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

[wenglund]

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.

I am sorry. I didn't realize that the cited passage would be too nuanced for you to recognize just how well it answered your question. So, let me try something more your speed. Please read and ponder the lyrics from these two songs:

Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam

Jesus wants me for a sunbeam,

To shine for him each day;

In ev’ry way try to please him,

At home, at school, at play.

Chorus:

A sunbeam, a sunbeam,

Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

A sunbeam, a sunbeam,

I’ll be a sunbeam for him.

Jesus wants me to be loving

And kind to all I see,

Showing how pleasant and happy

His little one can be.

“Give,” Said the Little Stream

“Give,” said the little stream,

“Give, oh! give, give, oh! give.”

“Give,” said the little stream,

As it hurried down the hill;

“I’m small, I know, but wherever I go

The fields grow greener still.”

Chorus:

Singing, singing all the day,

“Give away, oh! give away.”

Singing, singing all the day,

“Give, oh! give away.”

“Give,” said the little rain,

“Give, oh! give, give, oh! give.”

“Give,” said the little rain,

As it fell upon the flow’rs;

“I’ll raise their drooping heads again,”

As it fell upon the flow’rs.

Chorus

Please let me know if you need more help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are out of the thread.

[wenglund]

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

Except, perhaps, the sticks of Judah and Joseph.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Grimace]

I am sorry. I didn't realize that the cited passage would be too nuanced for you to recognize just how well it answered your question. So, let me try something more your speed. Please read and ponder the lyrics from these two songs:

You misunderstood. I can detect when those qualities are present in people, and I can detect to what degree those qualities are in people. You, Wade, seem to be unable to do the same.

Why is that?

[wenglund]

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.

Again, there was no broad brush. Just observing what I have seen.

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.

Agreed. Those are some of the means to the end.

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

Agreed. However, the questioning is not the point of the gospel, but somewhat beside the point.

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.

Agreed. Appeasing and placating questioners tends not to be helpful to anyone, least of not the questioners.

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.

Agreed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You misunderstood. I can detect when those qualities are present in people, and I can detect to what degree those qualities are in people.

Let's test your understanding. What is the means you employ to detect and measure Christlikeness in others, and why are you focused on detecting it in others?

And, how do you reconcile your current claim that you can detect Christlikness in others, with your earlier claim doubting "anyone understands what 'Christlike' means"? (I am not asking to gain understanding, but to illustrate your evident lack of understanding.)

You, Wade, seem to be unable to do the same. Why is that?

Again, your question presupposes that which is false. So, logically, I can't answer it as asked. Maybe you should leave questioning to those of us much less inclined to false presuppositions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 28, 2012 by wenglund

[volgadon]

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.

Welcome back, Loran.

[Teancum]

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"?

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

OK. Rather than say what the gospel is to me I will say that the gospel is justification and sanctification. Based on what I understand exaltation to mean, and I have studied LDS scripture fairly extensively, exaltation is part of sanctification. One may be in the celestial kingdom but perhaps not exalted.

Now for me personally I will admit I have a great challenge putting God into the type of being that requires the narrow steps required in the LDS gospel in order to live with Him in the eternal realms. But that is my problem that I must sift through. But just so you know your argument along those lines is not compelling to me personally.

Now, so what if some NOMs are critical. Not all are. In fact most I think are not. But so are many TBMs and defenders critical and even IMO impose unrighteous dominion. But I understand not all or even most are.

[Senator]

Welcome back, Loran.

There's only one King of the run-on sentence!! Could this be he??

Edited December 28, 2012 by Senator

[volgadon]

There's only one King of the run-on sentence!! Could this be he??

That, the general tenor, and his previous incarnation on this board being shawfansomethingorother.

[mfbukowski]

Welcome back, Loran.

Dang dude, you are positively spooky!

Remind me never to try to put one over on you!

[Daniel Peterson]

Sorry, but I have to raise this somewhere, to put it on public record:

For several pages of this thread, wayfarer accused me of calling him names, mocking him, abusing him, and etc., on this very thread. I was mystified by his claim, because I had done nothing of the sort. In fact, I challenged both him and yootaw to give specific examples of my alleged name calling and abuse, and they both refused. Wayfarer eventually vowed that he would stop posting here, because he couldn't abide by the "terms" that I demand on this board. But I had demanded no "terms." None at all.

I became genuinely exasperated when, over on the message board where he plainly feels more comfortable, he repeated the charges (to predictable applause there) and amplified them by . . . calling me names (really, really harsh ones) and claiming that I'm mentally ill, etc.

