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

[volgadon]

If you label me a heretic or unorthodox, I'm good with that. It doesn't constitute being a person teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church.

Isn't that the definition of a heretic?

[go_utes01]

I think go_utes has a devastating point. As a Cougar fan, it pains me to say it, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Can there any good thing come out of Rice Eccles Stadium?

Thanks. As a believing LDS, I am grateful for your sake (as a Cougar fan) that I have an understanding and belief in the healing power of the atonement, which allows for you to repent and correct your past false and dangerous beliefs/affiliations.

Edited January 4, 2013 by go_utes01

[wayfarer]

Isn't that the definition of a heretic?

The etymology -- one who chooses for him/herself. From the OED: One who maintains theological or religious opinions at variance with the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, that of any church or religious system, considered as orthodox.

And yeah, I'm a heretic, and unorthodox. So was Joseph Smith.

[rongo]

Thanks. As a believing LDS, I am grateful for your sake (as a Cougar fan) that I have an understanding and belief in the healing power of the atonement, which allows for you to repent and correct your past false and dangerous beliefs/affiliations.

Well, we've certainly been beaten with a few stripes over the last 12 years in football, but thank goodness for the restored understanding that "eternal punishment" doesn't last forever . . .

[wayfarer]

I agree with you that the first few sentences of the abstract make Mr. Midgley's intentions clear. "Some vocal cultural Mormons, busy asking themselves "why stay," claim that it is not at all probable that there is a God, or there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. They also ridicule the atonement." If you believe you do not fit in that category, you can exclude yourself from Midgley's interpretation of the scriptural meaning of antichrist. At least it seems that way to me. If you are not a "vocal cultural Mormon" do not believe that "it is not at all probable that there is a God" or there "even was a Jesus of Nazareth" or that you do not "ridicule the atonement," then I think you are justified in concluding that you are not who Midgley was targeting with his article. Right?

I think if you look at my response above, you'll see that (1) I am a vocal cultural mormon and (2) I say things that Midgley interpreted as being worthy of being called an anti-christ.

[wayfarer]

Do you have a link to this? I'm going to sound like a research nerd here, but what was his sampling method? If it was from his own site visitors then that's a massive bias on the data as I think a very small (and specific) group are in that "way."

But I'd be interested to see the data regardless.

it can be found here

[wayfarer]

Your credibility takes a serious hit right here. If someone is "shunned" (avoided) by family it is usually because that person has made themselves unpleasant to be around. To believing members of the church it is unpleasant to have a member of the family or anyone else who comes to family functions and continuously finds fault with the church.

I have never known a bishop who persecuted anyone. I have known several bishops who have tried to help someone with faith issues. Some successfully, some not. I know several bishops who have incurred the ire of a member of his ward when he finally tells them they have to make an effort to find employment or that they have to help clean the church in order for him to continue to help them.

You haven't been called into an SCMC case have you? This isn't made up stuff. I've been on the receiving end of it, as have many others of my colleagues. Notwithstanding, I hold a temple recommend and my leadership knows exactly my position. They're decent people, as are most bishops and stake presidents. But not all. and because it isn't all, then providing false and derogatory information under the aegis of "Mormon Interpreter" can too easily be misconstrued as evidence.

[volgadon]

The etymology -- one who chooses for him/herself. From the OED: One who maintains theological or religious opinions at variance with the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, that of any church or religious system, considered as orthodox.

And yeah, I'm a heretic, and unorthodox. So was Joseph Smith.

Choosing for one's self is, perhaps, the etymology, but certainly not the lexical meaning of heretic. A heretic is a member of a religious group whose beliefs, practices, and teachings go against those of the larger group.

[teddyaware]

wayfarer,

It is unrealistic to think the so called Middle Way Mormon position is ever going to be accepted by the mainline church. It is also unrealistic to think the 'middle way' isn't going to face stiff opposition from those who believe the Book of Mormon is a literal history of peoples who actually lived as real-life flesh and blood humans somewhere in the Americas. The 'middle way' way of thinking is a threat to the Church. Middle Way Mormons attempt to have it both ways -- believe and not believe at the same time.

