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

[Senator]

Who is the world is denying anybody's right to think anything he or she wants to think?

Exactly!!

Yet, did you not make this accusation about "them" in post #369: "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".

I questioned with where the "them" were denying anyone the right.

You came back with, well they're suggesting this-and-that........

That's a big difference.

But like I said. I don't need this. So, have the last word.

And a wonderful Christmas to you too wayfarer!!

Edited December 20, 2012 by Senator

[Daniel Peterson]

Exactly!!

Yet, did you not make this accusation about "them" in post #369: "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".

I questioned with where the "them" were denying anyone the right.

You came back with, well they're suggesting this-and-that........

That's a big difference.

But like I said. I don't need this. So, have the last word.

I doubt that I will. But I'm headed to The Magic Kingdom in just a few minutes.

Again, it's a matter of equivocal meanings.

Some here seem to be saying that it's illegitimate, somehow, for anybody to claim that there is a more or less definable thing called Mormonism with a mainstream, a fringe, and a large region beyond its boundaries. To make such a claim is arrogant and, worse even than that, intolerant and cruel.

I didn't, of course, suggest that anybody was legally challenging the right of pathetic fossil has-beens such as myself to make such a claim. But it seemed to me that one or two were coming perilously close to denying our moral right to do so as a matter of intellectual ethics and tolerance.

What I was denying was something rather different: I was denying that anybody, whether here or in Interpreter, was claiming that unbelievers don't have the right to disbelieve any and all things they choose to disbelieve. They surely do. Whether I always have a moral or intellectual obligation to consider them fully Mormon is what I dispute.

Incidentally, wayfarerlowercaseandnoquotationmarks has evidently withdrawn to another board, and is calling me names from his perch over there. According to him, he could not engage in a real conversation here. I have no idea what that means. If his posts here have been substantively censored or absolutely expunged, I'm unaware of it. Being systematically or even randomly silenced would, surely, make it frustratingly impossible for one feel that one was fully engaged in a real conversation. Has that happened to him? Short of that, I can't quite imagine what he has in mind. Unless, of course, he simply means that he wants to call me "dishonest" and "a buffoon," and to claim that I suffer from "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" -- which is his current rhetorical strategy -- and that he thinks the other board is a more congenial venue for doing so. If that's his complaint, he's almost certainly correct. It is a much better place, and he's wise to decamp to that other board, where he'll be celebrated as a hero.

.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[wayfarer]

I doubt that I will. But I'm headed to The Magic Kingdom in just a few minutes.

Incidentally, wayfarerlowercaseandnoquotationmarks has evidently withdrawn to another board, and is calling me names from his perch over there. According to him, he could not engage in a real conversation here. I have no idea what that means. If his posts here have been substantively censored or absolutely expunged, I'm unaware of it. Being systematically or even randomly silenced would, surely, make it frustratingly impossible for one feel that one was fully engaged in a real conversation. Has that happened to him? Short of that, I can't quite imagine what he has in mind. Unless, of course, he simply means that he wants to call me "dishonest" and "a buffoon," and to claim that I suffer from "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" -- which is his current rhetorical strategy -- and that he thinks the other board is a more congenial venue for doing so. If that's his complaint, he's almost certainly correct. It is a much better place, and he's wise to decamp to that other board, where he'll be celebrated as a hero.

Merry Christmas, Dan. Enjoy the Magic Kingdom.

[DH]

Being permitted to speak at people is not the same thing as a real conversation. Just because Wayfarer's posts have not been deleted does not mean that people are listening to him, giving due consideration to what he says, or having a meaningful dialogue. If being permitted to speak is the definition of a "real conversation," then I can have a real conversation with my kitchen sink.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DH

[Daniel Peterson]

Still waiting for my kids.

I don't know what it is that wayfarerlowercaseandnoquotationmarks thinks is lacking here for real conversation. (Maybe it's that Shulem, Polygamy Porter, Scratch, Mercury, and other denizens of that place are missing on this board.) In any event, he wants me to know that I'm a "spineless chicken" -- he wrote "splineless," but I'm pretty sure he means "spineless" -- and wants to tell you that most of you here (those, anyway, who don't share his views) are "fawning sycophants."

