On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[sethpayne]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Indeed.  

[Russell C McGregor]

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

 

No, it doesn't "beg the question." Begging the question is a recognised logical fallacy that is a form of circular argument. To use "begs the question" when you mean "raises the question" is incorrect usage.

 

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)?

No, that's a red herring. Ultimately it's not about "What should be done with those unfaithful Mormons." It was never about that. In fact, it was never about the people at all. It was always -- and only -- about what positions are available to a faithful Latter-day Saint.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

[DonBradley]

Scott,

 

I appreciate that you were willing to take my thoughts into account and do some soul searching. It helps me to know the context in which you initiated this discussion. Offhand, it still seems to me that there's a danger in attempts to define faithfulness that are initiated by the perceived need to judge others' faithfulness, rather than an attempt to define faithfulness that's initiated by the need for self-examination. However, I'm going to give further thought to what you said. It may not be a matter of either/or. But it may, nonetheless, be an area to tread cautiously.

 

Thanks again.

 

More later.

 

Don

[ALarson]

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.

I think that example is complicated (as calmoriah and others have expressed so well).  

 

There was the authority of the church leaders and then there was the authority of the militia.

 

What might have happened if the members of both had refused to obey the orders of their superiors?  Again, it's more complicated than just members dissenting against their church leaders.  

[ttribe]

I'm sorry Ttribe, are you feeling bullied?

 

If I was, would it matter to you?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

I appreciate that you were willing to take my thoughts into account and do some soul searching. It helps me to know the context in which you initiated this discussion. Offhand, it still seems to me that there's a danger in attempts to define faithfulness that are initiated by the perceived need to judge others' faithfulness, rather than an attempt to define faithfulness that's initiated by the need for self-examination. However, I'm going to give further thought to what you said. It may not be a matter of either/or.

I don't believe it is either/or. I think that's key.

 

And I'm glad that Russell has now weighed in and clarified his intent (see post above).

 

But it may, nonetheless, be an area to tread cautiously.

 

 

This is unquestionably true.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

 

Really? While I understand Calmoriah's point, I don't think we can draw the conclusion that dissent could not have averted disaster. What if a few key players in Lee's group dissented against him and convinced others of the error? Would that not have been helpful?

[Gray]

Neither dissent nor obedience should be thought of as intrinsically good. They're only instrumentally good. 

[ALarson]

 

 

Really? While I understand Calmoriah's point, I don't think we can draw the conclusion that dissent could not have averted disaster. What if a few key players in Lee's group dissented against him and convinced others of the error? Would that not have been helpful?

Not just "key players", how about all the members of the church who were also members of the militia (like I mentioned above)?  What if they had refused to obey orders to shoot the man they marched next to when the order was given?  I'm not sure how many there were, but I'd imagine if they'd refused the order, the massacre would not have happened (or at least many fewer would have been killed).

[Scott Lloyd]

Neither dissent nor obedience should be thought of as intrinsically good. They're only instrumentally good. 

This resonates with me.

 

I would be interested to see you expand on it a bit.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not just "key players", how about all the members of the church who were also members of the militia (like I mentioned above)?  What if they had refused to obey orders to shoot the man they marched next to when the order was given?  I'm not sure how many there were, but I'd imagine if they'd refused the order, the massacre would not have happened (or at least many fewer would have been killed).

We could say "What if?" ad infinitum, I suppose. As you said earlier it's complicated.

 

But if anything, Mountain Meadows is more an example of dissent resulting in disaster than it is of dissent possibly averting it.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

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 don't want to belabor things, but I can't really agree with you here. Dame didn't say "no" to attacking the wagon train. He didn't even know about the plan to attack the train until the attack was already well underway.

 

And it wasn't just Haight and Lee who expected bloodshed. As Bro. Turley notes in his Ensign article, "Still intent on chastening the emigrants, Cedar City leaders then formulated a new plan. If they could not use the militia to arrest the offenders, they would persuade local Paiute Indians to give the Arkansas company 'a brush,' killing some or all of the men and stealing their cattle." So it wasn't the case that "the other leaders initially only wanted or at least pushed for arrests and fines (cattle) as retribution."

So basically I agree with Tacenda. Had some of these other Cedar City leaders involved in the initial decision-making opposed the plan at the outset, things likely would have gone much differently. Unfortunately, they were all pretty much of one mind.

[Tacenda]

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 )

Hopefully this won't derail, but was wondering how your lesson went with D&C Section 132. Recently saw somewhere, maybe another board, they had the lesson in Seminary but no mention of JS' s particular polygamy. So was curious if it was the teacher or lesson manual that was holding back. Pretty good that the MMM was taught.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hopefully this won't derail, but was wondering how your lesson went with D&C Section 132. Recently saw somewhere, maybe another board, they had the lesson in Seminary but no mention of JS' s particular polygamy. So was curious if it was the teacher or lesson manual that was holding back. Pretty good that the MMM was taught.

I know Tacenda can't start threads, but if Nevo chooses to respond, I hope he will do it elsewhere. I'd like to try to keep this one focused.

[ALarson]

But if anything, Mountain Meadows is more an example of dissent resulting in disaster than it is of dissent possibly averting it.

I don't agree with that.  But like I said above, this example is complicated

[ALarson]

I don't want to belabor things, but I can't really agree with you here. Dame didn't say "no" to attacking the wagon train. He didn't even know about the plan to attack the train until the attack was already well underway.

