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

[bdouglas]

I think people shouldn't condemn others for heresy when we reject a creed-based doctrinal test for orthodoxy. I think Mr. Hamblin and others will have to live with the less correlated and should do so with greater acceptance.

Interesting. I agree

[why me]

Why is it that the church can consider someone a member who years ago was baptized, went to church total of one time, and has since become a member of another church, but some of you can't accept someone as Mormon who has faithfully attended, paid tithing, and served diligently in callings for decades, but has some (or many) unorthodox views about the church?

What is 'the church'? I have never heard any church spokesperson ever use the terms NewOrderMormon or cafeteria mormon. I think that we need to see the bigger picture outside of the internet discussion. A person is no longer a mormon when a person resigns from the church or perhaps is excommunicated. But all else are referred to as mormons.

Edited December 20, 2012 by why me

[wayfarer]

Plainly, Nathair, you've just made those four items up out of thin air in an attempt to maliciously impose your version of "orthodoxy" on committed Mormons who, for example, disbelieve in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, think the idea of the Atonement is rather silly and Jesus almost certainly a fictional character based on a hallucinogenic mushroom, prefer a Buddhist conception of "salvation," regard the idea of a "restoration" as rather crude and arrogant, and think every religious claim is equally valid (or invalid) with every other.

Remember, the Church has no creed, and, to be a good Mormon, nobody has to believe anything at all. Or, alternatively, she can believe everything. It's all alike. No idea is privileged over any other -- except, of course, the idea of Absolute Tolerance.

I see you're enjoying this. I'm glad we're helping you enjoy your vacation.

You're making a caricature of my comments. I understand that, perhaps I haven't been clear.

Not one word of the Temple Recommend interview, quoted above by Nathair, uses the term 'believe'. Faith and belief differ in significant and fundamental ways. While we often exchange the two terms, "Faith" we act upon something that is true, trusting that it is true, but with an explicit understanding that we do not 'know', whereas 'belief' is a feeling of certainty about something, with no requirement for it to be 'true', and where no action is implied or necessary. Big difference.

When I say that I don't know if Jesus Christ physically was resurrected in the way scriptures say he did, I am being epistemologically accurate: I don't know. I don't know if he did, I don't know if he didn't. I have no way of proving it one way or the other. Therefore, I don't believe it, and I don't disbelieve it. Importantly, I do not cast it out due to disbelief, nor do I reject in any way that Christ came in the flesh. On the other hand, I have had many, many personal spiritual experiences, and continue to do so, where the Savior's existence and atonement are deeply real to me in every way that matters to me. I have been lifted so many times by the Savior, either through a release from addiction, or as I have read the Book of Mormon, and in so many ways I cannot begin to recount. I testify that I have a deep and abiding faith in the Savior. He lives -- but I don't know or care about the details about the form that takes.

My personal spiritual experiences motivate me to action -- to live a Christ-like life, to emulate the love with which he shared with everyone, to be kind to the extent I can be. I fail all the time, but I try.

Because "faith" is fundamentally different from "belief", I fully accept Joseph Smith's comments that LDS have no creeds -- no requirements stipulating what I need to "believe". I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the etymology of 'creed' is from the latin 'credo' that often is the first word of the 'creeds': "I believe". On the other hand, LDS do require, absolutely, that we at least try to be "faithful" in order to be recognized as a Latter Day Saint. The first four questions in the TR interview are an excellent standard of that commitment: They speak of "Faith" and "Testimony", but not of "belief".

To have faith in God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost does not require me to 'believe' a specific literal, unsubstantiatable claims "about" them, but rather, to "trust" that these things are true, to "agree" that we teach them, and to "hope" for them to be relevant in our lives, and "act" in accordance with this faith. Faith is trust, agreement, and hope in something that is true (not proven to be false) leading to action.

