To Open The Church's Doors To All

[The Nehor]

I think that is a generalization.  The Savior sat with, ate with, conversed with sinners and publicans.  Does that sound like sinners being uncomfortable being in his presence?  Do you feel comfortable in Church?  I suspect you are still a sinner.  I also suspect that you are a committed sinner in some respects i.e. there are sins you continue consistently do and have done for years.  You are no different than the rest of us.

 

I think it is more accurate to state that those who have no desire to follow Jesus, to be his disciple; those who are committed to darkness are not comfortable in Church.  

 

We are sinners and we seek to follow after the Savior.  What separates us from other sinners?  Could we do a better job of making sinners feel more comfortable worshiping with us and learning more about the fullness of the gospel?  Even in our sin we follow after Him; why not others?

Most sinners were uncomfortable in the presence of the Savior. A few sought repentance but even then I am not sure how comfortable they were. If I found out (like the Nephites did) that the Savior was to appear at a certain place on the morrow I would go and I would be excited and nervous and not comfortable. I would feel blessed for the privilege. Many people the Savior encountered asked him to leave.

I am not always comfortable in church even now. The best way to get sinners into church is to teach the doctrine. Obviously we should not try to offend them or drive sinners away and I regularly teach a class designed to help new members and investigators. I try to keep it friendly and open but I have had people not come back over things taught in that class and that is sad but they left because as Jack Nicholson said: "You can't handle the truth!!!!"

I am dubious of well-meaning programs and ideas that are intended to make the LDS faith universally revered and liked and make it so all can visit and enjoy. The joy comes at a price. Ourselves. And many are not willing to pay the price. I do not blame them. I am not sure I am doing a good job of paying it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am dubious of well-meaning programs and ideas that are intended to make the LDS faith universally revered and liked and make it so all can visit and enjoy. The joy comes at a price. Ourselves. And many are not willing to pay the price.

 

Precisely.

 

At the same time, it has been my experience that the penitent, faithful (especially in the meaning of loyal) sinner immediately feels at ease in the presence of the Saviour.

[JLHPROF]

I am dubious of well-meaning programs and ideas that are intended to make the LDS faith universally revered and liked and make it so all can visit and enjoy. The joy comes at a price. Ourselves. And many are not willing to pay the price. I do not blame them. I am not sure I am doing a good job of paying it.

 

I agree.  And so do many of the prophets and apostles:

 

 

 Boyd K. Packer

In recent years I have felt, and I think I am not alone, that we are losing the ability to correct the course of the church. You cannot appreciate how deeply I feel about the importance of this present opportunity unless you know the regard, the reverence, I have for the Book of Mormon and how seriously I have taken the warnings of the prophets, particularly Alma and Helaman.

Both Alma and Helaman told the church in their day. They warned about fast growth, the desire to be accepted by the world, to be popular, and particularly they warned about prosperity.  Each time those conditions existed in combination, the church has drifted off course.  All of those conditions are present in the church today.

Helaman repeatedly warned, I think four times he used these words, that the fatal drift of the church could occur in the space of not many years. In one instance it took only six years. (Helaman 6:32; 7:6; 11:26) (“Let Them Govern Themselves,”  March 30, 1990)

 

Brigham Young

They would come now by thousands and thousands, if the Latter day Saints were only popular. “What, these honorable men?” Yes, they would say, “I want to be baptized. I admire your industry, and your skill in governing. You have a system of governing that is not to be found anywhere else. You know how to govern cities, territories, or the world, and I would like to join you.” But take care if you join this people without the love of God in your soul it will do you no good. If they were to do this, they would bring in their sophistry, and introduce that which would poison the innocent and honest and lead them astray. I look at this, and I am satisfied that it will not do for the Lord to make this people popular. Why? Because all hell would want to be in the Church. The people must be kept where the finger of scorn can be pointed at them. Although it is admitted that we are honest, industrious, truthful, virtuous, self denying, and, as a community, possess every moral excellence, yet we must be looked upon as ignorant and unworthy, and as the offscouring of society, and be hated by the world. What is the reason of this? Christ and Baal can not become friends. When I see this people grow and spread and prosper, I feel that there is more danger than when they are in poverty. Being driven from city to city or into the mountains is nothing compared to the danger of our becoming rich and being hailed by outsiders as a first class community. I am afraid of only one thing. What is that? That we will not live our religion, and that we will partially slide a little from the path of rectitude, and go part of the way to meet our friends.