You, and other people who think like you, are going to face opposition unceasingly, because if everyone in the church came to embrace and believe 'middle way' thinking, the church as we know it would come to an end. Then a new 'middle way' position would emerge, this time even further removed from vibrant, living faith in the Restoration.

The Aopostle James warns church members with wishy-washy testimonies who fail to exercise firm faith in the Lord and his Gospel:

"5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1)

Menbers with wavering faith should be sympatized with, encouraged and strengthened by members with firm testmonies. But under no circumstances should double mindedness and weak, wavering testimonies be 'normalized' as an acceptable states of spirituality and worthiness. Middle Way Mormons should continue to attend church if they still feel the have remaining embers of a true testimomy, but they should humbly accept the fact that they are half in and half out of the church insofar as testimony is concerned. Therefore, they should calmly understand their church participation will be somewhat circumscribed and limited until such time that the crisis of their faith is resolved and, hopefully, conquered.

Finally, in light of the following two verses from the Book of Mormon, please explian to me how in the world can there be a reasonable 'middle way' position when it comes to the divine authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon?

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 31)

Edited January 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[go_utes01]

Now I am confused. I thought you said that while you have claimed that the God of the creeds does not exist, you have not stated/believe that it is "not at all probable that there is a God" - or do you believe that it is "not at all probable that there is a God"? As to Jesus' divinity, do you have faith that Jesus was divine? Where does this faith come from? A spiritual witness? A testing of the word ala Alma 32? Why isn't a spiritual witness or Alma 32 testing considered "evidence" for you? It has been for me. Do you believe you ridicule the atonement? It seems to me that you are reading a lot more into the article than is actually present. It almost seems that you are trying to make the article apply to you so that you can argue against it - or perhaps you are seeking contention or attention. I don't know you well enough to say. It just seems that you can choose to interpret the article in a way that includes you and offends you or choose a different interpretation. Why do you choose to be offended? As Elder Bednar counseled, "[t]o be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else." (emphasis in original).

Edited January 4, 2013 by go_utes01

[rongo]

When someone reads midgley's article, and accepts it, then they are likely to interpret that the nature of my questioning - which is exactly described in the article -- means that I'm an antichrist, and therefore a person teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church.

Sounds to me like you're the one trying to "thought police" people. So, I can't "read Midgley's article, and accept it" without labeling you "antichrist?" Even if I say I don't, because I won't "Repudiate it right now!"?

You are creating some sort of ultimate straw man by saying that those who thus "interpret . . . the nature of [your] questioning" automatically conclude that your "teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church." There is all the difference in the world between your Gedankengut and your "teachings or practices." I helped a young missionary-to-be who thought that he couldn't go on a mission because he had some mildly heterodox beliefs (a very deep thinker into philosophy). I emphasized to him that the only required beliefs are those in the first three temple recommend questions and the Articles of Faith, as long as his "teachings or practices" were not unacceptable (and they were just fine).

Uh, no it's not. He did put it into the place where one references his "religion", and therefore was accused as having joined another church and by that definition, an apostate. That was the primary piece of evidence used by his accusers, who were also family members. I know this situation well.

Whatever. Your credibility, such as it was, is taking on serious water by refusing to concede that this is absurd on its face. A status change on facebook giving a shout-out to the Dali Lama? I guarantee this person has problems with his "teachings or practices," not just his beliefs (i.e., agitation or outward criticism against the Church and its leaders, policies, and practices).

I have written extensively on this topic. Let me put it into sharp relief: the questions do not ask what we believe, but whether we have faith and a testimony in said things. Faith, being not a perfect knowledge, means that I can have profound doubt, but still hope for, and accept and teach a given principle. A testimony is a personal witness of something -- a reason for why I trust or have faith. I do not know that there is a Heavenly Father, for example, but I have faith in him. And since I don't know, I'm not going to assert knowledge through using a term "belief" to cloud up my judgment on the matter.

