On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[DonBradley]

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.

 

Scott,

 

I've given this a little more thought and, at minimum, still feel it's an area for considerable caution. As I understood Russell's earlier thread (which, like you, I read only spottily) it didn't limit itself to the discussion of whether certain behaviors were faithful but to the discussion of what made one a faithful or unfaithful Latter-day Saint--i.e., a faithful or unfaithful person. And I've seen the same in this thread.

 

While it might be argued that defining faithful and unfaithful behaviors just is to define certain people as faithful or unfaithful people, it isn't. I'll venture, again, a definition of faithfulness here:

 

Faithfulness as a Latter-day Saint means following the commandments, principles, and inspired guidance given by the scriptures, the prophets, the ordinances, and personal revelation; making one's best judgment when the above sources do not provide all the information needed for a decision; striving to fulfill one's covenants; being loyal to God; being loyal to the church and one's fellow saints; and fulfilling one's stewardships.

 

If we go with a definition of faithfulness that even resembles this, it becomes clear that virtually none of us are, in the absolute sense, "faithful Latter-day Saints." One is faithful or unfaithful in greater or lesser degree--hopefully a greater and growing degree! And even some of our great Latter-day Saint leaders have been unfaithful in ways we might be tempted to disqualify someone from being a "faithful Latter-day Saint." Well after the Word of Wisdom was made requisite for church members the church patriarch John Smith was a smoker and B. H. Roberts had a drinking problem. But it would be foolish to dismiss the blessings given by Patriarch Smith and the writings of B. H. Roberts as coming from "an unfaithful Latter-day Saint."

 

Latter-day Saints do not divide neatly into the categories of "faithful" and "unfaithful," and, as mentioned above, even if they did, it would not be our stewardship to judge that about others. So, to the extent that a description of unfaithful behavior is used to judge people as globally "unfaithful," it is out of line. If we do find ourselves tempted to develop definitions of faithfulness and apply them to assess others as faithful or not, we need to look to the beam of judging others beyond our stewardship in our own eye--which is itself an unfaithful behavior.

 

I don't at all doubt the value of having a clearer vision of what it means to be faithful--such a vision is necessary if we are to become more faithful. But I do doubt our ability, as fallen human beings, to easily keep from using such standards as a basis for judging others unfaithful and thus raising our own status--in our own eyes. I doubt this because of scripture, life experience, and even science. That we tend to judge others--particularly those different from ourselves--with gross unfairness is one of the most robust findings of the discipline of social psychology.

 

I think that mouthful is all I have to say. ;-)

 

I hope we can all gain a clearer understanding of what it is to be faithful, and that we can all become better at using that understanding to assess and improve our own behavior, rather than to globally categorize others as faithful or unfaithful people based on our limited view of what God alone sees with crystal clarity.

 

BTW, my participation on the board goes in spurts. And I'm planning to end the current spurt now so as to get other things done. So, I may be involved much more with this discussion.

 

All My Best,

 

Don

[Gray]

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

 

If you think the prophet or the apostles are God, then it's that simple. If you think they're human beings, suddenly it gets more complicated

[Vance]

If you think the prophet or the apostles are God, then it's that simple. If you think they're human beings, suddenly it gets more complicated

I don't think they are God, but I do believe that the prophet and the apostles are the prophet and the apostles. Which makes it less complicated.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Vance

[Bobbieaware]

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

For your information;: Before you and I engaged on this thread, I deliberately quoted from 3 Nephi 27 wherein the Lord Jesus Christ gives us HIS SUMMARY (not mine) of what is expected of the members of his church if they hope to be judged worthy of eternal life. 3 Nephi 27 is unique because in it the Savior gives us HIS DEFINITION of the gospel (pretty valuable to have the Savior's own personal definition of the gospel, I'd say) and goes on to teach what a church member's response to the gospel must be if he expects to found faithful and worthy. What the Lord presents is a succinct distilling down of the principles of the gospel to the most basic and indispensable essentials.

