On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[ttribe]

Sprung your trap too soon, did I?

 

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

Are you kidding? What trap? Are you accusing me of trying to engage in some kind of dishonest game? That's a serious level of paranoia and, frankly, downright offensive. I think you and I are done.

[sethpayne]

 

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.

 

Loyalty has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with agreement.  All of of us remain loyal even when we hold divergent views from the people or organizations we remain loyal to.

 

There are many policies of both the current and previous US administration that I strongly disagree with, or may even oppose.  But I am still a loyal American.  I give the President -- and others -- proper and due respect because I am loyal to the United States.  

 

Now, let's say I *really* oppose US policies and I start actively trying to harm the United States.  Then I am disloyal.  Not only have I disrespected an institution but I have also worked to undermine it.

 

Again, loyalty has nothing to do with agreement.  

[Scott Lloyd]

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.  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?

 

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.  It is no accident that the Lord speaks (through Brigham Young) to the Mormon people as an ethnicity in D&C 136.  Indeed, Jan Shipps could legitimately claim that Mormons in those days lived in "sacred time," and were reenacting the formative events of ancient Israel in modern times.  This is one of the ways in which a people can be formed into a true ethnicity.

 

We think of the Jewish community in this way.  Just so, one may be excommunicated from his synagogue and still remain a Jew.

 

We must be very careful lest we take someone who says "When I was a university student, I said to my father on one occasion that I felt the General Authorities had overstepped their prerogatives when they advocated a certain thing," and conclude that he is a devilish apostate and unworthy of further consideration.  For those were the words of Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking about fallible LDS leaders, who can be and have been wrong about some things.  That should not negate our faith in the Savior, nor in the Restoration of all things.  Even if it is a bumpy ride for some.

My recollection of that talk is he was using the incident to illustrate the foolishness of such an attitude. In other words, in his humility he was taking his own youthful behavior as a negative example. In this, he was not unlike Alma the younger, though I hasten to add that the behavior he recounted was not in the same league as Alma's.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you kidding? What trap? Are you accusing me of trying to engage in some kind of dishonest game? That's a serious level of paranoia and, frankly, downright offensive. I think you and I are done.

In the words of Scrooge's nephew, we have no quarrel to which I have been a party. Again, you are welcome to stay as a contributor to this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

Loyalty has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with agreement.  All of of us remain loyal even when we hold divergent views from the people or organizations we remain loyal to.

 

There are many policies of both the current and previous US administration that I strongly disagree with, or may even oppose.  But I am still a loyal American.  I give the President -- and others -- proper and due respect because I am loyal to the United States.  

 

Now, let's say I *really* oppose US policies and I start actively trying to harm the United States.  Then I am disloyal.  Not only have I disrespected an institution but I have also worked to undermine it.

 

Again, loyalty has nothing to do with agreement.

Your comparison of the church and kingdom of God to the U.S. -- or any earthly -- government is flawed. This gets into the question of whether there can be a "loyal opposition" as such in the Church of Jesus Christ. I have to say I am very uncomfortable with the notion.

[DonBradley]

In the last post of the recently closed "No True Scotsman" thread, Cinepro indicted Russell C. McGregor for allegedly not having provided an "external" definition (presumably from Church leaders) for faithful Latter-day Saint.

 

In coming days on this thread, I shall endeavor to provide such "external" defintion by linking to and citing talks and quotes from Church leaders. Bear in mind that this is a work in progress, and I intend to add to this thread as I have time and opportunity. I invite others to contribute relevant and germane material.

 

For now, I cite this address by President Gordon B. Hinckley given to the Young Women of the Church in 1996. The whole thing is good, but I shall highlight this snippet:

 

(emphasis mine)

 

I don't have any quarrel with Scott on this post, that I can see, and am not in fear of the church being led into apostasy by its leaders. But I would like to point out what I see as a logical inconsistency in our frequent tendency to quote church leaders saying that church leaders will never lead us astray.

 

On my mission (in the Bible Belt), I recall asking evangelical Christians how they knew the Bible was true. It was hilarious to see the looks on some of their faces--as if the question had never occurred to them or even seemed like something someone might ask. They'd often scramble to come up with answers, my favorite of which is: "Because it says so."

 

We laugh knowingly at this, of course, since we see how circular the logic is when someone argues that a book is true because the book itself says so. Anyone could write a book that says in it, "This book is true." But this would, of course, still not be persuasive reason to believe that the book is true.

