I have really enjoyed the various posts on navigating the “Middle Way” in Mormonism, beginning with Happy Hubby’s vulnerable post about the tenuousness of remaining, then Kristine’s post about her story and way of carving out her way, and then Andrew’s outsider’s view of the Middle Way.
As you know, I’m “out”, having been baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church, but after having worked at the Middle Way for many years I wanted to comment a bit about something in Andrew’s post, where he said:
You’ll note from my previous sections that I have put a lot of hedges on my hypotheses. This is because ultimately, I would agree with my co-bloggers that the Middle Way is a narrow path.
The other three posts, along with many of the comments, spend a great deal of time discussing what the person navigating the Middle Way must do in order to make it work. I’d like to talk a bit about what the community can do to broaden the path so it is not so narrow, easing the burden on the person trying to navigate that Middle Way.
Many of our Episcopal Church parishes in Utah have a good population of Middle Way Lattery-Day Saints who are trying to make that path work. They typically come to our parishes for spiritual nourishment. We are happy to provide it. Our tradition is one where they are given the room to breathe and figure things out. On many things the Episcopal Church takes the stance of “all may, some should, none must.” There is a lot of latitude given to people as they navigate their spiritual formation, so doubters and hard questions are par for the course. In fact, the Anglican tradition is known for a “middle way” – via media – between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. We have deeply Catholic parishes (complete with white gloves and all); more evangelical, low-church parishes; and everything in between. So, we’re happy to have people of all levels of belief. Not sure you can comfortably recite that part of the Nicene Creed? Remain silent on that part, reciting only what you’re comfortable with, and please sit next to me on Sundays. Unsure of whether God exists but want to participate in the choir? Get your butt up in the loft and sing your heart out. Doubtful whether Jesus really lived and was resurrected, but love his teachings and want to acolyte? Wear the purple and white proudly and know that you’re loved.
The tradition of Anglicanism is more caught than taught, so we provide a great deal of leeway for people to just breathe it in and let the Spirit do the work. In order to do so, there has to be a great deal of humility and vulnerability within the community. Does the Presence at Eucharist mean transubstantiation as the Romans believe, or is it less literal? We Episcopalians are happy to let things remain a mystery, so leave it for the believer to discern for themselves. We must have the humility to admit we don’t know with precision how this stuff works, and the vulnerability to be wrong or let others come to their own conclusions (which may be different than mine).
So, this is a tradition that provides a safe harbor for many Middle Way Latter-Day Saints in Utah. Many of them believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet, bring their Quad to Mass, and attend their ward as well. Some of them are only “in” Mormonism for family and come to Mass/Holy Communion/Eucharist (see, we don’t even force a particular name) for spiritual nourishment. Why do so many LDS believers still come for spiritual nourishment? What is it that makes the community culture so healing for them? I think it comes down to vulnerability and humility, so here are a few suggestions for broadening that path of the Middle Way in Mormonism:
- Reduce boundary maintenance activities. This can start with the temple recommend interview. Change the questions so they aren’t so focused on right belief, but rather on right living. Many who may struggle to assent to keys, prophets, and such, are incredibly loving and may benefit from the spiritual nourishment of the temple.
- Stop with the leader worship and clericalism. Vulnerability cannot be found in de-facto infallibility.
- Don’t blackball doubters or treat them as broken or infectious. Open them up to full fellowship and service.
- Let doubters and those without a temple recommend see their children get married and perform all ordinances for their children (e.g., confirmation and ordination to Melchizedek Priesthood).
- No more talk of obedience for the sake of obedience. Persuade, love, and be patient. Stress the importance of the spiritual journey, not simply the destination.
- Let people discern their callings rather than assign them. Andrew touched on this point and it is important, I believe. Someone at the margins is more apt to remain and participate, despite their doubts, if they have a sense of purpose that is meaningful to them.
- Focus on spiritual formation. Spiritual formation is more than simply accumulating information about God. The Christian journey is more than simply an exercise in fact-gathering and intellectual assent to propositional truths. Rather, formation is the process by which, consenting and surrendering to God’s loving presence and action in our lives, we gradually learn to become more and more like God, and more attuned to God’s will in the midst of our daily lives. The key here is that a one-size-fits-all system isn’t the answer. Correlation has to yield to spiritual formation, because people’s needs are unique; a corporate mentality is anathema to spiritual formation.
- Move classes away from a catechism-like structure where questions are asked with specific, “right” answers in mind. Allow for pushback and tough discussion. Be vulnerable.
I know many people who are trying to make Middle Way Mormonism work. Some are more successful at it than others, and there are many ways to make it work. Each person’s Middle Way looks different, but our communities can make that journey an easier one; less narrow and fraught with obstacles; more forgiving of mistakes. We in the Episcopal Church are happy to continue providing spiritual nourishment for many of these people, whether they remain with us or return to full activity in the LDS faith, but I hope LDS communities can change a bit to make it easier on those choosing to stay.
