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

[Calm]

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.

I go by the biblical definition for the most part, one who denies that Jesus is the Christ. (And I limit my judgment to solely that, I do not assume anything else based on their denial, only that they don't believe in Christ; I do not assume this means they act in certain ways or are bad people or anything else.) The Book of Mormon is somewhat the same but has a little bit of different detail:

Alma 30:6 he was Anti-Christ, for he began to preach unto the people against the prophecies which had been spoken by the prophets, concerning the coming of Christ

So it would depend on what they were expressing as their belief as to whether or not they were antichrist. As far as the teaching goes, if they taught that Jesus was not the Christ, then they would be antichrist by the same biblical definition.

Having said that, I don't see it as my job to publicly denounce individuals as antichrist, I would----if the need arose and someone wanted to know how a person viewed Christ and the person had made a public expression somewhere that I was aware of----simply let them through their own words speak for themselves as I did in this thread, I believe, when I posted the quote from Seth where he expressed his belief.

I am also aware that in usage the term "anti-christ" has assumed much more active connotations so if I were ever to use the term, I would try and remember to provide the definition I am using along with it to help avoid confusion.

Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

I am a bit amazed that more LDS have not stood up and said that belief that Jesus is the Christ is an non-negotiable minimum standard for LDS. I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and I welcome all to attend and socialize. But I stand on the testimony of Jesus as the absolute minimum. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. (OK quoting Luther is a bit melodramatic. But it sums up the issue.). Why do unbelieving MINOs think they get to tell the saints what it means to be a Mormon? It's preposterous.

[Calm]

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

It has some rather pejorative connotations, so it would imo be of value if you mean no emotional value to be attached to it, to go back and find a less inherently emotional term to use. As it stands it is rather hard to believe you meant no emotion by it and even though I take you at your word that you didn't mean any emotion on your end, it is such a harsh word to choose to use that it comes across that you are allowing emotion to slip through even if you are trying to control it.

It would astonish me to find someone who used the word reprehensible to criticize someone and yet didn't care or feel emotional about what s/he had labeled. It would mean to me that person was somewhat sociopathic in that s/he didn't care about something so wrong even while being aware that it was wrong.

And the amount of time and effort you have put into the thread seems to contradict the idea there is no emotional component to your reasons for posting, this not being a purely academic discussion.

Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[TAO]

Uh oh.

That makes you more than a "degree".

Woopsy... looks like we don't have shared definitions =).

[TAO]

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

10.8 according to what scale? According to what unit? According to what version of reality ;-).

[canard78]

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.

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.

Wayfarer already has given a comment that answers this question:

Was there a person of Jesus Christ? yes... I make a personal claim that I have been redeemed by Jesus, and have felt hs transforming influence actively in my life. ... 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.

He says 'yes' he came in the flesh. He also mentions the impact Jesus has had on his life.

The point he further makes is that the literal event is of little relevance. Even though it may well be a literal event, it's not in the literalness that he (and others) find meaning, but in the symbol/parable/message.

Adam and Eve may have been a literal sequence of events - but they are only really relevant in their symbolic nature and message. It doesn't matter 'who' our first parents were. It matters a lot more to consider ourselves as fallen from God's presence and in a mortal probation of our own choosing, having left the paradise of innocence and purity. etc etc.

The principles and spiritual impressions change me. Not the literal moment in history when they actually (or didn't actually) happen. Does that make me an anti-christ? I hope not. I am very pro-christ.

[sethpayne]

Wayfarer already has given a comment that answers this question:

He says 'yes' he came in the flesh. He also mentions the impact Jesus has had on his life.

The point he further makes is that the literal event is of little relevance. Even though it may well be a literal event, it's not in the literalness that he (and others) find meaning, but in the symbol/parable/message.

Adam and Eve may have been a literal sequence of events - but they are only really relevant in their symbolic nature and message. It doesn't matter 'who' our first parents were. It matters a lot more to consider ourselves as fallen from God's presence and in a mortal probation of our own choosing, having left the paradise of innocence and purity. etc etc.

The principles and spiritual impressions change me. Not the literal moment in history when they actually (or didn't actually) happen. Does that make me an anti-christ? I hope not. I am very pro-christ.

This.

[Calm]

10.8 according to what scale? According to what unit? According to what version of reality ;-).

Exactly.... back at you. Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[wayfarer]

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.

Thanks for the ref -- Remember that the claim that LDS have no creed was not mine, but a documented statement by Joseph Smith relatively late in his life (1843). Was this consistent with other things JS taught? probably not...leaving room for "interpretation". Hence, having room for interpretation, and seeking answers for oneself is very much topical to ths thread: The Middle Way.

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer already has given a comment that answers this question:

He says 'yes' he came in the flesh. He also mentions the impact Jesus has had on his life.

The point he further makes is that the literal event is of little relevance. Even though it may well be a literal event, it's not in the literalness that he (and others) find meaning, but in the symbol/parable/message.

