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

[wayfarer]

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

I had to look this one up... yup, I'm a git, alright.

[rongo]

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.

Nothing in the article or in your representation of it "try to paint those who doubt as being less-than Mormon or even 'anti-Christ'." Dr. Midgley and others have focused on people's actions and behavior, not doubts that they themselves harbor. What you are ascribing to the "knuckle-dragging," "bad" priesthood leaders simply doesn't exist, in my experience. In every case you would bring up, there would be actionable actions and behavior, not simply doubts. This is to me the biggest false witness you have been bearing about Dr. Midgley's article, Dr. Peterson, etc. Nothing they have written or said calls for a purge of "doubters" who simply have and struggle with doubts.

So if a person struggles with faith, what are they? I would call them "mormon" in the fullest sense of the word.

So would Dr. Midgley, Dr. Peterson, etc. *If* they are "struggling with faith" but not detracting from the work (no matter how much people may insist that their detraction is actually helping).

Let me give you an example. I had a couple in my ward with two little boys. The wife was in our Relief Society presidency, and the husband had served in various young men's callings. During a pack night, she came sobbing into the church, hoping to find me. I ushered her into my office, and it took me ten minutes to calm her down enough to the point where she could talk. She was hyperventilating and in hysterics. She had asked her husband why he would never go to the temple with her ( he had not been back since their sealing five years prior, despite having served a mission). He told her that he didn't believe in God, Christ, the atonement, or the restoration any more. Her sky came crashing down. I asked her if he treated her and the boys well, and she affirmed that he was an excellent husband and father. In fact, she said, he told her that this doesn't change anything ---- that he would continue to participate in family prayer, scripture study, family home evening, church attendance, etc. I told her that this is very significant, and that things will be fine. I asked her if I could talk to him and mention thatt he had told me about this, and she gave permission. We had a two-hour talk, and he seemed comforted to know that I knew and understood. He was questioning past spiritual experiences and was in a tough position of doubt. I asked him if he would feel comfortable teaching in young mens, and he was surprised, with me knowing what I knew. He accepted, and taught good lessons. (some of which I sat in on).

From what you have gone on at length about, my understanding is that you would insist that Dr. Midgley, et. al. are including this brother in the "anti-Christ" basket because he had fundamental doubts. Do you disagree?

I think the key difference between him, thousands like him, and the "vocal cultural Mormons" is quite obvious.

Edited January 4, 2013 by rongo

[teddyaware]

big post -- a lot to cover on this.

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.

What I was referring to in my question, based on Nephi's words of testimony in 2 Nephi 31:10-11, is when he said...

"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."

Did you not observe the words of Nephi I wanted you to pay particular attention to are those in bold italics? Why on earth and in heaven would a God who "cannot lie" place his sacred stamp of approval on a book filled with lies and lying characters. Nephi, without any ambiguity, says you and he "shall stand face to face before his (God's) bar."

Why would God allow his children to be misled with such an outrageous lie? How will he explain away the disappointment and disillusionment of those who had every reason to expect, in light of the above most solemn testimony, that Nephi was a real man and not just a 'storybook character."

Bottom line? What you are doing here (whether you are aware of it or not) is the adversary's work in attempting to lead the children of men carefully down to hell. The adversary of men's souls is filling your mind with clever, though poisonous sophistry. Knowing that if he can't destroy some saints testimonies of the Book of Mormon all at once, he'll settle for a war of attrition wherein testimonies are destroyed piecemeal, slowly, step by treacherous step. Then, when the whirlwinds of the tribulation of the last days become powerful and threatening, there will be just one short step down remaining between the former believer and total apostacy.

What excuse will you give Nephi when you see him face to face and he asks you why you didn't believe he was a real historical person and why you tried to persuade others to follow you down into unbelief?

Edited January 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[rongo]

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.

Huh? Previously, you have said:

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.

So, do you "know God exists, that Jesus is the Christ," or do you "not know that there is a Heavenly Father . . . and since [you] don't know, [you're] not going to assert knowledge through using a term 'belief' to cloud up [your] judgment in the matter?" Which is it? You seem to be playing semantic games in the spur of the moment, based on perceived situational rhetorical needs.

I'm also curious why I have to repeatedly captitalize the names of deity in quoting your posts. Your grammar, usage, and syntax are otherwise fine, but you continually type "god" and "jesus christ," etc., which appears to be a conscious decision on your part. I wonder why that is?

