Is there a middle way?

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well pardon my confusion.  Let me see if I got you then, because I'm not sure this is addressing the question.  it seems you are saying that someone who is middle way is not acceptable to God because to be middle way means you cannot gain eternal life? 

I actually said the opposite.  I said that if someone is doing what they sincerely believe God wants them to do, they are acceptable to Him, even if they are ultimately wrong.  As long as they stay close to Him, God will eventually be able to help them fix their errors so that they can gain eternal life.

Quote

When you say the important thing is to stay in a relationship with God, what does that mean?  I wonder because on my view even those who are unbelievers have relationship with God, they simply don't realize it. 

I don't personally believe that you can have a relationship with someone without knowing it or on accident.  A relationship takes work and effort by both people involved in it. It is an emotional association between two people and is the way that two people regard or behave towards each other.  

Simply interacting with someone does not constitute a relationship.  Helping someone without knowing you are helping them does not constitute a relationship.  A relationship is, by definition, a cognizant thing.

Quote

Also, are you saying the someone who is middle way sees God as up there but doesn't pay attention or interact with mortal beings at all?

From what I understand, there is no one middle-way way to see God.  The beliefs among Middle-wayers are diverse.  I used an example of one possible way that a middle-wayer might view God.

Quote

Yes.  I believe God works inside many, even those who don't believe. 

I agree.  But that's not what I asked (sorry if i was confusing).  I asked, if you don't believe that God interacts with you, is it possible to do something because you believe He told you it's o.k.?  

 

Quote

Ok.  As you said, "I believe that Christ is the head of the church.  I don't believe that God is the church, but rather that the church is God's and operates with His authority." It sounds to me, effectively then, the Church defines what is acceptable to God when it comes to belief?  That is, when you say you are approaching this with respect to whether the middle way believer is acceptable to God, the church has defined what is acceptable to God? 

Yes, the church defines institutionally what is acceptable to God.  The church has always recognized though that there can be exceptions.  

Edited October 6, 2017 by bluebell

[Jeanne]

50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Here's something I wrote about this subject a few years ago. tl;dr: Don't make the mistakes I did.

https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/repost-expert-ex-mormon/

I loved this....amazing what we find out about ourselves...sometimes in hindsight..but you rock.  Wishing you and your family many good things. I admire your wife..she loves you..that much is the very point of your relationship.!!

[Button Gwinnett]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I see so many things wrong about this...

I agree and wish the church was more accepting of alternative points of view

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I actually said the opposite.  I said that if someone is doing what they sincerely believe God wants them to do, they are acceptable to Him, even if they are ultimately wrong.  As long as they stay close to Him, God will eventually be able to help them fix their errors so that they can gain eternal life.

Fewf! that sounds better.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't personally believe that you can have a relationship with someone without knowing it or on accident.  A relationship takes work and effort by both people involved in it. It is an emotional association between two people and is the way that two people regard or behave towards each other.  

Thanks for the input.  I disagree.  God is a special case and makes relationships with those who don't know him.  Indeed, not a one of us truly knows him anyway. 

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Simply interacting with someone does not constitute a relationship.  Helping someone without knowing you are helping them does not constitute a relationship.  A relationship is, by definition, a cognizant thing.

Gotcha.  I disagree with God seeing as He's a special case. 

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From what I understand, there is no one middle-way way to see God.  The beliefs among Middle-wayers are diverse.  I used an example of one possible way that a middle-wayer might view God.

I agree.  But that's not what I asked (sorry if i was confusing).  I asked, if you don't believe that God interacts with you, is it possible to do something because you believe He told you it's o.k.?  

 

I think my answer stands.  Whether you think he interacts with you or not, I'd say, yes, it's possible to do something because you believe he told you it's ok.  I mean the whole hypothetical is nonsensical in a sense (someone who believes God has interacted with him/her but doesn't think God interacts with people?), but I suppose anything is possible. 

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

 

Yes, the church defines institutionally what is acceptable to God.  The church has always recognized though that there can be exceptions.  

I'd say the Church is no where near what God finds acceptable.  If so, there'd be less tossing people out or pushing them out.  The Church as I see it, represents man's best ability to decide for God.  But as we've seen, like in the case of Gileadi (an apparent excommunication pushed from the upper levels of the Church, the Church will always make mistakes in so presuming.  It'll happen again and again.  God's ways are not the Church's ways, sadly.  We can only try, I suppose. 

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I actually said the opposite.  I said that if someone is doing what they sincerely believe God wants them to do, they are acceptable to Him, even if they are ultimately wrong.  As long as they stay close to Him, God will eventually be able to help them fix their errors so that they can gain eternal life.

I don't personally believe that you can have a relationship with someone without knowing it or on accident.  A relationship takes work and effort by both people involved in it. It is an emotional association between two people and is the way that two people regard or behave towards each other.  

Simply interacting with someone does not constitute a relationship.  Helping someone without knowing you are helping them does not constitute a relationship.  A relationship is, by definition, a cognizant thing.

From what I understand, there is no one middle-way way to see God.  The beliefs among Middle-wayers are diverse.  I used an example of one possible way that a middle-wayer might view God.

I agree.  But that's not what I asked (sorry if i was confusing).  I asked, if you don't believe that God interacts with you, is it possible to do something because you believe He told you it's o.k.?  

 

Yes, the church defines institutionally what is acceptable to God.  The church has always recognized though that there can be exceptions.  

You know..you would think that they would want to know what you are thinking...it is a teaching church and questions/answers are teachable;

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think my answer stands.  Whether you think he interacts with you or not, I'd say, yes, it's possible to do something because you believe he told you it's ok.  I mean the whole hypothetical is nonsensical in a sense (someone who believes God has interacted with him/her but doesn't think God interacts with people?), but I suppose anything is possible. 

 

But if you believe that God told you something was o.k., that means you believe that He interacted with you.  So how can you believe that God doesn't interact with you and also believe that He did interact with you?

I don't believe that is possible, which is why I struggle to make my previous statements, about how God will find anyone acceptable if they are trying to do what they believe He told them to do, relevant to a person who doesn't believe God tells them anything.

Quote

I'd say the Church is no where near what God finds acceptable.

You're definitely free to believe whatever you want about the church.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You know..you would think that they would want to know what you are thinking...it is a teaching church and questions/answers are teachable;

I think it just depends (and i think that the church has shown that it's open to knowing what people are thinking, just in the right setting and expressed in what it considers appropriate ways).  In a classroom, are teachers typically open to questions and comments?  You bet!  Are they open to a class member standing up and telling the rest of the class that the teacher is wrong and then trying to teach the class themselves?  Nope.

Just because it is a teaching church does not mean that  members are allowed to publicly espouse whatever they want.  If nothing else, the church is a church of order.    

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks to those that have reached out, I appreciate that I can talk on here about my problems openly.

In keeping with the topic, I found this article in the Deseret News.https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865668355/Mormons-with-doubts-shouldnt-give-up-faith-without-intellectual-and-spiritual-kicking-and.html And a comment that resonated. 

"Dec. 1, 2016 2:04 p.m.

What the author does not seem to recognize, or acknowledge, are that the social costs of leaving the LDS church are so high, that one does not simply abandon the faith on a whim. 

To leave the church, for most, is to leave your place of belonging. Your tribe, your spiritual home. To leave the church is to face parents who are devastated, wracked by the pain that they might have failed you, or perhaps will accuse you of being too weak to withstand the temptations of Satan. It is to face attitudes from both friends and strangers that your apostasy is chalked up to character faults and intellectual and spiritual laziness. These are huge costs, these social costs. Many people with doubts and outright unbelief stay in the church, closeted, in order not to pay them. These people have chosen to forego their own spiritual truth to hold onto their community, to maintain marital harmony, to spare their spouses the shame, to avoid becoming seen as "less-than" in their LDS community. I am sorry to say this article does nothing to decrease that from happening."

Oddly enough, I faced the same social costs when joining the Church, so I understand this in a reverse sense.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In a classroom, are teachers typically open to questions and comments?  You bet!  Are they open to a class member standing up and telling the rest of the class that the teacher is wrong and then trying to teach the class themselves?   

This happened recently where I live and it was a horrible experience for virtual everyone present (the investigators class to boot)!

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

According to scripture Jesus said that He cam to cause division.  

If we shouldn't use the scriptures to help us determine what Jesus's gospel should be, what should we use?  I don't think that the 'this is what the gospel is supposed to be but I have no authority to declare it and nothing but my own opinions to support it', argument is a valid answer but if you've got something else to offer I'd be interested in hearing it. 

You should use the scriptures, but you are misreading scripture based on the assumptions you bring to the text.  It takes critical analysis to understand what is happening.  The kind of surface reading you're doing does not help you understand what the author intended.  

And its not just my own opinion, please.  You sound like you care more about the source of the opinion (insert authority figure) than the reasoning/logic of the opinion.  

Also, it takes effort on your part to think about scripture first and what scripture is doing, to better understand the things I'm talking about.  May I suggest a couple resources first, a very Mormon friendly one to start. 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/07/19/genre-bible/

https://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507319471&sr=1-1&keywords=misreading+scripture+with+western+eyes

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Tells-Me-Defending-Scripture/dp/0062272039/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507319507&sr=1-1&keywords=the+bible+tells+me+so+peter+enns

Do some homework on the NT, and try to understand the basics around biblical textual criticism.  This will help you learn more about how you've been misreading the scriptures all along and likely didn't even know it.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

In case you missed where I said it before, i'm asking these questions from an academic point of view, leaving feelings completely out of it.  I'm trying to figure out if a 'middle-way' mormon always objectively makes sense.   

It can only be described as an offensive position if feelings are taking into consideration.  Leaving feelings out of it, what evidence is there to support that it's offensive?

I don't have a clue what you are asking. Clearly   I'm not sure how anything related to faith and religion can objectively make sense without any kind of feeling associated. So I'll bow out

Edited October 6, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it just depends (and i think that the church has shown that it's open to knowing what people are thinking, just in the right setting and expressed in what it considers appropriate ways).  In a classroom, are teachers typically open to questions and comments?  You bet!  Are they open to a class member standing up and telling the rest of the class that the teacher is wrong and then trying to teach the class themselves?  Nope.

Just because it is a teaching church does not mean that  members are allowed to publicly espouse whatever they want.  If nothing else, the church is a church of order.    

Uhh, except teachers in classes throughout the church are constantly teaching "whatever they want", this is how classes work.  The church has manuals as guides, but I've heard the craziest ideas at church throughout my life.  People say what they believe, and those beliefs are often out of alignment with official church views.  It all hinges on who's teaching, this can be a strength at times if you have a good teacher, but it seems to me this is more often a weakness and leads to really poor teaching.  

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But if you believe that God told you something was o.k., that means you believe that He interacted with you.  So how can you believe that God doesn't interact with you and also believe that He did interact with you?

That's why I said the hypothetical is nonsensical.  You can't both believe that God interacts and yet doesn't interact.  It's either/or on this, it seems to me.  Now one can believe God doesn't then have a moment where he changes and decides God does interact.  If that's what you mean. 

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe that is possible, which is why I struggle to make my previous statements, about how God will find anyone acceptable if they are trying to do what they believe He told them to do, relevant to a person who doesn't believe God tells them anything.

Ok.  But, as I said, it's possible that God does interact with those who don't believe.  They just don't know how to apply it to God.  As it is, God's interaction with man is in no way foolproof....it is in no way certain to be God in each case:

Quote

we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah's experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that's the way it works

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday Interview, April 13, 1997, by Don Lattin
 

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You're definitely free to believe whatever you want about the church.  

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I agree and wish the church was more accepting of alternative points of view

There is a difference between tolerance and an open forum.

Alternative views can be held but not necessarily promulgated.  There is one man authorized to receive God direction for his Church.  It is not a free for all.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You should use the scriptures, but you are misreading scripture based on the assumptions you bring to the text.  It takes critical analysis to understand what is happening.  The kind of surface reading you're doing does not help you understand what the author intended.  

And its not just my own opinion, please.  You sound like you care more about the source of the opinion (insert authority figure) than the reasoning/logic of the opinion.  

Also, it takes effort on your part to think about scripture first and what scripture is doing, to better understand the things I'm talking about.  May I suggest a couple resources first, a very Mormon friendly one to start. 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/07/19/genre-bible/

https://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507319471&sr=1-1&keywords=misreading+scripture+with+western+eyes

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Tells-Me-Defending-Scripture/dp/0062272039/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507319507&sr=1-1&keywords=the+bible+tells+me+so+peter+enns

Do some homework on the NT, and try to understand the basics around biblical textual criticism.  This will help you learn more about how you've been misreading the scriptures all along and likely didn't even know it.  

I've been having conversations like this since 2002; i'm very familiar with biblical textual criticism.  None of the generalities you've listed here are in dispute.  I'm speaking about a specific topic.  Did Jesus teach that His gospel would be divisive?    

I said yes and used Luke 12:49-53 as evidence, especially verse 51 which says "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division".   Your answer to that has been 'Jesus didn't say that" and "that's just your interpretation."

What is the relevant (meaning dealing specifically with Luke 12: 49-53) criticism that supports your assertion that I'm wrong?  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's why I said the hypothetical is nonsensical.  You can't both believe that God interacts and yet doesn't interact.  It's either/or on this, it seems to me.  Now one can believe God doesn't then have a moment where he changes and decides God does interact.  If that's what you mean. 

Exactly.  So, can someone deny that God interacts with people and still be acceptable to God?  That is what I don't know.  I don't know that all middle-wayers are acceptable to God.

