On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[ttribe]

Or "tribalism."

  

Oh, snap!

Well, if you can't address the substance of a criticism, might as well mock it, right?

[Tacenda]

On the contrary, I think the leadership pushing to chastise the train for some of its members' behaviour saw itself as the loyal opposition because their SP leader initially told them to let it go and they dissented and continued to push for consequences.

Lee and Haight than came up with their own plan, presented it to local leaders who were stunned by it ans strongly resisted and insisted they check with BY before doing anything.

Lee went ahead and attacked on his own authority over the Paiutes. Two militiamen also acting on their own killed train members going for help.

Dissent can work in both bad and good ways. If there had been no dissent among loyal opposition at all, there would have been no one killed most likely. If there had been stronger dissent once the attacks were started, the bloodshed might have been much, much less.

Haight was a SP. And he was found guilty and was on the run until the end of his life.

[CV75]

Please cite the post you are referring to. I don't think i put it quite the same way you're representing it here.

 

Post 158, you said: "And not all spiritual things are necessarily logical or rational to the "common (natural) man" and the things and ways of God for His people discussing things in council are not generally accepted by the world."

 

That’s right, I did not say, “spiritual things don't have to be logical.” I said, “And not all spiritual things are necessarily logical or rational to the "common (natural) man" and the things and ways of God for His people discussing things in council are not generally accepted by the world." (Nuances italicized by me). I see a big difference between what I said and how you played it back.

 

Please explain what you think I'm trying to stretch, and how, in terms of opposition, dissent and common consent.

 

The passage you reference says that revelation comes from the prophet only, but it doesn't say that no one should disagree or debate the merits of the revelation. Or if I did, I missed it and would appreciate the verse you were thinking of (setting aside for the moment that specific revelation is very rare and has not occurred for a generation - interpretation is much more common)

I was sharing that Section 28 is interesting to me. I was tying the principle of alignment from an earlier post (#132) to the principle of common consent on the basis that only the Prophet receives revelation for the Church (he carries out this function by common consent), and when we are aligned as I described it, we are obedient to those revelations. Oliver and Hyrum were being corrected because they were not aligned with (or were acting contrary to) the covenants which had already been established by common consent (both by the proper revelatory order or by the acceptance of those revelations by the members). But I do not see that they were acting as “loyal opposition”—a term I do not recognize as valid for this discussion anyway.

 

But my question was, "How would you qualify the obedience He is asking for in that chapter?" I asked because you spoke of "exact obedience" (whatever that is) as if it were inherently a bad thing, the abdication of agency or something; and of prophetic commands as if they are inherently faulty, etc.

 

It was in response to your statement (in green):

 

"When the tendency for error which all God's children have in common forms the basis for disputing or treating lightly the commandments and revelations, the wrong spirit is stirring and belief in Christ is thus compromised. The fallen nature or arm of flesh is being leveraged against the light or arm of God. This does not seem to be a good thing."

 

I was saying that prophets have an arm of flesh the same as the rest of us. Exact obedience to any other human being is just relying on another arm of flesh. As to 3 Nephi 11, you brought it up, but I didn't see the relevance to obedience. Maybe you were meaning to respond to someone else.

OK—you are reasserting that you do not think Christ is asking for obedience in 3 Nephi 11*, that when people obey His servants they are only relying on the arm of flesh because we're all human, and you call that "exact obedience." But that certainly isn’t what I am getting at with post #132.

 

* “he commanded him that he should come forth” (v.18); “And the Lord commanded him that he should arise” (v.20); “as I have commanded you thus shall ye [do]” (v. 28); “the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me” (v. 32). I think the tone of the entire chapter is one of expecting His children to obey His commandments as delivered through His servants, which is why He sent forth His servants to teach and provide the ordinances and for His followers not to contend with them or dispute the doctrines.

[CV75]

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2

And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 28:12-13

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

 

Common consent is invoked here as the principle that put the Articles and Covenants in place to begin with. As a principle, rather than solely a specific practice, common consent can be manifest in various ways, one of which is voting at church conferences and another of which is voting within the branches of the church (D&C 20:63). But whatever the modes by which common consent is operationalized, the founding revelations of the church are quite clear that it is to be operationalized, very broadly and in very real and substantive ways.

