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

[daz2]

As far as disbelieving people also hating religion, I know quite a few people who do not believe in God or religious truth claims, but see value for those who do. I know quite well a sociologist of religion who does not believe, yet finds religion to be a tremendous source of social support, and therefore a net positive.

[Kenngo1969]

Who knows - maybe the Maya got it right after all.

In many ways 2012 was the end of the world, at least as us old codgers know it.

I've been meaning to learn how to read! Never mind!

Edited December 26, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[3DOP]

As far as disbelieving people also hating religion, I know quite a few people who do not believe in God or religious truth claims, but see value for those who do. I know quite well a sociologist of religion who does not believe, yet finds religion to be a tremendous source of social support, and therefore a net positive.

Hi daz2,

I overstated the case regarding a universal bitterness among unbelievers. I apologize for the exaggeration. I am not surprised that you can report that there are level-headed unbelievers who can objectively find value in religion. Thanks for the correction.

3DOP

[The Grimace]

Quoted for truth. Arguably, the most important post on this thread.

Well well well now......NOW finally we can get a grasp at how sour it is to even if implicitly call someone an anti-Christ now don't we? I agree, saying that about Dan or even implying it SHOULD make him feel mad, just exactly as it should when someone is implicitly linked to be an anti-Christ. We now see the evil fruits of using the Bible to pigeon hole people don't we. We certainly should if we don't. Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean it's right or accurate or even nice and useful or even necessary. And if all this wasn't done directly it was still done using a stupid example from the Bible (as if that has context for OUR time - SHEESH!) as a justification to not directly say so, but make people think that the link to John's silliness is possible with someone today. Now then, we need to stop casting insults and diatribes because people are different, and try a little more to be more Christlike. An impossible task, I know, but the attempt HAS to be tried. Now that we all know how to make everyone feel bad, lets change the subject, and impressions, and innuendos and name calling, and love one another.

[Daniel Peterson]

Itself an implicit criticism of, and attack on, others.

Let's stop making distinctions altogether. Drawing a circle to include people and things invariably leaves other people (or things) out.

Let's just understand that everything is everything, and that all is good and right, and that nothing is wrong or false.

[wenglund]

I am getting the sense that the "Middle Way" consists of demanding compassion and tolerance for opposing views while reacting hyper-sensitively and with invidious scathing rebukes towards those who presume somewhat differently. A kind of "do-as-I-ask-and-not-as-I-do" philosophy? Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 27, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I am getting the sense that the "Middle Way" consists of demanding compassion and tolerance for opposing views while reacting hyper-sensitively and with invidious scathing rebukes towards those who presume somewhat differently. A kind of "do-as-I-ask-and-not-as-I-do" philosophy? Am I wrong?

And, from what I have seen of advocates for the so-called "Middle Way," it strikes me as a kind of self-aggrandizing elitism making a pretense of "big tents," where feelings are far more important than principles. But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Itself an implicit criticism of, and attack on, others.

Let's stop making distinctions altogether. Drawing a circle to include people and things invariably leaves other people (or things) out.

Let's just understand that everything is everything, and that all is good and right, and that nothing is wrong or false.

Yeah man. It's all good.

[Tacenda]

And, from what I have seen of advocates for the so-called "Middle Way," it strikes me as a kind of self-aggrandizing elitism making a pretense of "big tents," where feelings are far more important than principles. But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that so called "middle wayers" are the old "strugglers" in the church. Who's to say that several people at church aren't "struggling" etc.? One cannot truly know the amount of them in the church. I guess the "middle wayer" is just more vocal now and have found a support group. And isn't that why we've always heard the advice to always work on our testimony, so we won't go that route?

[wenglund]

Yeah man. It's all good.

Ah...the paradox of 2 Nephi 2;11-13. Love it!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

I am getting the sense that the "Middle Way" consists of demanding compassion and tolerance for opposing views while reacting hyper-sensitively and with invidious scathing rebukes towards those who presume somewhat differently. A kind of "do-as-I-ask-and-not-as-I-do" philosophy? Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

.

