As an on and off (mostly off) participant in Mormon and ex-Mormon spaces (sorry — this post will be a victory for Satan because I will still be using the term Mormon), I’ve always found it interesting to think about why some people stay and some people leave Mormonism. In particular, I’ve spent a lot of time in the liminal space where many really want the church to work out (even as their conventional understandings and beliefs fall to the wayside), but where, nevertheless, many do not find the path sustainable. So, I wanted to throw my hat into Wheat & Tares series on Middle Way Mormonism — along with Happy Hubby’s personal essay on the Middle Way as well as Kristine’s personal history and hypotheses on what makes the Middle Way more likely to work.
I think that exmormons and so-called traditional believing or true believing Mormons (“TBMs”) are easier to understand, because in general, TBMs and exmormons tend to be aligned with their picture of what Mormonism claims to be. In other words, it’s not that exmormons see what the church is supposed to be differently than traditional believers — the difference is just that traditional believers accept the church is what it claims to be, while exmormons don’t.
Tension already arises here. What does the church claim to be, exactly? What is Mormonism? To the stereotypical exmormon and TBM, the truth claims of Mormonism are black and white — you’re either all in or you’re all out. It’s either the one true church or it’s a fraud.
But even when you think in these stark terms, chances are, any two Mormons won’t necessarily agree on everything. So, instead, we have a gloss of concepts that we think are likely the core fundamentals. For the most part, there’s not much problem with the uncertainty because, as mentioned before, traditional believers and exmormons typically agree on the working definition.
But the group in between them — called various names but which I’ll refer to as “Middle Way Mormonism” — challenges the working definitions, challenges the very dichotomy that traditional Mormons and exMos adhere to. And so, I wanted to write a few things I’ve observed about Middle Way Mormonism, because it allows us to “problematize” Mormonism, therefore giving all of us — whether believing, nonbelieving, or somewhere in between — the opportunity to think more critically about what we want our relationship to Mormonism to be.
At the core, Middle Way Mormonism is exactly what the name implies: if we had to put “traditional belief” on one end of a line, and “full out apostasy” on the other end, then middle way would be…somewhere in the middle. This means that we often cannot pin down beliefs that all Middle Way Mormons will have. Someone who looks “nuanced” on one point may look outright apostate on another, or like a traditional believer on yet another. (As an aside, this means that when talking about particular people, they themselves may not identify as Middle Way, and outside observers may not agree on who is Middle Way, based on an evaluation of one belief or another.)
But for now, I’ll try to set a working definition that Middle Way Mormons are those who know enough about Mormonism to be aware of issues, concerns, and pain points within history, doctrine or theology (and unable to dismiss them), but who also feel called to persist in some way, shape, or fashion with Mormonism (rather than abandoning it.)
First, let me know if you would disagree with this definition. (After reading Happy Hubby and Kristine, I think my definition harmonizes with their posts.) I think that there are many ways people can get to this point, and different ways have different odds for continued church involvement. For example, one slight disagreement I’d have with Kristine’s model is that it implies that becoming a less literal believer only happens after a catalyst “traumatizes” a “true believer.” Yet I have met several folks who grew up reading Sunstone and Dialogue and so their belief was already informed by the warts and messiness of history and theology — they didn’t have a “traumatized believer” stage because there was no surprise. This, I think, is the fundamental argument behind “inoculation” concepts within church apologetics.
…yet, I’d have to put these members as being a minority. The reality I’ve seen is that many members only find out the darker aspects of the church later in life — as the model in Kristine’s post illustrates. It contradicts the narrative they may have heard growing up — it may feel like a profound betrayal. This is for many the source of faith transition (in the positive sense) or faith crisis (in the negative), and it seems to me that most folks don’t maintain a middle way position. As others have commented at several times, it seems like the Middle Way might be just a waystation on the way out of the church for most.
However…what intrigues me is that there clearly are still some people who seem to make the Middle Way work long term.
What are their secrets? What differentiates those who make staying work from those who are likelier to leave? I have a few hypotheses based on observation.
You need a sense of spiritual independence
In my observations, the people I know who have made the Middle Way work have generally had profound experiences that buoy them in God (or in some sort of anchoring to something higher to themselves), regardless of what the institution or what local leaders do.
This buoy serves several purposes. As mentioned, it provides a sense of independence. In my experience, people who stay based on other reasons (such as trying to maintain family relationships, or trying to effect change within the church) are more likely to burn out because their sense of satisfaction within the church is dependent on what other people do and how they respond. Since Middle Way Mormons often experience criticism from both sides (from exmormons who think they are undertaking unreasonable mental gymnastics to avoid dealing with the reality of the church to traditional believers who think they are on the path to apostasy for their cafeteria approach), relying on others is a lonely path.
But additionally, this buoy provides a source for renewable energy. People with this sort of independence are OK not because the church says so or because other commenters and ward members approve, but because they have their own confirmation.
