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

[CV75]

So, by that same logic, those who claim that people in the so-called "Middle Way" are antichrists... who will defend their reputation?

What’s wrong with being identified as “anti-christ” or “anti-Christ” or “Antichrist” or “antichrist” by anyone using one set of criteria to do so, when other sets of criteria don’t fit?

Why be bothered at all by another LDS point of view? Isn’t that the whole point of not believing some (or much or any) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, while maintaining membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons? Don’t you have an alternative definition, meaning or denial of the “antichrist” term(s)? Isn't your reputation (individually and collectively) dependent on how well you promulgate that definition?

[wayfarer]

What’s wrong with being identified as “anti-christ” or “anti-Christ” or “Antichrist” or “antichrist” by anyone using one set of criteria to do so, when other sets of criteria don’t fit?

Why be bothered at all by another LDS point of view? Isn’t that the whole point of not believing some (or much or any) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, while maintaining membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons? Don’t you have an alternative definition, meaning or denial of the “antichrist” term(s)? Isn't your reputation (individually and collectively) dependent on how well you promulgate that definition?

For myself, it doesn't matter. But we live with members of the church in our families, and associate with our friends. I know of many cases where people who simply doubt have been run out of their families and wards because of the villification of the Middle Way. Peterson has stated that his target is no longer evangelical anti-mormons, but rather, "secularism", and thus those of us who thoughtfully represent the middle way are in his sights. This is painfully obvious by Dr. Midgley's article. And, by mischaracterizing our point of view, making a caricature of it, it causes other LDS to literally shun those who question or choose to live the Middle Way.

[wayfarer]

Or it could be considered a pre-emptive move precluding your going on your favorite board and complaining that Dan got you ousted from here.

Scott, you're not making any sense. MDB is not 'my favorite board'. This topic, "the so-called middle way or new order mormons" is in my focus, and I will defend it vigorously, and honestly. please don't impute intent when you don't know what my intent is.

[Daniel Peterson]

Wayfarer is putting a whole lot of words in my mouth, and attributing motives to me that I simply don't have, and ascribing opinions to me that I absolutely don't hold.

And he's holding forth regarding my evil behavior on his preferred board, and demanding that I either quote everything he says there or stand convicted of dishonesty.

All here (or elsewhere) who want to go read his accusations against me are perfectly free to do so, and it's fine by me if they do it. I'm not going to serve as wayfarer's advertising man, though, or his photocopier. Here's a summary: I'm dishonest, arrogant, evil, cruel to those who disagree with me, and so forth. You get the idea.

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer is putting a whole lot of words in my mouth, and attributing motives to me that I simply don't have, and ascribing opinions to me that I absolutely don't hold.

And he's holding forth regarding my evil behavior on his preferred board, and demanding that I either quote everything he says there or stand convicted of dishonesty.

All here (or elsewhere) who want to go read his accusations against me are perfectly free to do so, and it's fine by me if they do it. I'm not going to serve as wayfarer's advertising man, though, or his photocopier. Here's a summary: I'm dishonest, arrogant, evil, cruel to those who disagree with me, and so forth. You get the idea.

Dan, that is a false characterization of my message, and you know it. I simply quoted Doctrine and Covenants section 50, verses 17-23, to demonstrate that BOTH of our behavior on this is unedifying and therefore, by verse 23 "darkness", evil.

Once again, you have mischaracterized my words. I've tried to lay them out to you straight, and you refused to do the right thing.

Let me cite the core example of how this mischaracterization causes serious problems, and it is the cause of this entire thread. When someone in the middle way says there is no *reason* to believe that Jesus Christ resurrected, we say this because *reason* cannot do what faith must. Instead, the comment that there is no *reason* to believe is quoted out of context, and then characterized as a denial of Jesus coming in the flesh, then out comes the quote from 1 John saying that such are "anti-christs". That's twisting the logic, and it's not ethical or honest to mischaracterize to villify someone who, for all intents and purposes, is fully faithful.

I said on the other site that OUR behavior was evil, in that this argumentation is not edifying. Then you have twisted that around to say that I'm calling you x y and zed. That's the specific behavior that I find repugnant and harmful to edifying dialogue.

[rongo]

Let me cite the core example of how this mischaracterization causes serious problems, and it is the cause of this entire thread. When someone in the middle way says there is no *reason* to believe that Jesus Christ resurrected, we say this because *reason* cannot do what faith must.