I will now quote the entirety of the Savior's summary (it is brief) of the gospel and what our response to it must be if we sincerely desire to be faithful members of the church. After you've read and pondered the verses, I'm wondering if you'll think the Savior's succinct presentation of what constitutes faithfulness is too brief and uncomplicated to be complete.

"13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

(NOW COMES WHAT OUR RESPONSE TO THE GOSPEL MUST BE, comprising 7 brief verses)

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

22 Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day." 3 Nephi 27

So, do you find the Savior's succinct definition of faithfulness sufficient? Or do you think he would have been better off giving us the long, complicated and nuanced definition of faithfulness you seem to advocate?

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[DonBradley]

Bobbieaware,

 

A simplistic rhetorical ploy isn't going to save your argument. The Book of Mormon says it contains "the fullness of the gospel," but that doesn't mean that it contains every point that is part of the restored gospel. Similarly, even if Christ said in this quote that this was the fullness of what faithfulness, it wouldn't follow that everything that constitutes faithfulness would be contained in that quote. And, of course, the quote doesn't say that anyway.

 

Ciao, and have a nice evening.

 

Don

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbieaware,

A simplistic rhetorical ploy isn't going to save your argument. The Book of Mormon says it contains "the fullness of the gospel," but that doesn't mean that it contains every point that is part of the restored gospel. Similarly, even if Christ said in this quote that this was the fullness of what faithfulness, it wouldn't follow that everything that constitutes faithfulness would be contained in that quote. And, of course, the quote doesn't say that anyway.

Ciao, and have a nice evening.

Don

3 Nephi presents the Savior's definition of faithfulness, not mine. And if you recall, I said in 3 Nephi 27 the Lord distills ALL the elements of faithfulness down to the most essential and indispensable principles. Can you name one principle of faithfulness in your complicated version that is not encompassed within the Lord's definition in 3 Nephi 27?

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

Duplicate

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbieaware,

A simplistic rhetorical ploy isn't going to save your argument. The Book of Mormon says it contains "the fullness of the gospel," but that doesn't mean that it contains every point that is part of the restored gospel. Similarly, even if Christ said in this quote that this was the fullness of what faithfulness, it wouldn't follow that everything that constitutes faithfulness would be contained in that quote. And, of course, the quote doesn't say that anyway.

Ciao, and have a nice evening.

Don

In my first post to you on this thread I quoted some of the same verses from 3 Nephi 27 to assert that the Lord's BASIC principles of faithfulness do not change. If you'll remember, you then responded by suggesting that at one time the word of wisdom was not the requirement for faithfulness it is today. I then responded to you by saying it's true some of the requirements of faithfulness might evolve and change (do you remember I pointed to plural marriage as an example of such changing standards?) but that the members need to take their direction from the living prophets when it comes to determining what is permissible and/or commanded in their own day and time.

So what you did was unfairly isolate a few lines of a post, take them out of context of the remainder of that post, and also out of the context of my previous posts, and then proceed to create a strawman argument out of those isolated lines. Go back and see for yourself. I did not deny that some of the standards for faithfulness might change, my assertion was that the basic principles of faithfulness don't change, but on issues where there might be some confusion or doubt we should heed the teachings and admonitions of the living prophets. This was my point. Why would I first quote the Lord's standard of faithfulness, as recorded in 3 Nephi 27, and then sabotage my own argument by saying the standards of faithfulness are only established by the living prophets -- meaning the present First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve? And remember, the post where I spoke of the role of the living prophets was in direct answer to your question on the word of wisdom. So the point I was making is that it doesn't matter if during an earlier time the word of wisdom wasn't the requirement it is today because we take our direction from the living prophets in such matters, not from the deceased prophets.

My language may not have been precise enough to be to your liking, but I know better than you what I meant to say. So in the future we'll both be better off to ask for clarifications rather than jumping to conclusions.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

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!!

what a nice thought!

