Middle Way Mormonism

[nuclearfuels]

Orthodox and proud of it, brethren and sistren

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

And here we have bishop roulette; some bishops will allow it, while others might be against it.

In this instance, the “roulette” is due to one bishop (and his predecessor) reportedly having gone off the rails. 

Perhaps someone in the know (not merely a rumor monger) could enlighten me, but I don’t believe bishops are given leeway to nullify or ignore the requirements for a temple recommend. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 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. 

At a stake conference I attended, the General Authority speaker told the story of a bishop who was confronted with the question,  “Are you going to let a little thing like tea keep me out of the temple?” 

The bishop replied with a question: “Are you?”

Edited November 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Benjamin Seeker]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this instance, the “roulette” is due to one bishop (and his predecessor) reportedly having gone off the rails. 

Perhaps someone in the know (not merely a rumor monger) could enlighten me, but I don’t believe bishops are given leeway to nullify or ignore the requirements for a temple recommend. 

The story is a bit suspect because not only do you need two extra flexible bishops but you also need at least one stake president to go along with it.

[nuclearfuels]

On 11/18/2018 at 11:13 AM, 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.

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT POLL!!

On the external, visible, noticeable level I am active, and probably Middle Way (somewhat detached, removed, understanding my identity and self-worth are much, much greater than whatever callings I might receive)  as I can't see any other way to wrap my head round non-linear callings.

Under the surface though, I'm more of an orthodox (in the true sense of the word, like I'd vote for the Theo-democratic candidate and would support legalizing and reinstituting plural marriage, as many libertarians, others, and Anarcho-Capitalists would as well).

Now you know why my callings aren't linear.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The story is a bit suspect because not only do you need two extra flexible bishops but you also need at least one stake president to go along with it.

Heh. Agreed. And possibly a couple of bishopric or stake presidency members to acquiesce to it. 

[clarkgoble]

I think there's been a societal shift starting with the baby boomers that downplays duty as being the key constituent of the way we engage with institutions. That is there was a social shift from duty to "what does it do for me?" That "what does it do" tends to be seen in short term effects. While that started with the baby boomers in the late 60's, I think it grew until it reached a critical mass in the 90's. Since then we've had the rise of the Nones. The Nones are famous for being more socially disengaged from institutions and not having that sense of duty as being important. However even outside of those who leave religion within the various religions you have the devaluing of religious truth and duty in preference to a kind of "what does it do for me?" Even the popular critiques of the Church we hear based upon LGBT or feminist issues end up devolving to "these people don't get something immediate from religion" or "these people are hurt in the short term by religion." Those senses of hurt are themselves socially structured in terms of that "what does it do for me?" In past generations people may have felt less fulfilled but put up with it out of a sense of duty. That's no longer the case.

Now I think we should note that duty that ignores the needs of the individual is problematic. So not all of this change is bad. I think the critique of the Church that the members we so focused on fulfilling social norms and doing callings that they neglected actual practical service carries a lot of weight. (At least for me) However I think we've gone really too far the other direction, possibly due to the changing social demographics as well as larger changes in society.

It'll be interesting seeing how the Church responds. I worry that the response will be to cater to people being unwilling to sacrifice for duties that arise out of knowing the truth. That would be as bad as doubling down on the traditional social norms and expectations of the 70's. I think there's a middle ground there that avoids the danger of middle way Mormonism.

Edited November 19, 2018 by clarkgoble

[cherryTreez]

On 11/18/2018 at 11:58 AM, Ouagadougou said:

I openly drink black tea, which makes some members uncomfortable. Somehow drinking soda like Pepsi and Mountain Dew is acceptable, but black tea is a straight ticket to hell (or a direct violation of the Word of Wisdom). 😀

which is why I drink Dr pepper. joking... .

[Benjamin Seeker]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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'.

Thanks for sharing. Taking truth claims literally means someone believes in the literalness of various claims made by Mormon doctrine, history, etc. So, if we took the priesthood as an example, someone who believes in that literally believes that the real and resurrected John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John visited JS and bestowed the true authority/power of God. Someone who doesn't take those claims literally may have issues with or disbelieve that any or all aspects of that narrative and corresponding doctrine are literally true but may find value in them still. Obviously, that value can differ wildly from person to person.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Temple worthy, at least on the surface of action and profession considering they are "acting."

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I'm not sure there is a middle way consensus on the reality of God. I'd be interested to find that out, and maybe that will happen is there is more space for those discussions on blogs and message boards, etc. Like churchsitrue pointed out in his Wheat and Tares post, there are attacks from either side of the aisle (TBM and Critic) when trying to discuss a "middle way" approach.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I do see what you're saying. It's this kind of perspective that allows me to find joy in Mormonism. But there are plenty who don't have such a perspective, so the question I'm getting at still feels relevant to my experience living Momonism. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Yes, but it might delay a final judgment long enough to allow for greater seasoning of the seeker the same way academic princes demand that their students undergo appropriate "seasoning" before they are granted their PhDs.  For many it is the lifestyle itself (praxis) which engenders change, even though they are unaware of the process.  I myself have experienced this over the course of a lifetime.

