Is there a middle way?

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is irrelevant, IMO, that some of the stuff they are saying is accepted now.

I understand if you feel that way.  However, many do not think that it is "irrelevant", but actually quite important to acknowledge.

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is no reason to assume these were the things that got them excommunicated considering their more extreme positions. 

If we believe those who were actually excommunicated, we should assume this happened with some.  However, I agree that others who have been excommunicated did hold some "extreme positions" that will not likely ever be taught by church leaders.

ETA:

I want to clarify that I don't believe this is an indication of moving towards the "middle way" (whatever that is...), just because "some of the stuff they are saying is accepted now".  (For example, the post manifesto polygamous sealings that are now acknowledged, for one).  I see it as accepting a more accurate history.

I believe that Dehlin should have been excommunicated and was surprised he wasn't disciplined before he was.   

Edited October 5, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

I don't have a problem with the general behaviour of those who may not hold most of the traditional beliefs, including participating at church. It is the label itself I have a problem with. I think it creates confusion more than explains. 

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

Exactly. If you want to be identified as a Mormon, then identify yourself that way. 

[Mystery Meat]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Thank, HJW, I appreciate your thoughts here. When I started this thread and the OP, I don't think my thoughts were completely finalized. But as I typed, I realized that I too was probably a middle wayer in some way or another. I hope my post conveyed a softer tone. If not, that is on me. I do believe we should be loving and welcoming to all, including the middlewayer. I do not think anyone gets to dictate the terms of what that love is or how it should be expressed. If they don't feel loved, then we should evaluate what we could do to better express it. However, if they demand love be expressed in a way that results in accepting some of the beliefs that many of us have that very well could be wrong, then I think it is no longer an us issue, its a them issue (for the most part). If folks become more and more vocal about the righteousness and correctness of their own viewpoints (in start contrast to the doctrines and even policies of the Church as taught by those with authority) then, sadly, excommunication may be justified and beneficial for all parties.

[Mystery Meat]

I really have no interest in making this an us against them discussion. The Savior said, "if you ye are not one, ye are not mine." Or something very close to that. I don't think labels like TBM, Orthodox, Orthoprax and middlewayer help to create the sense of unity the Savior had in mind.

I have beliefs that I think are outside of traditional, mainstream Mormonism. But, to be fair, I am not sure there is much left of traditional, mainstream Mormonism. I think there are few who ever fit in that mold. 

As I have read through this thread, I have asked myself how we can be one with so many divergent opinions. Many of us believe we have better answers or better beliefs on certain issues then the Church. I know many hate this answer, but I do think it is right to submit ourselves to the Lord's will and those he has called to direct the affairs of the Church. I have yet to see a scriptural precedent for the types of advocacy practiced by many. I don't think (personally) that we can achieve unity with so much descension,  evil speaking, anger, insulting, disregard, and campaigning. It is unpopular, but I think we are expected to, what others would call, get in line, and, what I would call, get to work. In the instances where the Church may have it wrong, I believe those errors would be more quickly corrected.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

(that was supposed to be a joke) But is this the F. G. Williams from the D&C, who was then re-baptized, excommunicated again, and then restored to fellowship? Do you see his work in the Church as indicative of a middle-way approach?

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

I really have no interest in making this an us against them discussion. The Savior said, "if you ye are not one, ye are not mine." Or something very close to that. I don't think labels like TBM, Orthodox, Orthoprax and middlewayer help to create the sense of unity the Savior had in mind.

I have beliefs that I think are outside of traditional, mainstream Mormonism. But, to be fair, I am not sure there is much left of traditional, mainstream Mormonism. I think there are few who ever fit in that mold. 

As I have read through this thread, I have asked myself how we can be one with so many divergent opinions. Many of us believe we have better answers or better beliefs on certain issues then the Church. I know many hate this answer, but I do think it is right to submit ourselves to the Lord's will and those he has called to direct the affairs of the Church. I have yet to see a scriptural precedent for the types of advocacy practiced by many. I don't think (personally) that we can achieve unity with so much descension,  evil speaking, anger, insulting, disregard, and campaigning. It is unpopular, but I think we are expected to, what others would call, get in line, and, what I would call, get to work. In the instances where the Church may have it wrong, I believe those errors would be more quickly corrected.

I think a good way to be one is to focus on the Savior and try to assess whatever it is we believe in terms of how clearly and how well it ties back to Him. That way, at least outwardly we are one while inwardly we are humbly and honestly assessing our beliefs in relation to Him alone. I think that is one way to keep the peace.

[HappyJackWagon]

52 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I really have no interest in making this an us against them discussion. The Savior said, "if you ye are not one, ye are not mine." Or something very close to that. I don't think labels like TBM, Orthodox, Orthoprax and middlewayer help to create the sense of unity the Savior had in mind.