This spiritual independence also allows successful Middle Way Mormons to undercut the traditional boundaries and truth claims about the church. If one is beholden to an all-or-nothing model of the church, then rejecting “all” automatically leads one to “nothing.” Middle Way Mormons need not adopt that model.
And yet, obviously, having spiritual independence need not tie one to Mormonism. You can obviously be spiritually independent outside of the church (although, it would seem to me that many people are not, seeing that many do seem to reject spirituality completely after disaffecting from Mormonism. As an exmormon atheist, I can’t blame others for that.)
You need to be called to Mormonism
“Calling” is one of the words that Mormons use differently than many other Christian denominations or religious traditions, so let me break out what I mean. While many Mormons are aware of “callings” as being something assigned to you from leadership (that don’t necessarily match with your own thoughts, feelings, talents, or strength), I am thinking of a very different sense of calling. There is another definition of the word in which calling is something given by God, and discerned by an individual through an essentially personal rather than institutional process.
The thing about this second type of calling is that one takes personal ownership of this calling because one is sustained by one’s own personal discernment process.
This sort of discernment process may include spiritual promptings and experiences with explicit promptings to remain engaged with the church, or may more indirectly highlight the value within Mormon teachings (even if that value is often hidden underneath tradition and bureaucracy.) I know many people who remain engaged because they smell the “scent” of God (or perceive the “fiery core” from Mormonism’s beginnings that now have calcified as cold, institutional igneous rock) within the teachings, even if they fully concede that many in the church do not follow this “scent” as much as they could.
I also know many (usually disaffected) people who might claim that the only way someone can stay in the church when they know the negative elements of history and theology is if they are staying for family, friends, or career. This sort of perspective may ultimately describe why several people find themselves wanting to continue to engage, but it ignores that people may still find find great value in Mormonism even amidst the messiness. And, in my observations, people without a sense of calling who are only staying for the previously mentioned alternative reasons often find the middle way to be unsustainable.
Keep in mind, however, that not all will feel called to Mormonism. Some people may have a calling, but not all callings point one to continue to engage within Mormonism. In my experience, to be called to Mormonism is not something people voluntarily choose (and so, callings can actually be surprising or contrary to one’s own wishes). What one can choose to do is practice to become open and aware to discernment (which may not be the same mindset as either the critical skepticism of the nonbeliever nor the institutional loyalty of the traditional believer.)
But is Middle Way Mormonism even for everyone?
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.
But even more importantly, I want to note that it’s not necessarily for everyone. I don’t want to say anyone should leave or stay in the church, because I think the answer may legitimately be different for different people.
In particular, you may be spiritually independent, but that certainly may not make you beholden to Mormon spirituality if you don’t feel called to it.
You can be called elsewhere, or you may not discern a calling at all (yet?)
The sense of independence requires an ability to separate oneself from what is probably a more common or more easily understood need or desire to be accepted and understood by the group. That is, it doesn’t necessarily bother the successful Middle Way Mormon that their path isn’t validated by others around them. But, this sort of independence raises additional questions — what is the value of continued engagement with a community if you are functionally independent of that community? Is it worth persisting with a community of people who are not like-minded when one could instead find communities of people who are?
So, in this way, paradoxically, the same traits that might make one best able to persist in the Middle Way may also at the very least raise the question of if the Middle Way is a desirable way for you. And that is not a question anyone can answer for you, except for you.
Wheat & Tares 
Andrew, no surprise (because of numerous past “conversations”) but this is the closest of the three posts so far to making sense to my experience or sound like what I know.
I want to underline the “what the church claims to be” point. I do not accept or believe or interact with the church as “what it claims”. I have a different understanding. It makes a difference, a big difference, but I’ve given up on trying to explain. Everyone from a sister to an apostle has said some form of “that doesn’t exist.”
So I’ll just go on gong on. Thank you.
This is much of what I got from reading the Bible, especially the Old Testament.
That is, the way is messy and the glass we see through is not clear. That leaves us with a way that defies the concrete accuracy many try to impose.
One thing all the posts miss is a good discussion of people who leave the church and then return.
Christian,
So glad to hear that I have hit closer to the mark. I have also thought a LOT about the question of “what the church claims to be” because it does seem to be something that is taken for granted by a lot of people, but which actually has a lot of complexity. And I think you highlighted something else. My blurb on that focused so much on disagreeing about what the church claims to be, but your comment hightlights that it doesn’t really matter what the church claims to be at all — if you’re finding something that works for you, you will still get that regardless of what the church says about itself.
To use a totally irreverent movie example, even if Tommy Wiseau didn’t intend for The Room to be a “so-bad-it’s-good” comedy (and would probably never fully own up to that), you absolutely can get that from it.
Stephen,
The point on people who leave and then return was something I wanted to address more, but I thought my post was already getting kinda long.