[Robert F. Smith]

3 Nephi presents the Savior's definition of faithfulness, not mine. And if you recall, I said in 3 Nephi 27 the Lord distills ALL the elements of faithfulness down to the most essential and indispensable principles. Can you name one principle of faithfulness in your complicated version that is not encompassed within the Lord's definition in 3 Nephi 27?

Although the words "faith" and "faithfulness" appear in III Ne 27:19, nowhere are the verses you cite given as a definition of faithfulness.  Moreover, even if those verses constitute a verbatim quotation from Jesus, he did not speak in English, so that we have a human translation.  We cannot even be certain what degree of editing of his remarks took place -- the same problem we face in understanding Jesus' words in the NT.  The formulaic remarks of the editor are there for all to see.

 

You ask for any additional principles of faithfulness which don't appear in those verses.  You might want to substitute "Gospel" in place of "faithfulness" in this request.  Finally, you might want ask yourself whether those verses include the full panoply of required exoteric and esoteric LDS ordinances.  I think not.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Bobbieaware]

Although the words "faith" and "faithfulness" appear in III Ne 27:19, nowhere are the verses you cite given as a definition of faithfulness. Moreover, even if those verses constitute a verbatim quotation from Jesus, he did not speak in English, so that we have a human translation. We cannot even be certain what degree of editing of his remarks took place -- the same problem we face in understanding Jesus' words in the NT. The formulaic remarks of the editor are there for all to see.

You ask for any additional principles of faithfulness which don't appear in those verses. You might want to substitute "Gospel" in place of "faithfulness" in this request. finally, you might want ask yourself whether those verses include the full panoply of required exoteric and esoteric LDS ordinances. I think not.

I'm wondering if you're joking. You're full of surprises. Thankfully, the general authorities don't seem to view the Book of Mormon the same way you do, so I'll take my cue from them. One wonders how a man can get closer to God by abiding by the Book of Mormon's precepts, more than any other book, if it's such a hidden pitfall of shifting trxtual uncertainty and confusion? And as I said, contained in 3 Nephi 27 is a DISTILLATION down to the most elemental and essential principles. And since the Spirit has revealed to me the Savior was endowed, when he commands us to follow in his footsteps and do as he does, the temple ordinances are encompassed within that commandment. If you have esrs to hear, the Savior was crucified and, as Paul said, we must be crucified with him, if you know what I mean.

P.S. I'm wondering how many times I'll have to say 3 Nephi's definition of the gospel and it's requirements is a DISTILLATION before my fellow posters will get the point.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[CV75]

If you think the prophet or the apostles are God, then it's that simple. If you think they're human beings, suddenly it gets more complicated

 

I don't think they are God, but I do believe that the prophet and the apostles are the prophet and the apostles. Which makes it less complicated.

Were the five foolish virgins (in the NT parable, that is) faithful saints (per the OP)? In Matthew 25:6 “there was a cry made …go ye out to meet him.” Could these voices represent the Lord’s servants?

 

According to D&C 63:54, the wise are counted as righteous and the foolish counted as wicked. I did a word search of “wicked” and “faith”,  and “wicked” is juxtaposed to “faithful” and means “without faith.” Notably 2 Thessalonians 3:2.

 

·  D&C 63: 37

  37 And that every man should take righteousness in his hands and faithfulness upon his loins, and lift a warning voice unto the inhabitants of the earth; and declare both by word and by flight that desolation shall come upon the wicked.

·  Prov. 13: 17

  17 A wicked messenger falleth into mischief: but a faithful ambassador is health.

·  Eph. 6: 16

  16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

·  2 Thes. 3: 2

  2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

·  Alma 50: 22

  22 And those who were faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord were delivered at all times, whilst thousands of their wicked brethren have been consigned to bondage, or to perish by the sword, or to dwindle in unbelief, and mingle with the Lamanites.