Adam and Eve may have been a literal sequence of events - but they are only really relevant in their symbolic nature and message. It doesn't matter 'who' our first parents were. It matters a lot more to consider ourselves as fallen from God's presence and in a mortal probation of our own choosing, having left the paradise of innocence and purity. etc etc.

The principles and spiritual impressions change me. Not the literal moment in history when they actually (or didn't actually) happen. Does that make me an anti-christ? I hope not. I am very pro-christ.

Amen, and thank-you. Every fibre of my being declares that Jesus is the Christ. These Words of Christ -- revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith -- I proclaim from every part of me:

"Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.

"And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.

"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me."

when I come to understand things outside of the physical and literal, the wonder of the entire universe becomes a testimony of Jesus Christ. Instead of looking to a historical event, I look to the divine presence in all that is. When the divine presence withdraws from me, I am nothing.

Edited December 18, 2012 by wayfarer

[Senator]

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.

If the answer to your question is, "I don't know"; then what?

[Senator]

Why do unbelieving MINOs think they get to tell the saints what it means to be a Mormon? It's preposterous.

I'm not seeing where people have claimed to be the arbiters of the definition of being Mormorm. Rather, I hear some people expressing what being a Mormon means to them.

Am I wrong on this?

[mfbukowski]

Wayfarer already has given a comment that answers this question:

He says 'yes' he came in the flesh. He also mentions the impact Jesus has had on his life.

The point he further makes is that the literal event is of little relevance. Even though it may well be a literal event, it's not in the literalness that he (and others) find meaning, but in the symbol/parable/message.

Adam and Eve may have been a literal sequence of events - but they are only really relevant in their symbolic nature and message. It doesn't matter 'who' our first parents were. It matters a lot more to consider ourselves as fallen from God's presence and in a mortal probation of our own choosing, having left the paradise of innocence and purity. etc etc.

The principles and spiritual impressions change me. Not the literal moment in history when they actually (or didn't actually) happen. Does that make me an anti-christ? I hope not. I am very pro-christ.

+1

I thought we took these things on faith around here? Remember "we came here to walk by faith?"

That sounds familiar doesn't it? Faith is a principle of action. We ACT on those principles and they "grow sweet" to us.

Anybody actually live according to Alma 32? Yes it can grow to "sure knowledge" in the sense of knowledge that these principles bring meaning and peace and significance to your life- you can know that surely beyond one iota of doubt.

But true knowledge in the sense of scientific, objective, historical accuracy that a person named Jesus walked the earth?

Sorry- it doesn't bring that kind of knowledge nor is it supposed to. That would make it scientifically verifiable or falsifiable and that is not what religion is.

Now we are getting to Kevin Christensen's favorite Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development.

What wayfarer did or did not do in the High School Gossip Board is irrelevant to this question.

Edited December 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

when I come to understand things outside of the physical and literal, the wonder of the entire universe becomes a testimony of Jesus Christ. Instead of looking to a historical event, I look to the divine presence in all that is. When the divine presence withdraws from me, I am nothing.

My position on this is that the historical event DID INDEED occur but it is pretty irrelevant to the story of that event's power in our lives.

THAT it occurred is unprovable scientifically so why worry about it scientifically? My testimony is based on something much stronger than a historic event which cannot be scientifically proven to have ever happened.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not seeing where people have claimed to be the arbiters of the definition of being Mormorm. Rather, I hear some people expressing what being a Mormon means to them.

Am I wrong on this?

It's a distinction without a difference. In effect they are saying being Mormon has no transcendent definition beyond any individual's opinion. That, in effect is arbitrating the definition for everybody else

[ControlFreak]

I am a bit amazed that more LDS have not stood up and said that belief that Jesus is the Christ is an non-negotiable minimum standard for LDS. I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and I welcome all to attend and socialize. But I stand on the testimony of Jesus as the absolute minimum. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. (OK quoting Luther is a bit melodramatic. But it sums up the issue.). Why do unbelieving MINOs think they get to tell the saints what it means to be a Mormon? It's preposterous.

I kind of laugh as I read this thread, because I think we are all focusing on the semantics in the same way that the Mormon/Christian debate goes, which is really not the point. I think Bill hit the nail on the head earlier with his taxonomy analogy. However, I would say Christianity is the Family, Mormon is the Genus and NOM/MINO/TBM are the species.

In the end, that is all just a game of definitions. The real question relates to the discussion of what to do with certain species. Midgley's article seems to imply that the NOM/MINO species are evolutionarily unstable and will lead to the destruction of the favored TBM species. So is the implication that NOMs and MINOs should thus be driven out?

As far as the definition of what a Mormon is, although I'm a NOM/MINO (whatever you call a disbelieving person who is supportive of the church, loves the members and pulls more than his/her fair share of the weight), I absolutely claim the right to have a say in the definition.