Like, when I think about people who are making the “middle way” work, some of the biggest examples I think of are folks like Dan Wotherspoon and John Gustav-Wrathall. But with John in particular, his journey required him to leave the church for several years (I want to say it was at least a decade, but I haven’t combed through his posts.)
On these sorts of time scales, it almost gets like feeling like that idea that a person lives several lives in their lifetime — and you could have one of those lifetimes be outside of the church completely and then come back for the next one. But, on the other hand…I wouldn’t want to tell anyone to hold their breath on the possibility that they will return back. (You can’t hold your breath for a decade…)
Maybe we’ll see a post from you regarding the insights from the Old Testament, 😉 what do you say?
Stephen Marsh: Leave and return would be interesting. I’m not the one to write it, but I would read with interest. I can tell you that the common wisdom in the middle and out worlds is that “return” is a misnomer, or at least needs careful explication—that what you see is (a few?) paths that veer toward the center in some ways, not paths that circle back to the beginning.
Andrew’s post really resonates for me as someone who doesn’t care about these hooks people seem to get into one another in our wards. There’s a difference between bonds of friendship–based on mutual good will and hope–and hooks with barbs. I definitely have seen both in the church.
When people claim that “so and so left because they were offended,” what I see is that often people are behaving in offensive ways, even intentionally offensive (although sometimes cluelessly offensive) and then blaming those who are offended with rancor and self-righteousness. Those dynamics are so prevalent that they’ve become the go-to narrative for exits, at least among those who offend others. And yet, I’m not easily hooked by their drama. When someone is offensive, I don’t have a problem saying that I disagree or that I don’t like what they said. All you have to do is confront them with your own truth, and most people start to backpedal.
“what is the value of continued engagement with a community if you are functionally independent of that community?” I’m functionally independent of the USA, but I’m also a citizen.
“Is it worth persisting with a community of people who are not like-minded when one could instead find communities of people who are?” I question the value of seeking out only those who are like-minded. First of all, it’s an illusion that we are like minded. Usually that just means we have superficial similarities and common enemies. Second, if everyone around you thinks just like you do, it’s tribalism, not learning to live the gospel. I become a better person not when people tell me I’m awesome. I already know that. It’s when I see someone else doing something that I can learn from, and being like-minded isn’t a requirement.
Wow. Good stuff. I don’t have time to reply, but great comments across the 3 blog posts!
I don’t think Middle Path Mormonism is sustainable. I tried for many years, ended up ex-Mormon.
Is it okay that I like your post more than mine? Great insights.
I have some friends that when something particularly distasteful comes from SLC they use the phrase “negative sentiment override..” They disengage bc the amount of negative sentiment attached to the institution becomes overwhelming and they need to shut it down for a while. I like how your two things you see as necessary are highlighting the tensions: you can survive the crap by being independent of it, and you feel pulled in by being called to do so.
I think people leave when what they get from the church is net negative instead of net positive. maybe not right away but eventually that wears on them. I referred to it in my post but I think I have a considerable amount of tethers holding me to the church. I have no idea what I’d do if I was a single woman adult convert with no mormon family with expectations, living in a community that wouldn’t notice if I disappeared from attendance. That’s an entirely different equation i’m working with. And I’m not saying those are the things holding me in either – it’s more than that – but just making the point that everyone’s equation is different.
The part about the “all or nothing” model of the church resonates with me. It seems the first thing a middle-way member of Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints must do is reject the all or nothing model, otherwise the find themselves with nothing.
There are several factors that reinforce the all or nothing model. Besides the quotes from leaders that are abundant, there is the fact that one could be called on at any time to teach a class on a topic they disagree with. Turning down such a calling or request can be difficult or embarrassing if one is asked to explain the reason. Also, mormons are expected to renew temple recommend interviews to confirm they maintain their belief. And finally, there is a cultural expectation that people should “know” their testimony rather than just believe it.
All of these things mean the “sense of spiritual” mentioned in the OP is critical. Well said.
Loved the post Andrew, and I look forward to part 2, on people leaving and returning.
Stephen, I like the Old Testament, but I have a lot of problems with it. I just got introduced to the podcast “History in the Bible” by Gary Stevens. It’s pretty interesting and talks about how the Old Testament doesn’t match our modern morals. It’s really interesting and I’ve learned a lot, and after 10 episodes, I’m still in Genesis.
Reading comments, another thought:
People will say “AT KEAST you’ve got to do X.” Or “believe Y.” Or “agree to Z.”
Not to say there’s nothing there, I’m not persuaded by anything I’ve heard so far. Once you start defining the church for yourself, a lot of seeming absolutes fall away.
It’s worth noting that no one is active or engaged with Mormonism or the LDS Church as a whole — we attend and are engaged with a particular ward, in a particular stake, with particular leaders and a particular set of friends and acquaintances in the ward. What that ward or branch community is and how it functions, in particular how easily a Middle-Way Mormon can manage things in that particular ward, makes a lot of difference. There is often talk about how LDS wards are like franchised religious stores with the same organization, curriculum architecture, etc. But there are differences, sometimes big differences, for people halfway in and halfway out.
I’ve really enjoyed this series of posts. Religion is often boiled down to three components: belief, belonging, and behavior. How much of one element or another you require/want will depend on the personality type. You can exert control over your beliefs and behavior, but you can’t exert control over how well your newly-modified beliefs and behavior will be accepted by the community. I agree with the post that the community (belonging) aspect is likely the biggest problem for those choosing the middle way. But you aren’t just not fitting in, you’re often attacked by both sides like Andrew said. That’s got to get exhausting, and may itself override any benefit of trying to navigate that path.
Angela C,
hmm, i’ve definitely heard the citizenship analogy a lot, and there’s just something a little bit off about it to me.
US citizenship is fairly passive. I don’t do a whole lot to get here, don’t need to do a whole lot to maintain it, and relinquishing it does take a lot of effort.
For me to be a church member in the same way I could be a citizen would not be considered much a member at all. (I mean, technically, I have never been excommunicated and never resigned. So technically, I am a member of the church in a similar sense that I’m a US citizen…but this doesn’t seem like the right thing.)
Does it matter that taxes are obligatory* and tithing is voluntary? Maybe; it feels like it does?
*ok, there are some legal theories that taxes are voluntary, but this is…complicated.
BD,
Thanks so much for commenting — I agree that the middle way is going to be quite difficult and unsustainable for most. Would you feel comfortable sharing more of your story in light of the things I’ve discussed in my post? I’m wondering if you would say that someone who developed spiritual independence but still discerned a calling to engage with Mormonism (even if on their own terms) would still find staying unsustainable.
Kristine,
Well, first, I want to say that your post allowed me to trim out a lot of stuff in this one, because I was able to say, “Well, Kristine already covered that…” And I like that you break out your personal reasons while I’m staying at a super high level.
I wanted to outline my two factors here because I think that they can actually provide the answer even when everything else seems stacked against continued membership. Because I would agree, your hypothetical single woman convert with no family ties in the church isn’t necessarily going to be as tethered, but she could still have discerned that sense of calling and have developed spiritual independence within herself that can keep her energized even as external factors try to wear her down. That is why I am particularly interested by the examples of the marginalized who stay — when I see LGBT people who stay, I think that there really must be something to their spiritual experiences precisely because I can’t explain it in any secular way without calling into question their judgment (which I don’t want to do.)
Thank you, Andrew S. You pretty much correctly identified reasons why I can stay rather middle-way, as well as the fact that the tensions do not entirely disappear, if only because of the community and social aspects..
Christian, I would be very much interested in what “doesn’t exist.” Is there a place, a reading to point out to me. I really don’t care much what your sister, an apostle, or everyone in between had to say about it. 🙂
Dave B: Great insight regarding the community differences across the Church congregations. Those differences can make or break a Middle Way.
Rockwell,
Totally agreed on rejecting all-or-nothing. when I see people who are attempting the middle way who still kinda accept all-or-nothing, I know that they are going to have a particularly bumpy ride.
One of the most interesting things I’ve seen are the way that the successful middle way Mormons I know have found a way to reclaim scriptural language so that they can interpret it in a more inclusive language while also being recognizable enough for the average member — even the people I know will say it doesn’t always work, but there’s definitely a skillset and practice to getting to that point. I think that is the part of the work for anyone who want to pursue the middle way. They have to essentially relearn the scriptures — but that’s also probably part of the calling that I discussed. There is that sense that there is a more expansive view within the scriptures, even if the common interpretation doesn’t live up to that interpretation.
I have often heard the analogy of church membership/attendance being like a citizen of your country. I have always felt the comparison didn’t feel right to me, but I have never sat down and really thought through it. Maybe I need to sit and think a while on that.
Mormon Heretic,
Definitely seconding that I’d like to see Stephen dive into OT for sure.
Dave B,
I totally get that different wards will have different experiences, but I actually wanted to try to reduce the effect of that. In other words, I think that leadership roulette or ward roulette is not sustainable, because it’s so situational on where you actually are. The people who seem best able to stay are not necessarily dependent on their ward being one way or another (although maybe they do just have great wards).
So in a way, although I have defined the middle way pretty broadly, I think the portion that will really be able to stay is much narrower because I’m defining out “ideal wards” and things like that.
Mary Ann,
Yep — I remember writing some posts on these three, and it was looking for a moment that maaaaybe the church could be going in the direction of emphasizing those three (whatever happened to that site anyway?) The paradox I’ve seen from many Middle Wayers is that once they have the independence and calling, they are often able to “live into” a new sense of belonging. It’s very strange — there is a sort of process where because they aren’t dependent on validation, many are able to persist despite seeming to not fit in…and this helps them to fit in in their own way.
JR
Thanks so much! So glad to hear this is resonating with people’s experiences!