 

Brigham Young

And when the spirit of persecution, the spirit of hatred, of wrath, and malice ceases in the world against this people, it will be the time that this people have apostatized and joined hands with the wicked, and never until then; which I pray may never come. (JD 4:326 327)

 

Fortunately, I think we're still ok for now - we're not popular just yet: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/flunkingsainthood/2010/12/why-are-mormons-the-third-most-hated-religious-group-in-america.html

[Sleeper Cell]

I understand the distinction, but I think, in the long-term, garments could present a problem akin to the problem that circumcision presented to the non-Jewish Christians of the first century.  Some simply were not willing to become part of the community of Christ if circumcision was the price of admission.  I can relate because the garments are still a major stumbling block to my "complete" conversion, and it isn't a matter of style or comfort.  In fact, I find the garments quite comfortable and as to fashion, as a middle-aged man, NO ONE is interested in attractiveness of my underclothing.

 

The stumbling block is largely mental and as to what having your undergarments picked out for you traditionally meant in my neighborhood (i.e., you are in prison).  And not to mention the irony of descending from a line of people who had every bit of their agency ripped from them -- they could be bought and sold, have their babies ripped out of their arms, and have their every movement dictated to them -- and to finally achieve freedom, only to willingly cede back the right to pick out our own underclothing.

 

Isn’t an integral part of being free the right to make contracts by which you willingly agree to bind yourself to do certain things?  As a practical matter in most cases, the only “temporal” penalty for not wearing temple garments is denial of the privilege of participating in rituals, the nature of which require you to wear temple garments.  

[mormonnewb]

Isn’t an integral part of being free the right to make contracts by which you willingly agree to bind yourself to do certain things? As a practical matter in most cases, the only “temporal” penalty for not wearing temple garments is denial of the privilege of participating in rituals, the nature of which require you to wear temple garments.

I wouldn't say that all choices are truly voluntary; at least, in the sense that they evidence an exercise of agency. The mugger who approaches me in an alley and says, "Your money or your life" isn't really giving me a "choice" in the matter. On the other hand, the person who sells me produce at a fruit stand is offering me a choice.

Interestingly, the process is the same in both cases. I am paying money for the ability to remain alive. The difference is that the mugger is selling me something that is already mine by right (the freedom not to be harmed by others) while the produce man is selling me something that he owns --fruit.

So the question becomes: Do I have a right to commune with HF or is that something that the Church has ownership of, and can sell to me at a price (ie, wearing garments, among other things)?

And then, of course, there is the question of price gauging, which was actually something that Christ addressed in His earthly ministry. If I have the only fruit stand within 100 miles, do I have the right to charge you WHATEVER price I want. From a legal standpoint, the answer is almost always "yes." But from a Biblical standpoint, charging am unreasonable price is not looked upon highly. In fact, I've heard scholars say that part of the reason that Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple is that they were engaged in price gouging.

Now, I understand that most saints think that the garment requirement is a reasonable price established by HF. That may be true, but given that it has murky (at best) scriptural support, many Gentiles would see it as an unreasonable cost and might feel that they are being extorted into paying it ("your soul or your garments"). There isn't a lot of agency in that proposition.

Edited October 17, 2014 by mormonnewb

[JLHPROF]

I wouldn't say that all choices are truly voluntary; at least, in the sense that they evidence an exercise of agency. The mugger who approaches me in an alley and says, "Your money or your life" isn't really giving me a "choice" in the matter. On the other hand, the person who sells me produce at a fruit stand is offering me a choice.

Interestingly, the process is the same in both cases. I am paying money for the ability to remain alive. The difference is that the mugger is selling me something that is already mine by right (the freedom not to be harmed by others) while the produce man is selling me something that he owns --fruit.

So the question becomes: Do I have a right to commune with HF or is that something that the Church has ownership of, and can sell to me at a price (ie, wearing garments, among other things)?

And then, of course, there is the question of price gauging, which was actually something that Christ addressed in His earthly ministry. If I have the only fruit stand within 100 miles, do I have the right to charge you WHATEVER price I want. From a legal standpoint, the answer is almost always "yes." But from a Biblical standpoint, charging am unreasonable price is not looked upon highly. In fact, I've heard scholars say that part of the reason that Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple is that they were engaged in price gouging.