I found it so odd that I actually invited a specific person from that other board whom I considered reasonably fair minded, even though he's typically hostile toward and critical of me, to come over and have a look. He could find no real name calling on my part, he admitted, and he commented that wayfarer seemed intent merely on stirring up trouble. (Unsurprisingly, perhaps, he made that comment only in a private email to me; back on his board, he was silent as the tomb about it.)

Nearly three hours ago now, on that other board where I don't participate, wayfarer posted a fairly lengthy and substantive comment that he claimed to have already submitted to my blog. It's uncharacteristically civil, but he predicted that I won't allow it to appear.

Which is likely to prove true, considering that, so far as I can tell, he hasn't really submitted it to my blog.

It seems possible that I'm being set up.

What motivates this sort of nonsense?

[Daniel Peterson]

Sigh. For what it's worth, wayfarer is now insinuating that I'm a liar. I guess that's what passes for civility in his world?

I've taken note of his behavior -- and, with no help from him, published his reply -- on my blog:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/01/sorry-but-i-wont-permit-myself-to-be-set-up-like-this.html

[tyler90az]

Sigh. For what it's worth, wayfarer is now insinuating that I'm a liar. I guess that's what passes for civility in his world?

I've taken note of his behavior -- and, with no help from him, published his reply -- on my blog:

http://www.patheos.c...-like-this.html

On another note, this whole debacle lead to me looking at your blog. I must say, I enjoyed your posts, especially your new years one from a year ago. Consider me a follower!

[wayfarer]

Sigh. For what it's worth, wayfarer is now insinuating that I'm a liar. I guess that's what passes for civility in his world?

I've taken note of his behavior -- and, with no help from him, published his reply -- on my blog:

http://www.patheos.c...-like-this.html

Dan, I do not think it appropriate for you to respond to something I wrote elsewhere, and taking out of context here. If you would like to respond to my post, please do so on my blog, since none of my posts seem to make it past moderation on yours.

Can we stop cross-posting here? Please? It's not topical, and not relevant to this thread any longer. If you would like to send me a personal email so that we can resolve this conflict, please do so.

thanks.

[Daniel Peterson]

"Moderation" hasn't received anything from you on my blog. I've checked very carefully, even going through the spam file. Nothing.

As a cursory look through the hundreds of comments on my blog easily demonstrates, I have no problem at all permitting critical responses to what I've written. I think, over the past months, that I may have deleted two or three -- and they were egregiously awful. (How many the Patheos folks may have blocked, I have no idea. But they plainly didn't block yours.)

I have no interest in exchanging personal emails with you. You don't seem, frankly, even minimally honest. I only care, at this point, about rebutting your constant public slanders.

I notice, incidentally, that, over on your home board, you've again suggested that I suffer from clinical Narcissistic Personality Disorder and advised me to "get help." Why on earth would I want to engage you in personal conversation? It's been a very long time since I've seen the book, but repeatedly and rather casually suggesting that your conversation partner is mentally ill doesn't rank high, to the best of my recollection, as an effective technique in Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.

[Daniel Peterson]

On another note, this whole debacle lead to me looking at your blog. I must say, I enjoyed your posts, especially your new years one from a year ago. Consider me a follower!

Thanks, Tyler90az!

[tyler90az]

The Lord has surely blessed me this day! I have found two great blogs in a matter of minutes.

Wayfarer, I enjoyed your post I walk the way alone, have been their and felt that pain from my spouse before also. Who says you can not walk The Way and her way at the same time. Part of The Church is that we seek after knowledge and anything praiseworthy. The church provides the human connection you so desire well at the same time allowing you to walk The Way. For instance, just yesterday I read the Dhammapada, The Mind, http://www.buddhanet.net/dhammapada/d_mind.htm. That is truth and Christ would not look down at me for seeking out such truth. I seek after all truth! One of the truths I have found is to believe in the Savior and his church is the most transcending spiritual experience(even life). Especially to believe in him through the Church of Jesus Christ. Which as you know, your a smart guy, the Church of Jesus Christ has the most transcending doctrines.

You get to walk The Way and your wives way well experiencing the joys from both(even complete happiness).

Anyways, I really enjoyed your blog and will bookmark it.

[teddyaware]

Sorry, but I have to raise this somewhere, to put it on public record...

I became genuinely exasperated when, over on the message board where he plainly feels more comfortable, he repeated the charges (to predictable applause there) and amplified them by . . . calling me names (really, really harsh ones) and claiming that I'm mentally ill, etc...

What motivates this sort of nonsense?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Jesus Christ

Brother Peterson,

In the beatitudes, near the end of the Lord's progressive list of spiritual gospel virtues, he said, "blessed are the peacemakers." After first teaching that in order for us to find God and internalize his divine attributes into our lives, we disciples must first...

1. Comprehend own state of spiritual poverty.

2. Mourn with genuine sorrow over that state of spiritual impoverishment.

3. Seek heavenly enrichment by humbly submitting to a Father and son relationships with God, wherein we endures correction.

4. Hungering and thirsting after righteousness till the Lord fills our souls with the empowering inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

5. Learn to genuinely extend to others the mercy and forgiveness the Lord extended to us.

6. All the above principles combine to purify our thoughts and desires, till we become sanctified in Christ by the power of the Spirit.

Then, after internalizing the above six principles of spiritual blessedness, we are prepared to be peacemakers because our hearts and minds are filled with the spiritual gifts of humility, sympathy, submissiveness, righeousness, mercy and purity.

The people who conduct the kind of warfare you describe are not the Lord's peacemakers, because they must first end the spiritual war that rages within their own hearts and minds before they can truly edify others with the gospel of peace. They are at war with themselves and so, as a natural consequence of the same, their internal war spills over into their communications with the world of men.

In a nutshell, here is the cure:

"... they had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.

And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be ^epurified..." (Mosiah 4:1-2)

After doing the above, and enduring in the same to the end, one is qualified to teach and expond on the gospel of Christ in a spiritually effective, peace enducing, and edifying way.

Edited January 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, but I have to raise this somewhere, to put it on public record:

For several pages of this thread, wayfarer accused me of calling him names, mocking him, abusing him, and etc., on this very thread. I was mystified by his claim, because I had done nothing of the sort. In fact, I challenged both him and yootaw to give specific examples of my alleged name calling and abuse, and they both refused. Wayfarer eventually vowed that he would stop posting here, because he couldn't abide by the "terms" that I demand on this board. But I had demanded no "terms." None at all.

I became genuinely exasperated when, over on the message board where he plainly feels more comfortable, he repeated the charges (to predictable applause there) and amplified them by . . . calling me names (really, really harsh ones) and claiming that I'm mentally ill, etc.

I found it so odd that I actually invited a specific person from that other board whom I considered reasonably fair minded, even though he's typically hostile toward and critical of me, to come over and have a look. He could find no real name calling on my part, he admitted, and he commented that wayfarer seemed intent merely on stirring up trouble. (Unsurprisingly, perhaps, he made that comment only in a private email to me; back on his board, he was silent as the tomb about it.)

Nearly three hours ago now, on that other board where I don't participate, wayfarer posted a fairly lengthy and substantive comment that he claimed to have already submitted to my blog. It's uncharacteristically civil, but he predicted that I won't allow it to appear.

Which is likely to prove true, considering that, so far as I can tell, he hasn't really submitted it to my blog.

It seems possible that I'm being set up.

What motivates this sort of nonsense?

I see a bit of irony here. A while back, after Lou Midgley had spoken in general germs about calling people to repentance, wayfarer took it personally and bristled, saying Lou had no right to do that since Lou isn't wayfarer's bishop or stake president.

Which causes me to wonder: In denouncing Dan on the board where wayfarer plainly feels more comfortable, does wayfarer mean to call Dan to repentance? If so, how can that be, since wayfarer is not Dan's bishop or stake president?

Or does wayfarer merely intend to launch verbal assaults as a means of punishment or vengeance? In which case, I would ask which is more egregious: criticism with the intent of motivation to repentance or calumny with the purpose of vengeance?

Similarly, yootaw labeled a few defenders on this board (ultimately including me after I had objected) as "bullies." It became clear from follow-up conversation that he wasn't calling for us to change. He only wanted to make the verbal assault. I then posted this comment:

So you lob verbal assaults and insults not because you care whether the recipient profits thereby in any way, but merely because you want to inflict pain/humiliation/injury.

That strikes me as a pretty good definition of a bully.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

Sorry, but I have to raise this somewhere, to put it on public record:

For several pages of this thread, wayfarer accused me of calling him names, mocking him, abusing him, and etc., on this very thread. I was mystified by his claim, because I had done nothing of the sort. In fact, I challenged both him and yootaw to give specific examples of my alleged name calling and abuse, and they both refused. Wayfarer eventually vowed that he would stop posting here, because he couldn't abide by the "terms" that I demand on this board. But I had demanded no "terms." None at all.