Interesting. Again, those I have counseled who lack belief/faith/testimony in those first three doctrinal areas have been more forceful even than I am in insisting that they be able to truthfully answer these questions in the affirmative before expecting to go to the temple. Often, our counseling together dwelled on ways and means to get them to the point where they could truthfully answer in the affirmative. One could only answer "I hope" to these questions, and agreed with me that the goal would be to move the needle closer to "Yes."

Since we are asked whether we "have faith in *and* a testimony" of the Godhead, the atonement and Christ's role, and the restoration, from what you have said above, can I assume that you do not currently hold a temple recommend? As I have counseled with sincere people in this boat, I am fascinated at how your rationalization and justification compares with theirs.

[wayfarer]

Choosing for one's self is, perhaps, the etymology, but certainly not the lexical meaning of heretic. A heretic is a member of a religious group whose beliefs, practices, and teachings go against those of the larger group.

I quoted the OED in my response: "One who maintains theological or religious opinions at variance with the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, that of any church or religious system, considered as orthodox."

it doesn't say anything about being a member of a group, practices, or teachings. Heretic != Apostate.

[rongo]

You haven't been called into an SCMC case have you? This isn't made up stuff. I've been on the receiving end of it, as have many others of my colleagues.

I'm sure hardly any of us have (or even been involved with one). So, what happened in your case, and how was it resolved (or was it resolved)?

[rongo]

Notwithstanding, I hold a temple recommend and my leadership knows exactly my position. They're decent people, as are most bishops and stake presidents. But not all.

This answers one of my questions. I have some others, out of curiousity, and you don't have to answer them if you don't want to.

How often do you attend the temple?

Do you feel the Spirit in the temple?

I guess I'm wondering why you have one. Is it primarily for purposes of personal worship, or to have "street cred" in the "vocal cultural Mormon" movement?

[wayfarer]

big post -- a lot to cover on this.

wayfarer,

It is unrealistic to think the so called Middle Way Mormon position is ever going to be accepted by the mainline church. It is also unrealistic to think the 'middle way' isn't going to face stiff opposition from those who believe the Book of Mormon is a literal history of peoples who actually lived as real-life flesh and blood humans somewhere in the Americas. The 'middle way' way of thinking is a threat to the Church. Middle Way Mormons attempt to have it both ways -- believe and not believe at the same time.

What will you do when the evidence is exhausted and there are no book of mormon 'peoples who actually lived as real-life flesh and blood humans somewhere in the americas"? I don't care whether people in the book of mormon lived or not. The story is transcendent and meets it's objective of testifying of christ and containing the gospel. Those who base their 'faith' on the literalness of the story are on progressively thinner ice as there are way too much evidence working against a literal model. Me? i don't care about literalness at all, but I testify in faith that the book of mormon is another testament of christ.

The first testament of christ, the New Testament, is also made up of a sequence of stories. Are they all literally true? Do they have to be?

You, and other people who think like you, are going to face opposition unceasingly, because if everyone in the church came to embrace and believe 'middle way' thinking, the church as we know it would come to an end. Then a new 'middle way' position would emerge, this time even further removed from vibrant, living faith in the Restoration.

I categorically disagree. The restoration brought back the concept of active revelation through prophets and ourselves. It brought back the utopian vision of the church in Zion. The restoration is transcendent -- it exceeds the physical realities of its origins. As a ward mission leader, with the opinions I hold, we were able to bring in a lot more people into the church than had ever been done in my ward before. And the members who came in were not swayed by the lack of evidence for the literal book of mormon. Why? Because we concentrated in the meaning of the message, not the physical aspects of literalism.

