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

[Calm]

Which means you may need to take a step back and cool off. Or use your sociological imagination and take a step outside yourself to see the issue anew.

In his book by the same name, C. Wright Mills coined the same famous phrase "sociological imagination," which is used throughout sociology today. The sociological imagination is the concept of being able to "think ourselves away" from the familiar routines of our daily lives in order to look at them anew. Mills defined sociological imagination as "the vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society." It is the ability to see things socially and how they interact and influence each other. To have a sociological imagination, a person must be able to pull away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view.

http://sociology.abo...imagination.htm

Several viewpoints would be even more useful.

[wayfarer]

The operative word being "here." It remains to be seen whether wayfarer's resolution applies to the ongoing sniping on his board of preference.

wth? I left. did you need to provide a parting shot? I have posted 58 total posts on MDB and 236 here on MDDB. 1300 on StayLDS.com/forum. My board of preference would be...what? This what i find extremely comical about you guys.

[mfbukowski]

As N. R. Hansen famously observed, "All data are theory laden." And as Thomas Kuhn observes, "Anomally appears with resistence against a background of expectation." Which means that the self-selection-from-the-internet factor, while huge in itself, is not the only problem. The lack of context and control is another. What about other people who have experienced the same lame LDS pedagogy and stayed in the faith after finding out about Joseph Smith, polygamy, Book of Abraham issues, Mountain Meadows, and what have you that Dehlin's respondents list as their reasons for loosing faith. I've enountered the same information for which my preparation was not magnificent. ....

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

DANG you're good. Dang dang dang dang.

You are GOOD, dude!!

[mfbukowski]

I seriously appreciate your wisdom and warning on this. it worries my wife as well. even my exmo friends think that I'm a crusader rabbit here...

ah well. is there not a cause?

So whether we call it 'middle way' or nothing at all, I believe that today, following the brethren means adapting in love and understanding a diversity of views of what faith means.

No, there is no "cause"

That is precisely the point and it seems that somewhere you know that. If you want to say the cause has been co-opted then be my guest.

As an old revolutionary let me tell you that when you are leading a revolution you are usually looking behind to see who is following you. Suddenly you see great throngs following you! But then eventually you have to look forward to see where you are going and sometimes what you see is that great throng you thought was following you are actually following someone else who is way out in front of you.

When the General Authorities are saying to love diversity, I would say that you just lost your "cause" because you have just won.

Lay down your arms, the battle's over. Declare victory and get on with life! Listen to your wise wise wife!

[Daniel Peterson]

he continues to stand behind an article that, in clearest terms, does call antichrist those who question what the divinity of christ or the atonement means.

That's flatly untrue. I have no problem at all with people questioning what the divinity of Christ or the atonement means. In fact, I've recently proposed a conference to be held on the latter topic.

Midgley's article, and articles published by Dan Peterson in Deseret news are used as ammunition by zealous stake presidents who, after receiving a referral from the Strengthening Church Members Committee, target people like me, specifically, to remove from any position in the church. This was very much the case up to last year

I confess to being rather puzzled as to how Professor Midgley's article, only recently published, could have been used by stake presidents in order to target people like you "up to last year."

And could you please be specific about which of my Deseret News articles have been used in this way? I can't think of any, off hand, that would lend themselves to such purposes. Most, if not all, of my Deseret News article are online, at http://www.deseretnews.com/author/22746/Daniel-Peterson.html. Please do indicate which of them constitute the "vile polemic" that you so graciously attribute to me.

Dan declared over a year ago that he was no longer interested in evangelical anti-mormons, but was far more interested in pursuing the wolves in sheeps clothing, an epithet he used for John Dehlin, to remove them from being a 'threat' to the church.

Where, exactly, did I say this? And what, exactly, did I say?

As fallout, I know of several specific cases where people have been driven out of the church by bishops and stake presidents who are influenced by Dan and his following. Tangible, specific cases.

I've heard of no such cases. Not a single one. I suspect that this is pure Barbara Streisand.

they are trying to mend fences with family and friends after being declared "anti-christ" or "apostate" or "wolves in sheeps clothing".

I've identified precisely nobody as an "anti-Christ." I never use the term. And, off hand, I can't think of anybody that I've called a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Can you provide some specific illustrations of this common tactic of mine?

it's true that I've sometimes used the word apostate. Almost entirely for historical . . . apostates.

Louis even so much as said that his article, where in plain language he calls those who question "antichrists"

Louis Midgley doesn't call people "anti-Christs" for merely "questioning."

You're bearing false witness.

This is why I fully support the actions of the Maxwell Institute to remove Dan Peterson.

Of course you do!