[wayfarer]

Nothing in the article or in your representation of it "try to paint those who doubt as being less-than Mormon or even 'anti-Christ'." Dr. Midgley and others have focused on people's actions and behavior, not doubts that they themselves harbor.

hmmm. yes, i see that. but the operative difference is that the 'vocal cultural mormons' are vocal, and those who harbour doubts are not vocal...so the action of intoning one's doubts...that makes one an antichrist? That's what I would get out of the article, and I think it's pretty explicit.

We may not really disagree. there is a very fine line here, a most difficult, fine line. One which you, from your experience, have walked very successfully (I really appreciate your story that I won't cut and paste here). That fine line is when does 'expressing doubt' become 'advocacy'?

I have the benefit of knowing what Dehlin is doing, I have talked with him several times, heart to heart. I'm not sure that Dehlin believes there is a viable middle way any longer, but I do. I call it a 'faithful' middle way, which means that there are serious rules of engagement -- one does not advocate in the least. Dehlin has walked this fine line, as far to the edge (maybe further) than I am willing to do, but he is at peace with his leaders and is not under threat at this point as far as I can tell.

What you are ascribing to the "knuckle-dragging," "bad" priesthood leaders simply doesn't exist, in my experience. In every case you would bring up, there would be actionable actions and behavior, not simply doubts. This is to me the biggest false witness you have been bearing about Dr. Midgley's article, Dr. Peterson, etc. Nothing they have written or said calls for a purge of "doubters" who simply have and struggle with doubts.

False witness? let's be careful here. I have said that the article calls those who express certain things -- things which I know Dehlin has expressed, and were quoted out of context -- antichrists. Period. It's plainly there in the first sentence of the article. That's all I have 'witnessed' to -- and I find his quoting of Dehlin out of context "disingenuous" (as I have shown, over and over again) and his use of a scriptural epithet "antichrist' as being wrong.

Would you like to be called an "antichrist" because you sympathized with that poor woman's husband who expressed his doubts? Realizing that this is ludicrous, I simply want to help you understand the impact to those who doubt, or their families, the hate-speech, and yes, that's what i would call it -- used by Midgley. Or, think of the poor woman who reads that article, that when her husband says flat out he doesn't believe in god, etc., and she sees those words, and thinks that she's married to an antichrist? What does this serve? The article does harm. That is my witness. You can call it false if you want, but I stand by my witness -- adamantly.

[wayfarer]

Huh? Previously, you have said:

So, do you "know God exists, that Jesus is the Christ," or do you "not know that there is a Heavenly Father . . . and since [you] don't know, [you're] not going to assert knowledge through using a term 'belief' to cloud up [your] judgment in the matter?" Which is it? You seem to be playing semantic games in the spur of the moment, based on perceived situational rhetorical needs.

I'm also curious why I have to repeatedly captitalize the names of deity in quoting your posts. Your grammar, usage, and syntax are otherwise fine, but you continually type "god" and "jesus christ," etc., which appears to be a conscious decision on your part. I wonder why that is?

somehow i knew you would pick up on the lowercase. i am lazy, i use lowercase a lot.

I know there is a god, I have faith that god is my heavenly father, but do not have sufficient knowledge to assert the latter claim as 'knowledge'.

nothing is 'semantic wordplay'. nothing is spur of the moment. I am professionally an ontologist -- I am quite precise in my language. you want to know about me? read the blog, then make your judgment.

Edited January 4, 2013 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

Bottom line? What you are doing here (whether you are aware of it or not) is the adversary's work in attempting to lead the children of men carefully down to hell. The adversary of men's souls is filling your mind with clever, though poisonous sophistry. Knowing that if he can't destroy some saints testimonies of the Book of Mormon all at once, he'll settle for a war of attrition wherein testimonies are destroyed piecemeal, slowly, step by treacherous step. Then, when the whirlwinds of the tribulation of the last days become powerful and threatening, there will be just one short step down remaining between the former believer and total apostacy.

What excuse will you give Nephi when you see him face to face and he asks you why you didn't believe he was a real historical person and why you tried to persuade others to follow you down into unbelief?

Wow. cool. I guess I'll be sharing bourbon with my buddy BH Roberts down there then.

Edited January 4, 2013 by wayfarer

[mfbukowski]

I had to look this one up... yup, I'm a git, alright.

By no means are you a git and we all know that.