·  Hel. 15: 7

  7 And behold, ye do know of yourselves, for ye have witnessed it, that as many of them as are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to know of the wicked and abominable traditions of their fathers, and are led to believe the holy scriptures, yea, the prophecies of the holy prophets, which are written, which leadeth them to faith on the Lord, and unto repentance, which faith and repentance bringeth a change of heart unto them—

·  D&C 27: 17

  17 Taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked;

·  D&C 62: 5

  5 And then you may return to bear record, yea, even altogether, or two by two, as seemeth you good, it mattereth not unto me; only be faithful, and declare glad tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, or among the congregations of the wicked.

 

Of course, both records of these sayings of the Lord were relayed through mere human beings long before we ever saw them!

[hope_for_things]

Thankfully, the general authorities don't seem to view the Book of Mormon the same way you do, so I'll take my cue from them.

 

Some posters say:  

Faithfulness is difficult to define, could be interpreted differently, should be judged personally.

 

Bobbieaware says:

Na uh – God says this, you’re wrong.  God agrees with me, seeeeeeee

[Senator]

Some posters say:  

Faithfulness is difficult to define, could be interpreted differently, should be judged personally.

 

Bobbieaware says:

Na uh – God says this, you’re wrong.  God agrees with me, seeeeeeee

 

Bobbieaware comes accros to me as the Mormon equivalent to the Evangelical bible thumpers that would "witness" to us in the mission field. Except in this case she's witnessing to the choir.(with exception)

Edited May 22, 2015 by Senator

[Bobbieaware]

Some posters say:

Faithfulness is difficult to define, could be interpreted differently, should be judged personally.

Bobbieaware says:

Na uh – God says this, you’re wrong. God agrees with me, seeeeeeee

Inaccurate characterization..

So it looks like I'm going to have to repeat the following explanation for about the 5th time. So here goes:

With regard to tha Lord's summary of the gospel and its requirements, as found in 3 Nephi 27, my point is that THE LORD (not I) was able to DISTILL DOWN (!!!) the requirements for faithfulness in the gospel to their most basic and indespesible elements. What is so hard to understand about thus point? I believe it's should be very easy for a reasonably intelligent person to understand my point unless he or she is being willfully obtuse beccause the Lord's summary of the requirements is, for some reason, too painful and unsettling to contemplate.

And so I ask you the same question I asked Robert: Name one requirement for faithfulness In the gospel that cannot be encompassed somewhere within the Lord's brief summary DISTILLATION of those requirements found in 3 Nephi 27? (For your convenience, I post the pertinent verses below)

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

22 Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day. 3 Nehi 27

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbieaware comes accros to me as the Mormon equivalent to the Evangelical bible thumpers that would "witness" to us in the mission field. Except in this case she's witnessing to the choir.(with exception)

I know. When one presents the gospel in the same kind of black and white depiction presented in the scriptures, one tends to come off sounding like a general authority in general conference. So I guess it's OK for a prophet, past or present, to present the gospel in an uncompromising manner, but for a poster on a discussion board, doing the same thing is verboten. I'll try to remember this (not).

15 Now Alma, being grieved for the iniquity of his people, yea for the wars, and the bloodsheds, and the contentions which were among them; and having been to declare the word, or sent to declare the word, among all the people in every city; and seeing that the hearts of the people began to wax hard, and that THEY BEGAN TO BE OFFENDED BECAUSE OF THE STRICTNESS OF THE WORD , his heart was exceedingly sorrowful. Alma 35

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

I've given this a little more thought and, at minimum, still feel it's an area for considerable caution. As I understood Russell's earlier thread (which, like you, I read only spottily) it didn't limit itself to the discussion of whether certain behaviors were faithful but to the discussion of what made one a faithful or unfaithful Latter-day Saint--i.e., a faithful or unfaithful person. And I've seen the same in this thread.

 

I'm inclined to take Russell at his word when he says:

 

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 do think he has been rather widely misunderstood. If my opening of this thread has compounded that problem, I regret it.

 

 

While it might be argued that defining faithful and unfaithful behaviors just is to define certain people as faithful or unfaithful people, it isn't. I'll venture, again, a definition of faithfulness here:

 

Faithfulness as a Latter-day Saint means following the commandments, principles, and inspired guidance given by the scriptures, the prophets, the ordinances, and personal revelation; making one's best judgment when the above sources do not provide all the information needed for a decision; striving to fulfill one's covenants; being loyal to God; being loyal to the church and one's fellow saints; and fulfilling one's stewardships.

