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

[wenglund]

Wade, I doubt anyone understands what 'Christlike' means.

There is no call for you to project.

Most people want it to mean, "I get to act like Jesus, judging folks and condemning them".

That is a hurtful way to describe yourself and Middle Way'ers. But, I wont argue with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 27, 2012 by wenglund

[DH]

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.

Reading this thread would only confirm their misgivings about this board. (Not pointing the finger at you specifically, Tacenda, but at others' posts.)

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.

Most I know have studied the gospel for many years, used to be "orthodox"/correlated believers, and did not come to their conclusions speedily. Some still believe much of what the Church teaches, but not necessarily everything.

What you said about support and dialogue being useful is very much appreciated, Tacenda. That's kind of the point. I think many NOMs would feel much more comfortable at church, and be more likely to return to activity, if they felt they could talk about their concerns without being labeled "anti-Christ," "anti-Mormon," etc., or have people assume they want to sin. Simple support and friendship, sans jugement, could go a LONG way, IMHO.

[wenglund]

Reading this thread would only confirm their misgivings about this board. (Not pointing the finger at you specifically, Tacenda, but at others' posts.)

Most I know have studied the gospel for many years, used to be "orthodox"/correlated believers, and did not come to their conclusions speedily. Some still believe much of what the Church teaches, but not necessarily everything.

What you said about support and dialogue being useful is very much appreciated, Tacenda. That's kind of the point. I think many NOMs would feel much more comfortable at church, and be more likely to return to activity, if they felt they could talk about their concerns without being labeled "anti-Christ," "anti-Mormon," etc., or have people assume they want to sin. Simple support and friendship, sans jugement, could go a LONG way, IMHO.

That might make sense if the point of the gospel were label-avoidance and to return to activity. Do you think it is?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Grimace]

There is no call for you to project.

That is a hurtful way to describe yourself and Middle Way'ers. But, I wont argue with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, tell me, Wade, what do you think 'Christlike' means? What does it mean to you to be 'like Christ'?

[DH]

That might make sense if the point of the gospel were label-avoidance and to return to activity. Do you think it is?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The point of the Gospel is relationships (See the two greatest commandments). As to activity in the Church, would you rather that non-believers attend church or not attend church? Obviously, Church leaders want people to believe, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't complain at all if attendance increased by 15% (or whatever percent) even if that extra 15% didn't believe, but came to church anyway. At least that way they will hear the Gospel on a regular basis, no?

Edited December 27, 2012 by DH

[Tacenda]

Reading this thread would only confirm their misgivings about this board. (Not pointing the finger at you specifically, Tacenda, but at others' posts.)

Most I know have studied the gospel for many years, used to be "orthodox"/correlated believers, and did not come to their conclusions speedily. Some still believe much of what the Church teaches, but not necessarily everything.

What you said about support and dialogue being useful is very much appreciated, Tacenda. That's kind of the point. I think many NOMs would feel much more comfortable at church, and be more likely to return to activity, if they felt they could talk about their concerns without being labeled "anti-Christ," "anti-Mormon," etc., or have people assume they want to sin. Simple support and friendship, sans jugement, could go a LONG way, IMHO.

Some on NOM lose their testimony within hours once they've read something so shocking it made their shelf fall. And do an about face out of the church. And some like myself have been at it for years, trying to make it work. Others have bulletproof testimonies and nothing touches it.

[Tacenda]

The point of the Gospel is relationships (See the two greatest commandments). As to activity in the Church, would you rather that non-believers attend church or not attend church? Obviously, Church leaders want people to believe, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't complain at all if attendance increased by 15% (or whatever percent) even if that extra 15% didn't believe, but came to church anyway. At least that way they will hear the Gospel on a regular basis, no?

I have to say if it weren't for the bishopric in my ward being so understanding I don't know where I'd be. I think they understand there is a problem with members stumbling across info on the internet that is new to them and bewildering.

[wenglund]

Well, tell me, Wade, what do you think 'Christlike' means? What does it mean to you to be 'like Christ'?

I view it along a spectrum rather than in binary terms, where we become more and more like Christ, both in character and deeds, until we are perfected, even as he and his Father are perfected.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Grimace]

I view it along a spectrum rather than in binary terms, where we become more and more like Christ, both in character and deeds, until we are perfected, even as he and his Father are perfected.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When considering two people, one Christ-like and one not Christ-like, what differences would I see between the two?

[mfbukowski]

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-

[wenglund]

The point of the Gospel is relationships (See the two greatest commandments).

Yes...not just any relationships, but godly relationships, which necessitates progression in godliness towards God.

As to activity in the Church, would you rather that non-believers attend church or not attend church?

It depends on whether the results of their attendance is efficacious and beneficial or not.

Obviously, Church leaders want people to believe, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't complain at all if attendance increased by 15% (or whatever percent) even if that extra 15% didn't believe, but came to church anyway. At least that way they will hear the Gospel on a regular basis, no?

Again, it depends. It is kind of like asking whether I prefer sick people to frequent hospitals and doctors offices if they dis-believe in medical treatment; or whether I prefer people go to the gym who don't believe in exercise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

When considering two people, one Christ-like and one not Christ-like, what differences would I see between the two?

Your question presuppose a binary state which doesn't comport with what I said. So, you will have to address your question to someone who views things in that binary way, not me. I can't think of anyone who doesn't possess at least some measure of Christlike attributes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

.

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.

What is stopping you from saying your testimony like that? the only reason no one shares their testimony that way is because no one has had the courage or understanding to share their testmony like that. It can all change with you. In my Ward I gave a talk once about what I know, what I believe, and What I hope.... then I bore testimony using those words. It's liberating, go ahead and give it a try!!!

Edited December 27, 2012 by DBMormon

[The Grimace]

Your question presuppose a binary state which doesn't comport with what I said. So, you will have to address your question to someone who views things in that binary way, not me. I can't think of anyone who doesn't possess at least some measure of Christlike attributes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

OK, then using the spectral model, if someone was on the lower end of the spectrum of Christlike behavior and another on the higher end of the spectrum of Christlike behavior, what might I see that would distinguish the two from one another?

In other words, in a spectral model of Christlike behavior, how does one detect progression from one end of the spectrum to the other?

Edited December 27, 2012 by The Grimace

[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.

bump - still interested in getting some discussion around this point.

[wenglund]

OK, then using the spectral model, if someone was on the lower end of the spectrum of Christlike behavior and another on the higher end of the spectrum of Christlike behavior, what might I see that would distinguish the two from one another?

In other words, in a spectral model of Christlike behavior, how does one detect progression from one end of the spectrum to the other?

It isn't just about behavior. It is also about character that leads to behavior. For starters, read and contemplate 1 Cor. 13.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Grimace]

It isn't just about behavior. It is also about character that leads to behavior. For starters, read and contemplate 1 Cor. 13.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For starters, why not answer the question: Can you detect if someone is more Christlike than someone else? Or are we all equally Christlike? Is it even detectable?

I've read that passage, and I can certainly detect most of those things on that list. So I'm not certain why you have such a hard time answering the questions I'm asking you.

[canard78]

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

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.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's unlikely that you can heal bruises with another stick.

[canard78]

bump - still interested in getting some discussion around this point.

Don't hold your breath. It's much easier to judge one of your doubting, struggling own, knowing there will be little comeback, than to publicly label a senior religious leader of another faith negatively. Not that I would encourage the latter, I'm just not much in favour of the former.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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."

As Young Men president, I worked with one of our ward's boys from the time he was a deacon. He struggled with testimony issues that entire time, in no small part due to hypocrisy on the parts of his parents. (They've used the Church as a stick to beat him with all whilst hiding their own serious sins.) A couple of years ago, he was asked by the bishopric to share his testimony in sacrament meeting. He turned them down, saying he didn't have one. Then he rang back a few minutes later and said he'd be happy to give a brief talk instead if that would help. The bishopric counsellor was glad for the offer.

In his talk, he spoke of three pieces of counsel from the living prophets which he had watched bless his life and the lives of the people around him. He concluded by saying something like, 'I don't yet know if these men are prophets of God, and I'm not entirely convinced there even is a God, but it seems to me that if these men got these things right, maybe I should keep doing what they tell me'. The ward were grateful for his words, and afterward, in prieists quorum class, I pointed out to him that he'd shared his testimony since a testimony is just a statement of what we've personally seen/experienced.

From that point forward, he felt more confident to share his testimony, stating what he'd witnessed personally and expressing hope or even just observations that he was glad being a member of the Church had kept him safe in contrast to his non-member friends, who had been exposed to dangers. There was never anything but 'kindness and acceptance' from ward members, including me and bishopric members. And he just kept following the counsel of the men whose prophetic callings he wasn't even sure of and the teachings in the scriptures he wasn't sure were even God inspired. And when the stake leaders asked him to speak in stake priesthood meeting, his words were well received again.

Now he's a fulltime missionary, and his letters to me are filled with confident statements of testimony.

I think you're selling the Saints short. I know of no group of people more comfortable with having their fellows sincerely and anxiously engaged in searching and seeking, openly acknowleding that they are works in progress.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Shawman]

I've always (over many years) found a rather assertive double standard to be in play when discussing opposing views with "NOM" or neo-orthodox LDS, and especially those of a more strident aspect. It has always seemed to me to be the rules of the game that NOMs get to attack, criticize, and cast doubt upon numerous teachings (including core teachings) of the Church, across a wide range of subjects (including contemporary issues of various kinds) with no particular limits as to either topic or aggressiveness, while apologetic defenders must be extremely circumspect - to the point of being timid - in defense of the Church, or be labeled as being non "Christ-like" and as being a disgrace to the Church and a detriment to apologetics (the concern of some of the more virulent anti-Mormons about the health of the apologetic movement has always intrigued me).

My general impression is that many of these people do not really think, in thier present state, that there really are any principled arguments to be made against the "middle way" or, I just prefer to say, "cafateria" Mormon manner of life and thought, and they are not, in many cases, and despite numeroius pleas against others in the same vien, particularly tolerent of dissent or critique of their present positions.

John Dehlin's passive/aggressive style of plea-for-understanding at one moment turning to a more traditional why-I-left-the-church-and-why-you-should-to anti-Mormon boilerplate the next is a case in point. The aggressive badgering suddenly becoming a "why are you abusing me" posture, when clear, reasoned argumentation is deployed soon becomes a discenable pattern.

But perhaps this is a part of the nature of this particular beast.

[Teancum]

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

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.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well it seems to me your observation of what a NOM type person is resounds with the stereotypes you accuse many of labeling TBMs or apologists with. I think your broad brush charges are inaccurate.

To me the gospel is about:

1: Justification from our sins

2: Sanctification which to me means abiding in Christ and yes becoming like Him.

I believe both of those can involve questions, less than certainty as well allowing space for others to experience their own journey.

And I don't have problems with helping people who may be questioning. I just don't think some of what is billed as help is at all helpful.

The purpose of testimony meeting is to allow people to express their testimony whatever its form may be. The outcome should be the edification of the bearers and the hearers.

[Teancum]

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.

I asked a similar question earlier. Based on the creed posted earlier the answer has to be yes at least for those proposing the standard.

[Teancum]

What is stopping you from saying your testimony like that? the only reason no one shares their testimony that way is because no one has had the courage or understanding to share their testmony like that. It can all change with you. In my Ward I gave a talk once about what I know, what I believe, and What I hope.... then I bore testimony using those words. It's liberating, go ahead and give it a try!!!

.

I will consider it.

[Shawman]

To me the gospel is about:

1: Justification from our sins

2: Sanctification which to me means abiding in Christ and yes becoming like Him.

Does not the gospel, however, have a fundamental existential quality that extends beyond and exists outside and independent of our internal subjective thought world (what the gospel is "to me" is not as important (while being important) as what the gospe actually is, independent of what it is "to me.")?

Secondly, the gospel is, ultimatly, about the exaltation of families in the Celestial Kingdom. Strict requirments are deliniated in the scrptures and in modern revelation regarding a "straight gate" and "narrow way" relative to that exaltation. Remember the ladder Perpetua had to climb in her dream? What happens then, to such exaltation, if a "middle way," or, in other words, a wandering, circuitious path to the periphery and outside the boundaries of the narrow way is chosen in lieu of the "valiance" required of true saints to achieve the highest gospel blessings.

What is the understanding of the law of the harvest to a "NOM"?

I just don't think some of what is billed as help is at all helpful.

But many NOMs are very, very critical, but don't appear to be willing to aborb anything approaching similar criticism of thier own perspectives.