To have a testimony of something, whether the godhead, atonement, restoration, or prophetic role of the church leadership, means that I have a witness, an expressible experience with these things defining my understanding of and relationship to them. My testimony of the atonement, for example, does not include the idea that god had to sacrifice his son in order to justify his own desire for vengeance (and before someone says that this is a distortion -- I agree that such a teaching is a distortion). That Jesus died and was sacrificed through crucifixion is apparent -- so was Sparticus and a lot of other dissenters. What makes our doctrine of Atonement different is that we see the garden as being the 'place of the atonement', and the resurrection -- whether symbolic or physical -- as the victory. Yet my testimony of atonement comes not from any aspect of these historical events -- i did not 'witness' them. My witness is about how the atonement redeemed me from sin, and is as real to me -- more real -- than any claim about a historical event.

So if I question the literalism of these events, I do not mean to disparage anyone's individual belief, or what works for them in this regard. Job said, "I know that my redeemer liveth, and at the latter day he shall stand on the earth". And while he used the term "know", he was epistemologically inaccurate in saying it. Nevertheless, his statement is absolutely accurate and relevant to his faith, and I accept his statement fully.

To walk faithfully on the Middle Way is by no means to just believe "whatever". It is to apply the principles of faith as laid out by Alma in Alma 32: to test each thing we hold in faith to determine if it is true or not. In the end, some things will end up being true, and others not so. We are under no obligation to have faith in or believe in something that is provably not true, therefore it is acceptable -- even required -- to cast aside certain things that are logically impossible or historically inaccurate. But a vast majority of what we hold in "Faith" will not be provable, one way or the other. And rather than just 'believing' them as if they're true, I hold that "Faith" in them recognizes that I don't know, and yet, not knowing, I am willing to trust in them, teach them, hope for them, and act in accordance with them.

Faith, for me, constitutes the Middle Way. Yes, that means critically thinking and testing what we believe to determine whether it is true (one extreme), false (the other extreme), or needs to be in the category of "Faith" (that which rests in the middle). I don't expect anyone to accept my way of traversing the Way, but it works for me.

Edited December 20, 2012 by wayfarer

[Deborah]

When I say that I don't know if Jesus Christ physically was resurrected in the way scriptures say he did, I am being epistemologically accurate: I don't know.

It seems to me that this is nitpicking at its finest. As a matter of fact one can “know” in the surest sense by way of the Spirit bearing testimony. I may not have seen it but I surely don’t question it. I think you are thinking too hard on the subject and parsing words.

.

[wayfarer]

It seems to me that this is nitpicking at its finest. As a matter of fact one can “know” in the surest sense by way of the Spirit bearing testimony. I may not have seen it but I surely don’t question it. I think you are thinking too hard on the subject and parsing words.

I'm sure that for most people, making a summary epistemological conclusion of 'truth' based upon a feeling of spirit is sufficient. It was for me for many, many years. But in making that summary conclusion, I accepted and taught things that were not true. I served in a mission in a time when blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood. I taught that principle. I enforced that principle. I enabled an institutional bigotry against people who should not have been discriminated against. Having researched the issue thoroughly, I now know there was no revelation, no dispensation, no divine word that empowered Brigham Young to make this claim: he simply did it, and the church followed for another 120 years. I am ashamed of my summary acceptance of everything 'taught'.

So, yes, I'm careful about what I 'believe'. I see no need to believe in something proven not to be true, and I see no honesty nor humility in making a claim that I know something when I don't. I take the scriptures at their word when they say that "Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things". In saying that I have faith but not knowledge, I acknowledge the difference between belief and faith -- and that distinction is extremely important.

Edited December 20, 2012 by wayfarer

[TAO]

Wayfarer, Alma says faith is believing in things which you cannot see which are true. The temple reccomend does talk about faith, and thus, I think does have to do with belief too. Belief is quite important imho.

Edited December 20, 2012 by TAO

[Daniel Peterson]

You're making a caricature of my comments.

Actually, I didn't have your comments specifically in mind. I'm not even sure that I've read them.

