On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[ttribe]

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.

 

Okay, fair enough.  Summary to this point of proposed "faithfulness" measures:

 

• Loyalty to the Brethren - 1) Follow their counsel; 2) Honoring and respecting their office and position in the Church and being kind and considerate in the way one speaks of them;

Next?

[Senator]

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?

 

 

So, come the end of this thread, we are going to have a long list of bullet points of things that make a "faithful", Latter-Day Saint? Such that the quotation marks may be soundly removed from the word.

 

This whole endevor leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[ttribe]

So, come the end of this thread, we are going to have a long list of bullet points of things that make a "faithful", Latter-Day Saint? Such that the quotation marks may be soundly removed from the word.

 

This whole endevor leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

 

I would anticipate that one intended outcome of Scott having made this thread (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is to propose such a list.  I was attempting to keep it summarized as the conversations occur.

 

As to the taste in your mouth...I can't say I disagree.  While recognizing the practical need for certain organizational measures of commitment (e.g. the Temple recommend interview), I've always found myself uncomfortable with any universal effort by imperfect beings (especially outside of official channels) to separate the flock between the the "faithful" and the "not" (or "less"?).

Edited May 19, 2015 by ttribe

[ALarson]

As to the taste in your mouth...I can't say I disagree.  While recognizing the practical need for certain organizational measures of commitment (e.g. the Temple recommend interview), I've always found myself uncomfortable with any universal effort by imperfect beings to separate the flock between the the "faithful" and the "not" (or "less"?).

I can't speak for Scott (of course), so he can definitely correct me if I'm wrong here.  But, it seems to me that he appears to be upset or bothered that there are many members who are active, temple recommend holders (or are at least active members) who don't believe as he believes.  That members like this are treated with respect and as if they are a "faithful" member is maybe the issue he has?  I know Scott may not agree, but he comes across (at least to me) as a very literal, letter of the law, almost blind obedience type member.  I have no issue with that at all, but he seems to have issues with those who don't do as he does or believe as he believes.  Maybe that's the purpose of this thread?  But maybe not?

 

Again Scott, if I'm wrong here, clarify where I'm wrong.  I just get the sense that you seem frustrated or somewhat bewildered that someone like me (and others on here) hold temple recommends and also hold leadership positions.

Edited May 19, 2015 by ALarson

[Kenngo1969]

Also, with the quotes given in the opening posts, "the church" means who exactly?  It's reminds me of when people say that they know "the church" is true.  Are they talking about the corporation?The leaders? Or just who?  Yes, some teachings are true, but we know that some past teachings are erroneous. ...

 

  

With due respect, who's "we"?  The royal "we"?  You and that mouse in your pocket?  I appreciate your apparent attempt graciously to include me in that "we": I always like to be thought of and included, but in this case, you can count me out.  I'm perfectly capable of thinking and speaking for myself without being included in some ill-defined, amorphous collective , thank you.

[ALarson]

With due respect, who's "we"?  The royal "we"?  You and that mouse in your pocket?  I appreciate your apparent attempt graciously to include me in that "we": I always like to be thought of and included, but in this case, you can count me out.  I'm perfectly capable of thinking and speaking for myself without being included in some ill-defined, amorphous collective , thank you.

Wow.  Ok.  

 

Sorry if I offended you as this wasn't my intent at all (and don't worry, I was definitely NOT thinking about or including you.)  People use "we" all the time on here and no one gets all crazy about it.  But again, sorry if it bothered you.

 

I get it.  You feel that none of the past teachings of the church by any past leaders are erroneous?  Is that correct?  

Edited May 20, 2015 by ALarson

[cinepro]

(Emphases mine)

 

This one is especially relevant to discussions of recent days (i.e. the "No True Scotsman" thread among others), because it talks about the loyalty of those who, once the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position.

That makes sense.

So, if someone rejects the Church's stand on Noah's flood being worldwide, can they be considered a "faithful Latter-day Saint"?

[JulieM]

Kenngo1969, how about when President Kimball stated that Brigham Young's teachings on Adam/God were "false doctrine"?

Isn't he saying those teaching were wrong or "erroneous"? I also think current leaders believe they were "erroneous" or false.

Edited May 20, 2015 by JulieM

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Which seems reasonable enough to me. "Loyal" is a fairly good (although not exact) synonym for "faithful."

More than that, the primary sense of "faithful," as I understand it, is best expressed in connection with husbands and wives, who make solemn promises to each other -- and then keep them, through thick and thin. Thus, to call someone a "faithful Latter-day Saint" is to assert that they are behaving towards the Church in much the same way as a faithful spouse does towards his wife, or her husband. We keep our promises. We're not going anywhere, nor are we looking elsewhere.  We have each others' back. And if we have any differences, we keep them in the family.

Some people wonder aloud, "What is the Church?" While "the Church" can, and often does, refer to the whole body of members, whether good, bad or indifferent, I suggest that, specifically in this context, "the Church" refers to the institutional body in its role as administrator and regulator of the sacred covenants we make as Latter-day Saints.

For which, "the Brethren" make a pretty good symbol.

[ERayR]

I get it.  You feel that none of the past teachings of the church by any past leaders are erroneous?  Is that correct?  

 

Pardon me but in what he wrote, just where did you find that?  Does that come from clairvoyance?

[ttribe]

Pardon me but in what he wrote, just where did you find that?  Does that come from clairvoyance?

 

He did ask - "Is that correct?" - in an effort to confirm.  I see no reason to get excited before Kengo has responded.