Cody
Just about to head over to your thread since you’ve got some great thought about how other religious communities like the Episcopal church are approaching things in a way that can make them more institutionally supportive of Middle Way thinking. I know I’ve really appreciated Lynnette from Zelophehad’s Daughters posts about discovering and falling in love with the Episcopal Church as well.
JR: There’s nowhere to point you to, because I was discouraged from and gave up on the project of defining the church for me. Your encouragement gives me something to think about. As a very short shorthand I describe myself as a Christian practicing in a Mormon congregation. There might be a hint or flavor there. (I find that “Christian” also comes with my own definition, and might not be recognizable from a Nicene creed POV. So the whole thing is complicated.)
Andrew & others: When I talk about my citizenship, I think of it as a former expat. I was in a position to see where I was a typical American and where I was not. In some ways, I felt more like the values of my residence country. In other ways, I felt very deeply American. There were aspects of Americanism from which I wanted to distance myself (especially when my driver would ask me impertinent political questions as if I needed to defend our gun laws or actions of our military), and there were aspects of it that I felt more patriotism toward than I ever did while living in the US, simply because things were different where I was. So, to me, being an American citizen means something different because of being an expat. It’s that third culture process (very similar to middle way) that I blogged about a few times.
https://wheatandtares.org/2011/05/24/bursting-the-cultural-bubble/
https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/06/01/outsider-mormonism-as-third-culture/
It looks like you also blogged about Third Culture Kids in one of your irresistible disgrace posts. To me, it’s the only way to understand how I fit in (and don’t fit in).
I appreciate this post, Andrew, especially your comments about calling and spiritual discernment. And like you mentioned, remaining and making it work isn’t always the best choice for everyone. One can be a wonderful, Christ-like person outside the LDS Church. I think you’re a great example of that. Thank you for a thoughtful post.
Stephen, dish out this Old Testament wisdom to us. I’d love to learn your thoughts on it.
Andrew, You commented on Cody’s post about pushback on yours, that: ” 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.,)” I haven’t seen that here, and while it is common in at least some Mormon {Victory for Satan !? 🙂 ) circles, the part of Mormonism [again?] that is in the end most meaningful to me and many LDS I know is the part that acknowledges that Jesus is the truth — to be cared about , loved, and allowed to make us free of those cultural and human impediments to love and to make us into “new creations.” For some — perhaps more than observable to outsiders, those “profound experiences that buoy them in God … regardless of what the institution or what local leaders do” entail vastly more than information about God, prophets, or institutions. That more is a changed perception and to some extent a changed character that you might call “spiritual formation” that motivates seeking to continue to change in that same direction — even through a long “dark night of the soul.” Accumulating information does not seem to be the goal, despite such an appearance to outsiders and to some LDS. I would suggest looking instead at Elder Uchtdorf’s comments in October 2018 conference about the kinds of people (and mistakes) found in the church.
Or have I just demonstrated independence?
JR,
Oh, to clarify, I shared this article on Reddit and Facebook. So I’m fielding comments from three different sites!
I agree with your comment, but in some places, there is so much emphasis on historicity and not really on being transformed. So yeah, your comment here would mostly be dismissed because it doesn’t focus on “the truth claims” (as if the only truth claims are about historicity and so on.)
Many of the points in Andrew’s post track very closely with my experience. The emphasis on feeling spiritually independent and feeling called to Mormonism seems exactly right and deeply insightful. Andrew’s definition of Middle Way Mormonism also says a lot about me. But I wouldn’t describe myself as a Middle Way Mormon, because the “middle” doesn’t feel like an accurate description of where I am. I’m left wondering whether there is something missing in Andrew’s definition that mistakenly leaves me out, or whether I don’t properly belong in the Middle Way category. More interesting to me than finding the right label for myself is figuring out whether my experience is relevant to the issues of the Middle Way.
I was “inoculated.” I grew up reading the whole gamut of Mormon literature: Dialogue and Sunstone; mainstream stuff from Deseret Book and Bookcraft; Cleon Skousen and obscure, self-published authors on the political fringe. My parents had all of that available to read. They taught us that learning is good and that disagreement is both possible and acceptable in the Church. These ideas are a basic part of what Mormonism means to me. I recognize that this is not everyone’s Mormonism, but it is mine, and I am comfortable with it.
I identify with the doctrinal ideas and social sensibilities of the Middle Way, but I don’t feel any tension about it. I don’t feel like I’m on a tightrope, and I don’t feel like an outsider.
Andrew wrote, “having spiritual independence need not tie one to Mormonism.” This is obviously true in the abstract, but it doesn’t characterize me. I seem to have a spiritual outlook that doesn’t get crushed by disagreement or disillusionment with Church leaders. On the other hand, my spiritual experience is so deeply tied to my Mormon experience that trying to disentangle the two things would seem utterly ridiculous, at least from where I stand right now. Maybe this suggests that a crucial difference between me and those who identify as Middle Way Mormons might be the fact that I have not had a crisis of faith; I have never been forced to try to disentangle my spirituality from my Mormonism. I have had other challenges to my faith, but not that one.