I don't understand why you seem to want to make this about you and me. You dragged me in when I wasn't participating, demanded that I apologize to you for remarks by other people that I hadn't seen, and apparently believe that Professor Midgley's article is actually about you. And now I notice that your friends over at that other board have convinced you that I'm desperately interested in your real-life identity -- when, in fact, I could scarcely care less. (Incidentally, I've never denied that I look in on that board almost every day. I find the place fascinating, in a very peculiar sort of way.)

.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Calm]

You're making a caricature of my comments.

Something that everyone should take great care to avoid, don't you think? Especially if it concerns them when others do it.

[pogi]

I agree in principle it could be. But I think it's natural to presume that what is best for me is best for all.

But... Living among the Chinese and knowing a lot Indians, I hesitate to agree in full. I believe eventually in "every knee..." But I see no structural plan to make that happen in mortality. So I don't think God intends the majority to have anything to do with Mormonism in this life. It's structurally not possible.

There are billions of people who have and will live and die with no meaningful interaction with our teachings. Of course they will have opportunities (if needed) in the next life, but I also don't consider them to have wasted their mortal experience. The principles of Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism (shhh communism) when positively embraced and applied, mean these vast nations have not been "in the dark for 5,000 years." As such I see the hand of God in these cultures and belief systems, not of isolated man or worse.

If, then the hand of God is in this and if there is (apparently intentionally) no structural way of Mormonism being shared in these culture (yet) I do indeed "think that this path is NOT the "best" path (in this life) and that the statement that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" does not apply to these folks in this life?"

Some thrive in universities, some in practical apprenticeships, some in 'on the job' training. I hope that when my children are older I'll be happy to support and guide them in the best educational path for them as individuals. I find it sad when I hear parents mandate a young child will follow an academic path before the child is old enough to have any idea if that's the best path for them.

I agree with you canard78, I see the hand of God in all faiths and in all people that I have come in contact with. However, I don't see their God's, and I don't see no God, but I see THE God in their lives (the one that Mormonism preaches and praises). While people of other faiths may be on their best path for them at this time, their best path will only lead to baptism, or it is no path at all. Baptism is the only path that there is, it is the gate by which we must enter. I do indeed consider myself blessed to have found it in this life, and will continue to show others the way.

While I agree with you in part, your perspective may lead to inactivity in preaching the gospel if you do not view Mormonism as THE path, by means of the saving ordinances. Don't leave the work for those on the other side, you are accountable to share the truth that you have as it is the only way to God. While others may have truth, they don't have a proper perspective (and thus understanding) of it. It is our responsibility, it is our discipleship as representatives of Christ, to show them the way.

[Senator]

It seems to me that this is nitpicking at its finest. As a matter of fact one can “know” in the surest sense by way of the Spirit bearing testimony. I may not have seen it but I surely don’t question it. I think you are thinking too hard on the subject and parsing words.

.

But see, this is what I don't get. Why do we feel a need to discredit and disqualify the way he sees it?

[wayfarer]

Actually, I didn't have your comments specifically in mind. I'm not even sure that I've read them.

I don't understand why you seem to want to make this about you and me. You dragged me in when I wasn't participating, demanded that I apologize to you for remarks by other people that I hadn't seen, and apparently believe that Professor Midgley's article is actually about you. And now I notice that your friends over at that other board have convinced you that I'm desperately interested in your real-life identity -- when, in fact, I could scarcely care less. (Incidentally, I've never denied that I look in on that board almost every day. I find the place fascinating, in a very peculiar sort of way.)

But none of that is relevant to what I wrote. I explained why you are relevant to this conversation, and you ignored what I said. I asked (not demanded) for a repudiation (not an apology) for an incendiary article, which you said you wouldn't do, so I moved on. I read in midgley's article a false statement toward people who believe as I do, specifically targeted to John Dehlin and his article was inspired by what happened with you and the Maxwell Institute. I didn't bring these things up -- he did. I said nothing at all about you seeking my real-life identity -- actually, if you look at your own blog, I already revealed that to you months ago, I entirely don't care whether you know who I am or not. Can we just leave all this stuff behind and focus on the topic, which has to do with the "So Called Middle Way", and about which I am a proponent and you are an opponent?

