Is there a middle way?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

conformity and assimilation is valued more than authentic individualality 

I thought we were all trying to become like God and Christ, not our own special snowflakes.

Edited October 5, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't personally think that there is a middle way to be able to gain eternal life.  BUT, I don't think that God is upset with people who follow a middle way because they sincerely believe God is ok with it.

We all have incorrect ideas or beliefs; God will help us fix them eventually.  The important thing is to stay in a relationship with Him.

I love your posts, bluebell.  You have such a way about you and truly exemplify one who is a follower of Christ.  I can't think of another poster on this forum (ok...there is Duncan who all of us love), who is more thoughtful and less judgmental, but still states your opinion, better than you.  I almost always feel better after I read your posts. Thank you. You're one of the "good ones" who just gets it and can reach both sides.

Edited October 5, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't personally think that there is a middle way to be able to gain eternal life.  BUT, I don't think that God is upset with people who follow a middle way because they sincerely believe God is ok with it.

We all have incorrect ideas or beliefs; God will help us fix them eventually.  The important thing is to stay in a relationship with Him.

Thank you. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I think I could say so much about all of this...but I won't.  I will say that when I left the church, I knew nothing of John Dehlin.  Nothing.  Somewhere around 2009 we were connected by email..a question that I had online.  He asked me...Jeanne...would you like to try and stay in the church.  Not knowing that I had resigned..looking back..who knows what kind of difference that would have made in 2008...curse a middle way if you want..but you might have found family friends that would have remained.  What John asked me...my Bishop did not.

In any case..mentally I could not even do the middle way...I fell hard. 

I credit this board, and many podcasts such as Mormonstories, Mormonmatters, It's a Thoughtful Faith (all stemming from John I believe) for helping me stay in the boat. But barely hanging on so far. 

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I like to think Pres. Uchtdorf is very aware of those that struggle. He may not have mean't this talk for the "middlewayer" like me, but in my mind, ever since reading it, it's made me feel less the sinful fencesitter. It's bought me some time to make the right decision when I figure it out. 

That doesn't sound like someone taking the middle way. I think if someone is sincerely trying to stay close to the Lord, figure things out and do those things when they figure them out, they are taking the high way. The middle way is for those who are apathetic. 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

conformity and assimilation is valued more than authentic individualality 

To the point that individuality will often times get you invited to leave the group.  John Dehlin is a good example of this. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

To the point that individuality will often times get you invited to leave the group.  John Dehlin is a good example of this. 

This is the essence of correlation: suck the individuality out of the individual in the name of the team.  It works well in sports and business, and the military.  However, this is a religion and it is supposed to be different.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

To the point that individuality will often times get you invited to leave the group.  John Dehlin is a good example of this. 

His "individuality" was in:

"Disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction. 

Statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the true Church with power and authority from God."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

As his leader said:  "[Y]ou do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error."

Edited October 5, 2017 by Calm

[BCSpace]

5 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT TRYING TO STIR THE POT AND I DON'T WANT ANYONE IN HERE TRYING TO EITHER

In another recent thread and in recent years the term "middle way mormonism" has been growing in popularity. I believe that folks like John Dehlin and Bill Reel are proponents of such (please correct me if I am wrong). As I understand it, those espousing the "middle way" are essentially saying that you don't have to be a hard line apostate or a TBM either, but that you can find value in the good that Mormonism can bring, even if that means rejecting certain truth claims. Feel free to expand on this rudimentary explanation.

The question I have then, is whether or not there is a middle way? Or rather does the Lord approve of such. Ultimately, I don't think my personal answer is binding on anyone but myself, but based on that stipulation I believe the answer to both questions is no. In contrast to the institutions of the world and the teachings and reason of modern philosophies, the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to conformity. We are not expected to just be true to our self-perceived, authentic selves, but to be more like Christ. To change, to obey and to sacrifice. I don't want to get into what that does and does not mean with regards to the Church and local/general leadership here. 

Suffice it say, I don't think anyone, not even the best of us, is perfect at following the path the Lord has set. The more I think about it the more I realize there are probably things and sins in my life that demonstrate my own personal attempt to find a "middle way" of my own. I believe those attempts are ill-fated and unfruitful. I suppose that we each need to make choices for ourselves that put us not on some middle way, but on the straight and narrow way. 

No such thing as a "middle way" that leads anywhere promising.  Everything is black and white and no one is perfect.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

To the point that individuality will often times get you invited to leave the group.  John Dehlin is a good example of this. 

Ridiculous, if being an odd weirdo got you invited to leave I would have been booted years ago. 

Of course I think you guys are abusing the English language with your definition of 'individuality'. He is hardly individuality personifiedwhen he has followers eating it up. Those Dehlinites love their conformity.