Quote

 

Ok.  But, as I said, it's possible that God does interact with those who don't believe.  They just don't know how to apply it to God.  As it is, God's interaction with man is in no way foolproof....it is in no way certain to be God in each case:

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday Interview, April 13, 1997, by Don Lattin

 

I'm sure that God does interact with people without them realizing it.  But that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm not talking about this issue from God's perspective.  I'm talking about it from the middle-wayer's perspective.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Uhh, except teachers in classes throughout the church are constantly teaching "whatever they want", this is how classes work.  The church has manuals as guides, but I've heard the craziest ideas at church throughout my life.  People say what they believe, and those beliefs are often out of alignment with official church views.  It all hinges on who's teaching, this can be a strength at times if you have a good teacher, but it seems to me this is more often a weakness and leads to really poor teaching.  

Definitely.  If a person doesn't teach the approved material, then they've gone rogue, so to speak.  I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not the church should welcome everyone sharing what they are thinking in a classroom setting though.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Fewf! that sounds better.

Thanks for the input.  I disagree.  God is a special case and makes relationships with those who don't know him.  Indeed, not a one of us truly knows him anyway. 

Gotcha.  I disagree with God seeing as He's a special case. 

I think my answer stands.  Whether you think he interacts with you or not, I'd say, yes, it's possible to do something because you believe he told you it's ok.  I mean the whole hypothetical is nonsensical in a sense (someone who believes God has interacted with him/her but doesn't think God interacts with people?), but I suppose anything is possible. 

 

For how ^aknoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart? (Mosiah 5:13)

How does this scripture fit in with your comments above.  You seem to be talking mostly about God's relationship with a person, but I'm with Bluebell in that I believe a relationship requires two parties.

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.  So, can someone deny that God interacts with people and still be acceptable to God?  That is what I don't know.  I don't know that all middle-wayers are acceptable to God.

I’m not say Ng I know God’s makes me but I do think it’s a yes.  Many people in this world have not believed or known god in any sense, but I think god sees the worth of souls as great.  The middle water is no less important to him than the ancient Pacific Islander, I’d think

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure that God does interact with people without them realizing it.  But that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm not talking about this issue from God's perspective.  I'm talking about it from the middle-wayer's perspective.  

I guess I’m confused enough... have a great weekend.

[CV75]

To those who have tried it, a side question I have: how has taking a "middle way" benefited you, let's say in terms of both "spirituality" (finding meaning, feeling connected to others/nature/something greater, and value in how you live) and "religion" (finding what is true/false and right/wrong in practices/rites/rituals), and as these relate to a sense or feeling of belief, comfort, reflection, ethics/morality and awe? Thank you in advance!

[Rain]

 

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks to those that have reached out, I appreciate that I can talk on here about my problems openly.

In keeping with the topic, I found this article in the Deseret News.https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865668355/Mormons-with-doubts-shouldnt-give-up-faith-without-intellectual-and-spiritual-kicking-and.html And a comment that resonated. 

"Dec. 1, 2016 2:04 p.m.

What the author does not seem to recognize, or acknowledge, are that the social costs of leaving the LDS church are so high, that one does not simply abandon the faith on a whim. 

To leave the church, for most, is to leave your place of belonging. Your tribe, your spiritual home. To leave the church is to face parents who are devastated, wracked by the pain that they might have failed you, or perhaps will accuse you of being too weak to withstand the temptations of Satan. It is to face attitudes from both friends and strangers that your apostasy is chalked up to character faults and intellectual and spiritual laziness. These are huge costs, these social costs. Many people with doubts and outright unbelief stay in the church, closeted, in order not to pay them. These people have chosen to forego their own spiritual truth to hold onto their community, to maintain marital harmony, to spare their spouses the shame, to avoid becoming seen as "less-than" in their LDS community. I am sorry to say this article does nothing to decrease that from happening."

As a parent who was devastated and wracked with pain I can tell you that I FAR prefer having the truth out now than it was before when I suspected it.  I had hope for some things till a certain point and it was very hard when I knew those things wouldn't happen, but far more pain came from how my child treated me through all of this than the choices he finally was letting me know about.  I already KNEW something was wrong.   Everyone around me was saying that things were ok, but I KNEW they were not.  In many ways it was a huge relief that he was finally being honest with me, at least to some extent.  I now have a better relationship with him than I have had since he was a child.  

My BIL recently wrote an email to my husband.  He commented that it might not be good for me to know because I might be sensitive to his concerns.   But again, we have known about it for over a decade and well, I have everyone here and other places to show me that not everything is rosie.

I will always hope they come back.  The hurt relationships are not because of both sides being honest.  The hurt comes from one or the other or both sides treating the other badly when it happens.  

