On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[Senator]

 Pointing fingers at others along the way should be left to those in the Building.

 

 

Ha!

 

I wonder if there were those in the Iron Rod holding procession that got a bit impatient with there fellow processioners?

 

....Hey, you up there? Ya you.....could you pick up the pace a bit....

 

or

 

....excuse me, coming through, coming through.....

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

 

So would it be fair to say that every Latter Day Saint is simultaneously faithful and unfaithful?

I have FHE but I onlly home teach once per quarter. Faithful and unfaithful.

I read my scriptures and pray daily but I don't study my Sunday School and Priesthood lesson- Faithful/UNfaithful

I keep the word of wisdom by not taking in harmful substances but I don't keep it because I eat too much meat and not enough grain- faithful/unfaithful

I attend all of my church meetings and the temple regularly but doubt some of the truth claims of the church- faithful/unfaithful

I live a polygamous lifestyle pre-1900 and continue to live it post 1900- faithful/unfaithful

BobbieAware, unless there are perfect people somewhere in the world everyone is on a spectrum of faithful/unfaithful. To come out and label them unfaithful is putting your own marker down on that spectrum saying, "you cannot go past this line". Aside from baptismal interview questions and TR questions I'm not aware of other lines that have been drawn.

*FYI- my definitions of faithful/unfaithful are just for example. I'm not really passing judgement on those things.

[ALarson]

No teaching has been erroneous to such an extent that someone, by following it, has forfeited his salvation.  

Well now, that's not what I said, was it?  I simply stated. "we know that some past teachings are erroneous"  and you replied objecting to my use of the word "we" and asked to not be included in that "we" and to count you out.

 

And now you attempt to change what I said and the meaning of it.

 

But, let's look at what you stated above.  I wonder what would happen to a person who began teaching Brigham Young's Adam/God theory or teachings.  What if someone taught this from the pulpit and also started including this in their Sunday lessons?  I'd imagine they'd be called in by their leaders and asked to stop. What do you think would happen to them  if they continued teaching these?  President Kimball stated: " "We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

 

Members are disciplined and excommunicated for following and teaching false doctrine.  I'd say that could affect someone's salvation.

 

Mark E. Petersen stated regarding the Adam/God theory:

"If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation."

 

Edited May 21, 2015 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

I think you misunderstand. The leaders of Cedar city led by stake president Haight wanted to attack the wagon train:

Cedar City mayor, militia major, and stake president Isaac Haight described the grievances against the emigrant men and requested permission to call out the militia in an express dispatch to the district militia commander, William Dame, who lived in nearby Parowan. Dame was also the stake president of Parowan. After convening a council to discuss the matter, Dame denied the request. 

Haight (the stake president) and Lee then hatched a plan to get the Indians involved. Haight (the SP) presented this plan to his high council and it was met by stunned resistance (loyal opposition). A decision was made to send for guidance from Salt Lake based on the loyal opposition of the high council.

 

Unfortunately, Lee and the Indians attacked prematurely. The emigrant train saw that Mormons were involved in the attack. Concerns were high that letting the emigrants travel free would create problems for the Mormons once the emigrants reached California.  After initially resisting, Stake President Dame relented to pressure from his fellow stake president and OK'd the massacre.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

A short answer....the restoration of the keys of the Priesthood makes all this possible.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Actually, as measured by rep points awarded (an even 300 as write this), Russell has a pretty good reputation right now. Since signing on as Russell C McGregor, his ratio of rep points to number of posts (197 as I write this) is roughly 150 percent, or about one and a half rep points per post.

 

By contrast, my ratio right now is less than 30 percent, or less than one for every three posts.

 

Granted, many of my posts were made before rep points were instituted. But even allowing for that, I highly doubt my number of rep points would come anywhere near exceeding my number of posts.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

Actually, as measured by rep points awarded (an even 300 as write this), Russell has a pretty good reputation right now. Since signing on as Russell C McGregor, his ratio of rep points to number of posts (197 as I write this) is roughly 150 percent, or about one and a half rep points per post.

 

By contrast, my ratio right now is less than 30 percent.

 

Granted, many of my posts were made before rep points were instituted. But even allowing for that, I highly doubt my number of rep points would come anywhere near exceeding my number of posts.

 

 

I think it's pretty obvious, given his long and prolific posting history on a variety of boards (primarily under his "Pahoran" moniker), that his reputation is more than the sum of his rep points on MDD.

Edited May 21, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

Or "tribalism."

 

 

Oh, snap!

 

 

  

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

OK, I shall endeavor to address it substantively.

 

As I've indicated elsewhere on the board, "tribalism" as often applied today strikes me as a proverbial buzzword, which that august authority Wikipedia defines as "a word or phrase that becomes very popular for a period of time. It may be a technical term and may have little meaning, being simply used to impress others.^[1] Buzzwords often originate in jargon, acronyms, or neologisms.^[2] Business speech is particularly vulnerable to buzzwords. Examples of overworked business buzzwords include synergy, vertical, dynamic, and strategy; one of the most heavily used buzzword phrases is "think outside the box."^[3]"

 

Like many buzzwords, tribalism seems often to be applied with a negative or contemptuous tone. S. I. Hayakawa, a prominent linguist of past decades and a practitioner of the study of semantics, wrote about "purr words" and "snarl words." A pairing of a purr word and a snarl word could be related in meaning but be opposite in connotation. As often used these days, tribalism bears a negative connotation and thus would fall into the snarl word category.

 

A few posts ago, I linked to and quoted from a general conference address by Elder D. Todd Christofferson in which he spoke of Zion. In that post, I suggested that a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who seeks to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion. Elder Christofferson said that Zion has three components: unity, holiness and care for the poor and needy.

 

I object to and resist the application of the buzzword tribalism to the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders and members because it tends to convey contempt or derision, thereby being potentially harmful to or destructive of earnest endeavors to establish the unity that hallmarks the people of God and a Zion society. Conversely, it serves the ends and agenda of those who do not care for the Church of Jesus Christ and who do not wish it success.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's pretty obvious, given his long and prolific posting history on a variety of boards (primarily under his "Pahoran" moniker), that his reputation is more than the sum of his rep points on MDD.

I don't wish to make this thread a referendum on Russell or his posting history.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

OK, I shall endeavor to address it substantively.

 

 

[snip]

 

 

I object to and resist the application of the buzzword tribalism to the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders and members because it tends to convey contempt or derision, thereby being potentially harmful to or destructive of earnest endeavors to establish the unity that hallmarks the people of God and a Zion society. Conversely, it serves the ends and agenda of those who do not care for the Church of Jesus Christ and who do not wish it success.

 

My use of the term to describe the behavior of certain board participants had nothing to do with "the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders and members" on the whole.  So, for you to dismiss it out of hand because of your general predisposition to dislike so-called "buzzwords" does nothing to address whether it is reasonable to abandon reason in attacking perceived critics based solely on the fact that "you" (not you, in particular) disagree with their position, or have simply decided they are on the "wrong" team at the time.

 

Question - did you read the link I provided on the phenomenon?

 

 

I don't wish to make this thread a referendum on Russell or his posting history.

 

Then don't.  You were under no obligation to defend the quality of his reputation and I only mentioned it in defense against his snarky attack on me.

Edited May 21, 2015 by ttribe

[Bobbieaware]

So would it be fair to say that every Latter Day Saint is simultaneously faithful and unfaithful?I have FHE but I onlly home teach once per quarter. Faithful and unfaithful.I read my scriptures and pray daily but I don't study my Sunday School and Priesthood lesson- Faithful/UNfaithfulI keep the word of wisdom by not taking in harmful substances but I don't keep it because I eat too much meat and not enough grain- faithful/unfaithfulI attend all of my church meetings and the temple regularly but doubt some of the truth claims of the church- faithful/unfaithfulI live a polygamous lifestyle pre-1900 and continue to live it post 1900- faithful/unfaithfulBobbieAware, unless there are perfect people somewhere in the world everyone is on a spectrum of faithful/unfaithful. To come out and label them unfaithful is putting your own marker down on that spectrum saying, "you cannot go past this line". Aside from baptismal interview questions and TR questions I'm not aware of other lines that have been drawn.*FYI- my definitions of faithful/unfaithful are just for example. I'm not really passing judgement on those things.

There's too much unwarranted reading between the lines that goes on on these boards. Nowhere did I say a faithful member of the church can only be considered such unless he or she has already attained perfection. Since an ongoing course of continual repentance is required in order to be found faithful, that ongoing repentance process necessarily indicates there is room for improvement and growth.

So then, who is a faithful Latter-day Saint? The scriptures say he is one who is continually repentant and always GROWING in the grace and knowledge of God. He is one who on an ongoing basis GROWS from grace to grace (I.e. from one degree of divine spiritual empowerment to greater and greater degrees) by receiving grace for grace, receiving additional spiritual knowledge, wisdom and empowerment as a natural consequence of diligent and conscientious Christ-like service.

