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

[canard78]

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.

I've had limited internet access over the last couple of days so unable to participate fully in the 2 or 3 threads on this topic.

I see quite a clear distinction between staylds and NOM forum and that's 'tone' and 'direction.' I realise a generalisation is risky and there's a range of participants on both, but NOM seems more negative, griping, frustrated. The tone set on there is "I'd leave if I could, but life/culture/work/relationship stop me doing it." My perception is the tone is about staying begrudgingly. Staylds on the other hand is a smaller group but with a more positive attitude. On the whole, they seem to be trying to work through their struggles in a positive way. They recognise they might never have the same brim-full bucket of faith that they used to have, but they want to focus on the good and find their faith in that way. My concern with NOM (and reason I visit it less often) is it feels like there are people on the forum whose objective it is to

But I agree that the tone of the 'Defending the king etc' is unproductive and confrontational. As someone who has questions and concerns and challenges but am trying to positively work through them, the tone of the article put me off returning to the website as a resource. Which is a shame. However much they can technically and accurately justify the content of the article, it doesn't alter the fact that it's still abrasive. I don't need apologists to judge me. I already do enough of that to myself as it is. I don't know that I'm 'middle way' and I'm certainly not 'NOM' - but I'm certainly not 'MI Way' - and that's the problem with the tone of the line they have drawn.

[DBMormon]

But I agree that the tone of the 'Defending the king etc' is unproductive and confrontational. As someone who has questions and concerns and challenges but am trying to positively work through them, the tone of the article put me off returning to the website as a resource. Which is a shame. However much they can technically and accurately justify the content of the article, it doesn't alter the fact that it's still abrasive. I don't need apologists to judge me. I already do enough of that to myself as it is. I don't know that I'm 'middle way' and I'm certainly not 'NOM' - but I'm certainly not 'MI Way' - and that's the problem with the tone of the line they have drawn.

PERFECT!!!!!! This is my point exactly. I wish I had worded it like you in the beginning. My point the whole time is they may be right that "some" of those who have lost faith are being devisive, but the way they worded it and the name calling it used doesn't serve anybody.

Beautiful - you should copy and paste that paragraph into the other thread

[ControlFreak]

Let's clarify a couple of things, since some of the nincompoops of the universe have marginal comprehension skills.

1- Someone else raised the issue of antichrist. I therefore cited scriptures the four occurrences of the word antichrist in the NT (1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7) in order to clarify that in scriptural terms an antichrist is one who rejects that Jesus is the Messiah. This is crystal clear from those passages. It has similar meaning in the BOM. It's therefore like anti-Mormon or anti-Communist: one who rejects Jesus' claim to be the Messiah.

2- I never called anyone an antichrist. Read my posts. I never called anyone THE Antichrist either. The scriptural meaning of the term has nothing to do with the apocalyptic fantasies of twenty-first century Evangelical pop culture.

3- I noted that some NOMs publicly reject the idea that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. That is based on their own public statements. People can draw their own conclusions about the implications of this, but the fact is undeniable that rejection of Jesus as the Christ is not uncommon among some NOMs. They seem to believe that the rejection of the Christ is just another way to be an authentic Mormon. I disagree.

I am apparently an "anti-christ" because I doubt the existence of Jesus. It honestly doesn't bother me to be called such in the strict sense of the word (if it does, maybe I should stop saying I doubt it??), however, there are obvious negative associations with that term that would imply I'm some sort of awful person. That may be the fault of modern culture, or maybe it really is meant to carry that extra baggage??

Either way, the question remains, what is the church to do with people like me? Try to make me feel bad by referring to me as anti-christ?

Currently, my stake president feels that I'm perfectly fine as an active member of the church and is happy with me as the EQ president of my ward. I may not be as "christian" or "mormon" in terms of what I believe is true, but I do more to take care of the needs of the ward than most others, so I certainly consider myself both christian and mormon in many ways. I would be happy if the church were true, I'm just can't see how it could be based on its historical foundation. That doesn't mean it isn't good. Kind of like how I think I'm "good" despite not being totally honest about what I believe. (I'm totally honest with Bishop/SP/wife, just not everyone else, and I do so for the sake of everyone else.)