[Daniel Peterson]





Dan had become a lightening rod of a lot of bad feelings, mainly because he chooses -- in a sick game that he himself acknowledged -- to participate on anti-mormon boards and gleefully tries to ridicule those who oppose his position.

I've acknowledged no such thing. And I don't do it. I participate on no anti-Mormon boards. Two years or so back, I left one atheist/apostate board where I had gone to defend myself against mockery and false accusations. It proved useless.





I have demonstrated here that he uses disingenuous tactics--pulling words out of context, misquoting, and caricature--to achieve his aim.

You've demonstrated no such thing.





Most importantly, Dan does not go after the argument, but rather, the person.

That's a lie.





Note that he said that he would not repudiate the article of a "friend" based upon some anonymous poster like me. It shouldn't matter who the poster is, nor should it matter who the writer is

It's ironic to see you misrepresenting what I said so soon after charging me (falsely) with misquoting, distortion, ripping from context, etc. What I actually said was that I wouldn't repudiate an article by a friend in obedience to the demand of someone I don't know (but have reason to distrust) on the basis of an interpretation of that article with which I disagree.





Words have consequence, and words spoken in Deseret News and elsewhere empower leaders to mistakenly persecute those who differ.

I again ask you to identify at least one article by me in the Deseret News that has been, or even could be, used by local Church leaders to "persecute those who differ." I supplied a link above. Be specific. This is a serious charge, and, I say, an utterly baseless one.







The good news is that I have seen the church distance themselves from this hard-line polemic position.

First of all, the "hard-line polemic position" that you describe is pure fiction.

Second, if it did exist, and if it were expressed in my writing for the Deseret News, and if the Church were really opposed to it, I would no longer be contributing regular columns to the Church's newspaper.





Dam Peterson's firing at the Maxwell Institute was a welcome relief and a small sign that reason is prevailing at the top.

The top levels in Church leadership had nothing to do with the purge at the Maxwell Institute. Nothing.





All I ask is for Dan to repudiate the following statement from the article:

I will not. It doesn't say what you claim it says.





The reason I posted back here again, is because he brought up a reference to me in a very uncharitable way in his own blog.

I didn't identify you. I deliberately (as I suspect) misrepresented your gender. I didn't identify where the quote was from. And my post wasn't even about your statement. It was about the one following. I merely used your comments to establish the context of the quotation that was my real focus. You take offense, with apparent gusto, where none was intended. You're far too eager to make things about you when they're not about you at all.

[canard78]

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."

...

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?

First: If/when any of us meet Nephi face to face (and will he have time for all 14million+ of us, never mind the ones who read and walked away), I would imagine he will care far more that we followed the teachings and principles in his book than whether we considered him a historical or figurative person. If we actually embrace and follow the principles in the Book of Mormon (like christ-like love, brotherly kindness, service, humility, non-rejection of those who seem different to ourselves, loyalty and support our families) then the message has been successful.

President Hinkley said in 1988 (and repeated as prophet in 2005): Brothers and sisters, without reservation I promise you that if you will prayerfully read the Book of Mormon, regardless of how many times you previously have read it, there will come into your hearts an added measure of the Spirit of the Lord. There will come a strengthened resolution to walk in obedience to his commandments, and there will come a stronger testimony of the living reality of the Son of God.

That promise is not dependent on a literal/historical acceptance of its setting. It's based on prayerfully reading it. That's what Nephi (literally or metaphorically) wants.

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.

This is the danger of those who attack the "why stay" approach without knowing what they're really attacking.

Wayfarer is very active on a forum called staylds.com. There are many people on there who have arrived presuming that the only possible next step is to resign their membership. They realise there are other things to consider. They are embraced by a community that supports and loves them in their faith crisis and points out the positives to church engagement. This often gives the members enough hope and reassurance to stay LDS a little longer. Their faith often improves and grows and stays. I'd encourage you to go and lurk for a few weeks or months and see the way that people arrive feeling broken and desperate and then turn into happier, more faithful saints.

[canard78]

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).

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 wish it was more acceptable to talk openly about the brilliance of the endowment. Even though we only promise to keep a few things secret, there's a massive cultural aversion to discussing any of it. A shame, because I love it and would like to chat about all the beautiful parabolic messages and symbolism in the content. It also makes me very sad when I read about those who have had a very negative experience of it or who struggle with it because they can't get past the literal (and uncomfortable) nature of it.

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.

I'm not going to second-guess wayfarer's motives for getting involved. I would imagine it's probably emotion and defensiveness more than it is desire for a reputation. I think it's a shame that this thread has descended into a pitched battle between him and Peterson.

