Is there a middle way?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 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 think there’s a distinction between traditional views and authoritative views. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

I'll bet a lot of members aren't true believers but go for the social, or to be accepted or for their families. And I think Dehlin probably crossed the line so many times it was time to call him in. He had ample times that he was given second chances. He had his stake president and bishop working with him, also general authorities/authority. 

I think a couple of podcasts may have done him in. The one with Sandra Tanner comes to mind...

Like you said, it seems pretty clear that simply asking questions and believing unorthodox things is not what got Dehlin excommunicated.  

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

Is it weird though that the least common denominator for using the label of Mormon is membership in the church, knowing that if the person was trying to get baptized with such beliefs, they would never actually be allowed to be a member?

What I mean is, membership in the LDS church is completely based on acceptance of the doctrine, right?  No accepting the doctrine = not allowed to join.  So from your perspective, if acceptance of church doctrine is mandatory to join, at what point does acceptance of doctrine not become mandatory?  

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

A creed is a formal statement.  I'm not asking about the acceptance of formal statements.  And I'm not really talking about making someone feel accepted or unaccepted.  I'm not coming at the question from the point of view of the person with the unorthodox beliefs but from the perspective of a person who is not a middle-wayer but who is trying to figure out if that kind of belief system is acceptable to God.

The baptismal interview questions is a good example of the doctrines that i'm talking about.  Does someone have to answer those questions correctly in order to be baptized and become a member of the Mormon church?  Are there some beliefs that people can't hold and still join the church?  Are there doctrines that people must believe to join the church?

If the answers to those questions are 'yes,' then what does that mean in regards to those people who are very much members right now, but who would never be allowed to become members if they had to answer those questions again?

From my perspective, this is one of the reasons that a lot of members have so much trouble with the idea of a middle-way.  We have members who got baptized before their beliefs changed, but who would never be allowed to be baptized today with their current beliefs.  They are both mormon but then not mormon at the same time.  For a lot of members, that's hard to doctrinally wrap their heads around.  

[Rain]

On 10/4/2017 at 3:43 PM, 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.

 

On 10/4/2017 at 3:43 PM, Mystery Meat said:

 

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. 

After reading a couple of the last posts I realized we are talking about 2 different things here. 

The first is a system of beliefs like I highlighted in the first part of your quote. The second is the actions we take like I highlighted in the second part.

So dealing with the second part first. Like had been mentioned - no one will be able to live perfectly, but through living and using the atonement none of us need to be in the middle way.

Now this first part - For many church teachings there is no middle way. The only way to exaltation is through the atonement. There is no middle way.  God, knowing there is no middle way even provided work for the dead for those who doesn't have an understanding of the plan.  

When we start mixing these up it can get complicated. For example, someone can  have middle way beliefs of the doctrine, be living in a middle way and still be on the high way if their heart is sincere and they are acting according to their heart. Another person can have some correct understanding/beliefs (high way), but have other beliefs that he is unwilling to budge on (whether those are traditionally called middle way or high way) when the Lord prompts him to do so and so is living the middle way. 

So is there a middle way? Yes, there are several.  Can you get back to God by living it? It depends on the combination of the different definitions.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The baptismal interview questions is a good example of the doctrines that i'm talking about.  Does someone have to answer those questions correctly in order to be baptized and become a member of the Mormon church?  Are there some beliefs that people can't hold and still join the church?  Are there doctrines that people must believe to join the church?

If the answers to those questions are 'yes,' then what does that mean in regards to those people who are very much members right now, but who would never be allowed to become members if they had to answer those questions again?

From my perspective, this is one of the reasons that a lot of members have so much trouble with the idea of a middle-way.  We have members who got baptized before their beliefs changed, but who would never be allowed to be baptized today with their current beliefs.  

We like to hold new converts to a higher standard than current members.
It's kind of the same thing as asking potential US Citizen to pass a civics exam that half the US population would probably fail.

Maybe I am a middle-wayer on creeds.
I believe that it is wrong to require adherence to official Church teachings (creeds) in order to be members and that belief is an individual concern.
But at the same time I don't believe people who reject certain doctrines or espouse certain other doctrines should be allowed to be active members.

They seem to be kind of mutually exclusive but yet I believe them both.  Very confusing I guess.

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is it weird though that the least common denominator for using the label of Mormon is membership in the church, knowing that if the person was trying to get baptized with such beliefs, they would never actually be allowed to be a member?

What I mean is, membership in the LDS church is completely based on acceptance of the doctrine, right?  No accepting the doctrine = not allowed to join.  So from your perspective, if acceptance of church doctrine is mandatory to join, at what point does acceptance of doctrine not become mandatory? 