A faithful Latter-day Saint is one who sustains and humbly follows the Lord and his prophets without constantly ministering doubts and questions that undermine faith and testimony. And a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who enjoys the companionship of the Holy Ghost who leads, strengthens and inspires him on his journey to ultimate spiritual perfection. Of all things, the constant companionship and inspiration of the Holy Ghost is the most reliable indicator of faithfulness. If a member lacks that constant companionship and inspiration, something is out of whack -- .in other words, it's time to repent.

There is more, but it's back to work...

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

This morning, in my daily reading from the proceedings of the most recent general conference, I came upon the sermon of  Elder Ulisses Soares of the Presidency of the Seventy, who spoke of the war with evil that is being waged daily. It struck me that his talk could be applied to our topic on this thread, as a faithful Latter-day Saint presumably would be firmly on the side of good and righteousness in this war.

 

I present a few excerpts for consideration (as usual, any and all boldface emphases are mine):

 

The war of good against evil will continue throughout our lives since the adversary’s purpose is to make all people as miserable as he is. Satan and his angels will try to shroud our thoughts and assert control by tempting us to sin. If they can, they will corrupt all that is good. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand that they will have power over us only if we allow it.

 

 

The scriptures also contain several examples of those who gave that permission to the adversary and ended up becoming confused and even destroyed, like Nehor, Korihor, and Sherem. We need to be alert to this danger. We cannot allow ourselves to be confused by popular messages that are easily accepted by the world and that contradict the doctrine and true principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many of these worldly messages represent nothing more than an attempt of our society to justify sin. We need to remember that, at the end, all will stand before Christ to be judged of our works, whether they are good or whether they are evil.⁸As we encounter these worldly messages, great courage and a solid knowledge of the plan of our Heavenly Father will be required to choose the right.

 

 

Our testimony must be our shield to protect us against the fiery darts of the adversary in his attempts to attack us.¹⁰ It will guide us safely through the darkness and confusion that exist in the world today.¹¹

 

My dear brethren, because of the wave of confusion and doubt spreading throughout the world today, we must hold ever more tightly to our testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then will our ability to defend truth and justice greatly increase. We will win the daily battles against evil, and, rather than fall on the battlefields of life, we will rally others to the Master’s standards.

 

By the way, as I present excerpts from these talks and statements, my hope is that readers will read not just the quotations but will go to the respective links and examine the sources in their entirety. In fact, that is a wise course when encountering any quotation.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My use of the term to describe the behavior of certain board participants had nothing to do with "the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders and members" on the whole.  So, for you to dismiss it out of hand because of your general predisposition to dislike so-called "buzzwords" does nothing to address whether it is reasonable to abandon reason in attacking perceived critics based solely on the fact that "you" (not you, in particular) disagree with their position, or have simply decided they are on the "wrong" team at the time.

 

One wonders in such instances what "team" you perceive them to be on if it is not the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Question - did you read the link I provided on the phenomenon?

 

 

I read it. Together with other sources I consulted, it confirmed my impression that "tribalism" is a buzzword.

[ttribe]

One wonders in such instances what "team" you perceive them to be on if it is not the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Do you presume to represent the Church in all of your interactions on this board?

 

I read it. Together with other sources I consulted, it confirmed my impression that "tribalism" is a buzzword.

 

As I feared, and stated, in the post wherein I provided the link - it seems your predisposition to dismiss the concept on the basis of your perception of it being a "buzzword" prevents you from considering the validity of the substance behind it.  That's unfortunate.

[Scott Lloyd]

But this begs the question: Why would someone want to create the "taxonomy" in the first place? 

Oops!

 

You used the phrase "beg the question" improperly.

 

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

 

To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you presume to represent the Church in all of your interactions on this board?

 

Whether I "presume to represent the Church" in my interactions and whether I earnestly strive to be on the Lord's side in my behavior are separate and distinct propositions. Surely you can see that.

 

As I feared, and stated, in the post wherein I provided the link - it seems your predisposition to dismiss the concept on the basis of your perception of it being a "buzzword" prevents you from considering the validity of the substance behind it.  That's unfortunate.

 

I considered its validity and substance and found it wanting.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

There's too much unwarranted reading between the lines that goes on on these boards. Nowhere did I say a faithful member of the church can only be considered such unless he or she has already attained perfection. Since an ongoing course of continual repentance is required in order to be found faithful, that ongoing repentance process necessarily indicates there is room for improvement and growth.

