I understand where he is coming from. And I sympathize with Bob Smith’s position. But is there not a limit someplace, somewhere? At some point, theoretically speaking, does your viewpoint tip you past the lines of Mormonism? I mean, philosophically speaking, if you believe A and A is NOT B, then you can’t claim to be B anymore? Right?
What I’m getting at is that surely at some point, your personal claim to Mormonism becomes a sort of charade, a pantomime of the true reality of sincere belief, IF you don’t agree with the core convictions of a religion.
Sure, by all means, come to church if you are really sincere about it. But aping adherence to a cultural group when you are not serious about it smacks of deception to me.
I welcome anyone and everyone who is truly sincere. But I can’t stand people who claim the mantle of Mormonhood but who go out of their way to denigrate those who are trying to live the gospel.
I agree, prophetize,
There must be limits. But let’s not be overzealous about it. It is tough enough for a member of my ward who comes to sacrament meeting, even though he has a number of challenges. He desperately wants to quit smoking. He feels that everyone is looking at him and judging him when sacrament is passed and he doesn’t feel worthy to take it.
As for the vicious and lying anti-Mormons, let us not get down in the mire with them. We need to love and be patient with our enemies. It is enough for us to tell the truth and respond plainly, sometimes even sharply. Let God do the rest.
John Gee is a good example of a first-rate scholar who doesn’t let ignoramuses distract him from publishing top quality research in mainstream Egyptology journals, while at the same time keeping a close eye on the Book of Abraham controversy. His work at the Maxwell Institute is invaluable.
I’m not talking about wards or people. Of course I am for welcoming all, even sinners. Lord knows, if we didn’t welcome sinners to church, I wouldn’t be there, and the pews and pulpit would undoubtedly be empty. I’m talking about definitions for intellectual discussions.
I like Bob Smith’s approach. The LDS Church has an appropriately exacting standard for protecting the sanctity of the House of the Lord. It is much more forgiving in allowing average members to think as they please. I can sympathize with the idea of asking one’s self what one considers to define Mormon identity minimally, but when it comes to dealing with real-world people whom Christ is trying to reach through His Church, then I believe the Church itself has set the standards and procedures about where they need to be in order to maximize the possibility for drawing all unto Christ, even those who are not sure they believe in Him at some point in their journey.
I understand where he is coming from. And I sympathize with Bob Smith’s position. But is there not a limit someplace, somewhere? At some point, theoretically speaking, does your viewpoint tip you past the lines of Mormonism? I mean, philosophically speaking, if you believe A and A is NOT B, then you can’t claim to be B anymore? Right?
What I’m getting at is that surely at some point, your personal claim to Mormonism becomes a sort of charade, a pantomime of the true reality of sincere belief, IF you don’t agree with the core convictions of a religion.
Sure, by all means, come to church if you are really sincere about it. But aping adherence to a cultural group when you are not serious about it smacks of deception to me.
I welcome anyone and everyone who is truly sincere. But I can’t stand people who claim the mantle of Mormonhood but who go out of their way to denigrate those who are trying to live the gospel.
I agree, prophetize,
There must be limits. But let’s not be overzealous about it. It is tough enough for a member of my ward who comes to sacrament meeting, even though he has a number of challenges. He desperately wants to quit smoking. He feels that everyone is looking at him and judging him when sacrament is passed and he doesn’t feel worthy to take it.
As for the vicious and lying anti-Mormons, let us not get down in the mire with them. We need to love and be patient with our enemies. It is enough for us to tell the truth and respond plainly, sometimes even sharply. Let God do the rest.
John Gee is a good example of a first-rate scholar who doesn’t let ignoramuses distract him from publishing top quality research in mainstream Egyptology journals, while at the same time keeping a close eye on the Book of Abraham controversy. His work at the Maxwell Institute is invaluable.
Let your ward member know if all our weaknesses had a distinctive smell like
tobacco smoke none of us would feel comfortable in church.
It would make the bishop’s interviews more interesting, though.
I’m not talking about wards or people. Of course I am for welcoming all, even sinners. Lord knows, if we didn’t welcome sinners to church, I wouldn’t be there, and the pews and pulpit would undoubtedly be empty. I’m talking about definitions for intellectual discussions.
I like Bob Smith’s approach. The LDS Church has an appropriately exacting standard for protecting the sanctity of the House of the Lord. It is much more forgiving in allowing average members to think as they please. I can sympathize with the idea of asking one’s self what one considers to define Mormon identity minimally, but when it comes to dealing with real-world people whom Christ is trying to reach through His Church, then I believe the Church itself has set the standards and procedures about where they need to be in order to maximize the possibility for drawing all unto Christ, even those who are not sure they believe in Him at some point in their journey.