I think that once we have them, we are covenant- and duty-bound to serve them both in ministry (testifying, teaching, temporally assistance, etc. ) and administratively (maintaining all kinds of records in all kinds of ways). The baptismal interviews do have doctrine-related questions that are meant to ensure that the people who join contribute to the "unity of the faith." But once in the fold, those who change their minds are still our brothers and sisters as long as they want to be, or until they lose their membership.

Oops I forgot to answer the question! I believe the acceptance of doctrine does not become mandatory for membership quite immediately after baptism. In some cases that is understandable and can be coached through, in other cases discipline may eventually be in order, depending on the behaviors driven by the rejection of doctrine.

Edited October 6, 2017 by CV75

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We like to hold new converts to a higher standard than current members.
It's kind of the same thing as asking potential US Citizen to pass a civics exam that half the US population would probably fail.

Maybe I am a middle-wayer on creeds.
I believe that it is wrong to require adherence to official Church teachings (creeds) in order to be members and that belief is an individual concern.
But at the same time I don't believe people who reject certain doctrines or espouse certain other doctrines should be allowed to be active members.

They seem to be kind of mutually exclusive but yet I believe them both.  Very confusing I guess.

Do you mind sharing the doctrines that they needed to believe in order to be allowed to be active. This just doesn't come off well to me. What about the mantra to work on our testimonies? And what if that person lost theirs and were denied access because of it. Sounds like there would be no room for doubt then. 

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We like to hold new converts to a higher standard than current members.
It's kind of the same thing as asking potential US Citizen to pass a civics exam that half the US population would probably fail.

Maybe I am a middle-wayer on creeds.
I believe that it is wrong to require adherence to official Church teachings (creeds) in order to be members and that belief is an individual concern.
But at the same time I don't believe people who reject certain doctrines or espouse certain other doctrines should be allowed to be active members.

They seem to be kind of mutually exclusive but yet I believe them both.  Very confusing I guess.

I think this is where the belief drives behavior, and rather than be told to not be active, to be extended disciplinary counseling.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

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

Wow, you are coming in loud and clear. Very descriptive situation and I appreciate that you take time with me in your posts. I am definitely on the opposite of the spectrum. But something sticks out to me in my faith walk or no faith walk. That just as you feel targeted or dismissed being LDS, what of those in a place like Utah that go through similar reactions? There are so many stories that I can't count of LDS members shunning or shocked when their family/friend member decides to leave the church. They get similar reactions. 

But real kudos for your strength Hamba and it does seem to me you are living your faith daily, and must be your best or shine always so as to be a good example of what being LDS is. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Do you mind sharing the doctrines that they needed to believe in order to be allowed to be active. This just doesn't come off well to me. What about the mantra to work on our testimonies? And what if that person lost theirs and were denied access because of it. Sounds like there would be no room for doubt then. 

Well, Apostle Amasa Lyman was excommunicated for publicly teaching that the Savior was just a man and there was no need for an atonement although he was a good man by all other accounts.  One of the questions for baptism is "Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?"

I would say if you don't believe there is a God or that you need a Savior there is no reason for you to be a member of the Church.
Why would you take sacrament or accept baptism if you don't have a belief in Christ?  Should you be allowed to?
If you don't believe in the sealing power of priesthood or eternal marriage should you be allowed to perform temple ordinances?

I am not talking about people with doubts or whose testimonies are in flux.  All of us have faith that ebbs and flows.
But if you truly don't believe in Christ, you should not be feigning acceptance of his sacrifice through baptism or partaking of the sacrament.  It's pure blasphemy.
If you don't believe Joseph was a prophet called by God you would therefore reject the Book of Mormon, the revelations, and the priesthood.  There is no place for a member who rejects those things.  And why on earth would they want to be a member?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think this is where the belief drives behavior, and rather than be told to not be active, to be extended disciplinary counseling.

Disciplinary counseling is outside of my pay grade.  I am no judge.
But as I just said to Tacenda, for example, if you reject Christ as Savior you really have no business getting baptized (for converts) or partaking of the sacrament (for members).
It's the very definition of blasphemy.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, Apostle Amasa Lyman was excommunicated for publicly teaching that the Savior was just a man and there was no need for an atonement although he was a good man by all other accounts.  One of the questions for baptism is "Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?"

I would say if you don't believe there is a God or that you need a Savior there is no reason for you to be a member of the Church.
Why would you take sacrament or accept baptism if you don't have a belief in Christ?  Should you be allowed to?
If you don't believe in the sealing power of priesthood or eternal marriage should you be allowed to perform temple ordinances?

I am not talking about people with doubts or whose testimonies are in flux.  All of us have faith that ebbs and flows.
But if you truly don't believe in Christ, you should not be feigning acceptance of his sacrifice through baptism or partaking of the sacrament.  It's pure blasphemy.
If you don't believe Joseph was a prophet called by God you would therefore reject the Book of Mormon, the revelations, and the priesthood.  There is no place for a member who rejects those things.  And why on earth would they want to be a member?