Now, I understand that most saints think that the garment requirement is a reasonable price established by HF. That may be true, but given that it has murky (at best) scriptural support, many Gentiles would see it as an unreasonable cost and might feel that they are being extorted into paying it ("your soul or your garments"). There isn't a lot of agency in that proposition.

 

I don't know what your issue is with the garment of the holy priesthood, but I find the way you speak of it quite offensive.

There are plenty of scriptural references, all of them pretty guarded admittedly, but the scriptural nature is irrelevant.

As far as our dispensation is concerned God gave the pattern to Joseph Smith along with the covenant to wear them and the blessings attached.

Joseph F. Smith taught:

 

“The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. In order that such persons may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin.”

 

 

If this committment puts off new converts then that's just too bad.  We are told that only by sacrificing can we gain faith to be exalted.  If this is too big a sacrifice, well, let them stand before our Saviour and say "wearing these was too big a sacrifice to make".  Personally, I consider it one of the greatest privileges of my life and absolutely no sacrifice at all.

[Sleeper Cell]

I wouldn't say that all choices are truly voluntary; at least, in the sense that they evidence an exercise of agency. The mugger who approaches me in an alley and says, "Your money or your life" isn't really giving me a "choice" in the matter. On the other hand, the person who sells me produce at a fruit stand is offering me a choice.

Interestingly, the process is the same in both cases. I am paying money for the ability to remain alive. The difference is that the mugger is selling me something that is already mine by right (the freedom not to be harmed by others) while the produce man is selling me something that he owns --fruit.

So the question becomes: Do I have a right to commune with HF or is that something that the Church has ownership of, and can sell to me at a price (ie, wearing garments, among other things)?

And then, of course, there is the question of price gauging, which was actually something that Christ addressed in His earthly ministry. If I have the only fruit stand within 100 miles, do I have the right to charge you WHATEVER price I want. From a legal standpoint, the answer is almost always "yes." But from a Biblical standpoint, charging am unreasonable price is not looked upon highly. In fact, I've heard scholars say that part of the reason that Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple is that they were engaged in price gouging.

Now, I understand that most saints think that the garment requirement is a reasonable price established by HF. That may be true, but given that it has murky (at best) scriptural support, many Gentiles would see it as an unreasonable cost and might feel that they are being extorted into paying it ("your soul or your garments"). There isn't a lot of agency in that proposition.

 

Everybody has a right to commune with HF, not just Mormons. 

 

Since temple ordinances are not required for one to enter the Celestial Kingdom, I fail to understand what you mean by  “your soul or your garments” 

 

If you don’t want to make a covenant to do something, don’t make the covenant.  BTW, one can receive a temple recommend without paying any tithing to the church

 

Comparing the Church to a “mugger in any alley” is absurd and offensive, even as hyperbole.  Nobody forced me to go to the temple.  I had to take the initiative and ask.  Indeed, I was interviewed by two different church leaders, both of whom explained that, among other things, I would be committing myself to wear temple garments afterwards.

 

Wearing temple garments has murky scriptural support?  By Gentile standards, most of what we do in the temple, from proxy baptisms to temple marriages has “murky scriptural support.”  As does belief in the apostasy and the need for a restoration (i.e., why the LDS church should even exist.) 

 

Wearing temple garments imposes an “unreasonable cost?”  I wonder what the 19th century Saints would think about that, let alone the 1st  century Saints?  

Edited October 17, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[mormonnewb]

I don't know what your issue is with the garment of the holy priesthood, but I find the way you speak of it quite offensive.

There are plenty of scriptural references, all of them pretty guarded admittedly, but the scriptural nature is irrelevant.

As far as our dispensation is concerned God gave the pattern to Joseph Smith along with the covenant to wear them and the blessings attached.

Joseph F. Smith taught:

 

 

If this committment puts off new converts then that's just too bad.  We are told that only by sacrificing can we gain faith to be exalted.  If this is too big a sacrifice, well, let them stand before our Saviour and say "wearing these was too big a sacrifice to make".  Personally, I consider it one of the greatest privileges of my life and absolutely no sacrifice at all.

 

It is not my intention to offend you, my brother.  In fact, I'm perplexed by your offense.  And please understand that I realize that I have caused offense on many occasions.  I just don't know why THIS is one of them.

