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

[why me]

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

• Moses 1:11
  11 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.
  

I think that Martin may have been referring to the verse above from Moses. I think that this verse gives a good explanation. Have you read Moses?

It is absolutely amazing just how many former members get hung up with the spiritual eyes bit. It seems perfectly normal to me to refer to the process in this way to give it more of a flair. We also need to remember that Martin also gave it a more "real" experience in his various testimonies of what he saw.

Edited December 18, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Mr. Peterson,

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

Actually, in the academic world, academics publish in journals all the time and the editors do not take responsibility for the viewpoints expressed. If they did, they would be engaged in censorship. What they do take responsibility for is the scholarship in the journal. But not for the viewpoints in general.

[wayfarer]

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

DBMormon: what definition would you propose...

I'm going to suggest that Calmoria is correct, "Belief" in Christ is an assertive definition, but not an exclusive one. There are dimensions of how we accept christ as Christians and Mormons:

1. Do we believe all the stories (empirical claims) about christ?

2. Do we believe the Christian/Trinitarian definition of Christ as homoousion with the Father? That is, the very God of Gods, etc.

3. or, lacking that definition, do we believe that Christ is somehow god to us, but do not know how that works?

4. Do we believe Christ's words in terms of normative value?

5. Do we have "Faith" in Christ: that is, do we 'trust' or 'hope' that by accepting and living his Way we will have joy in this life and in the life to come?

I would accept that a person who accepts any of the above should and could be considered a Christian, provided s/he doesn't claim an incompatible label.

I also would accept that while fundamentalist christians would require 1 and 2, Joseph Smith specific rejects 2 and suspends judgment on 1, as do I.

Edited December 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[why me]

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

The verse from Moses explains it quite well and most likely those witnesses who at times described it as such took it from Moses.

• Moses 1:11
  11 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.
  

[Daniel Peterson]

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

I have no intention of pretending to be more morally sensitive and spiritual than the authors of the New Testament. So, no, I'm bound to disappoint you. I'm made of very poor stuff indeed.

Look, "Wayfarer," I haven't even read the discussion here. All I know is that the New Testament does indeed brand some people "antichrists." And I assume that those were real people, with moms and dads and feelings. Whether that title applies to you or not, I have no idea. And its none of my concern. But I'm certainly not going to attack longtime dear friends at the bidding of someone I don't know regarding comments I haven't read.

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

If something reprehensible ever occurs in Interpreter, having made its way past our reviewers and editors, yes, I will bear 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?

We unavoidably judge others all the time. You are, right now, implicitly criticizing me.

I also ask if the annointed are only prophets and apostles or anyone who has gone through the temple.

I've thought a lot about that question. I don't have a definitive answer. I'm guessing that you think you do.

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) speaking ill of his annointed?

By your apparent standard, it would always and everywhere be wrong for any (endowed) Church member to judge of another that he's unreliable, inarticulate, immoral, lazy, stupid, ugly, ignorant, bigoted, mean, nasty, drunk, or whatever. Be careful, then, about speaking ill of me, or of Professors Hamblin and Midgley.

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.

Ordinary members of the Church have no right to try others for membership, but they surely have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, to judge whether other members are mainstream, active or inactive, observant, and etc. Should I let this person babysit my kids? Should I loan that one money? Do I want to allow this one to drive my daughter on a date? Should I offer a job to that one? We judge all the time, and necessarily so. It isn't merely the bishop's responsibility. And sometimes those jugdments are negative.

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?

Oh come on. Don't hyperventilate. I've known both Lou Midgley and Bill Hamblin for roughly half of my life. I've never heard them going around pronouncing inactive or doubting members of the Church "antichrists." And, by your account, they're the worst offenders on this. So, yes, I think it very possible for people who've lost faith to avoid being pronounced "antichrists," not only by ordinary members of the Church in general but even by Professors Midgley and Hamblin. (Perhaps not by me, though. Legend has it that my first spoken word, taught to me in the cradle by my inactive Mormon mother and my lapsed Lutheran father, was "antichrist," and I've certainly been throwing it around constantly ever since -- though, it seems, silently and in invisible ink.)

Mr. Peterson, Dan if I may, I hope you have followed these two threads from the beginning.

I haven't followed them at all. As I said above.

That's why it was amusing to me for "Wayfarer" to blame Hamblin, Midgley, and Peterson for whatever's gone on here. I've read virtually nothing of either one.

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.

Perhaps so. I haven't read this thread or the other. So it's not clear to me why I'm being denounced for them, and why "Wayfarer" is demanding an apology from me.

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?

I've never, to the best of my recollection, called anybody an "antichrist." That said, the New Testament uses the term, and plainly has actual people in mind. I'm guessing, in that light, that the biblical view is that "antichrists" are real, and not merely mythical beasts. Perhaps, then, it's a salutary exercise to consider what the characteristics of an "antichrist" might be, and to ask oneself whether one fits the definition.

