I like strong words.
I like when situations are painted black and white.
Morally, there is no such thing as a gray area.
Yet we no longer seem to believe this at a societal level.
The interesting thing is what seems to be happening within religion as a result of this.
As I read a talk from General Conference in 1971 today, I realized something: the Church of Jesus Christ using less delineated language around choices and sin is not the same as most other churches.
The main issue is made pretty clear by King Benjamin:
29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.
Mosiah 4:29
There are too many ways to commit sin to number, to name, or to otherwise spell out.
For years and years, Christianity as a whole tried to copy what God gave to the Israelites in the Old Testament: they tried to spell out, line by line every sin someone could commit and provide a punishment.
There may be more akin between puritanical and pharisaical approaches than most would choose to acknowledge.
Whereas most churches appear to have given up on the ideas of sin being evil and repentance being both necessary and divine, the Church of Jesus Christ still holds to these points doctrinally, but does not generally employ language as strongly around these ideas as it once did.
Why not?
Herein is both the rub and the lesson.
The kind of emphasis that is given to an idea is sometimes about as important as the idea itself. Recently a minister on the radio said that he never talked about the Ten Commandments in his church anymore because they were too far out of date. He also said that their language was too harsh for the weak sensibilities of our day. This minister felt that instead of using such strong terms as command and Thou shalt not, the Lord should have employed some softer words such as I recommend or I suggest or I advise. But soft words frequently produce soft attitudes with weak meanings and built-in violations.
Sterling W. Still, “Thou Shalt Not,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1971/10/thou-shalt-not?lang=eng
So what happens when the servants of God stop using strong, clear words to communicate a message that never changes?
Why would leaders employ this technique?
At least one reason rises to the surface:
Because God, and they, understand the importance of personal agency.
And they know strong words — especially in Current society — turn people off. People stop listening when they encounter something they don’t like.
So to be as broad and inviting with the message of the gospel as possible, they are clear and inviting and welcoming.
And the leaders of the church trust the spirit to do his work: to influence people toward repentance and to recognize sin.
Part of the discussion about the second coming is that of the wheat and the tares. Being more inclusive means more tares are likely being included. But so is more wheat.
And it’s up to the individual stalks to determine and identify which they are.
So when strong words cease coming from those reaping, the field, more obligations are put up on the stalks to identify the harvest for which they should be counted