[Pahoran]

NOM. New Order Mormon. And here all this time I had been thinking this stood for "Name Only Mormon".

My mistake.

But not much of one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

I'm sorry that people don't like the implications of their disbelief, but that does not change the fact that if one denies that Jesus was the Messiah, then one necessarily rejects the authenticity of the LDS Church. There is no way around it. It is utterly incoherent to claim otherwise.

Why, then, do unbelievers get so upset when we simply point out the clear and unavoidable implications of their disbelief?

I suspect the folks at Westboro use the same reasoning to justify their antics as well.

Edited December 17, 2012 by ttribe

[Bill Hamblin]

I suspect the folks at Westboro use the same reasoning to justify their antics as well.

I suspect you're wrong, and there is absolutely no relationship between the two issues.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

I am apparently an "anti-christ" because I doubt the existence of Jesus. It honestly doesn't bother me to be called such in the strict sense of the word (if it does, maybe I should stop saying I doubt it??), however, there are obvious negative associations with that term that would imply I'm some sort of awful person. That may be the fault of modern culture, or maybe it really is meant to carry that extra baggage??

Either way, the question remains, what is the church to do with people like me? Try to make me feel bad by referring to me as anti-christ?

Currently, my stake president feels that I'm perfectly fine as an active member of the church and is happy with me as the EQ president of my ward. I may not be as "christian" or "mormon" in terms of what I believe is true, but I do more to take care of the needs of the ward than most others, so I certainly consider myself both christian and mormon in many ways. I would be happy if the church were true, I'm just can't see how it could be based on its historical foundation. That doesn't mean it isn't good. Kind of like how I think I'm "good" despite not being totally honest about what I believe. (I'm totally honest with Bishop/SP/wife, just not everyone else, and I do so for the sake of everyone else.)

This has nothing to do with membership and activity. That's up to you and your bishop. It has to do with coherent conceptualization of ideas.

[sethpayne]

I suspect you're wrong, and there is absolutely no relationship between the two issues.

Bill,

So are liberal Methodists and Anglicans not really true Christians because they are agnostic on the question of Christ's divinity.

To me, it is so easy to see that there are many ways to practice Christianity and Mormonism. Why are we trying to define people out of their claimed identity. I honestly don't get it.

A lot of ink has been spent over the years arguing that Mormons really are Christians and that Evangelicals are in the wrong to use their narrowly-defined use of the word as a weapon against Mormons. And yet here we are. Arguing about what a "real" Mormon is; based on 'definitions.'

I'm not trying to be snarky -- seriously -- but have you never taken a philosophy of language course? You are seeking what simply doesn't exist: a "coherent conceptualization of ideas" regarding who is, and who isn't a Mormon. Both the philosophy and history of language show us just how fluid these such conceptualizations really are. The way Mormonism was practiced in in 1857 has little resemblence to how the mainstream Church practices it today. Indeed, those early saints held on to some doctrines (speculation really) we don't pay much attention to these days.

I have explained on at least two occasions how and why I retain my Mormon identity. Just because my personal faith doesn't resonate with you and you don't think it is "coherent" doesn't mean that it isn't a valid form of Mormon worship.

Seth

[ttribe]

I suspect you're wrong, and there is absolutely no relationship between the two issues.

Really, just gonna wave the hand dismissively? So, the Westboro folks NEVER justify their condemnation of people, nations, etc. and refer to the judgments of God being the root of tragic events (including Sandy Hook) by using biblical passages as their justification? Perhaps you and I are observing different groups of people who use the "Westboro" name?

Godwin's Law and you are out of the thread.

[Bill Hamblin]

Really, just gonna wave the hand dismissively? So, the Westboro folks NEVER justify their condemnation of people, nations, etc. and refer to the judgments of God being the root of tragic events (including Sandy Hook) by using biblical passages as their justification? Perhaps you and I are observing different groups of people who use the "Westboro" name?

Bill,

So are liberal Methodists and Anglicans not really true Christians because they are agnostic on the question of Christ's divinity.