 

The trouble with citing church leaders saying that church leaders are going to be right and not lead you astray is, of course, that the logic of relying on those statements is, by its very nature, circular. How many of us would be more persuaded of papal infallibility if the pope said tomorrow, "I am infallible"? The argument that church leaders can't be significantly wrong, and thus 'lead the church astray,' because they say they won't relies on the assumption, to begin with, that the leaders will be pretty much entirely right--which is an even stronger claim than the one we are trying to defend, i.e., that they won't lead the church astray. Obviously if someone needs to be persuaded that church leaders won't lead the church astray, they're not going to buy the much stronger assumption that church leaders are necessarily accurate in the things they say, and thus can't be persuaded that the church leaders won't lead us astray merely by quotes from church leaders saying they won't lead us astray. So, I'm puzzled at why we so eagerly present these quotes, and what we generally think will be accomplished by doing so.

 

Don

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't have any quarrel with Scott on this post, that I can see, and am not in fear of the church being led into apostasy by its leaders. But I would like to point out what I see as a logical inconsistency in our frequent tendency to quote church leaders saying that church leaders will never lead us astray.

 

On my mission (in the Bible Belt), I recall asking evangelical Christians how they knew the Bible was true. It was hilarious to see the looks on some of their faces--as if the question had never occurred to them or even seemed like something someone might ask. They'd often scramble to come up with answers, my favorite of which is: "Because it says so."

 

We laugh knowingly at this, of course, since we see how circular the logic is when someone argues that a book is true because the book itself says so. Anyone could write a book that says in it, "This book is true." But this would, of course, still not be persuasive reason to believe that the book is true.

 

The trouble with citing church leaders saying that church leaders are going to be right and not lead you astray is, of course, that the logic of relying on those statements is, by its very nature, circular. How many of us would be more persuaded of papal infallibility if the pope said tomorrow, "I am infallible"? The argument that church leaders can't be significantly wrong, and thus 'lead the church astray,' because they say they won't relies on the assumption, to begin with, that the leaders will be pretty much entirely right--which is an even stronger claim than the one we are trying to defend, i.e., that they won't lead the church astray. Obviously if someone needs to be persuaded that church leaders won't lead the church astray, they're not going to buy the much stronger assumption that church leaders are necessarily accurate in the things they say, and thus can't be persuaded that the church leaders won't lead us astray merely by quotes from church leaders saying they won't lead us astray. So, I'm puzzled at why we so eagerly present these quotes, and what we generally think will be accomplished by doing so.

 

Don

You're right, of course. If such assurances are viewed as arguments, the logic is indeed circular. Which is why such assurances must be viewed as just that, assurances, and not arguments. The persuasive value depends on the trust one has in the leaders (and, I might add, in the witness of the Spirit that one might receive when hearing such assurances). Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

You're right, of course. If such assurances are viewed as arguments, the logic is indeed circular. Which is why such assurances must be viewed as just that, assurances, and not arguments. The persuasive value depends on the trust one has in the leaders.

I agree with Don Bradley's post. So, what is your purpose of this thread really Scott? Just to quote church leaders stating to support them and be loyal to them and then you'll be a faithful member of the church? You already belief this, so are you hoping to learn something here or just preach? I would really like to know, because it's a bit odd. But maybe some enjoy reading the quotes you're posting. They are a good reminder so maybe that's your goal?

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

I just checked the statistical report from the conference and didn't see the word "strong" or any other qualifier given in connection with the total membership number.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with Don Bradley's post. So, what is your purpose of this thread really Scott? Just to quote church leaders stating to support them and be loyal to them and then you'll be a faithful member of the church? You already belief this, so are you hoping to learn something here or just preach? I would really like to know, because it's a bit odd. But maybe some enjoy reading the quotes you're posting. They are a good reminder so maybe that's your goal?

My purpose and the background for it was clearly stated in the OP. I refer you to that.

And I agree with Don's post too. I said so in a response post.

[why me]

Does that bother you?  If so, why?

 

In my opinion, he can consider himself Mormon if he wants to.  It has no affect whatsoever on me or on my beliefs or on my own status in the church.   

I think that as the church grows and its membership increases, it will not matter if exed members consider themselves mormon. For example, once a catholic always a catholic. It does not matter what ones status is within the catholic church. However, mormon has  a different connotation. It signifies a person who believes in the mormon faith regardless of his or her status in the church. An exed member who does not believe in the book of mormon etc, may find it difficult to claim 'mormon' status at this moment.

[Calm]

My purpose and the background for it was clearly stated in the OP. I refer you to that.

And I agree with Don's post too. I said so in a response post.