The Aopostle James warns church members with wishy-washy testimonies who fail to exercise firm faith in the Lord and his Gospel:

"5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1)

Menbers with wavering faith should be sympatized with, encouraged and strengthened by members with firm testmonies. But under no circumstances should double mindedness and weak, wavering testimonies be 'normalized' as an acceptable states of spirituality and worthiness. Middle Way Mormons should continue to attend church if they still feel the have remaining embers of a true testimomy, but they should humbly accept the fact that they are half in and half out of the church insofar as testimony is concerned. Therefore, they should calmly understand their church participation will be somewhat circumscribed and limited until such time that the crisis of their faith is resolved and, hopefully, conquered.

Let me be very clear with you: I have no doubts. I either know something or don't know it. If I know something, it's called "knowledge". If I don't know something, it's called "Faith". And if I know something isn't true, I reject it. How? I have rigorously followed Alma 32 to discern the difference. Now, when we follow Alma 32, we test something. The problem most people have with this is they think a specific test of something specific automatically and inductively leads to an assertion of the truth of the aggregate whole. This leads to a severe fallacy of inductive reasoning. You can read my unfinished blog post on the "Mormon Truth Heuristic" to see what I mean.

Finally, in light of the following two verses from the Book of Mormon, please explian to me how in the world can there be a reasonable 'middle way' position when it comes to the divine authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon?

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 31)

Heavens. I thought you would ask a tough question. I have faith, very abiding and strong faith that these are the words of Christ and I have knowledge, that they indeed teach men that they should do good. Abolutely. Now, where in this, again, is the question that "Joseph Smith translated gold plates to get the words of christ" in that statement? The historical facts are that Joseph did not translate the book of mormon. He put his head into a hat, and reading off words from a stone, he dictated the book. The fact is that the book was not translated. To maintain faith in a specific historical claim that Joseph translated book is to have faith in something that isn't true. To have faith in something that isnt true is not faith, by Alma's definition.

[CV75]

Dehlin put together hard data as to why people leave. Yes, it was a self-selected survey of those participating on the internet, but even with that bias, declaring that a person is an 'anti-christ', and then having a temple recommend interview question that requires a person wanting a temple recommend to only associate with people who support and sustain the conforrmant position creates a hostile environment.

One individual simply put on his facebook page that he admires the Dalai Lama, and was then brought into the Stake President with a full package by the SCMC of writings he has made on the internet. This isn't self-perception: the data is real, the abuse is astounding. It is a hostile environment for non-conformists.

I'm not sure I completely agree with you or completely disagree. I may not understand. having a family shun someone for 'thinking for themselves' is not self-marginalization, it's a tangible, quantifiable event. Having a bishop threaten a church court is not self-marginalization. Preventing a worthy, faithful saint from attending the temple because they question literalism is not self-marginalization.

tangibly, local bishops and stake presidents read these articles and act to persecute. Harsh words? yes. but calling someone 'antichrist' is inherently a call for action.

I commented on your firsthand experience, not Dehlin’s studies, but your description of them leaves me with the same impression. For example, a bishop declaring someone an 'anti-christ' seems a bit extreme—I’m not sure if this is at all representative of the Middle Way experience.

The temple recommend question is about not supporting, affiliating or agreeing with groups or individuals whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose the Church--it does not require a person to only associate with people who sustain the Church. (Do many people really misunderstand this?) The recommend question existed long before the Middle Way became a self-identified group, and each person’s answer, based on his good conscience, is accepted. Each person answers for himself and owns any sense of discomfort over his disingenuousness. There is no hostility in that. Plus, if a bishop would go so far as to declare someone an 'anti-christ,' he would most likely do it without the bother of a temple recommend interview.

Regarding the SCMC, I see nothing inherently hostile about a committee that monitors and reports member publications critical of church leaders, teachings, etc. This is consistent with a reasonably mild application of the principles in D&C 123 and 1:24-26.

