On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[Buckeye]

Scott,

 

If you're really bothered by Dehlin and Kelly continuing to identify themselves as "mormon", do you take the same objection when the Deseret News reports on a famous person and heavily emphasizes their former membership in the church? Consider these two examples from Paul Walker:

 

• Mormon-raised Paul Walker remembered for faith and character as well as 'Fast & Furious' films  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865591685/Mormon-raised-Paul-Walker-remembered-for-faith-and-character-as-well-as-Fast--Furious-films.html?pg=all)
• Mormon-raised Paul Walker remembered for charity, love one year after death (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865616766/Mormon-raised-Paul-Walker-remembered-for-charity-love-one-year-after-death.html?pg=all)

 

You can find similar DN articles regarding Amy Adams, Richard Dutcher, and many other former members.

 

If Dehlin and Kelly should stop talking about their personal ties to the church, despite their official ties being severed, then shouldn't the DN lead by example?

[smac97]

Again, that wasn't my question.  I never said that we shouldn't "care about what happens to John Dehlin and Kate Kelly".  

 

My question was simple and Scott answered it.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Fair enough.  I misunderstood your previous remark.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Buckeye]

Last post for now (I have a T-Ball game to coach).

 

 

In deciding which LDS teachings one must be faithful to, I found it ironic to read the following DN editorial in contrast with Moroni's teaching. What was once "perversion" and "bitterness," is now hear "heartwarming."

 

 

Is it heresy for Baptists to baptize a baby? One pastor’s example sets off a debate

 

The sprinkling-style baptism of a Dayton, Ohio, infant — a scene heartwarming and commonplace for Catholics and mainline Protestants — is touching off accusations of doctrinal heresy in the evangelical world. ...

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628945/Is-it-heresy-for-Baptists-to-baptize-a-baby-One-pastor7s-example-sets-off-a-debate.html  (emphasis added)

 

 

 

Moroni 8:

 

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

 

Edited May 19, 2015 by Buckeye

[smac97]

And Kate Kelly and John Dehlin are correct about the effect of having been part of Mormon culture for so long that they could not fully extricate themselves from it -- even if they wanted to.

I think Kate Kelly's remarks have been more than about mere "culture."

The same certainly applied to Sterling McMurrin, who did not believe in the LDS faith, but greatly admired Mormon culture, and knew that he was an integral part of it.  How can this be?  And should faithful Mormons be upset about it?

I think Latter-day Saints should be concerned about their fellow saints who are failing to adhere to the Restored Gospel in any material sense. "Cultural" Mormonism does not save us. "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (Articles of Faith 1:3).

The true strength of the Mormon position makes such a phenomenon possible, because Mormonism is a way of life, not simply a sunday-go-to-meetin religion.

That "way of life" includes observance of laws and ordinances which are only available to members of the Church in good standing. Simply claiming membership in a "culture" is not sufficient.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

If you're really bothered by Dehlin and Kelly continuing to identify themselves as "mormon", do you take the same objection when the Deseret News reports on a famous person and heavily emphasizes their former membership in the church? Consider these two examples from Paul Walker:

 

• Mormon-raised Paul Walker remembered for faith and character as well as 'Fast & Furious' films  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865591685/Mormon-raised-Paul-Walker-remembered-for-faith-and-character-as-well-as-Fast--Furious-films.html?pg=all)
• Mormon-raised Paul Walker remembered for charity, love one year after death (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865616766/Mormon-raised-Paul-Walker-remembered-for-charity-love-one-year-after-death.html?pg=all)

 

You can find similar DN articles regarding Amy Adams, Richard Dutcher, and many other former members.

 

If Dehlin and Kelly should stop talking about their personal ties to the church, despite their official ties being severed, then shouldn't the DN lead by example?

I don't represent the Deseret News when I post on this board, but as a general matter, I have no problem with a reference being made to someone's former membership in the Church if it is made clear that he is a lapsed member or former member.

 

I'm all for information dissemination so long as it is clear and reasonably thorough and avoids being deceptive or misleading. That's why I'm irritated by appellations such as "fundamentalist Mormons" in reference to parties such as the Warren Jeffs group.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Fair enough.  I misunderstood your previous remark.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

No worries.  I probably could have been more clear (as Robert was above )

[Scott Lloyd]

I think Kate Kelly's remarks have been more than about mere "culture."

I think Latter-day Saints should be concerned about their fellow saints who are failing to adhere to the Restored Gospel in any material sense. "Cultural" Mormonism does not save us. "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (Articles of Faith 1:3).

That "way of life" includes observance of laws and ordinances which are only available to members of the Church in good standing. Simply claiming membership in a "culture" is not sufficient.

Thanks,

-Smac

In considering such matters as this, I believe we must follow the principle of being "wise as serpents yet harmless as doves." We avoid being unkind and judging unrighteously, even as we strive to fully understand what faithfulness in the Church really means, to govern our own lives accordingly and to protect those we love from sophistry, rationalization and other harmful influences.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

I don't represent the Deseret News when I post on this board, but as a general matter, I have no problem with a reference being made to someone's former membership in the Church if it is made clear that he is a lapsed member or former member. I'm all for information dissemination so long as it is clear and reasonably thorough and avoids being deceptive or misleading.

So is it your belief that someone should not call themselves Mormon if they've been excommunicated?   I don't know if Dehlin is trying to deceive anyone by saying he still feels like he's Mormon.  He is probably just being honest about his feelings.

 

Edited to add:

I think if I'd been excommunicated, I'd probably say that I was a "former Mormon" or that I was raised in the Mormon religion and culture, but that I am not longer a member.

Edited May 19, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Last post for now (I have a T-Ball game to coach).

 

 

In deciding which LDS teachings one must be faithful to, I found it ironic to read the following DN editorial in contrast with Moroni's teaching. What was once "perversion" and "bitterness," is now hear "heartwarming."

Context, Buckeye, context.

[smac97]

Scott,

 

If you're really bothered by Dehlin and Kelly continuing to identify themselves as "mormon", do you take the same objection when the Deseret News reports on a famous person and heavily emphasizes their former membership in the church? Consider these two examples from Paul Walker:

• Mormon-raised Paul Walker remembered for faith and character as well as 'Fast & Furious' films  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865591685/Mormon-raised-Paul-Walker-remembered-for-faith-and-character-as-well-as-Fast--Furious-films.html?pg=all)
• Mormon-raised Paul Walker remembered for charity, love one year after death (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865616766/Mormon-raised-Paul-Walker-remembered-for-charity-love-one-year-after-death.html?pg=all)

You can find similar DN articles regarding Amy Adams, Richard Dutcher, and many other former members.

 

If Dehlin and Kelly should stop talking about their personal ties to the church, despite their official ties being severed, then shouldn't the DN lead by example?

To be clear, I don't begrudge Dehlin/Kelly in their holding on to whatever vestiges of Mormonism they can. I'm all for it, in fact. But if and when they go beyond that and discount the significance of membership in the Church and of excommunication from the Church, I find that problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Buckeye]

I don't represent the Deseret News when I post on this board, but as a general matter, I have no problem with a reference being made to someone's former membership in the Church if it is made clear that he is a lapsed member or former member.

 

I'm all for information dissemination so long as it is clear and reasonably thorough and avoids being deceptive or misleading. That's why I'm irritated by appellations such as "fundamentalist Mormons" in reference to parties such as the Warren Jeffs group.

 

So what's your beef with Dehlin and Kelly claiming to be mormon is a "cultural sense"? They're not confusing anyone regarding their official church status.

[Scott Lloyd]

So is it your belief that someone should not call themselves Mormon if they've been excommunicated?   I don't know if Dehlin is trying to deceive anyone by saying he still feels like he's Mormon.  He is probably just being honest about his feelings.

I think confusion ensues when people start to throw the name "Mormon" around to mean something other than adherents to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

But I prefer not to focus this thread on Dehlin.

 

I know, I brought up his name. Maybe I shouldn't have.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

I think confusion ensues when people start to throw the name "Mormon" around to mean something other than faithful adherents to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

But I prefer not to focus this thread on Dehlin.

