His kingdom, we ought to keep in mind that a little compassion can go a long way, and avoid acting in such a manner that turns the person away rather than invites them to return with all their heart to the King.

[Tacenda]

There is a story told of R. Avraham Yehoshua Heschel of Apt who lived in the first half of the nineteenth century. He was known as the Ohev Israel (the one who loves Israel) because of the emphasis he placed on the role of loving one's fellow members in the Jewish community. One day he was approached by a woman who was known to have sinned. The Ohev Israel rebuffed the woman's request, calling her a sinner and turning his back on her. She cried bitter tears, asking the Ohev Israel why he had to disgrace her in public when God Himself, the righteous judge, had not done so. The Rebbe, filled with remorse, told his disciples that this woman had bested him.

In defending the King and His kingdom, we ought to keep in mind that a little compassion can go a long way, and avoid acting in such a manner that turns the person away rather than invites them to return with all their heart to the King.

Bravo!