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

[sethpayne]

Thanks for sharing...that view of Jesus is a little too wishy-washy for my taste, but people can change. We are a gospel of change and repentance. So I guess the line between what is acceptable and what's not is sometimes not so black-and-white. And I'm certainly not a Bishop or Stake President, so I'm not really in a position to judge this man's personal righteousness.

Hi Sky,

It is wishy-washy. If the scriptures are to be interpreted literally then I am lukewarm and will be spat out. This is the best I can do right now though. I don't want to "fake" it for fear of being dishonest. I also don't want to give up on the faith I was raised in and all of the wonderful things Mormonism has brought to my life.

So for now, I'll be as honest with myself and others as I can, always hold out the possibility that my heart/mind could change, support others in their faith, and hope that God in His kindness and mercy will look upon my heart and know that I did my best -- wherever I end up on the belief spectrum when this life comes to an end.

Seth

[Bob Crockett]

It is wishy-washy. If the scriptures are to be interpreted literally then I am lukewarm and will be spat out. This is the best I can do right now though.

A lukewarm person is one likely not to take a position or engage in advocacy.

[sethpayne]

A lukewarm person is one likely not to take a position or engage in advocacy.

Well, in that sense I suppose I'm not lukewarm. I advocate for living the kind of life Jesus lived.

Seth

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A lukewarm person is one likely not to take a position or engage in advocacy.

Seth loves the Church. Many have viewed me as not being Mormon enough or Christian enough...I just know I am loved enough.

[Calm]

I do accept the scriptural definition of anti-Christ as one who denies Christ. What I am wondering though is how being a liar and deceiver fits into it. Are they liars and deceivers because they teach a falsehood even if they believe it is truth? Or does there have to be the intent to deceive when they deny Christ?

Is there any clue in the original text that demonstrates what is meant by coupling "antichrist" and "liar" and "deceiver"?

[Calm]

Unfortunately, there seems to be this deep aversion to anything that is not considered "orthodox".

That seems kind of an overstatement when we are not just talking about "anything" but talking about denying one belief, the belief that Jesus is the Christ, a belief of the Christian LDS faith.

Belief in Christ would seem to me to be an automatic definition of a Christian faith.

Edited December 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

Bob,

Again where did I pull my card out here? self fulfilling prophecy - you talk about it, you bring it up - then I have to ask why.... this circle happens all the time. CFR - Please show at least two places where I pull out my card before you or another person mentions it? Last time you failed to provide REFERENCES - any chance you care to this time or do you just like making accusations without evidence? you are a lawyer right?

[Bill Hamblin]

I do accept the scriptural definition of anti-Christ as one who denies Christ. What I am wondering though is how being a liar and deceiver fits into it. Are they liars and deceivers because they teach a falsehood even if they believe it is truth? Or does there have to be the intent to deceive when they deny Christ?

Is there any clue in the original text that demonstrates what is meant by coupling "antichrist" and "liar" and "deceiver"?

I think the idea in John is that one can make a false claim, even if one believes the false claim is true. One can deceive others, even if one is deceived. It is a broader definition of liar as one who does not tell the truth, even mistakenly, as opposed to the narrow definition of liar or deceiver as one who tells falsehoods, knowing them to be false.

[Calm]

I think the idea in John is that one can make a false claim, even if one believes the false claim is true. One can deceive others, even if one is deceived. It is a broader definition of liar as one who does not tell the truth, even mistakenly, as opposed to the narrow definition of liar or deceiver as one who tells falsehoods, knowing them to be false.

Thank you, i thought that was likely from the overall context.

[volgadon]

Incidentally, I don't think Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf would take kindly to you misapplying their words -- intended to be understood in a different context, and in reference to a very different set of people than that to which you have applied them.

Ironic, in light of your next post.

[TAO]

DB, there is a large variety of New Order Mormons. Some are just cultural, and dont' beleive at all. Some just believe partially. Some are activists, some aren't.

I'd be hesitant about criticizing them too much, or conversely, endorsing them too much. There are signficant doctrines of the church which they do not believe in. At the same time, there generally tends to some things they do belive in.

So while you should keep in mind Elder Holland's statement (we do want people to see the good things in the Book of Mormon), you should also keep in mind that a narrow path needs to be walked. The Church isn't there to just let people in; it's there to make those in it have stronger faith.

[Tacenda]

I do accept the scriptural definition of anti-Christ as one who denies Christ. What I am wondering though is how being a liar and deceiver fits into it. Are they liars and deceivers because they teach a falsehood even if they believe it is truth? Or does there have to be the intent to deceive when they deny Christ?

Is there any clue in the original text that demonstrates what is meant by coupling "antichrist" and "liar" and "deceiver"?