So my question is this: does the Middle Way experience necessarily include a struggle with alienation from the Church?
Loursat,
Thank you so much for sharing your experiences! I would actually fit you in with my concept of Middle Way — I tried very very briefly to discuss this in the opening post in one of my paragraphs:
So thanks again!
My thinking is that this does give result in an interesting possibility — if the church COULD inoculate people sooner, then perhaps a lot of the heartache of faith crisis could be avoided. Maybe the church doesn’t trust that process enough to think it’s fully worth it, but i think there have been some steps to be a bit more open with history (although perhaps it moves at too slow of a pace to make too much of a difference for many?)
Loursat: Interesting question (that’s going on in other forums). I would say three things:
1. Most emphatically, I think nobody should define anybody else in or out of middle way. You are if you think you are or want to be.
2. As an observation, not definition, it is very common to find some kind of crisis or trauma or alienation among those who self-define as middle-way. Enough so that the question whether an event of alienation is a necessary component is a legitimate question. I don’t know the answer. I do observe quite a variety of traumatic experiences, and I’m paying attention especially because (like you) I grew up with the full gamut of what we now call inoculation. In essence, I know (because it’s me) that traumatized *believer* is not necessary. The open question for me is whether trauma of some sort is necessary?
3. Also as an observation with multiple apologies in advance, paying attention to your comments in several venues for an extended period, I think you do hold the institutional Church up to an ideal not always realized, and in that way seem to exhibit the spiritual independence that (per Andrew) is a necessary if not sufficient condition.
Loursat writes: “I identify with the doctrinal ideas and social sensibilities of the Middle Way, but I don’t feel any tension about it. I don’t feel like I’m on a tightrope, and I don’t feel like an outsider.” Even for some who did not grow up reading “the whole gamut of Mormon literature” the tension does not necessarily arise from any traumatic experience with church history or doctrine. Instead, it may arise from the expectations of the particular ward/social group in which they find themselves, and the negative social and sometimes business and other results reasonably anticipated if they were to be quite open about their ideas and sensibilities. In some wards I am briefly acquainted with in Arizona and Utah, that is a major concern. In some I am briefly acquainted with in California and Massachusetts it is not. I found wards in Provo where it was a major concern and another where it was essentially no concern. I’m glad Loursat does not feel like an outsider or even a “middle way” Mormon. There are wards where I do not. There are others where I do. Accordingly, I do not define Mormonism as matching any of the various wards with which I’m familiar. Instead, I see a wide spectrum and I’m somewhere in the middle between its extremes. This is not unlike the person who changes none of his/her political ideas but is “liberal” in Utah, Arizona or southern Idaho, “conservative” in California, Massachusetts or Connecticut, and “middle-of-the-road” in various other places.
Loursat- i think the issues and tensions facing someone who didn’t grow up with nuance and arrived to it traumatically is different than those who are just raised in nuance. there’s just not the same angst, at the very least. that’s why i included that clause in my definition in my post.
“Middle Way Mormons are those who know enough about Mormonism to be aware of issues, concerns, and pain points within history, doctrine or theology ”
Not sure it’s a great definition as could apply to the Day Peterson’s of the world.
It seems like many of the people who frequent this site are neither typical believers nor middle-way Mormons but people who have for the most part removed themselves from the church while still being intellectually and culturally interested in Mormonism. Maybe we can call this type of person a “middle-way ex-mormon.” (I’m at least willing to claim that title for myself.) I would be very interested in seeing a post or some discussion of the dynamics of middle way ex-mormon.
It’s often very hard to get a so-called Middle Way Mormon to admit to being middle way. To many of them, there is nothing middle way about their views, and they lament the “TBM” group misunderstanding doctrine. To cite a recent topic as an example, good luck telling certain Middle-Way bloggers that their views/theories on prophetic fallibility stretch credulity.
jpv,
You have stumbled upon my secret agenda to show that basically everyone is a cafeteria Mormon — some people are just more aware of it than others.
But seriously, I would actually say that apologists routinely make apologetic arguments that don’t really follow standard/conventional LDS argumentation. Once you’re past the CES level of knowledge, you’re definitely doing something different than the ordinary member.
mckaydjensen,
I actually like that a lot — I could definitely personally see myself identifying as middle way ex-mormon and I could probably write a post speaking directly to that (and contrasting with some of the more typical/standard exmo perspectives I see in other places like, say, Reddit.)
Truckers Atlas,
This is actually a fairly good point that you mention, and I want to discuss this.
I think the tension here is that just because Middle Way Mormons are different than the mainstream, many of them believe that their way is nevertheless fully Mormon. So, I don’t want to give the impression that Middle Way Mormonism is “not as Mormon” as TBM — it’s meant to be different. A big issue, of course, is that the middle way is not institutionally validated, so certainly, the institution doesn’t really accept it as being a valid way to be Mormon.
