On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[Scott Lloyd]

Great! Then we're done?

Perhaps you are. That's up to you.

 

I will continue to post insights and statements from Church leaders on this topic as I find them -- in accordance with my stated purpose for starting this thread.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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"?

Not on that point no. But as a whole? Sure.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

I think we've already seen that fulfilled in some measure since he gave that statement and in the relatively brief time since his passing.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

 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.

Please share an example of where you have dissented from the councils (or the output of the councils) of the Church, let's say in the unit where you attend, and it helped to make it a better place.

[ttribe]

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

 

Please stop this.  I wasn't "pushing you for a checklist."

[Scott Lloyd]

More passive-aggressive nonsense.

Hmm. I find that passage to be very well worded.

 

D-i-c-kens is one of my favorite authors, and A Christmas Carol is probably my favorite novel of all time.

 

But I've never regarded Scrooge's nephew, Fred, who strikes me as a sympathetic character, as being "passive-aggressive." Some might take him that way, I suppose, due to the fact that, as part of his jovial nature, he does draw some amusement from his uncle's curmudgeonliness (to coin a term).

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

Perhaps you are. That's up to you.

 

I will continue to post insights and statements from Church leaders on this topic as I find them -- in accordance with my stated purpose for starting this thread.

Well, of course.

[CV75]

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

It could mean just about anything anyone wants it to as a general principle, but as it is applied to Church process, the meaning as conveyed in the scriptures and the abundance of conference talks are to me the most relevant since we choose to follow uphold them. In a kingdom where participation and making and keeping covenants is completely voluntary (or by consent; or in cases involving the group, common consent!), those are where the general principle is explained, as well as handbooks and so forth.

 

Logic checks are part of any good faith discussion, but these are literally more the result of "common logic" than "common consent", and needn't be framed or presented as dissent and opposition. There are many other considerations as well. And not all spiritual things are necessarily logical or rational to the "common (natural) man" and the things and ways of God for His people discussing things in council are not generally accepted by the world.

 

All commandments and revelations are subject to error

Earlier, I referred to 3 Nephi 11, observing that the faithful do not contend against the Lord's servants on points of doctrine. When the tendency for error which all God's children have in common forms the basis for disputing or treating lightly the commandments and revelations, the wrong spirit is stirring and belief in Christ is thus compromised. The fallen nature or arm of flesh is being leveraged against the light or arm of God. This does not seem to be a good thing.

[tonie]

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"?).

 

I think you are correct.The apparent purpose of this thread is to create a "list" or otherwise standard by which self-appointed judges of faithfulness will judge others. 

 

Those self-appointed judges will undoubtedly bandy about making "No faithfull Saint" statements, under the auspices that the contents of this thread establish a standard and therefor it isn't a fallacy.

 

Here are some thoughts I had:

 

Will a Saint be labeled "unfaithful" if he/she states, citing the Church essays, that Brigham Young was a racist and that the Priesthood ban was not of God?

 

Will a Saint be labeled "unfaithful" if he/she, being an American Citizen, belongs to the Democratic Party?

 

Will a Saint be labeled "unfaithful" if he/she, as an American Citizen, determines there is no legally sufficient reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage?

 

Will a Saint be labeled "unfaithful" if he/she, believes that one women, may be granted the Priesthood?

 

 

And as Cinpero asked earlier in this thread:

 

Will a Saint be labeled "unfaithful" if he/she accepts flood of Noah was Global?

Edited May 20, 2015 by tonie

[Buckeye]

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.

 

 

Mixed results. I can think of ways in which society makes it harder to follow official FP teachings today - for example, sports and other school extras are increasingly demanding time on the sabbath. But I can also think of ways in which the FP teachings have modified to make it easier to keep one's footing within society today - for example, the church's Race and Priesthood essay disavowed the curse of cain and other racial justifications for the priesthood ban. Another example would be Elder Christofferson's clear statement that members can remain in good standing and support civil SSM. Before that, some local leaders made members choose between a recommend and public support of SSM. Now such members have greater ease in keeping their feet both inside the church and inside society.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

I decided to search for some sources on loyalty in order to answer Scott's request. However, the best source I could find is the one he quotes in post #2 (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/04/loyalty?lang=eng). In reading President Hinckley's address, I was struck by how clearly he was addressing not only loyalty to core church doctrines, but also loyalty to church positions on public policy. On this point, he expressly referenced the pain he felt when a large number (majority?) of members voted differently from the church's position on the repeal of prohibition.

 

 

In 1933 there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state. I was on a mission, working in London, England, when I read the newspaper headlines that screamed, “Utah Kills Prohibition.” President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel. On this occasion I am not going to talk about the good or bad of Prohibition but rather of uncompromising loyalty to the Church.

 

That said, I also find it touching that, prior to discussing loyalty to church doctrines or policies, President Hinckley first encouraged loyalty to "ourselves" - i.e. "the very best that is in us," as well as to our "companions." In my experience, those who choose to act or speak differently from the church on some point, generally do so because they feel an overriding loyalty to something else - truth, family, honesty, etc. As such, the difference isn't so much one of loyalty in the abstract, as it is the thing to which we are loyal. These members choose (at least on these points) to be loyal to something other than the church.