To me, it is so easy to see that there are many ways to practice Christianity and Mormonism. Why are we trying to define people out of their claimed identity. I honestly don't get it.

A lot of ink has been spent over the years arguing that Mormons really are Christians and that Evangelicals are in the wrong to use their narrowly-defined use of the word as a weapon against Mormons. And yet here we are. Arguing about what a "real" Mormon is; based on 'definitions.'

I'm not trying to be snarky -- seriously -- but have you never taken a philosophy of language course? You are seeking what simply doesn't exist: a "coherent conceptualization of ideas" regarding who is, and who isn't a Mormon. Both the philosophy and history of language show us just how fluid these such conceptualizations really are. The way Mormonism was practiced in in 1857 has little resemblence to how the mainstream Church practices it today. Indeed, those early saints held on to some doctrines (speculation really) we don't pay much attention to these days.

I have explained on at least two occasions how and why I retain my Mormon identity. Just because my personal faith doesn't resonate with you and you don't think it is "coherent" doesn't mean that it isn't a valid form of Mormon worship.

Seth

So is there any idea, any substantive concept that one must affirm in order to be a Mormon? If so, what is it?

Take the following examples:

I believe that the government should be capitalistic, but I'm a communist.

I'm pro-abortion, pro-Obamacare, pro-gay marriage, but I'm a Republican.

I don't believe in God, but I'm a theist.

I believe in abortion on demand, but I'm pro-Life.

Do any of those statements make sense to you? Why?

I'm not defining anyone "out" of Mormonism. I'm simply saying that ideas have consequences, and it is utterly incoherent to say that "I am a Christian, but I don't believe that Jesus was the Christ." Or "I am a Muslim, but I don't believe that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah." Or "I am a Baptist, but I accept the authority of the Popes."

[sethpayne]

So is there any idea, any substantive concept that one must affirm in order to be a Mormon? If so, what is it?

Take the following examples:

I believe that the government should be capitalistic, but I'm a communist.

I'm pro-abortion, pro-Obamacare, pro-gay marriage, but I'm a Republican.

I don't believe in God, but I'm a theist.

I believe in abortion on demand, but I'm pro-Life.

Do any of those statements make sense to you? Why?

I'm not defining anyone "out" of Mormonism. I'm simply saying that ideas have consequences, and it is utterly incoherent to say that "I am a Christian, but I don't believe that Jesus was the Christ." Or "I am a Muslim, but I don't believe that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah." Or "I am a Baptist, but I accept the authority of the Popes."

I really can't believe you put forth those statements to try and bolster your point. Again, a philosophy of language course would clearly outline why your examples are bizarre.

Simple answer: some terms are more fluid than others.

BTW -- I know several pro-Obamacare, pro-abortion Republicans. Republican is a term that is fluid and its meaning changes over time. Lincoln's party bears little resemblance to the party today.

No one is saying: "I worship Satan, therefore I am a Christian." A better example: "My conception of Jesus is different from yours but we both revere Christ and he is the center of our worship. Therefore we are both Christians."

Again, why on earth are you applying binary thinking to abstract concepts?

Seth

Edited December 17, 2012 by sethpayne

[TAO]

Well, to be honest, I'd go with something completely differnet philisophically than either of you. The world isn't divided up into binaries.... but you have to divide the world up somehow to classify anything at all. That's why though there isn't perfect definitions, there are general definitions that fit most of a category.

[sethpayne]

Well, to be honest, I'd go with something completely differnet philisophically than either of you. The world isn't divided up into binaries.... but you have to divide the world up somehow to classify anything at all. That's why though there isn't perfect definitions, there are general definitions that fit most of a category.

Hi Tao,

Some things are absolutely binary, somethings have fluidity, and somethings are completely relative. I think you have to apply various ways of thinking depending on the concept being analyzed.

H20 is always water (ok... NOT heavy water, but you know what i mean). The meaning of a political liberal has changed significantly over time -- it does not have a binary meaning and requires some level of abstraction to define given the context in which the word is used.

I know where you are saying, though. I reject post-modernism because of it's overreliance on relativism. Not everything is relative, but some things are.

