“Relaxed but Engaged” Mormons

[SteveO]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/09/29/more-millennial-mormons/

I’m doing this on my phone at the airport, so hopefully the format holds up.

An article from the SLtrib that I found somewhat discouraging.  At first I thought it was a story about Mormons who occasionally deviated from the WoW...but it gets a little more interesting towards the end.  Few highlights:

Church leaders and members “should keep in mind that about a quarter of those in the pews every week are ‘relaxed but engaged,’” Knoll writes,  “That means that there is a sizable minority who find value in the social aspect of the church but who don’t believe wholeheartedly in LDS Church teachings, don’t pay tithing, don’t hold a temple recommend, and who drink coffee and alcohol and take the counsel of church leaders with a grain of salt.”

Homer hasn’t renewed her recommend because, she says, she finds the temple ceremony “irredeemably sexist.”

She does not wear temple garments but is “deeply committed” to the “personal covenants with God [she made in the temple] about loving my fellow sisters and brothers.”

In the end, Homer says, “no one else has the power to decide what being Mormon means except for me.”

Obedience as a virtue “may have been more important 40 years ago,” she says, “whereas [authenticity] is one of the leading virtues for many millennials.”

A few of my comments:

I’m not entirely sure what the point is in being a Mormon if you cut out all the parts that are unique.  I guess we’d rather have everyone there than on the outside, but I think the mentality of being “half in” is...rather toxic.  For example, in the case of the BYU student who stopped wearing her garments, that’s fine if that’s what she wants to do...but why then go and tell your roommates and friends?  How do you even broach the subject of what kind of underwear you’ve decided to start wearing.  It makes me think that none of this ultimately involves cases of a “quiet personal relationship with Christ”.  It needs to be broadcasted to everyone else that you don’t sustain church leadership.  That you don’t pay tithing.  That you stopped wearing garments and don’t hold a temple recommend.  There are scriptures that make known the mind of God concerning those who are fence sitters, with makes me think that this isn’t a particularly good thing that is taking place.  

Thoughts?

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by SteveO

[Rising_Darkness]

It is an interesting question.

Doesnt the Book of Revelations talk about spewing out the people who are like warm.  Couldn’t luke-warm be people in the middle?

Perhaps it’s just a wrong label and we are too focused on that labeling?

Speaking of, that kind of labeling has always puzzled me.  Exmormons LOVE....absolutely L-O-V-E the word “TBM”.  True-Blue Mormons.  It’s weird.  No one in the church ever ever has said that abbreviation.  So if one does hear that term “TBM”, all signs are pointing to that person being a former member.

Another label that always has bother me, especially in dating,  is “peter priesthood” and other variants.

“Like OMG, I want a guy who likes the church but isn’t a Peter Priesthood”.  What does that even mean?  Someone who gets their social drink on but still goes to church?  Someone who loves the F-word but passes the sacrament?  Someone who watches a lot adult material but is still active?

...beats me.

Ironically, when we put labels on people or categorize people, they tend to stay exactly that.  When we remove labels, we see them as people and coincidentally are more considerate of each other’s opinions and thoughts.  It’s similar to calling someone a “libtard”.  Keep calling them that (as if they will suddenly become a conservative due to your berating) and they will become more entrenched into that label.  However, if you call them your friend, or just their first name, etc. and not a label, then they will be more inclined to lower their defenses and actually listen to what you are saying.

 

So with these “relaxing but engaged” folks will only categorize them as such and make them less willing to get out of that category if we keep calling them that. 

[Rajah Manchou]

36 minutes ago, SteveO said:

It makes me think that none of this ultimately involves cases of a “quiet personal relationship with Christ”.  It needs to be broadcasted to everyone else that you don’t sustain church leadership.  That you don’t pay tithing.  That you stopped wearing garments and don’t hold a temple recommend.  There are scriptures that make known the mind of God concerning those who are fence sitters, with makes me think that this isn’t a particularly good thing that is taking place.  

Thoughts?

From my experience, and from what I've observed. Someone can go years and years not wearing garments, or not paying tithing. Not doing this or that while drinking this or that. Doing whatever on Saturday or Sunday. Quietly observing in their own way. Not making a big deal out of it because they feel it is their "quiet personal relationship with Christ."