 

Don

As indicated above, I think that the prophets function within in the Church organization by common consent, both by receiving revelation for the Church in their role as sustained by the members (otherwise there would be no Church for them to lead, just a world to see destroyed as Ether did!) and in making final decisions with/within the quorums in which he operates. We also consent to receive the sacrament from those who prepare, bless and pass it. We consent to attend three meetings on Sunday and listen to those called to teach and testify, and to sing, and to separate our families into age-defined second- and third- hour classes, etc. We consent to receive callings and assignments—not just as individuals but as couples, parents, families, and quorums, thus making it “common.” The consent is often implied, but I think it is good to try and see where it is in operation though we may not commonly think of these examples as applications of common consent (the intentional practice of a religion of awareness).

[Calm]

Haight was a SP. And he was found guilty and was on the run until the end of his life.

Dame was the first SP they appealed to as they wanted his militia to act.

[CV75]

In the Ward example, we were in a council meeting but the Bishop was not seeking input. He was delivering the message of decisions that had been made. So I wasn't really invited to share my view.

Similarly, with the Stake situation, yes I was serving as a chaperone, but no one asked for my opinion. They were delivering a decision which, BTW had been supported by a SP Councilor. So in both of these cases I spoke up when it wasn't invited YET it resulted in continuing council and changed decisions.

As long as you are in a council meeting, I take that as an invitation to speak, in proper turn and tone, that is, by the Spirit, which all meetings are to be subject to/conducted by. I think it approproiate to consider leaders and those that serve under their direction to constitute a council in a broad sense, even if not in  forml meeting setting.

 

Do you consider, on the whole, that the two sets of process and their outcomes to have been carried out under the Lord's care and linfluence, and how? Do you see this in yourself, peers and/or the leaders, and how?

 

In those two cases, you were acting within the scope of your calling/assignment--I think when people try to be loud enough to be heard by the First Presidency, they are not acting within the proper/righful scope. In contrast, it is intersting to me what Elder Bednar considers his function as an apostle (see the recent Face 2 Face interview, about 1/3 through)--to minister to "the one" in the midst of busy, high-profile assignments. So they do have an obligation to the "rank and file" according to the Lord's direction to bless people in very intiate ways, and not by any type of "common consent" to include loud-mouths in setting policy.

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbieaware,

Okay. So, is keeping the Word of Wisdom a requirement for being a faithful Latter-day Saint?

Don

Bobbieaware,

Okay. So, is keeping the Word of Wisdom a requirement for being a faithful Latter-day Saint?

Don

Hi Don,

I hate to be a party pooper, but in a sane and mature discussion on this subject the answer as to what constitutes a faithful Latter-day Saint is a very simple one, and the answer I'm about to give to that question would bring an abrupt end to this thread because there wouldn't be much else to say. Here we go: Whatever the LIVING PROPHETS, IN THEIR DAY AND TIME, say is sin, transgression, unrighteousness behavior, unholy conduct, unwise and/or unhealthy habits, etc is what we're supposed to avoid so as to prove faithful. And whatever it is the living prophets say we should do is what we should do so as to be found faithful.

For instance: in a past generation living the law of eternal plural marriage was a way to comply with the Lord's will and demonstrate one's faithfulness. But be married to more than one woman at a time in our day and you'll get excommunicated. So the answer to the question is that following the will of the Lord, as revealed in your own day and time, is the way to be a faithful Latter-day Saint. Simple enough for a little child to understand.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[cinepro]

And whatever it is that that the living prophets say we should do is what we should do so as to be found faithful.

 

President Monson (among other Prophets and Apostles) has said that we should do our home teaching. 

 

Currently, among the otherwise active Elders in my ward, only about 15% do their home teaching regularly.  So would it be fair to say that 85% of the Elders in my ward are not "faithful LDS"?

 

And for those that do their home teaching, it would be interesting to know how many have weekly Family Home Evening as our modern Prophets have said that we should do.  Are all the families in my ward (and yours) that don't have Family Home Evening also not to be considered "faithful LDS"?

 

And then there's avoiding debt and living within our means.  Is every LDS who declares bankruptcy not to be considered a "faithful LDS"?

Edited May 21, 2015 by cinepro

[hope_for_things]

Hi Don,

I hate to be a party pooper, but in a sane and mature discussion on this subject the answer as to what constitutes a faithful Latter-day Saint is a very simple one, and the answer I'm about to give to that question would bring an abrupt end to this thread because there wouldn't be much else to say. Here we go: Whatever the LIVING PROPHETS, IN THEIR DAY AND TIME, say is sin, transgression, unrighteousness behavior, unholy conduct, unwise and/or unhealthy habits, etc is what we're supposed to avoid so as to prove faithful. And whatever it is the living prophets say we should do is what we should do so as to be found faithful.

