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

[DBMormon]

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

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.

2 John 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

True, but who gave anyone here the right to call out who is or isn't an anti-christ when Apostles of the Lord seem willing to be patient and not disparage another member as you have? Who? As for me and my house we will serve the Lord, but I see no where members having the right to judge others when their leaders pass judgement not. That seems to be more like self ordained vigilantes.... come to think of it I believe the Danites used the same reasoning. Either way if Apostles of the Lord choose not to disparage them, why should I?

[Tacenda]

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

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.

2 John 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

So are Athiest anti christ? Don't they just need to be converted over? Also, so many who were LDS and leave the church, for some reason, become Athiest. Could it be that they never received a strong enough testimony of Christ, but more a testimony of the institution of Mormonism?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bill Hamblin]

True, but who gave anyone here the right to call out who is or isn't an anti-christ when Apostles of the Lord seem willing to be patient and not disparage another member as you have? Who? As for me and my house we will serve the Lord, but I see no where members having the right to judge others when their leaders pass judgement not. That seems to be more like self ordained vigilantes.... come to think of it I believe the Danites used the same reasoning. Either way if Apostles of the Lord choose not to disparage them, why should I?

I'm not judging anyone. When John Dehlin or Seth Payne publicly say they don't believe that Jesus was the Christ, they are judging themselves. What am I supposed to do? They are the ones who say they don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I'm not making this claim for them. I'm not putting words in their mouths. They say it publicly.

[DBMormon]

If Jesus was not the Messiah, he was not resurrected.

If Jesus was not resurrected, he could not have appeared to JS.

If Jesus did not appear to JS, then JS is either a liar or a lunatic for claiming that he was visited by Jesus.

If Jesus did not appear to JS, then LDS Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry that people don't like the implications of their disbelief, but that does not change the fact that if one denies that Jesus was the Messiah, then one necessarily rejects the authenticity of the LDS Church. There is no way around it. It is utterly incoherent to claim otherwise.

Why, then, do unbelievers get so upset when we simply point out the clear and unavoidable implications of their disbelief?

true but between them and God, no-one made you the jury, especially when those above you have set a different precedent in how we should help them back not push them further away.

Midgely in his article says he hope John Dehlin returns to faith but he says so many things in his article to push John further away.

It is no different then your feeling the need to respond to me because I am calling a group here out. Rather then say... you know, I shouldn't be so apt to judge others, you defend your position, why? because you have made it an emotional us versus them, when Reason says the line was crossed.

[DBMormon]

I'm not judging anyone. When John Dehlin or Seth Payne publicly say they don't believe that Jesus was the Christ, they are judging themselves. What am I supposed to do? They are the ones who say they don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I'm not making this claim for them. I'm not putting words in their mouths. They say it publicly.

We are to be Christlike, to love them.

We are to

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Any other response to this issue by a member not holding authority over them is likely not appropriate nor productive in bringing them back.

Edited December 15, 2012 by DBMormon

[Bill Hamblin]

true but between them and God, no-one made you the jury, especially when those above you have set a different precedent in how we should help them back not push them further away.

Midgely in his article says he hope John Dehlin returns to faith but he says so many things in his article to push John further away.

It is no different then your feeling the need to respond to me because I am calling a group here out. Rather then say... you know, I shouldn't be so apt to judge others, you defend your position, why? because you have made it an emotional us versus them, when Reason says the line was crossed.

I have no idea what you are talking about. All I've done is say "here are the logical implications of the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah," and "here are people who have publicly said they reject Jesus as the Messiah." How is my response emotional?

[Bill Hamblin]

We are to be Christlike, to love them.

We are to

Any other response to this issue by a member not holding authority over them is likely not appropriate nor productive in bringing them back.

Why is it unchristlike to point out the implications of their publicly professed disbelief?

For all I know Seth Payne and John Dehlin are nice people.

All I am doing is analyzing their ideas and their implications.

PS You are the one talking about people being unchristlike. Why do you get to judge me?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[DBMormon]

PS You are the one talking about people being unchristlike. Why do you get to judge me?

because you asked me a question and I answered it, I also have said no one here is anti-Christ (judgement on the person). Rather I have said we need to treat them better (judgement on behavior). In order to judge you I would need to make a determination on what kind of person you are. I have never mentioned you by name and my answers have implied all of us.

Where is my judgement? are you feeling guilty?

Edited December 15, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

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.

2 John 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

I think one of the issues that causes calling someone an antichrist for denying Jesus is the Christ to cause heartburn for some is that if they believe it is a true belief they hold, the verses equating those who deny Christ as liars and deceivers is seen as problematic since they are not lying or deceiving in their own minds and hearts but sharing the truth (as they understand it).