Edited October 5, 2017 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

I love your posts, bluebell.  You have such a way about you and truly exemplify one who is a follower of Christ.  I can't think of another poster on this forum (ok...there is Duncan who all of us love), who is more thoughtful and less judgmental, but still states your opinion, better than you.  I almost always feel better after I read your posts. Thank you. You're one of the "good ones" who just gets it and can reach both sides.

Aw, thanks Julie!  You are one of the posters that, when i see you've posted something, i always stop to read it because it's always good and usually presents a different angle to something that I hadn't considered before.  

[Button Gwinnett]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

His "individuality" was in:

"Disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction. 

Statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the true Church with power and authority from God."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

As his leader said:  "[Y]ou do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error."

I personally know some of the extended Dehlin Family members.  This is a good family, good people, traditional pioneer stock, descended from General Authorities.  John backed the church into a difficult corner.  I believe that there is an element within church leadership that actually wants to allow space for some of the more progressive points of views some members hold to.  In some ways John Dehlin, in my opinion, got ahead of this element. Was moving too fast and pushing the envelope beyond what the church was prepared to accept. And as a result the church took action to protect its core traditional believers by removing him from his membership and putting the official "mark" of excommunication on him so that traditional members would distance themselves from his message, irrespective of whether or not he was speaking truth or not, the church needed/wanted to protect itself and its members from his message.  In other words the church wasn't ready to go where John Dehlin was pushing them towards. He got out ahead of those who wanted to allow space within the tent for progressive points of view and paid the price for doing so with his membership.  

Ironically I now see Bill Real doing the same exact thing.  He is getting ahead of the church and may also pay a price for doing so.

At some point the church may be forced to make room for more possessive view points as more and more truth claims become untenable, but we have not yet reached that point.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT TRYING TO STIR THE POT AND I DON'T WANT ANYONE IN HERE TRYING TO EITHER

In another recent thread and in recent years the term "middle way mormonism" has been growing in popularity. I believe that folks like John Dehlin and Bill Reel are proponents of such (please correct me if I am wrong). As I understand it, those espousing the "middle way" are essentially saying that you don't have to be a hard line apostate or a TBM either, but that you can find value in the good that Mormonism can bring, even if that means rejecting certain truth claims. Feel free to expand on this rudimentary explanation.

The question I have then, is whether or not there is a middle way? Or rather does the Lord approve of such. Ultimately, I don't think my personal answer is binding on anyone but myself, but based on that stipulation I believe the answer to both questions is no. In contrast to the institutions of the world and the teachings and reason of modern philosophies, the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to conformity. We are not expected to just be true to our self-perceived, authentic selves, but to be more like Christ. To change, to obey and to sacrifice. I don't want to get into what that does and does not mean with regards to the Church and local/general leadership here. 

Suffice it say, I don't think anyone, not even the best of us, is perfect at following the path the Lord has set. The more I think about it the more I realize there are probably things and sins in my life that demonstrate my own personal attempt to find a "middle way" of my own. I believe those attempts are ill-fated and unfruitful. I suppose that we each need to make choices for ourselves that put us not on some middle way, but on the straight and narrow way. 

I think people can certainly "find value in the good that Mormonism can bring, even if that means rejecting certain truth claims."

One may find a particle of value for himself, but he then interferes with others' potential benefit when he discourages them from accepting a truth claim. This seems to reject the #1 tenet of Mormonism, which is to come unto Christ and help others come unto Him as well. I don't see how someone could claim that he is helping his fellow beings come unto Christ by undermining rather than expanding their faith in Him, His Church, His servants, etc.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/a-yearning-for-home?lang=eng

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I personally know some of the extended Dehlin Family members.  This is a good family, good people, traditional pioneer stock, descended from General Authorities.  John backed the church into a difficult corner.  I believe that there is an element within church leadership that actually wants to allow space for some of the more progressive points of views some members hold to.  In some ways John Dehlin, in my opinion, got ahead of this element. Was moving too fast and pushing the envelope beyond what the church was prepared to accept. And as a result the church took action to protect its core traditional believers by removing him from his membership and putting the official "mark" of excommunication on him so that traditional members would distance themselves from his message, irrespective of whether or not he was speaking truth or not, the church needed/wanted to protect itself and its members from his message.  In other words the church wasn't ready to go where John Dehlin was pushing them towards. He got out ahead of those who wanted to allow space within the tent for progressive points of view and paid the price for doing so with his membership.  

Ironically I now see Bill Real doing the same exact thing.  He is getting ahead of the church and may also pay a price for doing so.

At some point the church may be forced to make room for more possessive view points as more and more truth claims become untenable, but we have not yet reached that point.

I think this is mostly true.  I'm not sure the church would ever be ready to fully accept all that John Dehlin was stating, but I did not follow him that closely.

Your post reminded me of what took place with the excommunications of the the academics and historians back in the 1990's (Quinn and others) who I see as being before their time or ahead of what the church leaders wanted "out there" yet.  So much of what was written or taught by this group is now accepted and is even in the church essays.  But excommunicating Quinn surely stopped many (most?) active members from buying his books and reading them.  It's an effective way to silence someone.  Quinn still actually has a testimony of the church and last I heard still attends his ward even after all he's gone through.

Edited October 5, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

At some point the church may be forced to make room for more possessive view points as more and more truth claims become untenable, but we have not yet reached that point.

If forcing the Church is the modus operandi of the middle-wayer, that in my mind is adopting an un-Christlike method.

Maintaining and defending truth claims is part of the burden of discipleship, and are matters of faith anyway.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think this is mostly true.  I'm not sure the church would ever be ready to fully accept all that John Dehlin was stating, but I did not follow him that closely.

Your post reminded me of what took place with the excommunications of the the academics and historians back in the 1990's (Quinn and others) who I see as being before their time or ahead of what the church leaders wanted "out there" yet.  So much of what was written or taught by this group is now accepted and is even in the church essays.  But excommunicating Quinn surely stopped many (most?) active members from buying his books and reading them.  It's an effective way to silence someone.  Quinn still actually has a testimony of the church and last I heard still attends his ward even after all he's gone through.

Only a primary source showing the reasons for the excommunications would show that the Church co-opted a heretical treatment of her history. I suspect the reasons are more private than that, otherwise we would have heard a good deal of specific detail about the hypocrisy.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I personally know some of the extended Dehlin Family members.  This is a good family, good people, traditional pioneer stock, descended from General Authorities.  John backed the church into a difficult corner.  I believe that there is an element within church leadership that actually wants to allow space for some of the more progressive points of views some members hold to.  In some ways John Dehlin, in my opinion, got ahead of this element. Was moving too fast and pushing the envelope beyond what the church was prepared to accept. And as a result the church took action to protect its core traditional believers by removing him from his membership and putting the official "mark" of excommunication on him so that traditional members would distance themselves from his message, irrespective of whether or not he was speaking truth or not, the church needed/wanted to protect itself and its members from his message.  In other words the church wasn't ready to go where John Dehlin was pushing them towards. He got out ahead of those who wanted to allow space within the tent for progressive points of view and paid the price for doing so with his membership.  

Ironically I now see Bill Real doing the same exact thing.  He is getting ahead of the church and may also pay a price for doing so.

At some point the church may be forced to make room for more possessive view points as more and more truth claims become untenable, but we have not yet reached that point.

A cute narrative but I do not believe it for a minute.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Only a primary source showing the reasons for the excommunications would show that the Church co-opted a heretical treatment of her history. I suspect the reasons are more private than that, otherwise we would have heard a good deal of specific detail about the hypocrisy.

You can study why each one of the September Six were excommunicated.  From what I've read most were disciplined because of what they were writing, going to publish (or had already published) or were teaching.   Much of that is now written or spoken and believed today and accepted (such as what is contained in the essays).  

Edited October 5, 2017 by ALarson

[Button Gwinnett]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If forcing the Church is the modus operandi of the middle-wayer, that in my mind is adopting an un-Christlike method.

Maintaining and defending truth claims is part of the burden of discipleship, and are matters of faith anyway.

I agree with you that members of the 12 and the First Presidency are charged with maintaining and defending church truth claims. But I also know that many of the truth claims that they have had to defend in the past have come under greater scrutiny and come up lacking.  Richard Bushman has said that

Quote

Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change

So the truth narrative of our founding has to change, the truth that our leaders have to defend has to change.

[Button Gwinnett]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A cute narrative but I do not believe it for a minute.

Really? What exactly don't you believe and what do you believe were the reasons for his excommunication?

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT TRYING TO STIR THE POT AND I DON'T WANT ANYONE IN HERE TRYING TO EITHER

In another recent thread and in recent years the term "middle way mormonism" has been growing in popularity. I believe that folks like John Dehlin and Bill Reel are proponents of such (please correct me if I am wrong). As I understand it, those espousing the "middle way" are essentially saying that you don't have to be a hard line apostate or a TBM either, but that you can find value in the good that Mormonism can bring, even if that means rejecting certain truth claims. Feel free to expand on this rudimentary explanation.

The question I have then, is whether or not there is a middle way? Or rather does the Lord approve of such. Ultimately, I don't think my personal answer is binding on anyone but myself, but based on that stipulation I believe the answer to both questions is no. In contrast to the institutions of the world and the teachings and reason of modern philosophies, the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to conformity. We are not expected to just be true to our self-perceived, authentic selves, but to be more like Christ. To change, to obey and to sacrifice. I don't want to get into what that does and does not mean with regards to the Church and local/general leadership here. 