[why me]

If something reprehensible ever occurs in Interpreter, having made its way past our reviewers and editors, yes, I will bear some responsibility for it.

The problem Dan is that when it comes to the lds church it is very difficult to escape just what critics would find 'reprehensible'. You may be apologizing with every article appearing.

[wayfarer]

I think that Martin may have been referring to the verse above from Moses. I think that this verse gives a good explanation. Have you read Moses?

Please see in a previous post above that I already quoted this. Uh, and yes, I have read Moses.

It is absolutely amazing just how many former members get hung up with the spiritual eyes bit. It seems perfectly normal to me to refer to the process in this way to give it more of a flair. We also need to remember that Martin also gave it a more "real" experience in his various testimonies of what he saw.

I hope you aren't referring to me.

1. I am not a 'former member'. Active temple recommend, thank you.

2. I have no issue with Spiritual Eyes, and have had personal spiritual experience with this. I simply maintain that spiritual eyes do not constitute proof of physical, empirical events, but testify of something more significant.

[wayfarer]

Look, "Wayfarer," I haven't even read the discussion here. All I know is that the New Testament does indeed brand some people "antichrists." And I assume that those were real people, with moms and dads and feelings. Whether that title applies to you or not, I have no idea. And its none of my concern. But I'm certainly not going to attack longtime dear friends at the bidding of someone I don't know regarding comments I haven't read.

"Doctor"* Peterson:

You're on vacation, of course you haven't read these threads, nor do I require it. You have responded to both threads, and in so doing, failed to understand the context of the discussion. That's fine, so I made it clear to you: your "dear friend's" article goes beyond just pointing out scripture, but in fact accuses Dehlin and those who share a non-literalist belief as antichrists. Directly.

I did not intimate that you called anyone anti-christ. I did not require you to read these posts, but I made the assumption that you read Lou Midgley's article. As you continue to stand behind the diatribe, then you stand judged by yourself as supporting those who call others 'antichrist'.

If you choose to be a leader, to be the head of a journal, then part of that is taking responsibilitiy for what is written. I don't expect you to be more sincere than new testament writers -- your characterization of my words is hopelesslive distortive. I expect that if your publication slanders people who have a considered, nuanced view of Christ, that you would recognize the slander and remedy it. That's all.

I have your answer -- you stand behind the slander. And as you say, that is poor stuff indeed.

* - note that putting "Doctor" in quotes questions how you choose to identify yourself. I have noted that when you are being civil, you don't use the quotes, and when you are deliberately manipulating my words, you put my chosen identity in quotes. Disingenuous indeed

Edited December 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[Daniel Peterson]

Wayfarer -- no quotation marks! -- you appear absolutely determined to take personal offense.

None was intended, but I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with such insistence today. I'm headed out for lunch with some new friends, and have plenty more student papers and finals to grade after that, if I don't spend much of the rest of the day with my son and my daughter-in-law instead.

The problem Dan is that when it comes to the lds church it is very difficult to escape just what critics would find 'reprehensible'. You may be apologizing with every article appearing.

Exactly.

I do have some thoughts on "genuine Mormonness" that I might share later today or tomorrow. I take it that they might be relevant either to this thread or the other one.

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer -- no quotation marks! -- you appear absolutely determined to take personal offense.

None was intended, but I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with such insistence today. I'm headed out for lunch with some new friends, and have plenty more student papers and finals to grade after that, if I don't spend much of the rest of the day with my son and my daughter-in-law instead.

Dan, I'm not taking offense at all -- really. I'm just observing a trend that when you respect someone, you act one way, when you don't, you act another -- it's a natural tendency.

And seriously, enjoy the time on your vacation and with your son and daughter in law.

The problem Dan is that when it comes to the lds church it is very difficult to escape just what critics would find 'reprehensible'. You may be apologizing with every article appearing

Exactly.

Except that I'm not a critic of the church -- far from it. I love the church, and it pains me to see that some in the church feel that people like me are anti-christs because we don't have the same understanding. For one moment, I simply ask you to put yourself in my shoes and understand where I'm coming from. When you label someone who doesn't share the literalist viewpoint an anti-christ, then you're pushing away people who are serving, loving, and caring for this church. It's simply not in harmony with the gospel, in my humble opinion.

I do not believe that 'literalist' as I use it constitutes a pejorative. It's meant that a person believes ("knows") that said events happened. While I don't share this about everything, I simply don't have that same point of veiw -- they aren't important to me.

I do have some thoughts on "genuine Mormonness" that I might share later today or tomorrow. I take it that they might be relevant either to this thread or the other one.

I would look forward to getting your view on this. I recommend starting another thread.

You will be removed from this one if you continue to derail it with off-topic bickering.

[Calm]

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.