 

Since this is what Scott said---"I shall endeavor to provide such "external" defintion by linking to and citing talks and quotes from Church leaders"---my impression of the purpose of the thread was to collect teachings of church leaders on what they perceive and taught as faithfulness and let those stand as the measure on their own to be inspired by them rather than pick them apart to come up with a concise, itemized and rigid definition checklist.

[why me]

 

Don

Obviously if someone needs to be persuaded that church leaders won't lead the church astray, they're not going to buy the much stronger assumption that church leaders are necessarily accurate in the things they say, and thus can't be persuaded that the church leaders won't lead us astray merely by quotes from church leaders saying they won't lead us astray. So, I'm puzzled at why we so eagerly present these quotes, and what we generally think will be accomplished by doing so.

These days it would be very difficult for the church to lead anyone astray. Mainly because, the leaders are very careful in what they say....much different from the past when the church leaders were much more brazen in their doctrine and statements. The reason for the quotations is to give evidence from 'experts' just what may be a faithful member. But like any 'expert', all can be debated with the experts when it comes who is a faithful member.

Edited May 20, 2015 by why me

[Avatar4321]

Does that bother you?  If so, why?

 

In my opinion, he can consider himself Mormon if he wants to.  It has no affect whatsoever on me or on my beliefs or on my own status in the church.

Yes. I dislike lies.

[DonBradley]

Scott,

 

I realized when I posted that that it wasn't really addressing the direction you were going with the OP, so thanks for being okay with my tangential argument.

 

On Seth's point about loyalty not equating to agreement, I think the point may be valid even if the specific examples are found objectionable.

 

When we look at minutes of early church conferences, we find that there was often vigorous disagreement with proposed callings, and even in voting to accept a revelation. But Joseph Smith, far from attempting to squelch this disagreement, seems to have believed it was part of the "common consent" process required by the revelations themselves. He allowed the disagreement--even argument--in the meetings, with the usual end result that people who started out in disunity were brought closer together as a result.

 

I'd be loath to say that we, as 21st century Latter-day Saints, understand those revelations better than he did as their revelator and intimately acquainted with the context in which they were received. While what Joseph allowed and encouraged in meetings was democratic and argumentative in ways that would make almost all current Latter-day Saints (myself included) uncomfortable in our meetings today, I think we need to take those revelations and his interpretation and application of them seriously, and wrestle with what they mean. Perhaps modern LDS culture misses some of what was intended in the processes of "voting" (per D&C 20), making decisions by "the voice of the church," and "common consent." 

 

In any case, the objections, disagreements, and arguments of the early Saints in these contexts weren't seen as disloyal: they were understood to be a natural part of taking the responsibility of membership in the church seriously. And to take one's responsibility as part of "the voice of the church" seriously to the point of considered objection is far more loyal than shrugging off our responsibility as members, transferring that responsibility to our leaders, and raising our hands as if by reflex.

 

Don

[Scott Lloyd]

Since this is what Scott said---"I shall endeavor to provide such "external" defintion by linking to and citing talks and quotes from Church leaders"---my impression of the purpose of the thread was to collect teachings of church leaders on what they perceive and taught as faithfulness and let those stand as the measure on their own to be inspired by them rather than pick them apart to come up with a concise, itemized and rigid definition checklist.

Thank you.

As usual, calmoriah gets it.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................   

 

From the book of Mormon:

Quote

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).

It does seem simple and straightforward, until one comes to grips with the real world -- in which both Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, for example, apostatize, then much later return to the faith.  Taking an isolated moment in time and absolutizing it may be inimical to the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ because it denies the central function of repentance.  We all need to forebear passing judgment while the jury is still out.  Remember, even the Prodigal Son may return at the end of the day and reverse course entirely, confessing all his sins with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

 

We have contributors to this board who have been excommunicated and who have returned to the faith, and are now in full fellowship with the Saints.  Not only should we rejoice over that fact, we should also make it possible for others to go and do likewise -- by not engaging in agitation and propaganda against them, as though they are already in Outer Darkness.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[JulieM]

Yes. I dislike lies.

I don't agree with you accusing Dehlin of lying when he states that he considers himself to still be Mormon in a cultural way. You can disagree with him, but he's most likely telling the truth about how he feels.

[Avatar4321]

I don't agree with you accusing Dehlin of lying when he states that he considers himself to still be Mormon in a cultural way. You can disagree with him, but he's most likely telling the truth about how he feels.

Doesn't matter if you agree with me. He still isn't a Mormon. He gave up that title when he decided to fight against the gospel. I sincerely hope he changes his way and humbles himself so that he can return. But until he is once again baptized he isn't a Mormon.

