I was surfing the net and I found this interesting article where they put that in the Church exist four different types of "Mormons". I want you all to read the characteristics of these 4 types of members and tell us which one you are and why.
QUOTE |
Paper Mormons have no social or spiritual attachment to the Church. Their names could be on the rolls because they were born in the covenant and then fell away or because they were hastily baptized and then rethought their decision, but they no longer think like Mormons. In fact, the only commonality this group shares is a lack of Mormon-ness. Pretty Mormons have a high degree of social commitment but no spiritual commitment. They are outwardly very orthodox and appear as Ensign-cover ideals. But while these people may be Coke-scorning Republican stalwarts with large families, they have never seriously attempted to spiritually connect with the doctrines of the Church. These people hate living in 'the mission field" because their conformity to a belief that in Wisconsin or Texas is seen as a bizarre cult does not have any social advantages. Obediac Mormons are spiritually and socially committed to the Church. In some ways, they are Pretty Mormons with powerful testimonies. Indeed, in areas where there are large numbers of Mormons it is hard to tell the difference between Pretty and Obediac Mormons, but in 'the mission field" it is simple: the Obediacs are the ones in church. Because of their intense commitment to the Church, however, they easily loose patience with members of the other groups. Caffeinated Mormons are believers, but they scorn the nondoctrinal culture that has grown up around the Church. They do not look to this culture for guidance on most lifestyle issues, even though they are just as likely to be at sacrament meeting as Obediacs. All bets are off, however, when it comes to social mores. While they may be Republicans, they may also have facial hair, belly rings, an open container of Pepsi in their hands, a piece of rum cake on their plate, naughty underwear in their bedroom drawers, etc. Obediacs love to call Caffeinated Mormons worldly, and Caffeinated Mormons usually respond by saying "and your point was? |
I would probably have to say that I am a caffeinated Mormon, based upon the only choices given. However, I don't think I fit in their either, as I am not very happy with the "worldly" idea.
For example, when I hear the commonly used phrase "in the world, but not of the world" I cringe. I have heard it from "mainstream" Christians as well. I don't believe it fits at all with the doctrines that Joseph Smith taught, nor does it fit in with the scriptures.
I certainly don't want to be included in any of these categories.
QUOTE |
when I hear the commonly used phrase "in the world, but not of the world" I cringe. I have heard it from "mainstream" Christians as well. I don't believe it fits at all with the doctrines that Joseph Smith taught, nor does it fit in with the scriptures. |
Rather off topic, but... Nighthawk, what happened with your Mormonite Control Panel? I thought you had one. |
Quite simply, there is no scripture, anywhere, that encourages us to be in the world. In fact, the Doctrine and Covenants has lots about removing ourselves from the "world". Hugh Nibley pretty much covered this subject in his book, Approaching Zion. Zion and Babylon cannot exist together. We are meant to be Zion, yet we insist on living in Babylon.
The two philosophies do not mix, at all.
Whenever the Lord has raised up a righteous people, He has done so by removing them from the "world". He had Moses and Limhi lead their people into the desert, away from the world. Brigham Young led the Saints into the desert, away from the world. Every time those groups invited the "world" into their societies, they fell.
That is what I mean. It is impossible for us to live in the world, and become Zion. Hence my distaste for that saying. It is a copout, an attempt to justify or rationalize not trying to live separate from the world.
QUOTE |
Quite simply, there is no scripture, anywhere, that encourages us to be in the world. In fact, the Doctrine and Covenants has lots about removing ourselves from the "world". Hugh Nibley pretty much covered this subject in his book, Approaching Zion. Zion and Babylon cannot exist together. We are meant to be Zion, yet we insist on living in Babylon. The two philosophies do not mix, at all. |
Notice that Moses, Lehi, Ammon, and Brigham Young all had to leave the "world" in order to establish righteousness. They left physically. Brigham was very disappointed when the saints embraced the world when the railroads came to Utah. He knew that they would once again become Babylon.
We can't be "not of the world" while we are in it, doing business with it.
I appreciate the sentiment in the saying, I just know that it is a false concept.
QUOTE |
We can't be "not of the world" while we are in it, doing business with it. |
Such a good question. I don't know the answer to it. Basically, we aren't supposed to "live in the world" at all. Unfortunately, we have to right now. But only because nobody is willing to make the changes necessary in order to NOT live in the world.
So, I guess in that sense, the statement, "living in the world, but not of the world," is good advice. I guess what bothers me is that most of the time it is thrown out as a cliche statement, and that the person saying it is most likely very casual about what it means.
We could have a whole topic about being "not of the world" and I think most of us would be found to be very lacking in the actions, beliefs, and attitudes needed.