There are so many checks and balances that I don’t see how any temple-worthy, faithful saint can be prevented by leadership from going to the temple. The same with a bishop issuing threats about disciplinary action. Family shunning and ecclesiastical threats are most likely the (dys)function of both parties in the transaction having already taken extreme, self-marginalizing views prior to the formal threat or shunning being carried out. Internal self-marginalization sets up the outcome.

I can see that people want to be accepted by the Church for “cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons” regardless of their religious or other leanings, but after all, it is a Church and a religion they are using as a vehicle for cultural, social and spiritual purposes. It seems to me they are simply using the wrong tool for the job, thinking that the religious and organizational components are on a par with the other components. And by forming an alternative-group identity-within-a-group/identity, they are creating their own religion and organization anyway.

[wayfarer]

This answers one of my questions. I have some others, out of curiousity, and you don't have to answer them if you don't want to.

How often do you attend the temple?

Do you feel the Spirit in the temple?

More than monthly and absolutely. You have no idea.

I guess I'm wondering why you have one. Is it primarily for purposes of personal worship, or to have "street cred" in the "vocal cultural Mormon" movement?

because I feel the spirit in the temple? Because through the ritual, we see ourselves in better focus?

I think there are huge misconceptions about what I call the Middle Way and what others may call the vocal cultural mormon movement. There is nothing in this about 'street cred'. You want that? I was one of the proponents of soc.religion.mormon on usenet 15 years ago -- i've been at this for a very long time. For 25 years I have been on a journey, one which returns me to the Church in full fellowship, although I technically never left nor had a lapse in temple recommend. I've known about every piece of dirt about the church that apostates through out for all this time. None of that matters, because I have had many personal experiences with faith where I have come to know my lord personally. deeply. And personal knowledge doesn't care in the least what people say 'about' the Lord. I have had a personal testimony of the book of mormon since I was in college in 1973. It has never wavered in the least. But it doesn't rely upon the literalness of that history.

So now, I feel it important, like others, to help those who are trying to sort this stuff out. Perhaps they haven't had the deep personal experiences I have had. Do you think it helps that as they publicly ponder their faith, that the Apologists are calling them Antichrists?

This isn't about me. It's about doing the right thing and using Paul's "More excellent Way" to bring people to Christ. You can go to StayLDS.com/forum and find many, many posts where I have been trying to help others find their way back. I don't need to have these noise-articles creating polarism where none is needed.

[go_utes01]

Have you followed the Alma 32 test model to determine whether or not God exists? If so, what was the outcome? Do you "know" that God exists? If so, then you are definitely NOT included in Midgley's interpretation of the scriptural definition of an "antichrist" from the article (this would also be true of people with similar belief structures to yours) - at least it seems to me. I could ask the same question for your knowledge concerning the divinity of Christ. Again, you just seem to want to fight for a way to be included in the article, when it is not justified.

Edited January 4, 2013 by go_utes01

[Sleeper Cell]

Dehlin put together hard data as to why people leave. Yes, it was a self-selected survey of those participating on the internet, but even with that bias, declaring that a person is an 'anti-christ', and then having a temple recommend interview question that requires a person wanting a temple recommend to only associate with people who support and sustain the conforrmant position creates a hostile environment.

Rather than merely deny a temple recommend, why didn’t the bishop or stake president excommunicate this “anti-Christ?” It seems to me that being “an anti-Christ” can be considered a form of apostasy, or at the very least, “unChristian-like conduct.”

BTW, putting the worst possible interpretation on the teachings of a church (or judging a church by the aberrant behavior of a few bad pastors) also creates a hostile environment.

One individual simply put on his facebook page that he admires the Dalai Lama, and was then brought into the Stake President with a full package by the SCMC of writings he has made on the internet. This isn't self-perception: the data is real, the abuse is astounding. It is a hostile environment for non-conformists.

As a high priest group instructor, I told my class that I greatly admired Pope John Paul II.

I was released from my calling …

　

three years later.