For instance: in a past generation living the law of eternal plural marriage was a way to comply with the Lord's will and demonstrate one's faithfulness. But be married to more than one woman at a time in our day and you'll get excommunicated. So the answer to the question is that following the will of the Lord, as revealed in your own day and time, is the way to be a faithful Latter-day Saint. Simple enough for a little child to understand.

For one thing, prophets speak as men as well as prophets. Its up to personal discernment to determine what is the word of the Lord for each of us as individuals. For another thing I believe the gospel teaches us about eternal truths, and I don't believe polygamy is an eternal truth. Each person has to grapple with that doctrine him or herself. Lastly, there is no objective way for a human being to judge whether another human being is faithful in the Lords eyes. Because we don't have the Lord's eyes. We can only make imperfect judgments, and the scriptures warn about making unrighteous judgments throughout. Probably best not to try and judge whether someone else is faithful and instead ask the question, Lord is it I.

[Bobbieaware]

President Monson (among other Prophets and Apostles) has said that we should do our home teaching. Currently, among the otherwise active Elders in my ward, only about 15% do their home teaching regularly. So would it be fair to say that 85% of the Elders in my ward are not "faithful LDS"? And for those that do their home teaching, it would be interesting to know how many have weekly Family Home Evening as our modern Prophets have said that we should do. Are all the families in my ward (and yours) that don't have Family Home Evening also not to be considered "faithful LDS"? And then there's avoiding debt and living within our means. Is every LDS who declares bankruptcy not to be considered a "faithful LDS"?

How about they don't appear to be as faithful as they should be? That is, unless they've got some really good excuses? And the Lord did say "many are called but few are chosen." So there must be a reason why he said what he said because God cannot lie.

But here's an even more interesting question: if the members of your ward were told all each of them had to do is 100% home teaching and 100% home evening for one year and each of them will be awarded one-hundred million dollars after taxes, how many of them do you think would successfully complete the challenge? God promises the faithful all he possesses, but unless one has a very strong testimony all God possesses seems like pie in the sky compared to $100,000,000.00 in cold hard cash.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

For one thing, prophets speak as men as well as prophets. Its up to personal discernment to determine what is the word of the Lord for each of us as individuals. For another thing I believe the gospel teaches us about eternal truths, and I don't believe polygamy is an eternal truth. Each person has to grapple with that doctrine him or herself. Lastly, there is no objective way for a human being to judge whether another human being is faithful in the Lords eyes. Because we don't have the Lord's eyes. We can only make imperfect judgments, and the scriptures warn about making unrighteous judgments throughout. Probably best not to try and judge whether someone else is faithful and instead ask the question, Lord is it I.

Well, thankfully, because I'm not a "progressive" Mormon, I don't find myself "grappling" with church history and the General Authorities all the time. But I'll tell you one thing, the church must present a very compelling case if even progressive Latter-day Saints can't let it go. My best to you in your struggle.

[hope_for_things]

Well, thankfully, because I'm not a "progressive" Mormon, I don't find myself "grappling" with church history and the General Authorities all the time. But I'll tell you one thing, the church must present a very compelling case if even progressive Latter-day Saints can't let it go. My best to you in your struggle.

If you're not struggling with the gospel you're not learning and growing. Actually this is a principle of life in general, if you don't struggle you can't learn and grow.

[Kenngo1969]

Also, with the quotes given in the opening posts, "the church" means who exactly?  It's reminds me of when people say that they know "the church" is true.  Are they talking about the corporation?The leaders? Or just who?  Yes, some teachings are true, but we know that some past teachings are erroneous. ...

 

  

 

[Kenngo1969] With due respect, who's "we"?  The royal "we"?  You and that mouse in your pocket?  I appreciate your apparent attempt graciously to include me in that "we": I always like to be thought of and included, but in this case, you can count me out.  I'm perfectly capable of thinking and speaking for myself without being included in some ill-defined, amorphous collective  , thank you. 

 

 

 

Wow.  Ok.  

 

Sorry if I offended you as this wasn't my intent at all (and don't worry, I was definitely NOT thinking about or including you.)  People use "we" all the time on here and no one gets all crazy about it.  But again, sorry if it bothered you.