I have beliefs that I think are outside of traditional, mainstream Mormonism. But, to be fair, I am not sure there is much left of traditional, mainstream Mormonism. I think there are few who ever fit in that mold. 

As I have read through this thread, I have asked myself how we can be one with so many divergent opinions. Many of us believe we have better answers or better beliefs on certain issues then the Church. I know many hate this answer, but I do think it is right to submit ourselves to the Lord's will and those he has called to direct the affairs of the Church. I have yet to see a scriptural precedent for the types of advocacy practiced by many. I don't think (personally) that we can achieve unity with so much descension,  evil speaking, anger, insulting, disregard, and campaigning. It is unpopular, but I think we are expected to, what others would call, get in line, and, what I would call, get to work. In the instances where the Church may have it wrong, I believe those errors would be more quickly corrected.

I hear what you're saying, but we are not all the same. Being one doesn't require sameness. As the body of Christ we are feet, fingers, noses, eyes, hair, blood etc. If the feet claim that all others should be feet and that the body has no need of fingers or noses, then the feet don't understand what it means to be different but one.

As Pres. Uchtdorf stated in his Four Titles talk...

Quote

But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father.

We can be different and one, which is why the middlewayer needs to be accepted and included by those who are in positions of leadership instead of casting them out as different or unworthy

[bluebell]

These kinds of discussions always make me wonder, when has someone gone too far?  When is it acceptable for a member to reject another member's doctrinal beliefs as a mormon?   And by reject I'm not talking about anything uncharitable or mean, nor about excommunication for publicly teaching anything contrary to church doctrine.  But more of a 'You can't be a mormon and believe that' discussion between members that has nothing to do with leadership, kind of thing.

Do people have the right to completely define their own way of being mormon in the LDS church, or are there some boundaries that they must stay inside?  Is there a line of demarcation between mormon and not-actually-mormon-even-if-you-claim-you-are or is it an anything goes situation?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These kinds of discussions always make me wonder, when has someone gone too far?  When is it acceptable for a member to reject another member's doctrinal beliefs as a mormon?   And by reject I'm not talking about anything uncharitable or mean, nor about excommunication for publicly teaching anything contrary to church doctrine.  But more of a 'You can't be a mormon and believe that' discussion between members that has nothing to do with leadership, kind of thing.

Do people have the right to completely define their own way of being mormon in the LDS church, or are there some boundaries that they must stay inside?  Is there a line of demarcation between mormon and not-actually-mormon-even-if-you-claim-you-are or is it an anything goes situation?

 

It sounds like you're asking if there is a Mormon Creed one must accept to be considered Mormon. It seems the church has been quite leery of creeds, and for good reason.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

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

I do not believe there is a group in church leadership sympathetic to Dehlin's "progressive views".

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These kinds of discussions always make me wonder, when has someone gone too far?  When is it acceptable for a member to reject another member's doctrinal beliefs as a mormon?   And by reject I'm not talking about anything uncharitable or mean, nor about excommunication for publicly teaching anything contrary to church doctrine.  But more of a 'You can't be a mormon and believe that' discussion between members that has nothing to do with leadership, kind of thing.

Do people have the right to completely define their own way of being mormon in the LDS church, or are there some boundaries that they must stay inside?  Is there a line of demarcation between mormon and not-actually-mormon-even-if-you-claim-you-are or is it an anything goes situation?

I think that we are given plenty of room for varying beliefs within the church.  So long as we are not sinning ourselves out of the church, and are avoiding apostasy, we are pretty free to believe according to the dictates of our own conscience and remain a Mormon.  According to the church handbook, section 6.7.3, apostasy refers to members who:

1) Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2) Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3) Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4) Are in a same-gender marriage.
5) Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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

If we start using definitions like that then there was only one Christian and one Mormon in history and they are the same guy. Seems pointless to me.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These kinds of discussions always make me wonder, when has someone gone too far?  When is it acceptable for a member to reject another member's doctrinal beliefs as a mormon?   And by reject I'm not talking about anything uncharitable or mean, nor about excommunication for publicly teaching anything contrary to church doctrine.  But more of a 'You can't be a mormon and believe that' discussion between members that has nothing to do with leadership, kind of thing.

Do people have the right to completely define their own way of being mormon in the LDS church, or are there some boundaries that they must stay inside?  Is there a line of demarcation between mormon and not-actually-mormon-even-if-you-claim-you-are or is it an anything goes situation?

 

There is no way to draw such a line completely and cleanly nor is it desireable to do so even for official Church discipline. Setting up a line you cannot cross means our malevolent apostates will know exactly what they have to do to stay in the church so they can stay and do as much damage as they can.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds like you're asking if there is a Mormon Creed one must accept to be considered Mormon. It seems the church has been quite leery of creeds, and for good reason.

No, that's not what I'm really asking.  For example, if an active member said that they believe that Jesus Christ was a mortal man who taught good things but was not resurrected and that the Atonement never happened (and is a false doctrine), would that be an o.k. time for another member to say something like "it's fine if you want to believe that, but that's not what mormons believe"?