 

And it wasn't just Haight and Lee who expected bloodshed. As Bro. Turley notes in his Ensign article, "Still intent on chastening the emigrants, Cedar City leaders then formulated a new plan. If they could not use the militia to arrest the offenders, they would persuade local Paiute Indians to give the Arkansas company 'a brush,' killing some or all of the men and stealing their cattle." So it wasn't the case that "the other leaders initially only wanted or at least pushed for arrests and fines (cattle) as retribution."

So basically I agree with Tacenda. Had some of these other Cedar City leaders involved in the initial decision-making opposed the plan at the outset, things likely would have gone much differently. Unfortunately, they were all pretty much of one mind.

I'd love to sit in on one of your classes, Nevo (or at least have you teach one of my kids in seminary).  Lucky kids!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't agree with that.  But like I said above, this example is complicated

And as I said above, any example where you have to do a lot of "what if" conjecture is not very compelling in making a point.

[ALarson]

And as I said above, any example where you have to do a lot of "what if" conjecture is not very compelling in making a point.

Well, the entire discussion on this thread regarding the MMM as it relates to dissent is all based on "what ifs".

Edited May 21, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, the entire discussion on this thread regarding the MMM as it relates to dissent is all based on "what ifs".

Don't blame me; I'm not the one who brought it up.

[ALarson]

Don't blame me; I'm not the one who brought it up.

lol

 

Got it!

 

(I haven't traced it back to where it started.)  Sorry if I helped derail.

Edited May 21, 2015 by ALarson

[Gray]

This resonates with me.

 

I would be interested to see you expand on it a bit.

 

Thanks. I guess I would just expand by saying that obedience is only as good as the thing you are asked to do. If you obey a good or a wise order (or request), then your obedience serves a good purpose. Dissent can likewise serve a good purpose when faced with a bad or unwise order. 

 

And of course obeying unwise orders or dissenting from wise orders is not good. 

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gray

[Vance]

Thanks. I guess I would just expand by saying that obedience is only as good as the thing you are asked to do. If you obey a good or a wise order (or request), then your obedience serves a good purpose. Dissent can likewise serve a good purpose when faced with a bad or unwise order. 

 

And of course obeying unwise orders or dissenting from wise orders is not good. 

So, obeying God is only good if God is consistent in giving good commandments, right?

[Calm]

 

So basically I agree with Tacenda. Had some of these other Cedar City leaders involved in the initial decision-making opposed the plan at the outset, things likely would have gone much differently. Unfortunately, they were all pretty much of one mind.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng

 

We appear to be reading the same article (it has been too long since I read the book to use that memory) and drawing different conclusions from what was said or maybe just focusing on different things.   I based my opinion that initially there was no intent to kill anyone even while wanting retribution from this:

 

the agitated Cedar City leaders were not willing to let the matter go. Instead they planned to call out the local militia to pursue and arrest the offending men and probably fine them some cattle.

 

I assume that arresting and fining the men means no killing.

 

Then they changed their approach when Dame told them to ignore them unless things got violent.

 

And Dame said "no" in the sense he did not approve of use of the militia to move against any of the emigrants at that time which was the original plan:

 

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. “Do not notice their threats,” his dispatch back to Cedar City said. “Words are but wind—they injure no one; but if they (the emigrants) commit acts of violence against citizens inform me by express, and such measures will be adopted as will insure tranquility.” ²

 

 

 

Still intent on chastening the emigrants, Cedar City leaders then formulated a new plan. If they could not use the militia to arrest the offenders, they would persuade local Paiute Indians to give the Arkansas company “a brush,” killing some or all of the men and stealing their cattle. ³

 

 

 

Perhaps I read too much into the later comment about Lee and Haight's discussion*****, but it would at least appear that to begin with there was no intent on killing until the leaders felt they weren't going to get any satisfaction because Dame said 'no' to arresting the men (those who had made threats, etc).  Obviously if these leaders hadn't been intent on retribution of some form and were willing to let it go as Dame said, the massacre wouldn't have happened.  But the guy they appealed to lead the retribution, Dame, wasn't going for it to begin with and only because they didn't agree with him and his instruction, did their plans to get retribution continue. (Perhaps the difference in our views is that I see Dame as top dog and you see Haight and him as equals?) And even at that point, the Cedar City leadership did not appear to want to condemn the whole train, including the women and children, to destruction even if they were willing for some or all of the men to be killed unlike Lee and Haight who didn't appear to care.

Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done.

 

This council does not appear to be identical to the Cedar City leaders referred to earlier in the article.  So there was this dissent along with the top militia leader of the entire area Dame's initial vetoing of the original plan to use the militia to arrest the emigrants.

******

Lee and Haight had a long, late-night discussion about the emigrants in which Lee told Haight he believed the Paiutes would “kill all the party, women and children, as well as the men” if incited to attack. ⁴

Edited May 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

And as I said above, any example where you have to do a lot of "what if" conjecture is not very compelling in making a point.

Scott, I think we have a diverse group of believing saints on this board. If people in my Davis County area or my ward read this topic there wouldn't be a problem with a faith test more or less. Sorry if I worded that wrong. Anyhow, if I could I would pluck this group, including you, down in my ward!!

[Calm]

I am in too much of a detail oriented view today****...I don't know if this subtopic really helped the thread at all, sorry for my obsession if not.

Perhaps we can agree that overtime the voices for less violence got less and the voices that wanted violence got worse and unfortunately not the other way around. Who was in the Power Chair by position might have been different than by influence.

****looking for distraction to keep myself from overdoing it and having another relapse day of the flu but bored to the hilt with a huge list of to do and family coming end of May...ach!

Edited May 21, 2015 by calmoriah