Come to think of it, that may be the kind of conversation he had in mind . . .

I'm off to Adventureland!

[wayfarer]

Still waiting for my kids.

I don't know what it is that wayfarerlowercaseandnoquotationmarks thinks is lacking here for real conversation. (Maybe it's that Shulem, Polygamy Porter, Scratch, Mercury, and other denizens of that place are missing on this board.) In any event, he wants me to know that I'm a "spineless chicken" -- he wrote "splineless," but I'm pretty sure he means "spineless" -- and wants to tell you that most of you here (those, anyway, who don't share his views) are "fawning sycophants."

Come to think of it, that may be the kind of conversation he had in mind . . .

I'm off to Adventureland!

enjoy adventureland, seriously.

Just for the record, I gave you a very small list of three particularly nasty posters who worship the very ground you walk upon, not 'most here'. And you know this, so if you're going to cross-post from the other site, please be accurate in doing so.

Request the mods close this thread -- it's gone to the dogs.

thanks.

[Calm]

Fine. Then, if that's true, what are all these dramatics about?

Has anybody here or in Interpreter proposed driving people out of the Church because, for some greater or lesser period of time, they have doubts or, even, feel less than certain? Is anybody calling them "antichrists"? Have I called them "antichrists"? (Have I even called them "disingenuous buffoons," as you've recently been labeling me elsewhere?) Have I proposed creating a new, lesser, caste and placing them in it?

Of course I can, and I've never, ever, said or done anything to suggest otherwise. So why all the histrionics? Why the public lamentations and demands that I repudiate a friend's article (one that, I guarantee you, neither demanded the expulsion of merely doubting members nor pronounced them antichrists). Why the name-calling?

So is there not going to be any recognition of Dan's points here? Just have the thread closed without dealing with them at all? Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

enjoy adventureland, seriously.

Just for the record, I gave you a very small list of three particularly nasty posters who worship the very ground you walk upon, not 'most here'. And you know this, so if you're going to cross-post from the other site, please be accurate in doing so.

Request the mods close this thread -- it's gone to the dogs.

thanks.

So who are the three "particularly nasty posters"?

And in your and DH's mind, does being able to call people "spineless chicken" and "fawning sycophant" with impunity constitute being able to have a "real conversation"?

[wayfarer]

So who are the three "particularly nasty posters"?

And in your and DH's mind, does being able to call people "spineless chicken" and "fawning sycophant" with impunity constitute being able to have a "real conversation"?

'twasn't you. It's unfortunate where it goes, but I gave Dr. Peterson every chance by every channel possible to engage with respect and thought. Didn't happen, so I'm disappointed, and a bit angry. I'm human.

Merry Christmas to you as well. Please enjoy the season.

Edited December 21, 2012 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

deleted dupe.

Edited December 21, 2012 by wayfarer

[Calm]

So is there not going to be any recognition of Dan's points here? Just have the thread closed without dealing with them at all?

So no recognition of what Dan actually said.

[wayfarer]

So is there not going to be any recognition of Dan's points here? Just have the thread closed without dealing with them at all?

no.

[wayfarer]

So is there not going to be any recognition of Dan's points here? Just have the thread closed without dealing with them at all?

So no recognition of what Dan actually said.

no. Dr. Peterson answered his own points. In the post you refer to, he asks where he called for a separate caste. In a previous post, he demanded the freedom to do just that. whether the individual is disengenuous or not, the tactic is. I'm done.

Edited December 21, 2012 by wayfarer

[volgadon]

cfr -- please explore that a bit more and show how that is a scriptural definition of hope.

Sounds like you've left the thread, but I'd still like to honour the CFR.

To look at hope, one needn't go much further than the book of Job.

14:7-10. "For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.

Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground; Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and put forth boughs like a plant.

But man dieth, and lieth low; yea, man perisheth, and where is he?"

A tree can face many destructive situations, but will overcome them. Stumps will sprout new shoots, and old roots and trunks will be revived by rain. Renewed life is what a tree expects, its hope. Man, however, says Job, has no such expectation, for when dead nothing will revive him. Man, therefore, is not a tree, as there is no hope. This is in response to Bildad's comparison of the righteous with plants.