• I pay my tithing
  
• I am descended from generations of Mormons whose lives were shaped by Mormonism
  
• I've participated in mormonism my whole life and continue to do so
  
• I serve actively in my ward (currently EQ president)
  

If you want to define the species of TBM, that's fine, but mormonism has gone beyond a belief set when the entire structure of the life I was handed requires that I participate in it if I want to keep a normal family life with immediate and extended relatives. Mormonism is a belief set, but it is also a culture and a people, much like the Jewish culture/faith.

Edit: grammar/clarity

Edited December 18, 2012 by ControlFreak

[ControlFreak]

25th post so I can edit previous post...

[Scott Lloyd]

I am a bit amazed that more LDS have not stood up and said that belief that Jesus is the Christ is an non-negotiable minimum standard for LDS. I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and I welcome all to attend and socialize. But I stand on the testimony of Jesus as the absolute minimum. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. (OK quoting Luther is a bit melodramatic. But it sums up the issue.). Why do unbelieving MINOs think they get to tell the saints what it means to be a Mormon? It's preposterous.

I was just thinking along those lines. For years people have been saying that when it comes to non-foundational doctrines it's just fine to take whatever unorthodox stance you like. Now they're making the same claim about the divinity of Jesus Christ. If that's not a foundational doctrine I don't know what is. The only phrase I can think of to adequately describe what's going on here is creeping heresy.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm not seeing where people have claimed to be the arbiters of the definition of being Mormorm. Rather, I hear some people expressing what being a Mormon means to them.

Am I wrong on this?

Yes

[wayfarer]

I thought we took these things on faith around here? Remember "we came here to walk by faith?"

That sounds familiar doesn't it? Faith is a principle of action. We ACT on those principles and they "grow sweet" to us.

Anybody actually live according to Alma 32? Yes it can grow to "sure knowledge" in the sense of knowledge that these principles bring meaning and peace and significance to your life- you can know that surely beyond one iota of doubt.

But true knowledge in the sense of scientific, objective, historical accuracy that a person named Jesus walked the earth?

Sorry- it doesn't bring that kind of knowledge nor is it supposed to. That would make it scientifically verifiable or falsifiable and that is not what religion is.

I think you are exactly on point with this. "Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if we have faith we hope for things which are not seen, which are true." then Alma suggests a test, a 'heuristic' to determine the truth of things. I wrote a blog entitled "On being an Agnostic Mormon" on this topic, and while I would not accept that label, there is merit in Alma's recognition that there is a 'not knowing' element of faith. .

What wayfarer did or did not do in the High School Gossip Board is irrelevant to this question.

[Senator]

It's a distinction without a difference.

I disagree.

In effect they are saying being Mormon has no transcendent definition beyond any individual's opinion.

And if there is a transcendent definition, it can only be understood relatively. So, yes i would say this is effectively a true statement.

That, in effect is arbitrating the definition for everybody else

Not at all

Edited December 18, 2012 by Senator

[Senator]

Yes

Please explain.

[mfbukowski]

I think you are exactly on point with this. "Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if we have faith we hope for things which are not seen, which are true." then Alma suggests a test, a 'heuristic' to determine the truth of things. I wrote a blog entitled "On being an Agnostic Mormon" on this topic, and while I would not accept that label, there is merit in Alma's recognition that there is a 'not knowing' element of faith. .

For me faith has to do with action- it is how we live our lives. We drop off our kids at school and take it on faith- "knowing" for all practical purposes- that some wacko is not going to kill them- but then it happens.

But yet we have certainty that such things will not happen, and indeed that certainty is well justified when you look at it statistically. Air travel is the safest form of travel, but people are killed every year in spite of that fact.

But when God speaks to you directly through spiritual experience, that is about as certain as you can be of anything in this life.

But I would never call myself an "agnostic" Mormon or anything like it. I consider myself about as TBM as one can get and I would challenge anyone to show me that I am not. I know it, and God knows it, and that is good enough for me.

[Daniel Peterson]

Mormonism is a belief set, but it is also a culture and a people, much like the Jewish culture/faith.

And the Jewish people seems to be at serious risk of slowly dying out, through both low rates of reproduction and high rates of assimilation (e.g., notably, interreligious marriage).

My sense is that, on the whole, cultural Mormonism, like Kulturprotestantismus and cultural Judaism, is parasitic upon a core of real committed believers who affirm a difficult to define but nonetheless literally vital core of propositions.

(Those eager to be offended will, I expect, claim that I accused them of being "parasites" and will miss the actual point that I've just made.)

[mfbukowski]

• I am descended from generations of Mormons whose lives were shaped by Mormonism
  

I honestly do not want to pick on you and you are not the only one who does this- and that is kind of my point.

I am descended from probably hundreds of generations of Catholics who's lives were shaped by Catholicism. Does that make me a Catholic or a Mormon or better at being either one? (I am a TBM)

Again- I am only making the point. It kind of bugs me obviously.