On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Indeed.

 

President Faust firmly dealt with the "loyal opposition" idea in the quote I provided.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

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.

In my opinion, this is a good one-sentence definition: " A faithful Latter-day Saint is one who will choose to follow the First Presidency." (Special emphasis on choose)

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Sounds like you agee with Elder Maxwell.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is a quotation from Elder Quentin L. Cook from the most recent general conference that has some bearing on our topic. (I'm including the portion where he says the Church has never been stronger, which I have quoted before, simply because I like it so well):

 

 

We recognize that some members have questions and concerns as they seek to strengthen their faith and testimonies. We should be careful not to be critical or judgmental of those with concerns—great or small. At the same time, those with concerns should do everything they can to build their own faith and testimony. Patiently and humbly studying, pondering, praying, living gospel principles, and counseling with appropriate leaders are the best ways to resolve questions or concerns.

Some have asserted that more members are leaving the Church today and that there is more doubt and unbelief than in the past. This is simply not true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger. The number of members removing their names from the records of the Church has always been very small and is significantly less in recent years than in the past.²⁴ The increase in demonstrably measurable areas, such as endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions, has been dramatic. Let me say again, the Church has never been stronger. But, “remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.”²⁵ We reach out to everyone.

 

(Again, boldface emphasis is mine.)

[tonie]

duplicate

Edited May 20, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

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.

Really, Scott, you are going to lecture us on diverting attention or otherwise derailing threads... How about you follow your own advice from here out then.

[CV75]

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.

Is this an awkward way of agreeing with me without admitting it? LOL -- Until someone is spiritual and rational enough to recognize a perfectly integrated state of the two, which is superior to mere harmony, the “faithful” by definition admit that they ultimately rely on the Spirit and weigh in on that side of things. It is by faith that we do anything, including obey, no matter how rational we are or how much we (think we) know.

 

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?

Yes, and as I showed, D&C 28 is a great example of the Lord’s expectation 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.

 

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. 

Some people would qualify the kind of obedience the Lord is asking for in 3 Nephi 11 as “exact obedience to church leaders” – the phrase doesn’t mean much in and of itself. How wold you qualify the obedience He is asking for in that chapter?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

 

Fair request. I'll share a couple of examples from a few years ago.

Ward-

Bishop announces in Ward Council the final budgets for the upcoming year. All auxiliaries are itemized. He says the bishopric developed the budget prayerfully but I see a large problem. Despite having a few more YW than YM the YM budget is double the YW budget. When asked why this is he shares plans for scout camps monthly, a high adventure trip out of state, and travel expenses for other YM related activities. I asked if that was the amount the YM requested. He said "yes". I then asked if the YW budget reflected the amount they requested. He said "no" but since they don't have boy scout expenses he couldn't justify the funds for YW activities. I explained why this was unfair and devalued our YW and that "final budget" or not, it needed to be redone to be more equitable to fit the needs of both groups. After a lively discussion he reluctantly agreed. The real final budget reflected parity between YM & YW. This was loyal opposition that resulted in the ward culture becoming a better and more fair place.

Stake-

As a chaperone at youth conference the Stake announced to all the youth that should any of them wear clothing that was immodest (as defined by them- was actually more strict than the BYU dress code) they would be given a long, pioneer style skirt that would need to be worn for the remainder of the conference. After the youth left for their first activity the chaperones stayed back for a brief meeting to discuss rules etc where this modesty policy was reiterated. I voiced my opposition to the policy on the grounds that 1- it is aimed directly at the YW instead of uniformly to YM & YW, 2- Implementation would cause shame or embarrassment for the youth 3- The dress code was arbitrary and previous notice wasn't given for the extra strict code that I also had a problem with.

The Stake YM/YW leaders boldly they would move forward as planned despite my objections to which I advised them I would not support the activity under those conditions. I told them that I would take my children and any others from my ward who wanted to come (with parental permission) and go instead to a nearby amusement park. I also told them our ward would not support further Stake youth activities until these policies changed. The Stake YM/YW leaders were very unhappy and took the issue to the SP who agreed with me and got rid of the stupid modesty shaming policy.