 

I get it.  You feel that none of the past teachings of the church by any past leaders are erroneous?  Is that correct?  

No teaching has been erroneous to such an extent that someone, by following it, has forfeited his salvation.  I think arguing otherwise is akin to arguing that, e.g., when Moroni says "If there are faults" in the Book of Mormon "they are the mistakes of men," he is inviting us to discount all of his hard work by dismissing the Book of Mormon because, well, what can we trust in it if it has mistakes?  And saying I'm "bothered" greatly overstates the case.  Frankly, I have too much on my plate right now to be all that bothered by what some quasi-anonymous (no offense ) Internet poster says about the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can hold whatever opinion you like about whether "past teachings" are "erroneous."  But, like Scott, I value precision in language.  If you're stating your own opinion, or if you're stating an opinion held by you and others you know, make that clear. No offense taken; I hope you can say likewise.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Bobbieaware]

If you're not struggling with the gospel you're not learning and growing. Actually this is a principle of life in general, if you don't struggle you can't learn and grow.

I struggle and continue to,learn, but I don't find myself doubting the church is true all the time. I try to be like Nephi -- he had a rough time but his testimony was never in doubt. Do you see something wrong with that?

[Russell C McGregor]

Well, if you can't address the substance of a criticism, might as well mock it, right?

Is "tribalism" (or Ttribalism) a substantial criticism or a bumper-sticker?

[ttribe]

Is "tribalism" (or Ttribalism) a substantial criticism or a bumper-sticker?

Keep it up, Russell. You just add to your reputation as a petty school - yard bully.

[DonBradley]

Nice try. Fickle fallen humans, so prone to instability and error, may change THEIR IDEAS of what they think a faithful Latter-day Saint should be, but the words of the Lord and his clearly stated standards for what HE SAYS a faithful Latter-day Saint should be have never changed. Fashions may come and fashions my go, but the Lord's standards of righteousness have not changed over the years. 

 

 

Hi Don,

I hate to be a party pooper, but in a sane and mature discussion on this subject the answer as to what constitutes a faithful Latter-day Saint is a very simple one, and the answer I'm about to give to that question would bring an abrupt end to this thread because there wouldn't be much else to say. Here we go: Whatever the LIVING PROPHETS, IN THEIR DAY AND TIME, say is sin, transgression, unrighteousness behavior, unholy conduct, unwise and/or unhealthy habits, etc is what we're supposed to avoid so as to prove faithful. And whatever it is the living prophets say we should do is what we should do so as to be found faithful.

For instance: in a past generation living the law of eternal plural marriage was a way to comply with the Lord's will and demonstrate one's faithfulness. But be married to more than one woman at a time in our day and you'll get excommunicated. So the answer to the question is that following the will of the Lord, as revealed in your own day and time, is the way to be a faithful Latter-day Saint. Simple enough for a little child to understand.

 

First: no, things aren't that simple.

 

Second: what kind of real discussion can one have with you if you are going to shift what you claim you meant when your supposedly simple and self-evident truth is refuted?

 

When one knows one's point is being refuted, one can, of course, attempt to save face by taking the point to a higher level of abstraction. First, "the Lord's clearly stated standards of righteousness have not changed," but once an example is adduced in which they have changed, then the claim is that what you meant was by "the words of the Lord and his clearly stated standards" was actually that there aren't standards at all, but only one standard--following the prophet. And if that one gets refuted as being the sole unchanging standard of righteousness, then you could always take it to yet another level of abstraction and claim that the actual standard of faithfulness is to be good, or, tautologically, to be faithful.

 

It's obvious that this shift from one supposedly self-evident truth to another is a dodge, which takes the wind out of its rhetorical sails. But the deeper problem is that such a polemical strategy shields one from having to admit an error, and thereby learn something.

 

If there is any "simple" fact on this topic it's that things aren't and never have been as simple as you want to make them. Nor is simplicity always a virtue. We aren't here to live our lives as simplistic children. We're here to begin to grow up and be like God by learning the laws and principles upon which everything works, to develop moral judgment such as what God exercises, and to progress in other ways.

 

As to your assertion that being a faithful Latter-day Saint consists entirely in following the living prophet, that's nonsense and you can't adduce a single scripture or prophetic statement to support it. Of course being a faithful Latter-day Saints includes embracing prophetic counsel, but it doesn't boil down to that. To be faithful obviously includes, among other things, being faithful in one's own sacrament covenant with the Lord--which is between oneself and the Lord, without the mediation of the prophet, and being faithful to one's own promptings from the Holy Ghost, to which, again, the prophet is not party. As the president of the church is to be faithful in his stewardship, so each of us has a domain of stewardship in which we are expected to be faithful, according to our own judgment and the inspiration given to us.