So then, who is a faithful Latter-day Saint? The scriptures say he is one who is continually repentant and always GROWING in the grace and knowledge of God. He is one who on an ongoing basis GROWS from grace to grace (I.e. from one degree of divine spiritual empowerment to a greater and greater degrees) by receiving grace for grace, receiving additional spiritual knowledge, wisdom and empowerment as a natural consequence of diligent and conscientious Christ-like service.

A faithful Latter-day Saint is one who sustains and humbly follows the Lord and his prophets without constantly ministering doubts and questions that undermine faith and testimony. And a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who enjoys the companionship of the Holy Ghost who leads, strengthens and inspires him on journey to ultimate spiritual perfection. Of all things, the constant companionship and inspiration of the Holy Ghost is the most reliable indicator of faithfulness. If a member lacks that constant companionship and inspiration, something is out of whack -- .in other words, it's time to repent.

There is more, but it's back to work...

 

Right. So, like I said, everyone is simultaneously faithful and unfaithful in various ways.

[ttribe]

Whether I "presume to represent the Church" in my interactions and whether earnestly strive to be on the Lord's side in my behavior are separate and distinct propositions. Surely you can see that.

 

And surely you can see that reasonable minds can disagree about what is in the best interest of the Church and its future; especially when neither of them is in any official position to determine such things for the Church as a whole.

 

I considered its validity and substance and found it wanting.

 

Based on?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

Right. So, like I said, everyone is simultaneously faithful and unfaithful in various ways.

I see it as more useful and instructive to regard it as a continuum with people at various points along the continuum.

[Nevo]

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.

 

 

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

 

Just to clarify, Haight was the stake president in Cedar City and a major in the militia. Dame was the militia commander in Parowan (and a stake president as well). Haight asked Dame—his military, not ecclesiastical, superior—for permission to use the militia against the wagon train. Dame denied Haight's request and advised him to let it go ("words are but wind"). Then Haight and other Cedar City leaders hatched a plan to have local Paiutes attack the train, at which point John D. Lee was brought on board.

 

(We discussed this in seminary a few days ago, so the details are fresh in my mind )

Edited May 21, 2015 by Nevo

[CV75]

This morning, in my daily reading from the proceedings of the most recent general conference, I came upon the sermon of  Elder Ulisses Soares of the Presidency of the Seventy, who spoke of the war with evil that is being waged daily. It struck me that his talk could be applied to our topic on this thread, as a faithful Latter-day Saint presumably would be firmly on the side of good and righteousness in this war.

As I look through the talk, he mentions other attributes in addition to faithfulness: determination, sincere heart, real intent, alignment, courage and knowledge (testimony) are a few I spotted. While faith is the fundamental principle of power and action and presumably the rest of these traits, a deficit in any of them could prove to be the Achilles heel that makes it possible to deceive the very elect, or someone who is faithful.

 

I think it is possible for a person to be faithful and also deceived if the rest of his house isn't in order (Matthew 16:19-20).

[CV75]

 Right. So, like I said, everyone is simultaneously faithful and unfaithful in various ways.

I agree, and with that in mind, referring back to your two examples from yesterday, how do you see the workings of the Spirit having played out in the various interactions and decisions you described?

[Scott Lloyd]

And surely you can see that reasonable minds can disagree about what is in the best interest of the Church and its future; especially when neither of them is in any official position to determine such things for the Church as a whole.

 

Pardon, but did I just see you use the word "reasonable"?

 

Based on?

 

Based on the fact that my impression, once I read it, was, "So 'tribalism' is a handy and smart-sounding put-down that can be used when you don't like someone's particular allegiance."

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Whether I "presume to represent the Church" in my interactions and whether earnestly strive to be on the Lord's side in my behavior are separate and distinct propositions. Surely you can see that.

 

I considered its validity and substance and found it wanting.

Not going to lie, this back on forth is tiresome. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't have to read it.

 

I think there is a bigger issue here. Do I dare to go in to?

 

Sometimes I wonder if the message board is all the effective at getting ideas out. I have become some what frustrated.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I look through the talk, he mentions other attributes in addition to faithfulness: determination, sincere heart, real intent, alignment, courage and knowledge (testimony) are a few I spotted. While faith is the fundamental principle of power and action and presumably the rest of these traits, a deficit in any of them could prove to be the Achilles heel that makes it possible to deceive the very elect, or someone who is faithful.

 

I think it is possible for a person to be faithful and also deceived if the rest of his house isn't in order (Matthew 16:19-20).

Typically, when we use faithful in this context, we have in mind faithfulness in doing what's right and in obeying the commandments of the Lord.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd