On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

I agree that this would be defined as counseling with our councils. I also believe it could be defined as loyally opposing the bishop, stake YM/YW presidents.

[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.

Maybe it wasn't invited, but neither was it forbidden or discouraged.

 

"Counseling with our councils" entails being open to feedback whether or not it is specifically invited.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that this would be defined as counseling with our councils. I also believe it could be defined as loyally opposing the bishop, stake YM/YW presidents.

Not in the sense that President Faust understood the term "loyal opposition" (I refer you to the talk I cited earlier).

[CV75]

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.

Providing feedback to those depending on our involvement is inherent by virtue of our callings/assignments. It is often tolerated anyway!

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

I actually thought I'd get pummelled for using those examples. Thanks for being kind.

In the Ward example, we were in a council meeting but the Bishop was not seeking input. He was delivering the message of decisions that had been made. So I wasn't really invited to share my view.

Similarly, with the Stake situation, yes I was serving as a chaperone, but no one asked for my opinion. They were delivering a decision which, BTW had been supported by a SP Councilor. So in both of these cases I spoke up when it wasn't invited YET it resulted in continuing council and changed decisions.

I see this as similar to other social issues we face. The church may not ask for our opinion or council relating to SSM or female ordination or financial transparency, or a host of other less controversial topics, but that doesn't mean raising our concerns can't have a positive impact. The problem is, with the general church our voice has to be much louder to be heard than is needed at the local level.

Loyal opposition raises issues that leadership may not be comfortable with. I'm sure the Bishop would have preferred I hadn't mentioned anything about the budget but that doesn't mean it didn't turn out to be positive. The same can be true at the general level.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Not in the sense that President Faust understood the term "loyal opposition" (I refer you to the talk I cited earlier).

That is fair. Loyal opposition in the church does not mean picketing / protesting on temple square. It means voicing disagreement when it is appropriate and accepting the decision of church leaders when we disagree. 

[CV75]

Can you further explain your thoughts here? Obedience is not requested or mentioned in 3 Ne 11.

That is why i asked for clarification--the other guy brought it up, not me! You'd have to go back to #88 and #132 to see where I'm coming from.

[Tacenda]

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 imagine if there had been a bishop like you preceding MMM, their might have been a happier ending, with posterity to boot. Maybe even members of the church by the thousands, if they were treated differently from the get-go. And you may have thwarted a YW from disassociating herself from the church!

[Gray]

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

 

Post 158, you said: "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."

 

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

 

The passage you reference says that revelation comes from the prophet only, but it doesn't say that no one should disagree or debate the merits of the revelation. Or if I did, I missed it and would appreciate the verse you were thinking of (setting aside for the moment that specific revelation is very rare and has not occurred for a generation - interpretation is much more common)

 

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.

 

It was in response to your statement (in green):

 

"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."

 

I was saying that prophets have an arm of flesh the same as the rest of us. Exact obedience to any other human being is just relying on another arm of flesh. As to 3 Nephi 11, you brought it up, but I didn't see the relevance to obedience. Maybe you were meaning to respond to someone else.

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I actually thought I'd get pummelled for using those examples. Thanks for being kind.

 

Parhaps you need to get to know me better.

 

In the Ward example, we were in a council meeting but the Bishop was not seeking input. He was delivering the message of decisions that had been made. So I wasn't really invited to share my view.

 

As I said a moment ago, "counseling with our councils," entails being open to or encouraging feeback, even when there has been no specific invitation made. Perhaps the enivronment in your ward council was hostile to spontaneous feedback. If so, I daresay it wasn't functioning as it should.

 

Similarly, with the Stake situation, yes I was serving as a chaperone, but no one asked for my opinion. They were delivering a decision which, BTW had been supported by a SP Councilor. So in both of these cases I spoke up when it wasn't invited YET it resulted in continuing council and changed decisions.

 

 

Be that as it may, further "counseling with [the] council" did ensue when the matter came to a head.

 

I see this as similar to other social issues we face. The church may not ask for our opinion or council relating to SSM or female ordination or financial transparency, or a host of other less controversial topics, but that doesn't mean raising our concerns can't have a positive impact. The problem is, with the general church our voice has to be much louder to be heard than is needed at the local level.

Loyal opposition raises issues that leadership may not be comfortable with. I'm sure the Bishop would have preferred I hadn't mentioned anything about the budget but that doesn't mean it didn't turn out to be positive. The same can be true at the general level.

 

It's a different proposition on a general level. Very few among us are part of the councils that operate on a general level.  Yet there is evidence that the leadership does hear and respond to valid concerns. The fact that they don't change course every time some dissident group beats on the gates does not necessarily mean they have not heard or considered the complaints. And I don't see the efficacy or propriety of continuing with faultfinding in the public arena after a matter has obviously been deliberated on and settled.

[Calm]

I imagine if there had been a bishop like you preceding MMM, their might have been a happier ending, with posterity to boot!