I am proposing that my definition of a faithful Middle Way is fully legitimate within a context of being an "Authentic Mormon". Others oppose this proposition. Let's expore it further, shall we?

Edited December 20, 2012 by wayfarer

[Daniel Peterson]

But none of that is relevant to what I wrote.

Then why do you insist that it's about you?

I said nothing at all about you seeking my real-life identity

Others did, and you seemed to share their concerns. But whatever. I truly don't care.

-- actually, if you look at your own blog, I already revealed that to you months ago,

Significantly, that doesn't ring any kind of a bell with me.

Can we just leave all this stuff behind and focus on the topic, which has to do with the "So Called Middle Way", and about which I am a proponent and you are an opponent?

Please explain in precisely what way it is that I'm an "opponent."

[pogi]

But see, this is what I don't get. Why do we feel a need to discredit and disqualify the way he sees it?

One must separate truth from error in their own minds. That is the use of agency and we respect the use of it. But again, wherever their is truth and error, there will be division, and there must be discrediting and disqualifying in order to hold integrity to the truth. This is not pronouncing judgment on the individual.

Edited December 20, 2012 by pogi

[Senator]

I find it simply risible for unbelievers, however friendly toward Mormon culture they may be, and even however active in the Church they may be, to insist that nobody has a right to think them less than equally Mormon in at least some sense.

It is a little sad to me that saints would even feel the need to claim the right to think of our brothers/sisters as "less than equally Mormon". Do we need some sort of cultural caste system for the Mormon orthoprax only?

It's absurd and self-contradictory for them, moreover, to insist that mainstream members of the Church have no right to define Mormonism as those mainstream members wish, while they redefine Mormonism to mean whatever they decide it to mean.

You are right, that would be absurd. However, you would have to demonstrate where the "them" have " insist[ed] that mainstream members of the Church have no right to define Mormonism as those mainstream members wish.

[Deborah]

So, yes, I'm careful about what I 'believe'. I see no need to believe in something proven not to be true, and I see no honesty nor humility in making a claim that I know something when I don't. I take the scriptures at their word when they say that "Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things".

But what you are talking about isn't faith because as Tao says faith is believing in things which you cannot see which are true.

[Deborah]

It is a little sad to me that saints would even feel the need to claim the right to think of our brothers/sisters as "less than equally Mormon". Do we need some sort of cultural caste system for the Mormon orthoprax only?

I dont' think anyone is claiming that. What we are questioning is why those who don't really believe want so badly to be included in the "Mormon" category. I really couldn't care less what they want to be called but they are making it an issue and wanting the rest to embrace their lack of belief as acceptable. They can believe what they want but don't try to make me think it's somehow in the same category as the faithful.

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer, Alma says faith is believing in things which you cannot see which are true. The temple reccomend does talk about faith, and thus, I think does have to do with belief too. Belief is quite important imho.

As a human, we tend to believe a lot of things. One might say that all of what we hold in our minds as truth are things we 'believe'. The challenge is that our beliefs are embedded in our minds through an emotional process, a 'feeling of certainty'. It's important to know this: our long term memories are implanted through the emotional mechanisms of the mind, not through any rational process. Hence, the emotions, the locus of so much we call 'spirituality', is critical to forming normative values.

But the problem is that we need to be 'teachable'. humility requires us to recognize that we're aren't the center of the universe, but more importantly, that we don't know everything. In order to be receptive to truth, one must be willing to suspend belief in that which we holds us emotionally, albeit briefly. Suspended judgment is an acknowledgement that we don't know. And in suspending that judgment, we are open to the possibility that what we hold dear is not 'true'. That is humility. It's also phenomenally difficult and dangerous, because we need to not 'cast things out due to our unbelief.' Yet I believe this is what Joseph Smith meant when he said that the LDS shall have no creeds, but will accept all truth existing. Suspending 'belief' (and disbelief) opens us up to so much wonder and opportunity to learn.