Zophar's speech in Job 11:18-19 expands on the idea of hope as an assurance, an expectation.

"And thou shalt be secure, because there is hope; yea, thou shalt look about thee, and shalt take thy rest in safety.

Also thou shalt lie down, and none shall make thee afraid; yea, many shall make suit unto thee."

Hope means that if Job has hope, it will be fulfilled, and he shall be as secure as someone being strong fortifications. He can rest peacefully without worrying over the possibility of an attack.

If hope is to be taken as you would have it, something that you would love to see occuring, but which might never happen, you'll never be able to make it fit the usage in these verses. Hope is either true, which is the hope God grant the righteou, or it is illusory and false, like the hope of the wicked.

V. 20. "But the eyes of the wicked shall fail, and they shall have no way to flee, and their hope shall be the drooping of the soul. "

Also, CHALOT defines the Hebrew word tikvah as an expectation, if you would like to see a lexicon's definition.

[wayfarer]

volgadon: as always, thanks for your insight.

[Pahoran]

Still waiting for my kids.

I don't know what it is that wayfarerlowercaseandnoquotationmarks thinks is lacking here for real conversation. (Maybe it's that Shulem, Polygamy Porter, Scratch, Mercury, and other denizens of that place are missing on this board.) In any event, he wants me to know that I'm a "spineless chicken" -- he wrote "splineless," but I'm pretty sure he means "spineless" -- and wants to tell you that most of you here (those, anyway, who don't share his views) are "fawning sycophants."

Come to think of it, that may be the kind of conversation he had in mind . . .

I'm off to Adventureland!

What's noteworthy is that he makes a decent fist of trying to be moderately civil here, but over there at Scumbag Central, he lets fly with "splineless Chicken."

Something he's too spineless to say here.

It's a bit like the cast-iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle black, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[wayfarer]

What's noteworthy is that he makes a decent fist of trying to be moderately civil here, but over there at Scumbag Central, he lets fly with "splineless Chicken."

Something he's too spineless to say here.

It's a bit like the cast-iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle black, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran, you know as well as I do that this is a heavily moderated site. I try to play by the rules of the site, and have seen many banned for doing and saying things far less abrasive than Dr. Peterson is allowed here. You can call me spineless, but I call it 'Courteous'.

I asked Dr. Peterson, that if he was to engage in invective, to join me at what you call scumbag central, and what does he do? posts his replies in his safe zone, here. That's hardly fair, because I cannot get away with what he can here. I would consider my invective appropriate for his actions, yes; although lowering myself to his level is hardly something to be proud of.

I asked Dr. Peterson for civil discourse, and I got one insult after another. It does tend to make one angry. Like I said, I'm human.

you have a safe zone here to disabuse yourselves of those you find unworthy to be LDS in the fullest sense of the word. Would the mods ever ban Dr. Peterson? Dr. Hamblin? hardly.

I apologize for my frustrated words.

[Calm]

I apologize for my frustrated words.

If you really felt sorry for them, you wouldn't post them. Apologizing and then going ahead and posting it anyway....doesn't shine with sincerity for me.

If by chance you mean your words elsewhere...then why are you defending saying them?

Edited December 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[wayfarer]

If you really felt sorry for them, you wouldn't post them. Apologizing and then going ahead and posting it anyway....doesn't shine with sincerity for me.

If by chance you mean your words elsewhere...then why are you defending saying them?

I don't understand what you are saying in the least. I also don't care in the least what you think of me or my sincerity. I asked for dialogue and got insults instead. I reacted. I'm human.

What do you think the majority, the VAST majority of posters do when they come here with their doubts, concerns, and get your insults? Why doesn't Dan go over to MormonDiscussions? Because its littered with the wasteland of hostility caused by your collective inability to accept others that don't think like you do. He doesn't go there because his hubris, and yours, is matched with a nemesis of people who detest being treated like second class citizens because they doubt, question, or have concerns about the lack of transparency and authenticity of the Church and culture they love, or at least once loved.

