Is there a middle way?

[stemelbow]

19 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.

Exactly.  IT'd be weird to accept that not all of us come up short in understanding/comprehending God's truth and yet think some certain group of members are coming up short because they are defined by extraneous dogma to be different. 

[ALarson]

Just now, CV75 said:

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

I'm not sure who you are referring to because you're not stating a name (and that's fine if you chose not to).  But I doubt there's much disagreement regarding why most of them were disciplined.  For Quinn, he was specifically handed a letter citing two different articles that he'd written as to why he was being charged with apostasy.  

This is probably a topic for another thread though...so I'll drop it and just leave it that I disagree with you.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

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

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

I was thinking of all disciples, not just top leaders, and observing that truth claims are first and foremost matter of faith (for all).

Bushman's remark if often taken out of context, and misapplied as it is for the point you are making. For a thorough discussion about that, so as not to rehash it here, I recommend this thread, beginning on page 3:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69653-mormon-discussion-podcast-and-negativity/?page=3

 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure who you are referring to because you're not stating a name (and that's fine if you chose not to).  But I doubt there's much disagreement regarding why most of them were disciplined.  For Quinn, he was specifically handed a letter citing two different articles that he'd written as to why he was being charged with apostasy.  

This is probably a topic for another thread though...so I'll drop it and just leave it that I disagree with you.

Mine is more an appeal to use primary sources in proper discussion of why people were excommunicated when the reasons for their excommunication is being used to support a particular a point.

[hope_for_things]

17 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 don't like the categories that you've articulated, but instead of completely disagreeing with the definitions, let me try to comment on this.  

For many people that lose their orthodox beliefs that I've met, including myself, it really makes it hard to fit into the Mormon culture.  I'm still fairly orthoprax and I think I'll always consider myself Mormon, because I just don't know how to identify any other way, but I'm also a naturalist, and my beliefs about God are so different that most don't understand or respect those beliefs if I begin to try and explain my perspective.  

You're worried about whether the "Lord approves" and I don't even consider that a relevant concern.  I don't believe in a God that approves or disapproves in the way you've explained.  I believe in good and evil, and I believe we should strive to do good and this is the central core of my religious conviction.  But I don't know anything about the afterlife if it even exists and that's not what motivates me.  

So how do I want to engage in Mormonism?  I want to be respected and valued.  I want to respect and value others.  I want to try and be an influence for good when I interact with others, this includes helping my Mormon tribe to change where change is needed.  I want to serve and be served, and I don't want to be thought of as someone who is sinning or less than because of my unorthodox beliefs. 

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Mine is more an appeal to use primary sources in proper discussion of why people were excommunicated when the reasons for their excommunication is being used to support a particular a point.

I agree and this is what I've done.  

But take this to another thread if you want to further discuss it.  I don't want to derail this one.

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't like the categories that you've articulated, but instead of completely disagreeing with the definitions, let me try to comment on this.  

For many people that lose their orthodox beliefs that I've met, including myself, it really makes it hard to fit into the Mormon culture.  I'm still fairly orthoprax and I think I'll always consider myself Mormon, because I just don't know how to identify any other way, but I'm also a naturalist, and my beliefs about God are so different that most don't understand or respect those beliefs if I begin to try and explain my perspective.  

You're worried about whether the "Lord approves" and I don't even consider that a relevant concern.  I don't believe in a God that approves or disapproves in the way you've explained.  I believe in good and evil, and I believe we should strive to do good and this is the central core of my religious conviction.  But I don't know anything about the afterlife if it even exists and that's not what motivates me.  

So how do I want to engage in Mormonism?  I want to be respected and valued.  I want to respect and value others.  I want to try and be an influence for good when I interact with others, this includes helping my Mormon tribe to change where change is needed.  I want to serve and be served, and I don't want to be thought of as someone who is sinning or less than because of my unorthodox beliefs. 

Thanks for your thoughts on this.  So much rings true to my own feelings. 

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

 

I credit you for my own better understanding of the mormon church today.  As a woman, I respect that you have respect for your own feelings and value and that you hold fast to being true to yourself.  Where that self goes...is so up to you and should be. 

[Calm]

2 hours 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.  

I find it extremely hard to believe that the Church is ever going to be accepting of public teaching of doubt in the divinity of Christ.

That is not progressive thinking, it is heretical thinking.

[Calm]

nvr mind, no time

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

However, they each had elements that are unacceptable...rewriting the Godhead for example.

Yes.  (That's why I used the word "much" rather than "all" )

 

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I credit you for my own better understanding of the mormon church today.  As a woman, I respect that you have respect for your own feelings and value and that you hold fast to being true to yourself.  Where that self goes...is so up to you and should be. 

Thanks Jeanne, I'm sad to admit or glad for you, that I wasn't really the member you were. I did all the motions except the inner kind such as studying my scriptures, or having a personal relationship with Jesus/God. You were that member, look how you've managed to keep a belief in God/Jesus! 

[HappyJackWagon]

It seems like there is a continual desire by many to fit people into easily identifiable categories. I understand and do it myself. But I don't think it's a positive or useful effort.

I would suggest that most everyone walks the middle way in one way or another, whether it be in orthopraxy or orthodoxy. But claiming that there is only one way to believe and behave, immediately alienates a large population of people who recognize that they are not perfectly orthodox or orthoprax. The labels act as an acceptance or a rejection from the in-group. What purpose does that serve? It makes the in-group feel good about themselves and alienates those they don't deem to be good enough.

I see that those walking the "middle way" (however one might define that), are often rejected by both extremes; the ultra orthodox/orthopraxy on one side and those who want the church to burn to the ground on the other. Neither seem to appreciate the person who can find value in an organization even when they recognize the serious flaws. Neither of these 2 extreme groups respect those trying to walk the middle way. They point, scoff, and scorn from their great and spacious buildings. Both groups feel the middle way is a fools errand, yet many people try to walk the middle path anyway. Why?