I was thinking of Hiram Page who was teaching his own revelations, but he accepted correction from JS and stopped so he didn't receive discipline apparently....however, JS did require him to stop teaching beliefs so it supports the argument I was suggesting that Joseph did indeed place limits on what could be taught in the Church, contrary to your claim below. If you need more references, please let me know but it will have to wait as I have extensive stuff to do today and will be on the Internet only during breaks here and there and I prefer to do my research when I am uninterrupted.

"creed" comes from latin meaning "I believe", and joseph, late in life, said that LDS "have no creed", therefore, Joseph Smith's answer to Bill Hamblin's silly question is "no". There is no absolute requirement to "believe" anything as an LDS, especially dogma. belief in rote statements recited without consideration is hardly faith or on the pathway to truth.

[Calm]

Yet Joseph still corrected apostle's interpretations. https://www.lds.org/...uction?lang=eng

Which was my point though I may have expressed it in a more extreme position than I meant.

[Calm]

indeed he did!

So contrary to your claim of the below, you do actually agree that there is a requirement to believe some things and not others, at least according to JS's standard.

"creed" comes from latin meaning "I believe", and joseph, late in life, said that LDS "have no creed", therefore, Joseph Smith's answer to Bill Hamblin's silly question is "no". There is no absolute requirement to "believe" anything as an LDS, especially dogma. belief in rote statements recited without consideration is hardly faith or on the pathway to truth.

[Calm]

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

Let's estimate that at 10.8 degrees then.....whatever that means.

[wenglund]

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

You instigate and actively participate in cyber-bullying of Dr. Peterson, and yet you are disappointed in him and his character? Amazing! But, such is the upside-down world we live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Mr. Peterson,

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

Having read the article, I think if anyone who claims it is reprehensible they manage to do so only because they have allowed an enormous amount of personal baggage to add negativity to the article where it does not exist, at least to the extreme extent they are claiming.

[Calm]

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.

Demonstrating that such may have existed in other faiths in the past and present does not make it a slam dunk for a specific faith now or then unless you can demonstrate for that specific faith....which you did not at least for the LDS one.

[Calm]

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

There is a problem when one assumes that a definition being used in an academic discussion is to be automatically applied to practical situations. I see a lot of crossover between the two among those who are protesting the article and Dr. Hamblin's pointing out the scriptural definition of "antichrist".

[why me]

2. I simply maintain that spiritual eyes do not constitute proof of physical, empirical events, but testify of something more significant.

I think that the verses in Moses says much and speaks about what it means. You do know that the use of spiritual eyes may have been an expression that he had a spiritual experience and saw the angel. I like the term spiritual eyes. Martin also was much more frank in his testimonies about what he saw and he did not use spiritual eyes at all as a description of the process.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mr. Peterson,

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

"Reprehensible"? Good grief!

You need to calm down and rein in the rhetoric.

[Kenngo1969]

NOM. New Order Mormon. And here all this time I had been thinking this stood for "Name Only Mormon".

My mistake.

While I hesitate to apply this label to anyone, I do like the appelation "MINO" (pronounced "Minnow"), meaning "Mormon in Name Only."

[mfbukowski]

Edit: I have decided to not respond

Edited December 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[DBMormon]

it supports the argument I was suggesting that Joseph did indeed place limits on what could be taught in the Church, contrary to your claim below.

Calmoriah - I hope you feel no tone in my asking you questions, none is intended. This thread got way more emotional then I wanted (some part of that is my fault) In fact Dan, if you read this I tried to word my questions to you detached from emotion but simply to get a feel for where you stood on those.

Calmoriah - Your quote I included here, I can not speak for wayfarer though I assume his point is the same as mine in that you say Joseph placed limits on what others can teach, but what if they don't teach them. Are they still anti-christs? if they believe something that isn't as literal but do not publicly teach it. I can't speak for everyone else but this whole time Midgely's paper addressed belief and not specifically teaching, therefore that is what I am addressing and I see teaching as a different topic.

Edited December 18, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

"Reprehensible"? Good grief!

You need to calm down and rein in the rhetoric.

maybe a bad word to use, but I promise no emotion on my end with it

[Pahoran]

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!

IOW, for you, "a nonliteralist understanding" is simply your weasel words for, "It didn't really happen, but it makes a nice story."

Well, there are lots of nice stories that could be "symbolically true," whatever that might mean.

But as for the Saviour, Jesus Christ:

1 John 4:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Sorry.

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.

So you don't actually care whether there was an empty tomb or not. That's your privilege, but it seems to me to be a rather important question that matters a great deal.

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?

Yes, I think that Jesus understood that God is the father of the spirits of us all, but uniquely the father of Jesus in the flesh.

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

Do you confess, without any weasel words or verbose qualifications, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? Your answer to that question will answer your question.

Regards,

Pahoran