Yes you are wrong. One thing I think you assume is the all NOM or middle wayers are the same. The are not. No more than orthodox TBMs are. Though one thing a NOMer would like is to be able to be more open in a Church setting or even a place like this without being branded as insidious or anti christ. Face it Wade, the LDS church culture does not foster an environment of kindness and acceptance for someone who questions or cannot say "I know.". How often do you here a testimony that is not I know. How about one that says "I have a lot of questions, doubts and concerns, but I have faith still, love the church and want to be part of it. But I really do not know.". In fact it seem to me one of the pusposes of a monthly testimony meeting is to subtly communicate saying you know is of utmost importance. We are even prescribed wht the elements of a testimonys should contain.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

Ah...the paradox of 2 Nephi 2;11-13. Love it!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I already had a testimony the first time I read the Book of Mormon all the way through, but when I got to that section, I thought "That's it- if there is nothing more in here, that principle alone, stated that way, that proves it is scripture right there!" Of course I found there was much, much more!

[wenglund]

I think that so called "middle wayers" are the old "strugglers" in the church. Who's to say that several people at church aren't "struggling" etc.? One cannot truly know the amount of them in the church. I guess the "middle wayer" is just more vocal now and have found a support group. And isn't that why we've always heard the advice to always work on our testimony, so we won't go that route?

So, the "Middle Way" is a "support group" just for "strugglers"? It isn't for everyone? Sounds a bit exclusionary to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

.

Yes you are wrong. One thing I think you assume is the all NOM or middle wayers are the same. The are not. No more than orthodox TBMs are. Though one thing a NOMer would like is to be able to be more open in a Church setting or even a place like this without being branded as insidious or anti christ. Face it Wade, the LDS church culture does not foster an environment of kindness and acceptance for someone who questions or cannot say "I know.". How often do you here a testimony that is not I know. How about one that says "I have a lot of questions, doubts and concerns, but I have faith still, love the church and want to be part of it. But I really do not know.".

If that's all it were, it would be better tolerated. The problem is that such expression of uncertainty so easily drifts into public fault finding, criticism of Church leaders and doctrine and policies, the denigration of others' faith, mockery, etc., not at testimony meeting but elsewhere.

In fact it seem to me one of the pusposes of a monthly testimony meeting is to subtly communicate saying you know is of utmost importance. We are even prescribed wht the elements of a testimonys should contain.

Because in the past some expressions have been a misuse of the time: extended travelogues, thank-a-monies, open-mic comedy routines, children too young to get the concept parroting what an older sibling whispers in their ear, etc.

[pogi]

.

Yes you are wrong. One thing I think you assume is the all NOM or middle wayers are the same. The are not. No more than orthodox TBMs are. Though one thing a NOMer would like is to be able to be more open in a Church setting or even a place like this without being branded as insidious or anti christ. Face it Wade, the LDS church culture does not foster an environment of kindness and acceptance for someone who questions or cannot say "I know.". How often do you here a testimony that is not I know. How about one that says "I have a lot of questions, doubts and concerns, but I have faith still, love the church and want to be part of it. But I really do not know.". In fact it seem to me one of the pusposes of a monthly testimony meeting is to subtly communicate saying you know is of utmost importance. We are even prescribed wht the elements of a testimonys should contain.

So, is the NOM/middleway brand something that you graduate from once you know?

Edited December 27, 2012 by pogi

[The Grimace]

Itself an implicit criticism of, and attack on, others.

Let's stop making distinctions altogether. Drawing a circle to include people and things invariably leaves other people (or things) out.

Let's just understand that everything is everything, and that all is good and right, and that nothing is wrong or false.

No, I think Kerry is saying not to use the scriptures to call people nasty names like, 'anti-Christ' because it is hurtful.

I think you understand this.

[wenglund]

Yes you are wrong. One thing I think you assume is the all NOM or middle wayers are the same. The are not.