But, apart from that, I’ll just say that whether middle way beliefs on prophetic fallibility stretch credulity is ultimately a subjective call. I’d say what’s more likely happening is that in comparing models, even though both sides seem to be using similar terms, the sides aren’t seeing eye to eye because it’s more an apples to oranges comparison. If you aren’t familiar with the framework behind the Middle Way person’s spirituality (what THEY are getting out of Mormonism), then you won’t be able to make a whole lot of sense out of their view of prophets, inspiration, revelation, etc., because it isn’t the same as the dominant narrative.
“… pain points within history, doctrine or theology (and unable to dismiss them), but who also feel called to persist in some way, shape, or fashion with Mormonism (rather than abandoning it.)”
It also includes (IMO) Mormons that don’t care (much) about problems, pain points, confused theology, egyptology, Adam-God theory, Kinderhook plates and so on ad nauseum.
We live, we die, we meet God (or not) and whether Joseph Smith was arrogant or tricked into deciphering Kinderhook plates does not matter to my knowledge of God.
A better question is what would it take for me to abandon Mormonism? Knowledge that the top leadership, right now, no longer has priesthood authority; that God has withdrawn his spirit from the church; that might be enough.
Andrew S. writes “Maybe the church doesn’t trust that process enough to think it’s fully worth it”
There’s a “milk before meat” concept that may for some teachers guide them into simple principles and black-and-white exposition.
When I studied geometry, I learned that the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. But turns out, that’s true only in “plane geometry”.
I learned that the area of a triangle is 1/2 base times height. Much later I learned that this is also the integral of the slope of the hypoteneuse, a definition found in calculus and allows for triangles whose hypoteneuse might not be a straight line (but still defined as a function).
Jpv, “Middle Way Mormons are those who know enough about Mormonism to be aware of issues, concerns, and pain points within history, doctrine or theology (and unable to dismiss them)…” The key difference between traditional apologists and Middle Way Mormons is the line “unable to dismiss them.” I think Mormons generally tend not to be comfortable with ambiguity, and they seek to explain away the problems or put them on a shelf and try to forget about them – they dismiss them. The Church supports this approach which is why they’ve paired up more publicly with traditional apologists in the past decade in the church curriculum. Newer apologists like Terryl Givens and Richard Bushman tend to embrace ambiguity. It’s okay to be bothered by stuff and recognize it as a very real problem. That’s more a middle way approach.
Like Loursat, since my mission I’ve read widely on Mormon topics. I read No Man Knows My History, the 7 volume History of the Church and the 6 volume Comprehensive History of the Church within a year or two after returning from my mission, I’ve read most of the Journal of Discourses, much of Sunstone and Dialogue, Cleon Skousen, Dan Vogel, Richard Bushman, Michael Quinn, Greg Prince and others. It was a pretty good inoculation. I had some struggles, but nothing too critical. But over a course of years I also listened to most of the Great Courses on religion, history and many on scientific topics, such as geology, the solar system, and evolution. I’ve read many of Bart Ehrman’s books, and much of Marcus Borg. What caused my faith crises were not the LDS historic or theological issues, but issues of Christianity in general (everything Mormonism struggles with, Christianity struggles with in spades) and how scientific findings undermine much of what we think about the creation and other topics. I have also been impacted by more liberal understandings of racism, sexism and gender as I apply them to my LDS experience. For many, many years I relied on the spirit as my anchor in Mormonism, but the foundation of that anchor was eroded as I learned that people of other religions had the same kind of spiritual feelings I did (The Varieties of Religious Experience by James, among others) and I could no longer rely on that spirit for truth. Now I stay, mainly because of family. I suspect that if my spouse goes before I do, that my activity will stop.
I left the LDS church in 2006 and formally disaffiliated in 2008, but now I am dealing with a strong feeling of being “called” to Mormonism in some way, in large part because of a realization that Mormonism formed and shaped me on some very deep levels, so the notion that I will ever be thoroughly non-Mormon is laughable–no matter what I do, I am left carrying all of these referents to Mormonism within my identity and personal history. I also am wrestling with the feeling that a lot of Mormonism’s darkness (historical and present) is mine to own and struggle with in a very real way. I’m not interested in re-joining the LDS church (at the very least, I am pretty much dead set on whatever the opposite of sustaining the church’s leaders) or subsuming all of my identity to Mormonism, but I definitely feel called to re-engage on both a personal and corporate level right now.
I do think (as others have pointed out) that it’s worth talking about the value of community and the reasons for belonging to community because I think your focus on like-mindedness is much too narrow. Mormonism, broadly taken, is not merely a set of propositions one assents to. It’s also a culture, and cultural belonging is hella complicated.
Looks like I had a comment get lost in moderation or the spam folder?
