On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[Storm Rider]

As I pondered on what makes a faithful Latter-day Saint I did not jump to an immediate definition; I pondered on it and considered how could one define it in the context of a list of qualities or beliefs that one must possess.  Does being faithful mean that one is spiritually mature or more righteous than others?  I don't think it does.  When I consider the Sacrament prayer on the bread, "that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

 

The qualifier is are we willing to take upon us anew the name of Christ, to remember him, and to keep his commandments.   Willingness does not signify that we have accomplished a thing, only that we are are trying.  In this context, or with this understanding, a faithful LDS is not necessarily the most knowledgeable, possessing a certainty of specific doctrines, but that we have surrendered to Jesus Christ, taken his name upon his and are seeking to follow after him.  There is an acceptance of our own humanity and frailty within this concept.  We are not perfect and we don't expect others to be perfect; we expect others to simply be willing to keep trying; to get up when we fall down and keep moving toward Christ.

[Senator]

Your gripe is with ttribe.

 

No, not entirely.

 

In fact, his summation posts might have been informative.

[Senator]

Sprung your trap too soon, did I?

 

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

I have to admit, that level of snide was uncharacteristic of you.

[Senator]

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.

 

I have my doubts that Scott's intent was to initate a devotional. Rather, his purpose was to defend or substantiate his argument. That's fine.

 

So in the end we may find Scott was right and the other guy wrong, and I will still feel I have been checklisted.

 

I don't know. Like I said, the excersise doesn't sit well with me, especially given the level of snarkiness in some Scott's remarks.

[Senator]

 

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.

 

Maybe

 

I prefer King Benjamin's approach:

 

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

 

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

[sethpayne]

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.

Who said anything about opposition? My wife and I disagree all the time. But we are loyal to each other. I certainly don't oppose my wife when we disagree.

And the comparison is not flawed at all.

Sometimes I'm not sure you see a distinction between heterodox saints who privately go about their business and those who actively promote their views as Church doctrine.

[CV75]

The initial point as issue here was whether loyalty meant agreement.

It is interesting to me that we (where I live) have been hearing the term "align" used often, as in aligning ourselves with the Lord individually, and as far as our membership in the Church goes, with our bishop, who is aligned with our stake president, who is aligned with the leadership above him and so forth up to the President of the Church, who has been called and set apart to be the one to align with the Lord in behalf of the earthly kingdom.

 

To me, "alignment" as a process tempers both loyalty and agreement. It allows for various non-contentious personal and group processes that are required for our "coming together," each honoring the free exercise of agency. Just as the Lord is gracious toward our lifelong process to align with Him, we can be gracious toward each other in aligning through the Church organization, which is headed by the Lord.

 

If a faithful LDS hasn't learned this principle yet, I think he will!

[Bobbieaware]

One thing is for certain: God, the perfect judge of all humanity, knows what it means to be a faithful Latter-day Saint and the Doctrine & Covenants tells us there will be many members of the Church (those who are not valiant in the faith) who will be judged as being unworthy of an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. We can quarrel among ourselves as to what it means to be a faithful Latter-day Saint, but the problem is that God (you know, the "no monkey business Guy?") has his own high standards for faithfulness and there will be no parsing of words or manipulative cajoling on the day of judgement that will get him to back down from his own immutable law. And if any of us fail to obtain the celestial kingdom, not only will God will condemn us but our own hearts will condemn us as well. Those who fail to obtain the celestial kingdom will look back and reexamine their lives on earth and come to fully realize they failed because they deceived themselves into believing the scriptures and the living prophets didn't really mean what they said. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." (Psalms 111:10)

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

One thing is for certain: God, the perfect judge of all humanity, knows what it means to be a faithful Latter-day Saint

 

God requires loyalty to Him, not the church.

If we try playing the game of defining loyalty to the church as synonymous to being faithful to God it just doesn't work. Shout out to Don Bradley for his excellent posts on this thread. He's nailed it.

"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."

Like others have said, the whole idea of defining who is and who isn't "faithful" or "loyal" to the church is just an exercise in pride. It's US versus THEM. Creating this kind of division reminds me of an excellent Pink Floyd song. Look it up

[Gray]

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.

 

Without loyal opposition, there can be only stagnation and group think. 

[ttribe]

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.

 

More passive-aggressive nonsense.

[Storm Rider]

Without loyal opposition, there can be only stagnation and group think. 

 

And so how exactly does God or the Holy Ghost play in your concept of loyal opposition and group think?

[Gray]

And so how exactly does God or the Holy Ghost play in your concept of loyal opposition and group think?

 

The same role they play in everything else - that is, they don't obviate human nature, free agency, normal rules of social interaction, or natural law. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

And so how exactly does God or the Holy Ghost play in your concept of loyal opposition and group think?

 

The disagreement, argument, opposition, is all part of the "study it out" portion of decision making. If group think reigns there really isn't adequate study. After oppositional study the HG will witness of truth to the decision makers.

If a Bishop has a REALLY bad idea and shares it with his ward council it would be the duty of council members to "council" the bishop and explain why the idea is bad. This could easily be viewed as opposition but it is actually loyalty to both the bishop and the church. If the council member sits quietly and goes along because he doesn't want to make waves, then that council member is a coward and is disloyal to the church.

[CV75]

Without loyal opposition, there can be only stagnation and group think. 

The only place I can think of where an “opposition party” remotely exists in the Church is in her deciding councils, as described in D&C 102. And such a role is given by lot to those with a prior appointment, not by anyone’s asserting his own position (“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron”—Hebrews 5:4).

[Gray]

 

 

The disagreement, argument, opposition, is all part of the "study it out" portion of decision making. If group think reigns there really isn't adequate study. After oppositional study the HG will witness of truth to the decision makers.

If a Bishop has a REALLY bad idea and shares it with his ward council it would be the duty of council members to "council" the bishop and explain why the idea is bad. This could easily be viewed as opposition but it is actually loyalty to both the bishop and the church. If the council member sits quietly and goes along because he doesn't want to make waves, then that council member is a coward and is disloyal to the church.

 

Indeed. When it comes to spiritual matters some people still want to get the A grade by saying a quick prayer instead of studying for the test. 

[Gray]

The only place I can think of where an “opposition party” remotely exists in the Church is in her deciding councils, as described in D&C 102. And such a role is given by lot to those with a prior appointment, not by anyone’s asserting his own position (“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron”—Hebrews 5:4).

 

As Don Bradley observed, that is rightly the role of any and all members of the church, given the principle of common consent. 

[CV75]

The disagreement, argument, opposition, is all part of the "study it out" portion of decision making. If group think reigns there really isn't adequate study. After oppositional study the HG will witness of truth to the decision makers.

If a Bishop has a REALLY bad idea and shares it with his ward council it would be the duty of council members to "council" the bishop and explain why the idea is bad. This could easily be viewed as opposition but it is actually loyalty to both the bishop and the church. If the council member sits quietly and goes along because he doesn't want to make waves, then that council member is a coward and is disloyal to the church.

I think this is very different from the political principle of "loyal opposition." Church councils are not (by design, anyway) democracies, the systems where this principle is usually found. Inasmuch as individuals' personal ideologies often enter the discussion, they ideally defer to the Spirit by the end of it.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I think this is very different from the political principle of "loyal opposition." Church councils are not (by design, anyway) democracies, the systems where this principle is usually found. Inasmuch as individuals' personal ideologies often enter the discussion, they ideally defer to the Spirit by the end of it.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that the church is a democracy. What I am arguing is that it is loyal to raise a voice of dissent if it can help to make the church a better place.

[CV75]

As Don Bradley observed, that is rightly the role of any and all members of the church, given the principle of common consent. 

But D&C 102 is not about the rightful role of any and all members. For that, please see post #132.

 

References to "common consent" in the D&C relate to decisions made in the councils, united order and conferences.

 

D&C 28 is very interesting in that (to me) it ties the principle of alignment to common consent on the basis that "no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him..." It is also interesting because I don't think either Oliver Cowdery or Hiram Page could have been considered to have been "loyal opposition" in the context of this revelation. The "common consent" referred to in this section had already been acted upon to define the "church covenants" and "covenants of the church" that had already been decided. This revelation was given in preparation for an appointed conference.

[Scott Lloyd]

There have been some thoughtful and well articulated posts on this thread. Comments from smac97, Don Bradley, Robert F. Smith, sethpayne, Bernard Gui, Stormrider and others have given me food for thought. I appreciate them.

 

I do believe it is worthwhile to earnestly ponder what constitutes faithfulness in the Church and Kingdom of God. As part of our pondering, it is vital to consider statements that have been made by Church leaders over the years.

 

Which brings me back to the purpose for which I started this thread. I now link to this talk given at the  October 1993 general conference by President James E. Faust, a man I member with fondness for his kindly manner and wisdom. It goes directly to the subject and purpose of this thread. The talk is so rich with insight and practical instruction, I'm having a hard time choosing selections to highlight, but here are some (all boldface emphases are mine):

 

 

As a prelude to the specific items I wish to discuss, I believe it is important to set forth a few fundamental principles as I understand them. The object of God’s work is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). God has given the priesthood to man at various times since Adam’s day to bring about the great plan of salvation for all mankind. Through our faithfulness, the transcendent blessings of eternal life flow from this priesthood authority.

For these priesthood blessings to flower, there is a constant need for unity within the priesthood. We must be loyal to the leadership who have been called to preside over us and hold the keys of the priesthood. The words of President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., still ring loudly in our ears: “Brethren, let us be united.” He explained:

“An essential part of unity is loyalty. … Loyalty is a pretty difficult quality to possess. It requires the ability to put away selfishness, greed, ambition and all of the baser qualities of the human mind. You cannot be loyal unless you are willing to surrender. … His own preferences and desires must be put away, and he must see only the great purpose which lies out ahead” (Immortality and Eternal Life Melchizedek Priesthood Course of Study, 1968–69, p. 163).