There are many reasons someone might want to remain a member. It's their social circle, they like the teachings or morals of LDS. They like the service opportunities, the activities. There are innumerable things that people love about the church that would make them want to stay. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

There are many reasons someone might want to remain a member. It's their social circle, they like the teachings or morals of LDS. They like the service opportunities, the activities. There are innumerable things that people love about the church that would make them want to stay. 

There's no right answer. If the church works for someone, that's where they should be, even if they're not "all in." By the same token, if being in the church makes someone unhappy, no reason is good enough to continue in it. My two cents, anyway.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There are many reasons someone might want to remain a member. It's their social circle, they like the teachings or morals of LDS. They like the service opportunities, the activities. There are innumerable things that people love about the church that would make them want to stay. 

This is true for many of my mormon friends attending...a lot of what you have mentioned has nothing to do with what they really believe...and yet..they are good people..good mormons..and would be called such.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There are many reasons someone might want to remain a member. It's their social circle, they like the teachings or morals of LDS. They like the service opportunities, the activities. There are innumerable things that people love about the church that would make them want to stay. 

Yes, there are.
The question remains as to whether that is appropriate or more precisely, at what point it would become inappropriate.  The Church is not a social club.
I am certainly not in favor of member resignation, the breaking of temple covenants, or inactivity.  And if they are working through a faith crisis far better that they should stay.
Just because a member has questions or doubts that is no reason to leave.  But we are not talking questions or doubts.  We are talking open rejection of doctrine.

But if they can look in the mirror and say they do not believe in Christ or the atonement, they should refrain from partaking of the sacrament or participation in any other ordinances.
If they do not believe in priesthood authority, keys of priesthood, or the callings of priesthood leaders then exercising or partaking of priesthood blessings and priesthood ordinances is wholly inappropriate.
If they reject Joseph Smith as prophet, or the revelations and scripture he put forth then being a part of the Church he restored is a strange choice at best.

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A creed is a formal statement.  I'm not asking about the acceptance of formal statements.  And I'm not really talking about making someone feel accepted or unaccepted.  I'm not coming at the question from the point of view of the person with the unorthodox beliefs but from the perspective of a person who is not a middle-wayer but who is trying to figure out if that kind of belief system is acceptable to God.

The baptismal interview questions is a good example of the doctrines that i'm talking about.  Does someone have to answer those questions correctly in order to be baptized and become a member of the Mormon church?  Are there some beliefs that people can't hold and still join the church?  Are there doctrines that people must believe to join the church?

If the answers to those questions are 'yes,' then what does that mean in regards to those people who are very much members right now, but who would never be allowed to become members if they had to answer those questions again?

From my perspective, this is one of the reasons that a lot of members have so much trouble with the idea of a middle-way.  We have members who got baptized before their beliefs changed, but who would never be allowed to be baptized today with their current beliefs.  They are both mormon but then not mormon at the same time.  For a lot of members, that's hard to doctrinally wrap their heads around.  

I really do wish we were more of a "we're all in this together" people.  But division must be amongst us foolish mortals I guess.

But I am confused by your approach here.  You say, "And I'm not really talking about making someone feel accepted or unaccepted.  I'm not coming at the question from the point of view of the person with the unorthodox beliefs but from the perspective of a person who is not a middle-wayer but who is trying to figure out if that kind of belief system is acceptable to God."

How do you know what is acceptable to God?  It gets a little more intriguing to me in the next line when you said, "The baptismal interview questions is a good example of the doctrines that i'm talking about.  Does someone have to answer those questions correctly in order to be baptized and become a member of the Mormon church?  Are there some beliefs that people can't hold and still join the church?  Are there doctrines that people must believe to join the church?"

Is the Church God in this approach?  That is for all intents and purposes it seems like your measuring stick in determining what is acceptable to God is what the church has decided is acceptable for baptism. 

You also said:

Quote

From my perspective, this is one of the reasons that a lot of members have so much trouble with the idea of a middle-way.  We have members who got baptized before their beliefs changed, but who would never be allowed to be baptized today with their current beliefs.  They are both mormon but then not mormon at the same time.  For a lot of members, that's hard to doctrinally wrap their heads around.  

Beliefs amongst a group of believers always evolve.  It's very easy to wrap your mind around, one would think, when one realizes the reasons for the one's evolving beliefs.  Any resolution of course will take more effort on the part of each of us members to understand each other.  Sadly, Church doesn't offer us a place to do that, unless your beliefs are covered in the acceptable limits of what can be said and how it can be said.  This unresolved problem is effectively pushing people out.  Fear plays a big factor in all of this. 