And then a family member or a friend finds out, and feels betrayed that you never mentioned it. They might even start labelling you something like a "fence sitter" and have a whole lot of things to say about what your quiet personal relationship with Christ.

My guess is for every person that tells you straight up that they stopped going to the temple, there are 10 that will say nothing.

[Bernard Gui]

Where do such folks see themselves in the vision of the Tree of Life? On the path and holding to the rod, turning off the path, wandering in the wasteland, glancing at the Building, entering it, pointing fingers at those on the path? We are all someplace in that picture.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Where do such folks see themselves in the vision of the Tree of Life? On the path and holding to the rod, turning off the path, wandering in the wasteland, glancing at the Building, entering it, pointing fingers at those on the path? We are all someplace in that picture.

The iron rod story is about only one single very defined way back to God.  If you let go of that single path, then all is lost and you wander away from God.

I think there are many that believe in heading towards Christ as being the goal.  It is more like the branches of a tree that all lead to the trunk.  In one scenario, less than 1% of Gods children make it back to Christ.  In the other scenario, most people are able to make it back to Christ.  What seems more likely to you?

[Bane]

Tithing is a hard one for those who are financially strapped.  In some cases, non-tithe payers might suddenly become full tithe payers if only they experienced a significant financial windfall.  

[Gray]

5 hours ago, SteveO said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/09/29/more-millennial-mormons/

I’m doing this on my phone at the airport, so hopefully the format holds up.

An article from the SLtrib that I found somewhat discouraging.  At first I thought it was a story about Mormons who occasionally deviated from the WoW...but it gets a little more interesting towards the end.  Few highlights:

Church leaders and members “should keep in mind that about a quarter of those in the pews every week are ‘relaxed but engaged,’” Knoll writes,  “That means that there is a sizable minority who find value in the social aspect of the church but who don’t believe wholeheartedly in LDS Church teachings, don’t pay tithing, don’t hold a temple recommend, and who drink coffee and alcohol and take the counsel of church leaders with a grain of salt.”

Homer hasn’t renewed her recommend because, she says, she finds the temple ceremony “irredeemably sexist.”

She does not wear temple garments but is “deeply committed” to the “personal covenants with God [she made in the temple] about loving my fellow sisters and brothers.”

In the end, Homer says, “no one else has the power to decide what being Mormon means except for me.”

Obedience as a virtue “may have been more important 40 years ago,” she says, “whereas [authenticity] is one of the leading virtues for many millennials.”

A few of my comments:

I’m not entirely sure what the point is in being a Mormon if you cut out all the parts that are unique.  I guess we’d rather have everyone there than on the outside, but I think the mentality of being “half in” is...rather toxic.  For example, in the case of the BYU student who stopped wearing her garments, that’s fine if that’s what she wants to do...but why then go and tell your roommates and friends?  How do you even broach the subject of what kind of underwear you’ve decided to start wearing.  It makes me think that none of this ultimately involves cases of a “quiet personal relationship with Christ”.  It needs to be broadcasted to everyone else that you don’t sustain church leadership.  That you don’t pay tithing.  That you stopped wearing garments and don’t hold a temple recommend.  There are scriptures that make known the mind of God concerning those who are fence sitters, with makes me think that this isn’t a particularly good thing that is taking place.  

Thoughts?

 

The same tensions are in place between Orthodox and Reformed Jewish people. The fact is some people need strict rules and authoritarian structure to get them to the spiritual place they want to be in, but for other people it's a hindrance between them and their relationship towards God.

Not sure why you think sharing one's beliefs would be toxic - there's nothing more Mormon than that.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, SteveO said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/09/29/more-millennial-mormons/

I’m doing this on my phone at the airport, so hopefully the format holds up.

An article from the SLtrib that I found somewhat discouraging.  At first I thought it was a story about Mormons who occasionally deviated from the WoW...but it gets a little more interesting towards the end.  Few highlights:

Church leaders and members “should keep in mind that about a quarter of those in the pews every week are ‘relaxed but engaged,’” Knoll writes,  “That means that there is a sizable minority who find value in the social aspect of the church but who don’t believe wholeheartedly in LDS Church teachings, don’t pay tithing, don’t hold a temple recommend, and who drink coffee and alcohol and take the counsel of church leaders with a grain of salt.”

