What is the middle way?

[Anonymous]

When I first stumbled across sites like this and NOM, I wasn’t sure how I felt about the “middle way” philosophy. I think the buffet analogy just rubbed me the wrong way. I think “Middle Way” is a perfect term, but I might use it a little differently. A theme I found repeated in the Bhagavadgita and Eastern philosophy was seeking “freedom from opposites” or avoiding extreme ways of thinking. In this case, on one end of the spectrum we have extreme orthodoxy. I don’t have a single word to describe the other end, but it involves what the scriptures would describe as creating god in our own image. On this extreme, we are no longer seeking for truth, only seeking to be right. The middle way for me lies between the two; having the courage and boldness to reject aspects of orthodoxy when it has proven to our hearts and minds to be false, yet keeping our pride in check so that we are willing to conform our beliefs to truth when it is manifest to us. I don’t have time to flesh this idea out as much as I’d like right now, but what are your thoughts?

[Anonymous]

for me, the middle way, is a path within Mormonism somewhere between being an orthodox practicing member with fundamental belief, and complete rejection of the faith.

Yeah, right now it is a dirty word within the church.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

For me, it means a “way of coping” with your experience in the LDS Church. There is no one “middle way” — it varies from person to person depending on their life experience, the issues that cause them consternation in the Church, etcetera.

Ultimately, it’s the path that brings the individual the greatest peace, but in ways which tend to be unorthodox compared to traditional LDS philosophy.

[Anonymous]

I agree with SD that there is no one “middle way”. To me, it means “I am Mormon on my own terms”, and my terms can be as different from yours as I am from you. I guess the one thing that is the same amongst those who claim to follow such a path (and the reason that sites such as this one are so valuable) is that there is a consensus of sorts that there is a viable alternative to the “all or nothing” life, and that “middle way” is a term that is both freeing and positive.

[Anonymous]

I have put middle-way thinking as striking a balance with faith and reason. One one end, wanting certainty in all things and claiming one and only truth above any other person is extreme orthodoxy. It is abandoning my reason and thoughts to just obey authority. The risks on that side of the path, or the snakes in the bushes that come out on that side of the road that can bite a person are pride and bigotry and limited learning with a false sense of security. On the other side of the extreme, or the other side of the road, is negativity of all things religious and a newly formed reliance on self, and too much emphasis on my own reasoning thinking im smart enough to figure this all out on my own through logical reasoning. This also has snakes of pride in thinking all those religious people are silly and uninformed and if they’d just look at the clear facts, they’d realize they’ve been duped and there is no God and religion is for the weak minded and a waste of time by sacrificing for nothing, and you can’t trust other people. There are dangers on that side of extreme thinking as well.

The middle way, to me, is a balance of finding deeper meaning in symbolism and myths and parables that can enrich and fertilize the soul while realizing we see through a glass darkly, which makes certainty difficult, but love of people and new possibilities allows for myth and religion to have great meaning and value as we journey. Middle way can balance truths that work for us and fit our experiences with facts and logic including historical facts as far as we can tell, to avoid the snakes on both sides of the path in a humble approach to learn and seek truth. It is, like the liahona, an effort to constantly search By asking questions, not telling otheweak have “the answer”, listening to others sincerely, and redirecting my footsteps to remain in balance.

It is finding that paradox can work. The church is both true and not true. Obedience is helpful until taken to extremes. Service is fulfilling until taken to extremes. Faith is helpful until it becomes ugly. Peace is found when we reduce the pain and suffering by avoiding the snake bites by staying safely in the middle way.

[Anonymous]

leavingthecave25 wrote:

I think “Middle Way” is a perfect term, but I might use it a little differently. A theme I found repeated in the Bhagavadgita and Eastern philosophy was seeking “freedom from opposites” or avoiding extreme ways of thinking. In this case, on one end of the spectrum we have extreme orthodoxy.

Exactly. Confucius wrote a doctrine of the mean, which is horrible translation. It really is about the middle way between extremes: on being centered is a better title.

[Anonymous]

I also don’t believe in “a middle way”. I believe in individual ways – finding what works for each person. I actually dislike the term “the middle way” – simply because it implies there is one way (“THE middle way”) that works or ought to work for those for whom the more traditional, orthodox way doesn’t work.