 

And ultimately each of us is responsible for our own soul, as Christ explains in JST Mark 9:42-44:  

42 And again, if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; for he that is thy standard, by whom thou walkest, if he become a transgressor, he shall be cut off. 43 It is better for thee, to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched. 44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another.

 

To equate righteousness and faithfulness solely with doing what any man, in any calling, says is to abdicate our divinely given responsibility, to ignore the fact that we have our own stewardship and inspirations to be faithful to quite apart from any communication we receive from the prophet, and to thwart the purposes of a Heavenly Father who doesn't want to make into mindless foot soldiers but wants, instead, to make us into divine beings who are able to judge, decide, and create for ourselves.

 

By the way, I'm more than happy to engage in a real, substantive discussion with you. But if your response is to pontificate further on how supposedly mature your responses are and how simple and self-evident the truth (i.e., whatever you think) is or to make your argument a moving target, then real discussion would be impossible anyway, and I'll move on.

 

Don

Edited May 21, 2015 by DonBradley

[Bernard Gui]

A faithful Latter-day saint is one who chooses to follow the First Presidency. They are the authorized representatives of God on the earth. They are chosen and ordained for that purpose and without them there would be no baptism, sacrament, or salvation. Along with the Twelve they will stand as witnesses when we appear before the bar of the Lord. It will go well with those who freely and willingly submitted to their loving counsel. It is not reasonable to say, "A faithful Latter-day Saint is one who chooses to follow the First Presidency, but only when their counsel is attractive, comfortable, or convenient."

So, they counsel us to do our home teaching, have family home evening, obey the commandments (including the Word of Wisdom), attend the temple, whatever, which Lehi and Nephi defined as holding to the Iron Rod in their vision. We are all in some location on that field....treading the path, slip-sliding away, struggling back towards it, perched on the balconies of the Spacious Building, feeling the shame of worldly scorn, or heeding the beckoning of the prophets.

Being faithful is simply the process of repentance - aligning ourselves with the straight and narrow path, shedding the excess baggage of sin and complacency, and struggling towards the Tree of Life. Pointing fingers at others along the way should be left to those in the Building.

Instead of looking for ways to dilute the deep waters of faithfulness, we should all be anxiously engaged in learning what it is to be faithful (based on the scriptures and the words of the prophets), and then seeking the grace of God to be true to that knowledge.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

A faithful Latter-day saint is one who chooses to follow the First Presidency. They are the authorized representatives of God on the earth. They are chosen and ordained for that purpose and without them there would be no baptism, sacrament, or salvation. Along with the Twelve they will stand as witnesses when we appear before the bar of the Lord. It will go well with those who freely and willingly submitted to their loving counsel. It is not reasonable to say, "A faithful Latter-day Saint is one who chooses to follow the First Presidency, but only when their counsel is attractive, comfortable, or convenient."

So, they counsel us to do our home teaching, have family home evening, obey the commandments (including the Word of Wisdom), attend the temple, whatever, which Lehi and Nephi defined as holding to the Iron Rod in their vision. We are all in some location on that field....treading the path, slip-sliding away, struggling back towards it, perched on the balconies of the Spacious Building, feeling the shame of worldly scorn, or heeding the beckoning of the prophets.

Being faithful is simply the process of repentance - aligning ourselves with the straight and narrow path, shedding the excess baggage of sin and complacency, and struggling towards the Tree of Life. Pointing fingers at others along the way should be left to those in the Building.

Instead of looking for ways to dilute the deep waters of faithfulness, we should all be anxiously engaged in learning what it is to be faithful (based on the scriptures and the words of the prophets), and then seeking the grace of God to be true to that knowledge.

How is this pattern of faith like the bible times? What has been restored? Where is it in the bible that there is a church body with one prophet or first presidency? This is the first time this crossed my mind. I've heard one or two critics mention 15 apostles compared to 12. Never really gave it much thought until now.

[why me]

Why Me,

 

The simple, consistent boundary lines you want to draw between the "faithful" and the "unfaithful" are a fiction. In actual fact, the community has negotiated and renegotiated those boundaries time and again--and I see absolutely no reason to think that will stop.