It would seem that they didn't see a difference between telling a falsehood with intent and telling it without knowledge at least in regards to the label "liar" and "deceiver" and "antichrist".

Since we do nowadays, pointing out that someone is an antichrist according to the scriptures may cause someone to infer more than originally meant.

There is also the difference that our culture generally sees someone who is "anti" as aggressive in their denial, promoting their POV and not just denying that Jesus is the Christ as a personal belief they only share when asked.

add-on: in regards to the article that started this, Midgeley does make a point right from the beginning in his abstact to identify those he is discussing as:

"They preach and practice a petty idolatry."

Also:

With some now boasting that they see no reason for faith in God or little reason for believing that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth, it seems odd to me that one so clearly against the doctrine of Christ would not be proud to carry the label anti-Mormon as the badge of their new aggressive unfaith.

Something like this can be seen among cultural Mormons on various blogs, boards, and lists, or set out in podcasts in which disdain is expressed for embarrassing parochial concerns like testifying to or defending the faith of the Saints.

But from the perspective of those who scorn and mock, faith in God is a rude scandal, perhaps explained away as delusional or illusional.

http://www.mormonint...nd-his-kingdom/

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[William Schryver]

If Jesus was not the Messiah, he was not resurrected.

If Jesus was not resurrected, he could not have appeared to JS.

If Jesus did not appear to JS, then JS is either a liar or a lunatic for claiming that he was visited by Jesus.

If Jesus did not appear to JS, then LDS Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry that people don't like the implications of their disbelief, but that does not change the fact that if one denies that Jesus was the Messiah, then one necessarily rejects the authenticity of the LDS Church. There is no way around it. It is utterly incoherent to claim otherwise.

Why, then, do unbelievers get so upset when we simply point out the clear and unavoidable implications of their disbelief?

Exactly!

I don't understand at all why they just don't come right out and own those implications. Well, I guess that's not really true. I do understand. Their intent is to make their brand of disbelief -- this so-called "middle way" -- a "culturally acceptable" alternative. Or, in other words, to make apostasy normative.

What I really don't understand is how they could possibly expect their advocacy of unfaith to go unchallenged.

[William Schryver]

True, but who gave anyone here the right to call out who is or isn't an anti-christ when Apostles of the Lord seem willing to be patient and not disparage another member as you have? Who? As for me and my house we will serve the Lord, but I see no where members having the right to judge others when their leaders pass judgement not. That seems to be more like self ordained vigilantes.... come to think of it I believe the Danites used the same reasoning. Either way if Apostles of the Lord choose not to disparage them, why should I?

Yes, I've heard precisely this same kind of logic articulated many times in the past on this message board. I've concluded that, whenever such people read their scriptures, they must intentionally skip Alma 5 and D&C 101. Or at least significant parts thereof.

Oh, well ... I reckon even the apostates deserve their own band of apologists, even if they're not very good at it.

Edited December 15, 2012 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

True, but who gave anyone here the right to call out who is or isn't an anti-christ when Apostles of the Lord seem willing to be patient and not disparage another member as you have? Who? As for me and my house we will serve the Lord, but I see no where members having the right to judge others when their leaders pass judgement not. That seems to be more like self ordained vigilantes.... come to think of it I believe the Danites used the same reasoning. Either way if Apostles of the Lord choose not to disparage them, why should I?

Incidentally, I don't think Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf would take kindly to you misapplying their words -- intended to be understood in a different context, and in reference to a very different set of people than that to which you have applied them.

Edited December 15, 2012 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

We are to be Christlike, to love them.

We are to

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Any other response to this issue by a member not holding authority over them is likely not appropriate nor productive in bringing them back.

Again, you appear to be struggling in terms of which passages of scripture can be correctly applied to the situation in question.

Here is a passage that is much more apropos:

For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

<sigh>

But this is a species of discussion in which I've long since ceased having any interest. If you want to play apologist for the apostates, that is certainly your prerogative. However, based on my prior experience and observations of these things, I will say this: from where you are right now, it's just a short stroll to The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©.

[DBMormon]

Yes, I've heard precisely this same kind of logic articulated many times in the past on this message board. I've concluded that, whenever such people read their scriptures, they must intentionally skip Alma 5 and D&C 101. Or at least significant parts thereof.

Oh, well ... I reckon even the apostates deserve their own band of apologists, even if they're not very good at it.

First off, I am not a "new order mormon" nor an unbeliever. I hold the first Vision, The Book of Mormon, and our leaders to be exactly what the church claims them to be..... so be careful trying to demonize me as one of them. That said, I want "them" to come back. to "sing the song of redeeming love" again (Alma Ch 5 just so you know I had read it once or twice). That can't be done if we push them further away.