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Like you said, it seems pretty clear that simply asking questions and believing unorthodox things is not what got Dehlin excommunicated.  

 

I've been involved as a member of my High Council in situations were church action against a member based solely on the fact that the member was given a mandate by the Stake President to not speak publically about the issues they had difficulties with and refused to do so.  I'm guessing in Dehlin's case that his public podcast activity was the sole motivation behind his church action this plus his unorthodox beliefs .  He was publically speaking about things the church does not want to be spoken about .  Dehlin became the crazy uncle who lives in the basement.  Member can question and doubt, we just can not speak publically and disseminate this information to other members

Edited October 6, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[Jeanne]

Stem, I would still be LDS if "we were all in this together"...had  a place with LDS friends to talk to about concerns..and FREE to do so!

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, there are.
The question remains as to whether that is appropriate or more precisely, at what point it would become inappropriate.  The Church is not a social club.
I am certainly not in favor of member resignation, the breaking of temple covenants, or inactivity.  And if they are working through a faith crisis far better that they should stay.
Just because a member has questions or doubts that is no reason to leave.  But we are not talking questions or doubts.  We are talking open rejection of doctrine.

But if they can look in the mirror and say they do not believe in Christ or the atonement, they should refrain from partaking of the sacrament or participation in any other ordinances.
If they do not believe in priesthood authority, keys of priesthood, or the callings of priesthood leaders then exercising or partaking of priesthood blessings and priesthood ordinances is wholly inappropriate.
If they reject Joseph Smith as prophet, or the revelations and scripture he put forth then being a part of the Church he restored is a strange choice at best.

That we ask the question about each other of whether another should be a member is troublesome.  That to me is the main problem we face.  We are all traveling a road of uncertainty.  We are living by faith, trying to piece things together as best we can.  That we have it in us to eschew those who want to worship with us, seems sad to me.  It'll always feel sad because I've known too many who are pushed out (well not including myself). 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I've been involved as a member of my High Council in situations were church action against a member based solely on the fact that the member was given a mandate by the Stake President to not speak publically about the issues they had difficulties with and refused to do so.  I'm guessing in Dehlin's case that his public podcast activity was the sole motivation behind his church action this plus his unorthodox beliefs .  He was publically speaking about things the church does not want to be spoken about .  Dehlin became the crazy uncle who lives in the basement.  Member can question and doubt, we just can not speak publically and disseminate this information to other members

Yeah...that's my boat.  I can still be a member, suckas.  I just have to stay anonymous on the interwebs when I offer my frustrations, or stick with my small group inside the premises of my own home. 

I only know one couple in our ward who my wife and I can relate to in talking about where we all are.  It is quite a delight we have them, honestly.  They are both much older than us, older than our parents in fact.  Don't worry about that though.  I still get in trouble when I try to  share the welfare of my soul in Church at various times.  I suppose if I keep it up, already being on radars and all that, I might get tossed.  I'm not public at all, though, and have no desire to be. 

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I've been involved as a member of my High Council in situations were church action against a member based solely on the fact that the member was given a mandate by the Stake President to not speak publically about the issues they had difficulties with and refused to do so.  I'm guessing in Dehlin's case that his public podcast activity was the sole motivation behind his church action this plus his unorthodox beliefs .  He was publically speaking about things the church does not want to be spoken about .  Dehlin became the crazy uncle who lives in the basement.  Member can question and doubt, we just can not speak publically and disseminate this information to other members

I see so many things wrong about this...

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Stem, I would still be LDS if "we were all in this together"...had  a place with LDS friends to talk to about concerns..and FREE to do so!

It makes me sad to realize how our dogma, insularity, and exclusiveness has negatively effected so many of our good people.  it hurts us as a Church more than it hurts the individuals who leave to keep sane and healthy, though.  Wonderful people, like Jeanne, wonderful spirits have been pushed out.  I'm sad thinking about this.

As it is most who post here are far more open, far more caring, far more willing to listen then most members in a typical ward.  And even still, we see a big need amongst our more open members to put up walls, create division, and thus push people out. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I see so many things wrong about this...

yes.  It hurts people. 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It makes me sad to realize how our dogma, insularity, and exclusiveness has negatively effected so many of our good people.  it hurts us as a Church more than it hurts the individuals who leave to keep sane and healthy, though.  Wonderful people, like Jeanne, wonderful spirits have been pushed out.  I'm sad thinking about this.

As it is most who post here are far more open, far more caring, far more willing to listen then most members in a typical ward.  And even still, we see a big need amongst our more open members to put up walls, create division, and thus push people out. 

True..and it was lonely to say the least...but I could not stay...no one and no answers or communicative response help was available.  But...at the time, I was just as mormon as the rest of them.