Another reason I adopt this way is because when we look at key concepts in the church, some of the major tenets or constructs have some historical or doctrinal challenges. Without being argumentative, one can look at the book of abraham and see divine inspiration -- scripture, while understanding that the claim that it was translated from a hand-written account of Abraham onto papyrus simply does not hold up under the evidence. For many, learning the disconnect between the book of abraham papyrii, facsimiles, and the written text we call the book of abraham is a faith shaker. Since I separate the inspiration of the work from the historical claims, I have no issue accepting much of Abraham as scripture, while recognizing as well there is some fanciful speculation therin. To me, this way of operating -- a faithful Middle Way -- allows me to withstand a lot of criticism of church historicity by recognizing the existential, normative value of the church and its doctrines.

[wayfarer]

But what you are talking about isn't faith because as Tao says faith is believing in things which you cannot see which are true.

I appreciate that Tao feels that way. However, Alma sees it differently: He says, in Alma 32:21, that "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Belief is not in the definition Faith is not belief, it is hope, trust, agreement, and the willingness to act upon something. Now I defined this in a previous post.

If I have hope for the resurrection without knowing what exactly that means or how it will work, if I have hope and trust that Jesus' atonement is relevant in my life without making any conclusion how the atonement works; and if this hope and trust leads me to teach the agreed-upon doctrines of the church, and to accord my life within the praxis of the gospel, then how is what I'm talking about not 'faith'?

With respect, Deborah, I ask you to examine why you respond the way you do to me. (and this is not a personal attack, but I'm simply trying to demonstrate how we make conclusions about things). When I get a quick, terse rejection comment about what I'm saying, it's clear to me that the person isn't reading what I am saying but rather, has already made a normative value conclusion about me and what I write. I openly support the Middle Way, and in so doing, reap the ire of those who already have judged that the Middle Way is apostasy, and I am therefore wrong. I don't know that this is what you feel, but it seems evident by the way your respond. I simply ask you for one moment, to suspend that belief and open up the possibility that I am no less faithful than anyone else here (and of course we don't know the details, nor should we). When I separate what is said from the person, I find there are things I agree with, and things I don't. It's almost never an 'all or nothing' position with people. Everyone, everywhere, is somewhere in the middle between "all right" and "all wrong". And recognizing that there is a middle, then relying upon the power of discernment, and a real method for determining truth, helps us get to a more informed understanding of truth.

Edited December 20, 2012 by wayfarer

[Senator]

I dont' think anyone is claiming that.

I am getting that impression.

What we are questioning is why those who don't really believe want so badly to be included in the "Mormon" category.

There have been some very well articulated answers to your question. It appears you aren't listening, or simply reject the reasoning.

They can believe what they want but don't try to make me think it's somehow in the same category as the faithful.

I'm not understanding why that's important to you.

[DBMormon]

I think this logic train is very traditional and doesn't make sense to most progressive/liberal/new order Mormons.

1. Messiah is a term of the Jewish Old Testament and it is unclear whether you mean Jehovah in the current Mormon conception or if you mean just the fulfillment of the prophesies of the OT Prophets from a purely Jewish perspective. The Jews weren't (and aren't) looking for the modern Mormon conception of the Savior when they talked about "the Messiah".

2. It is odd to me that you say that no one but the Messiah could be resurrected. According to the scriptures lots of people were resurrected at the same time as Jesus. Paul seems to say that Christ is the "first-fruits of the resurrection" which is taken to mean that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead. And maybe this is true. But if the Atonement can retroactively cover the sins of people who lived before, it wouldn't destroy the plan of salvation if it could also cure the death of some who went before Jesus--my point is that this is hardly core doctrine, foundational and understood by the masses. It would shake very few were we to learn that through some mechanism someone was resurrected before Christ. And since we believe many other than Christ were resurrected your first tautology seems off.

3. The second clause is just silly. Moses and others appeared to Jesus, Peter, James and John during his mortal ministry. So we believe non-resurrected beings could appear to mortal men. So Jesus could have appeared to Joseph Smith without being resurrected.