[ALarson]

Pardon me but in what he wrote, just where did you find that?  Does that come from clairvoyance?

I stated this:

"we know that some past teachings are erroneous" (by church leaders)

 

Kenngo stated this:

"With due respect, who's "we"?  The royal "we"?  You and that mouse in your pocket?  I appreciate your apparent attempt graciously to include me in that "we": I always like to be thought of and included, but in this case, you can count me out."

.

Unless I'm mistaken, that means he disagrees with my statement.  But I have asked if I understand him correctly.  So far, he hasn't responded

Edited May 20, 2015 by ALarson

[CV75]

I think the faithful do not contend against the Lord's servants on points of doctrine, per 3 Nephi 11. When the lack of perfection which all God's children have in common forms the basis for disputing their teachings, the wrong spirit is stirring and belief in Christ is thus compromised, no matter what so-called point of fact is being discussed. Christ is far more than a fact; He did not say, "I am the fact."

[ERayR]

I stated this:

"we know that some past teachings are erroneous" (by church leaders)

 

Kenngo stated this:

"With due respect, who's "we"?  The royal "we"?  You and that mouse in your pocket?  I appreciate your apparent attempt graciously to include me in that "we": I always like to be thought of and included, but in this case, you can count me out."

.

Unless I'm mistaken, that means he disagrees with my statement.  But I have asked if I understand him correctly.  So far, he hasn't responded

 

Irregardless of his answer I was wondering where I missed him saying what you asked him if he said. 

[ttribe]

Irregardless of his answer I was wondering where I missed him saying what you asked him if he said. 

 

Personal pet peeve - http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/irregardless-versus-regardless

 

Carry on.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, come the end of this thread, we are going to have a long list of bullet points of things that make a "faithful", Latter-Day Saint? Such that the quotation marks may be soundly removed from the word.

 

This whole endevor leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Your gripe is with ttribe. My intent is stated clearly in the OP.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't speak for Scott (of course), so he can definitely correct me if I'm wrong here.  But, it seems to me that he appears to be upset or bothered that there are many members who are active, temple recommend holders (or are at least active members) who don't believe as he believes.  That members like this are treated with respect and as if they are a "faithful" member is maybe the issue he has?  I know Scott may not agree, but he comes across (at least to me) as a very literal, letter of the law, almost blind obedience type member.  I have no issue with that at all, but he seems to have issues with those who don't do as he does or believe as he believes.  Maybe that's the purpose of this thread?  But maybe not?

 

Again Scott, if I'm wrong here, clarify where I'm wrong.  I just get the sense that you seem frustrated or somewhat bewildered that someone like me (and others on here) hold temple recommends and also hold leadership positions.

Heh, you're right: You don't speak for me.

And rather than chase you down rabbit holes, I'll just refer you to the OP, where my intent is clearly stated.

[ttribe]

Your gripe is with ttribe. My intent is stated clearly in the OP.

Huh? Why is his gripe with me?

[JulieM]

So, come the end of this thread, we are going to have a long list of bullet points of things that make a "faithful", Latter-Day Saint? Such that the quotation marks may be soundly removed from the word.

 

This whole endevor leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I actually agree. I think this was the intent of starting this thread and discussion. Why does it bother some here that many are treated with respect in the church who don't follow their pattern of strict obedience and belief?

[Russell C McGregor]

I actually agree. I think this was the intent of starting this thread and discussion. Why does it bother some here that many are treated with respect in the church who don't follow their pattern of strict obedience and belief?

Quaere: Does it "bother some here that many are treated with respect in the church who don't follow their pattern of strict obedience and belief?"

Your "why" seems to demand an explanation for a fact not in evidence. What reason do you have to conclude that anyone is so "bothered?"

 

You need to establish the fact before you can go insisting that it be explained.

[cinepro]

More than that, the primary sense of "faithful," as I understand it, is best expressed in connection with husbands and wives, who make solemn promises to each other -- and then keep them, through thick and thin. Thus, to call someone a "faithful Latter-day Saint" is to assert that they are behaving towards the Church in much the same way as a faithful spouse does towards his wife, or her husband.

 

 

When it comes to openness, honesty, and the ability to admit past mistakes and apologize for them, I hope I treat my wife better than the Church treats its members.

[Scott Lloyd]

Huh? Why is his gripe with me?

Hey ttribe, what's with this penchant you have for just-how-far-can-I-stray-and-get-away-with-it checklists? Does it stem in any way from the fact that you have a tough time with concepts like common sense and reasonableness? You must have a real problem with passages such as Mosiah 4:29 and Doctrine and Covenants 58:26.

[ttribe]

Hey ttribe, what's with this penchant you have for just-how-far-can-I-stray-and-get-away-with-it checklists? Does it stem in any way from the fact that you have a tough time with concepts like common sense and reasonableness? You must have a real problem with passages such as Mosiah 4:29 and Doctrine and Covenants 58:26.

Wow. Cheap shot out of nowhere. I genuinely thought it would be helpful to keep a summary of the conclusions. I'll bow out and you can find someone else to treat with disdain.

[CA Steve]

Maybe next conference they can announce membership numbers using the qualifier "faithful" instead of "strong". Shouldn't make any difference in the total numbers right?

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow. Cheap shot out of nowhere. I genuinely thought it would be helpful to keep a summary of the conclusions. I'll bow out and you can find someone else to treat with disdain.

Sprung your trap too soon, did I?

 

Ah well, no hard feelings. You are welcome to stay.