These are both very simple examples. But in both cases it would have been very easy to go along because the "leader knows best". But changes were made because I dissented.

People have good intentions but implementation is not always good. This is true for local units as well as the church in general.

[hope_for_things]

 

 

Fair request. I'll share a couple of examples from a few years ago.

Ward-

Bishop announces in Ward Council the final budgets for the upcoming year. All auxiliaries are itemized. He says the bishopric developed the budget prayerfully but I see a large problem. Despite having a few more YW than YM the YM budget is double the YW budget. When asked why this is he shares plans for scout camps monthly, a high adventure trip out of state, and travel expenses for other YM related activities. I asked if that was the amount the YM requested. He said "yes". I then asked if the YW budget reflected the amount they requested. He said "no" but since they don't have boy scout expenses he couldn't justify the funds for YW activities. I explained why this was unfair and devalued our YW and that "final budget" or not, it needed to be redone to be more equitable to fit the needs of both groups. After a lively discussion he reluctantly agreed. The real final budget reflected parity between YM & YW. This was loyal opposition that resulted in the ward culture becoming a better and more fair place.

Stake-

As a chaperone at youth conference the Stake announced to all the youth that should any of them wear clothing that was immodest (as defined by them- was actually more strict than the BYU dress code) they would be given a long, pioneer style skirt that would need to be worn for the remainder of the conference. After the youth left for their first activity the chaperones stayed back for a brief meeting to discuss rules etc where this modesty policy was reiterated. I voiced my opposition to the policy on the grounds that 1- it is aimed directly at the YW instead of uniformly to YM & YW, 2- Implementation would cause shame or embarrassment for the youth 3- The dress code was arbitrary and previous notice wasn't given for the extra strict code that I also had a problem with.

The Stake YM/YW leaders boldly they would move forward as planned despite my objections to which I advised them I would not support the activity under those conditions. I told them that I would take my children and any others from my ward who wanted to come (with parental permission) and go instead to a nearby amusement park. I also told them our ward would not support further Stake youth activities until these policies changed. The Stake YM/YW leaders were very unhappy and took the issue to the SP who agreed with me and got rid of the stupid modesty shaming policy.

These are both very simple examples. But in both cases it would have been very easy to go along because the "leader knows best". But changes were made because I dissented.

People have good intentions but implementation is not always good. This is true for local units as well as the church in general.

 

I appaud you for your bravery and for standing up for equality and fairness.  Great work!

[Scott Lloyd]

Really, Scott, you are going to lecture us on diverting attention or otherwise derailing threads... How about you follow your own advice from here out then.

Non sequitur.

[Gray]

Is this an awkward way of agreeing with me without admitting it? LOL -- Until someone is spiritual and rational enough to recognize a perfectly integrated state of the two, which is superior to mere harmony, the “faithful” by definition admit that they ultimately rely on the Spirit and weigh in on that side of things. It is by faith that we do anything, including obey, no matter how rational we are or how much we (think we) know.

 

Right, they must be integrated, but earlier you were saying spiritual things don't have to be logical. There is no "spiritual logic" Something is either logical or it isn't. The logical and the spiritual should harmonize.

 

Yes, and as I showed, D&C 28 is a great example of the Lord’s expectation that the faithful do not contend against the Lord's servants on points of doctrine.

 

D&C 28 talks about who gets revelation for the church, it doesn't go as far as you're trying to stretch it. 

 

Some people would qualify the kind of obedience the Lord is asking for in 3 Nephi 11 as “exact obedience to church leaders” – the phrase doesn’t mean much in and of itself. How wold you qualify the obedience He is asking for in that chapter?

 

I think we can all agree that we shouldn't be "stirred up to anger" against each other. That doesn't mean that there can be no debate. And interestingly if you take 3 Nephi 11 too literally, it would severely curtail what could be considered doctrine to only faith, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost. 

 

Edited May 20, 2015 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

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

That is the heart of the matter. If members are 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.