Do they need to, in my opinion, adjust their beliefs? sure. But I don't think making them the enemy helps them change any more then it is making your and my friendship grow. hard words cause hard feelings.....

[Senator]

I want to hear your thinking in your words.

If you do already have an understanding and just want me to sermonize, then I'm sorry, but not interested.

[DBMormon]

Incidentally, I don't think Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf would take kindly to you misapplying their words -- intended to be understood in a different context, and in reference to a very different set of people than that to which you have applied them.

Why don't you ask them if my approach or the approach of calling them anti-christs is more preferred by them. I will be happy to apologize if they disagree with me. I would be caught very much surprised if Elder Holland and Elder Uchtdorf esteemed the idea of asking those who are barely hanging on and demonizing them even further.... Let me know when the answer arrives... I'll be waiting

[Senator]

But this is a species of discussion in which I've long since ceased having any interest.

Apparently, not.

[William Schryver]

First off, I am not a "new order mormon" nor an unbeliever. I hold the first Vision, The Book of Mormon, and our leaders to be exactly what the church claims them to be..... so be careful trying to demonize me as one of them. That said, I want "them" to come back. to "sing the song of redeeming love" again (Alma Ch 5 just so you know I had read it once or twice). That can't be done if we push them further away.

In what way has anyone here "demonized" you? What are you talking about?

In what way has anyone here pushed anyone "further away" (I assume from belief in the restored gospel)?

And what are you talking about in terms of "hard words"? I am fascinated by the fact that, virtually every time this topic comes up, the apostate apologists (or even the wolves in the sheep's clothing themselves) can be counted on to register some kind of objection to the "hard things" said against them. Seeing as how most of these people are almost certain to have read at least 1 Nephi multiple times in their lives, I am struck by the irony of their complaints:

1 Nephi 16:1-3

And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear. And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center. And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

Anyway, I have better things to do today than carry on this discussion any further. Apparently, so does Bill. So I guess you'll be left alone (at least for the time being) to complain about the "hard things" we've said to you and your buddies.

[Freedom]

Why don't you ask them if my approach or the approach of calling them anti-christs is more preferred by them. I will be happy to apologize if they disagree with me. I would be caught very much surprised if Elder Holland and Elder Uchtdorf esteemed the idea of asking those who are barely hanging on and demonizing them even further.... Let me know when the answer arrives... I'll be waiting

I think we could reword this to say 'why don't you ask them if my approach or the approach of the scriptures is more preferred by them'. If we do not draw our beliefs to their natural conclusions then we are only lying to ourselves.

[DBMormon]

The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©

What's the lot rent?

[William Schryver]

I think we could reword this to say 'why don't you ask them if my approach or the approach of the scriptures is more preferred by them'. If we do not draw our beliefs to their natural conclusions then we are only lying to ourselves.

What is interesting to me is how the exponents of this so-called "Middle Way" work so hard to establish a scriptural foundation -- more often than not employing the words of Jesus himself -- in order to rationalize the acceptability of their faithlessness in the gospel of Christ.

Apparently they don't appreciate the contradictory elements of their approach.

But we do.

[William Schryver]

What's the lot rent?

Thirty pieces of silver.

Just remember, once you're in, you're in. You can check out any time you'd like ... but you can never leave.

[DBMormon]

In what way has anyone here "demonized" you?

I am fascinated by the fact that, virtually every time this topic comes up, the apostate apologists (or even the wolves in the sheep's clothing themselves)

I don't know, maybe I am wrong, you never called any names..... my mistake. Nothing to see here people..... move on

Talking about great and spacious buildings.... what is the one requisite one must have to reside there.... it isn't unbelief and it isn't complaining how one is treated.... It is pride.

[why me]

Who was I describing....

A.) New Order Mormons

B.) Middle Way Mormons

C.) Those who have left or were forced out of NAMI and created the Interpreter?

.............................................. I'll never tell!!!!

This is nothing new. It is only in this postmodern age where people need to label themselves for group comfort do we have such labels. But in the past, all these groups existed under one umbrella: inactive mormons or mormons who were wishywashy. This is nothing new DB. For years I have been inactive for one reason or another. But I refuse to label myself to get a group hug from that group. Maybe I am just old fashioned.

[Calm]

Just remember, once you're in, you're in. You can check out any time you'd like ... but you can never leave.

The Atonement works even there.

DB, I came across this talk in another venue and thought of you while I was reading his interpretation of the prodigal son. You might know it already as this section of it was published in the Liahona last year. The section on the prodigal's brother (and father) is about 2/3 the way down.

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1884

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah