On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I fear that contending against error and sophistry is always going to be tiresome.

 

Bear in mind that, though comments and opinions are welcome, my object in starting this thread was to compile a selection of quotations from Church leaders that pertain to the matter of what constitutes being a faithful Latter-day Saint.

 

What is the bigger issue you refer to?

[Robert F. Smith]

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 )

And these are the sort of details which the anti-Mormons do not wish to discuss.  Thank God for the strong and faithful LDS members like Juanita Brooks who chose the truth over unfaithful silence.

[Senator]

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

 

How is it not effective?

 

You log on, type out your idea, hit post, and wham!, your idea is out.

 

Perhaps it's what happens to your idea after that which causes you frustration.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes, and that is where the rubber meets the road.  Any of us might talk the talk, but how many of us walk the walk -- choose the right, regardless of consequences?

 

However, how do we even know what is right?  Can a sincere adherent of the LDS faith ever be wrong?  In other words, are faithful LDS subject to the human condition which besets us all?  If mistakes are made by such faithful LDS, does that besmirch the Church?  Does that negate the faith?

Edited May 21, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[ttribe]

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

 

Good one.  But, this issue goes to the very heart of this "team" and "tribal" issue.  I'm quite sure there are a number of people on this very board who believe they are on the Lord's "team" and on the Church's "team", but who are rejected by others as "teammates" because of how they interpret certain doctrinal/historical/policy issues.  This very thread shows that.  Russel's fallacy thread shows that.

 

The discussion devolves into tribalism when these same people are dismissed out of hand simply because of the "team" they are perceived to represent; the substance of their idea is never considered because it's predetermined that anything they post is born of some nefarious intent and must be "anti-mormon."

 

Look at Teancum, for example.  I remember when he was a staunch defender on this board; I'm sure you do as well.  He was repeatedly agreeing with both you and Russell that the Church will likely never change its stand on SSM, and yet he was treated with disdain and contempt over and over again in the fallacy thread; labelled with the scarlet letter "A" (in this case, "Anti").  Why?  My perception - because you both view him as having switched "teams" when he endured a collapse of faith; as if he intentionally left his testimony behind and is a traitor now.  He may very well be quite critical of the Church, etc. in a number of his posts at this point, but why assume it's every single time?  Why assume ill intent?  Why tell him what his "real" motives are and not take him at his word?  Attack mode has become automatic against him and it's nothing more than tribalism - He's not like me and my tribe, therefore he is treated poorly and nothing he can say is of value.

 

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."

 

But, how did you form that impression?  What biases could have influenced that impression formation?  I think you have a blind-spot here.

Edited May 21, 2015 by ttribe

[Calm]

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

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.

No, I understood...the confusion is both Haight and Dame are SPs.

It was Haight and Lee who expected the Paiutes to kill everyone if pushed into attacking by them, the other leaders initially only wanted or at least pushed for arrests and fines (cattle) as retribution.

Dame was the leader making the command decision, Haight and Lee were the notable "loyal opposition". Dame said "no" to the first appeal and later on the Council rejected immediate action for getting feedback first from BY. Haight and Lee ignored this direction, continued to dissent instead of accepting their leader's direction and thus set things up for the massacre. If Haight and Lee had not dissented in the first and second place, the rest would likely not have been put in the position of needing to dissent once the attack had occurred and there were dead already to prevent more deaths.

Edited May 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Good one.  But, this issue goes to the very heart of this "team" and "tribal" issue.  I'm quite sure there are a number of people on this very board who believe they are on the Lord's "team" and on the Church's "team", but who are rejected by others as "teammates" because of how they interpret certain doctrinal/historical/policy issues.  This very thread shows that.  Russel's fallacy thread shows that.

 

The discussion devolves into tribalism when these same people are dismissed out of hand simply because of the "team" they are perceived to represent; the substance of their idea is never considered because it's predetermined that anything they post is born of some nefarious intent and must be "anti-mormon."

 

Look at Teancum, for example.  I remember when he was a staunch defender on this board; I'm sure you do as well.  He was repeatedly agreeing with both you and Russell that the Church will likely never change its stand on SSM, and yet he was treated with disdain and contempt over and over again in the fallacy thread; labelled with the scarlet letter "A" (in this case, "Anti").  Why?  My perception - because you both view him as having switched "teams" when he endured a collapse of faith; as if he intentionally left his testimony behind and is a traitor now.  He may very well be quite critical of the Church, etc. in a number of his posts at this point, but why assume it's every single time?  Why assume ill intent?  Why tell him what his "real" motives are and not take him at his word?  Attack mode has become automatic against him and it's nothing more than tribalism - He's not like me and my tribe, therefore he is treated poorly and nothing he can say is of value.

 

 

But, how did you form that impression?  What biases could have influenced that impression formation?  I think you have a blind-spot here.

On the other thread, I coined a term, "reverse tribalism," that comes into play when one won't get on board with rampant faultfinding: "The reason he defends the Church building a mall is because he has a tribalist blind spot." (That was a hypothetical, not an actual, quote.) And so it goes with buzzwords: They too easily become weapons instead of instruments.

 

Regarding Teancum, I don't have a memory of him being a "staunch defender" or of engaging much in the debate on whether the Church should embrace homosexual behavior. My earliest memory is of him complaining about the Church not opening its financials to the public. It went downhill from there, with him getting increasingly mad at me for my posts.

 

But I don't want to make this a thread about Teancum, and will try to refrain from engaging in a back and forth when he comes on here to respond, as he inevitably will.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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?

 

I have no idea how the spirit interacted with the decision makers in those 2 examples. If I were to guess I'd say the bishop changed his mind about the inequitable budget because he felt pressure from his ward council to do it. I don't think the spirit was involved when he made his first lopsided budget so I don't know that it was involved when he corrected it. There are many forces that play a role among decision makers just like the rest of us.

With the Stake example of changing the gestapo modesty police and shaming at Youth Conference I suspect the spirit could have played a role as the SP looked at the situation. I don't know. He may also have just recognized it for the boneheaded idea that it was. I'll also say on that one that as a chaperone I was in no way expected to give council to stake leaders on this. It was not part of my calling to do so but the agitation I caused helped to improve the situation.

[why me]

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.

It was a more simpler time. Of course, people knew that inactives came in all shades, likewise for jack mormons. I don't remember anyone judging anyone, At least I was not judged. But all knew that I was not a faithful member for the simple reason that I was not fully committed. Would I have minded being looked upon as an unfaithful member? No. Because I wasn't. Maybe we live in a different age now....people need more coddling and understanding. But back then, there were clear lines of demarcation. Maybe our  skins were thicker back then.

 

And what do struggles have to do with whether one is faithful or not? I can have struggles and still be a faithful member or I can have struggles and be an unfaithful member. Should not faithful members help the unfaithful to be faithful? Isn't eternity possibly at stake? Or are all going to the celestial kingdom? By the way, I am an unfaithful member. I accept it and make my choices accordingly.

Edited May 21, 2015 by why me

[Calm]

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 )

But the idea that if only there was a bishop as loyal opposition who had been willing to speak up forcefully the massacre never would have happened is faulty IMO based on the fact there was a SP willing to speak up as a leader (even if military) who said "no". It was the underlings in this case who pushed them into a fight the leader didn't want.

And given that there was apparently extensive discussion with others who were not as extreme as Lee and Haight prior to the attack, Tacenda's wish that there had been someone to speak out against the decision was the reality to begin with, but it did not change Lee and Haight's mind and Lee eventually manuvuered the situation without consent of leadership besides Haight into what he wanted.

I should have been clearer about what I meant when I referred to SPs (I was pointing out a higher 'rank' than bishop had spoken out against the attack and he was the leader, it was the "loyal opposition" Tacenda was complimenting in HJW's case that had pushed for the massacre). This is what I was replying to in case forgotten in the discussion:

"I imagine if there had been a bishop like you preceding MMM, their might have been a happier ending, with posterity to boot!"

Edited May 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[DonBradley]

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.

 

 

 

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. 

 

This makes me think of one of the two reasons I have misgivings about the thread's question of how we define a faithful Latter-day Saint and about many of the answers offered to that question here. I'll offer them both.

 

First misgiving: 

The context in which a question is asked often shades our answer. For instance, if we're watching a commercial for Lucky Charms and I ask you to name one of the cereals you really like, or really dislike, Lucky Charms is disproportionally likely to appear as an answer. The question about how to define faithfulness has been raised in the context of larger discussion about people who dissent from church policies. This context tends to skew the answers.

 

Take the statement above (sorry to seem like I'm picking on you, Gui):

 

"A faithful Latter-day saint is one who chooses to follow the First Presidency."

 

There are so many dimensions to what it means to be a faithful Latter-day Saint. A faithful Latter-day Saint is one who follows the commandments, principles, and inspired guidance given by the scriptures, the prophets, the ordinances, and personal revelation; who makes his or her best judgment when the above sources do not provide all the information needed for a decision; who strives to fulfill his or her covenants; who is faithful to his or her relationship to God; who is loyal to the church and his or her fellow saints; and who fulfills his or her stewardships.

 

Being a faithful Latter-day Saint does not boil down simply to following the First Presidency, and I don't think that most members of the church, including Gui, would say that it does unless they were in a polemical context like that of this message board discussion that cues them to focus primarily on that one area of faithfulness.

 

Second misgiving:

 

From what I have observed, the purpose of defining a faithful Latter-day Saint here is to create a standard by which we can judge others' faithfulness so as to potentially exclude them from the category of faithful saints. But if there is a worthwhile reason for us to develop a standard of what makes one a faithful Latter-day Saint, it is so we can take stock of ourselves using that standard, not so we can judge others deficient by it.

 

The temple recommend interview provides an excellent model here. It provides a standard of faithfulness by which the member being interviewed and the ecclesiastical leader who has stewardship over that member as part of his flock can assess the member's worthiness. But we are not asked the temple recommend questions to assess another member's faithfulness or worthiness. We are only asked those questions to assess our own.

 

The task of dividing the sheep from the goats is one the Good Shepherd has reserved to himself (Matthew 25:32-33), and gives, provisionally, to the under-shepherds who have stewardship over those in their flock, not to us as fellow saints.

 

Our areas of stewardship with regard to our fellow saints are to mourn with them that mourn, to comfort those who stand in need of comfort, to bear one another's burdens, and, as needed, to discern what is edifying in what they say from what is not and to know by the promptings of the Spirit how we can best edify them. None of this requires that we develop and apply standards by which we globally judge them "faithful" or "unfaithful," as if it were our stewardship to sift the hearts of men from high on our lofty judgment seats. It is not. Our task is not to be the shepherd or the judge, only insofar as that is partially and provisionally within our stewardship. Our task--our calling--as members of the Church of Jesus Christ is to be one another's brothers and sisters and the bearers of one another's burdens and to fulfill our role in the body of Christ.

 

Don

Edited May 21, 2015 by DonBradley

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I understood...the confusion is both Haight and Dame are SPs.

It was Haight and Lee who expected the Paiutes to kill everyone if pushed into attacking by them, the other leaders initially only wanted or at least pushed for arrests and fines (cattle) as retribution.

Dame was the leader making the command decision, Haight and Lee were the notable "loyal opposition". Dame said "no" to the first appeal and later on the Council rejected immediate action for getting feedback first from BY. Haight and Lee ignored this direction, continued to dissent instead of accepting their leader's direction and thus set things up for the massacre. If Haight and Lee had not dissented in the first and second place, the rest would likely not have been put in the position of needing to dissent once the attack had occurred and there were dead already to prevent more deaths.

So, contrary to Tacenda's assertion, the massacre occurred not due to lack of dissent initially, but because of it. Is that a fair and accurate summary?

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

So, contrary to Tacenda's assertion, the massacre occurred not due to lack of dissent initially, but because of it.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that dissent is ALWAYS good and ALWAYS leads to better outcomes. But it does add an additional voice and perspective to be considered where otherwise it might be easy to engage in group think. We need to hear alternative views even if they make us uncomfortable and even if we ultimately reject the idea. But just because the idea is rejected doesn't mean the opinion shouldn't have been shared.

[Calm]

So, contrary to Tacenda's assertion, the massacre occurred not due to lack of dissent initially, but because of it.

Yes. She used a poor example, as if strong dissent was all that was needed to stop the massacre.

I am not suggesting that in other cases, the reality of the massacre negates the value of dissent, it was just the inappropriate use in the case of the massacre I was pointing out as well as the implication loyal opposition was so valuable.

Sometimes it is the worst thing possible.

[Calm]

I don't think anyone is arguing that dissent is ALWAYS good and ALWAYS leads to better outcomes. But it does add an additional voice and perspective to be considered where otherwise it might be easy to engage in group think. We need to hear alternative views even if they make us uncomfortable and even if we ultimately reject the idea. But just because the idea is rejected doesn't mean the opinion shouldn't have been shared.

But the massacre provides an example of what happens when the alternative voices do not accept the leader's decision to reject and continue to act on their own.

A cautionary tale for "loyal opposition" and alternative voices gone way too wrong.

Edited May 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[DonBradley]

But the massacre provides an example of what happens when the alternative voices do not accept the leader's decision to reject and continue to act on their own.

A cautionary tale for "loyal opposition" and alternative voices gone way too wrong.

 

My problem with the first statement is that it makes it sound as if dissenting from a leader's decision always goes poorly.

 

Joseph Smith freely allowed dissenting views in church conferences, and the discussion of these views appears to have led to better all around outcomes for those involved.

 

The story of the Martin and Willey handcart companies provides an example of a situation where more dissent could have averted disaster.

 

And there are further examples, some even involving Joseph Smith. A few more dissenting voices when he chose to destroy the Expositor press could have prevented him from going to Carthage jail. The saints were not doing him any favors by acting on any idea he had, no matter how bad it was.

 

Don

[Calm]

My problem with the first statement is that it makes it sound as if dissenting from a leader's decision always goes poorly.

Good thing I've said several times (iirc) in the conversation that sometimes it is good, sometimes not so good.  

 

I even mentioned it in my first comment on the subtopic of dissent in the massacre:

 

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 hope it is obvious that I agree with what you said based on my collection of comments.

[CV75]

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.

In that case, the faithful have a qualified responsibility toward the weak: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” (Romans 14:1). According to subsequent verses, the strong have the responsibility to forbear condemnation in helping the weak find righteousness,  peace and joy (the fruits of alignment) in the kingdom, and the weak who wish to be received (or desire to believe) have the responsibility to tolerate the process of developing the faith necessary for alignment.

 

After that, I think it is possible for a faithful LDS to become deceived if he lacks “real” (as in Alma’s definition) determination, sincerity, intent, and courage—just using some of the words from Soares' talk. Such a person can easily align with people and initiatives contrary to Church aims, and yet consider himself determined, sincere, intent and courageous in his pursuits. I think the title of his talk alludes to this possibility (it is a war), and his remarks are to oppose "the wave of confusion and doubt spreading throughout the world today" and the adversary who tries "to take advantage of our weaknesses and frailties, deceiving us..."

[cinepro]

In keeping with the intent of this thread, and keying off this post from Russell, I submit that a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who seeks in all things to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion

 

In that regard, I offer a link to this talk given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson given in October general conference of 2008.

 

And for the benefit of Cinepro, the word faithfulness is found in this snippet, emphasized in boldface:

 

Zion is Zion because of the character, attributes, and faithfulness of her citizens. Remember, “the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18). If we would establish Zion in our homes, branches, wards, and stakes, we must rise to this standard. It will be necessary (1) to become unified in one heart and one mind; (2) to become, individually and collectively, a holy people; and (3) to care for the poor and needy with such effectiveness that we eliminate poverty among us. We cannot wait until Zion comes for these things to happen—Zion will come only as they happen.

 

In a day when unity, loyalty, standards and faithfulness seem to have gone out of vogue, we perhaps find ourselves in a counterculture as we promote the cause of Zion.

 

I'm totally willing to go with that.  Your quote indicates that an indicator of whether or not an LDS is "faithful" is the degree to which they work to alleviate "poverty among us".  So if anyone wants to call themselves a "faithful LDS", it would be a fair question to ask them what they have done to "alleviate poverty".  I wonder if giving a fast offering each month is all that is needed, or if a faithful LDS should be required to do more?