Kullervo,
Fished it out — there was some weird link stuff at the end of the comment that wordpress didn’t like.
From hearing bits and pieces of your story across different blogs and comments sections of other blogs, that would make quite a looping back for you (even with the important disclaimers that you’re not planning on rejoining the LDS church institutionally — which I totally get). I think there’s a lot to what you say about cultural belonging being a lot more complicated, but I dunno…I think that lacking like-mindedness can also reduce the sense of belonging. At least, that’s how I feel. I want to claim Mormonism culturally, but I also am acutely aware that many believers are going to reject that attempt because I don’t believe, etc.,
I think the idea of calling as expressed as a calling to own Mormonism’s darkness is REALLY interesting. I would definitely say this is a big distinguishing factor between staying and leaving — since definitely, the sentiment I hear from many people who leave is that they want to jettison the darkness and never look back (regardless of if this mean there’s personal work regarding that darkness that also is left unresolved.)
I think you need a second post to deal with the priderelated Facebook discussion you had.
The cultural claiming is a core part of many Jews. Would make an interesting follow-up as well.
So, a big part of owning Mormonism’s darkness comes from working this out in an evangelical context. I have been moving in more or less evangelical spaces for the past few years, and wrestling with the evangelical church’s complicity in centuries of heinous evil. There are some good, painful, and often frustrating conversations in the evangelical church right now around race, sex, gender &c, but for me, once I went down the analytical path of judging the thing by its fruits, it was done. And unlike many other Christians, I don’t have deep cultural ties to the evangelical church (on the contrary, to me it has always felt culturally like petting the cat backwards), so I not only don’t feel like I have any kind of call to keep moving in those spaces, but I also frankly don’t feel like the evangelical church’s baggage is really very much mine to own, beyond personally apologizing for my own blindness and dumbassery.
But that raises I think a really important question, because I think the instinct for a lot of well-meaning white people (and straight people, and man people) when they “get woke” is to want to show solidarity by walking away from identities and institutions that are morally compromised. And while I think sometimes that’s the right answer, at other times it’s maybe too easy. If I walk away from an institution where I have privilege, should I have stayed and used my privilege for change, or even just to shield other people in that institution who don’t have it? If I’ve benefited and been shaped by a morally compromised institution, does walking away really absolve me? Who benefits from that? So while I feel like I can walk away from evangelicalism with minimal stink on me (I was barely in), I don’t think I can walk away from everything in the same way.
At the same time, I am (as I said above) re-evaluating my relationship to Mormonism. I formally resigned over Prop 8 in California, and boy was I glad to be out when the POX came down. But is it really fair or appropriate of me to imagine that I can just slough off the moral responsibility and culpability of the culture that formed me (and my whole family, for generations)? It seems like I am having to have it both ways: well, I’m not culpable for evangelicalism’s darkness because I was never very far in, and I am not culpable for Mormonism’s darkness because I resigned my membership. That’s pretty convenient for me, isn’t it? I’ve magically talked myself into a reverse Venn Diagram where I escape any obligation to wrestle with this stuff on a personal level. That’s like #1 on the list of stuff that straight white dudes like.
With respect to this stuff, I don’t know what the answer is because I’ve honestly just started re-engaging with Mormonism on my own terms. Part of it is that I am aware that I can’t really connect with God unless I do it with all of my pieces, and that includes my Mormon pieces, which turn out to be actually kind of big after all. But it also means that I have other pieces I have to honor too. It has occurred to me that I am going to have to let go of getting all of my water from one well, and maybe that means mourning the loss of the idea of drinking deeply.
Sure, many believers aren’t going to accept me as “Mormon,” but they’re not the only people out there and I’m not doing this for them. I get to pick where, when, on what terms and with whom I engage.
Kullervo, Just trying to understand here. What do you mean by “the evangelical church” or “evangelicalism”? The term could apply, in my limited experience, to the protestant state church of Germany (Lutheran), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the protestant state church of Switzerland, some, but not all American Baptist churches, some non-denominational “evangelical churches.” There are also contexts in which the term can apply to others accepting of the gospels of the New Testament or those who proselytize for acceptance of the New Testament. What is your reference? I suspect I may simply be missing a current cultural reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
Here’s the Wikipedia article about what I am talking about when I use the word “evangelical”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
Your experiences with the term referring to “some, but not all American Baptist churches, some non-denominational ‘evangelical churches'” are both talking about the same thing, because it is a trans-denominational religious/cultural movement. Churches of any denomination can be “evangelical.”
Lutheran churches in Germany and the US still have “evangelical” in their name for historic reasons that are definitely connected to, but predate, the contemporary, common use of “evangelical.” And, just to make it more confusing, some Lutheran churches in the US can be “evangelical” in both senses. But in the US in 2018 (and to some extent globally in English-speaking countries), the sense expressed by the Wikipedia article I linked to is what people usually mean when they say “evangelical” in a cultural, religious or political context.