Sounds reasonable enough, Buckeye, but what are we to do when faced with those conflicting loyalties?   Where should our priorities be?  According to a First Presidency Letter, February 11, 1999, printed in Church News, Feb 27, 1999, 3, "however worthy and appropriate other demands or activities may be, they must not be permitted to displace the divinely-appointed duties that only parents and families can adequately perform.”  Elder Dallin Oaks reemphasized that family priority at the October 2007 Conference (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng#6- ), saying that “Church programs should focus on what is best (most effective) in achieving their assigned purposes without unduly infringing on the time families need for their ‘divinely appointed duties’.”

 

LDS Church Handbook 2,  §17.2.1, titled “Family Circumstances,” says that “strong families are vital to the Church, and members should not be asked to make excessive family sacrifices to serve or to support programs or activities.”  See online at https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2010/11/selected-principles-from-the-new-handbooks?lang=eng&query=family+priority  .

 

 

We might understand such priorities through the Savior's observation that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."  The LDS Church is a temporary and very malleable organization which serves the needs of the eternal Priesthood of God in serving families.  It is a vehicle through which the Plan of Salvation and Happiness can be effectively implemented.  It is the Kingdom of God on Earth, but it cannot claim first place in our loyalties.

[Buckeye]

Sounds like you agee with Elder Maxwell.

 

And disagree.

 

If his statement is read to simply mean that in the future the church and world will diverge in some ways, then obviously that happened. But if it's read to mean that the two would only diverge, then its incorrect; obviously, the world and the church have come closer in some respects since his time.

 

FWIW, I have great respect for Elder Maxwell. One of my sons is named after him.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

 

Fair request. I'll share a couple of examples from a few years ago.

Ward-

Bishop announces in Ward Council the final budgets for the upcoming year. All auxiliaries are itemized. He says the bishopric developed the budget prayerfully but I see a large problem. Despite having a few more YW than YM the YM budget is double the YW budget. When asked why this is he shares plans for scout camps monthly, a high adventure trip out of state, and travel expenses for other YM related activities. I asked if that was the amount the YM requested. He said "yes". I then asked if the YW budget reflected the amount they requested. He said "no" but since they don't have boy scout expenses he couldn't justify the funds for YW activities. I explained why this was unfair and devalued our YW and that "final budget" or not, it needed to be redone to be more equitable to fit the needs of both groups. After a lively discussion he reluctantly agreed. The real final budget reflected parity between YM & YW. This was loyal opposition that resulted in the ward culture becoming a better and more fair place.

Stake-

As a chaperone at youth conference the Stake announced to all the youth that should any of them wear clothing that was immodest (as defined by them- was actually more strict than the BYU dress code) they would be given a long, pioneer style skirt that would need to be worn for the remainder of the conference. After the youth left for their first activity the chaperones stayed back for a brief meeting to discuss rules etc where this modesty policy was reiterated. I voiced my opposition to the policy on the grounds that 1- it is aimed directly at the YW instead of uniformly to YM & YW, 2- Implementation would cause shame or embarrassment for the youth 3- The dress code was arbitrary and previous notice wasn't given for the extra strict code that I also had a problem with.

The Stake YM/YW leaders boldly they would move forward as planned despite my objections to which I advised them I would not support the activity under those conditions. I told them that I would take my children and any others from my ward who wanted to come (with parental permission) and go instead to a nearby amusement park. I also told them our ward would not support further Stake youth activities until these policies changed. The Stake YM/YW leaders were very unhappy and took the issue to the SP who agreed with me and got rid of the stupid modesty shaming policy.

These are both very simple examples. But in both cases it would have been very easy to go along because the "leader knows best". But changes were made because I dissented.

People have good intentions but implementation is not always good. This is true for local units as well as the church in general.

All right !!  That's what I'm talkin about !! That is Latter-day Saintism at its best.

[Buckeye]

Sounds reasonable enough, Buckeye, but what are we to do when faced with those conflicting loyalties?   Where should our priorities be?  According to a First Presidency Letter, February 11, 1999, printed in Church News, Feb 27, 1999, 3, "however worthy and appropriate other demands or activities may be, they must not be permitted to displace the divinely-appointed duties that only parents and families can adequately perform.”  Elder Dallin Oaks reemphasized that family priority at the October 2007 Conference (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng#6- ), saying that “Church programs should focus on what is best (most effective) in achieving their assigned purposes without unduly infringing on the time families need for their ‘divinely appointed duties’.”