[DonBradley]

Cal,

 

Cool. I get it, and agree. =)

 

Don

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Second misgiving:

 

From what I have observed, the purpose of defining a faithful Latter-day Saint here is to create a standard by which we can judge others' faithfulness so as to potentially exclude them from the category of faithful saints. But if there is a worthwhile reason for us to develop a standard of what makes one a faithful Latter-day Saint, it is so we can take stock of ourselves using that standard, not so we can judge others deficient by it.

 

Hi Don.

 

Since I'm the thread creator, I felt obliged by your statement here to do some soul-searching and to re-read my opening post.

 

This thread, of course, is a spin-off from Russell's "No True Scotsman" fallacy thread. I didn't read the entire thread (it was very long, and I only looked in on it once in a while and here and there), but I understood his point to be a self-defense against charges that he was guilty of that fallacy. Just before the thread was closed, it was said that he was indeed guilty of such fallacy because he hadn't provided any "external" definition or measure of whether certain behavior is consistent with faithfulness as a Latter-day Saint, but rather, was going by only his personal standard.

 

I then opened this thread, reasoning that a good way to find such "external" definition would be to search the body of authoritative public discourse from Church leaders through the years and compile examples therefrom. The intent is not to judge others' faithfulness, but rather to evaluate certain actions and behavior against principles that have been enunciated by Church leaders, who have the role, after all, of being shepherds in Israel.

 

It may be a fine point, but I do believe it to be a necessary one. I said earlier in this thread, and I reaffirm now, that it is a worthwhile exercise to ponder and discuss from time to time what constitutes faithfulness, not for the purpose of passing unrighteous judgment on others, but because in the end, we have to determine for ourselves whether we are going to emulate certain actions or avoid them.

 

I do believe -- and hope -- that we are somewhat on the same page with this.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that dissent is ALWAYS good and ALWAYS leads to better outcomes. But it does add an additional voice and perspective to be considered where otherwise it might be easy to engage in group think. We need to hear alternative views even if they make us uncomfortable and even if we ultimately reject the idea. But just because the idea is rejected doesn't mean the opinion shouldn't have been shared.

Be that as it may, as calmoriah has pointed out, Mountain Meadows is not a good example of a case where dissent would have averted disaster.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm totally willing to go with that.  Your quote indicates that an indicator of whether or not an LDS is "faithful" is the degree to which they work to alleviate "poverty among us".  So if anyone wants to call themselves a "faithful LDS", it would be a fair question to ask them what they have done to "alleviate poverty".  I wonder if giving a fast offering each month is all that is needed, or if a faithful LDS should be required to do more?

Yes, care of the poor and needy is an essential element.

 

But it is only one of three, the others being unity and holiness.

 

As for the fast offering, there is unlimited scope for doing good with that alone, as President KImball said (and others affirmed) that we should give more than the requisite cost of the two meals, many times more when we are in a position to do so.

 

Moreover, the needy are everywhere. My own family are needy in that they would be in a very bad place were I to shirk my responsibility as a provider.

 

And King Benjamin said in the context of this subject that it is not requisite that a  person run faster than he has strength.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

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

I'm sorry Ttribe, are you feeling bullied?

[CV75]

I have no idea how the spirit interacted with the decision makers in those 2 examples. If I were to guess I'd say the bishop changed his mind about the inequitable budget because he felt pressure from his ward council to do it. I don't think the spirit was involved when he made his first lopsided budget so I don't know that it was involved when he corrected it. There are many forces that play a role among decision makers just like the rest of us.

With the Stake example of changing the gestapo modesty police and shaming at Youth Conference I suspect the spirit could have played a role as the SP looked at the situation. I don't know. He may also have just recognized it for the boneheaded idea that it was. I'll also say on that one that as a chaperone I was in no way expected to give council to stake leaders on this. It was not part of my calling to do so but the agitation I caused helped to improve the situation.

I see your role as a chaperone as giving you sufficient standing to share your concerns on the standards you were being asked to administer; but that aside since you don't see your role that way, do you think you agitated with or without the Spirit?