The thread about the article (that Prof. Midgley is participating in) is able to stay more on topic and, although I continue to question him on some of his wording and intent, is moving in a more positive direction than this one has done.

[canard78]

Can you see the problem here?

Why would a leader question someone convincing people to stay? And I totally agree that the church is becoming more conciliatory.

There are many leaders who understand things as wayfarer does as well, but the difference is that they are not going around calling themselves "middle wayers" or whatever. They call themselves faithful members of the church, as do I.

Names are important as we learn from the temple. You call yourself something other than a faithful member and you define yourself out of the church. Not a smart thing to do. If in good conscience you can qualify for a temple recommend you cannot get a "higher" membership status. If you self-identify as something else, you have self-identified yourself right out the door.

I agree that names are significant and I'd stop short of calling myself a 'middle wayer' or 'NOM.' I'm a Latter-day Saint or a Mormon.

But... I think the resources of a website like staylds.com is incredibily useful to someone who is at a stage where they believe the only reasonable option is to leave. To answer the question "why stay" is a faith saving step for some people.

This is why I keep maintaining (on the article review thread) that this is not a "silly" question and is one of the things I take issue with in the article. It's not "silly" to find reasons to stay while hoping (or allowing) your faith will recover. My worry with the article is that some people could be lead to believe that asking and answering this question is part of the definition of an anti-christ given it's all bundled into the same article.

[canard78]

I seriously appreciate your wisdom and warning on this. it worries my wife as well. even my exmo friends think that I'm a crusader rabbit here...

ah well. is there not a cause?

staylds.com is a good cause. stay with that if nothing else.

Maybe in the end, it would have been better to have not made the "Defending" article a cause (myself included). Maybe it's like the over-reaction to that terrible Innocence of Muslims film on youtube. If everyone had ignored it there's a good chance no-one would have watched it. Instead many did because of the huge kick off.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

wayfarer,

I ask again: Speculatively speaking, how will you explain yourself to Nephi if he actually turns out to be a real person? I'm really curious to know the answer to this one, so please indulge me and let me know how you'd handle the situation. Just imagine you and he are standing there at the judgement bar, and you're trying to explain yourself so that he'll view you sympathetically. Thanks

I would propose that we remember Bertrand Russell's powerful reply to a Christian who asked him something similar, when he finally gets to stand in front of God and God is sternly looking at him through knitted brows just why Russell did not believe in God, Russell unhesitatingly responded he would tell God "Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence."

If it was so important and so vital to God and the Plan of Salvation, something far and vastly superior would show up if God felt it really actually did matter what we believe and believe in. That we are virtually left in the dark speaks volumes about the importance of it to God. I don't think it matters a bit whether we believe Nephi actually existed or not. It matters what we do with our lives, not what we believe.

[canard78]

As N. R. Hansen famously observed, "All data are theory laden." And as Thomas Kuhn observes, "Anomally appears with resistence against a background of expectation." Which means that the self-selection-from-the-internet factor, while huge in itself, is not the only problem. The lack of context and control is another. What about other people who have experienced the same lame LDS pedagogy and stayed in the faith after finding out about Joseph Smith, polygamy, Book of Abraham issues, Mountain Meadows, and what have you that Dehlin's respondents list as their reasons for loosing faith. I've enountered the same information for which my preparation was not magnificent. Being born with a lack of instant omniscience does guarentee that at some point, one's naievity will take some hits. (See the Perry Scheme for details). One of the most self evident facts to me is that the information encountered does not interpret itself, but must be processed in some way. And that different people do it differently. And that difference in processing must have some relevance to the question of why people leave. Where does Dehlin deal with that? Of course, that sort of thing is harder to graph and tabulate. But complex systems involving a range of variables and multiple influences interactiing in various ways can be very difficult to graph. Yet, much of what goes on is rather neatly described in the parable of the sower, in whuich the same seeds [which Jesus explains represent words], fall on different patches of ground [the people who hear those words], and due to a range of favorable to unfavorable conditions and nurture, produce vastly different yields.

Kevin, the parable of the sower doesn't empower a writer such as Midgley to claim that the reason people leave is because they want to be unfaithful to their covenants. He has no data for this, and Dehlin's data shows that in a highly correlative population to those who publish 'exit stories', only 8% claim the wanted to be unfaithful to covenants. Your paragraph above obscures the truth rather than illuminates.

Regarding the Dehlin research... I'm a full-time market researcher and Dehlin's research is really not worth quoting. I had a look at the survey design and I'm afraid I think it's delivered junk data, but possibly the answer he was hoping for. I'm not saying this was intentional. I just think Dehlin's premise and bias influenced the questionnaire design. Something as complex and emotional as leaving the church or abandoning faith can not be answered with the simplistic and badly structured survey he created. The sampling technique is also wrong. I wouldn't place any reliability on the results. Garbage in, garbage out.

That doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. I agree that a lot of people leave because of historical issues not issues of obedience (he's just gone the wrong way to prove it). I agree with wayfarer that Midgley's suggestion that most people break covenants first and look for intellectual justification later is not correct in all case:

Their stereotyped exit-stories indicate that they look for intellectual support for their rejection of their faith only after they have made the decision not to be faithful to their covenants.

I much prefer Jeff Lindsay's take on it:

“…many ex-Mormons, even some who show a lot of bitterness toward the Church, may be much more honorable people that we have realized, and may have entirely logical reasons from their perspective for leaving. In fact, it is not hard to find reasons to reject Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any past or modern prophet, or to find doctrines and practices that one can strongly object to.

Many who leave do not do so because the moral standards were too high or because someone snubbed them at Church or because tithing was too painful or they just got sick of home teaching or were victims of gossip or had a serious moral sin that they wouldn't quit. It is understandable, in fact, that people would get upset over polygamy or several other things in LDS history or even in the Bible that would lead them to reject the Church or organized religion in general. There are certainly powerful arguments to be made and often no simple answers.”

http://mormanity.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/cutting-little-slack-for-ex-mormons.html

(Kevin, do you blog...? I could happily read a lot more of what you write)

[canard78]

The correct title of the publication is Interpreter, not "Inquirer. "

This could be viewed as a subtle insult, given the nature of the National Enquirer, a gossip tabloid of questionable ethics and credibility. Not being a U.S. resident, perhaps you are unaware of that association, and the error was unintentional. Please assure me that is the case.

Also, for the benefit of wayfarer and others, the full name is Interpreter, a Journal of Mormon Scripture, not "the Mormon Interpreter."

Thanks, I've fixed the post where I got the name wrong. It was a pure mis-type, not at all intentional. I can't even say it was a Freudian slip as I've hardly even heard of the National Enquirer.

I imagine a lot of people will ignorantly/accidentally call it Mormon Interpreter given it's "mormoninterpreter.com"

[Stargazer]

I've found this topic to be very interesting, and also, thanks to Wayfarer, excruciating.

I was trying to figure out what the MW or NOM was supposed to signify, and I believe I understand it now.

I have a bunch of children who easily self-identify as Mormons, but never attend church, ignore the word of wisdom, and I don't think they have testimonies. I am supposing they can be characterized as "less active", but NOM might fit them fine, too.

I am expecting that when push comes to shove, NOMs and MWs will hasten to deny the church in exchange for being allowed to carry on their lives in peace. I would not call such folks anti-Christs, but I would call them lukewarm. And more luke than warm. Although if pushed enough, some of them might resort to becoming anti-Christs. If Revelation and other scriptures are to be believed, a day will come when there will be no more middle place to stand.

[CV75]

I would propose that we remember Bertrand Russell's powerful reply to a Christian who asked him something similar, when he finally gets to stand in front of God and God is sternly looking at him through knitted brows just why Russell did not believe in God, Russell unhesitatingly responded he would tell God "Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence."

If it was so important and so vital to God and the Plan of Salvation, something far and vastly superior would show up if God felt it really actually did matter what we believe and believe in. That we are virtually left in the dark speaks volumes about the importance of it to God. I don't think it matters a bit whether we believe Nephi actually existed or not. It matters what we do with our lives, not what we believe.

I would propose that we remember that Bertrand Russell was speaking for himself and God will judge him according to the light he had. This board is full of threads about evidence for both the essential and non-essential, what constitutes spiritual and scientific evidence, etc. The crux of the issue is found in the D&C in several places that reference “the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” No one is forced to believe or comprehend the evidence or the kind of evidence, and no one is permanently bereft of evidence, whether they get in in this life or the next (and Bertrand Russell seemed to acknowledge this as a possibility).

What is important to God is that the light become important to each of His children (and by their own choice), and this is why He set His light to shine the way it does, or in both this world and the next.

So perhaps at or upon some point it doesn’t matter a bit whether one believes that Nephi actually existed or not, as long as he takes good-faith efforts to live according to that Gospel which was brought to light in his name and in His name.

[Calm]

It matters what we do with our lives, not what we believe.

Our actions are based on our beliefs, are they not? Where else do motivations come from? If from outside of us, then that is not our motivation and I highly doubt that God will judge us well if we are forced to act well instead of choose to act well because of our beliefs, not others'.

