- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Well, not to be all obvious, but when people make statements like this it’s more about them than anyone else. He says others have made their mind up, are defensive, and are seeking self-justification. Uhm, kay. Sounds familiar. I am not a fan of emotional displays and ad hominem attacks. hawkgrrrl wrote:…when people make statements like this it’s more about them than anyone else.
Yes this.
Whenever the topic is emotional our expression simply exposes our inner self.
I gave up reading part way through. It is attitudes like his that make people who have a less traditional belief feel uncomfortable in the church. It makes them feel like they have to leave. I wish more people would read and think about Elder Holland’s words: Quote:we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. … We would say: ‘This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.’ … We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.
I get really frustrated when people feel they have a moral/religious/political high ground over other people. This goes for all sides of moral/religious/political debates. The minute one party feels superior over another relationships will break down. I have come to accept that what drives me and makes me happy won’t necessarily work for everyone and that is fine. If being TBM is the way he feels the greatest amount of spiritual peace, good for him. It makes me uncomfortable that he (and a majority of church members) feel it has to be the prescription for everyone.
My folks just came home off a mission and spent a week with us. I found a similar tone in their conversations about people who don’t follow the church the way they do. They were telling me about a family we know who recently left the church and how they were being rebellious. I really wish this were not the norm. I wish people were willing to accept how complex the world really is.
It’s amazing that things like this continue to be written, when members are told to find lost sheep and home teach etc. If they won’t listen to us, they do listen to the inactivity figures. You’d think we’re all evil apostates out to destroy the church.
Some of the claims he makes can’t be applied to this site, by the way.
I spent an hour on my lunch break writing a long reply. When I clicked submit, I was asked to sign in again and the reply was gone. I will try later. I found positive and negative in the paper by midgley. I will try to redo sometime today. I read the article and it seems there is no use in taking offense unless one is included with those who “ridicule the Atonement.” If you are not part of the “host of people filled with malice and even hatred toward the King and His Kingdom,” then he is not calling you an antichrist. He does use the term “why stay.” The sentence is “Some vocal cultural Mormons, busy asking themselves ‘why stay,’ claim that it is not at all probable that there is a God, or that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth.” I do not think that is describing people I know here.
He wrote that “critics of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon seem to know that an effective defense of the faith is actually taking place. The unseemly invective directed especially at Professor Peterson by shady and anonymous former or cultural Mormons (
someof whom self-identify as New Order Mormons,” but does not say that allNOMs are apostate or antichrist. I am not being an apologist for Dr. Midgley. I am just calling it like I see it.
Also, if you are not one of those “shady and anonymous former or cultural Mormons” with “unseemly invective directed especially at Professor Peterson,” then the part referring to New Order Mormons is not applicable. Having read Defending the King and the Kingdom here are some thoughts. I see good and bad and I will likely offend with my comments people on both sides and apoligize as that is not my intention. It is just that I see when something like this happens we have trouble staying neutral in our feelings and so in turn we usually read more into something then what is intended..
The “why stay” could certainly apply to Staylds.com but I don’t see it. He says this group claims that the probability is, that there is no God. I don’t see that as the overall theme here. While he knowingly could have chosen his words better, I see this as a bad assumption. Though as I point out he intentionally throughout his article fails to specifically name those he directs his comments to on purpose.
his quote “A glance at the Internet shows a host of people filled with malice and even hatred toward the King and His Kingdom.”
No problem here – Many on the web do hate Christ and many hate the LDS Church. Again it does not see this as pointed to Staylds or even Dehlin for that matter.
he follows by saying “Latter-day Saints currently encounter an array of striking examples of this on message boards and in podcasts.”
Here he says that some of those who hate Christ or the church are found on message boards and podcasts. Likely hinting towards Dehlin and mormonstories or better yet mormonexpression but again there are other podcasts and message boards such as exmormon.org or anti-Mormon podcasts.
his first true offense comes when he says referring to the goals of these podcast in casting dispersions on Mormonism’s foundational claims “thereby offering reasons for their not remaining faithful to their covenants with God.”