As you know, I think I understand your theology and in fact I think we are fairly close theologically, but I consider myself a TBM all the way through. I think it really comes down to nuances of what the word "know" means and the implications of what one feels comfortable with saying one "knows". I have no problem with the sentence "I know the church is true" and I mean it through and through and right down to my socks. (I'm tired of the phrase "every fiber of my being- it's becoming so trite, don't you think?)

But here's the deal. I thought that militancy is kind of the opposite of being "middle way"- to me that means that what we can know about God in a scientifically certain way is limited and so such folks kind of go with an Alma 32 "whatever is sweet to your spirit" approach to certainty about religious matters. I mean ultimately one cannot possibly know that Jesus is the Son of God and savior of the world without a testimony- no amount of logic is going to "prove" it to anybody.

But defining all that as "middle way" as kind of a doctrine in itself, like the Church of the Middle Way (I know you are not proposing that directly) is to some degree the opposite of that belief itself. It makes it sound like it is a club with rules of membership, and "if you believe this, you are Middle Way but if you believe that, you are not".

It strikes me as being kind of like a militant agnostic which is kind of like joining the Anarchist Party and following the party line.

Straight up, it just kind of seems like you want to make a name for yourself by taking on Dr. P to give yourself some kind of "street cred" or something.

Who cares? Just give it up and sit in a corner chanting "Auuuummmm" or something- that's what I would do. It just seems to be frivolous to get caught up in all this? No?

[mfbukowski]

I know there is a god, I have faith that god is my heavenly father, but do not have sufficient knowledge to assert the latter claim as 'knowledge'.

Ah yes grasshopper, and what DO you have "sufficient knowledge" of to assert any claim as "knowledge"?

You believe your own eyes, but you do not believe your own heart? Why not?

Just look at that quote- the first 6 words before the comma.

I think you have a little logical problem there.

Edited January 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

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!

I’ve never heard of Priesthood Roulette, but where it isn’t a common practice, the label must have gotten traction only among those few that would give it greater status than necessary for discouraging it. On the other hand, family members correcting other family members based on information they get from outside sources is usually helpful, and in less but many cases done in a dysfunctional, counter-productive manner. The Church teachings can help with that.

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.

If not for one thing affecting one’s faith and temple recommend responses, it will be another. Struggle comes from many places, and one article does not affect all readers equally.

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.

For this reason, I don' think it is an article-writer's responsibility to safegaurd against non-issues.

Not that many checks and balances. disfunction is certainly the case, and self-marginalization may also play.

But there are sufficient checks and balances to make the vast minority of real and imagined, non-discriminating and undiscerning leaders a non-issue.

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.

We accept the Lord’s invitation to come unto Him. We don’t become members of a sub-group or put people into a sub-group. I’m not here to discuss the article itself, but it appears from the posts that it describes a type of ‘antichrist’ that some self-identified members of an already-existing subgroup might qualify for.

As far aspikcing up the pieces and helping the offended, it is better to attack the principles, not the article or the writer, so as not to rob the offended of the right to introspect or effectively address the personal issue on an individual level. It doesn’t help to distract the offended from the real source of his real pain, becaue the result is that they see their role more as an “us and them” dynamic than ever.

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.

I agree, identity is more important than anything else, which is why I advocate the approach I mentioned above, to help the offended. Once it is popularized, the vulnerable often turn to a label as a crutch and then a virtual structure (often imagined to be bigger and better than it really is or was ever intended to be) -- it conveniently asserts and vaildates the identity of the weary.

A tolerance for unorthodox views is an oxymoronic expectation; those who are truly unorthodox know this and deal with it better than anyone else.

[mfbukowski]

What excuse will you give Nephi when you see him face to face and he asks you why you didn't believe he was a real historical person and why you tried to persuade others to follow you down into unbelief?

Just wondering if you understand the difference between "believing that Nephi was a real historical person" and "proving scientifically that Nephi was a real historical person".

It is quite easy to simultaneously believe that the latter is impossible, while the former is highly possible.

I mean I don't want to derail the discussion back to something substantive or anything, but what the heck.

[mfbukowski]

I mean who really cares if somebody did or didn't call middle wayers "antichrists"?

It's a free flippin country still- kind of. "Thou shalt not offend anybody ever" is still not the law. Maybe not for long, but so far it still isn't.....

Edited January 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

"There's somebody wrong on the internet"

[canard78]

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?