On the contrary, I think the leadership pushing to chastise the train for some of its members' behaviour saw itself as the loyal opposition because their SP leader initially told them to let it go and they dissented and continued to push for consequences.

Lee and Haight than came up with their own plan, presented it to local leaders who were stunned by it ans strongly resisted and insisted they check with BY before doing anything.

Lee went ahead and attacked on his own authority over the Paiutes. Two militiamen also acting on their own killed train members going for help.

Dissent can work in both bad and good ways. If there had been no dissent among loyal opposition at all, there would have been no one killed most likely. If there had been stronger dissent once the attacks were started, the bloodshed might have been much, much less.

Edited May 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Loyal opposition raises issues that leadership may not be comfortable with. I'm sure the Bishop would have preferred I hadn't mentioned anything about the budget but that doesn't mean it didn't turn out to be positive. The same can be true at the general level.

IMHO, you were sustaining the bishop through sage counsel, which all bishops need.  Sometimes they get it in Ward Council, and at other times in Priesthood Executive Council meetings.  I have seen the process work well in those councils, and you obviously made it work too.

[Scott Lloyd]

On the contrary, I think the leadership pushing to chastise the train for some of its members' behaviour saw itself as the loyal opposition because their SP leader initially told them to let it go and they dissented and continued to push for consequences.

This is a very good point indeed!

 

Actions dictated by mob rule are pretty much always disastrous. And a leader who thereby lets the rabble push him into acting against his better judgment (or, in a Church environment, against divine inspiration) is no leader at all.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

It is hard to believe that we have 11 pages about this topic. It seems to me that in the past, it was quite simple just what a faithful member was or is. I think that many would find even a debate about it unbelievable since it was quite well known. But with the internet all is up for grabs. To be a faithful member was basically a person who is trying to live the commandments as taught by the church. Thus, a jack mormon would not be a faithful member of the lds church. And if a jack mormon would not be consider a faithful member it is rather difficult to see an exmember who denies the book of mormon a faithful member etc

 

I think that we should keep it simple.

Edited May 20, 2015 by why me

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

That really depends upon whether we are all in fundamental agreement as to what would be "better" about that better place.

There are those who think "better" means more like Zion -- including the parts about being "of one heart and one mind" and "dwelt in righteousness."

While there may be others who might think "of one heart and one mind" amounts to "stagnation and groupthink," while "dwelling in righteousness" entails not being "inclusive" enough.

Meaning that they have substituted worldly values for Gospel ones.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It is hard to believe that we have 11 pages about this topic. It seems to me that in the past, it was quite simple just what a faithful member was or is. I think that many would find even a debate about it unbelievable since it was quite well known. But with the internet all is up for grabs. To be a faithful member was basically a person who is trying to live the commandments as taught by the church. Thus, a jack mormon would not be a faithful member of the lds church. And if a jack mormon would not be consider a faithful member it is rather difficult to see an exmember who denies the book of mormon a faithful member etc

 

I think that we should keep it simple.

 

I'm not sure who you think disagrees with this.

[DonBradley]

Why Me,

 

A look at the actual past often dispels such simplistic reconstructions of what it 'must have been' like.

 

I was shocked, for instance, when I first encountered the results of survey administered to BYU students in 1935 and again in 1973, since it showed that BYU students in 1935 believed many things quite differently than we might predict. By far the most shocking and telling difference was this, when asked if they believed in a personal devil, 98% of the 1973 BYU students answered yes. The corresponding number among 1935 students was 19%. Can I repeat that? 19%

 

I first encountered this data decades ago, but it never ceases to astound me when I think of it. It makes me wonder if the church in 1935 was even the same church as today.

 

And even your assumption that Latter-day Saints have always been judged faithful or unfaithful based on their keeping the commandments is incorrect--at least if you're assuming that this was judged on the basis of the same commandments its judged on now. Historians have noted that in the 19th century faithfulness wasn't much judged on the basis of church attendance or keeping the Word of Wisdom--these were understood to be relatively unimportant in assessing faithfulness. What was important was working to physically build up Zion. The man who rarely darkened the church door and smoked like a chimney was more faithful, in the perception of the time, than the man never touched forbidden substances and came to meeting every Sunday but failed to devote himself to his vocation.

 

The simple, consistent boundary lines you want to draw between the "faithful" and the "unfaithful" are a fiction. In actual fact, the community has negotiated and renegotiated those boundaries time and again--and I see absolutely no reason to think that will stop.

 

Don

[DonBradley]

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. [...] 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.

 

 

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2

And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 28:12-13

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

 

Common consent is invoked here as the principle that put the Articles and Covenants in place to begin with. As a principle, rather than solely a specific practice, common consent can be manifest in various ways, one of which is voting at church conferences and another of which is voting within the branches of the church (D&C 20:63). But whatever the modes by which common consent is operationalized, the founding revelations of the church are quite clear that it is to be operationalized, very broadly and in very real and substantive ways.

 

Don

Edited May 20, 2015 by DonBradley

[Bobbieaware]

Why Me,

A look at the actual past often dispels such simplistic reconstructions of what it 'must have been' like.