And he can't, by definition, be a cultural Mormon. Because his words and actions show otherwise. How can you be a cultural Mormon and act completely contrary to the culture?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

I realized when I posted that that it wasn't really addressing the direction you were going with the OP, so thanks for being okay with my tangential argument.

 

On Seth's point about loyalty not equating to agreement, I think the point may be valid even if the specific examples are found objectionable.

 

When we look at minutes of early church conferences, we find that there was often vigorous disagreement with proposed callings, and even in voting to accept a revelation. But Joseph Smith, far from attempting to squelch this disagreement, seems to have believed it was part of the "common consent" process required by the revelations themselves. He allowed the disagreement--even argument--in the meetings, with the usual end result that people who started out in disunity were brought closer together as a result.

 

I'd be loath to say that we, as 21st century Latter-day Saints, understand those revelations better than he did as their revelator and intimately acquainted with the context in which they were received. While what Joseph allowed and encouraged in meetings was democratic and argumentative in ways that would make almost all current Latter-day Saints (myself included) uncomfortable in our meetings today, I think we need to take those revelations and his interpretation and application of them seriously, and wrestle with what they mean. Perhaps modern LDS culture misses some of what was intended in the processes of "voting" (per D&C 20), making decisions by "the voice of the church," and "common consent." 

 

In any case, the objections, disagreements, and arguments of the early Saints in these contexts weren't seen as disloyal: they were understood to be a natural part of taking the responsibility of membership in the church seriously. And to take one's responsibility as part of "the voice of the church" seriously to the point of considered objection is far more loyal than shrugging off our responsibility as members, transferring that responsibility to our leaders, and raising our hands as if by reflex.

 

Don

I'm wondering if something similar to what you describe here still goes on today but among the high leadership councils of the Church instead of the Church membership at large. It still might have some of the same benefit yet be more workable than if every stake congregation were to wrangle over and hash out every proposition.

[DonBradley]

It has been noted by sociologists that Mormonism is quasi-ethnic--it generates a strong subculture and a sense of peoplehood--things individuals don't always lose when they lose their faith or even leave the church. While the case is certainly not exactly the same, in this way being Mormon is somewhat more like being Jewish than it is like being Methodist. There are plenty of Jews who don't believe to any degree in Judaism or participate in a synagogue.

 

And it doesn't seem to me outlandish for someone who is a product of Mormon culture to think of himself or herself as remaining culturally Mormon while acknowledging that he or she is not a member of or believer in the church. If John Dehlin were claiming to be a member of the church, he would clearly be misreporting. But if he identifies himself as culturally Mormon, he's allowed to self-define in this way however he would like--that's what it means to self-define; and, since Mormon culture has many facets apart from formal church membership itself, showing that he's "really" not culturally Mormon would mean demonstrating that he doesn't fit those various other facets---and it still wouldn't change his self-definition or right to self-definition.

 

Don

[Robert F. Smith]

My recollection of that talk is he was using the incident to illustrate the foolishness of such an attitude. In other words, in his humility he was taking his own youthful behavior as a negative example. In this, he was not unlike Alma the younger, though I hasten to add that the behavior he recounted was not in the same league as Alma's.

Well, yes, of course, Scott.  I think that we all understood that intent quite well.  However, you miss my point.  We are so quick to condemn, without reflecting on our own foibles and shortcomings -- especially when we were younger -- thus forgetting that we ourselves were once as foolish as those we condemn.

 

I am very uncomfortable with strict delineation of what constitutes a good Latter-day Saint.  They come in all forms and can be found at every phase of spiritual development.  One may cuss a blue streak.  Another may smoke and drink booze.  We call them Jack Mormons.  A few years go by, and the next thing you know they have given up their childish, addictive pursuits for something better and more satisfying.  Why?  Because we held out the hand of friendship, visited them in jail maybe, and made it plain that Jesus hung out with publicans and winebibbers because his love was stronger than the bands of death.  We can all hope that repentance is just around the corner, that men can be salvaged and renewed.

 

Let us not be so self-righteous as the Pharisees & Sadducees in declaring what is and is not acceptable to God.  The one we condemn so freely may be on the road to Damascus, which is his destiny.

[DonBradley]

I'm wondering if something similar to what you describe here still goes on today but among the high leadership councils of the Church instead of the Church membership at large. It still might have some of the same benefit yet be more workable than if every stake congregation were to wrangle over and hash out every proposition.

 

Oh, I'm quite convinced that it goes on at the highest level. And I think that's fantastic and just as it should be.