[teddyaware]

I would propose that we remember Bertrand Russell's powerful reply to a Christian who asked him something similar, when he finally gets to stand in front of God and God is sternly looking at him through knitted brows just why Russell did not believe in God, Russell unhesitatingly responded he would tell God "Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence."

If it was so important and so vital to God and the Plan of Salvation, something far and vastly superior would show up if God felt it really actually did matter what we believe and believe in. That we are virtually left in the dark speaks volumes about the importance of it to God. I don't think it matters a bit whether we believe Nephi actually existed or not. It matters what we do with our lives, not what we believe.

Kerry,

I thought ot the following scripture after reflecting on your assertion that "it matters what we do with our lives, not what we believe:"

"30 ¶And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written (i.e. the Book of John), that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20)

As a Latter Day Saint (I presume you still are), if you believe in the gospel principles set forth in John's statement above, how would you reconcile the same with your statement that all that really matters is what one does, not what what he believes?

[volgadon]

I stand corrected. Yet, huh. "a Journal of Mormon Scripture..." does that parse right? really? A journal *of* Mormon Scripture? Maybe my parser doesn't work but doesn't that at least connote that the contents are 'scripture'? I must be interpreting this wrong, because surely these guys egos aren't that out of whack.

now I'm even more confused... how does Midgley's diatribe fit into a 'journal of mormon scripture'?

Not really.

[volgadon]

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

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.

Definitely a pair of docks.

[volgadon]

If it was so important and so vital to God and the Plan of Salvation, something far and vastly superior would show up if God felt it really actually did matter what we believe and believe in.

I find this a very narrow POV that misses the point.

The composition Sabba de-Mishpatim contains an instructive passage on the kind seeing we ought to develop.

"The wise are full of eyes! Even though a word may be hidden in its garment, they see into that garment. When that word is revealed, even when its garment is not lifted, they cast the wisdom of their eyes on it. They do not miss it, even though it has hidden itself!"

While too long to reproduce here, R. Aharon of Karlin (and, to a great extent, R. Elimelech of Lizhaisk) has several extended teachings on learning to tell light from darkness which further reinforce that point.

The Acts of Peter holds that seeing God through spiritual eyes is vastly superior to seeing him by the "naked eye," as the former can only be accomplished by the power of God.

It all boils down to perspective.

Edited January 5, 2013 by volgadon

[Daniel Peterson]

I stand corrected. Yet, huh. "a Journal of Mormon Scripture..." does that parse right? really? A journal *of* Mormon Scripture? Maybe my parser doesn't work but doesn't that at least connote that the contents are 'scripture'?

Exactly. Just as the contents of the Journal of Neuroscience aren't merely about neuroscience but actually are neuroscience. Just as the Journal of Ethnopharmacology actually is ethnopharmacology, rather than simply being devoted to discussion of that topic. Just as the Journal of American History is, genuinely, American history, and not merely a periodical devoted to the subject.

I must be interpreting this wrong, because surely these guys egos aren't that out of whack.

Aw come on, wayfarer. There's simply no limit to our depravity. You, of all people, know that. And surely you couldn't possibly be wrong.

now I'm even more confused... how does Midgley's diatribe fit into a 'journal of mormon scripture'?

The journal's board of editors determined that it fit the parameters of the journal they're creating. Feel free to create your own journal and, thus, to provide a target for idle onlookers to criticize and attack.

[Daniel Peterson]

As well, we have the Apologists with their turning from evangelical anti-mormons to focus on the secularists within the church, the 'wolves in sheeps clothing'. Now a person learning about the sordid facts of certain claims is left with an 'all or nothing' play -- The apologists approach is to say that the facts aren't real, and if you look at anything that says otherwise, it must be from an anti-mormon source.

You'll be very, very hard pressed to find me expressing such a view, because I don't hold it.

Stop bearing false witness.

[Daniel Peterson]

providing false and derogatory information under the aegis of "Mormon Interpreter"

There is no "Mormon Interpreter."

And Interpreter has provided no false or derogatory information.

Two strikes.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

I don't believe this story, as related here.

I admire the Dalai Lama.

I shall now sit back and await a summons from the Church.

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 hope that you'll provide specific names, dates, places, and details for one or two of the apparently many cases in which Professor Midgley's five-week-old article has caused bishops and stake presidents to persecute people.

Please also provide specific names, dates, places, and details for one or two of the apparently many cases in which my articles for the Deseret News -- "vile polemics," as you call them -- have caused bishops and stake presidents to persecute people. And it would be ever so kind of you to identify specifically which vile polemical Deseret News article(s) caused these actions.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

From the way you describe yourself, you don't seem to be what Professor Midgley calls a "cultural Mormon."

Why do you insist that this is about you?