Did you once try in this thread to see things from my point of view? Did you once try to offer the hand of fellowship to seek a common solution? Or did you need to prove your point, that your way of faithfulness, as defined by you, is the only true way and all else is 'anti-christ'? And while you may not have said it, your lack of ability to engage in dialogue is indicative of your contempt for me and others like me.

Go in peace and enjoy your life. Enjoy the certainty that your beliefs provide to you.

[volgadon]

I don't understand what you are saying in the least. I also don't care in the least what you think of me or my sincerity. I asked for dialogue and got insults instead. I reacted. I'm human.

What do you think the majority, the VAST majority of posters do when they come here with their doubts, concerns, and get your insults? Why doesn't Dan go over to MormonDiscussions? Because its littered with the wasteland of hostility caused by your collective inability to accept others that don't think like you do. He doesn't go there because his hubris, and yours, is matched with a nemesis of people who detest being treated like second class citizens because they doubt, question, or have concerns about the lack of transparency and authenticity of the Church and culture they love, or at least once loved.

Did you once try in this thread to see things from my point of view? Did you once try to offer the hand of fellowship to seek a common solution? Or did you need to prove your point, that your way of faithfulness, as defined by you, is the only true way and all else is 'anti-christ'? And while you may not have said it, your lack of ability to engage in dialogue is indicative of your contempt for me and others like me.

Go in peace and enjoy your life. Enjoy the certainty that your beliefs provide to you.

You really are saying this to the wrong poster.

[TAO]

Suspended judgment is an acknowledgement that we don't know.

Indeed it is, but if we take philisophical solipism at it's face value, we can hardly know anything. Are we gonna suspend judgement for everything though? Not at all. We have to make a decision to believe now.

And in suspending that judgment, we are open to the possibility that what we hold dear is not 'true'. That is humility.

That's not humility... That's doubt.

At least in my experiences, humility is realizing you have the capability to be wrong, and avoiding being overly-assertive.

It's also phenomenally difficult and dangerous, because we need to not 'cast things out due to our unbelief.'

In my experiences, it is been on the contrary. We need to cast out unbelief to be totally clean, else we won't commit to the things we need to.

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.

I don't need to suspend belief to learn what you have learned though. So why suspend it in the first place.

You see, there are two types of people. People who are prone to certainty, and people who are prone to doubt. I'm of the latter group. It is not good to suggest that the latter group doubt more than they already do.

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.

But do they have spiritual challenges? That is really all that matters. History is perspectivized and imperfect. The Spirit is not.

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.

People said the same thing about horses a while ago. Look what's changing now. I am willing to suspend my skepticism on the knowledge that things will work out for God. Yes, whereas you suspend confidence, I suspend my natural skepticism. Perhaps it's because we started from different places.

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.

Well.. so what? We ask God what our solution is, we use that to understand, and then we move on from that.

Why do you let it shake your faith?

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.

Well that is your choice. I will happen to digress.

Edited December 21, 2012 by TAO

[AdamFord]

Na und? The leaders and the mainstream members of the Church are scarcely ready to turn it over to a relatively small group of self-proclaimed "progressive/liberal/new order Mormons" just because some of those folks are claiming the right to redefine Mormonism to their liking.

I fundamentally disagree that anyone needs to control what people believe or even what people are able to have faith in. If anyone, it isn’t you or me, but Church leaders. And beyond the baptismal and temple recommend interview questions, they haven’t decided to impose doctrinal tests. And others have pointed out that they don’t ask in those interviews what we believe but rather what we have faith in. I don’t think progressive Mormons are demanding control over tests of membership—they just don’t want to have lay persons such as you or Mr. Hamblin impose them and declare they are anti-Christ or apostate or whatever. If the Church is good with them, apologists should leave them alone.

You should probably try to avoid seeming to condescend to Professor Hamblin, who has written several books relating to the ancient and medieval Near East and who has lived and taught for several years in Jerusalem. He knows quite well what the Jewish concept of messiah did and didn't entail.

He's obviously talking about the Latter-day Saint concept of the messiah or the Christ. And not just, as you put it, about the "current concept" (emphasis added), but about the one described in canonical Mormon scripture and consistently taught by the Church since its founding.