 

LDS Church Handbook 2,  §17.2.1, titled “Family Circumstances,” says that “strong families are vital to the Church, and members should not be asked to make excessive family sacrifices to serve or to support programs or activities.”  See online at https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2010/11/selected-principles-from-the-new-handbooks?lang=eng&query=family+priority  .

 

 

We might understand such priorities through the Savior's observation that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."  The LDS Church is a temporary and very malleable organization which serves the needs of the eternal Priesthood of God in serving families.  It is a vehicle through which the Plan of Salvation and Happiness can be effectively implemented.  It is the Kingdom of God on Earth, but it cannot claim first place in our loyalties.

 

Therein lies the heart of agency. When conflicts arise regarding loyalty between two good things, you choose the one you value most. At the end of the day, what we become is a reflection of what we choose to value, be that church leaders, family, truth, the spirit, scriptures, God, etc.

[CV75]

Fair request. I'll share a couple of examples from a few years ago.

Ward-

Stake-

In both cases, you were invited into the discussion consistent with your service capacity and your concerns were duly considered. I don’t see these as instances of opposition or dissent in the sense that the general conference talks and scriptures speak of them.

 

As far as "People have good intentions but implementation is not always good," I think you displayed the same flaw in at least the Stake case--did you stomp your feet as well! LOL But as you can see, you still went through proper channels/councils and grace prevailed for all involved.

[CV75]

All right !!  That's what I'm talkin about !! That is Latter-day Saintism at its best.

But not a good example of the opposition or dissent the scriptures or conference talks get to.

[cinepro]

 

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.

 

Uh, hate to be the one to point this out to you Scott, but you still haven't posted a single reference that actually uses the word "faithful".  

 

They're great quotes, but I thought you were just ironically skewering RCM by posting subtly irrelevant quotes.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

Fair request. I'll share a couple of examples from a few years ago.

Ward-

Bishop announces in Ward Council the final budgets for the upcoming year. All auxiliaries are itemized. He says the bishopric developed the budget prayerfully but I see a large problem. Despite having a few more YW than YM the YM budget is double the YW budget. When asked why this is he shares plans for scout camps monthly, a high adventure trip out of state, and travel expenses for other YM related activities. I asked if that was the amount the YM requested. He said "yes". I then asked if the YW budget reflected the amount they requested. He said "no" but since they don't have boy scout expenses he couldn't justify the funds for YW activities. I explained why this was unfair and devalued our YW and that "final budget" or not, it needed to be redone to be more equitable to fit the needs of both groups. After a lively discussion he reluctantly agreed. The real final budget reflected parity between YM & YW. This was loyal opposition that resulted in the ward culture becoming a better and more fair place.

Stake-

As a chaperone at youth conference the Stake announced to all the youth that should any of them wear clothing that was immodest (as defined by them- was actually more strict than the BYU dress code) they would be given a long, pioneer style skirt that would need to be worn for the remainder of the conference. After the youth left for their first activity the chaperones stayed back for a brief meeting to discuss rules etc where this modesty policy was reiterated. I voiced my opposition to the policy on the grounds that 1- it is aimed directly at the YW instead of uniformly to YM & YW, 2- Implementation would cause shame or embarrassment for the youth 3- The dress code was arbitrary and previous notice wasn't given for the extra strict code that I also had a problem with.

The Stake YM/YW leaders boldly they would move forward as planned despite my objections to which I advised them I would not support the activity under those conditions. I told them that I would take my children and any others from my ward who wanted to come (with parental permission) and go instead to a nearby amusement park. I also told them our ward would not support further Stake youth activities until these policies changed. The Stake YM/YW leaders were very unhappy and took the issue to the SP who agreed with me and got rid of the stupid modesty shaming policy.

These are both very simple examples. But in both cases it would have been very easy to go along because the "leader knows best". But changes were made because I dissented.

People have good intentions but implementation is not always good. This is true for local units as well as the church in general.