[Bill Hamblin]

Again, why on earth are you applying binary thinking to abstract concepts?

Seth

So, I ask you one more time: Is there any substantive idea one must accept in order to be a Mormon? Is there any core intellectual content associated with the term Mormon?

[TAO]

Hi Tao,

Some things are absolutely binary, somethings have fluidity, and somethings are completely relative. I think you have to apply various ways of thinking depending on the concept being analyzed.

Definately.

H20 is always water (ok... NOT heavy water, but you know what i mean). The meaning of a political liberal has changed significantly over time -- it does not have a binary meaning and requires some level of abstraction to define given the context in which the word is used.

But this is precisely my point. Is something that is H3O+ water? Why or why not? What about juice? Is it water? Why or why not? What about H2O with disolved minerals? Is it water? Why or why not? We set arbitrary and relative definitions for things. We set barriers, where 'this much difference is water', but also 'this much difference is not water'. In other words, we rarely set exact binary definitions. But we do set general definitions, for example, chemical structure. Not every water molecule is precisely the same. And yet they are all water. Why don't we divide them up into further definitions, perhaps based on, say, temperature. Becausee we are capable of sub-dividing it further, water becomes a general definition.

So it really comes down to this; what is a Republican? One might say, oh it's just somebody who is registered for the party. But in this case, we can subdivide it further. Again, there are pro-obama care, pro-gay mairrage, and pro abortion people registered for the Republican Party. However, they constitute the minority. And that's why they are called RINOs. You see, the defintion for Republican socially isn't simply 'registered for the party'. It's, "Holds a general agreement with X, Y, and Z views". That's what people think of when they hear the word Republican. And, as a general definition, it has a certain amount of room for leeway. But it doesn't have an excessive amount, else we could start classifying Democrats as Republicans (and perhaps they are, or perhaps they aren't). The point is, you can only give so much general leeway before your definition starts to become impractical.

I know where you are saying, though. I reject post-modernism because of it's overreliance on relativism. Not everything is relative, but some things are.

Ah yeah, well that's where we differ. I am post-modern to a degree.

[Pahoran]

Bill,

So are liberal Methodists and Anglicans not really true Christians because they are agnostic on the question of Christ's divinity.

Here's an idea, Seth: instead of shooting the messenger for rejecting the non-gospel of "political correctness," how about you actually engage the arguments?

Given (and it is a given) that "anti-Christ" is a biblical term; and given (and it is a given) that it is very well defined; then on what basis should the usage thereof be eschewed? Only because those to whom it validly applies might feel unloved, rejected and (sob) unwelcome if anyone is so cruel as to tell the truth about their ideology?

I don't know any Church member anywhere who wouldn't welcome a name-only Mormon to any Church activity or Sunday service. I also don't know any Latter-day Saint -- or indeed any decent person anywhere -- who thinks that the Church has any obligation at all to provide some sort of forum for those who reject its core teachings.

To me, it is so easy to see that there are many ways to practice Christianity and Mormonism. Why are we trying to define people out of their claimed identity. I honestly don't get it.

Then let's consider this possibility: maybe the claim isn't quite as important as those who are making it like to imagine. Shocking, I know.

A lot of ink has been spent over the years arguing that Mormons really are Christians and that Evangelicals are in the wrong to use their narrowly-defined use of the word as a weapon against Mormons. And yet here we are. Arguing about what a "real" Mormon is; based on 'definitions.'

You're comparing apples and onions. I suggest you read Offenders for a Word by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks to see where the anti-Mormon argument fails; and, just incidentally, how Professor Hamblin's use succeeds.

The way Mormonism was practiced in in 1857 has little resemblence to how the mainstream Church practices it today.

Utter rot.

I have explained on at least two occasions how and why I retain my Mormon identity. Just because my personal faith doesn't resonate with you and you don't think it is "coherent" doesn't mean that it isn't a valid form of Mormon worship.

Seth

Yes, it's all about you.

