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

[Senator]

Good heavens!

If by biblical definitions there are known antichrists walking among the saints, why on earth have they not been reported to their local authorities?

Bill? Will? Have you reported Seth?

[Calm]

I'm seeing the church is centering everything on JC, especially in the missionary program.

This is good to see from you.

[sethpayne]

I hope you didn't think that I came down too hard on you.

The thought never crossed my mind.

I guess I'm just more "orthodox" in my way of thinking - if you want to call it that

Which I sincerely thinks is wonderful. If your "way of thinking" leads you towards God and living more Christ-like life, then it is something to be embraced and to share!

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.

I'm wrong -- or have been wrong -- about so many things that it would be foolish for me to stake out a definitive claim here. I'm always open to new information, new perspectives, etc... That is one of the reasons I participate here, albeit somewhat irregularly.

[TAO]

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.

Naturally.

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

That's completely fine.

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.

I'm sorry that they considered you such.

[sethpayne]

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.

Hi Cal,

One of the most fascinating things for me in Grad School was to take a course entitled "Jesus' Death as Saving Event." It was a course on various atonement theories.

We studied Anselm's satisfaction theory -- which I think has many similarities to the LDS view of atonement -- although it isn't a complete analog.

The other that stands out to me is the "Christus Victor" theory:

http://en.wikipedia....Christus_Victor

There is also the moral exemplar theory and several others ...

So even when we talk about the Atonement and its centrality to Christianity/Mormonism - I think we have to allow for the fact that a two Christians can recognize the Atonement but understand it in VERY different ways.

Seth

ETA: I took a shot at demonstrating how the Book of Mormon expands on and IMO, improves, the satisfaction theory here:

http://www.sethpayne.com/?p=251

The Book of Mormon is quite remarkable in its various discussions of the Atonement.

Edited December 16, 2012 by sethpayne

[Calm]

So even when we talk about the Atonement and its centrality to Christianity/Mormonism - I think we have to allow for the fact that a two Christians can recognize the Atonement but understand it in VERY different ways.

Seth

I have no problem with accepting that people view the Atonement in a variety of ways. I have had enough discussion with just my fellow Mormons to demonstrate that, lol.

I was talking in regards not to a specific view of the Atonement, but rather the concentration on that and on preparation to receive the Atonement which is for me what is the main topic of discussion at church and thus is what is demonstrated to be our core belief. If someone goes in expecting one sort of discussion based on their set of core beliefs, they may be frustrated when they encounter a whole different discussion having nothing to do with what they think is most important (which is how I would define "core beliefs"). I don't know if biz sees his list of "core beliefs" as the most important, we may just be disagreeing on what is a "core belief" and what isn't.

I will enjoy reading the link, always interested in seeing someone else's ideas, especially about the Atonement as I am yet unsettled on the details of that (just yesterday I was quite struck by how in the garden it says Christ bled from every pore because of his anguish for "the wickedness and the abominations of his people" rather than because he was suffering the 'punishment' for those evils, that really jumped out at me in a way it hadn't before...it seems to imply to me that his greatest pain was because of his sorrow for others' sufferings because he now completely comprehended in an intimate way the effects of that wickedness and abominations on humanity).

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

So building it was a waste of scarce resources, but tearing it down would not be a waste of scarce resources?

BTW, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Church did eventually sell it (as it did ZCMI and many of the other businesses it started). If the Church made a profit on the sale of City Creek, would you still say that it was a waste of scarce resources?

[Calm]

So building it was a waste of scarce resources, but tearing it down would not be a waste of scarce resources?

BTW, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Church did eventually sell it (as it did ZCMI and many of the other businesses it started). If the Church made a profit on the sale of City Creek, would you still say that it was a waste of scarce resources?

I think location would have a great influence on whether they sell it or not. If it was not located where it is, it probably would have already been sold. Since it is located where it is, I have my doubts that it will ever be sold.

[wayfarer]

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.

Certainly there are those who outright deny the Christ, or think that the Church is in apostacy, but these are not in what I would call the Middle Way. There are many, in fact most, who celebrate a Middle Way that uphold in some way the Christ, Atonement, and sustain the church and its leaders, but perhaps in a different way than others. I am one of them, and knowing John Dehlin, I believe he shares many of these values as well, although I cannot speak for him. And yes, when I am called "antichrist" because my understanding differs from someone else, I find that offensive and grossly inaccurate. I am humbly grateful to the mods here for recognizing this.