He is assuming the struggler first wants to sin and then looks for a reason to justify the sinning. For many that is true. But that is a broad brush to paint with when another group is the other way around and taking offense at this.
he says of these folks on the message boards & podcasts “they deny that Jesus is the Messiah (or Christ)” To some extent this is true and it bothers me as well.
quote “recent exemplars of such a stance, have identified himself as such. With some now boasting that they see no reason for faith in God or little reason for believing that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth, it seems odd to me that one so clearly against the doctrine of Christ would not be proud to carry the label anti-Mormon as the badge of their new aggressive unfaith. By the same token, why would an inveterate critic of the Church of Jesus Christ not insist on being known as anti-Mormon, unless he is covertly trying to spread his ideology among the community of Saints?”
I agree with him here. That essentially there are folks who want to remain LDS while trying to disparage the foundational claims of the church. ex: No plates, no first vision, no historical Book of Mormon, no prophets as we define them. You can’t have one foot in each part of this dichotomy. I agree that we teach a very simple approach to the church’s history within the Church and that we could do a better job, but that does not give permission to destroy the whole foundation. It is one thing to be a voice for appropriate subtle changes, another thing to turn the faith upside down. If one wants to claim membership in the LDS church one must find a way to reconcile with the foundational claims and also not work to cause others to disbelieve them as well.
Suffice it to say I agree with him throughout the article when he says to be a member and to proclaim that Christ was not divine or did not exist is troublesome. It is to me as well. Where we differ is on approach, I want to use longsuffering, meekness, gentleness, love unfeigned to draw them back. He wants to cast them out, make them an outsider, and while protecting those safely in the fold, he leaves little room for the outcast to comeback without a tail between their legs….. wrong approach in my mind
He misuses the word cultural Mormon throughout the article
his paper is directed at New Order Mormons but he uses the phrase cultural Mormon incorrectly in their place
NOM = someone whose discoveries of Church history and theology dramatically change their framework and expectations. They found the church to not meet what they expected and thereby change their framework to better suit their new reality.
Cultural Mormon = one who does not care and simply participates in the church because it is socially beneficial to them. This group is not interested in the doctrine or history per say
One is trying to make the church fit their faith/intellect, while the other could care less about the details
in stating that this dissenters have no right in defining the mystery religions he says “the whole point of mystery religions is that they’re secret! So I think it’s crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it’s silly to talk about him not existing.”
but apologists also go beyond the facts and evidence in surmising exactly what was going on with polyandry or treasure digging. I have no problem with them formulating those conclusions but then don’t disparage others for doing the same thing. I don’t see the difference.
His biggest mistake is in saying “since most of the Saints who go missing do so for other than genuinely intellectual reasons. Their stereotyped exit-stories indicate that they look for intellectual support for their rejection of their faith only after they have made the decision not to be faithful to their covenants. However, those who, for whatever reason, have turned Joseph Smith into a liar and/or lunatic, and the Book of Mormon into a tale fabricated from ideas floating around his immediate environment, also seem to be tempted to see the accounts of Jesus in a somewhat similar light.”
Again he has it backward. Now to be honest, the majority of LDS who leave activity likely do leave the church because they simply are not interested in it nor care to practice it. But that is not, who this article is geared to. This group does not fit his statement. I do not believe, as most of you have stated, that this group decides first they want to sin, then looks for the justifying reasons. It is an atrocity to say as much and is not in the spirit of what I have heard from the top down.
ex: Marlin Jensen stating “So, if that environment can be created, and it should be, but often in the church, when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he’ll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn’t know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, ‘Get in line and don’t question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.’ And that isn’t helpful in most cases. So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what’s brought them to the point they are at. What they have read, what they are thinking is, and try to understand them. Sometimes that alone is enough to help someone through a hard time. But beyond that, I think we really need to figure out a way to live a little bit with people who may never get completely settled.”
these two quotes above are opposites. I will stand with Elder Jensen.