 

I know, I brought up his name. Maybe I shouldn't have.

No problem.  If you see my edit above, we most likely agree anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

No problem.  If you see my edit above, we most likely agree anyway.

Yeah, that's probably true.

[ttribe]

This idea of common sense came up in the other thread. Russell took some criticism for his frequent reference to what a "reasonable" person might do or think. I countered by applying the legal concept of "reasonable man" or "reasonable person" to general usage. I got some pushback from someone who said that, while courts can rely on case law to define "reasonable person," we have no such thing outside the legal arena.

 

I say: Heaven help us if the notion of common sense becomes outmoded or discredited in society. Even in the legal profession, according to sources I consulted, the "reasonable person" concept is somewhat nebulous. Yet it remains a useful metric.

 

How is it you've gotten into the habit of misstating what I've said?  I didn't say we "have no such thing outside the legal arena."  I questioned whether we had an established "standard" on this board.  You hit on the nebulous nature of "reasonable person" (which is why the case law tends to be specific by circumstance); the fact that it is nebulous is indicative that it's not easily agreed upon in a group environment.  This is made especially difficult in culturally diverse settings.  Hence the role of the bench to act as an arbiter of what is "reasonable" under the circumstances in the courts.

 

IMO, determining what is "reasonable" here is made doubly difficult on a message board where communication is primarily limited to the written form.  Ultimately, much of what ends up communicated is determined by the reader.  You happen to demand precision in writing, but that is likely an artifact of: 1) personality; 2) training; and 3) profession.  Others are looser with their word choice. 

 

It is quite clear you have in mind a "standard" for what you believe to be the actions of a "reasonable person," but I'm not persuaded that yours is the only acceptable definition.  Nor do I think it appropriate to delineate "reasonable" from "unreasonable" principally upon whether you happen to agree with what is being said; that's a rhetorical blunt instrument.  While you may have a very precise set of standards establishing "reasonable" in your mind, it's not clear to this reader what that actually is.  Consequently, shutting down a discussion with "No reasonable person would do X" is problematic because it is neither clear that some reasonable person wouldn't do X, nor is it clear that we can agree whether it is reasonable to not do X in all circumstances.

Edited May 19, 2015 by ttribe

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think confusion ensues when people start to throw the name "Mormon" around to mean something other than faithful adherents to the Church of Jesus Christ.

You should probably start at the top then. Every year the church announces how many members (or Mormon's) there are. If they should only be counting the faithful ones (by the definition espoused by your "team") that number would be a whole lot less.

[Jeanne]

Let's consult Webster's first. The definition of "faithful" is:

 

1.  strict or thorough in the performance of duty:  a faithful worker.

2.  true to one's word, promises, vows, etc.

3.  steady in allegiance or affection; loyal; constant: faithful friends.

4.  reliable, trusted, or believed.

5.  adhering or true to fact, a standard, or an original; accurate: a faithful account; a faithful copy.

6.  Obsolete. full of faith; believing.

 

So a faithful latter-day saint would be one who strictly and thoroughly adheres to the standards and teachings of the LDS Church. I rather hope that Scott will agree with this definition. Note, though, that this is somewhat different from a faithful mormon, as mormon is more of a cultural touchstone than an official church body.

 

Even with that definition, there still remains the significant issue as to what are the standards and teachings of the LDS Church? Are we just talking about signed statements by the FP/Q12? Or conference talks? Or publications approved by correlation?

 

And if we can decide on official standards and teachings, there still often remains the problem of interpreting those standards and teachings through a changing world. For example, most all would agree that the WOW is an official standard for the church, but there still remains the need to interpret the standard as applied to caffeinated soda, candy bars, gluten, or double-whoppers.

 

And if an interpretation can be agreed upon, there still remains the issue of whether the standard or teaching is of lasting importance to the church. The atonement is lasting. But what about church teachings on political issues such as a prohibition amendment, missle-defense system in Utah, Zion curtain laws, or civil SSM? If a Utah state legislator takes a view different from the church on the Zion's curtain laws, is he/she unfaithful to the church?