 

If we go with a definition of faithfulness that even resembles this, it becomes clear that virtually none of us are, in the absolute sense, "faithful Latter-day Saints." One is faithful or unfaithful in greater or lesser degree--hopefully a greater and growing degree! And even some of our great Latter-day Saint leaders have been unfaithful in ways we might be tempted to disqualify someone from being a "faithful Latter-day Saint." Well after the Word of Wisdom was made requisite for church members the church patriarch John Smith was a smoker and B. H. Roberts had a drinking problem. But it would be foolish to dismiss the blessings given by Patriarch Smith and the writings of B. H. Roberts as coming from "an unfaithful Latter-day Saint."

 

Latter-day Saints do not divide neatly into the categories of "faithful" and "unfaithful," and, as mentioned above, even if they did, it would not be our stewardship to judge that about others. So, to the extent that a description of unfaithful behavior is used to judge people as globally "unfaithful," it is out of line. If we do find ourselves tempted to develop definitions of faithfulness and apply them to assess others as faithful or not, we need to look to the beam of judging others beyond our stewardship in our own eye--which is itself an unfaithful behavior.

 

I don't at all doubt the value of having a clearer vision of what it means to be faithful--such a vision is necessary if we are to become more faithful. But I do doubt our ability, as fallen human beings, to easily keep from using such standards as a basis for judging others unfaithful and thus raising our own status--in our own eyes. I doubt this because of scripture, life experience, and even science. That we tend to judge others--particularly those different from ourselves--with gross unfairness is one of the most robust findings of the discipline of social psychology.

 

I think that mouthful is all I have to say. ;-)

 

 

 

I mostly agree with what you've said here with the small caveat that I'm inclined to grant that someone is being faithful if he is earnestly trying -- and, more often than not, succeeding -- even if he falls short from time to time. (But here, perahps I'm getting into assessing another's faithfulness, which you have warned against.    I see what you mean about being cautious!)

 

I hope we can all gain a clearer understanding of what it is to be faithful, and that we can all become better at using that understanding to assess and improve our own behavior, rather than to globally categorize others as faithful or unfaithful people based on our limited view of what God alone sees with crystal clarity.

 

 

To this end, my thread has not been entirely without value if, for no other reason than I personally have gained insights and edification from an exploration of what some of the prophets and apostles have said over the years: for example, Elder Christofferson's discourse on seeking Zion (with its components of unity, holiness and caring for the poor and needy), which I like very much and will try to internalize.

 

BTW, my participation on the board goes in spurts. And I'm planning to end the current spurt now so as to get other things done. So, I may be involved much more with this discussion.

 

 

You have produced some superb work over the past few years. I trust you are involved in another great project. I look forward to seeing the results.

 

Thank you for your comments; I value your insights.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

I know. When one presents the gospel in the same kind of black and white depiction presented in the scriptures, one tends to come off sounding like a general authority in general conference. So I guess it's OK for a prophet, past or present, to present the gospel in an uncompromising manner, but for a poster on a discussion board, doing the same thing is verboten. I'll try to remember this (not).

15 Now Alma, being grieved for the iniquity of his people, yea for the wars, and the bloodsheds, and the contentions which were among them; and having been to declare the word, or sent to declare the word, among all the people in every city; and seeing that the hearts of the people began to wax hard, and that THEY BEGAN TO BE OFFENDED BECAUSE OF THE STRICTNESS OF THE WORD , his heart was exceedingly sorrowful. Alma 35

 

Preach it, girl!! Preach it!

 

By the way, who was this weaponized scriptural proof-text aimed at?

 

Anyone, in this thread?