Through this process I have learned far more about trust in Heavenly Father than at any other time in my life.  It has help me to grow closer to Him.  I recognize that my loved ones were first God's children and He can see his plan for them much better than I can.  

There are days I have had doubts as well.  Things in this church are not always easy. I don't mean that the work is not easy.  I mean that some issues are difficult to deal with.  Last year I was really thinking about this.  I finally prayed.  I told Him, I don't know how to deal with this or that.  I was struggling with this other thing.  Then I asked, "Is this [church] where I should be?" I too, in many ways, felt middle way and it is not comfortable.  It takes energy to be there.  When I asked, and was willing to act on the answer the peace just surrounded me.  It may be a question  you want to ask Him.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Rain

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There is a difference between tolerance and an open forum.

Alternative views can be held but not necessarily promulgated.  There is one man authorized to receive God direction for his Church.  It is not a free for all.

I'll just leave this here, but my hope is that these quotes  are still applicable in the church. 

Quote

“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent–if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression… This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. … We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.”

— Hugh B. Brown

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

— Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

– President J. Reuben Clark

“…regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church.”

— President Dieter Uchtdorf

 

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been having conversations like this since 2002; i'm very familiar with biblical textual criticism.  None of the generalities you've listed here are in dispute.  I'm speaking about a specific topic.  Did Jesus teach that His gospel would be divisive?    

I said yes and used Luke 12:49-53 as evidence, especially verse 51 which says "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division".   Your answer to that has been 'Jesus didn't say that" and "that's just your interpretation."

What is the relevant (meaning dealing specifically with Luke 12: 49-53) criticism that supports your assertion that I'm wrong?  

Firstly, if you have been reading about this for that long, you should know that the author of Luke is not quoting Jesus, the author of Luke lived 2-3 generations after Jesus, and has a particular view that is unique to Luke with respect to elements of the story of Jesus that this author wants to emphasize for theological purposes.  Similar verses are in Matthew 10:34-36.  Interesting that these verses are not in Mark the first gospel narrative that Luke and Matthew copy most of their content from.  So this verse likely was a part of Q source or Luke copies Matthew would be my guess, I don't have my study guides with me, but I'll try and remember to look up some commentary on this and see what the scholars think as for the innovation of these passages.  

I would also consider not only the context and origins of this passage, but also try to square it with other messages from other books.  Like this passage in Mark 3:24-25. 

Quote

24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 

So if Jesus is come to divide families and houses, then is he also causing these houses to not stand?  I think this is interesting.  We know that the Jewish expectations for a Messiah figure was that he would come and save them from political bondage and create peace, but there were also the apocalyptic messages mixed in with the coming of the messiah.  This is all part of the NT messages and there are different perspectives by different authors. 

At the end of the day, its important to define what the purpose of the gospel is at its core, and understand that these different traditions that started a few generations after the life of Jesus were movements that had various perspectives about what it mean to be a Christian.  Were Matthew and Luke echoing some of the earlier expectations they had for a Messiah figure?  The language in these verses hearkens back to Micah 7:6.  Also, for these authors this was after the destruction of the temple timeline wise and many scholars believe Mark was written before the destruction of the temple around 70 C.E. so this makes sense that he doesn't emphasize this kind of divisiveness, where Luke and Matthew were responding to the destruction when they wrote 15-20 years later. 

All of this is just my untrained reading of some possible explanations, I'm open to other evidences and your input of course, I'm no expert and I like learning about these things.  

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it just depends (and i think that the church has shown that it's open to knowing what people are thinking, just in the right setting and expressed in what it considers appropriate ways).  In a classroom, are teachers typically open to questions and comments?  You bet!  Are they open to a class member standing up and telling the rest of the class that the teacher is wrong and then trying to teach the class themselves?  Nope.

Just because it is a teaching church does not mean that  members are allowed to publicly espouse whatever they want.  If nothing else, the church is a church of order.    

I will agree that there has been a much bigger change in openness in the past 10 years or so...you guys probably can see those changes better than I can for sure.

[hope_for_things]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Definitely.  If a person doesn't teach the approved material, then they've gone rogue, so to speak.  I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not the church should welcome everyone sharing what they are thinking in a classroom setting though.

Actually, I think this is part of what makes Mormonism interesting and unique, rather than going rogue.  I'm not such a fan of correlation, and think that we're actually much better off with divergent theories and ideas floating around, because it helps us understand that doctrines aren't so sacrosanct and that there are many different quirky perspectives about things, and rampant speculation from church leaders and members a like.  Up to a certain point I think this can be healthy when it comes to a tolerant religious community in my mind.