No...I don't assume that. I am solely speaking to what I have observed.

Though one thing a NOMer would like is to be able to be more open in a Church setting or even a place like this without being branded as insidious or anti christ. Face it Wade, the LDS church culture does not foster an environment of kindness and acceptance for someone who questions or cannot say "I know.".

Even if one grants your ironically unkind stereotype of the LDS church culture, could it be that the gospel isn't really about acceptance and questioning, but about becoming like Christ?

To me, the point isn't to appease or placate people suffering from doubts and struggles and other forms of spiritual sickness, but to help them heal and become whole.

How often do you here a testimony that is not I know? How about one that says "I have a lot of questions, doubts and concerns, but I have faith still, love the church and want to be part of it. But I really do not know"? In fact it seem to me one of the purposes of a monthly testimony meeting is to subtly communicate saying you know is of utmost importance. We are even prescribed what the elements of a testimonies should contain.

What do you think is and should be the purpose of testimony meetings?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I think Kerry is saying not to use the scriptures to call people nasty names like, 'anti-Christ' because it is hurtful.

I think you understand this.

Was it necessary to denigrate scripture to do this?

[Tacenda]

So, is the NOM/middleway brand something that you graduate from once you know?

Most think they know the church isn't all they thought it was. But some like me are trying to figure it all out and not close the door on belief for good. There's so many times that I would have liked to tell some NOM's to come over to this board and discuss their issues with faithful members that know the warts in church history. But think most have opinions about this board that aren't correct. If they could just try it, it would help them I believe.

[Tacenda]

So, is the NOM/middleway brand something that you graduate from once you know?

Most think they know the church isn't all they thought it was. But some like me are trying to figure it all out and not close the door on belief for good. There's so many times that I would have liked to tell some NOM's to come over to this board and discuss their issues with faithful members that know the warts in church history. But think most have opinions about this board that aren't correct. If they could just try it, it would help them I believe. Wade, they've come to a conclusion that the church is not true too speedily. But don't feel like they've graduated. Some just feel lost and empty and that's where support and dialogue come in.

[The Grimace]

Was it necessary to denigrate scripture to do this?

I dunno. I wasn't the one quoting scripture and then using the quoted scripture to label people. I just agree that using scripture to justify name-calling is not really justification.

[The Grimace]

But, speaking of labeling people as 'antichrist', perhaps someone could clarify for me. Would the following people be considered 'antichrist'?

Arnold Eisen, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary

Shelley Rubin, CEO of the Jewish Defence League

Suhaib Webb, Muslim scholar

Nihad Awad, Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

Can we use the scriptures to label them 'antichrist' the same way the scriptures were used to label some members of the LDS church 'antichrist'?

I know this may sound unsavoury, but please, allow some latitude here to see if the standard holds.

[wenglund]

No, I think Kerry is saying not to use the scriptures to call people nasty names like, 'anti-Christ' because it is hurtful.

I think you understand this.

What Kerry doesn't seem to understand is that he wants us to be more Christlike even though Christ called people nasty names and was hurtful. In other words, Kerry wants us to be like Christ and not be like Christ. Kerry needs to make up his mind.

By the way, Christlike love isn't essentially about hurt-avoidance or the elimination of presumably nasty names. It is about progression and deification--which may at times hurt and require calling a spade a spade.

Had Kerry not inanely dismissed the Bible, and/or portions thereof, as "stupid" and "silliness," he may have understood this. He may have known better what it means to be Christlike. He may have been able to make up his mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 27, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I dunno. I wasn't the one quoting scripture and then using the quoted scripture to label people. I just agree that using scripture to justify name-calling is not really justification.

So, justification isn't justification in the world of "the Grimace," similar to Christlike isn't Christlike in the world of "Kerry"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Grimace]

Wade, I doubt anyone understands what 'Christlike' means. Most people want it to mean, "I get to act like Jesus, judging folks and condemning them".