Bro. Midgley states as his reason for engaging in apologetics such as this article “Had I not, I reasoned, made a covenant to consecrate my efforts to sustain the Kingdom and hence also defend the King?”
but if one does not use a method approved by Christ, is not one then overzealous? Just because one motives are from scripture does not make ones methods sanctioned. KKK also feel their motives are the same to defend the king and kingdom, yet their methods are appalling.
he states – “Something like this can be seen among cultural Mormons on various blogs, boards, and lists, or set out in podcasts in which disdain is expressed for embarrassing parochial concerns like testifying to or defending the faith of the Saints.”
Again, I agree. I was once told that the evidence or likelihood for the church being what it claims is similar to the evidence or likelihood of a “flying spaghetti monster”. apples and oranges. This comparison is far from fair and does an injustice the actual claims of the faith. I truly believe the evidence is strong enough to come to either conclusion where there is no, absolutely none of the flying spaghetti monster and so LDS apologist have a right to present their argument and evidence and I think it is a relatively strong argument acknowledging all arguments within the realm of faith are lacking.
He also seems to talk about how critics blame apologist for “Fib and hide the past” and says all debates and discussions are slanted and defend their argument with the evidence that best support their view. That said I do not excuse dishonesty simply to win a debate. Truth shall prevail.
He does say some beautiful things in here as well
for instance this was profound
“The Saints face doubts along their faith journey. The reason is that the choice to put our full trust in God and become His loving, faithfully obedient servants, and thereby enter into a world in which divine things are present in what otherwise is a world barren of ultimate meaning, necessarily comes before we have much understanding of either the natural world or solid grasp of the history of human things. So we all can expect to face a crisis of faith. A crisis is, of course, a turning point when a decision is made for better or worse–that is, the point at which one affirms whether they will go onward or turn away. The fact is that we all face many such choices. It is often, however, such a crisis that brings people to genuine faith in Jesus Christ. Be that as it may, such decisions are essentially moral and not merely intellectual. They are never fully informed choices. God is not testing our intellect, and He is not on trial, which is our lot in life. The Lord does not force us to enter His Kingdom, but he invites us to come willingly to feast at his table and thereby nurture the seed of faith. We are here on probation and hence are both being tested and, if we are willing, taught line upon line.”
Midgley follows by saying “We must remain true and faithful to be cleansed, purified, purged and eventually sanctified through what our scriptures call the baptism of fire (or of the Holy Spirit). For this to happen we must be genuine Saints and not merely cultural Mormons.”
This quote is true though as cultural Mormon is used correctly and I agree with the sentence with Cultural Mormon in it, but that is not the group the rest of the paper speaks to.
I conclude by saying that all anyone can do is hope in the gospel and seek out truth. If one’s honest pursuit of truth leaves them unable to fully hold onto the restored gospel then let’s find ways to help, lift, and encourage. Not disparage. That said, I also think there is merit in asking those who deny Christ and disparage his Church to quit and repent but we must do so in love and not with any other purpose. I also state that I (though somewhat outside of the staylds group) did not feel like he was speaking to staylds. I think it would not be good to assume staylds is encompassed in his article. He seems to speak specifically to those who deny Christ, his church, and desire to take others with them. I don’t see that as staylds’ mission or description
I was just coming to complete an in depth look at the article. You beat me to it, and did it better than I could have. wayfarer wrote:We are antichrists, according to Midgley…do you feel the love?…what do you think?
Regardless of who he was talking about or not he clearly has the wrong idea from the outset and is putting blame in the wrong place. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that this intolerant black and white attitude that Church members should supposedly believe everything the Church teaches and anything less than that is not acceptable will actually lead to even more of what he was complaining about (hatred toward the Church and lack of faith) and could easily end up being a major contributing factor in the downfall of the so-called “Kingdom.” As far as I’m concerned this all-or-nothing mindset so prevalent in the Church is a major reason why it has basically become a breeding ground for such a high percentage of atheists, agnostics, or otherwise non-religious people.