Edited May 22, 2015 by Senator

[Calm]

"small caveat that I'm inclined to grant that someone as being faithful if he is earnestly trying -- and, more often than not, succeeding, even if he falls short from time to time"

I think there are certain, even lots of behaviours, including addictions, that more often than not we fail at and fall short almost everytime and yet are viewed as faithful by God because we refuse to give up the struggle.

[Scott Lloyd]

"small caveat that I'm inclined to grant that someone as being faithful if he is earnestly trying -- and, more often than not, succeeding, even if he falls short from time to time"

I think there are certain, even lots of behaviours, including addictions, that more often than not we fail at and fall short almost everytime and yet are viewed as faithful by God because we refuse to give up the struggle.

Well, at the risk of being viewed as cheesy, I'll quote Edgar A. Guest:

 

No one is beat till he quits, No one is through till he stops,

No matter how hard Failure hits, No matter how often he drops,

A fellow’s not down till he lies in the dust and refuses to rise.

Fate can slam him and bang him around, And batter this frame till he’s sore,

But she never can say that he’s drowned while he bobs up serenely for more.

A fellow’s not dead till he does, nor beat till no longer he tries.

 

Edited to add:

 

Even those who are battling addiction may be succeeding in other aspects of their lives.

 

I'm only suggesting that earnest and sustained effort over time is bound to result eventually in one succeeding more often than failing, especially when one enlists the help of God through prayer.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

Preach it, girl!! Preach it!

By the way, who was this weaponized scriptural proof-text aimed at?

Anyone, in this thread?

Being this thread is about faithfulness, the quote from Alma 35 was placed in order to underscore the unavoidable fact that God is strict and demands a lot from his children before they can justly and realistically expect to receive the fullness of his blessings. I also posted it to show that it makes the prophets sad when people don't like the idea that God is strict. Such reactions sadden the prophets because they know the reason why God is strict with his children because he loves them and wants them to be happy. "Wickedness (the lack of faithful obedience to God) never was happiness."

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Senator]

Beating this thread is about faithfulness, the quote from Alma 35 was placed in order to underscore the unavoidable fact that God is strict and demands a lot from his children before they can justly and realistically expect to receive the fullness of his blessings. I also posted it to show that it makes the prophets sad when people don't like the idea that God is strict. Such reactions sadden the prophets because they know the reason why God is strict with his children because he loves them and wants them to be happy. "Wickedness (the lack of faithful obedience to God) never was happiness."

 

I'm glad to know the use of the verse was not directed to be applicable to anyone in this thread. Which leads me to wonder what relevance, if any, it has to the discussion at hand?

 

Curious to know why you bolded, "THEY BEGAN TO BE OFFENDED BECAUSE OF THE STRICTNESS OF THE WORD"

 

I guess it's reasonable to assume there are people out there, somewhere, to whom this scripture would apply.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Senator

[Bobbieaware]

I'm glad to know the use of the verse was not directed to be applicable to anyone in this thread. Which leads me to wonder what relevance, if any, it has to the discussion at hand?

 

Curious to know why you bolded, "THEY BEGAN TO BE OFFENDED BECAUSE OF THE STRICTNESS OF THE WORD"

 

I guess it's reasonable to assume there are people out there, somewhere, to whom this scripture would apply.

Considering this thread is about faithfulness, and in consideration of the fact that God is going to be the judge of our faithfulness, don't you think it's a good thing to know the God who is going to judge our faithfulness is strict and not a gullible pushover? Or would you rather we be left in blissful ignorance, unaware that our walk with God must be most sincere and results-oriented before we can be judged as faithful?

[Bobbieaware]

Duplicate

Edited May 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[DonBradley]

I'm inclined to take Russell at his word when he says:

 

***

 

 

You have produced some superb work over the past few years. I trust you are involved in another great project. I look forward to seeing the results.

 

Thank you for your comments; I value your insights.

 

Thank you, Scott. 

 

Oh, and BTW, I wasn't doubting Russell's explanation. I too am willing to take his word. Rather, I was alluding to the fact that some of the posters (not Russell) seemed to be making the topic about who was and was not faithful.

 

Don