4. Joseph could have believed he was visited by Jesus wrongly and told of the experience without being a liar or a lunatic. He could have been mistaken.

5. The LDS Church is the Church of Jesus Christ because it says it is the Church of Jesus Christ (we were actually the Church of Christ until 1938 when we became the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). I don't see Jesus coming down to revoke the naming privilege taken by others such as the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Strangite), Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Restored Church of Jesus Christ (Walton), Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days---and these are just the strange uncles and nephews of our Church. There are hundreds of distant cousins who are Churches of Jesus Christ too.

6. Or are you claiming that no leader of other churches receive revelation in regards to their stewardship? That would be a very exclusive and odd position to deny God reaching out to his other children.

7. Or are you saying that the restoration of truth via Moroni and priesthood authority via John the Baptist and Peter, James and John could not have happened without a pre-visit from Jesus? This seems odd--it would not be shocking if the first vision had not happened but the rest of the restoration unfolded according to the traditionally accepted narrative. We don't require a personal visit from Jesus for President Monson to accept the honorific "Prophet, Seer and Revelator"--I find it unnecessary to require it for Joseph Smith.

Bottom line--your logic train seems strained and unnecessary. I suspect that God is greater than any one of your tautologies. Maybe the Jesus Christ story is powerful in a symbolic way and therefore used and promoted by God to good effect (Eugene England believed something somewhat along these lines). This might mean the history of Jesus Christ is not strictly accurate, but the import is still great and worthy of discipleship. Joseph might have invented much of his theophany and still recieved the Book of Mormon via revelation. There are endless possibilities outside of the strictly orthodox viewpoint--and there isn't even one orthodox viewpoint.

I think people shouldn't condemn others for heresy when we reject a creed-based doctrinal test for orthodoxy. I think Mr. Hamblin and others will have to live with the less correlated and should do so with greater acceptance.

Some very good points showing we sometimes don't think things through enough.... myself included

[Deborah]

I openly support the Middle Way, and in so doing, reap the ire of those who already have judged that the Middle Way -- that I am an apostate, and am therefore wrong.

Since you are the one making an issue of this the question is Why? What does it matter and why bring it up. Why are you so eager to prove you are correct and need to be accepted for your "middle way." I assure you most people don't even think about this and really do not judge if someone isn't exactly kosher. You are the one making the issue and I don't understand why it's so important.

[Deborah]

There have been some very well articulated answers to your question. It appears you aren't listening, or simply reject the reasoning.

That's a matter of opinion.

I'm not understanding why that's important to you.

As I said it's not but I think it fascinating that someone would spend so much time arguing why he is middle way.

[Senator]

I assure you most people don't even think about this and really do not judge if someone isn't exactly kosher.

and

They can believe what they want but don't try to make me think it's somehow in the same category as the faithful.

These two statements don't seem to jell.

[wayfarer]

Since you are the one making an issue of this the question is Why? What does it matter and why bring it up. Why are you so eager to prove you are correct and need to be accepted for your "middle way." I assure you most people don't even think about this and really do not judge if someone isn't exactly kosher. You are the one making the issue and I don't understand why it's so important.

Uhhh.. I think it has to do with the original post in this thread, and the topic of this thread. You are correct, most people don't judge if someone isn't exactly kosher, and most members are kind forgiving people. There are some who have chosen to call those in the "Middle Way" anti-christ, and you yourself have questioned why someone who doesn't 'believe' would want to be considered a "faithful mormon".

I don't believe, but I have faith, and to me, there is an important difference. Others both believe and have faith, and I celebrate their approach as well. Since you asked why someone who doesn't believe would like to be considered a faithful mormon, I'm trying to express that to you, and failing miserably helping you understand or have any compassion for my point of view.

[Senator]

That's a matter of opinion.

Yes, it is.

As I said it's not but I think it fascinating that someone would spend so much time arguing why he is middle way.

Reallyl? You have nothing that you are passionate about?

Rather, my suspicions are that you are not really fascinated in so much as you are either perturbed or threatened, or both.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Senator