[wayfarer]

I commented on your firsthand experience, not Dehlin’s studies, but your description of them leaves me with the same impression. For example, a bishop declaring someone an 'anti-christ' seems a bit extreme—I’m not sure if this is at all representative of the Middle Way experience.

Not common at all, but it happens. It's called "Priesthood Roulette" -- it largely depends upon the individuals involved. As well, It doesn't help family dynamics when family members use these articles to censure family members. It's nasty stuff, and my point is that we shouldn't be here -- we shouldn't even be having this conversation!

The temple recommend question is about not supporting, affiliating or agreeing with groups or individuals whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose the Church--it does not require a person to only associate with people who sustain the Church. (Do many people really misunderstand this?) The recommend question existed long before the Middle Way became a self-identified group, and each person’s answer, based on his good conscience, is accepted. Each person answers for himself and owns any sense of discomfort over his disingenuousness. There is no hostility in that. Plus, if a bishop would go so far as to declare someone an 'anti-christ,' he would most likely do it without the bother of a temple recommend interview.

of course -- completely agree. Now, if I'm a person who is naturally asking questions, having faith in god, but wondering at the same time if there is one... I may not 'believe' in a traditional sense, but I'm acting the part. I come to this temple recommend after reading Midgley's article... what happens? It's not helpful to those struggling in faith. The reality is that we all question at some times or another -- most of us have resolved this and can confidently answer -- but to characterize certain questions and amplify that to be 'anti-christ' is not helpful.

Regarding the SCMC, I see nothing inherently hostile about a committee that monitors and reports member publications critical of church leaders, teachings, etc. This is consistent with a reasonably mild application of the principles in D&C 123 and 1:24-26.

Fully agreed. It's all in the interpretation, and again, that's where "priesthood roulette" comes into play. In most cases, it's a non issue, because I believe the leaders are using the spirit of discernment properly... others. no.

There are so many checks and balances that I don’t see how any temple-worthy, faithful saint can be prevented by leadership from going to the temple. The same with a bishop issuing threats about disciplinary action. Family shunning and ecclesiastical threats are most likely the (dys)function of both parties in the transaction having already taken extreme, self-marginalizing views prior to the formal threat or shunning being carried out. Internal self-marginalization sets up the outcome.

Not that many checks and balances. disfunction is certainly the case, and self-marginalization may also play. Thinking about it, if I really look into my soul, am I not unworthy? Are we all not sinners, beggars of the mercy of god? How do we not self-marginalize if we are truly honest with ourselves? The vast majority of priesthood leaders are loving, kind, and very wise men who can see through this self-flagellation and make good decisions. I trust the system and have faith in it. Unfortunately, I have also had to pick up the pieces where dysfunctional individuals have done harm.

I can see that people want to be accepted by the Church for “cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons” regardless of their religious or other leanings, but after all, it is a Church and a religion they are using as a vehicle for cultural, social and spiritual purposes. It seems to me they are simply using the wrong tool for the job, thinking that the religious and organizational components are on a par with the other components. And by forming an alternative-group identity-within-a-group/identity, they are creating their own religion and organization anyway.

First of all, we are pretty adamant that the Middle Way is not a group or alternative structure. I recognize the danger here: the term "New Order Mormon" does sound a lot like a 'sect' of mormonism, although it's not. But Identity is really important in this equation. so important that such articles that try to paint those who doubt as being less than mormon or even 'anti-christ' matter a lot, and do a phenomenal amount of harm. If I could say a "mormon" is simply someone who sees in our faith a better way and wants to participate, then we wouldn't need terms like "new order mormon" or "Middle Way mormon". But you can see clearly from these groups that tolerance of unorthodox views is very limited. So if a person struggles with faith, what are they? I would call them "mormon" in the fullest sense of the word.

[wayfarer]

Have you followed the Alma 32 test model to determine whether or not God exists? If so, what was the outcome? Do you "know" that God exists? If so, then you are definitely NOT included in Midgley's interpretation of the scriptural definition of an "antichrist" from the article (this would also be true of people with similar belief structures to yours) - at least it seems to me. I could ask the same question for your knowledge concerning the divinity of Christ. Again, you just seem to want to fight for a way to be included in the article, when it is not justified.