 

If I asked questions about the other requirements of temple worship, would it cause offense?  If I asked why we had to tithe, you would happily point me to scriptural and prophetic utterances to support the Lord's commandment in that regard.  And the same is true about, say, the Law of Chastity, which should be a MUCH touchier subject.  Would you take any offense in explaining to someone why we believe that one is unworthy to enter the temple if they are engaged in, say, an extramarital affair?  Of course not.

 

In this thread, I haven't divulged a SINGLE detail about what goes on in the temple.  I was simply talking about the requirements for getting into the temple or more specifically, why some might find one of them unsettling.

 

By the way, this seems to be a common pattern for any issue in which we are on shaky theological ground.  We resort to the "sacred defense."  We print our most sacred text in almost every conceivable language and fling it at anyone who will take a copy.    Yet, when it comes to WHY we wear garments, it's "too sacred to talk about."  Our Jewish friends will gladly explain why they wear a yarmulke (they will even invite you to a bris, unfortunately).  And the same applies to Muslims, Hindus, you name it.  In fact, if you ask a Catholic person why they have ash on their forehead on a certain Wednesday, they won't take offense.

 

Of course, these people aren't embarrassed about their particular devotional practice.  I suspect that we are.  In much the same way, that we are embarrassed about ... well, I can't talk about her, can I?

 

And this was simply my point.  You can't be a majority religion with "sacred but not secret" devotional practices.  It simply isn't possible.  And I suspect (but don't know) that some of our "sacred but not secret" practices might prove stumbling blocks for others.

 

Now, you may choose to respond with "Tough cookies!"  And I'm absolutely certain that there were some who said the same thing about circumcision in the 1st century Church.  "Let them stand before the Lord and say that circumcision was too big a sacrifice but I consider it to be one the greatest privileges of my life and no sacrifice at all."  Well, good for you and good for them.  I'm just grateful that Paul had a different view and was sensitive to the concerns of the Gentiles (as irrational as they may have been) and was able to convince others that God was willing to make some accommodations for His Gentile children.

 

If that situation ever arises in this Church (with regards to garments or ANYTHING else), I just hope that we have a Paul in our midst.

[The Nehor]

Now, I understand that most saints think that the garment requirement is a reasonable price established by HF. That may be true, but given that it has murky (at best) scriptural support, many Gentiles would see it as an unreasonable cost and might feel that they are being extorted into paying it ("your soul or your garments"). There isn't a lot of agency in that proposition.

 

Well, you can't say "your garment or your soul" because we don't own our own souls to bargain with.

 

I just don't see how wearing something almost no one will ever see is somehow such a burden compared to say tithing or going out with the missionaries or going on a mission or consecrating all you have to God or spending time every day in prayer and/or the scriptures. If that is the breaking point I just find that odd.

[JLHPROF]

It is not my intention to offend you, my brother.  In fact, I'm perplexed by your offense.  And please understand that I realize that I have caused offense on many occasions.  I just don't know why THIS is one of them.

 

If I asked questions about the other requirements of temple worship, would it cause offense?  If I asked why we had to tithe, you would happily point me to scriptural and prophetic utterances to support the Lord's commandment in that regard.  And the same is true about, say, the Law of Chastity, which should be a MUCH touchier subject.  Would you take any offense in explaining to someone why we believe that one is unworthy to enter the temple if they are engaged in, say, an extramarital affair?  Of course not.

 

In this thread, I haven't divulged a SINGLE detail about what goes on in the temple.  I was simply talking about the requirements for getting into the temple or more specifically, why some might find one of them unsettling.

 

By the way, this seems to be a common pattern for any issue in which we are on shaky theological ground.  We resort to the "sacred defense."  We print our most sacred text in almost every conceivable language and fling it at anyone who will take a copy.    Yet, when it comes to WHY we wear garments, it's "too sacred to talk about."  Our Jewish friends will gladly explain why they wear a yarmulke (they will even invite you to a bris, unfortunately).  And the same applies to Muslims, Hindus, you name it.  In fact, if you ask a Catholic person why they have ash on their forehead on a certain Wednesday, they won't take offense.

 

Of course, these people aren't embarrassed about their particular devotional practice.  I suspect that we are.  In much the same way, that we are embarrassed about ... well, I can't talk about her, can I?

 

And this was simply my point.  You can't be a majority religion with "sacred but not secret" devotional practices.  It simply isn't possible.  And I suspect (but don't know) that some of our "sacred but not secret" practices might prove stumbling blocks for others.

 

Now, you may choose to respond with "Tough cookies!"  And I'm absolutely certain that there were some who said the same thing about circumcision in the 1st century Church.  "Let them stand before the Lord and say that circumcision was too big a sacrifice but I consider it to be one the greatest privileges of my life and no sacrifice at all."  Well, good for you and good for them.  I'm just grateful that Paul had a different view and was sensitive to the concerns of the Gentiles (as irrational as they may have been) and was able to convince others that God was willing to make some accommodations for His Gentile children.

 

If that situation ever arises in this Church (with regards to garments or ANYTHING else), I just hope that we have a Paul in our midst.

 

I am not offended because you have divulged anything.  It is not discussion of the garment because it's too sacred I object to.  It is your expression of distates for being required to wear them. 

To me it is one of the most sacred, wonderful, and significant blessings that God gives to man.  It is representative of so much more than the covenants and if people truly understood WHICH scriptures refer to the garment and why they would hold them "the most sacred of all things in the world" as Pres. Smith said.

To hear people hoping for the day it is discontinued and hope that someone will push for that is just so wrong.  As as for Paul - he understood the garments perfectly (Gal 6:17).

 

I suppose I will always place more significance on the temple ceremonies and related items like the garment than even the Church is willing to do.  I hold every aspect of the house of the Lord, the ceremonies, and their purpose as the most important part of the gospel,  save only the atonement.  Nothing else in the gospel will matter more in eternity and nothing is more valuable now and so much more than merely symbolic, to those who have studied them.

[AndyDnom]

i like this post, thank you

[3DOP]

You won't be surprised that I am in agreement with those among you who while doing your best to not offend non-LDS, are wary of anything that might appear to water down your beliefs or practices for their sake. Those were strong comments from the past leaders warning about what should happen if Mormons are no longer a peculiar people, but a popular people. I think it was Brigham Young who was quoted as saying that if the latter ever happened "all hell would want in the church."

 

Here is a question for you because I am being forced to wonder about the extent to which we welcome those "less worthy" in our churches. This Sunday is the 19th Sunday after Pentecost where the Gospel reading is about the king who made a marriage for his son. After some initial resistance to attending which seems to symbolize the Jewish rejection of Christ at the time of His coming, God's servants are admonished to go into the highways and hedges and compel them, "the good and the bad" to come in. Only later, when the time of the wedding has come will the good and bad be separated. Interestingly enough given the most recent comments here, the bad will be recognizable for lacking the proper garments. In light of this Gospel teaching, do we have the liberty to resist "hell" if hell wants to get in to the Church? I think we do, but I would like to hear any of your thoughts before my own conjecture.

 

Here is an English translation:

 

At that time, Jesus spoke to the chief priests and the Pharisees in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son, and he sent his servants, to call those who were invited to the marriage, and they would not come.”

 

“Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell them that they were invited. Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my cows and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, all of you come to the marriage.”

 

“But they neglected, and went their ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise, and the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them with contempt, put them to death. But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt the city.”

 

“Then he said to his servants, ‘The marriage indeed is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore, go to the highways and find as many as you can find, and call them to the marriage.’ And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all who they found, both bad and good, and the marriage was filled with guests.”

 

“And the king went in to see the guests, and he saw there a man who had not worn a wedding garment, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in, not having a wedding garment?’ But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

 

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Edited October 18, 2014 by 3DOP

[mormonnewb]

You won't be surprised that I am in agreement with those among you who while doing your best to not offend non-LDS, are wary of anything that might appear to water down your beliefs or practices for their sake. Those were strong comments from the past leaders warning about what should happen if Mormons are no longer a peculiar people, but a popular people. I think it was Brigham Young who was quoted as saying that if the latter ever happened "all hell would want in the church."

 

Here is a question for you because I am being forced to wonder about the extent to which we welcome those "less worthy" in our churches. This Sunday is the 19th Sunday after Pentecost where the Gospel reading is about the king who made a marriage for his son. After some initial resistance to attending which seems to symbolize the Jewish rejection of Christ at the time of His coming, God's servants are admonished to go into the highways and hedges and compel them, "the good and the bad" to come in. Only later, when the time of the wedding has come will the good and bad be separated. Interestingly enough given the most recent comments here, the bad will be recognizable for lacking the proper garments. In light of this Gospel teaching, do we have the liberty to resist "hell" if hell wants to get in to the Church? I think we do, but I would like to hear any of your thoughts before my own conjecture.