 

And importantly, even where an official standards are clearly agreed upon, what do we do where a member abides by some, but not all, of those standards? Is it possible to be partially faithful to the LDS church? If not, I worry that most all members (myself included) would be deemed unfaithful.

 

***

 

With all of the above in mind, I'll go on record as stating that Kate Kelly and John Dehlin are not completely faithful to the standards and teachings of the church. Neither am I. Neither are many posters on this board, or many of the patrons I see in my local ward and temple. Rather than judging each other because we sin differently from one another (to quote President Uchtdorf), why not focus on the faithfulness issues in our own lives and leave to the church the decision as to who it deems faithful or not. It seems the church has a rather official procedure for determining that. It's called a temple recommend. It doesn't require perfection, but it does represent that the church approves of the direction of the person's life. For whatever reason, the church will grant a recommend to members who do not adhere to some church teachings (in particular political stances). If that is the case, then who are we to say that the church's own judgment regarding faithfulness is in error?

 

Additionally, since the question has been asked regarding why some members would want to stay if they don't believe everything, may I point you to a recent address in which Elder Holland expressed exasperation at just the opposite; namely, why some members feel they need to reject all church teachings - particulalry core teachinges - just because they find fault with some other teachings: 

 

 

May I propose that the answer to Elder Holland's question is best seen in the attitudes of posters on this board, and in each of our wards, who take it upon themselves to police the faithfulness of their fellow members. For a people who claim to believe in revelation and lines of authority, we sure don't act like it on this point.

Being outside the church at this time, I am aggravated at my self for being so judge mental and self righteous to others that had a different definition of truth..

[HappyJackWagon]

"I think that a Latter-day Saint's devotion / fealty / allegiance / "faithfulness" to the Lord's Church and His servants is (or should be) derivative of and an inherent part of having devotion / fealty / allegiance / "faithfulness" to God Himself."

Faithfulness to a person (even if he's the prophet) and faithfulness to a church (even if it's God's church) is not the same thing as being faithful to God & Christ. One can be faithful to Christ's teachings and daily devotion and even be faithful in participation in the church, yet still disagree with some elements. Does that disagreement suddenly make this person unfaithful?

It is most important to be faithful to Christ and then to an organization as far as it is faithful to Christ. If the organization isn't faithful to Christ in some way then the member should first be loyal to Christ even if it means not being faithful to the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

How is it you've gotten into the habit of misstating what I've said?  I didn't say we "have no such thing outside the legal arena."  I questioned whether we had an established "standard" on this board.  You hit on the nebulous nature of "reasonable person" (which is why the case law tends to be specific by circumstance); the fact that it is nebulous is indicative that it's not easily agreed upon in a group environment.  This is made especially difficult in culturally diverse settings.  Hence the role of the bench to act as an arbiter of what is "reasonable" under the circumstances in the courts.

 

IMO, determining what is "reasonable" here is made doubly difficult on a message board where communication is primarily limited to the written form.  Ultimately, much of what ends up communicated is determined by the reader.  You happen to demand precision in writing, but that is likely an artifact of: 1) personality; 2) training; and 3) profession.  Others are looser with their word choice. 

 

It is quite clear you have in mind a "standard" for what you believe to be the actions of a "reasonable person," but I'm not persuaded that yours is the only acceptable definition.  Nor do I think it appropriate to delineate "reasonable" from "unreasonable" principally upon whether you happen to agree with what is being said; that's a rhetorical blunt instrument.  While you may have a very precise set of standards establishing "reasonable" in your mind, it's not clear to this reader what that actually is.  Consequently, shutting down a discussion with "No reasonable person would do X" is problematic because it is neither clear that some reasonable person wouldn't do X, nor is it clear that we can agree whether it is reasonable to not do X in all circumstances.

Let the individual reader judge for herself. If you don't believe a reasonable person would say or think or do X, you are free to say so and to try to persuade others of it.

 

But some things are beyond dispute. I believe I can safely say, for example, that no reasonable person will stand in front of the speeding light-rail passenger train that runs outside my office here in downtown Salt Lake City. Maybe other things are less clear-cut, but again, let the individual reader judge.