 

But I'm unconvinced that the size of the church really means that we're still following the principle of common consent at a local level by going completely to other extreme on the matter at the local level. Yes, there are logistical problems with playing out common consent in exactly the way the early church did. But common consent is a principle, which could meaningfully be put into practice in multiple, changeable ways. Reflex hand raising isn't a meaningful practice of that principle. It's an abdication of the responsibility that principle lays on every member of the church.

 

The initial point as issue here was whether loyalty meant agreement. If it did, I can't see how the prophet Joseph would have put the principle of common consent into practice in a way that encouraged open disagreement--since that would have been tantamount to open disloyalty. But it wasn't disloyalty. It was an important form of loyalty. Loyalty and agreement are not the same, nor does one entail the other. To voice disagreement with what one's considered judgment finds problematic is loyal, while to 'agree' with something one's judgment rejects can be disloyal.

 

The men who fired the shots at Mountain Meadows weren't being "loyal" in following the stake president's counsel. They were being disloyal by failing to carry out their own responsibility of discernment, decision, and voicing their conscience. Their failure to be loyal to the church by dissenting against the stake president's instructions cost scores of lives and has provided a criticism of the church ever since.

 

The example is extreme--but only because it so much the better illustrates the principle: agreement without taking proper personal responsibility isn't loyal, it's disloyal; and disagreement when one has taken such responsibility isn't always disloyal; it can be the most loyal thing one can do. It's problematic to equate loyalty and agreement.

 

Don

[DonBradley]

To be clear(er)...

 

I don't always think someone's use of the term "Mormon" to describe themselves is honest.

 

Take Shawn McCraney, the self-described "Born Again Mormon." Even when I was, myself, an ex-Mormon, McCraney's claim to be a "Born Again Mormon" bothered me. He is an evangelical Christian who has completely abandoned all LDS belief and actively opposes it. But, in McCraney's view, a convert to evangelical Christianity is a "born again" version of whatever he was before conversion--a born again Catholic, a born again Jew, etc. Hence he is, on his description a born again Mormon.

 

The problem with this self-definition is that it makes it sound like McCraney means that he is in some sense still Mormon--that there's continuity between his original, Mormon identity and his current identity. In reality, however, the word "Mormon" in "Born Again Mormon" serves only to describe what McCraney used to be and is now against. IOW, in McCraney's term "Born Again Mormon," the word "Mormon" functions in the same way it does in the terms "ex-Mormon" and "anti-Mormon"; and McCraney's "Born Again Mormon" description really means that he is, in fact, those things: an ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon. 

 

What's different with someone like John Dehlin, or with, say, Mormon fundamentalists, is that they use the term to indicate a continuity, rather than a discontinuity. John Dehlin perceives himself as the product of Mormon forbears, Mormon parents, a Mormon upbringing, Mormon acculturation, Mormon experiences (such as a mission, a temple marriage, and church service), and a deep interest in things Mormon. And, clearly, to a great extent he is all those things. So, on the basis of those continuities, he views himself as to some extent still culturally Mormon--i.e., there's continuity in some aspects of his Mormon identity there.

 

While someone like Shawn McCraney abuses the term "Mormon" by using it to describe himself when, really, it describes only what he is discontinuous with, when someone like Dehlin uses it in the limited sense of describing certain social and cultural continuities, the term fits to the extent that there is any such continuity, and I can see little objection to his using it, so long as he distinguishes his own cultural Mormon identity from church membership.

 

Don

[Bernard Gui]

It seems a bit disingenuous to demand a definition of a faithful Latter-Day Saint, and then when one attempts to provide it to accuse the provider of being judgmental. As Scott is demonstrating, there are numerous statements by Church leaders that specifically define faithfulness. If Scott continues, we will see that loyalty to Church leaders is only one of many aspects. Such a study is most useful and can help us assess our own faithfulness....and improve it through the process of repentance. "If ye are not one, ye are not mine" is an important indicator. After all, isn't this the reason we are here?

Regarding membership numbers and faithful members, when a person is baptized and confirmed he becomes a member of the Church and remains so until death or formal separation. As a clerk (and a former bishop), I account for every person in my ward - faithful or not, apostate or temple-worthy, Jack or Molly Mormon. My sister who came back after almost 50 years of inactivity was still a member during those off years and was rightly counted among those figures reported at Conference time. There is nothing nefarious about reporting the number of baptized and confirmed members. Unlike many other churches, we truly concern ourselves with all the whole household of faith. As recommended in the Didache, by word, by deed, and by procedure we look up every member by name and seek out the poor and needy among us.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bernard Gui