Please understand that I'm not trying to fight to be included in the article. Obviously, I have faith in and a testimony of god the father, his son jesus christ and the holy ghost, the atonement, and restoration. But I have also said the exact words that Midgley is using as evidence of a person being an 'anti-christ'. I would refer you to post 772 where I covered this in detail.

The problem isn't what I think at all. Dr. Midgley's article is offensive, but knowing enough about the man, he doesn't mean to offend. It's just really unfortunate language and needs to be repudiated. He commits an error of disingenuously mischararcterizing -- deliberately misconstruing Dehlin's and others words to make a point. And scoring that point, he then proceeds to use language that borders on 'hate speech'. Now I say this not to be dramatic, but if you call a black person a certain epithet, it's called 'hate speech'. To call a mormon, who is a chrisian, an 'antichrist', it is the same type of 'hate speech'. It does violence to the conversation.

Oh, and in answer to your question, I do know god exists, that jesus is the christ. But I do not have any knowledge, that I can speak to openly, as to certain claims, derived from greek philosophy and the platonic incursion into Christianity. You can probably go to my blog and find out more speculation about this topic.

[mfbukowski]

... a git...

And curse Sir Walter Raleigh while you are at it!!

[go_utes01]

First of all, we are pretty adamant that the Middle Way is not a group or alternative structure. I recognize the danger here: the term "New Order Mormon" does sound a lot like a 'sect' of mormonism, although it's not. But Identity is really important in this equation. so important that such articles that try to paint those who doubt as being less than mormon or even 'anti-christ' matter a lot, and do a phenomenal amount of harm. If I could say a "mormon" is simply someone who sees in our faith a better way and wants to participate, then we wouldn't need terms like "new order mormon" or "Middle Way mormon". But you can see clearly from these groups that tolerance of unorthodox views is very limited. So if a person struggles with faith, what are they? I would call them "mormon" in the fullest sense of the word.

What intolerant groups are you referring to? My experience has been that members of the LDS Church have been very tolerant and understanding. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find many truly "orthodox" believers - I don't even think that orthodoxy has a real meaning in our tradition, at least compared with other more-creedal traditions.

[wayfarer]

Rather than merely deny a temple recommend, why didn’t the bishop or stake president excommunicate this “anti-Christ?” It seems to me that being “an anti-Christ” can be considered a form of apostasy, or at the very least, “unChristian-like conduct.”

As you can imagine, there are always details about each case. The person is real, used to post here, but is now 'banned'. A very good man, loves to serve, but finds himself marginalized, and now continues to self-marginalize. And his little branch actually needs him. I'm not making this up, you can PM me and I will refer you to him.

BTW, putting the worst possible interpretation on the teachings of a church (or judging a church by the aberrant behavior of a few bad pastors) also creates a hostile environment.

I agree, and there is always a danger of making in issue via anecdote. I hope I am not doing this - -I am certainly not judging the church -- thank goodness, the apologists doing this stuff are no longer operating under direct support of the church.

As a high priest group instructor, I told my class that I greatly admired Pope John Paul II.

I was released from my calling …three years later.

You almost caught me -- the first time I read this I failed to see the 'three years later'. good show.

I think the person's problem was threefold: (1) he put it as his 'religion' on facebook, providing evidence that he wasn't mormon, (2) he had some very bad leaders, and (3) they included family members who didn't appreciate his opinions.

[wayfarer]

What intolerant groups are you referring to? My experience has been that members of the LDS Church have been very tolerant and understanding. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find many truly "orthodox" believers - I don't even think that orthodoxy has a real meaning in our tradition, at least compared with other more-creedal traditions.

I'm totally with you...except I have to ask whether you have read any of Bill Hamblin's posts, or the article I referred to.