Homer hasn’t renewed her recommend because, she says, she finds the temple ceremony “irredeemably sexist.”

She does not wear temple garments but is “deeply committed” to the “personal covenants with God [she made in the temple] about loving my fellow sisters and brothers.”

In the end, Homer says, “no one else has the power to decide what being Mormon means except for me.”

Obedience as a virtue “may have been more important 40 years ago,” she says, “whereas [authenticity] is one of the leading virtues for many millennials.”

A few of my comments:

I’m not entirely sure what the point is in being a Mormon if you cut out all the parts that are unique.  I guess we’d rather have everyone there than on the outside, but I think the mentality of being “half in” is...rather toxic.  For example, in the case of the BYU student who stopped wearing her garments, that’s fine if that’s what she wants to do...but why then go and tell your roommates and friends?  How do you even broach the subject of what kind of underwear you’ve decided to start wearing.  It makes me think that none of this ultimately involves cases of a “quiet personal relationship with Christ”.  It needs to be broadcasted to everyone else that you don’t sustain church leadership.  That you don’t pay tithing.  That you stopped wearing garments and don’t hold a temple recommend.  There are scriptures that make known the mind of God concerning those who are fence sitters, with makes me think that this isn’t a particularly good thing that is taking place.  

Thoughts?

 

Sounds like another name for cafeteria “Mormons” or social “Mormons.” Nothing really new here. This mindset has been around for ages. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bane said:

Tithing is a hard one for those who are financially strapped.  In some cases, non-tithe payers might suddenly become full tithe payers if only they experienced a significant financial windfall.  

But there is no real test of faith or commitment in that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Where do such folks see themselves in the vision of the Tree of Life? On the path and holding to the rod, turning off the path, wandering in the wasteland, glancing at the Building, entering it, pointing fingers at those on the path? We are all someplace in that picture.

Or, to draw on other scriptural imagery, which of the various types of soil in the parable of the sower most closely matches them?

Edited September 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Rising_Darkness said:

It is an interesting question.

Doesnt the Book of Revelations talk about spewing out the people who are like warm.  Couldn’t luke-warm be people in the middle?

Perhaps it’s just a wrong label and we are too focused on that labeling?

Speaking of, that kind of labeling has always puzzled me.  Exmormons LOVE....absolutely L-O-V-E the word “TBM”.  True-Blue Mormons.  It’s weird.  No one in the church ever ever has said that abbreviation.  So if one does hear that term “TBM”, all signs are pointing to that person being a former member.

Another label that always has bother me, especially in dating,  is “peter priesthood” and other variants.

“Like OMG, I want a guy who likes the church but isn’t a Peter Priesthood”.  What does that even mean?  Someone who gets their social drink on but still goes to church?  Someone who loves the F-word but passes the sacrament?  Someone who watches a lot adult material but is still active?

...beats me.

Ironically, when we put labels on people or categorize people, they tend to stay exactly that.  When we remove labels, we see them as people and coincidentally are more considerate of each other’s opinions and thoughts.  It’s similar to calling someone a “libtard”.  Keep calling them that (as if they will suddenly become a conservative due to your berating) and they will become more entrenched into that label.  However, if you call them your friend, or just their first name, etc. and not a label, then they will be more inclined to lower their defenses and actually listen to what you are saying.

 

So with these “relaxing but engaged” folks will only categorize them as such and make them less willing to get out of that category if we keep calling them that. 

"Peter Priesthood" is someone who follows all the rules, including cultural ones. "Peter Priesthood", and its equivalent female "Molly Mormon", are very similar to "TBM". 

There are people in the church that use the term "TBM" though I have found that most who do so, consider themselves as "liahona" members. The problem I found with the TBM/liahona designations was that most of the people labeled as TBMs were actually a mix of the two or were actually liahona-their motives were just assumed differently than they were, only because they followed typical "TBM" rules.

But I agree with you. I don't like labels. Like in the Anatomy of Peace I find that labels don't help you look upon the heart and see the person.

 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Bane said:

Tithing is a hard one for those who are financially strapped.  In some cases, non-tithe payers might suddenly become full tithe payers if only they experienced a significant financial windfall.  

Tithing can be a hard one as well for those who have money. The hardest it ever was to pay tithing was the first check from my husband's professional job and the easiest was when he later wasn't getting paid and I had made $1 (about 8-10 years ago). I have found that tithing is harder because of my feelings about what tithing is than how much we are bringing in.

[Rain]

15 hours ago, SteveO said:

A few of my comments:

I’m not entirely sure what the point is in being a Mormon if you cut out all the parts that are unique.  I guess we’d rather have everyone there than on the outside, but I think the mentality of being “half in” is...rather toxic.  For example, in the case of the BYU student who stopped wearing her garments, that’s fine if that’s what she wants to do...but why then go and tell your roommates and friends?  How do you even broach the subject of what kind of underwear you’ve decided to start wearing.  It makes me think that none of this ultimately involves cases of a “quiet personal relationship with Christ”.  It needs to be broadcasted to everyone else that you don’t sustain church leadership.  That you don’t pay tithing.  That you stopped wearing garments and don’t hold a temple recommend.  There are scriptures that make known the mind of God concerning those who are fence sitters, with makes me think that this isn’t a particularly good thing that is taking place.  

Thoughts?

 

The millenial generation is much more open to being seen, warts and all. Social media did that. I don't think this woman just ran off and told friends and family abut her garments - discussions about them them are just a much more common thing than they used to be. Years ago, people not of our faith would ask about garments and very little would be said about them. Now more needs to be said because those who want to hurt the church are speaking about them and it is important to share what they really are.

Several in the article give the impression that that all this is not a "half in" thing for them, rather that they are choosing to love people over choosing what faith looks like - seeming to imply that those who "look" right are missing the loving of others. 

It's funny - some reading the article may feel that those talked about are less faithful and those in the article may see some of the readers as less loving, yet you can be faithful and drink coffee and you can be loving and love the temple. 

Is there a half in status? Well, as stated above the scriptures talk about it, but I think line upon line applies as well and only God can truly tell which of us is learning line upon line and which of us is choosing to be luke warm.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Rain

[The Nehor]

“Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.”

[Storm Rider]

The concept that "I" am converted to the love everyone, accept them as they are is really more a choice to do nothing, cause no waves, and never sacrifice anything. If the number of people that said they were committed to loving people was actually real and they were serious, what does the world look like? What is the end product?  

Chaos seems a good answer. I have never observed those who are different interested in hanging out together. If you go to a university and observe the cafeteria rooms individuals are sitting most often with people that look like them. Human choose to associate and socialize with those that think and act like in a similar manner. So if I am going to love everyone I am just going to allow them to exist in their own space and I will do what I do in my own space and eventually we will have all these little spaces with smiling faces because we love everyone. That love is going to exist up to the point that the individual happy little circle is impacted by another circle of loving people. At that point all heck brakes out, love is forgotten and the knives come out (guns don't exist in these little circles of love). At that point the blood flows until the weaker circle of love is done away with because they were selfish, self-centered aggressors who were impacting all the love that existed in the world. 

In the end, this secular concept of loving others really only exists if the individual is not required to sacrifice anything, do anything, and is enabled to do whatever they want. The moment that self-sacrifice is demanded, this concept of secular love goes out the window. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Storm Rider

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The concept that "I" am converted to the love everyone, accept them as they are is really more a choice to do nothing, cause no waves, and never sacrifice anything. If the number of people that said they were committed to loving people was actually real and they were serious, what does the world look like? What is the end product?  

Chaos seems a good answer. I have never observed those who are different interested in hanging out together. If you go to a university and observe the cafeteria rooms individuals are sitting most often with people that look like them. Human choose to associate and socialize with those that think and act like in a similar manner. So if I am going to love everyone I am just going to allow them to exist in their own space and I will do what I do in my own space and eventually we will have all these little spaces with smiling faces because we love everyone. That love is going to exist up to the point that the individual happy little circle is impacted by another circle of loving people. At that point all heck brakes out, love is forgotten and the knives come out (guns don't exist in these little circles of love). At that point the blood flows until the weaker circle of love is done away with because they were selfish, self-centered aggressors who were impacting all the love that existed in the world. 

In the end this concept of loving others really only exists if the individual does is not required to sacrifice anything, do anything, and is enabled to do whatever they want. The moment that self-sacrifice is demanded, the love goes out the window. 

I think it is more the "Love one another as I have loved you" concept.  For guidance on this concept, look to the life of Christ.  How would Christ treat someone who doesn't believe in what the leaders of the church dictated to its members? How would Christ treat someone who has a glass of wine occasionally?  How would Christ treat someone who chooses to get a tattoo or 2 ear piercings?  How would Christ teach someone who doesn't attend the temple?  How would Christ treat someone who was living with a man that was not her husband?

Edited September 30, 2018 by california boy

[Rising_Darkness]

36 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The concept that "I" am converted to the love everyone, accept them as they are is really more a choice to do nothing, cause no waves, and never sacrifice anything. If the number of people that said they were committed to loving people was actually real and they were serious, what does the world look like? What is the end product?  

Chaos seems a good answer. I have never observed those who are different interested in hanging out together. If you go to a university and observe the cafeteria rooms individuals are sitting most often with people that look like them. Human choose to associate and socialize with those that think and act like in a similar manner. So if I am going to love everyone I am just going to allow them to exist in their own space and I will do what I do in my own space and eventually we will have all these little spaces with smiling faces because we love everyone. That love is going to exist up to the point that the individual happy little circle is impacted by another circle of loving people. At that point all heck brakes out, love is forgotten and the knives come out (guns don't exist in these little circles of love). At that point the blood flows until the weaker circle of love is done away with because they were selfish, self-centered aggressors who were impacting all the love that existed in the world. 

In the end this concept of loving others really only exists if the individual does is not required to sacrifice anything, do anything, and is enabled to do whatever they want. The moment that self-sacrifice is demanded, the love goes out the window. 

Interesting proposition and conclusion! I like this objective thinking. I have to wonder about it this for a bit and ask my coworkers who are former members their opinions on their “next stage of life” as they call it.

 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

The iron rod story is about only one single very defined way back to God.  If you let go of that single path, then all is lost and you wander away from God.

I think there are many that believe in heading towards Christ as being the goal.  It is more like the branches of a tree that all lead to the trunk.  In one scenario, less than 1% of Gods children make it back to Christ.  In the other scenario, most people are able to make it back to Christ.  What seems more likely to you?

The scenario of the entire Book of Mormon can be summed up with this in 2Nephi 9 from the prophet who had the vision. We note the allusions to the vision.

Quote

41 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.
42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches--yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.
43 But the things of the wise and the prudent shall be hid from them forever--yea, that happiness which is prepared for the saints.
44 O, my beloved brethren, remember my words. Behold, I take off my garments, and I shake them before you; I pray the God of my salvation that he view me with his all-searching eye; wherefore, ye shall know at the last day, when all men shall be judged of their works, that the God of Israel did witness that I shook your iniquities from my soul, and that I stand with brightness before him, and am rid of your blood.
45 O, my beloved brethren, turn away from your sins; shake off the chains of him that would bind you fast; come unto that God who is the rock of your salvation.
46 Prepare your souls for that glorious day when justice shall be administered unto the righteous, even the day of judgment, that ye may not shrink with awful fear; that ye may not remember your awful guilt in perfectness, and be constrained to exclaim: Holy, holy are thy judgments, O Lord God Almighty--but I know my guilt; I transgressed thy law, and my transgressions are mine; and the devil hath obtained me, that I am a prey to his awful misery.
47 But behold, my brethren, is it expedient that I should awake you to an awful reality of these things? Would I harrow up your souls if your minds were pure? Would I be plain unto you according to the plainness of the truth if ye were freed from sin?
48 Behold, if ye were holy I would speak unto you of holiness; but as ye are not holy, and ye look upon me as a teacher, it must needs be expedient that I teach you the consequences of sin.
49 Behold, my soul abhorreth sin, and my heart delighteth in righteousness; and I will praise the holy name of my God.
50 Come, my brethren, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come buy and eat; yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price.
51 Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy. Hearken diligently unto me, and remember the words which I have spoken; and come unto the Holy One of Israel, and feast upon that which perisheth not, neither can be corrupted, and let your soul delight in fatness.
52 Behold, my beloved brethren, remember the words of your God; pray unto him continually by day, and give thanks unto his holy name by night. Let your hearts rejoice.