Then the logical train is even more convoluted. Because lots of people not the Messiah described in canonical Mormon scripture have been resurrected and could appear to mortal man such as Joseph. Just a few years later didn’t hundreds of them appear to Wilford Woodruff in St. George?

And I am not at all confident that there has been a single consistent teaching about Jesus/Messiah/Jehovah in the Church since its founding. I understand that in the first versions of the endowment Jehovah is depicted as being a separate personage apart from Jesus.

But the point is that it is all so very more complicated than Mr. Hamblin’s logic train put it. And that is OK. We don’t know very much about God or his plans for us. The restoration gives us a lot more than we had before, but we are still just inches deep of the surface of Lake Baykal. Can’t we stop condemning each other for not agreeing about what is 10 or 100 or 1000 feet down?

Again, like pretty much every informed and communicant Latter-day Saint, Professor Hamblin (I'm sure) understands these things. But they're not relevant to his actual point, regarding which, I think, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Professor Hamblin is obviously saying that, if Jesus isn't the resurrected Lord described in the New Testament, he plainly didn't appear to Joseph Smith in the sense that Joseph Smith claimed and Latter-day Saints have believed.

Right. If it isn’t as claimed, it isn’t as claimed. Some new order Mormons aren’t sure about the facts being as claimed. Some of those choose to have faith in spite of their lack of belief. Some waiver on the edge of faith, in and out of faith depending on the week or month as they struggle with the issues. Some have decided they cannot believe it or have faith in it.

Some of the last group have spouses who beg them to attend Church and bless their babies and baptize their kids and pay tithing and remain in the community of Mormons. And so some do.

And then some filled with zeal thrust their unbelief and lack of faith in their faces when they are honest enough to speak of their struggles, calling them anti-Christ. It appears to many that some are trying to drive them out of the chapel, the Sunday school, the quorum. It feels like some want to cleanse the community of their doubt and expel them from the household of Christ. I don’t think that is anyone’s job but their local priesthood leaders. I think apologists should leave them alone.

Bear testimony if you love them. But please stop attacking them. I believe that apologists are sincerely trying to protect the sheep from ideas they view as wolves. But I believe that many apologists are actually driving more sheep away than they are saving. Because it has become so nasty. That is the view from outside as I haven't been an active part in the fights.

Obviously. But before you label Professor Hamblin's point "silly" you should perhaps attempt to understand it accurately. If Jesus is still languishing in his grave, having been an unremarkable man of first-century Palestine like tens of thousands of others, he didn't appear in the Sacred Grove to Joseph Smith in anything like the sense Joseph claimed and Latter-day Saints have believed.

I don’t believe this is the only possibility for God. It is conceivable that Jesus wasn’t a literally resurrected deity and yet the true God is using the Jesus/Messiah narrative to bring to pass his purposes. Maybe the empathy gained from ruminating on the example of Jesus will inure to a broken heart and contrite spirit. Maybe something else entirely.

And maybe the orthodox narrative is true, but I believe God is powerful and wise enough to use the Bhagavad Gita to bring to pass his purposes among those of his children who revere it—and I don’t think the Bhagavad Gita is factually accurate. Couldn’t the same be possible for our tradition? I understand this would be an unorthodox belief in the Mormon Church. So what do we do about it if a member has arrived at this, or some other unorthodox place? Drive them out? Shout them down? And who’s place would it be to do so if the answer is yes? I don’t think it has proven to be effective to have private citizen apologists doing it.

Joseph Smith and his successors in the prophetic office have claimed a very special and specific role, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has claimed a very specific and unique status, and Latter-day Saints have affirmed that role and that status -- without denying that God works with and through others of his children.

Right. And maybe they overstated it a bit. It is possible. And they could still be tools used by God for great purposes. Even though they overstated the special and unique role a bit. It is possible.

That's all well and good, but let's be candid: You're creating a new religious faith with a strong kinship tie to, and overlapping elements with, Mormonism as taught and believed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But a faith that lacks a First Vision, denies the resurrection of Christ, and so forth, is not the faith once delivered to the Saints. It's something rather different. And, while you seemingly deny us the right to define Mormonism, you seem to have no compunctions about doing it yourself.