Oh, come on!

Middle Way-ers are *not*, actually, giving a full-throated and impassioned defense of and appeal to faith when they say "there is no reason to believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected." They are expressing their doubt, and preemptively deriding "testimony bearing" in response.

To say that what you (and others) are actually doing is actually the very best form of faith promotion is twisting. Go ahead and float that trial balloon over at MDB and watch the howler monkeys rage.

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh come on, wayfarer. You've specifically and repeatedly called my supposed behavior "evil." And you've blamed me for supposedly making you "evil" too, though plainly not to the extent that I'm evil. You've written this clearly over on the board where I don't set the "terms" and where the discourse is civil and pleasant. (Seriously, those of you here who haven't looked at that place, please feel free to do so. Read what wayfarer has posted there. Savor the atmosphere of a truly charitable and honest board -- quite unlike this one, where I set the "terms" and corrupt the discourse.)

If, in the post just above, I've mischaracterized what you've said about me, feel free right now to correct it. All you have to say is "I, wayfarer, do not believe that Dan Peterson is dishonest, that he's arrogant, that he's cruel to those who disagree with him, and that his behavior here and elsewhere has been evil, and I haven't said anything that can reasonably be construed as saying otherwise."

Go ahead. Say it.

And, while you're at it, please cite a specific place where I've accused you of denying that Jesus has come in the flesh, hinted that you're an antichrist, or anything of that sort.

The fact is that I have profoundly little interest in your religious views, and have had little if anything to say about them. You've ginned this whole thing up ex nihilo -- and, to that extent, it's truly a thing of wonder.

[wayfarer]

If, in the post just above, I've mischaracterized what you've said about me, feel free right now to correct it. All you have to say is "I, wayfarer, do not believe that Dan Peterson is dishonest, that he's arrogant, that he's cruel to those who disagree with him, and that his behavior here and elsewhere has been evil, and I haven't said anything that can reasonably be construed as saying otherwise."

Go ahead. Say it.

I said none of the above. Again, you're mischaracterizing...and now you want me to certify something about your character? I have said you are disingenuous, because you take things out of context and deliberately distort them, like you just did here. I don't have to go anywhere for evidence, you just provided all that is needed to prove your lack of integrity here.

And, while you're at it, please cite a specific place where I've accused you of denying that Jesus has come in the flesh, hinted that you're an antichrist, or anything of that sort.

This is straw man canard, and again you know it. I have never said you said that. Instead, I said you stand behind an article that does say it, and you refused to repudiate that article. I hold you accountable for that article, because you are the managing editor of "Mormon Interpreter". By continuing the raise this canard, you're demonstrating what I have been saying. QED.

The fact is that I have profoundly little interest in your religious views, and have had little if anything to say about them. You've ginned this whole thing up ex nihilo -- and, to that extent, it's truly a thing of wonder.

No, my friend, I said a little inocuous comment in post 210 including you in a three part list of people who do make derogatory comments about Middle Way mormons. I was not trying to include you into the discussion, but that you as the leader of an apologist class do tend to vilify those who are more secular in their beliefs.

You then reacted way out of proportion with the following three posts in rapid succession:

LOL. I just got home from finally seeing Argo (which brought back interesting personal memories of both the Shah and Tehran) and I discover that "Wayfarer" has gone over to another board -- yes, of course, the usual one -- to criticize and attack the Axis of Evil, which consists of Hamblin, Midgley, and . . . me. I've scarcely said anything about any of this anywhere, and haven't had a single exchange with "Wayfarer." But, for some folks, it appears that life just wouldn't be complete with only two members of the Unholy Trinity to be indignant against, so I have to be dragged in.

I'm in Florida, "Wayfarer," vacationing and visiting members of my family. Most of my spare time is occupied with grading student papers and final exams. Occasionally, I go out to eat, go to a theme park, or attend a movie. I haven't been paying you even the slightest attention.

But maybe I will have something to say here, eventually. I'm only thinking of you, dear boy. If I don't give you something real to be righteously upset about, after all -- and soon -- you'll look pretty ridiculous.

Good grief. I just noticed that "Wayfarer" dragged me in on this very thread, right here on this message board, just above.

I guess it was all my many posts in this conversation here that made me his target. Or, since that isn't even remotely plausible, maybe it's just the fact that I'm breathing that's drawn his hostility. Or maybe he needs me to be paying attention to him in order to legitimize his own existence. And I wasn't cooperating, so he had to drag me in. Or something.

Just out of curiosity, I watched to see how long it would take somebody from the other board in question to notice that I had responded. And the answer is . . . (drum roll) not very long.

"DCP just called you out for posting on this board. Normal mopoligist tactics...attack the poster rather than the point of post.

"I'm on my phone or I would copy his post. Its, well, awful"

Of course, I didn't "call" "Wayfarer" out for the simple act of posting on that unfortunate other board. I couldn't care less where he posts. For that matter, I've paid scarcely any attention to him at all.

I reacted to his transparent (and transparently bogus) attempt to associate me with his conversation here (or wherever it is) with Professors Hamblin and Midgley. I haven't been participating in that conversation -- I've scarcely been posting on any message board at all, anywhere -- but "Wayfarer" apparently understands that my name is red meat to several of the folks over there, and, so, he's now played the "Peterson card." He professes to be mystified by the fact that anybody pays me attention, and then -- with no apparent sense of irony -- tries to portray me as a major participant in a discussion where, in fact, I haven't been participating.

It's really pretty funny, in a sad sort of way.

These three quotes arose from my short comment saying something "Bill's, Dan's, and Lou's characterization of Middle Way mormons..."

Who then is blowing things out of proportion? Who is creating this "ex nihilo"? Then this very nice, civil comment of yours:

But maybe I will have something to say here, eventually. I'm only thinking of you, dear boy. If I don't give you something real to be righteously upset about, after all -- and soon -- you'll look pretty ridiculous.

I don't have to tell you that such a comment is arrogant and petulant. Sophomoric at best.

I simply asked that you repudiate Dr. Midgley's comment as follows

Some vocal cultural Mormons, busy asking themselves “why stay,” claim that it is not at all probable that there is a God, or that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. They also ridicule the Atonement. In the language of our scriptures they are antichrists—that is, they deny that there was or is a Christ.

To which you responded:

I have no intention of repudiating the article.

then you added:

And, for what it's worth, I think your overly free use of the term "nonliteral" is somewhat disingenuous. It's rather ridiculous to brand and dismiss me as a "literalist" just because I believe that Jesus really lived and really rose from the dead.

I suppose that I could wax indignant and demand an apology, but, well, I'm just not into such dramatics.

I suppose that when you say that you "insist so firmly on the literal deity of Christ, his physical resurrection from the dead, and the literality of Joseph Smith’s First Vision and of the visits from Moroni.", that this doesn't make you a 'literalist'? That's all I meant, yet you impute something else. It's all in your imagination, my friend.

The facts of the matter are that you stand behind an article that mischaracterizes questioning of belief as being equivalent to an outright denial that Jesus is the Christ, and therefore those who desire to stay, who question, are "Anti-christs". The evidence is all in the above message. The distortion of a person's questioning into outright denial is disingenuous, as well as your characterizations of what I have said.

Edited January 3, 2013 by wayfarer

[The Nehor]

If you need to be a victim Wayfarer I am willing to help.

You are an apostate, a moral monster, an antichrist, a git, and I have several third-hand stories about your unhealthy attraction to sheep and how you help blind people halfway across the street.

Say hi to everyone from me when you go back.

[wayfarer]

If you need to be a victim Wayfarer I am willing to help.

You are an apostate, a moral monster, an antichrist, a git, and I have several third-hand stories about your unhealthy attraction to sheep and how you help blind people halfway across the street.

All true, of course... What's a git?

Say hi to everyone from me when you go back.

you got it!

[Tacenda]

What if a person believes in the current leadership's morals, but not in the very first, first presidencies? Am I a heretic for this? Or is the thought that we go by current prophets not dead ones going to get me out of hot water?

[wayfarer]

What if a person believes in the current leadership's morals, but not in the very first, first presidencies? Am I a heretic for this? Or is the thought that we go by current prophets not dead ones going to get me out of hot water?

First questioning the morality of any leadership doesn't make you an apostate or heretic. Opposing them does. Preaching against them does. The key is whether you accept in faith two key questions:

3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4: Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Having a testimony means finding a personal witness to the events of the restoration. I absolutely accept the restoration, because I have studied the earliest forms of Christianity, and I find the Church, for the most part, instituted a very near replica of key early christian forms that were lost over time. This does NOT mean that I believe each and every truth claim about the restoration, because many are inflated over time to somehow provide hagiographic context to these early events.