I have had many undeniable transforming spiritual experiences in the church and I have felt the Savior's grace redeem me from addiction and sin. I have felt the arms of the Savior's love envelope me in my times of need, and like Moses, I know that I, of myself, am nothing. I know he fully accepts me. I have sung the song of redeeming love, and continue to do so each day... or so I try. I accept that our leaders and prophets also sing this same song, and I sustain them: not blindly, but rather, as the spirit gives me witness, and it often does.

Where I differ is that I have fully taken Alma's chalenge in Alma 32, and recognizing that I don't have perfect knowledge, I have sought to test out my principles of faith. In so doing, I have found that as a church member, I often made empirical claims that are either are not true, or I am unjustified in making the claim. For example, I have learned that the process of "translation" used by Joseph Smith is not truly "translation" but rather, "revelation". In losing the literalness of the "translation" empirical claim, I have no issue that the Book of Abraham bears no resemblance to the funerary texts of the Papyrii. For me, the spiritual and normative value of scripture comes not from literalness, but from the transcendent spirit that is triggered by the texts.

As well, Mormons and Christians make numerous empirical claims about Jesus Christ, for example. Was he born of a "virgin"? Did he perform superatural miracles? Was he from "Nazareth", or was this a claim made to conform him to the Nazirite covenant of righteousness? Did he rise from the dead? When taken literally, these claims are all empirical, and thus in order to assert them as knowledge, one should have "evidence". Since the standards of evidence in scripture are insufficient to make emipirical claims, then to assert empirical knowledge based upon a feeling about scriptural stories is epistemologically flawed. Thus, I neither believe nor disbelieve the empirical claims: I simply do not know. And "not knowing" is the provenance of "faith".

Yet by Alma's test, I can also say, with surity, that the Church's valuative and normative claims are "true". I have tested them, and it is my faith and testimony that the book of mormon testifes of Christ, contains explicit and uplifting statements of the fulness (essence) of the gospel. it thus is valuatively and normatively true and the Word of God. Moreover, with my personal experience with the atonement and the savior's grace, I care not in the slightest whether any of the emipirical claims about the savior are true or not. The empirical claims simply do not matter, once I have partaken the fruit of god's love.

Edited December 16, 2012 by wayfarer

[Calm]

And yes, when I am called "antichrist" because my understanding differs from someone else, I find that offensive and grossly inaccurate....I have had many undeniable transforming spiritual experiences in the church and I have felt the Savior's grace redeem me from addiction and sin.

Since this is your stated belief, according to the scriptures/standard Bill quoted/stated, you do not qualify so you do not have to be concerned...at least in this regard.

[Tacenda]

This is good to see from you.

I know what's wrong with me.;-)

[why me]

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.

I think that you are not the first mormon to have these views. However, in the past you would be either a former mormon or an inactive mormon. Now of course, you have a choice of groups that you can join to feel at one with the other and post on a like minded forum ripping the church for not agreeing with your viewpoint. Such is a postmodern life where identity politics is important.

[3DOP]

I look at this from the outside never having been LDS in any way. I think those who can see little reason why the Church should have any concern for their doctrinal deviations need to consider that LDS apologists have to be consistent with how they have already taught in regards to the "Former-day Church". If by proving that Early Christianity became apostate because they tolerated and eventually embraced false teaching, there is a corresponding interest in maintaining the distinctive truths which characterize the Restoration. Latter-day Saints can't afford to allow for themselves doctrinal deviations that they do not allow to the early church.

I am not saying that this has happened yet. But it is a perspective for those who are not quite orthodox to keep in mind. Depending on where the Church bends, If Mormons tolerate too much deviation, it could potentially kick the legs out from under successful apologetics techniques when discussing the Apostasy. If there was nothing that needed to be restored, why be LDS anyway? I don't think those who want to significantly broaden acceptable doctrinal guidelines really understand the Restoration. Do they appreciate that it was to bring back precious truths that had been lost, sometimes deliberately? To think of tolerating the denial of restored doctrines or even to question teachings held in common with all Christians seems to me like an invitation for somebody like me to question if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still interested in the business of Restoration.