 

Again, it may be nebulous, but it is useful nevertheless. Otherwise, I don't believe the concept would have lasted in the courts as long as it has.

[Scott Lloyd]

You should probably start at the top then. Every year the church announces how many members (or Mormon's) there are. If they should only be counting the faithful ones (by the definition espoused by your "team") that number would be a whole lot less.

Well, there's no efficient way to determine that, is there?

 

So we go by raw statistics as a measure of growth, realizing as we do so that we have work to do in promoting righteousness, unity and, yes, faithfulness among those who comprise that number.

 

I believe a [ahem] reasonable person would recognize that fact.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

Let the individual reader judge for herself. If you don't believe a reasonable person would say or think or do X, you are free to say so and to try to persuade others of it.

 

But some things are beyond dispute. I believe I can safely say, for example, that no reasonable person will stand in front of the speeding light-rail passenger train that runs outside my office here in downtown Salt Lake City. Maybe other things are less clear-cut, but again, let the individual reader judge.

 

Again, it may be nebulous, but it is useful nevertheless. Otherwise, I don't believe the concept would have lasted in the courts as long as it has.

 

Scott, respectfully, you are trying to have it both ways.  The courts have the benefit of case law, evidence, and a judge to determine "reasonable" under a particular set of facts and circumstances in each case.  It's a very different environment than a message board, for example.  You cannot rely upon the fact that such a standard is useful in the courts as justification for its usefulness here when the environments are so drastically different.  You seem to want the flexibility to apply such a standard as you wish here without recognizing that even in the courts there are limitations as to its application from one case to the next.

[ttribe]

Well, there's no efficient way to determine that, is there?

 

So we go by raw statistics as a measure of growth, realizing as we do so that, we have work to do in promoting righteousness, unity and, yes, faithfulness among those who comprise that number.

 

I believe a [ahem] reasonable person would recognize that fact.

 

What about TR holding endowed members as a measure of the faithfulness of the adult population?  Having been a clerk a few times, I know the Church has that information.

Edited May 19, 2015 by ttribe

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well, there's no efficient way to determine that, is there?

 

So we go by raw statistics as a measure of growth, realizing as we do so that, we have work to do in promoting righteousness, unity and, yes, faithfulness among those who comprise that number.

 

I believe a [ahem] reasonable person would recognize that fact.

Scott, you said:

I think confusion ensues when people start to throw the name "Mormon" around to mean something other than faithful adherents to the Church of Jesus Christ.

The church has a ready and easy measure of faithfulness - a temple recommend (although according to Pahoran, some less than faithful members are sneaking there way in here, so this too would be an overcount). It could easily count up the number of temple recommend holding adults.

In addition, if we want to set the bar lower than the "faithful adherents" to just people who show up at least once a quarter to their priesthood, primary, or relief society meetings, they could do that too. Very easily.

Further, at the very least, they could stop counting those members in the the "lost member" file. If we don't know where someone is, chances are they don't meet your "faithful adherent" standard.

I think it is fair to say that any reasonable person would recognize that the church counts all members not just faithful ones because it is the way that it wants to define members. It could easily do it another way.

From the book of Mormon:

And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

<snip>

And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.

Its pretty simple. The church tries to ensure people are committed when they join the church. These people are then counted as members of the church (Mormons if you will) until such a time when the elders of the church blot out their names. If you are suggesting a different standard, I would suggest that you are out in front of the brethren on this (some might even say you would be steadying the ark).

Edited May 19, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

Ttribe, That leaves out a large portion of the female single adults.

Plus that seems to me to send a message that those who at present don't have a temple recommend aren't as valued or seen as second class.

Edited May 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Ttribe, That leaves out a large portion of the female single adults.

Could always go with full tithe-payers.

Edited to add:

There are any number of ways (readily available) the church could use to not count less faithful members as Mormons if they wanted to. I think it is safe to say that unless those members do something worthy of excommincation, the church is glad to have them on the rolls, counts them as Mormons, and hopes that they will come back to full faithfulness.

Edited May 19, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding