Is there a middle way?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This may be true where being a Church member is socially acceptable or has broad family support. In these parts, it just doesn't work that way. Being an engaged Church member takes grit and determination.

Hamba, what grit? Is it because there are few members and you have to carry the load or hold many callings? I don't know what you mean, but know you live in another country. 

All I know is it didn't take much for me to believe at one time. But now it would take a miracle for me to be a believing LDS. I am lucky to manage a belief in a Saviour, but it is very weak. Maybe if I grew up in a church that was not a belief in a church and Jesus and only a belief in God/Jesus, I wouldn't have to go through this nonsense. 

 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe if I grew up in a church that was not a belief in a church and Jesus and only a belief in God/Jesus, I wouldn't have to go through this nonsense. 

 

If that is what you need, then go find one instead of bemoaning your fate.  You deserve to be happy, go find what makes you happy.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was agreeing with you...in Utah being an engaged church member takes grit and determination because it is so easy to coast and do the minimal without, from what I have seen, much pressure.  

True. 

Though I can’t say from my own experience what pressure there is elsewhere. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It's the way you interpret the scripture, this is not exegesis, and the scriptures are not quoting Jesus.  

In this instance they purport to be. 

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True. 

Though I can’t say from my own experience what pressure there is elsewhere. 

There is the pressure of being needed at least.  That was all the pressure I ever felt outside of Utah...seeing where wards were struggling and knowing I could help, I volunteered a lot for less popular jobs up till the time I couldn't predict my availability.  I was one of the few Mormons helping at the family history center during the week.  They use men more for cubscouts up in Canada, but no men were available for awhile since they were working or in school at the time, so I covered that for a few years until one of the dads who was self employed had established his work enough he could take an afternoon off.  Then there was the kid who was going through a violence stage, his parents would have had to take him, so I got to be his personal teacher for about 6 months ( when he started school, they were able to get him into an anger management specialty school, wow, turned into a real sweetheart instead of the serial killer I was expecting, lol).

When they had three teachers here in Utah instead of one, I definitely don't feel kids will suffer much if I step away.  I did volunteer to teach 14 year olds when I heard they had gone through more than a dozen teachers in as many months, but had to quit after a year and a half when it shifted to 9.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Hamba, what grit? Is it because there are few members and you have to carry the load or hold many callings?

That's a part of it, yes, but only a small part. Mostly it's the broader context in which we exist. Those who identify as Christians here make up a minority of the population. According to the latest data I could find, only 8% of those attend church at least monthly. We live in an overwhelmingly secular society that looks down on the religious in general, reserves special disdain for antiquated and annoying Christians, and finds Latter-day Saints to be an especially stupid and therefore easy target for mockery.

Our civic religion is sport, and sport participation and attendance are what binds most friendships. Much of this, of course, occurs on Sundays. Drinking alcohol -- whether at sporting events, in pubs and clubs, or at home -- is our unifying sacrament.

When people discover that I'm a Latter-day Saint, the response typically runs the gamut from awkward to unpleasant. I've had an academic adviser tell me that she couldn't believe I was stupid enough to believe in 'Mormonism' since I'd seemed so intelligent to her. When I was still working at the university (till last year), the automatic assumption was that everyone with any higher education is secular and politically 'progressive'. Disagreeing with any facet of the radical gay rights agenda is enough to end a career in many institutions here -- a point acknowledged by my boss at the university in hushed tones behind closed doors.

Very few people in my ward have LDS family members. In many cases, our kids will be the only members in their schools.

Religion, and particularly Christianity, is openly attacked in our schools, and our youth are taught that our morals and values are dangerous to society and must be rejected.

In short, there is pretty much zero social or familial pressure or even support to be a Church member. In fact, it's the opposite. Being a committed, believing Church member opens one up to ridicule, mockery, social isolation outside of the already stretched Church community, and reasonably mild forms of persecution. I work for member who was baptised when she was 18 without her family's knowledge. When her mother discovered a copy of the Book of Mormon in her room, she beat the daughter senseless and demanded that she stop attending.

Both of my housemates are the only members in their families, and they both experience at least mild ridicule for it. In one case, he's had to break off nearly all contact with his father and his sisters because they've been so unpleasant.

In such circumstances, we simply don't hold onto members whose purpose in being members is social.

Quote

But now it would take a miracle for me to be a believing LDS.

The good news is that I believe in all kinds of miracles, including such a one as you need.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I was agreeing with you...in Utah being an engaged church member takes grit and determination because it is so easy to coast and do the minimal without, from what I have seen, much pressure.  

Yes, it's a completely different kind of challenge, but real nonetheless and possibly even more spiritually deadly.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

To those who want to be called Mormon while rejecting the doctrine, yes. The nickname must mean something else to them. To me, calling myself Mormon, and others calling me Mormon, has tremendous doctrinal significance. But in general discourse, the least common denominator to me for using the label "Mormon" is having, or claiming to have, membership in the LDS Church. Typically I see other adjectives being added (middle-way, progressive, fundamentalist, less-active, inactive, Jack, ex-, etc.) to clarify where people are coming from.

[jkwilliams]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

(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?

I'm not aware of a second excommunication, so that's news to me. Perhaps you can point me to the details.

What I understand is that there was a disagreement between Joseph and Frederick over the Kirtland Bank (Lucy Smith and Frederick's son Ezra tell two different stories as to why), and some members blamed him partially for the bank's failure. He was subsequently not sustained as counselor in the First Presidency at Far West in 1837, where he had moved after leaving Kirtland, but he was still active and faithful in the church thereafter. After the Missouri exodus, he was excommunicated along with a list of Missouri "traitors" for "leaving the saints in time of peril, persecution and dangers, and acting against the interests of the Church." However, he had not been in Missouri at the time of the trouble; one account has him being sent by Joseph Smith to find land in Iowa, and another has him being sent to Kirtland to care for cholera victims. Either way, there's nothing tying him to apostasy in Missouri or anywhere else. In 1840, he asked for forgiveness at a conference of the church and was unanimously "received into the fellowship of the Church." I don't think there is a record of rebaptism, but I could be wrong. Anyhow, he remained faithful to the church until his death in 1842 in Illinois. His wife and sons then went west to Utah in 1849.

So, no, I don't see any "middle-way approach" at all. The "lukewarm" suggestion was pure speculation by the BYU history professor I spoke with. He also suggested that there may have been some residual resentment over the Kirtland bank. Whatever the case, as far as I can see, Frederick was always faithful to the church, even after he was excommunicated. People do not tend to give their property, time, money, and effort to an organization or cause they are not committed to. Frederick consecrated 142 acres of his 144-acre property to the church, without compensation; on that property were built the houses of church leaders, the church printing press, and the Kirtland Temple. He served as leader of the temple construction committee, was chief editor and printer of the church's printing press, served several missions, and was a member of Zion's Camp. Doesn't seem particularly like a "middle way" to me. 

Frederick Granger Williams of the First Presidency of the Church gives a good summary of his life and work from a cousin of mine, Frederick G. Williams IV. I'll leave off with this summary from the article:
 

Quote

Prior to joining the Church, Frederick Granger Williams had become a successful doctor with an established practice and a bright future; he had held an elective, civil office for four years; owned land, was relatively wealthy and highly respected. He entered the Church in his mature years, forsaking all these material things, vigorously engaging in the Church's activities whatever they were. Although his testimony and love of the gospel and for Joseph Smith caused him to be persecuted and driven from his home--and in time it cost him all that he owned and broke his health--it was only within the Church that he rose to his greatest heights. He became a justice of the peace, the editor of a newspaper, the president of a bank, a trustee of a school, and a member of the Presidency of the Church. His was the privilege of being equal in holding the keys of the Kingdom with Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon (D&C 90:6). He participated in many glorious spiritual experiences culminating with the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, where he saw an angel58 and--greatest privilege of all--was permitted to see the Savior himself.59 He lost his position of leadership and eventually even his membership in the Church. But whatever his personal weaknesses, he had the strength of character to maintain his loyalty to the Prophet and return humbly to the Church, when it would have been so easy to have disintegrated in bitterness.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

Yeah, that's what a creed is.

We have the Articles of Faith and Temple Recommend and Baptismal interview questions, but there is no official "creed" one MUST accept to be Mormon. If a Mormon is told that his beliefs are not Mormon (don't fit in with what another person feels is a doctrinal qualification) then that is quite alienating. Phrasing a disagreement, as I explained in my previous post really makes a huge difference.

It's quite all right to say "that doesn't match up with my understanding of Mormon doctrine" but IMO not okay to say, "Mormons don't believe that" because you have then just called the person un-Mormon.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, that's what a creed is.