 

That is the heart of the matter. If membersare in error, it's not an error of loyalty, but of being loyal to the wrong thing - in choosing to be loyal to family, truth, honesty etc. when they should have chosen to be loyal to church leaders. So this debate isn't really about loyalty. It's about values. Some members choose to value obedience to leaders above all else. Others choose to value other things above the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, of course.

At the time I cited the Mosiah passage, I also cited this one, which I quite like:

 

 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is ^acompelled in all things, the same is a ^bslothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

 27 Verily I say, men should be ^aanxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are ^aagents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their ^breward.

 

(Doctrine and Covenants 58:26)

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you are correct.The apparent purpose of this thread is to create a "list" or otherwise standard by which self-appointed judges of faithfulness will judge others. 

 

I have repeatedly denied that this is my purpose and have, in fact, resisted the cynical attempt of someone else to divert my efforts into such a thing. That you insist on contradicting my specific and repeated denial does not reflect good faith on your part.

 

Read the post a couple of pages back from calmoriah. She gets what I am trying to do. So does Bernard Gui.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

I have repeatedly denied that this is my purpose and have, in fact, resisted the cynical attempt of someone else to divert my efforts into such a thing. That you insist on contradicting my specific denial does not reflect good faith on your part.

 

Speaking of a lack of good faith - how many times do I have to deny that mine was a "cynical attempt" to "divert [your] efforts into such a thing" before you're willing to give the same benefit of the doubt you are demanding for yourself?

Edited May 20, 2015 by ttribe

[Gray]

It could mean just about anything anyone wants it to as a general principle, but as it is applied to Church process, the meaning as conveyed in the scriptures and the abundance of conference talks are to me the most relevant since we choose to follow uphold them. In a kingdom where participation and making and keeping covenants is completely voluntary (or by consent; or in cases involving the group, common consent!), those are where the general principle is explained, as well as handbooks and so forth.

 

Logic checks are part of any good faith discussion, but these are literally more the result of "common logic" than "common consent", and needn't be framed or presented as dissent and opposition. There are many other considerations as well. And not all spiritual things are necessarily logical or rational to the "common (natural) man" and the things and ways of God for His people discussing things in council are not generally accepted by the world.

 

I think if we move into the area of irrationality in our pursuit of the of the spiritual, that's a good indication that what we're practicing is no longer spirituality, but a kind of superstition. Spirituality and reason should always be in harmony, IMO.

 

Earlier, I referred to 3 Nephi 11, observing that the faithful do not contend against the Lord's servants on points of doctrine.

 

Isn't that how the church worked under Joseph Smith, though?

 

When the tendency for error which all God's children have in common forms the basis for disputing or treating lightly the commandments and revelations, the wrong spirit is stirring and belief in Christ is thus compromised. The fallen nature or arm of flesh is being leveraged against the light or arm of God. This does not seem to be a good thing.

 

Exact obedience to church leaders is no less reliance on the arm of flesh than any other approach though. The prophet's arm is no less fleshy than anyone else's. 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Now such members have greater ease in keeping their feet both inside the church and inside society.

Or perhaps, as Elder Bruce C. Hafen phrased it,

 

Some people want to keep one hand on the wall of the temple while touching the world’s “unclean things”²¹ with the other hand. We must put both hands on the temple and hold on for dear life.

 

[cinepro]

Not on that point no. But as a whole? Sure.

 

Well, obviously. 

 

As with "doctrine" (see my sig), as this thread continues it will ultimately be shown that "faithfulness" in the Church has no objective definition, but is instead defined by each member in a way that includes them and their particular beliefs and disbeliefs, but excludes those others who have their own opinions that we just can't abide.

 

"Faithfulness" isn't the same thing as "loyalty" to Church leaders, which isn't the same thing as "obedience" to Church leaders.  If we're talking about "loyal LDS" or "obedient LDS", that's fine, but that doesn't address the issue of RCM's ad-hoc definition of "faithful LDS".

 

To expand on this point, I would ask anyone on this board who considers themselves a "loyal American" what their degree of support is for the current leaders of the country, including the President, Congress and the Supreme Court.  I suspect many consider themselves "loyal Americans" because of their low feelings towards many of those leaders based on their loyalty to the principles of America as a country and institution, and not in spite of those feelings.  Likewise, it is possible for a loyal member of the Church to disagree with current leadership because of their loyalty to the principles of the Gospel (for example, those who opposed the Priesthood ban before 1978).  The loyalty is displayed in how they deal with that disagreement, not in whether or not that disagreement exists.

Edited May 20, 2015 by cinepro

[CV75]

I found a scriptural indicator of faithfulness is found in D&C 121:44, "Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved..." This "showing forth an increase of love" is a sign of faithfulness and a faithful LDS.

[Senator]

 

As with "doctrine" (see my sig), as this thread continues it will ultimately be shown that "faithfulness" in the Church has no objective definition, but is instead defined by each member in a way that includes them and their particular beliefs and disbeliefs, but excludes those others who have their own opinions that we just can't abide.