Instead of making it exclusive, can’t it be harmonious? Some what orthodoxy and find peace and happiness in the traditional narrative. Is there no place for progressive Mormons? Does everyone have to aspire to doing decades of endowments for the dead? Can’t someone just appreciate the heritage of shared sacrifice and moral teachings of the Mormon tradition? Does everyone have to believe Joseph Smith was inspired in his polyandry (even assuming no sex happened)? Can one be a member of the Mormon community and believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction? Or will the apologists drive them all out?

It is an unanswered set of questions. Right now the apologists among us are largely driving nontraditional believers out of the Church. It is great sport for them to accuse those troubled souls wandering out of the safety of the community into the dark night of the soul of just wanting to copulate with prostitutes or some similar slander. It hurts. I don’t think it is necessary. I mourn the losses and think there is a better way.

Presumably God is greater than your reasoning and your opinions, too.

Of course. But God, as I have come to understand him, is defined by his mercy and love, empathy and kindness. In discussions of orthodoxy of belief, how correlated one is or is not, the apologists do not seem to embody the characteristics of God. They seem harsh and cold and determined to shame and marginalize and embarrass and push out. When the means seem so disparate from the God of love, it raises serious questions about who and what is motivating the defense of orthodoxy. Especially when it is not coming from the Lord’s (apparently metaphorically) anointed. (Although I will admit that Elder Cook’s last conference address came close in some ways to some of the apologetics out there.)

It certainly is powerful in a symbolic way. But if it's only symbolic, if it loses the power of literal factuality, that will be a very different power, and will yield a very different gospel, than the one taught in the New Testament and in the peculiarly Latter-day Saint scriptures and believed and preached by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Yes it would yield a very different gospel. But the gospel is a means to an end. And the end would be the same—a community of disciples of Christ, broken hearted and contrite in spirit. Transformed by the atonement all the same. The orthodox believe they travel via a steady stream of miracles working on their eternal soul by mysterious mechanism. Non-traditional members might believe they travel a path of empathy and humility welling up from within, inspired by the examples of Father Zosima, Jean Valjean, and Jesus of Nazareth. But in the end, all arrive at the same heart, turned and changed completely from the natural man. And isn’t that what matters? And isn’t the polemical fighting along the way a distraction? Can’t we all just choose love?

I knew Gene England. We weren't close friends, but we were friendly, and I read and admired virtually everything he wrote. It's never occurred to me that he might have regarded the story of Jesus, to any considerable extent if not entirely, as merely metaphorical. Can you expand on this?

England wrote passages such as this:

That the Atonement is performed by Christ, the son and revelation of God, is, of course, crucial. He represents to man the ultimate source of justice and is the one whose teachings and example bring man directly to face his need for repentance; he awakens man’s own sense of justice and stands as a judge over all his actions and only he can fully release man from what becomes the immobilizing burden of that judgment, through the power of mercy extended unconditionally in the Atonement. It is possible, as King Benjamin’s people found, to be moved to sufficient faith in a divine being by his redemptive act that there comes into the soul a power which can bring men to repentance as no other power can. I stand all amazed at this love—and that is precisely the point: This love can move us with sufficient amazement through our knowledge of it to change our minds and our hearts, to release us from self-inflicted suffering as it creates in us the possibility of new being through repentance.

And:

The redemptive effect of the Atonement depends on how an individual man responds to it rather than on some independent effect on the universe or God, which theories such as the ransom theory, the substitution theory, the satisfaction theory, etc., all tend to imply.

http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1966_e_002.pdf pp. 8-9

I think this is along the lines of what I was thinking many new order Mormons believe about the Atonement. It this enough of a shared hope in Christ that we can stay together in the household of God as Mormons? I don’t know. Right now, too many are shouting “NO” on both sides. This breaks my heart and I think it breaks God’s heart too.

