ttribe Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Ttribe, That leaves out a large portion of the female single adults. Hmmm, you are correct. That's an excellent point and I'm embarrassed to have overlooked it. I'd have to think about that, then. Can't remember all of the available stats as I sit here right now Perhaps, then an attendance percentage of the totals by Stake? Attendance isn't a great "faithfulness" test, but it isn't the worst. Edited May 19, 2015 by ttribe
HappyJackWagon Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 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. Why does a TR leave out a large portion of female single adults? I don't understand your claim. Could you explain?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Why does a TR leave out a large portion of female single adults? I don't understand your claim. Could you explain? It's my understanding that unendowed members do not have regular temple recommends, but instead can carry limited use recommends, which (if I understand correctly) aren't tracked currently be the church. This is an easy sitution to correct however if the church really wanted to only count faithful members as Mormons. I would humbly suggest that the church is happy with things the way they are now. Edited May 19, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
Calm Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Many female sisters who don't go on missions get their recommends when they get married. It would also leave out young men who did not serve missions, including those who were worthy but unable to.I don't know what the typical age is these days for getting a TR if one is single and doesn't want to wait til marriage.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 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.I'm not trying to have it both ways. I fully recognize this is a different environment and that the procedure for judgement is different. Here, we go by the proverbial court of public opinion. Again, if you dispute that something is reasonable, you need only speak up about it and try to make your case.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Many female sisters who don't go on missions get their recommends when they get married. It would also leave out young men who did not serve missions, including those who were worthy but unable to. I don't know what the typical age is these days for getting a TR if one is single and doesn't want to wait til marriage. Again the point is the church could start giving temple recommends (limited use) to all worthy and faithful saints if they wished. They could easily track this number and report on it if desired. That they don't do so would seem to indicate they are fine reporting all baptized, non-excommunicated/resigned people as Mormons/members - not withstanding the objection of Mr Lloyd.
Popular Post Calm Posted May 19, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 19, 2015 I like the way things are. I don't think we need to add to the already too many emotional obstacles for struggling members to feel they are still valued members of the community. Publishing a standard of behaviour as a membership standard beyond the very basic may lead to a feeling of 'why should I bother even trying to _______, the Church doesn't see me as one of them unless I do _______, ________, and so forth as well?' 6
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 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.The membership statistic announced at conference is what it is. No one claims that the entire number is comprised of fully active members. It is, as I say, one measure of growth, admittedly with limitations. I don't know why this is such an issue to you.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 Again the point is the church could start giving temple recommends (limited use) to all worthy and faithful saints if they wished. They could easily track this number and report on it if desired. That they don't do so would seem to indicate they are fine reporting all baptized, non-excommunicated/resigned people as Mormons/members - not withstanding the objection of Mr Lloyd.When and where did I raise such an objection?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 I like the way things are. I don't think we need to add to the already too many emotional obstacles for struggling members to feel they are still valued members of the community. Publishing a standard of behaviour as a membership standard beyond the very basic may lead to a feeling of 'why should I bother even trying to _______, the Church doesn't see me as one of them unless I do _______, ________, and so forth as well?' I fully support this statement. Scott is the one saying that "Mormons" should only be applied to and by faithful latter-day saints. Not me.
HappyJackWagon Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Many female sisters who don't go on missions get their recommends when they get married. It would also leave out young men who did not serve missions, including those who were worthy but unable to. I don't know what the typical age is these days for getting a TR if one is single and doesn't want to wait til marriage. There is no longer any kind of age or "event" requirement like getting married or serving a mission. Any worthy woman (out of high school) is able to move ahead with getting a TR (endowment). It's been this way for at least the last couple of years so it may still take time to catch on for younger women, but even so, excluding the youngest women, it has been an accepted practice for many years for women to go to the temple prior to marriage and without having served a mission. Edited May 19, 2015 by HappyJackWagon 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) When and where did I raise such an objection?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 counts faithful and non-faithful saints as "Mormons", yet you don't object to their usage? Edited May 19, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) I fully support this statement. Scott is the one saying that "Mormons" should only be applied to and by faithful latter-day saints. Not me.I've already challenged this assertion, but here is a repeated CFR. Edited May 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 I've already challenged this assertion, but here is as repeated CFR.See post 62. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) The church counts faithful and non-faithful saints as "Mormons", yet you don't object to their usage?OK, I see what you're saying. I had in mind, when I made that statement, those who apply the "Mormon" name to apostates, excommunicants, shismatic or break-off groups, etc. To my knowledge, the Church doesn't call them Mormons or regard them as Church members. Edited May 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Calm Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 There is no longer any kind of age or "event" requirement like getting married or serving a mission. Any worthy woman (out of high school) is able to move ahead with getting a TR (endowment). It's been this way for at least the last couple of years so it may still take time to catch on for younger women, but even so, excluding the youngest women, it has been an accepted practice for many years for women to go to the temple prior to marriage and without having served a mission.Yes, I know.But there are also in my experience a lot of young women who want to wait until marriage to get a recommend.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) OK, I see what your saying. I had in mind, when I made that statement, those who apply the "Mormon" name to apostates, excommunicants, shismatic or break-off groups, etc. To my knowledge, the Church doesn't call them Mormons or regard them as Church members.With the exception of break off-groups, I agree with you. That's not what you said though. You said "faithful" specifically. Especially in context of this thread (which is a spin off of Russell's thread), "faithful" is seen as specifically excluding those who believe certain heresies or who wish for the wrong things. Edited May 19, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) With the exception of break off-groups, I agree with you. That's not what you said though. You said "faithful" specifically. Especially in context of this thread (which is a spin off of Russell's thread), "faithful" is seen as specifically excluding those who believe certain heresies or who wish for the wrong things. I've corrected myself and clarified my intent. What else do you want me to do? And by the way, I stand by my inclusion of break-off groups in the list. Calling them "Mormon" confuses the public. Edited to add: I went back and edited the post you cited, removing the word "faithful." Can we move on now? Edited May 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 I've corrected myself and clarified my intent. What else do you want me to do? And by the way, I stand by my inclusion of break-off groups in the list. Calling them "Mormon" confuses the public.Fair enough. I just wanted to make it clear, especially since you "value precision in language." 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 As I thought might happen, we've been pulled afield from the intent of this thread, which is to provide links to talks and quotes from Church leaders that serve to define what it means to be a faithful Latter-day Saint. But I'd like to get back on track. Here is a talk from President Spencer W. Kimball given in September 1979. Here are some snippets: By taking our covenants lightly, we will wound our own eternal selves. I use the word covenant deliberately; it is a word with sacred connotations, and I mean to use it with all its special spiritual force. Self-justification is easy and rationalization seductive, but the Lord explains in modern revelation that “when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, [or] our vain ambition … the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and … [man] is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks” (D&C 121:37–38). Loyalty to the Lord also includes loyalty to those leaders he has chosen. I know that those whom the Lord has called to give leadership to his children in this dispensation of time are recipients of divine inspiration. My grandfather sat in the first Quorum of the Twelve; my father served as mission president and stake president in a much smaller church than we have today, under five presidents of the Church; I have served as a stake officer and General Authority for sixty-one years. Our three lives have encompassed essentially the whole period of the restored Church; taken together, we have known with some intimacy almost all of the General Authorities since the Restoration. On that basis I tell you that those Church leaders were men whose great accomplishments have transcended even their substantial innate abilities, for the Lord has given them power to do his work.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 Fair enough. I just wanted to make it clear, especially since you "value precision in language."I do. And I stand corrected. 1
ttribe Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) So, back on topic questions - Scott, I believe each of your quotes mentions loyalty to the brethren (I define as the FP and Q12) in some form or fashion. Given that, I have the following questions: Do you rank certain characteristics as more or less indicative of "faithfulness" as a Latter-day Saint? If so, do you rank loyalty to the brethren as utmost indicative of "faithfulness" as a Latter-day Saint? How do we measure loyalty to the brethren? Edited May 20, 2015 by ttribe 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 So, back on topic questions - Scott, I believe each of your quotes mentions loyalty to the brethren (I define as the FP and Q12) in some form or fashion. Given that, I have the following questions: Do you rank certain characteristics as more or less indicative of "faithfulness" as a Latter-day Saint? If so, do you rank loyalty to the brethren as utmost indicative of "faithfulness" as a Latter-day Saint? I'm not inclined to get into such ranking. How do we measure loyalty to the brethren? I thought what President Hinckley said was significant in the first quote I gave about willingness to align oneself with a formal position taken by the Church.
ttribe Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 I'm not inclined to get into such ranking. I thought what President Hinckley said was significant in the first quote I gave about willingness to align oneself with a formal position taken by the Church. Okay, so is it safe to say that you believe one measure of faithfulness is loyalty to the brethren, and that the measure of loyalty to the brethren is following their counsel? Just thought it would be helpful to summarize as we go since tangents are inevitable.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 Okay, so is it safe to say that you believe one measure of faithfulness is loyalty to the brethren, and that the measure of loyalty to the brethren is following their counsel? Just thought it would be helpful to summarize as we go since tangents are inevitable.I would say "a" measure rather than "the" measure. Honoring and respecting their office and position in the Church and being kind and considerate in the way one speaks of them would be another.
Recommended Posts