 

 

Those who have keys, which include the judicial or disciplinary authority, have the responsibility for keeping the Church cleansed from all iniquity (see D&C 20:54; D&C 43:11). Bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and others who have the responsibility of keeping the Church pure must perform this labor in a spirit of love and kindness. It should not be done in a spirit of punishment, but rather of helping. However, it is of no kindness to a brother or sister in transgression for their presiding officers to look the other way. Some words on this subject come from President John Taylor:

“Furthermore, I have heard of some Bishops who have been seeking to cover up the iniquities of men; I tell them, in the name of God, they will have to bear … that iniquity, and if any of you want to partake of the sins of men, or uphold them, you will have to bear them. Do you hear it, you Bishops and you Presidents? God will require it at your hands. You are not placed in a position to tamper with the principles of righteousness, nor to cover up the infamies and corruptions of men” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1880, p. 78).

On this matter, we urge you presiding brethren to seek the Spirit of God, to study and be guided by the scriptures and the General Handbook of Instructions. Church discipline is not limited to sexual sins but includes other acts such as murder, abortions, burglary, theft, fraud, and other dishonesty, deliberate disobedience to the rules and regulations of the Church, advocating or practicing polygamy, apostasy, or any other unchristianlike conduct, including defiance or ridicule of the Lord’s anointed, contrary to the law of the Lord and the order of the Church.

 

And here are some comments relevant to our discussion about the concept of "a loyal opposition" as it does or does not apply to our membership in the Church:

 

 

In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the “loyal opposition.” I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision “must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions” (D&C 107:27). This means that after frank and open discussion decisions are reached in council under the direction of the presiding officer, who has the ultimate authority to decide. That decision is then sustained, because our unity comes from full agreement with righteous principles and general response to the operation of the Spirit of God.

Free discussion and expression are encouraged in the Church. Certainly the open expressions in most fast and testimony meetings, or Sunday School, Relief Society, and priesthood meetings attest to that principle. However, the privilege of free expression should operate within limits.

 

He then quotes President George Q. Cannon relative to that subject. The quote enunciates the principle with which most of us here are or should be familiar:

 

“A friend … wished to know whether we … considered an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the Authorities of the Church was apostasy. … We replied that … we could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the Authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing these differences of opinion and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts and counsels of the Authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term” (Gospel Truth, sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, 2 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, 2:276–77).

 

And he cites the Handbook pertaining to what constitutes apostasy and gives an earnest warning:

 

 

Among the activities considered apostate to the Church include when members “(1) repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; (2) persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or (3) continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 10-3).

Those men and women who persist in publicly challenging basic doctrines, practices, and establishment of the Church sever themselves from the Spirit of the Lord and forfeit their right to place and influence in the Church. Members are encouraged to study the principles and the doctrines of the Church so that they understand them. Then, if questions arise and there are honest differences of opinion, members are encouraged to discuss these matters privately with priesthood leaders.

There is a certain arrogance in thinking that any of us may be more spiritually intelligent, more learned, or more righteous than the Councils called to preside over us. Those Councils are more in tune with the Lord than any individual persons they preside over, and the individual members of the Councils are generally guided by those Councils. In this church, where we have lay leadership, it is inevitable that some will be placed in authority over us who have a different background from our own. This does not mean that those with other honorable vocational or professional qualifications are any less entitled to the spirit of their office than any other. Some of the great bishops of my lifetime included a brickmason, a grocer, a farmer, a dairyman, and one who ran an ice cream business. What any may have lacked in formal education was insignificant. They were humble men, and because they were humble, they were taught and magnified by the Holy Spirit. Without exception, they were greatly strengthened as they learned to labor diligently to fulfill their callings, and to minister to the Saints they were called to preside over. So it is with all of the callings in the Church. President Monson teaches us, “Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies” (Thomas S. Monson, Ensign, May 1988, p. 43).

 

I could go on, but I'm succumbing to the temptation to quote the talk in its entirety, which I had not intended to do. Just go to the link and read the whole thing. It's fabulous. And, for having been uttered longer than two decades ago, highly timely for today.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe

 

I prefer King Benjamin's approach:

 

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

 

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

Yes. I cited this one yesterday, when ttribe was pushing me for a checklist.

[Senator]

Yes. I cited this one yesterday, when ttribe was pushing me for a checklist.

 

Great! Then we're done?

[Bernard Gui]

What are we to make of Elder Maxwell's famous warning?

But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions.

[Gray]

But D&C 102 is not about the rightful role of any and all members. For that, please see post #132.

 

References to "common consent" in the D&C relate to decisions made in the councils, united order and conferences.

 

D&C 28 is very interesting in that (to me) it ties the principle of alignment to common consent on the basis that "no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him..." It is also interesting because I don't think either Oliver Cowdery or Hiram Page could have been considered to have been "loyal opposition" in the context of this revelation. The "common consent" referred to in this section had already been acted upon to define the "church covenants" and "covenants of the church" that had already been decided. This revelation was given in preparation for an appointed conference.

 

I wasn't referring to any particular D&C passage, only common consent as a general principle. 

 

All commandments and revelations are subject to error - common consent could work as a basic logic check, not as a replacement for revelation (which is exceedingly rare these days in any formal sense). 

Edited May 20, 2015 by Gray