We have the Articles of Faith and Temple Recommend and Baptismal interview questions, but there is no official "creed" one MUST accept to be Mormon. If a Mormon is told that his beliefs are not Mormon (don't fit in with what another person feels is a doctrinal qualification) then that is quite alienating. Phrasing a disagreement, as I explained in my previous post really makes a huge difference.

It's quite all right to say "that doesn't match up with my understanding of Mormon doctrine" but IMO not okay to say, "Mormons don't believe that" because you have then just called the person un-Mormon.

But there are plenty of beliefs that will get you excommunicated for expressing.   We may not have creeds, but there are belief requirements.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not aware of a second excommunication, so that's news to me. Perhaps you can point me to the details.

What I understand is that there was a disagreement between Joseph and Frederick over the Kirtland Bank (Lucy Smith and Frederick's son Ezra tell two different stories as to why), and some members blamed him partially for the bank's failure. He was subsequently not sustained as counselor in the First Presidency at Far West in 1837, where he had moved after leaving Kirtland, but he was still active and faithful in the church thereafter. After the Missouri exodus, he was excommunicated along with a list of Missouri "traitors" for "leaving the saints in time of peril, persecution and dangers, and acting against the interests of the Church." However, he had not been in Missouri at the time of the trouble; one account has him being sent by Joseph Smith to find land in Iowa, and another has him being sent to Kirtland to care for cholera victims). Either way, there's nothing tying him to apostasy in Missouri or anywhere else. In 1840, he asked for forgiveness at a conference of the church and was unanimously "received into the fellowship of the Church." I don't think there is a record of rebaptism, but I could be wrong. Anyhow, he remained faithful to the church until his death in 1842 in Illinois. His wife and sons went west to Utah.

So, no, I don't see any "middle-way approach" at all. The "lukewarm" suggestion was pure speculation by the BYU history professor I spoke with. He also suggested that there may have been some residual resentment over the Kirtland bank. Whatever the case, as far as I can see, Frederick was always faithful to the church, even after he was excommunicated. People do not tend to give their property, time, money, and effort to an organization or cause they are not committed to. Frederick consecrated 142 acres of his 144-acre property to the church, without compensation; on that property were built the houses of church leaders, the church printing press, and the Kirtland Temple. He served as leader of the temple construction committee, was chief editor and printer of the church's printing press, served several missions, was a member of Zion's Camp. Doesn't seem particularly like a "middle way" to me. 

Frederick Granger Williams of the First Presidency of the Church gives a good summary of his life and work from a cousin of mine, Frederick G. Williams IV. I'll leave off with this summary from the article:

Here's where I got the information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_G._Williams

"In 1837, Williams was elected a justice of the peace in Kirtland, appointed an officer in the Kirtland Safety Society, released from the First Presidency, and moved to Far West, Caldwell, County, Missouri. Although there is no record of an excommunication, Williams was rebaptized in August 1838. He was excommunicated in absentia in March 1839 while Joseph Smith was in Liberty Jail, but was restored to fellowship at a church conference presided over by Smith in April 1840. Williams died at Quincy, Illinois."

I assumed the 1838 re-baptism was for reinstatement, but it well could have been for any of the other reasons people were re-baptized back then.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Here's where I got the information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_G._Williams

"In 1837, Williams was elected a justice of the peace in Kirtland, appointed an officer in the Kirtland Safety Society, released from the First Presidency, and moved to Far West, Caldwell, County, Missouri. Although there is no record of an excommunication, Williams was rebaptized in August 1838. He was excommunicated in absentia in March 1839 while Joseph Smith was in Liberty Jail, but was restored to fellowship at a church conference presided over by Smith in April 1840. Williams died at Quincy, Illinois."

I assumed the 1838 re-baptism was for reinstatement, but it well could have been for any of the other reasons people were re-baptized back then.

I'll just quote from the article.

Quote

Elder Williams, though no longer a member of the First Presidency, was still a member of the Church in good standing as evidenced by the fact that on 6 December 1837 he was appointed to sign elders' licenses as chairman pro tempore of the Missouri high council, in the absence of President Whitmer.
       
Of particular interest as indicating the Williamses' feelings in 1838 is a letter written to Rebecca Williams from her brother.
       
After her baptism into the Church, her father had disowned her and had refused members of the family permission to have anything further to do with her. When her father learned of the 1837-1838 Exodus of the saints from Kirtland and heard it rumored that his daughter and son-in-law turned from the Church and denounced Joseph Smith, he wrote Rebecca and asked her to come home if the rumor were true. Rebecca answered him from Far West, Missouri on 1 August 1838 reaffirming their faith both in the Church and the Prophet. His letter relates that their father had read her letter and, after a moment of silence, had looked up and said, "Not a word of repentence!"

To clarify, I am unaware of an excommunication or rebaptism at that time (1837-38). That said, there were charges of misconduct against him in 1837 brought before the high council in Kirtland, but the council did not hear the case or take any action; nothing is known about what this misconduct may have been, but again, many people, including our family, assume it had to do with his being blamed for the bank failure.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But there are plenty of beliefs that will get you excommunicated for expressing.   We may not have creeds, but there are belief requirements.

So then there are creeds. Just unwritten creeds, right?

So while church leaders are quick to denounce the Nicene and Athansian creeds it sounds like they are replacing them with new Mormon creeds.

The claim of Mormon creeds is confusing because it's inconsistent with what Joseph Smith taught.

Quote

were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein; whereas the Latter Day Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” (Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman, p. 285)

Quote

“have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”  (Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman) (History of the Church, vol 5, pg 340)

It doesn't seem to me that Joseph Smith was a fan of creeds because it boxed people in to required beliefs. It seems current church leaders may be more open to tramelling others by requiring them to have certain beliefs or "be kicked out of their church".

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So then there are creeds. Just unwritten creeds, right?

So while church leaders are quick to denounce the Nicene and Athansian creeds it sounds like they are replacing them with new Mormon creeds.

The claim of Mormon creeds is confusing because it's inconsistent with what Joseph Smith taught.

It doesn't seem to me that Joseph Smith was a fan of creeds because it boxed people in to required beliefs. It seems current church leaders may be more open to tramelling others by requiring them to have certain beliefs or "be kicked out of their church".

I don't know that it is "have certain beliefs or 'be kicked out'", but not teach against certain beliefs or be kicked out. This still allows for "It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine ” - if a man errs in doctrine he can continue to be in the church because is a good man.as he continues to listen to the Lord then the Holy Ghost will correct him on those beliefs. Teaching incorrect doctrine, especially when asked not to is another story.

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think so.  The Lord looks on the heart.  All of us, at some point, have probably been living a middle way. That does not mean we are always living the middle way. As I said above, when we are sincere and striving we will not be in the middle way even if our actions seem to be middle way. And even if we are not striving every single minute. 

The Living Christ says, "Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts." Our desires because no one is perfect. Our works because our desires must lead to works if they are to mean anything. Note that they don't say our "perfect works". 

So you try to follow Christ, make a mistake, repent and try again. That isn't living middle road. That's the road that leads to Christ.

 

 

You are right and it was kind of my point.  I truly believe that we all have qualities...and spiritual qualities where we may be more valiant than others..while still working out those things that we need to improve.  The middle road may be fine for those things we are working on...but I think we all don't give ourselves or each other credit for those high roads that we excel in.  Thank you. 

[jkwilliams]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

But God is a merciful God, and let's all say a collective 'amen' that because of Christ, none of us (Bobbieaware included) will get what we deserve.  

Looking back on my life, many of the best people I have known in the church would be judged, at least by some, as "not-all-in" members. I know many people who magnify their callings and go out of their way to serve and love others, but at the same time they struggle with some church teachings. For example, I know a man who has taught Primary, Young Men, Sunday School, and priesthood meeting; has been Sunday School president and elder's quorum secretary. He pays tithing, attends his meetings, keeps the Word of Wisdom, sustains church leaders, and is easily the most dedicated and compassionate home teacher I have ever seen; in short, he lives a very Christlike life. However, he is uncomfortable with the temple ceremonies, so he hasn't attended the temple in many years and does not wear garments. He has a few other issues with church doctrines, but that is the main one. 

I for one am grateful that it is the Savior who will be judging us. This good brother I know would be judged by many people as not keeping his covenants and not being "all in." But I suspect that the Savior will judge him differently than we mortals would.

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this instance they purport to be. 

Yes, there are many examples of pseudepigrapha, but I don't recall which book she's referring to specifically.  Oh, and all the first person language was the writing style, it wasn't purported to be written by or a quote from Jesus directly, what you're doing is a modern misreading of scripture.  

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'll just quote from the article.

To clarify, I am unaware of an excommunication or rebaptism at that time (1837-38). That said, there were charges of misconduct against him in 1837 brought before the high council in Kirtland, but the council did not hear the case or take any action; nothing is known about what this misconduct may have been, but again, many people, including our family, assume it had to do with his being blamed for the bank failure.

All's well that ends well!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So then there are creeds. Just unwritten creeds, right?

So while church leaders are quick to denounce the Nicene and Athansian creeds it sounds like they are replacing them with new Mormon creeds.

The claim of Mormon creeds is confusing because it's inconsistent with what Joseph Smith taught.

It doesn't seem to me that Joseph Smith was a fan of creeds because it boxed people in to required beliefs. It seems current church leaders may be more open to tramelling others by requiring them to have certain beliefs or "be kicked out of their church".

I doubt even Joseph would have been OK with disputing the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the divinity (or even the very existence) of Jesus Christ. Yet that’s what I see some professed Mormons doing. 

Joseph’s frame of reference was one of encountering persecution for endeavoring to impart additional revealed knowledge about Jesus Christ and His gospel on the basis of it not coinciding with certain unscriptural creeds. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, there are many examples of pseudepigrapha, but I don't recall which book she's referring to specifically.  Oh, and all the first person language was the writing style, it wasn't purported to be written by or a quote from Jesus directly, what you're doing is a modern misreading of scripture.  

You don’t recall which book she’s referring to, yet you’re sure it’s psudepigripha, and a misquotation of it at that. 

Hmm. 

[Button Gwinnett]

With a few exceptions I view many on this board as Middle Way Mormon's, that is not intended as an offense just an observation.  But then I view a Middle Way Mormons as anyone who holds non-traditional views. Anyone of these views, one or all could qualify someone as middle way.  The member who believes in Evolution instead of traditional Ex nihilo Creation, save for the existing matter,  believes in a non historical Book of Mormon, yet still views the book as Scripture, who has abandoned a believe in a universal flood, takes a cafeteria approach to church doctrines, picking and choosing which among the plethora of doctrines that the church espouses to believe in.  I also view Middle way Mormon's as those who massage what a full tithe is by paying a tithe on less then a full 10% of Gross income and paying 10% of increase or net income.  A middle way Mormon would be anyone who needs to nuance their answers in a Temple recommend interview.  And as I said earlier, I'm guessing that this board is full of Middle Way Mormon's

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You don’t recall which book she’s referring to, yet you’re sure it’s psudepigripha, and a misquotation of it at that. 

Hmm. 

I'm saying there are a lot of pseudopigraphical works in the NT, which is one example of scriptures purporting to be something that they aren't, which is what you referred to, but I don't know which scriptural reference Bluebell was referring to exactly.  I could guess, but she never linked to any specific passages.  Also, the first person voice was a literary device frequently used during that time period.  

[Scott Lloyd]

What I find puzzling about some so-called middle-way Mormons is the incoherence of their position. One prominent podcaster devoted an episode to extolling his gratitude for and belief in the Atonement yet, in the same program, said Christ might not have been a real person. 

It does not compute. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

With a few exceptions I view many on this board as Middle Way Mormon's, that is not intended as an offense just an observation.  But then I view a Middle Way Mormons as anyone who holds non-traditional views. Anyone of these views, one or all could qualify someone as middle way.  The member who believes in Evolution instead of traditional Ex nihilo Creation, save for the existing matter,  believes in a non historical Book of Mormon, yet still views the book as Scripture, who has abandoned a believe in a universal flood, takes a cafeteria approach to church doctrines, picking and choosing which among the plethora of doctrines that the church espouses to believe in.  I also view Middle way Mormon's as those who massage what a full tithe is by paying a tithe on less then a full 10% of Gross income and paying 10% of increase or net income.  A middle way Mormon would be anyone who needs to nuance their answers in a Temple recommend interview.  And as I said earlier, I'm guessing that this board is full of Middle Way Mormon's

I also see that the church is now pretty full of Middle Way Mormons (at least in my ward and area).  I can't speak for those in other areas, but both my wife and I have family in Utah and they would also be considered to be middle way (and they are very active, temple going, tithing paying Mormons some with leadership callings....they just keep their views to themselves and I think that is quite common).  Members are starting to search and read and think more for themselves.  Which leads to not so staunch adherence or blind obedience.  This can be both good and not so good, of course.... 

It used to be that no one ever really questioned anything that the leaders taught or spoke (at least not like they do now with the fact checking and so on).  This is changing things, IMO.

Edited October 6, 2017 by ALarson