I certainly can't criticize you for your actions in either case and, in fact, faced with such circumstances, I might have acted similarly myself.

 

It strikes me, though, that what you describe here are not so much instances of "loyal opposition" as they are what Elder Ballard has called "counseling with our councils."

 

In the first instance, the budget decision made by the bishopric as it related to the Young Men and Young Women programs was not as well thought out as they thought it to be. Your robust feedback (and I'm going to assume you were civil and kind about it) resulted in the bishop doing further "counseling with [his] council," which resulted in an adjustment to the previous decision. You say he was reluctant, but I don't think he would have changed course had he not felt it the right thing to do. Who knows? Perhaps the earlier praying that the bishopric had done about the budget resulted in the unexpected blessing of your providing the feedback they needed to give the matter further consideration.

 

As for the second instance, it seems that your stake Young Men and Young Women leaders made an ill-considered decision. Your feedback had the effect of the stake presidency engaging in some "counseling with their councils," resulting in bad decision being overturned.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In both cases, you were invited into the discussion consistent with your service capacity <snip>

No discussion was invited in either case. A prayerfully considered final budget was presented, and a modesty policy was explained. These were not meetings to discuss the modesty policy or the budget inequities. I didn't catch any request for feedback anywhere.

Edited May 20, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

In both cases, you were invited into the discussion consistent with your service capacity and your concerns were duly considered. I don’t see these as instances of opposition or dissent in the sense that the general conference talks and scriptures speak of them.

 

As far as "People have good intentions but implementation is not always good," I think you displayed the same flaw in at least the Stake case--did you stomp your feet as well! LOL But as you can see, you still went through proper channels/councils and grace prevailed for all involved.

And again, you and I find ourselves on the same page. You got there first, though. Probably because I'm so long-winded.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

No discussion was invited in either case. A prayerfully considered final budget was presented, and a modesty policy was explained. These were not meetings to discuss the modesty policy or the budget inequities. I didn't catch any request for feedback anywhere.

Please consider my post on "counseling with our councils." I agree with CV that this is what took place here.

[CV75]

Right, they must be integrated, but earlier you were saying spiritual things don't have to be logical. There is no "spiritual logic" Something is either logical or it isn't. The logical and the spiritual should harmonize.

Please cite the post you are referring to. I don't think i put it quite the same way you're representing it here.

 

D&C 28 talks about who gets revelation for the church, it doesn't go as far as you're trying to stretch it. 

Please explain what you think I'm trying to stretch, and how, in terms of opposition, dissent and common consent.

 

I think we can all agree that we shouldn't be "stirred up to anger" against each other. That doesn't mean that there can be no debate. And interestingly if you take 3 Nephi 11 too literally, it would severely curtail what could be considered doctrine to only faith, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost.

But my question was, "How would you qualify the obedience He is asking for in that chapter?" I asked because you spoke of "exact obedience" (whatever that is) as if it were inherently a bad thing, the abdication of agency or something; and of prophetic commands as if they are inherently faulty, etc.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But my question was, "How would you qualify the obedience He is asking for in that chapter?" I asked because you spoke of "exact obedience" (whatever that is) as if it were inherently a bad thing, the abdication of agency or something; and of prophetic commands as if they are inherently faulty, etc.

Can you further explain your thoughts here? Obedience is not requested or mentioned in 3 Ne 11. The savior says, you guys were confused before and disputed certain points of doctrine. Now I'm going to lay out my doctrine for you crystal clearly so there will be no more disputations. Christ's doctrine? Believe, repent and be baptized. I'm not sure that there is any dissension in the church regarding these points of doctrine. Are you?

[Scott Lloyd]

Uh, hate to be the one to point this out to you Scott, but you still haven't posted a single reference that actually uses the word "faithful".  

 

They're great quotes, but I thought you were just ironically skewering RCM by posting subtly irrelevant quotes.

Did you know that the word atonement appears only once in the New Testament in the King James Bible? Yet the doctrine it denotes pervades the New Testament.

Do you realize that in the Bible there are numerous names for Jesus Christ in addition to Jesus Christ!

 

Perhaps there's a message there.

 

Obviously, I disagree my quotes have been irrelevant.