I've always believed an anti Christ knows it is Christ our Lord and Saviour but sides with Satan and is a satanist. There's no way the NOM's are satanists. Just read the NOM site. The first few times you feel a little off put that they don't believe in all the doctrines and they've let the shocking history destroy their testimonies but they're all around good people. Btw, I shouldn't have quoted you Cal, something you said sparked a response for some reason. Edited December 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

DB, there is a large variety of New Order Mormons. Some are just cultural, and dont' beleive at all. Some just believe partially. Some are activists, some aren't.

I'd be hesitant about criticizing them too much, or conversely, endorsing them too much. There are signficant doctrines of the church which they do not believe in. At the same time, there generally tends to some things they do belive in.

So while you should keep in mind Elder Holland's statement (we do want people to see the good things in the Book of Mormon), you should also keep in mind that a narrow path needs to be walked. The Church isn't there to just let people in; it's there to make those in it have stronger faith.

agreed... the narrow path needs to be walked. But that insinuates I excuse them for not walking the path. Not the case. But when they are off the Path, I refuse to point fingers at them and look down on them for it. It seems more effective to build relationships and to urge them in love to get back on the straight and narrow.

My comments do not have anything to do with whether I am able to see that some undermine the church. Some may even intentionally undermine Christ. A lot of words are thrown around but my only disagreement here is in our authority to call these folks out.

I participate on staylds as well. You may check out my posts there if you wish. Wayfarer can also put his two cents in. I do not give sanctuary to their unbelief. I do not condone there unbelief in things I hold to be true, and I tell them at every turn when I disagree. What I don't do is make them an enemy, not my enemy. If we stop trying to make this always a game of rhetoric and take seriously that men's souls are at stake. Then someone please tell me how I rescue them?, by calling them out in a way that offends them, by denigrating them, by saying you are not one of us? calling them anti-christs, calling them wolves in sheeps clothing..... how does that help. As a last resort.... maybe. Have any of you tried other ways? Not other ways in general with people like them but specifically with each of them as individual sons and daughters of God.

I hold that the church is all it claims to be, I encourage all to find faith in those same principles, But I am unable to treat them as or call them wolves in sheep's clothing or apostates. Are they? maybe. But it was never my call. Their Bishops have yet to use their authority and yet many of you if given the chance seem willing to pass judgement right here. It is not your call. The Lord wants to save souls, and that is done primarily through love and kindness. If to be on the Lords side I have to be mean spirited and draw lines in the sand telling them they are not one of us when I have no authority over them and those who do, won't pass that judgement.... can't do that. And you can lump me with them if that makes you feel better.

Edited December 16, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

I've always believed an anti Christ knows it is Christ our Lord and Saviour but sides with Satan and is a satanist. There's no way the NOM's are satanists. Just read the NOM site. The first few times you feel a little off put that they don't believe in all the doctrines and they've let the shocking history destroy their testimonies but they're all around good people. Btw, I shouldn't have quoted you Cal, something you said sparked a response for some reason.

No problem on the quoting, I get the connection...trying to define what an antichrist actually is...and is not.

[Sky]

Hi Sky,

It is wishy-washy. If the scriptures are to be interpreted literally then I am lukewarm and will be spat out. This is the best I can do right now though. I don't want to "fake" it for fear of being dishonest. I also don't want to give up on the faith I was raised in and all of the wonderful things Mormonism has brought to my life.

So for now, I'll be as honest with myself and others as I can, always hold out the possibility that my heart/mind could change, support others in their faith, and hope that God in His kindness and mercy will look upon my heart and know that I did my best -- wherever I end up on the belief spectrum when this life comes to an end.

Seth

I hope you didn't think that I came down too hard on you. I guess I'm just more "orthodox" in my way of thinking - if you want to call it that. But you seem like a genuinely nice guy, and I'm glad you are participating in the Church in a way that works for you. You must believe in it at least somewhat, otherwise you wouldn't keep coming back or have the attitude that you have. You support others in their faith and are open to the possibility of change, and those are no small things. I wish you all the best.

[TAO]

agreed... the narrow path needs to be walked. But that insinuates I excuse them for not walking the path. Not the case. But when they are off the Path, I refuse to point fingers at them and look down on them for it. It seems more effective to build relationships and to urge them in love to get back on the straight and narrow.

No, I don't think you excuse them. We just have to be wary, because whereas we will not excuse them, others will. I don't want the church bending in social winds; that's a poor reason for changing things usually. That's why I'm... cautious, persay.

My comments do not have anything to do with whether I am able to see that some undermine the church. Some may even intentionally undermine Christ. A lot of words are thrown around but my only disagreement here is in our authority to call these folks out.

Well, if they criticize the church, we can call them out, right? Indeed, you shouldn't call a person out for being NOM. But if they critique the church, that's another story, right?

I participate on staylds as well.

I'm not worried about you; I don't need to go check out your posts.

Then someone please tell me how I rescue them?, by calling them out in a way that offends them, by denigrating them, by saying you are not one of us? calling them anti-christs, calling them wolves in sheeps clothing..... how does that help. As a last resort.... maybe. Have any of you tried other ways? Not other ways in general with people like them but specifically with each of them as individual sons and daughters of God.

Well I've never called anybody an anti-christ, tbh... or even apostate. That generally just tends to shut them off. My general suggestion is to play nice until they don't.

I hold that the church is all it claims to be, I encourage all to find faith in those same principles, But I am unable to treat them as or call them wolves in sheep's clothing or apostates. Are they? maybe. But it was never my call.

Well, let me ask you this; how do you treat wolves in sheeps clothing? In what ways do you treat them differently?

The Lord wants to save souls, and that is done primarily through love and kindness. If to be on the Lords side I have to be mean spirited and draw lines in the sand telling them they are not one of us when I have no authority over them and those who do, won't pass that judgement.... can't do that.

Of course. I never asked you to.

And you can lump me with them if that makes you feel better.

Why do you think I'd lump you?

[Biz]

So, I'm a New Order Mormon, Cafeteria Mormon, Middle-Way Mormon, Active-less Active Mormon, or however you or I would like to categorize myself. Here are some core beleifs I have. How could I fit in or be loved in the Gospel?

I support equality in marriage.

I don't believe polygamy / plural marriage is an eternal principle.

I know God had no involvement in banning blacks from the priesthood or then allowing them to have it.

I don't believe in a literal Satan.

I think women should have the priesthood.

I firmly believe City Creek was a waste of scarce resources and if Jesus were here today he would sell it or tear it down.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Biz

[DBMormon]

1.) But if they critique the church, that's another story, right?

2.) Well, let me ask you this; how do you treat wolves in sheeps clothing? In what ways do you treat them differently?

3.) Why do you think I'd lump you?

1) When it comes to behavior I will call a spade a spade but I will do so with respect and kindness. One should be fairly warned but not in a way that drives a bigger wedge.

2.) Again the same, I tell them in no uncertain terms that I disagree with their behavior but I do so in a way that leaves the lines of communication and friendship open

3.) You didn't.... but If you read from the beginning I was on at least three instances told I was essentially among them and guilty of being or at risk of being one of them by disagreeing with the behavior of calling names and burning bridges.

Edited December 16, 2012 by DBMormon

[Sky]

I don't believe in a literal Satan.

I don't have any ready answers to the other things you listed, but with regards to this one, there is a scripture which directly addresses what you said. 2nd Nephi 28: 22:

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

I firmly believe City Creek was a waste of scarce resources and if Jesus were here today he would sell it or tear it down.

City Creek was praised by the Sierra Club, one of the most prominent and reputable environmental organizations, for being good stewards of the environment. Over 50% of demolition debris was recycled in order to construct the center. If the Sierra Club had good things to say about it, I consider that one of the highest compliments it could receive.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Sky

[Sky]

duplicate post

Edited December 16, 2012 by Sky

[Deborah]

I find it rather amusing that those who openly declare they don't believe some of the truth claims of the church, even to the point of denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, get offended when someone calls them on it by using scriptures. I'm not talking of course about those who are struggling with testimonies, we've all been there, but those who have deliberately made a choice and are open about it and somehow wanting to still be part of the fold. Why they would want to be is beyond me unless it is to sway others to their way of thinking. I in fact know some people who consider the church in apostasy but continue to go so they can preach their falsehoods and "educate" others.

[Calm]

Here are some core beleifs I have. How could I fit in or be loved in the Gospel?

None of those positions have much to do with the Atonement so while I don't think any of them limit you from fully participating in the LDS faith community as long as you don't attempt to promote those positions as "Truth" that others must also accept for whatever reason, I do think you may have a problem with your conception of what the Gospel means if you see that list as actual "core beliefs" rather than peripheral positions/interpretations which may lead to problems with how you fit in or feel comfortable with how the faith community approaches teaching actual core beliefs while neglecting such peripheral positions for the most part.

[Tacenda]

None of those positions have much to do with the Atonement so while I don't think any of them limit you from fully participating in the LDS faith community as long as you don't attempt to promote those positions as "Truth" that others must also accept for whatever reason, I do think you may have a problem with your conception of what the Gospel means if you see that list as actual "core beliefs" rather than peripheral positions/interpretations which may lead to problems with how you fit in or feel comfortable with how the faith community approaches teaching actual core beliefs while neglecting such peripheral positions for the most part.

Most are manmade, they're manmade concepts, as long as we believe the right things about our Saviour. It should all be good. Even the church has said, some things are of man in the church, and someone's opinion. I think they do the best they can do. I'm seeing the church is centering everything on JC, especially in the missionary program.

[Chaos]

Two posters have been removed. Using labels such as anti-Christ on a fellow poster will always result in removal from the thread. The same for repeatedly questioning another poster's righteousness or church standing.

[Senator]

Two posters have been removed. Using labels such as anti-Christ on a fellow poster will always result in removal from the thread. The same for repeatedly questioning another poster's righteousness or church standing.

Who?