Sometimes it's because the person finds greater value in participating (even if at a reduced level) in an organization than leaving it outright. Perhaps there is peace and joy found in some of the teachings, or the community, or the lifestyle, or the heritage, or the family interactions. But for whatever reason, a person may choose to stay engaged at a reduced level. What I cannot understand is why anyone in the church would push these people farther away, but it happens continually. The message is sent that these middle-wayers just aren't good enough. They'll get the terrestrial kingdom. They are deceived. They are the tares. They are the 50 unwise virgins etc. etc.

Instead of placing people in these categories and judging them based on what you think they should be, I'd recommend just being happy that they are engaging with the church in some way, even if its small. If you are unable to welcome, love, and accept people who don't perfectly fit your definition of the Mormon mold, then it really just shows how insecure you are and how fragile your faith is. People are all over the spectrum and I suggest the middle way is the broadest of the groups with only a few loud extremists on either end of that spectrum.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Jeanne, I'm sad to admit or glad for you, that I wasn't really the member you were. I did all the motions except the inner kind such as studying my scriptures, or having a personal relationship with Jesus/God. You were that member, look how you've managed to keep a belief in God/Jesus! 

Oh...Tacenda...it took me a long time to get reactivated though...and through all of this...I did not even make it to the Temple.  You have....and so what you are feeling or not feeling is so much harder for you than for me.  This is why I respect your feelings so much.  I wish you many good things...and if hangin' on or later on becoming a devout and understanding member...you deserve happiness...because you listened to your conscience and your heart..

[Jeanne]

Unless anyone is absolute in striving for perfection, everyone in any church on Sunday...is middle way.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree and this is what I've done.  

But take this to another thread if you want to further discuss it.  I don't want to derail this one.

That was my attempt to not derail LOL I simply saw no primary source for the actual reason for the excommunication being referenced. Since this thread in part touches on how middle-way is thought by some to contribute to the advancement of the kingdom, excommunication is not exactly an example of taking a middle way and is not connected to the Church's improvements in the presentation of her history and other Gospel Topics.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That was my attempt to not derail LOL I simply saw no primary source for the actual reason for the excommunication being referenced. Since this thread in part touches on how middle-way is thought by some to contribute to the advancement of the kingdom, excommunication is not exactly an example of taking a middle way and is not connected to the Church's improvements in the presentation of her history and other Gospel Topics.

And that has nothing to do with my original reference or comment.  You are the one who took it in a different direction (headed towards a derail).   I never stated that excommunication was "an example of taking a middle way".

[pogi]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The labels act as an acceptance or a rejection from the in-group. What purpose does that serve? It makes the in-group feel good about themselves and alienates those they don't deem to be good enough.

I agree, I don't like labels.  As far as I can tell though, the term "middle-way Mormon" was created by those who reject more orthodox views while still identifying as Mormon.  It is a self-applied term and a self-imposed alienation - a form of judgement of the more orthodox believers in that they don't want to be associated with such believers.  These self declared middle-way Mormons want to be seen as different and separate from the body of believers simply called Mormons.  I really dislike that.  I wish that everybody would simply identify themselves and others as Mormons who belong to the church - because, as you state, we are all to some degree or another on the middle ground.  Until a person has been judged by the church to be apostate and excommunicated, they are to me simply a Mormon, a brother/sister in the gospel. 

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And that has nothing to do with my original reference or comment.  You are the one who took it in a different direction (headed towards a derail).   I never stated that excommunication was "an example of taking a middle way".

We were both responding to Button’s post, and I responded to you. He was pointing out how the Church may be forced to make room for more possessive [sic] view points; this reminded you of Quinn’s excommunication and the current lds.org essays to show that the Church now embraces scholarly conclusions previously condemned. Mt posts are consistent with the thread in that a) I don’t see excommunication as exemplifying a progressive or middle path; b) more so when the reason for the excommunication is not substantiated as a middle-way issue; c) further, the Church evidently appreciates good scholarship no matter the source.

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Mt posts are consistent with the thread in that a) I don’t see excommunication as exemplifying a progressive or middle path; b) more so when the reason for the excommunication is not substantiated as a middle-way issue; c) further, the Church evidently appreciates good scholarship no matter the source.

Then take the thread in that direction if you want to.  Those are not the points I was making and you misunderstood my comment.

Or maybe start a new thread if you want to discuss your points above (they are different from what I was stating).

I'm moving on now....

Edited October 5, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

In the early days of the church, some people were excommunicated for being "lukewarm." 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then take the thread in that direction if you want to.  Those are not the points I was making and you misunderstood my comment.

Or maybe start a new thread if you want to discuss your points above (they are different from what I was stating).

I'm moving on now....

Please do! I made a simple point and had to explain it ad nauseam to be polite. LOL

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In the early days of the church, some people were excommunicated for being "lukewarm." 

The pioneers of the middle way?

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The pioneers of the middle way?

I don't know. I visited with a church historian many years ago when I was trying to learn about Frederick G. Williams. The historian told me that there was no credible charge of apostasy when F.G. Williams was excommunicated, so he suggested that, like many others, my ancestor may have been excommunicated for being lukewarm. I'd never heard that before, but apparently it wasn't that uncommon.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  (That's why I used the word "much" rather than "all" )

 

I felt it needed to be clarified because this was not a situation that it is judged by numbers of things right or wrong. It is irrelevant, IMO, that some of the stuff they are saying is accepted now. There is no reason to assume these were the things that got them excommunicated considering their more extreme positions.