The thing is rongo, the temple endowment stands on its own merit. In many ways it's another testament of Joseph being 'of God' and a prophet like the Book of Mormon.

The Endowment could still have been an inspiring creation from Joseph, but that doesn't undermine the merit of going and participating in it and the wonderful blessings and spiritual experience as a result.

I'm not as far into 'middle way' as wayfarer, but I understand and sympathise with some of his perspectives. I love the temple. I love the endowment. I have a great deal of uncertainty about its origins of the church, but I still want to be involved in it and I still appreciate and embrace the blessings from it. Especially the temple.

It's because of the fruits that I'm able to set the concerns about the roots to one side a lot of the time.

I know you didn't intend to be offensive, but the last statement betrays the general presumptions a lot of people seem to make about those who are in a "middle way" belief position. While I care about the sensitivities of my family and friends, I care more about my spiritual experience and progress. For many in a "middle way" this is still very much about the spirituality, not just a social club/street cred.

[rongo]

so the action of intoning one's doubts...that makes one an antichrist? That's what I would get out of the article, and I think it's pretty explicit.

Quite obviously, it depends on how and to whom one “intones” one’s doubts. I used that example on purpose: not even you would accuse the big, bad law firm of Midgley, Peterson, and Hamblin of accusing this brother, or me, of being “anti-Christ.” Expressing doubts to loved and trusted people in the hopes of getting help is one thing. I think everyone understands that, even the big, bad Dalai Lama bishop.

when does 'expressing doubt' become 'advocacy'?

When a person “advocates” for other people to change because of that person’s doubts. For one thing, the brother I mentioned spent no time in the blogosphere or in internet forums complaining about how marginalized he felt and advocating for “new orders” or “middle ways” that would accommodate his unfaith.

I'm not sure that Dehlin believes there is a viable middle way any longer, but I do. I call it a 'faithful' middle way, which means that there are serious rules of engagement -- one does not advocate in the least.

Are. You. Kidding. Me.

You “do not advocate in the least?” What other verb do you use to describe your haranguing of Midgley and Peterson in this thread (or in other places online)?

False witness? Let's be careful here. I have said that the article calls those who express certain things -- things which I know Dehlin has expressed, and were quoted out of context – anti-Christs . . . and I find his quoting of Dehlin out of context "disingenuous."

Wait a minute. Just one and two sentences prior you said:

I have the benefit of knowing what Dehlin is doing, I have talked with him several times, heart to heart. I'm not sure that Dehlin believes there is a viable middle way any longer, but I do . . . Dehlin has walked this fine line, as far to the edge (maybe further) than I am willing to do, but he is at peace with his leaders and is not under threat at this point as far as I can tell.

Can you elaborate on Dehlin not believing “there is a viable middle way any longer” and going “as far to the edge (maybe further) than [you are] willing to do?” You are much more in the know than I am, and this seems like "newer information."

Dollars to doughnuts this takes the wind out of your “out of context and disingenuous” sails, if you are not disingenuous yourself in sharing . . .

[canard78]

I mean who really cares if somebody did or didn't call middle wayers "antichrists"?

It's a free flippin country still- kind of. "Thou shalt not offend anybody ever" is still not the law. Maybe not for long, but so far it still isn't.....

Hi mfb, the point wayfarer's been making is the responsibility that comes with being in a position of influence. The Interpreter writers are widely read and widely respected. If church leaders (especially Bishops and Stake Presidents) buy into their point of view that those who answer the question "why stay" are actually anti-christs, there are ramifications.

Having been involved in church discipline (on the leadership side and as a support to one who was returning) it's clear that there's an element of subjectivity mingled with inspiration in dealing with people. The reaction from one bishop will vary to another. A friend who was disfellowshipped was told by the next Bishop (who reviewed his 'case') that he was back in and, if he'd been bishop at the time he wouldn't have even taken official action for the misdeed.

Wayfarer's point is that if we allow people in positions of influence to promote an agenda of calling people anti-christs if they have an 'adapted' faith, then that may influence the perspectives of those who sit in judgement.

This is not just about freedom of speech. This is also about the pervasive tone and message that runs through Mormon thought. Thankfully, as DBmormon pointed out several pages back, the general authorities are not using this tone and are pushing a more conciliatory message.