I’ve known enough members over the course of my life to believe strongly that there is NO collective way that works or ought to work for the Church as a whole. Everyone is a “buffet Mormon” to some degree, since there is absolutely no way whatsoever to believe and follow everything that has been taught (or is taught currently) within Mormonism and the LDS Church. It’s impossible, and anyone who disagrees hasn’t studied what church leaders have said over the years in detail. Even the apostles and prophets and Presidents haven’t agreed on many things over the years – so even they are “buffet Mormons” in a very real way.

Finally, I don’t want to find a way that is free of opposites. I have found great comfort and stimulation by embracing paradox, and part of that is accepting the central need for opposition in ALL things. Yes, I want to live with moderation in (almost) all things, so I want to avoid extremes, but that’s not the same thing as being free of opposites. Once I accepted that fundamental reality (that there must needs be opposition in all things), I was able to embrace members at all kinds of stages with all kinds of ideas in all kinds of areas – and stop fighting that circumstance – which actually was creating tension. I was able to walk my own path and allow them to walk their own paths – and focus on trying to change ONLY those things that I believe are damaging to the entire group as a whole. Those things tend to be the extremes when someone tries to enforce them on the group as a whole – on BOTH ends of the spectrum.

Let me emphasize that: It’s not the existence of differences or even opposites that causes tension; it’s fighting that reality that causes tension. We can avoid extremes without fighting differences and opposites.

[Anonymous]

Cadence’s and my opposite view of and approach to symbolism and the garments is a great example of what I mean. I could fight his view, since it’s different than mine (almost opposite extremes, frankly, in this case), but I don’t want to do so. His way works for him, and my way works for me. There is NO tension whatsoever for me in recognizing and accepting that reality. There only would be tension in that situation if I created it by fighting his view. I have no desire to do so; therefore, no tension.

The tension inherent in discussions about garments isn’t due to the fact that members have different views; it’s due to the inclusion of wearing garments as a temple attendance requirement – of imposing one view on everyone who wants to attend the temple – and it’s only an issue because there are people who want to attend the temple but who don’t want to wear garments. Without that communal, group requirement, there would be no tension at all.

Thus, the need for each individual to do a simple cost/benefit analysis, coupled with their own experiences relative to garments and the temple (two separate things), to find their own individual way with regard to wearing garments and attending the temple – and my own willingness to allow for individual adaptation regarding wearing garments and attending the temple. However, again, I understand the difficulty for many members to make that sort of individual adaptation, due to the group expectations and peer pressure.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

I agree with SD that there is no one “middle way”. To me, it means “I am Mormon on my own terms”, and my terms can be as different from yours as I am from you. I guess the one thing that is the same amongst those who claim to follow such a path (and the reason that sites such as this one are so valuable) is that there is a consensus of sorts that there is a viable alternative to the “all or nothing” life, and that “middle way” is a term that is both freeing and positive.

Yes. Love it.

[Anonymous]

“Middle-way” is a new-ish term that is taking on meaning and definition. Like others said, there is not single or specific path. I think it is a useful linguistic term. To me, it means being somewhere between the extremes. That’s a VAST territory. I also like Ray’s argument that there is no middle-way, just individual ways.

I think “middle-way” or “uncorrelated” Mormonism is a reaction to building excesses of conformity and binary ultimatums that have crept into Mormonism. It has gone too far, people are reacting to that, and the pressure is mounting to push the pendulum in the opposite direction. Who knows, perhaps it will swing too far in the opposite direction in another generation or three. That’s what happened to Mormonism in the early 1900’s. There was in some ways too much freedom and theological speculation. That also caused damage to the cause — most notably the breaking off of fundamentalist/polygamist splinter groups. The homogenization and push for rigid obedience to conformity was a reaction to that, and I think we are saw the zenith of that arc back in the late 1990’s to early 2000’s.

The tides are changing.

[Anonymous]

To spin off what Brian said — I watched a documentary on the Black Plague epidemic that took Europe and other parts of the world several centuries ago. 1/3 of the population was wiped out.

This extended calamity made people look to the Catholic Church for solutions, but the Catholic Church didn’t produce any. As a result, different splinter groups came to the fore offering alternate solutions. The Catholic Church then had to step up excommunications and other measures meant to curb heresy.

Although I don’t think this is any where near a close or fitting example of what people are thinking about the LDS Church, I agree that some of the time honored advice given over the pulpit (simplistic, one size fits all statements) doesn’t produce the promised results and can be far too simplistic to help people survive in this diverse and unpredictable world.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate your words, Brian. And I appreciate this thread. This seems to me the heart of my struggle with the church. It’s nice to hear it articulated in a way that resonates. Nice also to hear it framed in compassionate terms. This is one of those areas where the dogma running through my mind, and my experience with life, pain, and God don’t jive. In fact, I’ve found God to be both strict AND flexible. And I’ve found lots more freedom inside principled living (not blind, law of moses obedience) that has truly blessed and broadened my life and my view of life.

I’m not sure exactly why it is I struggle so much given that insight. Perhaps I noticed I was stuck in rigid thinking patterns and that the straight-jacket of it all was causing me pain and wanted to divorce myself from all of it altogether. Maybe its because I decided to liberate myself, but needed others to “convert” my way in order for me to feel safe. I think both have happened with me as I’ve journeyed along.

Another piece isn’t about anyone else but God and my relationship with him. If I turn into a “cafeteria mormon”, what does that do to my covenant relationship with God? Do I turn “luke warm” and qualify to be “spewed out of his mouth”? I probably should say that I tend towards a strong testimony of the law of obedience and the law of sacrifice. So, as I attempt to make the church “my own” or make it work for me in my own way, I feel a sense of fear and guilt that tends to freeze me. Does that make sense to anybody? I worry people with judge that and say, “well, just get over the guilt!” Maybe I worry about that cause I say that to myself. But that doesn’t seem to work either, because sometimes I actually think the guilt has a purpose to teach me about how I’m out of bounds.

Learning how to find this new way of “being” in the church (in the church but not of the church) is a humbling thing, I think.

[Anonymous]

Poppyseed, for what its worth, I believe that God understands us better than we realize. Through the phases of my life, I’ve been very active, completely inactive & now I’m trying to come back. Throughit all, I know God knows me and accepts me for who Iam. He understands that this is a path I needed to take & encourages (& inspires) me all along the way. I don’t think I would change a thing. The important thing is to learn our “lesson” along the way.

I heard a quote from Joe Namath (New York Jets) the other day. I hope I have it right.

He said,

Quote:

It’s not important that a man falls but how he picks himself up?

I hope that I’m not the one to judge how I’ve lived my life. I believe I would be harder on myself than God.

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

I’m a proud Jack-Mormon I used to hate that title but now I embrace it.

I really don’t like the title of Middle Way and NOM because to many the description is so wide it’s misleading. I think most NOMs want out but can’t leave, that’s not a middle way. I don’t say that to be critical but it’s true for most. I don’t see how being agnostic/atheistic, rejecting the church and the gospel of JS, and wanting nothing to do with Mormonism or Mormon Heritage is any sort of “middle way”. I’m not saying they’re wrong nor am I in judgement of thier character. I’m just not seeing how that is a middle way, what’s left? a membership record.

I’m also not defending or making appologetics for the church, but I do see the point of many who ask the question of those who reject essentially everything. I think the orthodoxy SHOULD go the extra mile to not cause contention within a person’s family and social relationships. I do however believe that the more and less orthodox do have some right to think, to defend, and request a modicum of belief in Mormonism in retaining membership. This is probably a very unpopular sentiment but I believe there is an under-current of extremism that simply doesn’t get addressed on many forums in regards to anti-orthodoxy.

I’m not saying anything should be done about this. I’m just saying I wish there was a bit more honesty in some of the dialogue and intent of the participant’s and creators of this internet society.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’m just saying I wish there was a bit more honesty in some of the dialogue and intent of the participant’s and creators of this internet society.

Which internet society? I want to make sure I understand to whom you are referring before I respond, since that will influence how I respond.

[Author]

Posts