Wheat & Tares 
Amen Cody. AMEN!
I went to the Anglican Church a while ago for their Easter service. It was really beautiful. An interesting mix of low (sermon) and high church. I have loved watching the unfolding journey of a fellow bloggernacleite find her new home there. It certainly has a lot to offer. Thanks for the post, Cody. I’ve enjoyed everyone’s contributions.
Three cheers for making the path easier. Much of which can be done at a local level, spirit willing.
Regarding your blatant proselytizing (:-)) I’ve long believed that if I’m ever looking for a church by fit and comfort, Episcopal will be top of my list. Although my duaghter’s UCC church comes close and is more familiar.
(All except for location. Where I live nothing is convenient.)
However, judging by “call” (as Andrew S discusses) I feel some sense of call to the Mormon tradition and to the (Roman) Catholic tradition. Which might be considered unfortunate, since both generate almost violent disagreement in my mind.
I’m happy to hear about Utah Episcopalianism being such a welcoming place for Mormons. I’m starting to try out some other churches to supplement my ward. I visited the Quakers last week; the Episcopalians are definitely on my list. I hope the ones here in North Carolina are as welcoming to a middle-way Mormons as the ones in Utah.
I love this list, too. I want changes like this so much but have so little hope for the ones that require active change by church leadership. Sigh.
Love this post.
A lot of the things you mention are things that I see brought up online from proponents of the Middle Way — and yet, what seems normalized (or at least, more normalized) in the Episcopal tradition seems impossible to imagine for many in Mormonism.
I’m thinking about some of the pushback I’ve gotten online to my post in particular — the commenters don’t have any sense of a concept about “spiritual formation” outside of accumulating information about God, so it’s hard to explain that this involves a different set of practices than just being able to accumulate more accurate information. It always gets back to, “But…you have to care about truth!” where truth is only defined in terms of accumulated information about (God, the institution, etc.,)
christiankimball
I think that spiritual call is very important. Heed it. Perhaps your call is to help broaden that Middle Way path in your Mormon community.
“aren’t so focused on right belief, but rather on right living”
Concur. The temple recommend seems to be a virtue signal of somewhat uncertain reliability.
“Stop with the leader worship and clericalism. Vulnerability cannot be found in de-facto infallibility.”
Concur. Still, this seems to have arisen spontaneously and consequently may be difficult to eradicate.
“Don’t blackball doubters or treat them as broken or infectious. Open them up to full fellowship and service.”
Concur. But as with above, this seems to arise spontaneously and is a human trait. In the eastern or southern United States, being a Mormon is to be “broken or infectious” as compared to the dominant religions there (Catholic, Baptist).
“Let doubters and those without a temple recommend see their children get married and perform all ordinances for their children “
I’m ambivalent on this one, seeing good reasons for the current approach or a more relaxed approach.
“No more talk of obedience for the sake of obedience.”
I don’t concur; not exactly. Obedience to right principles is well established in scripture.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Jeremiah 42:6 Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the Lord our God.
“Persuade, love, and be patient. Stress the importance of the spiritual journey, not simply the destination.”
Concur. the destination is not yet known; only the journey can be known and is in our control (more or less).
“Let people discern their callings rather than assign them.”
I have a doubt this would work. 15 people discern themselves to be bishop and nobody discerns themselves to clean the chapel. Still, the current system of seemingly ignoring a person’s skills, interest, desire and spirituality is inefficient.
More thought on callings: I believe when carefully considered and spiritually inspired, callings tend to be “stretches” for a person, they are not meant to be easy or even take advantage of what you think are your strengths (although they might). Ether 12:27 “And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.” God sometimes weakens the strong (King Solomon; Job) and strengthens the weak.
Some jobs just need to be done; clerical work for instance. Got accountant in the congregation? Guess what, you are our new clerk.
“Focus on spiritual formation. Spiritual formation is more than simply accumulating information about God.”
Partly concur. Some people just are not spiritual. They go to church attracted to its structure. My good friend does so. I am blended; I like the structure AND I am spiritual; but pure spirit is like a jellyfish; all wiggly and undirected. A human body works because it is wiggly muscle on a structure (bones) and thus can do work.
“The Christian journey is more than simply an exercise in fact-gathering and intellectual assent to propositional truths.”
It can be for some.
“The key here is that a one-size-fits-all system isn’t the answer.”
Answer to what? Many sizes isn’t a system at all; meets different needs for different kind of people. That is why I don’t expect there to EVER be a church that appeals to everyone; such a thing seems impossible. My structure oriented friend finds God in the structure itself. Me with a military career tends to favor order over randomness and I can ignore a certain amount of ineffectiveness in my bishop, his counselors, the relief society, priesthood meetings, monthly testimony meetings and so on; it still has order and within that order occasionally a spiritual person arises and makes things wonderful for a while. As I traveled the world in the Navy, I never had to wonder if a congregation had appointed to itself a completely different way of doing things. Local culture still exists, but not a completely different way.
