Middle way Mormons are in peril

[_Infymus]

Well the fellow who was called in by his stake president has dodged the bullet:

Here is what I know. I got another phone call this morning from BP. He talked with the SP again this morning. The SP would like to talk to me - and the BP said it was just a standard visit that SPs do when they release someone from a stake calling (EQP). Also, he said that there will be no discipline at this time and that I am to keep my mouth shut and my opinion to myself, and that if there are no further "reports" than he considers the matter closed.

The BP asked me to lay low until the water clears and mentioned that I should be VERY VERY careful about what I write or say on online forums and emails to family, and that there is no doubt that I am being "monitored" and the SP is in contact with someone about my online activities, and suggested that perhaps I discontinue association with whatever online groups I am involved in, at least until things cool down.

Sounds like a job for a small "clipping service". Maybe Peterson is snooping around this.

[_bcspace]

Bc, you are a long way from being a "middle way" Mormon.

I agree.

What strikes me as odd is that many apologists most certainly do not embrace the teachings of the LDS church, cast aside many doctrines, and downgrade a prophet to a nice guy sharing an opinion or two.

Is that what I do? And yet someone else said above that I am a long way from the "Middle Way".

BC, why do you think this may be of import to you?

Because I hear similar rumblings as is the case with the Cache Valley stakes mentioned by gwald and I may be called to be part of such proceedings if it comes to that.

I do not want to say much more that this in case things are heating up which it seems they are.

If they're online, I highly doubt they've escaped being catalogued.

I think the idea that the church can dictate to its members how, where, or what one discusses regarding their personal spiritual beliefs really crazy!

More crazy is the notion that one can remain a member of a church and get away with going against it's teachings and helping others do the same without consequence which is much nearer to the mark than your preposterous notion.

[_Chap]

I'm guessing that many of the NOM folk would not care much about their membership one way or the other. In other words, when one doesn't believe in the authority of the LDS church, the church no longer has any power over her/him.

Don't you think it is a bit more complicated if the following are true?

(a) You are LDS born and bred, and it is the only culture you know.

(b) All your family are LDS.

(c) All your friends are LDS.

As an individual you may not 'believe in the authority of the LDS church', in the sense that you do not believe it has any legitimate claim on your obedience. But unless you are very naïve indeed you may have to recognize the effective power it has, seen not only as a formal organization but also as an informal social network, to reduce your life to fragments.

[_RockSlider]

bcspace:

Your inquiring seems sincere, but I learned a long time back to basically put you on mental ignore. I don't believe its worth the time to respond to you.

It’s because of statements like the following that I do this:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/542 ... 1209005275

edit link fixed

[_Runtu]

bcspace:

Your inquiring seems sincere, but I learned a long time back to basically put you on mental ignore. I don't believe its worth the time to respond to you.

It’s because of statements like the following that I do this:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/542 ... 1209005275

edit link fixed

I think bc believes that certain fundamentals are non-negotiable. It's fine to disbelieve a global flood, for example, but not kosher to reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Of course, all of that is secondary to the real problem: these people actually share their feelings with other people. That's what will get them in trouble with the church.

I think some people really do believe there's a sifting going on in the church, so it is right and proper to drive out those who do not hold to an orthodox view. If that's what the church wants to do, they are perfectly able to do so. Seems like a boneheaded move to me, but then I'm one of those phony people trying to get people to leave. I should be happy about this, right?

[_bcspace]

I stand by my words in the post refered to. It's how the Church judges matters of indivudal apostasy. Is the individual trying or not trying to attatin a testimony? Is he or she sowing doubt and dissent? etc.

Here is your opportunity to help your fellow man in case he comes up to a Church court. Be a witness.

[_Runtu]

I stand by my words in the post refered to. It's how the Church judges matters of indivudal apostasy. Is the individual trying or not trying to attatin a testimony? Is he or she sowing doubt and dissent? etc.

Are those the only choices? If you're not trying to gain a testimony, it doesn't follow that you're sowing seeds of doubt and dissent. Maybe you're honestly trying to figure out how to stay in the church even though you doubt and struggle. It seems to me the reason things like these cases come up is the notion that you're either for or against the church. You can be "for" the church and still disbelieve some of what others consider "core" doctrines.

Here is your opportunity to help your fellow man in case he comes up to a Church court. Be a witness.

What do you mean? I have no idea what you are talking about here. I suppose if I were to be a witness at, say, John Dehlin's church court (not that one is coming), I would honestly say that John tried to help me maintain faith and activity in the church, as many others have.

[Guest]

Are those the only choices? If you're not trying to gain a testimony, it doesn't follow that you're sowing seeds of doubt and dissent.

I did not tie them together like that. And I did etc. Perhaps both of should refer to my third post above this one.

What do you mean? I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Of course you do.

[Guest]

So, if you are not "struggling" with or attempting to gain back your previous testimony you are guilty of apostacy and the church guidelines say to ex you?

Where does it say that? The handbook?

[_badseed]

What's interesting to me is that it looks like this guy who is posting on StayLDS is basically keeping his comment out of Church meetings and has reserved it to the Web. He's realized that there is no place or tolerance for it in formal LDS meetings and so he deals with it elsewhere. You'd think he'd get brownie points for that. You know, limiting his contagion to other faithless Internet Mormons.

But it appears that's not good enough for Church leadership. Not only can you not talk about it in Church...you can't talk about it anywhere. Doubt can exist but only in your head. Let any of that escape and yer in danger.