We have the same phenomenon in the Catholic Church. People who grew up Catholic and have familial or cultural attachments consider themselves Catholic, but never in the sense of "one true church". They are Catholic for many reasons, but certainly not because they want to be in the true church. They probably don't even believe there is such a thing as one true church. Because of this it doesn't bother them if the Church embraces teachings or practices that contradict the past. They don't care if the Church was false in the past as long as it changes to what they want now. Maybe you don't see any parallel?

3DOP

Edited December 16, 2012 by 3DOP

[Biz]

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.

Sky, I have high regard for the project. I believe it's an honorable project for an organization. That said, for the Church I don't believe God had any role to play in it. If this was God's Church he would not prioritize that way. If the New Testament is any indicator of how Jesus Christ would prioritize or would lead his one true Church he would not build City Creek. As resources are scarce and especially in the form of money in a religious organization I can't help be disappointed in how much of the Church's resources went into this project.

[Biz]

So building it was a waste of scarce resources, but tearing it down would not be a waste of scarce resources?

BTW, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Church did eventually sell it (as it did ZCMI and many of the other businesses it started). If the Church made a profit on the sale of City Creek, would you still say that it was a waste of scarce resources?

Sleeper Cell, yes it would be a waste of scarce resources to tear it down. However, I think the teaching moment would out weigh the unfortunate waste of resources. Maybe, he could just kick the money changers out and make the building more useful in meeting humanity's more pressing needs.

[Biz]

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.

Calmoriah, thanks for the response. These core beliefs are ones that would put me at odds with more of the mainstream views/thoughts in the faith. I suppose that is why I'm a less-active active. I use what is useful and discard things I find problematic. I'm happy to advocate for universal love and other positions in Church that don't cause division but rather inclusion. I wouldn't think I rock the boat much.

[volgadon]

Sleeper Cell, yes it would be a waste of scarce resources to tear it down. However, I think the teaching moment would out weigh the unfortunate waste of resources. Maybe, he could just kick the money changers out and make the building more useful in meeting humanity's more pressing needs.

You mean the teaching moment for several hundred people suddenly out of a job?

[Biz]

I think that you are not the first mormon to have these views. However, in the past you would be either a former mormon or an inactive mormon. Now of course, you have a choice of groups that you can join to feel at one with the other and post on a like minded forum ripping the church for not agreeing with your viewpoint. Such is a postmodern life where identity politics is important.

I'm very grateful for the communities I participate in. I'm also glad to see the Church continues to move towards a more inclusive message of focusing more on Jesus Christ. I feel fortunate to live in this age of time.

[DBMormon]

_Strange,

_{What some do wasn't wrong, yet we no longer find them among this thread.}

_{It is a means of curious workmanship}

_{Well it seems all that is left are those who can have a cival discussion..... makes it a little more boring}

_{Glad to see the majority here can play nice in the sandbox.}

[why me]

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.

I don't see it this way at all. I think that city creek provides jobs. We need to remember that Joseph, Jesus' father was a small business man. Plus, where did jesus get his money to live and to survive? I think that he had help from the wealthy and from the working people who supported him. He certainly did not live for free or from begging.

I wonder just how many people are employed due to church investments. It must run into the thousands.

[Deborah]

I often made empirical claims that are either are not true, or I am unjustified in making the claim.

How interesting that you would use the phrase "empirical" for what many just believe is a statement of testimony, and sometimes a simplification of the actual story. Whether it's translation or revelation what does it matter. The translation came by revelation and revelation made the translation, or English version, possible. The simple definition of translation is "the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language." So technically however the process took place it was a translation.

I think maybe you are too literal about something that after all requires faith and is based not on a lot of facts but on the guidance of the Spirit.

[why me]

I'm very grateful for the communities I participate in. I'm also glad to see the Church continues to move towards a more inclusive message of focusing more on Jesus Christ. I feel fortunate to live in this age of time.

The church has always focused on jesus christ. In fact, the book of mormon became the second witness for Christ and not a witness for Mormon. And the name of christ is in the church's name. Talmage wrote the book Jesus, the Christ years ago. And this is the problem. When one reads the internet and the viewpoints of the critics, the church never mentions christ or is not christ centered. But, this is not true at all. The whole first vision account has christ visiting joseph smith.