 

Here is an English translation:

 

At that time, Jesus spoke to the chief priests and the Pharisees in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son, and he sent his servants, to call those who were invited to the marriage, and they would not come.”

 

“Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell them that they were invited. Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my cows and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, all of you come to the marriage.”

 

“But they neglected, and went their ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise, and the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them with contempt, put them to death. But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt the city.”

 

“Then he said to his servants, ‘The marriage indeed is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore, go to the highways and find as many as you can find, and call them to the marriage.’ And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all who they found, both bad and good, and the marriage was filled with guests.”

 

“And the king went in to see the guests, and he saw there a man who had not worn a wedding garment, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in, not having a wedding garment?’ But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

 

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

 

As I see it, there are three ways to read the last part of this parable (about the wedding garments):

 

1)  The Spurgeon Way -- C.H. Spurgeon gave a sermon in 1871 in which he explained that the wedding garment represented cleanliness and righteousness and that the person should not have come to the wedding in "filthy" state.  And once there, realizing that everyone else and gotten cleaned up, should have gotten his act together too.

 

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0976.htm

 

2)  The Evangelical Way -- The man at the feast had failed to put on the "covering" (of sin) provided by the King -- the atonement.  Instead, he decided to try to enter the banquet through his own works (which, according to scripture) are as "filthy rags."  Therefore, he was tossed out because he failed to rely on the gift of salvation freely provided by the Lord.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-wedding-feast.html

 

3)  The Newbian Way -- My interpretation is that the King was not asking the man why he was wearing his street clothes.  He was asking the man HOW he got into the banquet without a ticket.  In other words, he was asking the man, "How did you sneak into my party?  You couldn't possibly be on the guest list, because I gave each of INVITED GUESTS a garment to bring with them."  I particularly like this interpretation in light of the last comment made by Christ -- "Many are called but few are chosen."  Or to translate from the King James to the NIV (Newbian International Version) -- "Many are called (Christian) but few are chosen (of God)."  In other words, while many will claim to be rightfully at the banquet as a result of their then-professed Christianity, HF will be able to tell who was really on the VIP list and who wasn't."  Or to borrow from John, "I am the good shepherd, and I KNOW my sheep."

[stemelbow]

While we can do better as a people it is important to note that we will never make sinners comfortable at church. The Savior couldn't make sinners comfortable with his teachings and I doubt we can improve on it. Sinners are not intended to be comfortable. The Savior tended to inspire adoration, anger, or fear in those he interacted with. The gospel will do the same.

Fewf! I was curuious why I'm so uncomfortable at church these days. I'm a sinner. But everyone else seems quite comfortable. Are we sure they aren't sinners too? Sinning seems common among Church goers just as much as non-church goers it seems to me.

[JLHPROF]

Sinning seems common among Church goers just as much as non-church goers it seems to me.

 

That should not be the case, else what is the benefit of our membership.  Should we not have worked more to overcome our sins and repent and do them no more?

[stemelbow]

That should not be the case, else what is the benefit of our membership.  Should we not have worked more to overcome our sins and repent and do them no more?

'

I've had that question in my mind for years. I question whether the "Benefits" we speak of are what is reality. It remains to be true to me, most non-Church goers, and non-LDS, are every bit as "good" as the average active faithful LDS.

[thesometimesaint]

Fewf! I was curuious why I'm so uncomfortable at church these days. I'm a sinner. But everyone else seems quite comfortable. Are we sure they aren't sinners too? Sinning seems common among Church goers just as much as non-church goers it seems to me.

 

The purpose of the Church is to comfort the afflicted, and to afflict the comfortable.

[stemelbow]

The purpose of the Church is to comfort the afflicted, and to afflict the comfortable.

No one is wholly afflicted and no one is wholly comfortable. We each are both afflicted and comfortable often simultaneously.

[The Nehor]

Fewf! I was curuious why I'm so uncomfortable at church these days. I'm a sinner. But everyone else seems quite comfortable. Are we sure they aren't sinners too? Sinning seems common among Church goers just as much as non-church goers it seems to me.

 

It is common which is why it is so easy to fall into inactivity. Part of us doesn't like Church. Parts of us do tend to like it though. I am usually happy at church but if I am ever completely comfortable during the sacrament or if no lessons cause me to worry or squirm a bit then I would be concerned about my spiritual state.