"Not strictly accurate" covers a huge range, from just shy of inerrant to wholly false. Different positions on that continuum vary enormously in their implications. They're not all alike. There are differences within orthodoxy, but broad and solid consensus on the essentials. Merely saying that there are variants doesn't open the doors infinitely wide. To say that we have no creed doesn't entail that our doctrinal boundaries are entirely elastic or even nonexistent.

Agreed. One cannot pray to Brahman in the name of Vishnu and be a Mormon. There are some lines somewhere. But can one pray to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother in the name of Jesus Christ when one has doubts about the historical veracity of Jesus’ literal resurrection and be a Mormon? Where do we draw the line? Shouldn’t we error on the side of love and inclusion? I understand the concern about believing nothing and therefore losing the glue that holds the community together. I also understand the fear that God will reject those who are not found holding correct enough beliefs at the day of judgment. I agree that a tightrope has to be walked here.

I would advise that the community is stronger than we think because it is built upon love and service. I would advise to allow each individual to work out his salvation with fear and trembling and not encourage lay members to take up banners of condemnation of their brothers and sisters. Let us live together in love, despite our differences.

Have you any evidence that Dr. Hamblin refuse to live with unorthodox Mormons? If he has to accept them, are they obliged to accept him?

I believe he called many of those struggling with various aspects of orthodox faith “anti-Chirsts”. This is not nice and drives wedges and can wound deeply. If I am wrong, I apologize. If a Korihor is to be found in the Church, let those with stewardship of Alma bring the confrontation. Mr. Hamblin should not have attacked so cruelly.

And yes, of course the progressive new order Mormons are bound to love and accept the orthodox where they are at too. All of us need to be kinder and gentler, more filled with love and less concerned with who is right and who is wrong in matters of which we are all mostly ignorant. We see through a glass darkly after all.

The progressive Mormon world has been too defined by being against things and engaged in angrily nursing wounds. They need to come back to the example of Christ and choose love, it is true. They would do very well to ruminate upon Christ’s sacrifice and suffering and seek a mighty change of heart through the atonement. All this is true. I am committed to being a voice towards this discipleship in the progressive Mormon world.

But this work would be a lot easier if they felt comfortable at Church on Sunday, felt love from the orthodox, and weren’t being called anti-Christ by apologists. I hope this unproductive cycle on both sides can stop.

I take no joy in your ouster from the Maxwell Institute. I am sad that an aggressive brand of apologetics was allowed to dominate there. I am sad it was not toned down through longsuffering and patience and gentle nudging—it appears you were blindsided unfairly. It isn’t nice to encourage you and give you tacit approval along the way and then hit you upside the back of the head when you were out of town. This is ugly and shouldn’t have happened that way (from what I know of the facts). I am sorry for your professional frustration.

But maybe we can now move on more productively in this conversation about God and faith and community? Maybe we can stop gloating in each other’s weaknesses and start encouraging each other toward a broken heart and contrite spirit. It is this condition of our soul that really matters. I think so anyway.

[AdamFord]

The Eugene England quotes are found at: http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1966_e_002.pdf

at pp. 8-9. Somehow he link didn't go through right. Sorry.

[Calm]

I don't understand what you are saying in the least. I also don't care in the least what you think of me or my sincerity. I asked for dialogue and got insults instead. I reacted. I'm human.

What do you think the majority, the VAST majority of posters do when they come here with their doubts, concerns, and get your insults?

I think you are reading many of the alleged insults into what people posted. Or you have a much lower threshold for what an insult is than most people I know.

Remember no one called you an antichrist so you need to remove that from your list.

What insults were posted here? I don't deny that there were some and the moderators banned two individuals who were engaging in them...I reported some myself that the mods responded to, but I do doubt the extreme picture you are attempting to portray here. I just don't believe my level of tolerance is all that hardened these days from the way others have described it lately.

Over the decade I have been posting on message boards, I have found that most people who post who don't talk about expecting possible insults most often don't end up claiming they've been insulted. There is a direct correspondence in my experience between those that expect to be insulted and those that believe they have been insulted (even on occasions where there have been no insults).

Edited December 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

You really are saying this to the wrong poster.

You are very sweet. The check is in the mail. Edited December 21, 2012 by calmoriah