“Move classes away from a catechism-like structure where questions are asked with specific, right answers in mind. Allow for pushback and tough discussion.”
That is exactly how I teach, and how I help those that teach me get off the script. One lesson began with the teacher saying, “Is anyone here perfect?” and I raised my hand. Looking around I saw that another man, previously a bishop, also raised his hand. We congratulated each other on being perfect and then looked to the teacher whose entire lesson hinged upon nobody being perfect.
Where it was headed was a false equivalency, you are imperfect, I am imperfect, therefore we are equal. No; we are not. We are still on the journey, climbing the ladder,, but I had a sense he was intending to hide his rather numerous sins under a license of imperfection.
It is also the case that I put a different emphasis on “perfect” and this bishop friend explained it as being what is full or complete, appropriate for your condition. So when Jesus said, be ye therefore perfect, it would be cruel to issue a command that is impossible! I do not believe Jesus to be cruel, therefore whatever was meant must be possible and that means the common interpretation of “perfect” is incorrect. I believe it possible to be perfect for a while between imperfections.
I agree that the church could be more accommodating to Middle way Mormons, but I’m not holding my breath. People who expect the church to change are bound to struggle with the middle way.
Mormon Heretic writes “I agree that the church could be more accommodating to Middle way Mormons”
There is no church, only people; some will accommodate, some will not. General Conferences seem to be advocating for more personal tolerance of other people’s differences but that advocacy is countered by “the internet” and ability for people to aggregate around certain ideas to the exclusion of other ideas.
Regarding the one size fits all concept- of course I don’t think there is any church that can be all things to all people. The problem is that orthodox Church leaders and members assume the worst of anyone for whom the church is not a fit anymore. The teachings still focus on all the reasons to stay in without acknowledging the many reasons why some people want to leave. It doesn’t recognize that good people change and can make a happy and fulfilled life outside of the church. They teach instead that there is no real happiness outside of the church. This rhetoric creates a situation where it is very difficult for the exiting member to freely follow her integrity where it takes her and family and friends left behind mourn the exiting member as if she has died. The church does not need to be all things for all people, but it does need to develop a culture that allows people to exit without creating a situation where the person may lose family and friends over it.
Billy Smith writes “The church does not need to be all things for all people, but it does need to develop a culture that allows people to exit without creating a situation where the person may lose family and friends over it.”
Why?
This is more of a devil’s advocate type of question as it would be nice if everyone, everywhere, allowed people to do what they want without side effects. But that’s unrealistic. “It is what it is”. That is to say, it is the nature of “the church” (whether Catholic, Mormon or some others) to see departing as leaving the path. It is undeniably leaving A path, but in my libertarian view trying to stay on a path that is unnatural for a person is itself very difficult and not perhaps useful. I have recommended many times for people to choose a path and be happy, and for that I get downvoted. What seems to be wanted here is for everyone else to be compelled to change to reduce or remove stress on the leaver.
Michael 2,
We have the theology to allow for a more expansive view of the path than that, even if the current practice is not to interpret the theology that way. To the extent people are wanting “everyone else” to be “compelled” to change to reduce or remove stress on the leaver, it’s because they think it would be a better application of the theology that “everyone else” claims to have.
Michael 2: The LDS culture didn’t arise in a vacuum and is tied to the rhetoric associated with leaving. That rhetoric traditionally has not let the person leave with their community dignity intact. It has not been seen as a viable option but instead is seen as tearing the eternal family apart, etc.
But we’re not talking about leaving here; we’re talking about making things easier on those who choose the Middle Way. I assume the goal is not to push them out but make staying more palatable. In order to do that the expectation cannot be that they return to their prior state of belief; rather, the community needs to adjust in order to provide an environment that is suitable to the Middle Way spiritual formation. I think this can be done without sacrificing the essentials of Mormonism, thus my suggestions in the OP.
FWIW, even the highest of Anglo-Catholic Anglicans include a brief sermon or homily in worship.
Cody Hatch writes “we’re talking about making things easier on those who choose the Middle Way.”
Yes; change the many rather than the one. Church exists in part to do exactly that — change the many, make them more charitable. But if you can change the many, why cannot you change the one?
Because change cannot be imposed. Many have tried; either to change others (mostly impossible) or self (merely difficult). It is growth, a natural consequence of adulthood and casting off old superstitions like the tooth fairy. Some are replaced by new beliefs.
In my case, change was toward the thing, at least in appearance, that some here leave. And yet I never embraced the “ism” of Mormonism. In some ways, yes, when I was younger some of those “isms” absorbed into my thinking; but I never wanted to “go back to Missouri”.