I became genuinely exasperated when, over on the message board where he plainly feels more comfortable, he repeated the charges (to predictable applause there) and amplified them by . . . calling me names (really, really harsh ones) and claiming that I'm mentally ill, etc.

I found it so odd that I actually invited a specific person from that other board whom I considered reasonably fair minded, even though he's typically hostile toward and critical of me, to come over and have a look. He could find no real name calling on my part, he admitted, and he commented that wayfarer seemed intent merely on stirring up trouble. (Unsurprisingly, perhaps, he made that comment only in a private email to me; back on his board, he was silent as the tomb about it.)

Nearly three hours ago now, on that other board where I don't participate, wayfarer posted a fairly lengthy and substantive comment that he claimed to have already submitted to my blog. It's uncharacteristically civil, but he predicted that I won't allow it to appear.

Which is likely to prove true, considering that, so far as I can tell, he hasn't really submitted it to my blog.

It seems possible that I'm being set up.

What motivates this sort of nonsense?

Why not just copy paste his comment into your blog and respond to it?

[Scott Lloyd]

If you would like to send me a personal email so that we can resolve this conflict, please do so.

I think he has already suggested a way the conflict might be resolved. That is for you to stop bearing false witness.

[wayfarer]

Dan,

I offered you an opportunity to make right on this, and you refused. I have not lied in the least, and I HAVE posted to your website. that it loses my posts is not my problem, it is yours.

This is where this started:

The simple fact, Wayfarer, is that you've tried to implicate me in a conversation where I haven't been a participant.

I explained why you were involved, and you weren't paying attention to it.

And, of course, you know that your complaint against me will be received uncritically and go down wonderfully well on that other board.

The other board seems to have its issues, and by the way, it's not my 'home board' at all. But that doesn't matter. I responded to you with this sincere offer:

it's not so simple, and you know that. you are the leader of your merry band of apologists, and you can end this by repudiating Midgley's diatribe. Calling people who choose to be friends of the faith "antichrists" does harm to us all and needs to stop.

For what it's worth, i deeply respect you, most of the time. do the right thing here and you have my word that I will defend you on that "other board", or anywhere else you are portrayed inaccurately.

Note that I did not say YOU were calling people antichrist, but Midgley did. And since you are the leader of this "Mormon Interpreter" group, you bear responsibility for what is written. Note that I offered you the hand of fellowship on this -- I would defend you if you had the decency to do the right thing, but you chose otherwise.

Instead, you immediately misinterpreted what I said, and rather than answering my request to make right on Midgley's claim, you told me that you have never called anybody an "anti-christ". Well, duh, I didn't say you did either. I said you have responsibility, and that's a big difference. Then you finally said that you would stand behind what Midgley wrote. And I said that was disappointing.

Then, in post after post, you would refer to me as "wayfarerlowercaseandnoquotes" or other such nonesense, and would quote what I quoted from Joseph Smith's History of the Church that the church would have no creeds, and then mock what I said. You're hardly cultivating civil dialogue here. And yes, that's frustrating.

And if what I have said about you on another site touches your ego so much that, lacking courage to deal directly with this, you need to post here and on your own blog -- in what appears to be a pretty messy response, by the way -- then I would ask you to consider whether my harsh words have struck a bit close to home for you.

I am nothing. I am but a fool. You are the great Apologist. Nothing that I say here or there matters, but you apparently have a compulsion to squash this bug that has had the temerity to point out how harmful your kind of apologetics is to those who struggle with belief.

[wayfarer]

I think he has already suggested a way the conflict might be resolved. That is for you to stop bearing false witness.

CFR.

[Scott Lloyd]

Dan,

I offered you an opportunity to make right on this, and you refused. I have not lied in the least, and I HAVE posted to your website. that it loses my posts is not my problem, it is yours.

It's your problem if you hold him accountable and make accusations for not taking action on messages he hasn't even seen.

[why me]

Dan, I do not think it appropriate for you to respond to something I wrote elsewhere, and taking out of context here. If you would like to respond to my post, please do so on my blog, since none of my posts seem to make it past moderation on yours.

Can we stop cross-posting here? Please? It's not topical, and not relevant to this thread any longer. If you would like to send me a personal email so that we can resolve this conflict, please do so.

thanks.

But you need to come clean about what you have posted on that other board. It shows your intent. And of course if you are writing about dan on that other board, he does have the right to comment here about it.