I was going to speak a little on tattoos and what they reflect as to the spiritual state of the world, but recent events now brings me to speak on this topic of “Catering to Beliefs”.
I have seen many people from the Church on the Internet make such an effort to interact with others who are nonmembers. In their efforts, they try to be understanding to “opinions” and make the effort to avoid contention with other contrasting beliefs. These efforts have gone as far as appeasing others who have been contentious or degrading against other Latter-day Saints members.
What these members have done and are doing are catering to the beliefs of others to such a point as to compromise their own and indirectly condones the degradation of other members.
What do I mean by this?
The attempt to cater to the beliefs of others to create a common ground will cause a compromise of your own beliefs, your own faith and may compromise the integrity of unification by faith between fellow members. An example is in order here.
A nonmember or Anti-Mormon claims something ill against another member and you, having no first hand knowledge of those events, make a type of reply that says, for example, “if that member did that” or to the likes of, “that member would be wrong” or out rightly accepting the ill claim saying to the effect, “that member was wrong to do that to you“. Saying these things in the attempt to remain in good favour with the nonmember and “appear respectful” was not a good thing to do.
Such an act proves to be condoning and supporting the ill claim(s) made against a fellow member, whether or not you know that member, taking no regard to the member’s right to not be falsely accused.
When I saw this, many times before, I cringed, as that act made by other members in their blind attempts to remain respectful, actually betrayed the faith that is suppose to support membership in the Church of Jesus Christ.
Do you really think that it is right and just to directly or indirectly accept the ill claim against another member by either a member or nonmember when you have no first-hand knowledge of it? To do this just because you believe that you must respect the beliefs of others?
Paul the apostle once said that the natural man cannot understand Spiritual things as they are foolish to him, because it requires spiritual discernment (1 Cor 2:14). What did Paul say here about the beliefs of the world? He addressed their true nature, for what they really are.
I understand that we are taught to be respectful to others and to be tolerant and patient with the beliefs we encounter with those of the world, but we are not taught to accept wickedness in any form or manner. God cannot accept one degree of sin, where is it that we are to accept or respect the sinful manners of others?
When a nonmember speaks ill of this Church, of it’s prophet (past or present), or any of it’s members, our faith demands that we are to take the position of righteousness, not complacency or idleness.
We are not to involve ourselves in any murmuring claims, derogatory beliefs or any manner or form of wickedness, yet many members who attempt to be “nice” to the world lean themselves to cater to these dark beliefs and viewpoints, blind to the fact that they are catering to sin.
Please ponder this deeply, for I do not speak lightly or in ignorance.
It is true that there is no law against a belief and all persons are free to choose what they believe, but that scripture in the Book of Alma (30:7-8) does not refer to the sin which the belief condones. Think about it.
It says in the scriptures that any person who does not repent and is not baptized is condemned. True?
Then since a person believes he/she does not have to repent and does not require baptism, are they not committing sin? How are they committing sin? – they are acting out that belief by not repenting and not being baptized into the Lord’s Church. Therefore the condemnation is to the works (act) committed in the name of their beliefs, but there is no condemnation against the right to choose that belief.
In this way, a nonmember speaks ill and falsely accuses a member. Has that nonmember acted in sin? The answer is yes, sin was committed. Are you going to “respect” the sin that person commits? – I hope not.
Now you may ask or think, “how can we know that he/she falsely accused?‘ The answer to this, especially when on the Internet is – How do you know it is true?
Do not get involved in condoning or catering to such beliefs.
A nonmember calls Joseph Smith as Satanic, or calling Jesus Christ as we believe in him as an image of Satan. Such things are sinful. Would you respect such a belief that brings sin or would you stand against it?
A member can still be respectful when he/she stands strong against ill thoughts and claims. Such as a nonmember makes an accusation against another member, the respectful response would be, “I am sorry, but what ever differences you have with that other member are to be resolved between both of you“. If the nonmember tries to get you to agree in the “what if” sceneros, which is an round about way for someone to get you to support their ill claims, a response for example would be, “it is best that I do not respond to your request dear Sir (or Madam), because it draws me into your dispute with that member and that is not right“.
The influence of Satan is in the hearts of those who are against this Church and it’s members. When faced with situations where some nonmember’s try to gain your favour, your support, directly or indirectly, in an attempt to justify their discord, disagreement, etc with this Church and doctrines or any of it’s members, then beware of Satan.
If you remember the scriptures where Peter addressed Jesus Christ with his displeasure of entering to a place where he (Peter) felt it was best not to. Jesus turned to Peter and called him Satan and to stand behind him.
When faced with wicked or evil beliefs, selfishness or self-justification, accusations, ill claims etc, stand as Jesus did.
Jesus did not cater to the belief of Peter because Jesus clearly discerned the nature of that belief Peter held, which was the manner of the “natural man”. Calling Peter as “Satan” was addressing the wickedness for what it was. Jesus reproved Peter because Peter was his Apostle. We can take that lesson and translate it to our encounters with the world.
As Jesus did not support or condone, neither appeased or gave pleasure to false, wrong, or improper beliefs and manners, neither should we. In all times, in accordance to the circumstances, Jesus was always respectful, but most of all he was righteous.
Righteousness has nothing to do with “accommodating”. Respect and righteousness go hand in hand, but catering and appeasing are the works of the spirit of the devil, not the Spirit of God.
I suggest to use the discernment that God teaches and know that righteousness is not compromised or over-ridden by compassion. For Jesus did not show compassion to Peter or the Pharisee’s for their beliefs or claims. He showed righteousness and stood in righteousness.
Failure to do so and end up catering to the beliefs and claims of others is a sure path of “good intentions” to the betrayal of faith.
Amen
Comments