FWIW, at very least, a "Mormon" is a Christian (one who believes in the teachings, divinity and salvific work of Jesus Christ) who accepts that the Book of Mormon is authentic scripture, and that the Gospel was restored through Joseph Smith; not someone who thinks a "Mormon identity" is something warm'n fuzzy that they like to snuggle up to on winter evenings.

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

So, I ask you one more time: Is there any substantive idea one must accept in order to be a Mormon? Is there any core intellectual content associated with the term Mormon?

Bill, I have answered this 100 times. If you want to read my rather lengthy answers, then read my several blog posts on the subject.

For whatever reason you either don't like my answer, and thus ignore it. Or, you don't understand my answer because it is too abstract.

You lambaste evangelicals for doing exactly what you are doing: Is there any substantive idea one must hold in order to be considered a Christian? Yes, the Trinity. And, no matter how many times you protest and say my conception is too narrow I refuse to acknowledged your conception of Christ. Therefore, because your conception of Christ does not match mine, you are not a Christian.

Do you see how messed up that is, Bill? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[TAO]

Pahoran, seth WAS engaging Bill's arguments. We are having a philisophical discussion right now that addresses it =).

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I have answered this 100 times. If you want to read my rather lengthy answers, then read my several blog posts on the subject.

For whatever reason you either don't like my answer, and thus ignore it. Or, you don't understand my answer because it is too abstract.

You lambaste evangelicals for doing exactly what you are doing: Is there any substantive idea one must hold in order to be considered a Christian? Yes, the Trinity. And, no matter how many times you protest and say my conception is too narrow I refuse to acknowledged your conception of Christ. Therefore, because your conception of Christ does not match mine, you are not a Christian.

Do you see how messed up that is, Bill? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Humor me. Is there a substantive idea that one must hold to be a Mormon? Straight and simple.

Note, also that I don't begrudge the Evangelicals the right to define Evangelicalism. I would never claim to be an Evangelical. However Christian is a genus. Evangelical is a species. I think you know the difference.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[TAO]

Humor me. Is there a substantive idea that one must hold to be a Mormon? Straight and simple.

He answered no; citing that you don't think people need to hold to the Trinity to be Christian as an example. Now you have to respond =).

[sethpayne]

But this is precisely my point. Is something that is H3O+ water?

Nope. It is *heavy* water -- very hard to produce. H20 is water, H30 is heavy water (I think I've got the chemical makeup right).

What about juice? Is it water? Why or why not?

Well, water is a component of juice but no, it is not water. Why, because chemical makeup is not subject to fluid definition.

Is a photon a wave or a particle? THAT question is much trickier to answer.

In other words, we rarely set exact binary definitions.

I disagree. In certain disciplines setting exact binary definitions is absolutely necessary. In fact, nature, at least as we understand it, demands binary definitions in many cases simply because a natural law is a natural law.

But we do set general definitions, for example, chemical structure. Not every water molecule is precisely the same.

I'm not following you here. A water molecule is H20. If it is H30, it is heavy water. Now, if we want to talk about *types* of water, then we could argue that H20 and H30 are part of the same water "family" but they are, by nature, not the same. (I'm not a chemist so if I have misstated something please correct me)

Why don't we divide them up into further definitions, perhaps based on, say, temperature.

We do! Ice, liquid, gas. But regardless of temp, its still water.

Ah yeah, well that's where we differ. I am post-modern to a degree.

I respect that.

[Bill Hamblin]

He answered no; citing that you don't think people need to hold to the Trinity to be Christian as an example. Now you have to respond =).

You have to believe in the "Trinity" to be a Nicean Trinitarian Christian, not to be a Christian. I have never claimed to be a Trinitarian Christian. One must believe that Jesus is the Christ to be a Christian.

That's like saying one must believe in the Mesoamerican geography of the BOM to be a Mormon. It is not slightly analogous.

[Bill Hamblin]

Answer the question Seth.

[Bill Hamblin]

Just because a term like Christian is fluid does not imply that it is endlessly elastic.

You simply don't get to be Humpty Dumpty.

[TAO]

You have to believe in the "Trinity" to be a Nicean Trinitarian Christian

Seth's point is that that is your opinion. Some believe that is required to be a Christian altogether.