Sustaining leaders in specific roles and responsibilities is essential to being a member in good standing. Sustaining means agreeing that they, alone, have those roles, and that in my praxis, I uphold them. It does not mean agreement with ever opinion they express.

[Tacenda]

First questioning the morality of any leadership doesn't make you an apostate or heretic. Opposing them does. Preaching against them does. The key is whether you accept in faith two key questions:

3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4: Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Having a testimony means finding a personal witness to the events of the restoration. I absolutely accept the restoration, because I have studied the earliest forms of Christianity, and I find the Church, for the most part, instituted a very near replica of key early christian forms that were lost over time. This does NOT mean that I believe each and every truth claim about the restoration, because many are inflated over time to somehow provide hagiographic context to these early events.

Sustaining leaders in specific roles and responsibilities is essential to being a member in good standing. Sustaining means agreeing that they, alone, have those roles, and that in my praxis, I uphold them. It does not mean agreement with ever opinion they express.

Thanks for the swift reply! I have to say you might have a better testimony of this than I. I tend to believe that JS may have been directed or inspired to put some order into religion since it seemed to be so cluttered or misunderstood. I have trouble believing the BoM is historical. It was probably inspired though. But really the fullness of the Gospel is not in the BoM, which is confusing to me.

[wayfarer]

Thanks for the swift reply! I have to say you might have a better testimony of this than I. I tend to believe that JS may have been directed or inspired to put some order into religion since it seemed to be so cluttered or misunderstood. I have trouble believing the BoM is historical. It was probably inspired though. But really the fullness of the Gospel is not in the BoM, which is confusing to me.

Tacenda,

I would submit to you that 'fulness' means something more like 'sufficiency' rather than the whole banana. And to this end, the Book of Mormon explicitly lays out the Doctine and Gospel of Jesus Christ, in a way unlike and more succinctly complete than any other scripture.

Take 2 Nephi 31:20-21 for example:

Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

All of chapters 29-32 should be considered, but within them are all the necessary principles of the Gospel and Doctrine of Jesus Christ. Moreover, in 3 Ne 11:28-40, we find:

28 And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

interjecting my comment here -- when I told Dan Peterson that our contentious dialogue was evil, this was another verse that indicates that contention, regardless of how well meaning it may be, is not of Jesus Christ, but is of the devil. Continuing with an explicit statement, "This is my doctrine":

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

I will submit to you, Tacenda, that the above statement, by itself, is the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes, we have other things: revelations and counsels, church doctrines and commandments, ordinances and rituals...but the essential core of the gospel is merely the first four principles and enduring to the end in love and harmony, one with our fellow men and with god.

I challenge any Christian to find a more complete, more explicit definition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ anywhere else in scripture. The Book of Mormon, in my humble opinion, is unique in providing such a powerful and explicit definition. As well, it provides us what it means to have faith: that is, that we don't have perfect knowledge, but that we are willing to act on an experiment on faith -- that we actually apply the scientific method to our faith to ascertain whether what we hold in faith grows for us and helps us.

No, I don't think that the Book of Mormon is a historical work. It is most likely not the history of any native americans. It might be, but that is not important to its sublime message. In what I call the "Middle Way" of faith, which rests between "knowledge" and "not knowing", I have tested, as Alma challenges us, the historicity of the book and find it lacking, therefore that is something I do not believe. However, my testimony is that It is absolutely "true", in that it testifies of christ and contains the fulness of what we need to know of the gospel.

Edited January 4, 2013 by wayfarer

[Calm]

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!

Be sure and check out his travel pictures, positively stunning. Edited January 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Thanks for the swift reply! I have to say you might have a better testimony of this than I. I tend to believe that JS may have been directed or inspired to put some order into religion since it seemed to be so cluttered or misunderstood. I have trouble believing the BoM is historical. It was probably inspired though. But really the fullness of the Gospel is not in the BoM, which is confusing to me.

The Book of Mormon, by its own description, contains the lesser portion of the word of God, as given to the Nephites. Why should there be any confusion? Read what Mormon himself testifies:

"9 And when they (we gentiles) shall have received this (The Book of Mormon), which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things (the original Book of Mormon) then shall the greater things (the rest of the gospel) be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things (the lesser portion of the word we call the Book of Mormon), then shall the greater things (i.e. eternal marriage, three dgrees of glory, temple ordinances, salvation for the dead, etc) be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. (3 Nephi 26)

The Book of Mormon was joyfully received and believed by many gentiles in Joseph Smith's day, and, as a result, the greater things missing from the Book of Mormon were received by further revelation to the prophet, and revealed to the saints in fulfillment of the above scripture. Were you not aware of this?

Edited January 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

The Book of Mormon, by its own description, contains the lesser portion of the word of God, as given to the Nephites. Why should there be any confusion? Read what Mormon himself testifies:

"9 And when they (we gentiles) shall have received this (The Book of Mormon), which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things (the original Book of Mormon) then shall the greater things (the rest of the gospel) be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things (the lesser portion of the word we call the Book of Mormon), then shall the greater things (i.e. eternal marriage, three dgrees of glory, temple ordinances, salvation for the dead, etc) be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. (3 Nephi 26)

The Book of Mormon was joyfully received and believed by many gentiles in Joseph Smith's day, and, as a result, the greater things missing from the Book of Mormon were received by further revelation to the prophet, and revealed to the saints in fulfillment of the above scripture. Were you not aware of this?

Hate to rain on your parade but most of the greater things are still withheld.

[ERayR]

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.

You post on the boards don't you? What better proof does he need.

[Daniel Peterson]

I said none of the above. Again, you're mischaracterizing...

Actually, you've specifically and repeatedly and very expressly described my behavior as "evil." So, plainly, you did indeed say one of the above. And I could find specific references for all of the others, too. It's just not worth my time. (And it would be redundant: Logically, a universal negative proposition [e.g.. "No A is x"] is refuted by a relevant particular proposition [e.g., "This A is x"].)

your character? . . . you are disingenuous . . . deliberately . . . your lack of integrity . . . disingenuous . . . arrogant and petulant. Sophomoric at best. . . . my friend . . .

You're plainly not my friend.

I said you stand behind an article that does say it, and you refused to repudiate that article.

I don't believe that the article says that at all, I don't believe that at all, and I won't "repudiate" an article by a friend merely because somebody whom I don't know but who has insulted me in various ways on multiple internet sites interprets the article in a way that I reject.

you are the managing editor of "Mormon Interpreter".

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no magazine or journal called Mormon Interpreter. You can't be bothered even to get that right. (And, by the way, I'm also not the "managing editor" of Interpreter.)

I said a little inocuous comment in post 210 including you in a three part list of people who do make derogatory comments about Middle Way mormons.

I don't make derogatory comments about "Middle Way Mormons." I don't even know what the term means, nor whom it includes. I had never, as far as I can recall, encountered it before this thread.

you as the leader of an apologist class do tend to vilify those who are more secular in their beliefs.

I do not. But I do publicly disagree with them from time to time, and I see nothing wrong with that. They're equally welcome to disagree with me.

Then this very nice, civil comment of yours:

It was a playful comment. Nothing even remotely approaching the kind of vitriol that you've directed at me over at the Charity and Kindness Board.

Would you have felt better if, instead, I had repeatedly said, as you have in fact repeatedly said about me, that you suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and recommended, over and over again, that you seek professional psychiatric help?

I suppose that when you say that you "insist so firmly on the literal deity of Christ, his physical resurrection from the dead, and the literality of Joseph Smith’s First Vision and of the visits from Moroni.", that this doesn't make you a 'literalist'? That's all I meant, yet you impute something else.

In normal discourse, as I've experienced it, calling someone a religious "literalist" typically suggests that that person is some sort of fundamentalist who overliteralizes in his or her interpretation of scripture. We could have discussed this, if you hadn't announced that I was too unpleasant for a decent person to interact with, denounced me for somehow imposing "terms" on our discussion, and fled to the Politeness and Kindness Board. As it is, I don't remember this being a major focus of our conversation.

The facts of the matter are that you stand behind an article that mischaracterizes questioning of belief as being equivalent to an outright denial that Jesus is the Christ, and therefore those who desire to stay, who question, are "Anti-christs".

I don't believe that the article does that. I don't stand behind your interpretation of the article. I stand behind the article that we published, as I understood and understand it.

[teddyaware]

Hate to rain on your parade but most of the greater things are still withheld.

... and why would you think you're "raining on my parade?" Why are people on boards like these so presumptuous? Do you actually think I do not know the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, the scriptures from the Lost Tribes of Israel, and many other "great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" are yet be revealed?

My point to Tacenda is that the Book of Mormon never claims for itselt to contain all gospel truth; and that many (not all) of the said withheld greater truths were revealed to the Church, after the gentile saints successfully passed the trial of their faith -- mentioned in 3 Nephi 26 -- as to whether or not they would accept and embrace of the Book of Mormon.

Edited January 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[wayfarer]

You post on the boards don't you? What better proof does he need.

there is so much truth to this. I would see dan say that he doesn't have time, or doesn't read the posts, that he's on vacation with planned activities, yet he was on was on the board here hourly, even every half hour... how did i know? because at the bottom of this page is an indicator of who has been on the session within the last x minutes. i logged him over a couple days saying he wan't reading the boards, yet being on this specific topic many times in a day.

now why would I bother? because a part of me is just as hooked on these boards as he is... every epithet i have used to describe DCP, i recognize in myself as well. does that make me a hypocrite? probably...and it takes one to know one.

the other side is that i admire dcp, oddly. i will be spending a few weeks in saudi arabia, and i have a deep affection for my muslim friends there...dan gets islam, in a mormon sort of way, and that's not trivial. i have spent almost 25 years immersed in chinese and indian religions and culture, and have learned classical chinese and sanskrit. it helps understand a culture to knw the language and religious writings deeply. so, while i am not an academic, i appreciate his understanding of islam...

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The Book of Mormon, by its own description, contains the lesser portion of the word of God, as given to the Nephites. Why should there be any confusion? Read what Mormon himself testifies:

"9 And when they (we gentiles) shall have received this (The Book of Mormon), which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things (the original Book of Mormon) then shall the greater things (the rest of the gospel) be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things (the lesser portion of the word we call the Book of Mormon), then shall the greater things (i.e. eternal marriage, three dgrees of glory, temple ordinances, salvation for the dead, etc) be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. (3 Nephi 26)

The Book of Mormon was joyfully received and believed by many gentiles in Joseph Smith's day, and, as a result, the greater things missing from the Book of Mormon were received by further revelation to the prophet, and revealed to the saints in fulfillment of the above scripture. Were you not aware of this?

I believe the verse you quote, if examined in context, is referring to the Sealed Portion and the Records of the other tribes. If anything, church history shows we were disobedient, to the point of being tossed out of Zion. When the sealed records are revealed, then we will know we have followed righteously the things already given.

[The Nehor]

... and why would you think you're "raining on my parade?" Why are people on boards like these so presumptuous? Do you actually think I do not know the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, the scriptures from the Lost Tribes of Israel, and many other "great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" are yet be revealed?

My point to Tacenda is that the Book of Mormon never claims for itselt to contain all gospel truth; and that many (not all) of the said withheld greater truths were revealed to the Church, after the gentile saints successfully passed the trial of their faith -- mentioned in 3 Nephi 26 -- as to whether or not they would accept and embrace of the Book of Mormon.

I am presumptuous because I am arrogant and condescending and talk down to everyone because I am smarter then everyone else. Hope that clarifies things. Have a great day.

[wayfarer]

You're plainly not my friend.

I am more of a friend than you realize. I tell you the truth. is it hard to take? sure.

Would you have felt better if, instead, I had repeatedly said, as you have in fact repeatedly said about me, that you suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and recommended, over and over again, that you seek professional psychiatric help?

as a matter of fact, yes. I am in touch with my dysfunctions and personal insanity, and have sought and provided help where appropriate. Are you? Have you? Is that why you spent a significant amount of time this holiday wasting time on these boards when you were supposed to spend time with family in florida?

I don't believe that the article does that. I don't stand behind your interpretation of the article. I stand behind the article that we published, as I understood and understand it.

Clearly the amount of time spent in apologetics has distorted your judgment. Your polemics are deeply offensive to a lot of people and are clearly out of step from where the Lord's church needs to go. the article disingenuously labels as "antichrist" those who question the literalness of certain claims about christ, yet want to stay LDS. you stand behind it, and yet say that you don't call people antichrist. i consider that deeply disappointing and disingenuous. you allow others to call us names, stand behind what they write, and then smugly say you're not involved.

Edited January 4, 2013 by wayfarer

[The Nehor]

I am in touch with my dysfunctions and personal insanity, and have sought and provided help where appropriate.

I disrespectfully disagree.