Suffice it say, I don't think anyone, not even the best of us, is perfect at following the path the Lord has set. The more I think about it the more I realize there are probably things and sins in my life that demonstrate my own personal attempt to find a "middle way" of my own. I believe those attempts are ill-fated and unfruitful. I suppose that we each need to make choices for ourselves that put us not on some middle way, but on the straight and narrow way. 

Whenever this topic is brought up I feel a great deal of angst towards those who disagree in some way with the Church, suggesting, I suppose, that anyone who so does is going down a middle way instead of a strait and narrow way.  I struggle with other member's mentality on this because I really want to see us as all in this together, while members want to push certain people out, create divides and judge others as not pursuing a good goal.  The use of the scripture revelation seals the problem for me, though.  Most in the Church use it to say there are those who aren't fully on board with the Church and they are going down a wrong path in so doing. Those who are in the Church but not fully on board with all it's up to, it seems, are those who are neither hot nor cold.  The passage in Revelation is speaking about a whole Church crew, as if the Church itself was lukewarm suggesting it seems to me, that the individual member of the Church need to learn to not stick to the Church in all things, or at least it could be.  IT's all a matter of working a heart so that the individual is far more interested in the plight of others than one is concerned about pleasing God by following men-defined dogma (and often shouting it from the rooftops).  Of course this isn't easy stuff.  I doubt there is any person in this world who is not lukewarm in some sense or another in any certain goal or activity he/she is pursuing.  Thus, everyone, is perhaps, lukewarm and ready to get spewed out of the Lord's mouth.  To me such an idea brings into question the validity of the claim itself.  Is God really just waiting to spew all of us out of His mouth? 

I feel within the Church a great deal of faith put into the Church, a whole lot of people trusting other people rather than God, a whole lot of honoring of those called into positions of authority so much so there is worship.  It's a sad state of mind, I think, the Church advocates because there are good things accomplished in this world all the time by those who have no affiliation with the Church at all.  This indicates there are truths being embraced outside of the line of authority we often see worshipped in the Church.  The Church and it's members usually treat good as not that which should be embraced but that which ought to be eschewed in some cases.  People are led by men in the Church, for the most part, and that which should be prized (personal inspiration) is decried as a negative while leaders complain of members trying to be individuals and authentic.  Leaders seem to hate that notion, it seems to me. 

If each of us are wrong about something, which stands to reason we are, then condemning a middle way seems about as silly as it gets.  It tells me, clearly, that people are far more about putting their trust in the arm of flesh.  It tells me members are far more about going only so far and fearing the repercussions to pursue good than about doing God's bidding. 

Sadly it seems to me the effect is a people as proud as any in history.  The Church is misdirected treating issues in a petty way, making enemies to feed pride. 

[pogi]

I personally get confused by the term "middle way".  Don't we all fall short of the glory of Christ?  Don't we all (even the so-called TBM's) have different interpretations and understanding of the gospel?  Doesn't that place us all somewhere in the middle? 

So what is the difference exactly?  Does it have to do with their level of apathy?  If Bill Reel is a so called middle-wayer, it would be difficult to label him as apathetic.  He seems to be very much involved, interested, studious, and active in his version of the gospel, perhaps even more involved than I am in my version.

So what is a middle-wayer exactly?  Someone who believes non-traditionally?  I have many non-traditional beliefs (most of us here do) does that make us all middle-wayers because we hold non-traditional beliefs?

I just have trouble understanding what people mean by the phrase, and why the need for this schism in the church?   Because it seems to me like we are all middle wayers to some degree or another, trying our best to understand God's word.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I personally get confused by the term "middle way".  Don't we all fall short of the glory of Christ?  Don't we all (even the so-called TBM's) have different interpretations and understanding of the gospel?  Doesn't that place us all somewhere in the middle? 

So what is the difference exactly?  Does it have to do with their level of apathy?  If Bill Reel is a so called middle-wayer, it would be difficult to label him as apathetic.  He seems to be very much involved, interested, studious, and active in his version of the gospel, perhaps even more involved than I am in my version.

So what is a middle-wayer exactly?  Someone who believes non-traditionally?  I have many non-traditional beliefs (most of us here do) does that make us all middle-wayers because we hold non-traditional beliefs?

I just have trouble understanding what people mean by the phrase, and why the need for this schism in the church?   Because it seems to me like we are all middle wayers to some degree or another, trying our best to understand God's word.

Bingo!

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I can only speak for myself, but I have an abundance of patience for people who are trying to figure things out. Keep figuring!

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can study why each one of the September Six were excommunicated.  From what I've read most were disciplined because of what they were writing, going to publish (or had already published) or were teaching.   Much of that is now written or spoken and believed today and accepted (such as what is contained in the essays).  

Yes, and I've read otherwise, on Wikipedia even. Primary source is essential though, and I haven't seen it.