So Called "Middle Way" Or "New Order" Mormons

[wayfarer]

And yet JS had those teaching what he saw as false principles disciplined or even excommunicated.

With respect, CFR. From what I observe, Joseph tended to excommunicate those that opposed him, or exposed what was really going on (take the expositor incident with the Laws, for example). Doctrinal teaching in the early church was very fluid.

[Daniel Peterson]

The simple fact, Wayfarer, is that you've tried to implicate me in a conversation where I haven't been a participant.

And, of course, you know that your complaint against me will be received uncritically and go down wonderfully well on that other board.

[volgadon]

With respect, CFR. From what I observe, Joseph tended to excommunicate those that opposed him, or exposed what was really going on (take the expositor incident with the Laws, for example). Doctrinal teaching in the early church was very fluid.

Yet Joseph still corrected apostle's interpretations. https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-122-131/section-130-items-of-instruction?lang=eng

[wayfarer]

That's a nice, coyly vague phrase: "nonliteralist understanding of Christ." What does it mean, exactly? That Jesus of Nazareth didn't literally live, wasn't literally the Son of God, and therefore didn't literally come in the flesh?

If that's what it means, then the Apostle John would seem to agree with Brother Midgley.

There are numerous empirical claims about Jesus in scripture. He was born of a virgin, he was "from" nazareth, he performed miracles, and was resurrected. While I personally accept some of these claims in faith, I find the evidence is against many of these claims. virgin birth may well have been a misinterpretation/mistranslation from the hebrew "almah"/young woman into the septuagint. miracle stories, especially "casting out of devils" betrays a primitive understanding of mental disease. There is no evidence that Nazareth existed in the time of christ, but the term may have been a hagiographic amplifier to equate Jesus with the righteousness of a Nazarene. As for the resurrection, I can accept Joseph's use of the term "spiritual eyes" to understand that this need not be literally true, but that symbolically and spiritually he lives! and is risen!

Was there a person of Jesus Christ? yes. how much is literally true versus symbolically true? that is a question for personal faith, to some, that all the stories are literally true is important to their faith. On the other hand, others may have a more symbolic understanding. I make a personal claim that I have been redeemed by Jesus, and have felt hs transforming influence actively in my life. As a result, none of he stories about jesus matter in the least to me. I simply don't care. Taking my understanding from section 88, I believe that god works entirely through natural law, so supernatural events in this, the telestial kingdom do not happen. that is my faith and understanding. I do not accept the stories in scripture as "literally" true, but rather as "normatively relevant". they could be literal in some cases, but to me that matters not in the least.

As for the literal son of god, If we read John 10, we see Jesus invoking psalm 82, where the psalmist declares "ye are gods, and all of you are children of god most high". then in John 17, jesus prays that we might be (present tense) one in exactly the same way that jesus is one with the father. do we as LDS not understand that we are sons and daughters of god? do you think, maybe, that jesus had the same understanding?

this is what i mean by "nonliteralist" understanding. Does that make me an antichrist?

Indeed, and where did he (Midgley) make this admission (that his Mormon Interpreter article relates to Dan Peterson)?

Here is the reference from Midgley's own post here:

One thing that has puzzled me about the comments on my essay on both the Interpreter website and on this board is that I have not why I focused on those who deny that there was ever a Jesus of Nazareth. No one seems to realize that doing this was in part my response to a bizarre incidence where Professor Peterson was either ordered or advised not to publish an essay spelling out the recent descent of a former student of mine who even while I was still teaching at BYU in the early 1990s had undergone what he calls a crisis of faith and hence gone missing. My essay contains a subtle reference to some of his recent confident opining about divine things, which include an assertion that (1) there is very little reason to believe that there is a God, (2) that there is very little reason to believe that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, and (3) that it makes no sense to hold that a person has to die to somehow overcome the mistakes some other person has made. This last assertion is, of course, not an utterly absurd misunderstanding of the victory over death both of the body and soul made for us by God, which we call the atonement. Please note that if one does not even think there was a person known as Jesus, it makes no sense at all to talk about his having accomplished a thing for humans all of whom face physical death and the abundance of evils found in this world. Such a crude collection of opinions is, from my perspective, clearly anti-Christ in the way it which that label is used in both the New Testament and Book of Mormon. I am not exactly known for being subtle.