The continual message of the book is to hold to the rod.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The fact is some people need strict rules and authoritarian structure to get them to the spiritual place they want to be in, but for other people it's a hindrance between them and their relationship towards God.

I don't think this is a fact though.  

It seems like people either believe that God requires obedience to certain commandments or they don't believe He requires that.  And it seems like people are either willing to be obedient to commandments they believe come from God even if they don't understand or agree at first, or they just don't believe any of the commandments they disagree with come from God.  

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by bluebell

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The scenario of the entire Book of Mormon can be summed up with this in 2Nephi 9 from the prophet who had the vision. We note the allusions to the vision.

The continual message of the zbook is to hold to the rod.

Not exactly sure how this relates to what I wrote.  Are you just trying to reinforcing the idea that less than 1% of God's children are on a path back to God?   

Edited September 30, 2018 by california boy

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think it is more the "Love one another as I have loved you" concept.  For guidance on this concept, look to the life of Christ.  How would Christ treat someone who doesn't believe in what the leaders of the church dictated to its members? How would Christ treat someone who has a glass of wine occasionally?  How would Christ treat someone who chooses to get a tattoo or 2 ear piercings?  How would Christ teach someone who doesn't attend the temple?  How would Christ treat someone who was living with a man that was not her husband?

He would forgive them if they sought forgiveness and show tenderness and mercy. If they tried to convince Him their sins were not a big deal or they were not sinners he would insult them. At least that is what the scriptures record him doing in these cases.

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He would forgive them if they sought forgiveness and show tenderness and mercy. If they tried to convince Him their sins were not a big deal or they were not sinners he would insult them. At least that is what the scriptures record him doing in these cases.

Where did you get any of this?  Do you have a reference to these concepts?

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think it is more the "Love one another as I have loved you" concept.  For guidance on this concept, look to the life of Christ.  How would Christ treat someone who doesn't believe in what the leaders of the church dictated to its members? How would Christ treat someone who has a glass of wine occasionally?  How would Christ treat someone who chooses to get a tattoo or 2 ear piercings?  How would Christ teach someone who doesn't attend the temple?  How would Christ treat someone who was living with a man that was not her husband?

I wish it was that way - actually being based on Jesus' teaching. The problem is the conflict I see between the words and the actions of this group. As I write this I am cognizant of the fact that the same critique could be given of most Christians. 

Jesus taught that we should love one another, but his life was the ultimate example of self-sacrifice. When there is no personal sacrifice, there is no personal cost - thus the action is worthless. When we observe personal cost in loving others then we can recognize a true believer in loving others. Until then it is just talk - nice sounding, but of no worth, no accomplishment, and no value. 

[SteveO]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

The fact is some people need strict rules and authoritarian structure to get them to the spiritual place they want to be in, but for other people it's a hindrance between them and their relationship towards God.

Tithing is a material hinderance for everyone.  If I could get to a spiritual place while gaining 10% of my income, believe me, I’d do it.  As bluebell mentioned, I pay it because I believe I’m commanded to do so, and have covenated to not only love my fellow man, but consecrate everything I have been blessed with to the church.

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

He would forgive them if they sought forgiveness and show tenderness and mercy. If they tried to convince Him their sins were not a big deal or they were not sinners he would insult them. At least that is what the scriptures record him doing in these cases.

Instead of “insult”, He would use “biting sarcasm” as Talmage described.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Rising_Darkness said:

Interesting proposition and conclusion! I like this objective thinking. I have to wonder about it this for a bit and ask my coworkers who are former members their opinions on their “next stage of life” as they call it.

 

I would be interested in hearing the results of the conversation. For me, in the conversations I have had, I have found this concept of secular love everyone is closely aligned with live and let live. Again, no self-sacrifice, but I get to do whatever I want and you leave me alone and I will leave you to do what you want too. It is a facet of hedonism; highly self-centered and focused on me. But, gosh doesn't it sound nice.  I get to babble on about accepting and loving everyone else when really all I want is to love myself in comfort of my own circle.