Replies

Why? Are you in a position to decide what Mormons need to do?

Sometimes when you formalize something, you distinguish informal commitments already established.

Example: Canonization of the Bible: Yes, this was a formal commitment; but it was based upon what was already comprehensively informally recognized within the Church.

'Twas more a "confirmation" than a "new decision" from scratch.

It's in that spirit I offer these up. I'm not really drawing up any truth commitment that is NOT already loosely or informally held by Mormons -- both those who have given the rough content within posts #599 and #602 some past or present conscious consideration...and those for whom it's been just underneath the surface.

(By "commitment" I mean a commitment to contradictory truth claims...to take one side or the other).

I'm merely "formalizing" what Mormons already loosely hold...These oaths were simply meant to draw a relief-like "word map" -- as does a 3-dimensional map does of mountains and hills and valleys.

It's not the minute details of what I wrote in posts #599 & #602 that's pertinent...I mean, Mormons can choose to "formalize" what I wrote in any way they want to...however...Logo, please answer me this:

Don't you think who gets to be with Heavenly Father in heaven forever is the very heart of the gospel? (It certainly is the Biblical Christian gospel.)

I'm very interested in your opinion on that Q from a Mormon perspective: Don't you think this same Q also either is -- or needs to be -- at the very heart of the Mormon gospel as well?

So when you ask "why" in relation to me...well, who cares about me? What's important is the truth represented there. Which version of that "truth" will John or Jane Mormon commit to? That's what's at stake.

And why is that?

Because truth beckons us to either...
...commit to it by formally and publicly embracing it...
...or run away from it...
...it doesn't leave the luxury of a "neutral middle ground" option.