Don't forget, the (false) belief that blacks were denied the priesthood because of being 'fence-sitters' in the pre-mortal existence became more popular because enough people repeated the message. If more people say a doubter is an anti-christ then it creates divisiveness. If more people say a doubter or a "middle wayer" or a "why stayer" is welcome, in whatever way they can contribute, then we create a better atmosphere for those involved and struggling and trying to resolve or progress from the changing faith they are experiencing.

Does that make any sense?

Edited January 5, 2013 by canard78

[mfbukowski]

More than monthly and absolutely. You have no idea.

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.

I think I am getting the problem.

I think you have not taken your position far enough to question what scientists call "knowledge". You still think there ARE such things as "justified beliefs" which are somehow justified independently of human prejudices so you make a distinction between "knowing" that "God exists" and that he is our "heavenly father"

In my opinion you need to take it farther and understand that both science and religion are ultimately based on similar types of "justified beliefs".

In short, you need less faith in science and more faith in religion. And a thicker skin.

Edited January 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[rongo]

The Endowment could still have been an inspiring creation from Joseph, but that doesn't undermine the merit of going and participating in it and the wonderful blessings and spiritual experience as a result.

I wasn't referring to that. I wondered what, if he doesn't really believe in God (literally), he gets out of temple worship. If he even goes (which he said he frequently does).

I'm not as far into 'middle way' as wayfarer, but I understand and sympathise with some of his perspectives. I love the temple. I love the endowment. I have a great deal of uncertainty about its origins of the church, but I still want to be involved in it and I still appreciate and embrace the blessings from it. Especially the temple.

It's really interesting. One common thread I have seen in counseling with many people who struggle with severe doubt is that most of them have a huge love for the temple. One other brother, who loves the Toscanos writings (Strangers in Paradox, etc.) has a real love for the temple. The temple is definitely something that can be used to help people who are struggling.

I know you didn't intend to be offensive, but the last statement betrays the general presumptions a lot of people seem to make about those who are in a "middle way" belief position. While I care about the sensitivities of my family and friends, I care more about my spiritual experience and progress. For many in a "middle way" this is still very much about the spirituality, not just a social club/street cred.

Don't you think, though, that wayfarer's manner here and elsewhere smacks of picking a fight, a la "giant slayer" - style, with Peterson, in an effort to puff himself up and gain "street cred" in certain circles? That's certainly what it looks like.

[mfbukowski]

It's because of the fruits that I'm able to set the concerns about the roots to one side a lot of the time.

Understood.

The trick is to understand that the roots of every tree and every fruit - good and bad are just as gnarled and dirty. All you have to worry about is how good the fruit is.

[Tacenda]

Hi mfb, the point wayfarer's been making is the responsibility that comes with being in a position of influence. The Inquirer writers are widely read and widely respected. If church leaders (especially Bishops and Stake Presidents) buy into their point of view that those who answer the question "why stay" are actually anti-christs, there are ramifications.

Having been involved in church discipline (on the leadership side and as a support to one who was returning) it's clear that there's an element of subjectivity mingled with inspiration in dealing with people. The reaction from one bishop will vary to another. A friend who was disfellowshipped was told by the next Bishop (who reviewed his 'case') that he was back in and, if he'd been bishop at the time he wouldn't have even taken official action for the misdeed.

Wayfarer's point is that if we allow people in positions of influence to promote an agenda of calling people anti-christs if they have an 'adapted' faith, then that may influence the perspectives of those who sit in judgement.

This is not just about freedom of speech. This is also about the pervasive tone and message that runs through Mormon thought. Thankfully, as DBmormon pointed out several pages back, the general authorities are not using this tone and are pushing a more conciliatory message.

Don't forget, the (false) belief that blacks were denied the priesthood because of being 'fence-sitters' in the pre-mortal existence became more popular because enough people repeated the message. If more people say a doubter is an anti-christ then it creates divisiveness. If more people say a doubter or a "middle wayer" or a "why stayer" is welcome, in whatever way they can contribute, then we create a better atmosphere for those involved and struggling and trying to resolve or progress from the changing faith they are experiencing.

Does that make any sense?