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These kinds of discussions always make me wonder, when has someone gone too far?  When is it acceptable for a member to reject another member's doctrinal beliefs as a mormon?   And by reject I'm not talking about anything uncharitable or mean, nor about excommunication for publicly teaching anything contrary to church doctrine.  But more of a 'You can't be a mormon and believe that' discussion between members that has nothing to do with leadership, kind of thing.

Do people have the right to completely define their own way of being mormon in the LDS church, or are there some boundaries that they must stay inside?  Is there a line of demarcation between mormon and not-actually-mormon-even-if-you-claim-you-are or is it an anything goes situation?

 

When is the someone going "too far" the stake president or the bishop putting a member on trial for apostasy.  When is the someone going too far, the neighbor or friend on facebook judging a fellow member and excluding them or treating them as less than.  When are orthodox members acting as judge and jury, taking on the persona of a Javert from Les Miserables going too far in their efforts to support an orthodoxy.  Did Elder Oaks go too far in his conference talk?  

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If we start using definitions like that then there was only one Christian and one Mormon in history and they are the same guy. Seems pointless to me.

Jesus was mormon????

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, that's not what I'm really asking.  For example, if an active member said that they believe that Jesus Christ was a mortal man who taught good things but was not resurrected and that the Atonement never happened (and is a false doctrine), would that be an o.k. time for another member to say something like "it's fine if you want to believe that, but that's not what mormons believe"?

I would have no problem saying something like "that isn't standard Mormon teaching", but saying "that's not what Mormon's believe" wouldn't be accurate since there's at least one Mormon (the one saying it) who believes it. By framing it as "Mormons don't believe" it is essentially declaring the other person to be unworthy of being called a Mormon.

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These kinds of discussions always make me wonder, when has someone gone too far?  When is it acceptable for a member to reject another member's doctrinal beliefs as a mormon?   And by reject I'm not talking about anything uncharitable or mean, nor about excommunication for publicly teaching anything contrary to church doctrine.  But more of a 'You can't be a mormon and believe that' discussion between members that has nothing to do with leadership, kind of thing.

Do people have the right to completely define their own way of being mormon in the LDS church, or are there some boundaries that they must stay inside?  Is there a line of demarcation between mormon and not-actually-mormon-even-if-you-claim-you-are or is it an anything goes situation?

 

I'm pretty sure that anything goes (A o F 1:11). I think the line gets crossed when people get pushy about their beliefs; say something like, "Your belief is not allowed," or, mischaracterize / misrepresent another's beliefs. I think the A o F does support the privilege to point out to another the consequences of acting on what he claims to believe.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would have no problem saying something like "that isn't standard Mormon teaching", but saying "that's not what Mormon's believe" wouldn't be accurate since there's at least one Mormon (the one saying it) who believes it. By framing it as "Mormons don't believe" it is essentially declaring the other person to be unworthy of being called a Mormon.

Yes, that's essentially what i'm asking (not concerning being unworthy, but rather being doctrinally incongruent with the truths one must accept to become a mormon) .  

Does being a mormon actually mean anything, doctrinally speaking?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm pretty sure that anything goes (A o F 1:11). I think the line gets crossed when people get pushy about their beliefs; say something like, "Your belief is not allowed," or, mischaracterize / misrepresent another's beliefs. I think the A o F does support the privilege to point out to another the consequences of acting on what he claims to believe.

What if someone were to deny the existence of God as the LDS church teaches Him, but still wanted to be called a Mormon?  Is that too far or just fine?

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When is the someone going "too far" the stake president or the bishop putting a member on trial for apostasy.  When is the someone going too far, the neighbor or friend on facebook judging a fellow member and excluding them or treating them as less than.  When are orthodox members acting as judge and jury, taking on the persona of a Javert from Les Miserables going too far in their efforts to support an orthodoxy.  Did Elder Oaks go too far in his conference talk?  

No, i don't think that Elder Oaks went to far in his conference talk, but that's a different discussion.

 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What if someone were to deny the existence of God as the LDS church teaches Him, but still wanted to be called a Mormon?  Is that too far or just fine?

I believe that is his privilege. For most people, I think lines are crossed on an interpersonal basis before a doctrinal or belief basis.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I believe that is his privilege. For most people, I think lines are crossed on an interpersonal basis before a doctrinal or belief basis.

So in your opinion, being a mormon has no meaning, doctrinally speaking?  Am I understanding you right?

[Button Gwinnett]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not believe there is a group in church leadership sympathetic to Dehlin's "progressive views".

And I would agree with that assessment but that was not the point I was attempting to make.  I was trying to say that I believe there is an element within church leadership trying to make a safe space for progressive Mormon's, allow for a lager tent. I was not saying that they are trying to make a space for Dehlin Mormon's