 

Don

I know that we have become rather adrift in complications. And boundaries are constantly being pushed across borders. But I would think that if one asks members just what exactly a faithful member is, they would probably come up with simplistic explanations. It definitely would not be an academic exercise of definitions.

 

It was all quite simple really: inactives were not faithful and jack mormons, which was the only name I remember members being called who did not live the word of wisdom, were also unfaithful.

 

Faithful members attended church, paid their tithing and tried to live the commandments as outlined by the church. I don't remember it being an academic exercise.

[Calm]

It was all quite simple really: inactives were not faithful and jack mormons, which was the only name I remember members being called who did not live the word of wisdom, were also unfaithful.

 

A so much more simpler, judgmental time where one didn't have to actually get to know a person's struggles before deeming them unfaithful and unworthy.

[mormonnewb]

I know that we have become rather adrift in complications. And boundaries are constantly being pushed across borders. But I would think that if one asks members just what exactly a faithful member is, they would probably come up with simplistic explanations. It definitely would not be an academic exercise of definitions.

 

It was all quite simple really: inactives were not faithful and jack mormons, which was the only name I remember members being called who did not live the word of wisdom, were also unfaithful.

 

Faithful members attended church, paid their tithing and tried to live the commandments as outlined by the church. I don't remember it being an academic exercise.

 

But this begs the question: Why would someone want to create the "taxonomy" in the first place?  No "reasonable" person just goes around creating classifications, unless they have a reason to do so.

 

It has never occurred to me even ONCE to judge which of my four sons is the most "faithful" son.  This is because my love for each of them is completely independent of their "faithfulness" to me.  It is simply a matter of genetic predisposition and narcissism (I can not help but to love those adorable boys who look so much like their handsome daddy).  On the other hand, I very often judge how responsible I think they are.  Because I make decisions all the time based on that factor.  Can I trust them with the car?  Can I trust the 11-year-old to go to the scouts and still get his homework done that night?

 

On the other hand, my preferred airline has set up very clearly-defined metrics for what it considers to be a "faithful" customer.  But it does so, because those classifications have meaning to the organization.  A Chairman is treated differently than, say, a Silver Preferred member.  And the purpose of these classifications is to decide who gets free upgrades, first priority on oversold planes, their own foam germ-infested pillow, etc.

 

So for those of you who are on a quest to delineate "faithfulness," what is your goal?  What upgrades will the faithful members (i.e., YOU and those who live their Mormonness just like YOU) get that will be denied to the great unwashed?  And if you don't have an answer, then why the quest for the distinction?  I find it hard to believe that this is simply a hypothetical inquiry, such as say, who was the "hottest" wife on the Flintstones?  And while any true Mormon knows that it was definitively Betty, I don't think that any of us would spend 13 pages in an "exploration" of 1960s cartoon beauty.

 

Those of you eager to draw the line of faithfulness are doing so for a reason, so let's get to the point.  What should be done with those unfaithful Mormons (i.e., those not just like you)?

Edited May 21, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Senator]

 

First: no, things aren't that simple......

 

Don

 

 

Some day when I grow up, I want to be like you.

[Senator]

Being faithful is simply the process of repentance - aligning ourselves with the straight and narrow path, shedding the excess baggage of sin and complacency, and struggling towards the Tree of Life. Pointing fingers at others along the way should be left to those in the Building.

 

 

That statement I like!

[CV75]

As indicated above, I think that the prophets function within in the Church organization by common consent, both by receiving revelation for the Church in their role as sustained by the members (otherwise there would be no Church for them to lead, just a world to see destroyed as Ether did!) and in making final decisions with/within the quorums in which he operates. We also consent to receive the sacrament from those who prepare, bless and pass it. We consent to attend three meetings on Sunday and listen to those called to teach and testify, and to sing, and to separate our families into age-defined second- and third- hour classes, etc. We consent to receive callings and assignments—not just as individuals but as couples, parents, families, and quorums, thus making it “common.” The consent is often implied, but I think it is good to try and see where it is in operation though we may not commonly think of these examples as applications of common consent (the intentional practice of a religion of awareness).

In the spirit of talking to myself --LOL-- I also see common consent as the united management of individual will, and as much about submission and being governed as much as it is about having a voice and granting permission. And not so much a balance, but a time and a place for both, and sometimes together. This is why I see the recent emphasis on alignment as very meaningful in how the principle is carried out individually, collectively and in the Church organization/operational process.