The communities allow for like minded people to reinforce like minded viewpoints and allow the poster the opportunity to see others who agree with him or her. But are they helpful...? Maybe but maybe not. In the past, people were allowed to go inactive or become a former mormon or express their views in priesthood etc. And through a critical thinking process, either come back to the fold or to remain in their belief system. Now, the idea is to be with like minded individuals for comfort and support.

[why me]

Maybe, he could just kick the money changers out and make the building more useful in meeting humanity's more pressing needs.

The pressing needs of humanity have always been pressing needs. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight. To tear down the mall and put up a homeless shelter would not help much. These people need jobs and mental health care. Something the system has not allowed to happen. Stop gap measures never help in the long run. What is needed is a system that puts people before profit and for this to happen, the whole globalization process needs to have a different value system. However, with the mall, people are working, paying their bills and college students have a way to support themselves while they study. Not bad. To provide work can not be too wrong. It is not the church's fault that the world is becoming more consumerist and greedy. The blame needs to be put somewhere else.

Edited December 16, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Why do people need to belong to identity groups these days? Soon we will have many more ways to describe just what kind of mormon one is. Back in the day, we just had mormons, both active and inactive, exmormons and jack mormons. And now....?

Edited December 16, 2012 by why me

[DBMormon]

Certainly there are those who outright deny the Christ, or think that the Church is in apostacy, but these are not in what I would call the Middle Way. There are many, in fact most, who celebrate a Middle Way that uphold in some way the Christ, Atonement, and sustain the church and its leaders, but perhaps in a different way than others. I am one of them, and knowing John Dehlin, I believe he shares many of these values as well, although I cannot speak for him. And yes, when I am called "antichrist" because my understanding differs from someone else, I find that offensive and grossly inaccurate. I am humbly grateful to the mods here for recognizing this.

I have had many undeniable transforming spiritual experiences in the church and I have felt the Savior's grace redeem me from addiction and sin. I have felt the arms of the Savior's love envelope me in my times of need, and like Moses, I know that I, of myself, am nothing. I know he fully accepts me. I have sung the song of redeeming love, and continue to do so each day... or so I try. I accept that our leaders and prophets also sing this same song, and I sustain them: not blindly, but rather, as the spirit gives me witness, and it often does.

Where I differ is that I have fully taken Alma's chalenge in Alma 32, and recognizing that I don't have perfect knowledge, I have sought to test out my principles of faith. In so doing, I have found that as a church member, I often made empirical claims that are either are not true, or I am unjustified in making the claim. For example, I have learned that the process of "translation" used by Joseph Smith is not truly "translation" but rather, "revelation". In losing the literalness of the "translation" empirical claim, I have no issue that the Book of Abraham bears no resemblance to the funerary texts of the Papyrii. For me, the spiritual and normative value of scripture comes not from literalness, but from the transcendent spirit that is triggered by the texts.

As well, Mormons and Christians make numerous empirical claims about Jesus Christ, for example. Was he born of a "virgin"? Did he perform superatural miracles? Was he from "Nazareth", or was this a claim made to conform him to the Nazirite covenant of righteousness? Did he rise from the dead? When taken literally, these claims are all empirical, and thus in order to assert them as knowledge, one should have "evidence". Since the standards of evidence in scripture are insufficient to make emipirical claims, then to assert empirical knowledge based upon a feeling about scriptural stories is epistemologically flawed. Thus, I neither believe nor disbelieve the empirical claims: I simply do not know. And "not knowing" is the provenance of "faith".

Yet by Alma's test, I can also say, with surity, that the Church's valuative and normative claims are "true". I have tested them, and it is my faith and testimony that the book of mormon testifes of Christ, contains explicit and uplifting statements of the fulness (essence) of the gospel. it thus is valuatively and normatively true and the Word of God. Moreover, with my personal experience with the atonement and the savior's grace, I care not in the slightest whether any of the emipirical claims about the savior are true or not. The empirical claims simply do not matter, once I have partaken the fruit of god's love.

you stated that well.

Who wouldn't want you in the tent of Mormonism? And while I openly admit your testimony differs from mine, we all likely differ in belief in some degee over one doctrine or another

Many see testimony as "knowing" I also see room for belief and hope and you seem to have that.

Who get's to make the rules on what a testimony has to exactly be.

Edited December 16, 2012 by DBMormon