Never mind the relatively small number of NOMs and ex-Mormons that actually take the time to criticize the Church online; consider all the inactive members that basically don’t want anything to do with the Church anymore. Think about it, if you take over 180 years worth of accumulated man-made ideas that don’t really make sense anymore and that sound like an unnecessary hassle to the average person nowadays and then tell them this is the gospel given to us by the Lord himself then why is it any surprise if many Church members get to the point that they don’t want to hear about the gospel or Jesus anymore? So what could have potentially been something positive for many of them has been turned into a negative experience overall and that’s what they will associate with the Church, fair or not. Even President Uchtdorf alluded to this idea in the following quote.
Dieter F. Uchtdorf wrote:The Savior Himself provided the answer with this profound declaration: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”…But this may present a problem for some because there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes,
well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”...This was one of the Savior’s criticisms of the religious “experts” of His day, whom He chastised for attending to the hundreds of minor details of the law while neglecting the weightier matters. That’s why the answer is not to continue to act like there is this much of a reliable connection between the Church and God because that’s the real “idolatry” in my opinion when the Church is clearly an imperfect human organization learning as it goes by trial and error. It’s no surprise that Church leaders would keep asking for more and more as long as most active members continue to go along with it without much resistance. So sometimes you have to know when to say no to what they are asking for when it doesn’t make sense or it will never end. I see what Midgley is trying to do with all the talk about it supposedly being an epic battle between good and evil. It probably makes him feel better for supposedly making the right choice and is an attempt to discredit critics as evil. Did he ever consider the possibility that maybe some of the anger displayed by bitter NOMs and ex-Mormons is simply due to frustration about how painful it was for them to leave the Church especially because of the way other members reacted or else they would like to leave and don’t feel like they can because of their family situation?
Again, like DA just showed with his quote from Pres. Uchtdorf, Bro. Midgely doesn’t represent the leadership any more than I do. Therefore, I don’t spend any emotional capital or time worrying about him. Also, just to be crystal clear, while I agree with wayfarer that there are apologists who are the epitome of divisive, dismissive, intolerant, un-Christian rhetoric and bigotry, there are many who are not. There are many who are doing very good work responding rationally and sometimes even charitably to the other side of Midgely’s coin – the anti-Mormons whose tactics and arguments are just as distorted and condemnatory as Midgely’s piece is. Thus, while I agree with much of wayfarer’s response to this piece and to much of what is called apologeteics, I don’t agree with the comprehensive characterization of the entire field and all those whose writings generally are classified within it.
The DA’s last post was epic…I suggest all lurkers and church leaders who truely want to understand the “Mormon recession” read it and take heed…before it is to late. The church is going to bleed out. It should not continue to allow Midgley and his croonies at MDDB and the other fanatic leaders and members to spread their apostasy throughout the church. If Midgley and the rest of the wolves in sheep clothing will not listen to their own prophets, the church is doomed.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
There is another flaw in our dealing with mormonism online. I also acknowledge before hand that this paradigm does not fit all of you. In the midst of my faith crisis, Sundays were my best day, not my worst. On Sundays the Church was beautiful and the other six days there was a building tension. It took a while to really understand why. The day in which we live is a much different from any other time. Our reality of what church is is formed not by just our Sunday meetings and reading of scriptures. We also have to deal with integrating all of the people online who have no authority and yet their words if offensive change our perception of the church. Ex: in your ward you may have 1 to maybe 3 personalities who butt heads severely. Yet I get online and stop at a message board (no names please) and I can easily butt heads with ten or so people who appear subliminally to be the majority. I get offended and feel no one in church sees an issue the way I do and I grow frustrated.
In reality, these individuals do not represent the majority within the gospel. For that matter neither do we. So while we all make a big fuss over the online issues of the LDS Church, the gospel for me is still about Faith, Repentance, the Holy ghost, ordinances, and enduring to the end. For me Church is beautiful because of Sundays and My life in the gospel is no longer swayed by the minority that makes all the noise on the internet.
Your mind is overwhelmed by the majority of voices it hears both those that empathize and agree with you and those that disagree and offend you, and yet the majority of what you hear is not always the majority.