 

 

I think it's obvious that this eventual checklist of prooftexts of what makes a faithful/worthy/righteous saint would potentially be massively long. 

 

This could be the longest thread in history.

[Scott Lloyd]

I found a scriptural indicator of faithfulness is found in D&C 121:44, "Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved..." This "showing forth an increase of love" is a sign of faithfulness and a faithful LDS.

You have given me a fresh insight here, CV75.

 

Verse 44 says, "That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death."

 

Up to now, I have taken that passage to refer only to the "showing forth an increase of love" portion of verse 43. But I now realize it refers to the entire verse, including the first part, "reproving betimes with sharpness." Both elements, the timely reproof and the subsequent increase of love demonstrate faithfulness. We overcome our mortal natures, or "cords of death," when we are diligent and vigilant enough to administer reproof when it is required and when we follow that up with an increase of love to him who was reproved.

[Buckeye]

Or perhaps, as Elder Bruce C. Hafen phrased it,

 

In my experience our society's teachings are sometimes cleaner, or at least as clean, our the church teachings. Case in point - whether skin color reflects divine disfavor. I'm grateful for the members who held onto society's teachings on that point rather than accept the church's teachings. Our doctrine is cleaner today - closer to Christ - for their skepticism regarding church teachings that didn't match with real world experience.

 

At the same time, quite often church teachings end up being cleaner than societal teachings.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, obviously. 

 

As with "doctrine" (see my sig), as this thread continues it will ultimately be shown that "faithfulness" in the Church has no objective definition, but is instead defined by each member in a way that includes them and their particular beliefs and disbeliefs, but excludes those others who have their own opinions that we just can't abide.

 

"Faithfulness" isn't the same thing as "loyalty" to Church leaders, which isn't the same thing as "obedience" to Church leaders.  If we're talking about "loyal LDS" or "obedient LDS", that's fine, but that doesn't address the issue of RCM's ad-hoc definition of "faithful LDS".

 

To expand on this point, I would ask anyone on this board who considers themselves a "loyal American" what their degree of support is for the current leaders of the country, including the President, Congress and the Supreme Court.  I suspect many consider themselves "loyal Americans" because of their low feelings towards many of those leaders based on their loyalty to the principles of America as a country and institution, and not in spite of those feelings.  Likewise, it is possible for a loyal member of the Church to disagree with current leadership because of their loyalty to the principles of the Gospel (for example, those who opposed the Priesthood ban before 1978).  The loyalty is displayed in how they deal with that disagreement, not in whether or not that disagreement exists.

Bernard Gui, kind of mentioned this a few posts ago, but In the other thread, you chided Russell for not having -- how did you put it? -- an "external" standard by which to measure faithfulness. You in effect accused him of decreeing his own standard and applying it to others.

 

I endeavor to provide some citations of authoritative statements from Church leaders, and now I'm getting flack from  you and others for doing that.

 

The purpose of my thread was clearly stated in the OP: to cite and provide links to quotations and sermons on the topic of faithfulness in the Church. I've provided four so far; I'll keep going for as long as I think it advisable.

 

The other comments and posts are more or less welcome, but they are peripheral to the purpose of the thread. Individuals can express their own opinions, but the real purpose is to highlight statements that have come from Church leaders over the years.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, obviously. 

Is it?

I am not so sure it is.

[CV75]

You have given me a fresh insight here, CV75.

 

Verse 44 says, "That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death."

 

Up to now, I have taken that passage to refer only to the "showing forth an increase of love" portion of verse 43. But I now realize it refers to the entire verse, including the first part, "reproving betimes with sharpness." Both elements, the timely reproof and the subsequent increase of love demonstrate faithfulness. We overcome our mortal natures, or "cords of death," when we are diligent and vigilant enough to administer reproof when it is required and when we follow that up with an increase of love to him who was reproved.

Cool!

 

…and the reproof is given when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Because these verses define the faithful, I think it is wrong to use them to claim “loyal opposition” or to subvert “common consent” with unanimity as justification to dissent.

 

ETA:

Alma also identifies some characteristics of faithfulness in hi son Shiblon (Alma 38). Faithful LDS would likewise: “look to the Lord…continue in keeping his commandments… bear [persecution] with patience… trust in God.” They are receptive to counsel about teaching the word, resisting pride and boasting in their own wisdom or strength, being bold but not overbearing, bridling passions, being filled with love, refraining from idleness, praying, acknowledging unworthiness and need for forgiveness (and to forgive), and praying for others.

Edited May 20, 2015 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

In my experience our society's teachings are sometimes cleaner, or at least as clean, our the church teachings. Case in point - whether skin color reflects divine disfavor. I'm grateful for the members who held onto society's teachings on that point rather than accept the church's teachings. Our doctrine is cleaner today - closer to Christ - for their skepticism regarding church teachings that didn't match with real world experience.

 

At the same time, quite often church teachings end up being cleaner than societal teachings.

Be that as it may, sexual immorality, in all of its forms, is definitely among the "unclean things."