All of this, it turns out, has something to do with the firing of Professor Peterson.

"No one seems to realize that doing this was in part my response to a bizarre incidence where Professor Peterson was either ordered or advised not to publish..."

"Such a crude collection of opinions is, from my perspective, clearly anti-Christ"

"All of this, it turns out, has something to do with the firing of Professor Peterson."

So you see that it wasn't wayfarer that brought Peterson into the debate, but rather, Lou Midgley himself.

Edited December 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

Yet Joseph still corrected apostle's interpretations. https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-122-131/section-130-items-of-instruction?lang=eng

indeed he did!

[wayfarer]

The simple fact, Wayfarer, is that you've tried to implicate me in a conversation where I haven't been a participant.

And, of course, you know that your complaint against me will be received uncritically and go down wonderfully well on that other board.

it's not so simple, and you know that. you are the leader of your merry band of apologists, and you can end this by repudiating Midgley's diatribe. Calling people who choose to be friends of the faith "antichrists" does harm to us all and needs to stop.

For what it's worth, i deeply respect you, most of the time. do the right thing here and you have my word that I will defend you on that "other board", or anywhere else you are portrayed inaccurately.

[TAO]

TAO, my friend, I think you and I, if not on the same page, are at least within the same chapter.

Definately.

[TAO]

Precisely how many degrees? Can you define that a little more precisely?

Only as far as we can practically tell that we share definitions =).

[Stargazer]

Nope. It is *heavy* water -- very hard to produce. H20 is water, H30 is heavy water (I think I've got the chemical makeup right).

Not that it matters, but H3O (H₃O) is not water, nor is it heavy water. It is in fact chemically impossible to get three hydrogen atoms to join with one oxygan atom as a molecule.

Heavy water is simply water whose hydrogen atoms are largely or entirely heavy hydrogen, i.e. whose nuclei are composed of one proton and one neutron, instead of the normal isotope, which has only a proton in the nucleus. That isotope of hydrogen gets a special name, "deuterium", and a special symbol, D, which makes the formula for heavy water D₂O -- but sometimes written ²H₂O. It reacts similarly to normal water (normal water in fact contains a small amount of naturally-occurring heavy water), and is only somewhat denser. It is not poisonous, per se, but if you were to drink enough of it so that the water in your body was at least 50% heavy water, it would kill you because heavy water tends to stop cell division in eukaryotes (which includes us).

This is probably more than you ever wanted to know about the subject.

[volgadon]

As for the resurrection, I can accept Joseph's use of the term "spiritual eyes" to understand that this need not be literally true, but that symbolically and spiritually he lives! and is risen!

Which is to fundamentally misunderstand the term "spiritual eyes."

[wayfarer]

Which is to fundamentally misunderstand the term "spiritual eyes."

perhaps. But I would ask you to come up with a cohesive understanding of what "spiritual eyes" means... I certainly don't understand it.

Edited December 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[mfbukowski]

Only as far as we can practically tell that we share definitions =).

Uh oh.

That makes you more than a "degree".

[mfbukowski]

nevermind.

Edited December 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

perhaps. But I would ask you to come up with a cohesive understanding of what "spiritual eyes" means... I certainly don't understand it.

The short answer? Spiritual eyes means being shown something that could only be seen by the power of God. A different perceptory level, if you will.

If you read Moses 1:11 it is obvious that the event is physical, and were it not for the power of God, would have proved so overwhelming to Moses as to cause his death. The adjective "spiritual" does not diminish the reality of the events. If anything, it enhances such.

[Daniel Peterson]

Wayfarer:

I've never called anybody an "antichrist." And I probably won't start soon. But the scriptures do. Whether or not you, specifically, are an antichrist is for God to judge, but -- that said -- you might want to consider whether, in biblical terms, you match the description.

Ambrose Bierce defined a "Christian" as "One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbors." I find that I read the scriptures much more profitably when I see them primarily as calling me to repentance rather than those around me.

[DBMormon]

perhaps. But I would ask you to come up with a cohesive understanding of what "spiritual eyes" means... I certainly don't understand it.

If you have heard my conversion on my interviews. I would describe having seen it with my spiritual eyes and yet it was real but not visible to anyone else. It wasn't made up

[wayfarer]

The short answer? Spiritual eyes means being shown something that could only be seen by the power of God. A different perceptory level, if you will.

If you read Moses 1:11 it is obvious that the event is physical, and were it not for the power of God, would have proved so overwhelming to Moses as to cause his death. The adjective "spiritual" does not diminish the reality of the events. If anything, it enhances such.

Let's examine this: Moses 1:11 says, "But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him."

Moses, like Joseph, had a transforming spiritual experience, after which both of them had to "come to themselves" again. While my faith accepts the reality of these events, there is no concrete evidence, even in the personal witness expressed above, that such an event happened anywhere else than the "mind and heart" of the testifier. Joseph even said such in D&C 8.

I have had such events...as personal witnesses to the reality of the Christ and restoration. Such an experience is more real than any thing else in my life. By these means I have come to sing the song of redeeming love, but being honest with myself, the events were in no way "physical".

Edited December 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer:

I've never called anybody an "antichrist." And I probably won't start soon. But the scriptures do. Whether or not you, specifically, are an antichrist is for God to judge, but -- that said -- you might want to consider whether, in biblical terms, you match the description.

Ambrose Bierce defined a "Christian" as "One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbors." I find that I read the scriptures much more profitably when I see them primarily as calling me to repentance rather than those around me.

Dan, I don't doubt you personally in the least and appreciate irony within the quote by Bierce. I am asking you to repudiate an article within your publication that did call those who have a nonliteral interpretation antichrists. that's all. You and I have sat in interfaith councils, and know that there is a higher standard of dialogue.

Edited December 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

If you have heard my conversion on my interviews. I would describe having seen it with my spiritual eyes and yet it was real but not visible to anyone else. It wasn't made up

I haven't implied that the resurrection or any other events perceived by "spiritual eyes" are made up: such events are certainly very real to the perceiver. but they are not empirically provable events, and I do not need to conflate them as such.

I am going to paraphrase Midgley's quoting of John Dehlin here: there is no "reason" to believe the events in scripture, such as the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, resurrection, or atonement. these things are "unreasonable", therefore there is no "reason" to accept another person's testimony, unless, as alma notes, we have tested it out for ourselves. spiritual experience cannot be used as proof of an empirical claim. on the other hand, empirical proof is meaningless in establishing personal normative or valuative claims.

the entire point of the gospel of jesus christ, imo, is to "learn through our own experience to distinguish good and evil". good and evil are normative, not empirical. Requiring belief in dogmatic, literal claims is the antithesis of the charge given to us in the garden of eden. the gospel preached through paul in galatians 1 was explicitly that personal "revelation" is the only way the gospel is to be received, it is not to come from "men", however inspired. Thank god for the restoration of this gospel, including personal revelation and the categorical rejection of creeds and orthodoxy.

Edited December 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[Daniel Peterson]

I have no intention of repudiating the article. Nor will I repudiate the New Testament. That seems to be your department.

And I suggest that you stop trying to take the article as a personal insult. It's not about you.

Likewise -- but even more so, since I haven't even been a participant here -- I haven't personally attacked you and owe you no personal apology.

And, for what it's worth, I think your overly free use of the term "nonliteral" is somewhat disingenuous. It's rather ridiculous to brand and dismiss me as a "literalist" just because I believe that Jesus really lived and really rose from the dead.

I suppose that I could wax indignant and demand an apology, but, well, I'm just not into such dramatics.

[Senator]

I've scarcely said anything about any of this anywhere,

.

I think your blog post on the 15th is what he is refering to as your involvement.

[wayfarer]

I have no intention of repudiating the article. Nor will I repudiate the New Testament. That seems to be your department.

And I suggest that you stop trying to take the article as a personal insult. It's not about you.

Likewise -- but even more so, since I haven't even been a participant here -- I haven't personally attacked you and owe you no personal apology.

And, for what it's worth, I think your overly free use of the term "nonliteral" is somewhat disingenuous. It's rather ridiculous to brand and dismiss me as a "literalist" just because I believe that Jesus really lived and really rose from the dead.

I suppose that I could wax indignant and demand an apology, but, well, I'm just not into such dramatics.

Disappointing. I thought you were made of better stuff. Ah well.

Sincerely, please set this aside and enjoy your vacation -- I've said my peace, and will move on.

[DBMormon]

I have no intention of repudiating the article. Nor will I repudiate the New Testament. That seems to be your department.

And I suggest that you stop trying to take the article as a personal insult. It's not about you.

Likewise -- but even more so, since I haven't even been a participant here -- I haven't personally attacked you and owe you no personal apology.

And, for what it's worth, I think your overly free use of the term "nonliteral" is somewhat disingenuous. It's rather ridiculous to brand and dismiss me as a "literalist" just because I believe that Jesus really lived and really rose from the dead.

I suppose that I could wax indignant and demand an apology, but, well, I'm just not into such dramatics.

Mr. Peterson,

Do you acknowledge that if something reprehensible occurs in the Online journal you oversee that you hold some responsibility for it?

And do you feel it appropriate for someone to on their own, by their interpretaion of the sciptures, label individuals within the church with negative terms that carry a lot of baggage, when these folks who are members, are not being disciplined by their Bishops and Stake Presidents and that Apostles have asked us to be patient with? I also ask if the annointed are only prophets and apostles or anyone who has gone through the temple. And if it falls on all who have gone, is not calling an "active" LDS (by the church's definition and not the interpreter's) an anti-christ speaking ill of his annointed?

Now if the article mentioned here was more specific in stating that it was speaking only to those who make an effort publicly to cause members to lose faith and to increase doubt, and if their local leaders took action (they are judges in Israel), then I am absolutely behind you. But otherwise I am unclear how this kind of diatribe fits.

Can no-one having lost faith in Christ's literalness in the midst of a faith crisis, be able to avoid being labeled an antichrist? And if they can how? and did that answer make it into the article?

Mr. Peterson, Dan if I may, I hope you have followed these two threads from the beginning. One of your associates have been banned from one of the threads for lumping me in with those who deny the faith. I have not. One who has followed me knows I have had a dark night of the soul myself. But having fought through it and having regained my full faith and realizing the hurt and anguish of many, your interpreter in said article, wishes to label, I am taken aback. The idea of your associates taking labels too far is substantiated by one of them being tossed out of said thread.

This has become an emotional debate but perhaps you could at least agree that the label anti-christ carries a lot of baggage, that your associates are aware of said baggage and realize the implications of using it, and should be more careful when attaching that label to anyone in the church who has not been disciplined for apostasy by their Leaders?

Edited December 18, 2012 by DBMormon

[Damien the Leper]

That seems kind of an overstatement when we are not just talking about "anything" but talking about denying one belief, the belief that Jesus is the Christ, a belief of the Christian LDS faith.

Belief in Christ would seem to me to be an automatic definition of a Christian faith.

It still applies whether you agree with it or not. Historically, there really isn't a 1st century church. However, we have many different Christian groups who believed different things. In the end, the group that considered itself the "one true faith" won out by popularity and not because it was most correct.

[DBMormon]

calmoriah, on 15 December 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

That seems kind of an overstatement when we are not just talking about "anything" but talking about denying one belief, the belief that Jesus is the Christ, a belief of the Christian LDS faith.

Belief in Christ would seem to me to be an automatic definition of a Christian faith.

Calmoriah, I agree with your statement, but what definition do you propose? These people are still in the church because whatever definition you propose, has not been defined that way by the church - as evidenced by these folks still being members.

So that leaves us unable to further define it the way we wish, otherwise regardless of what side we think we are on, we have stepped outside the appropriate parameters and we become no different then those who do so in the other direction