My ward is full of wonderful people who would wrap their arms around each of you and would not in anyway be defined by the problems we find in the online community
Sundays
Bill Reel
See if you can find the analogy here. Yes it was recorded from a neutrul political film but the analogy stands. The criticism is the same and the response that many of use would reply with is the same.
So who is out of touch? And it isn’t just in our “tribe” as you can see. People want other people to make decisive decisions or be labeled.
http://youtu.be/iAxYsd6OqR0http://youtu.be/iAxYsd6OqR0” class=”bbcode_url”> The middle way! It all makes sense now lol.
Nephite wrote:He does use the term “why stay.” The sentence is “Some vocal cultural Mormons, busy asking themselves ‘why stay,’ claim that it is not at all probable that there is a God, or that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth.” I do not think that is describing people I know here.
I have taken on DCP and others multiple times, and while I do not doubt there was a Jesus, I reject traditional, creedal definitions. The comments in midgley’s article invoke my comments amidst others.DBMormon wrote:The “why stay” could certainly apply to Staylds.com but I don’t see it. He says this group claims that the probability is, that there is no God. I don’t see that as the overall theme here. While he knowingly could have chosen his words better, I see this as a bad assumption. Though as I point out he intentionally throughout his article fails to specifically name those he directs his comments to on purpose.
i have said that the god of the creeds, so willingly accepted by these apologists, does not exist. midgley is using a broad accusatory invective that includes ALL middle-way sites, because for midgley, there is no middle ground.DBMormon wrote:his quote “A glance at the Internet shows a host of people filled with malice and even hatred toward the King and His Kingdom.” No problem here – Many on the web do hate Christ and many hate the LDS Church. Again it does not see this as pointed to Staylds or even Dehlin for that matter.
midgely and petersen have stated that they are not concerned with the anti-mormons, particularly of the evangelical variety. they have stated teir purpose as going after the wolves in sheeps clothing…those who stay LDS while harbouring what they consider to be apostate doubts.
DBM wrote:By the same token, why would an inveterate critic of the Church of Jesus Christ not insist on being known as anti-Mormon, unless he is covertly trying to spread his ideology among the community of Saints?”
I agree with him here. That essentially there are folks who want to remain LDS while trying to disparage the foundational claims of the church. ex: No plates, no first vision, no historical Book of Mormon, no prophets as we define them. You can’t have one foot in each part of this dichotomy.
I am one who sees no literal facticity in any of the foundational claims: there likely were no plates, the first vision was a manifest spiritual experience and not a physical event. holding nonliteral beliefs — or holding that the foundation claims cannot be literal — does not make me a critic, except to the extent that some in the church teach that which cannot be true as truth. but such does not make me anti-mormon in the least, nor do i wish to spread any ideology. i simply care more for the truth than for defending indefensible dogma.I believe the Middle Way can easily broach the dichotomy with a reasoned position that eschews literalism
DBM wrote:Suffice it to say I agree with him throughout the article when he says to be a member and to proclaim that Christ was not divine or did not exist is troublesome. It is to me as well.
the question isn’t ever whether jesus christ existed. the question is to what extent is he divine…and this is a debate that mormons do not fully grasp, and was only solved temporarily by creeds. since LDS reject the creeds, that where does LDS doctrine really stand with respect to christ’s divinity? is it possible that christ was divine in exactly the same way he expects us to be divine? there are a nomber of staements that indicate that Jesus was an itinerant Rebbe who, having found enlightenment, marked the path and led the Way. He prayed that we could be one (greek present tense — not referring to a future state) in exactly the same way he is one with the Father.DBM wrote:Where we differ is on approach, I want to use longsuffering, meekness, gentleness, love unfeigned to draw them back. He wants to cast them out, make them an outsider, and while protecting those safely in the fold, he leaves little room for the outcast to comeback without a tail between their legs….. wrong approach in my mind
back? back to what? a delusioned belief in literalism and in things provably false and supressing any doubt or question? sorry. not for me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.