[SouthernMo]

On 11/18/2018 at 11:13 AM, 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.

What interests me here is what perspective individual Mormons have who identify as such.

I wonder if those who identify as Orthodox Mormons start with the perspective that Mormonism is all true, and fit other ‘truths’ around that fact.

I consider myself a cafeteria Mormon because I try to start from the position of being open to all possibilities.  When I see truth, I embrace it. So, I embrace the truth I see in Mormonism. I reject the overarching truth of everything Mormon.  This truth-first, church-second, take-what-works perspective sounds like cafeteria Mormonism to me.

Curious how others would describe the perspective of Middle Way Mormonism?

Edited November 19, 2018 by SouthernMo

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but it might delay a final judgment long enough to allow for greater seasoning of the seeker the same way academic princes demand that their students undergo appropriate "seasoning" before they are granted their PhDs.  For many it is the lifestyle itself (praxis) which engenders change, even though they are unaware of the process.  I myself have experienced this over the course of a lifetime.

I like what Hitchens says about Pascal’s Wager (2 mins), and see his point about belief needing to be real:

 

[Jerry Ray]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At a stake conference I attended, the General Authority speaker told the story of a bishop who was confronted with the question,  “Are you going to let a little thing like tea keep me out of the temple?” 

The bishop replied with a question: “Are you?”

Well said

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

What interests me here is what perspective individual Mormons have who identify as such.

I wonder if those who identify as Orthodox Mormons start with the perspective that Mormonism is all true, and fit other ‘truths’ must fit around that fact.

I consider myself a cafeteria Mormon because I try to start from the position of being open to all possibilities.  When I see truth, I embrace it. So, I embrace the truth I see in Mormonism. I reject the overarching truth of everything Mormon.  This truth-first, church-second, take-what-works perspective sounds like cafeteria Mormonism to me.

Curious how others would describe the perspective of Middle Way Mormonism?

I like the label of cafeteria mormonism more than Middle Way. The latter is too unspecific, and could be used to describe all kinds of positions or ideas. If someone wants to call me a cafeterian Mormon, I won't be too offended. I believe we all have a chance at the milks and meats of the gospel being served, and we choose what we think best suits our tastes, aptitudes, talents, etc, and then we go eat together - each being satisfied with our result. What is wrong with that? I view Christianity in general in the exact same way. Why I shy from the term "orthodox" Mormon is because to me that implies that I think the same as "the true" believers - usually being the GAs. I just don't. I don't believe everything every GA has ever taught. Is that OK? Does that mean there is something wrong with me? From my perspective I don't really care. I am more concerned with being true to myself and my Lord. If that means being outside of the "orthodox" circle - so be it. I share most beliefs with them, and believe I am on the right path. Characterize me how you will. If that is Middle Way to you, then that is what I am. However, I prefer to be called LDS Christian - so I suppose I am a cafeteria LDS Christian - if you choose to be a cafeteria LDS Christian with me, you might find that a harder path than you bargained for...   

Edited November 19, 2018 by RevTestament

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

What interests me here is what perspective individual Mormons have who identify as such.

I wonder if those who identify as Orthodox Mormons start with the perspective that Mormonism is all true, and fit other ‘truths’ must fit around that fact.

I consider myself a cafeteria Mormon because I try to start from the position of being open to all possibilities.  When I see truth, I embrace it. So, I embrace the truth I see in Mormonism. I reject the overarching truth of everything Mormon.  This truth-first, church-second, take-what-works perspective sounds like cafeteria Mormonism to me.

Curious how others would describe the perspective of Middle Way Mormonism?

I accept the gospel as true but also incomplete and we need further revelation and knowledge. I live it as best I can. Where do I fit?

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I accept the gospel as true but also incomplete and we need further revelation and knowledge. I live it as best I can. Where do I fit?

I think they key question(s) here are how you define ‘gospel’ and if you see that definition as synonymous with ‘Mormonism.’

If you see them as the same, then probably closer to orthodox or TBM...

But, we can all chose which labels we want and which we reject.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I like what Hitchens says about Pascal’s Wager (2 mins), and see his point about belief needing to be real:..........................

Hitchens is certainly correct, if you are thinking only synchronically (a fallacy), but wrong if you are thinking diachronically.  God certainly is not interested in fealty from Pascalian bettors.  We should think rather of the processual nature of real life, and the possibility of change in that process.  A process foreclosed by adamant and sad rejection of all that is good and proper, only because one has not been able to prove the existence of God via pure reason -- a silly and impossible objective in any case -- which stems from a very bad understanding of epistemology.

[Jeanne]

30 minutes ago, Jerry Ray said:

Well said

It is well said...witty and wise.  I have a comment though that baffles me.  I am an ol' lady and with that I seem to find that obituaries are so interesting..I mean it tells the stories of people's lives and their affect on mankind.  Anyway, last week in the Herald Journal there was an obit of a very elderly lady that had lived in different places in Cache Valley for many years.  She was active in the church...married in the temple with many kids and grand children and I believe she served a mission in her early years.  She and her husband also were temple workers here in Logan.  But guess what???? And does it even matter???  She was kind of a CEO of Pepsi and would give Pepsi out to all the kids on Halloween....so how does this work???  Talk about pick and choose...there is more caffeine in a lot of drinks than there is in a cuppa tea.

Oh well...go figure.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jeanne

[SouthernMo]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hitchens is certainly correct, if you are thinking only synchronically (a fallacy), but wrong if you are thinking diachronically.  God certainly is not interested in fealty from Pascalian bettors.  We should think rather of the processual nature of real life, and the possibility of change in that process.  A process foreclosed by adamant and sad rejection of all that is good and proper, only because one has not been able to prove the existence of God via pure reason -- a silly and impossible objective in any case -- which stems from a very bad understanding of epistemology.

Perhaps if we view the wager as the wedge to open the door to the possibility of deity, some insights and understanding of the unmeasurable will come through, and build ‘faith.’

Perhaps God is more interested in seeing his children blessed by what comes through the open door than he is about whether or not the door is open?

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I like the label of cafeteria mormonism more than Middle Way. The latter is too unspecific, and could be used to describe all kinds of positions or ideas. If someone wants to call me a cafeterian Mormon, I won't be too offended. I believe we all have a chance at the milks and meats of the gospel being served, and we choose what we think best suits our tastes, aptitudes, talents, etc, and then we go eat together - each being satisfied with our result. What is wrong with that? I view Christianity in general in the exact same way. Why I shy from the term "orthodox" Mormon is because to me that implies that I think the same as "the true" believers - usually being the GAs. I just don't. I don't believe everything every GA has ever taught. Is that OK? Does that mean there is something wrong with me? From my perspective I don't really care. I am more concerned with being true to myself and my Lord. If that means being outside of the "orthodox" circle - so be it. I share most beliefs with them, and believe I am on the right path. Characterize me how you will. If that is Middle Way to you, then that is what I am. However, I prefer to be called LDS Christian - so I suppose I am a cafeteria LDS Christian - if you choose to be a cafeteria LDS Christian with me, you might find that a harder path than you bargained for...   

I also don't like the term "orthodox" as Latter-day Saint-ism (otherwise known as Mormonism) is not really an orthodox religion as I see it.  There might be some orthodox elements but I see it as largely orthopraxic in practice.  We are not really creedal and focus more on correct living, temple and other rituals/ordinances. Our covenant making is orthopraxic in that they are intended to lead to correct behavior. We also focus on sacrificial offerings of a broken heart and contrite spirit, purity, and practice of family values, etc.  When people say they are orthodox Mormon, I sometimes wonder what they mean by that as a non-creedal religion.  We don't believe that correct belief is enough, it is the orthopraxis of ordinances that matters more to us. 

I consider myself more of an orthopraxic Latter-day Saint - that one should be added to the list. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I'm not sure there is a middle way consensus on the reality of God. I'd be interested to find that out, and maybe that will happen is there is more space for those discussions on blogs and message boards, etc. Like churchsitrue pointed out in his Wheat and Tares post, there are attacks from either side of the aisle (TBM and Critic) when trying to discuss a "middle way" approach.

I wish there weren't attacks from the different sides.  I also wish we could just be honest and have frank discussions.  I'm getting a lot more comfortable doing that in person with people in my ward and my family, and I think to fairly good success.  I let them know that they can share whatever criticisms they have to me and I honestly have gotten pretty good at not taking it personal.  But it has taken practice and some maturity on my part.  At any rate, I think we need to get past the battles and have vulnerable and honest discussions.  

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I also don't like the term "orthodox" as Latter-day Saint-ism (otherwise known as Mormonism) is not really an orthodox religion as I see it.  There might be some orthodox elements but I see it as largely orthopraxic in practice.  We are not really creedal and focus more on correct living, temple and other rituals/ordinances. Our covenant making is orthopraxic in that they are intended to lead to correct behavior. We also focus on sacrificial offerings of a broken heart and contrite spirit, purity, and practice of family values, etc.  When people say they are orthodox Mormon, I sometimes wonder what they mean by that as a non-creedal religion.  We don't believe that correct belief is enough, it is the orthopraxis of ordinances that matters more to us. 

I consider myself more of an orthopraxic Latter-day Saint - that one should be added to the list. 

I have to agree. What matters to Christ in "believing Him" is not what sins we do not commit, nor what ordinances we do, but whether we live our beliefs. How big of a hypocrite are we? Do we shout I am saved, and then go call other posters pigs? (I have literally seen that on another forum). How well do we endure the criticisms of our beliefs? I don't begrudge the early saints their polygamous families, but I don't really believe that those guarantee the ultimate reward either. Many lived it well, and I am sure will be met with joy in heaven, but I don't really believe they will rule over the "lowly" non-polygamous family. Each will be received as having lived the gospel, and will experience the joy resulting from the purity with which they lived their lives I think rather than how many wives are/were in the family. How we live our beliefs can be more  important than what we believe - to God anyway.