In the World, not of it.

[_Seven]

Mormon doctrine teaches that we should be in the world, but not of it. We are encouraged to find our happy balance, to live church teachings while beign social and finding joy in our relationships with others and our daily struggle.

In the misunderstanding of falsely interpreted doctrine many so called religious individuals have chosen to live secluded and cloistered. These individuals deprive themselves of important life lessons we are intended to have in our mortal experience.

All of this seems to be backfiring in the case of the new Dalai Lama:

I see this in LDS who will never move from Utah.
These Utah Mormons are terrified at the thought of raising their kids among Gentiles.

More and more I see LDS mothers that live outside of Utah pulling their kids out of public school to homeschooling or choosing private LDS schools because of the risks that their kids won't grow up to be stalwart TBMs.


I agree with you that when the church teaches being in the world and not of it means to not isolate ourselves from society.
In the mainstream LDS church, we are encouraged to participate in the community and show the world the fruits of living the gospel. Showing society that modern LDS are normal helps dispel myths and fears about the Mormon church. In public schools, it gives Mormon kids the opportunity to set an example and teach others. The church does not want to be viewed like the FLDS. Mormons have to "be in the world" and part of the mainstream to further missionary work.

[_BishopRic]

Actually, Solo, we see eye to eye on this. When I was referring to moral standards, I was referring to moral standards in a general way. Maybe "eithics" would have been a better term? Basically, what I was referring to was following the Golden Rule---"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

We should treat others with respect, and take responsibility for our own actions.

You know, this is the crux of everything religion is supposed to be about...but often is not.

Societies teach standards of behavior, particularly as it relates to how we treat each other. Much of this is passed down from previous generations, and their religious influences. What we find is that those "standards" are very subjective, and what one group calls moral, another calls immoral.

For example, in Mormonism, the charge to "multiply and replenish the earth" was interpreted/taught to have many children. Others see that as immoral -- for many reasons -- the earth's resources cannot sustain everybody having large families, each child is not afforded the appropriate care of the parents, etc..

Another "moral" difference is pre-marital sex. Most religions teach abstinence before marriage. Think about that -- outside of creating cause for guilt, and the need for church confession, there really is no logical reason for this. In fact, what it does in many cases is creates a relationship based on sexual tension, and often after the life-long commitment of marriage (and children are brought into the family) is entered into, it is determined that there are not the commonalities, sexual and otherwise, that are sufficient to be together for a lifetime. Divorce and split families result -- something unnecessary if adequate time had been given to determine compatibility before marriage.

The non-religious world views pre-marital sex between two people as an expression of love and passion...which may develop into a life-long union, with or without children. The time taken (usually years) before that commitment is made is considered the moral thing to do for all involved.

Point is, "the world" is defined very subjectively...and if we just use the Golden Rule as the simple compass for morality, there is rarely a problem.

[_Brackite]

For Mormons being "in the world but not of it" means "refraining from sexual sin". This religion is morbidly obsessed with sexual sin. Witness the gay-bashing now going on at MAD. As if a person's eternal destiny resides in a dick or a pussy. How much more "of the world" can you get?

Hi Ray,

The LDS Church has been very Pre-occupied with sex thoughout nearly all of its History.

Please Check Out And See:


Shadow Influences of Plural Marriage on Sexuality:


Sexuality:

[_harmony]

. Certainly pride used negatively can lead someone away from god.

Pride is the opposite of God. There is no such thing as righteous pride.

[_Ray A]

For Mormons being "in the world but not of it" means "refraining from sexual sin". This religion is morbidly obsessed with sexual sin. Witness the gay-bashing now going on at MAD. As if a person's eternal destiny resides in a dick or a pussy. How much more "of the world" can you get?

Hi Ray,

The LDS Church has been very Pre-occupied with sex thoughout nearly all of its History.

Please Check Out And See:


Shadow Influences of Plural Marriage on Sexuality:


Sexuality:

Thanks for that, Bracki, I'll check it out in detail when I have more time tomorrow.

[_Mercury]

. Certainly pride used negatively can lead someone away from god.

Pride is the opposite of God. There is no such thing as righteous pride.

"God" is the personification of arrogance and pride. It is anything but humility.

[_solomarineris]

. Certainly pride used negatively can lead someone away from god.

Pride is the opposite of God. There is no such thing as righteous pride.

Excuse me but....
When was the last time you've read the Scriptures again?