Middle Way Mormonism

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’ve been watching the posts on By Common Consent and Wheat and Tares on Middle Way Mormonism with interest. I was wondering how board members here self identify.

 

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

.....................

In my mind, a Middle Way member is someone who has undergone a faith transition and has a transformed view of the type of truth Mormonism offers, usually a much less literal kind. In spite of this the member still considers themselves part of the LDS tradition in some way or other, often through continued partipation in church and callings.

I think cafeteria Mormonism is the idea of picking and choosing guidelines to follow or not follow, and this can be done with or without a faith transition.

Im thinking of an orthodox Mormon as your average active calling-holding Mormon who has a testimony in the basic truth claims of Mormonism and generally subscribes to the guidelines of Mormonism.

These definitions are far too loose and insubstantial to be of much use.  Moreover, those who have a broad understanding of religion in general would immediately associate the "Middle Way" with some very specific notions within Buddhism.  Indeed, Buddhism is the Middle Way:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wsFh7dReXI .  In that sense, orthodox Mormonism is the Middle Way in that it does not take the extreme paths of (1) hedonistic self-indulgence or (2) ascetic self-denial.  Mormonism seems to recommend "moderation in all things."

Quote

Middle Way (Sanskrit Madhyama-pratipadā, Pāli Majjhima-patipadā), in Buddhism, complement of general and specific ethical practices and philosophical views that are said to facilitate enlightenment by avoiding the extremes of self-gratification on one hand and self-mortification on the other.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Middle-Way  See Eightfold Path (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eightfold-Path ).  

More importantly, Mormonism is a form of religious practice (praxis) rather than a systematic theology.  A way of life, and belief in actu.  Indeed, a way is a path, and a path is not a home.  One must be actively on that path, apparently going somewhere and doing something.  Active rather than passive.  Finally, Mormonism is infinite in scope:  The path has no beginning and no end, extending from before human earth-life and beyond into eternity.  One can be anywhere along that path and be just as "Mormon" as someone at a very different juncture on that path.  There may not even be (through ignorance) mutual recognition of the authenticity of others on that path.  Such disjunctures are only temporary in what is actually a universalist and humanistic system.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Thinking]

Where does "go with the flow" fit?

When I came out to my parents about my unbelief, my Mom encouraged me to just "go with the flow" - meaning  act like a faithful LDS.

[Benjamin Seeker]

58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

These definitions are far too loose and insubstantial to be of much use.  Moreover, those who have a broad understanding of religion in general would immediately associate the "Middle Way" with some very specific notions within Buddhism.  Indeed, Buddhism is the Middle Way:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wsFh7dReXI .  In that sense, orthodox Mormonism is the Middle Way in that it does not take the extreme paths of (1) hedonistic self-indulgence or (2) ascetic self-denial.  Mormonism seems to recommend "moderation in all things."

More importantly, Mormonism is a form of religious practice (praxis) rather than a systematic theology.  A way of life, and belief in actu.  Indeed, a way is a path, and a path is not a home.  One must be actively on that path, apparently going somewhere and doing something.  Active rather than passive.  Finally, Mormonism is infinite in scope:  The path has no beginning and no end, extending from before human earth-life and beyond into eternity.  One can be anywhere along that path and be just as "Mormon" as someone at a very different juncture on that path.  There may not even be (through ignorance) mutual recognition of the authenticity of others on that path.  Such disjunctures are only temporary in what is actually a universalist and humanistic system.

Well, I didn’t make up the term, nor am I wedded it to it. The substance of my question really just boils down to who here takes the truth claims literally and who here participates and finds value in the church but doesn’t believe literally in Mormonism’s truth claims.

[Benjamin Seeker]

55 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Where does "go with the flow" fit?

When I came out to my parents about my unbelief, my Mom encouraged me to just "go with the flow" - meaning  act like a faithful LDS.

I certainly didn’t represent that in the poll, but I imagine there are a significant number of members out there doing that.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Some family members are offended, but it is their own choice.  I feel God doesn't care based on how I feel when I drink tea, as opposed to when I used to drink soda and energy drinks; it is MUCH healthier, IMO, but it just doesn't align with what the church wants.  Plus, probably 95% of the world drinks tea/coffee (my estimation). I see it as a religious taboo similar to how some don't eat pork or beef.  BY and JS (along with other early leaders) didn't obey the WoW, and if God doesn't change, why would he care today?      

I don't see it as disobedience; rather, I view it more as a church superstition and think it's nonsense personally that the Savior would mind if someone drinks black tea, but is fine with doing WAY more damage to the body by drinking soda and eating fast food.  In other words, I don't view it as a commandant from God, but a ridiculous, arbitrary rule from the church.  

Interesting rationalizations. So it’s just family members who are offended, not members in general. What are the health and nutritional benefits of the coffee 95% of the world drinks? Would you say you fit in the cafeteria LDS  group?