I agree with this very much. If my Bishop/Stake President had reacted harshly when I told him about my doubts on JS and his polygamy, things might be very different. But he didn't do anything other than provided a sacrament meeting centered on JS and the good things he did. But that was it. If he had done things to make me feel like I was terrible or what not, who knows what I'd have done. I very well could have been on the offended side, which I'd hate! So until I come back as a believing saint, if that could happen, I'm left with their love and understanding. What more could anyone want? Edited January 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[why me]

I agree with this very much. If my Bishop/Stake President had reacted harshly when I told him about my doubts on JS and his polygamy, he didn't do anything other than provided a sacrament meeting centered on JS and the good things he did. But that was it. If he had done things to make me feel like I was terrible or what not, who knows what I'd have done. I very well could have been on the offended side, which I'd hate! So until I come back as a believing saint, if that could happen, I'm left with their love and understanding. What more could anyone want?

The problem comes when a bishop or stake president exceeds his bounds. But that is not a church problem but a local issue with the bishop or stake president who are just human beings after all. They screw up too. But what happens is that members can use such mistakes to disparage the church or leave the church. Or come to critical message boards to sound off. But at the end of the day, we are all human and prone to studpidity and bishops and SPs are no exception to the rule.

[wayfarer]

Hi mfb, the point wayfarer's been making is the responsibility that comes with being in a position of influence. The Inquirer writers are widely read and widely respected. If church leaders (especially Bishops and Stake Presidents) buy into their point of view that those who answer the question "why stay" are actually anti-christs, there are ramifications.

Having been involved in church discipline (on the leadership side and as a support to one who was returning) it's clear that there's an element of subjectivity mingled with inspiration in dealing with people. The reaction from one bishop will vary to another. A friend who was disfellowshipped was told by the next Bishop (who reviewed his 'case') that he was back in and, if he'd been bishop at the time he wouldn't have even taken official action for the misdeed.

Wayfarer's point is that if we allow people in positions of influence to promote an agenda of calling people anti-christs if they have an 'adapted' faith, then that may influence the perspectives of those who sit in judgement.

This is not just about freedom of speech. This is also about the pervasive tone and message that runs through Mormon thought. Thankfully, as DBmormon pointed out several pages back, the general authorities are not using this tone and are pushing a more conciliatory message.

Don't forget, the (false) belief that blacks were denied the priesthood because of being 'fence-sitters' in the pre-mortal existence became more popular because enough people repeated the message. If more people say a doubter is an anti-christ then it creates divisiveness. If more people say a doubter or a "middle wayer" or a "why stayer" is welcome, in whatever way they can contribute, then we create a better atmosphere for those involved and struggling and trying to resolve or progress from the changing faith they are experiencing.

Does that make any sense?

100% correct -- better stated than I have been doing. thank you.

[Tacenda]

I think I am getting the problem.

I think you have not taken your position far enough to question what scientists call "knowledge". You still think there ARE such things as "justified beliefs" which are somehow justified independently of human prejudices so you make a distinction between "knowing" that "God exists" and that he is our "heavenly father"

In my opinion you need to take it farther and understand that both science and religion are ultimately based on similar types of "justified beliefs".

In short, you need less faith in science and more faith in religion. And a thicker skin.

I gave a rep point by mistake. But still like your quote somewhat. It's a little hard to tell someone they need thicker skin if they're right in the middle of a crisis or awakening, where everything is fragile. Edited January 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

You “do not advocate in the least?” What other verb do you use to describe your haranguing of Midgley and Peterson in this thread (or in other places online)?

Yeah, that's the other problem here clearly.

[why me]

I have the benefit of knowing what Dehlin is doing, I have talked with him several times, heart to heart. I'm not sure that Dehlin believes there is a viable middle way any longer, but I do. I call it a 'faithful' middle way, which means that there are serious rules of engagement -- one does not advocate in the least. Dehlin has walked this fine line, as far to the edge (maybe further) than I am willing to do, but he is at peace with his leaders and is not under threat at this point as far as I can tell.

The problem with John is that he has become a church within a church as you so prove. You may be more into Dehlin than the church. It seems that he can be your guru. And this is where the problem is. John has become a guru for a host of internet mormons who are more than ready to defend him to the death. And among his followers he draws ultimate allegiance to the cause. I do believe that you would follow him more that the prophet of the lds church. Which of course is okay by me. But...it does show something about the dehlinites. If John was exed, they would also resign or wished to be exed.

Mormons have found themselves living a middle way from the very beginnings of the church. There is nothing new in this at all. I don't even know why all the fuss. However, doing a middle way may get a person a temple recommend but...maybe not. It depends on the middle way. The lds church cannot be a middle way church. There would be turmoil as there is in protestant faiths which seem to follow a middle way course.

Edited January 4, 2013 by why me