Distancing from the perceived "Middle-Way" schism

I agree.

Just to remind everyone, John can view this forum if/when he stops by (which seems rare). Not that I feel like we need to hide this type of discussion. I just wanted to make that clear.

I’ve had a couple conversations with him in the past year about his public statements not recommending StayLDS. I think he was understanding of that, and chilled out about being so bluntly negative. He has always communicated to me that he supports the purpose of this site though. It was more a need for him to distance himself from the appearance of saying this was the one and only solution to a faith crisis. Staying isn’t always the best answer for people.

But yes. This site is focused exclusively on the narrow niche of staying INSIDE the church in some form or another. Not just staying a part of it while biting our tongues in spite of not wanting to be in it. We’re focused even more narrowly on making it a value decision — finding enjoyment in it. I feel very strongly that support sites need to define their audience and their purpose, and stick to it. We’re not everything to everyone. There are other sites that serve the needs of other segments of the faith spectrum. I applaud that.

If John does come by and reads what I’m saying I hope he will take it in the spirit intended.

I have been clear from the outset that I’m not an activist – activists try to change groups of people, to make political or societal change happen in a specific direction or within a specific time frame. That’s where John and I part ways. I’m fine with inspiring and influencing individuals by meeting them where they are, and toward our stated aims here, but I’m not out to change existing organizations or form new ones. The church will change, but in its time and not by my hand.

I agree with Angie as well.

The main website doesn’t have anything of concern from what I have looked over, however, due to recent events, I suggest we start with a statement, even before the “What is Official Doctrine” section. Perhaps something like:

StayLDS.com is not affiliated with any group or movement. We are not “Middle-Way Mormons”, inactive mormons, apostate mormons, or anti-mormons. We are Latter-Day Saints with a desire to support other LDS members with real faith issues with a hope to encourage active involvement in the church, and not to attack the church or its leaders or organize any groups to promote changes to the church. It is about individual growth and support and all are welcome to join the conversation in an uplifting and positive atmosphere.

Just a suggestion.

In my opinion, it is the essay that is more potentially problematic for us than the main site.

The essay is fine where it reads:

there can also be a “middle way” within Mormonism that lies between orthodox, literalistic observance and complete abandonment.

I think that is clear and accurate.

However, some parts under the disclaimer section could be reworded to not make it should like there is a “Middle-way Mormonism” (just because of the groups being formed that use such references).

Middle-way Mormonism is a path somewhere between complete, literal belief and leaving the church.

The decision to pursue Middle-way Mormonism has to come from you…

I think it should present our “style” as more of “staying LDS with individual adaptations” rather than “Middle-Way Mormonism”.

I don’t think this requires extensive rework of the essay, simply rewording those 2 references above in the section titled “Important Note to the Users of this Document”, 1 reference under the asterisk in the disclaimer section (which by the way is already clarifying the demarcation of John’s ideas from the current management of the site), and the first sentence under the Conclusion section.

Will you make those changes, Brian – or word them in any other way that says the same thing?

I am in agreement as well. I do wonder how John will react. When those of us from MM expressed concern with what John was doing at MM, he did not want to relinquish control of MM (hence we started Wheat and Tares.) If John has different plans for StayLDS, I see him wanting to do the same thing if we don’t support his activism.

As I understand it, John, Brian, and perhaps Ray started StayLDS. Is this correct? Do we have enough “ownership” to keep the mission here as the bulk of us prefer?

Not that I think it will go that route, but John owns the domain name. I “own” the servers and the infrastructure (the hosting account and access are in my name).

I don’t perceive right now that this is a huge deal. I’d really rather it stay that way. I do want to make it clear that we are not a “movement” or part of any larger group. I think that is important for our positioning in the “market.”

/bump

Still on my to-do list. I will try to set aside some time to make those changes this weekend, and update all the docs.