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

There are two people that I personally know from the local ward that drink black tea.  Both are honest in their recommend interviews, and both have current recommends.  Both the current bishop and the previous bishop (who is a friend of my mine) sign their recommends.  My friend once told me that he would not keep anyone from attending the temple over a morning beverage. 

What other questions in the recommend interview do they wink at? Which ones are not really that important?

Edited November 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I certainly didn’t represent that in the poll, but I imagine there are a significant number of members out there doing that.

What does “acting like a faithful LDS” mean to you?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Where does "go with the flow" fit?

When I came out to my parents about my unbelief, my Mom encouraged me to just "go with the flow" - meaning  act like a faithful LDS.

Aren’t most of us trying to act like faithful Saints? President McKay said, “What e’re you art, act well thy part.” What does acting like a faithful member look like to you? 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Well, I didn’t make up the term, nor am I wedded it to it. The substance of my question really just boils down to who here takes the truth claims literally and who here participates and finds value in the church but doesn’t believe literally in Mormonism’s truth claims.

Yet, the definitions you have unfortunately settled on ignore the processual nature of Mormonism such that questions about the literal or figurative nature of the LDS faith would be largely irrelevant.  Howso?  Since Mormonism is heavily symbolic and figurative in nature, it would be very difficult to decide what is meant to be taken literally and what figuratively along a legitimate continuum of interpretation.  Moreover, each adherent to the faith can be found at disparate places on the path necessary to participate in the faith in any way, no consensus being possible about which view is the most correct at any point along that continuum.  Childish attitudes about the faith garnered in the nursery or primary must necessarily change through time as the initiate moves through his life on the way to a full knowledge on the other side of the veil.  Even the concept of the veil and what may or may not be on the other side must change through time.  It is a fallacy to choose instants of time as indicative of any meaningful discourse about actual facts.  As Mark would point out, most of what we believe is a social construct anyhow -- including literal and non-literal interpretations.  All that is so evanescent that any interim conclusions are premature.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The substance of my question really just boils down to who here takes the truth claims literally ...

I'm deeply committed to my faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I was converted to Christ through the Book of Mormon and have read from it every single day since I was 18. I travel more than 600km each month to serve as an ordinance worker in the temple. I seek to set up at least one teaching opportunity for our full-time missionaries each week. I share my testimony every opportunity I get. I find the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lives up to its promises reliably, consistently and predictably. In short, I am 'all in'.

And I genuinely don't know what you mean by taking the truth claims 'literally'.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[churchistrue]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

In fact I think I’ve botched this thread. I’ll ask the moderators to close it and see if I can do a better job with the initial poll question.

It's frustrating sometimes having these questions because everyone likes to be unique and also people are worried about others judging the category if they go ahead acknowledge the label. I have this problem whenever I talk about "neo apologist".

[Ouagadougou]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting rationalizations. So it’s just family members who are offended, not members in general. What are the health and nutritional benefits of the coffee 95% of the world drinks? Would you say you fit in the cafeteria LDS  group?

 

I don't think I fit in that group.  IMO, tea and coffee for that matter are better for you than soda...just look at the sugar content in most sodas, so it's not a rationalization, for me it's a fact that by drinking tea (and not obeying the WoW), I live a healthier lifestyle; I also think coffee is better for you than soda.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I don't think I fit in that group.  IMO, tea and coffee for that matter are better for you than soda...just look at the sugar content in most sodas, so it's not a rationalization, for me it's a fact that by drinking tea (and not obeying the WoW), I live a healthier lifestyle; I also think coffee is better for you than soda.  

The WoW ...it is a word of Wisdom after all. Sounds like you are being wise. But I don’t get the justification for tea and coffee.

[Prof]

I thought of this scripture when I read the first few comments,1 Corinthians 1:12

 

¹² Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet, the definitions you have unfortunately settled on ignore the processual nature of Mormonism such that questions about the literal or figurative nature of the LDS faith would be largely irrelevant.  Howso?  Since Mormonism is heavily symbolic and figurative in nature, it would be very difficult to decide what is meant to be taken literally and what figuratively along a legitimate continuum of interpretation.  Moreover, each adherent to the faith can be found at disparate places on the path necessary to participate in the faith in any way, no consensus being possible about which view is the most correct at any point along that continuum.  Childish attitudes about the faith garnered in the nursery or primary must necessarily change through time as the initiate moves through his life on the way to a full knowledge on the other side of the veil.  Even the concept of the veil and what may or may not be on the other side must change through time.  It is a fallacy to choose instants of time as indicative of any meaningful discourse about actual facts.  As Mark would point out, most of what we believe is a social construct anyhow -- including literal and non-literal interpretations.  All that is so evanescent that any interim conclusions are premature.

As is perfectly described in the Tree of Life vision.

[hope_for_things]

23 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’ll offer some definition but welcome debate and discussion if people want to do that.

In my mind, a Middle Way member is someone who has undergone a faith transition and has a transformed view of the type of truth Mormonism offers, usually a much less literal kind. In spite of this the member still considers themselves part of the LDS tradition in some way or other, often through continued partipation in church and callings.

I think cafeteria Mormonism is the idea of picking and choosing guidelines to follow or not follow, and this can be done with or without a faith transition.

Im thinking of an orthodox Mormon as your average active calling-holding Mormon who has a testimony in the basic truth claims of Mormonism and generally subscribes to the guidelines of Mormonism.

Based on your clarification I voted for the Middle Way category.  However, I think I'm quite different than most in that I'm essentially agnostic/atheist on the idea of God.  I like to say that I'm approaching religion in a metaphorical and pragmatic way.  I'm seeking value in meaningful metaphors and symbols that help people live better lives.  I also feel like I want to honor the heritage of my family and I desire to contribute and be a part of a community.  That's how I'm approaching my activity in Mormonism today.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I don't think I fit in that group.  IMO, tea and coffee for that matter are better for you than soda...just look at the sugar content in most sodas, so it's not a rationalization, for me it's a fact that by drinking tea (and not obeying the WoW), I live a healthier lifestyle; I also think coffee is better for you than soda.  

Better still to avoid both.

[Amulek]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Better still to avoid both.

Wait...that's an option?

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet, the definitions you have unfortunately settled on ignore the processual nature of Mormonism such that questions about the literal or figurative nature of the LDS faith would be largely irrelevant.  Howso?  Since Mormonism is heavily symbolic and figurative in nature, it would be very difficult to decide what is meant to be taken literally and what figuratively along a legitimate continuum of interpretation.  Moreover, each adherent to the faith can be found at disparate places on the path necessary to participate in the faith in any way, no consensus being possible about which view is the most correct at any point along that continuum.  Childish attitudes about the faith garnered in the nursery or primary must necessarily change through time as the initiate moves through his life on the way to a full knowledge on the other side of the veil.  Even the concept of the veil and what may or may not be on the other side must change through time.  It is a fallacy to choose instants of time as indicative of any meaningful discourse about actual facts.  As Mark would point out, most of what we believe is a social construct anyhow -- including literal and non-literal interpretations.  All that is so evanescent that any interim conclusions are premature.

The literal truth of Mormonism is a very important question. It can be the difference between someone being considered worthy, affect their social standing, etc. In day to day living it’s important.

[Ouagadougou]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Better still to avoid both.

Or what?

Soda is WAY worse for you, IMO.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Or what?

Soda is WAY worse for you, IMO.  

I drink about 95% water. I highly recommend the practice.

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The literal truth of Mormonism is a very important question. It can be the difference between someone being considered worthy, affect their social standing, etc. In day to day living it’s important.

I see what you are saying and also what Robert is saying too.  If you have confidence in your non literal perspective about the religion, and you train your words to conform closely enough to the group, then you can essentially navigate the path of Mormonism without being too marginalized by your orthodox religious peers. 

However, I personally feel that this strategy can be employed dishonestly.  For example, I just met with my bishop for tithing settlement yesterday, and I told him that I consider myself a full tithe payer and that I feel good about the tithing that I pay, however, I don't contribute any money to the COJCOLDS, but rather give all my tithing to other charitable institutions.  Now, I know that this level of disclosure might not be merited for everyone, and I can honor that others might not have offered up that additional clarity to their leaders, but I felt like it was important for me personally.  

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The literal truth of Mormonism is a very important question. It can be the difference between someone being considered worthy, affect their social standing, etc. In day to day living it’s important.

It certainly can be.  Especially for those deluded by a quaint instant in time, from which they are unable to extricate themselves.  Take, for example, the outward appearance of an ordinary Mormon chapel, which looks for all that very much like any Methodist or Baptist chapel.  What takes place therein likewise seems rather ordinary communion, prayer, preaching, sunday school, ladies auxiliary, etc.  The surface questions about the literal or figurative nature of the Scriptural texts (Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.) being quotidian and meaningless to those who do not command the academic disciplines necessary to a fair evaluation or discussion.  The ordinary member (whether Baptist or Mormon) is thus a yokel who parrots what he has been told for generations -- seems a pretty poor basis from which to obtain ultimate meaning.

Add to that the esoteric Mormon practices in their temples, along with pretensions of authoritative priesthood (neither of which is part of the Baptist experience), and the issues begin to enter another realm.  Again, the surface impression is that the initiate is merely going through a single, discrete instant of time, with no other than bland  literal meaning, when in fact the matter is entirely symbolic and non-literal in nature -- changing with time and experience.  Such was, for example, the experience of David O. McKay, and he frankly discussed that complete change later in life.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

Where does "go with the flow" fit?

When I came out to my parents about my unbelief, my Mom encouraged me to just "go with the flow" - meaning  act like a faithful LDS.

Since life is a process, and since each of us will change continuously throughout our lives, that is very good advice.  It even squares with Pascal's wager.  Besides, the LDS life style has many practical benefits.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since life is a process, and since each of us will change continuously throughout our lives, that is very good advice.  It even squares with Pascal's wager.  Besides, the LDS life style has many practical benefits.

I have my doubts that Pascal’s wager ever led to the salvation of a single soul.