I was shocked, for instance, when I first encountered the results of survey administered to BYU students in 1935 and again in 1973, since it showed that BYU students in 1935 believed many things quite differently than we might predict. By far the most shocking and telling difference was this, when asked if they believed in a personal devil, 98% of the 1973 BYU students answered yes. The corresponding number among 1935 students was 19%. Can I repeat that? 19%

I first encountered this data decades ago, but it never ceases to astound me when I think of it. It makes me wonder if the church in 1935 was even the same church as today.

And even your assumption that Latter-day Saints have always been judged faithful or unfaithful based on their keeping the commandments is incorrect--at least if you're assuming that this was judged on the basis of the same commandments its judged on now. Historians have noted that in the 19th century faithfulness wasn't much judged on the basis of church attendance or keeping the Word of Wisdom--these were understood to be relatively unimportant in assessing faithfulness. What was important was working to physically build up Zion. The man who rarely darkened the church door and smoked like a chimney was more faithful, in the perception of the time, than the man never touched forbidden substances and came to meeting every Sunday but failed to devote himself to his vocation.

The simple, consistent boundary lines you want to draw between the "faithful" and the "unfaithful" are a fiction. In actual fact, the community has negotiated and renegotiated those boundaries time and again--and I see absolutely no reason to think that will stop.

Don

Nice try. Fickle fallen humans, so prone to instability and error, may change THEIR IDEAS of what they think a faithful Latter-day Saint should be, but the words of the Lord and his clearly stated standards for what HE SAYS a faithful Latter-day Saint should be have never changed. Fashions may come and fashions my go, but the Lord's standards of righteousness have not changed over the years. Here's what the Savior has to say on this thread's subject:

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

22 Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day. 3 Nephi 17

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[DonBradley]

Nice try. Fickle fallen humans, so prone to instability and error, may change THEIR IDEAS of what they think a faithful Latter-day Saint should be, but the words of the Lord and his clearly stated standards for what HE SAYS a faithful Latter-day Saint should be have never changed. Fashions may come and fashions my go, but the Lord's standards of righteousness have not changed over the years. 

 

 

Bobbieaware,

 

Okay. So, is keeping the Word of Wisdom a requirement for being a faithful Latter-day Saint?

 

Don

Edited May 21, 2015 by DonBradley

[Scott Lloyd]

That really depends upon whether we are all in fundamental agreement as to what would be "better" about that better place.

There are those who think "better" means more like Zion -- including the parts about being "of one heart and one mind" and "dwelt in righteousness."

While there may be others who might think "of one heart and one mind" amounts to "stagnation and groupthink," ...

Or "tribalism."

[Scott Lloyd]

That really depends upon whether we are all in fundamental agreement as to what would be "better" about that better place.

There are those who think "better" means more like Zion -- including the parts about being "of one heart and one mind" and "dwelt in righteousness."

While there may be others who might think "of one heart and one mind" amounts to "stagnation and groupthink," while "dwelling in righteousness" entails not being "inclusive" enough.

Meaning that they have substituted worldly values for Gospel ones.

In keeping with the intent of this thread, and keying off this post from Russell, I submit that a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who seeks in all things to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion

 

In that regard, I offer a link to this talk given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson given in October general conference of 2008.

 

And for the benefit of Cinepro, the word faithfulness is found in this snippet, emphasized in boldface:

 

Zion is Zion because of the character, attributes, and faithfulness of her citizens. Remember, “the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18). If we would establish Zion in our homes, branches, wards, and stakes, we must rise to this standard. It will be necessary (1) to become unified in one heart and one mind; (2) to become, individually and collectively, a holy people; and (3) to care for the poor and needy with such effectiveness that we eliminate poverty among us. We cannot wait until Zion comes for these things to happen—Zion will come only as they happen.

 

In a day when unity, loyalty, standards and faithfulness seem to have gone out of vogue, we perhaps find ourselves in a counterculture as we promote the cause of Zion.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

Why Me,

 

A look at the actual past often dispels such simplistic reconstructions of what it 'must have been' like.

 

I was shocked, for instance, when I first encountered the results of survey administered to BYU students in 1935 and again in 1973, since it showed that BYU students in 1935 believed many things quite differently than we might predict. By far the most shocking and telling difference was this, when asked if they believed in a personal devil, 98% of the 1973 BYU students answered yes. The corresponding number among 1935 students was 19%. Can I repeat that? 19%

 

I first encountered this data decades ago, but it never ceases to astound me when I think of it. It makes me wonder if the church in 1935 was even the same church as today.

 

And even your assumption that Latter-day Saints have always been judged faithful or unfaithful based on their keeping the commandments is incorrect--at least if you're assuming that this was judged on the basis of the same commandments its judged on now. Historians have noted that in the 19th century faithfulness wasn't much judged on the basis of church attendance or keeping the Word of Wisdom--these were understood to be relatively unimportant in assessing faithfulness. What was important was working to physically build up Zion. The man who rarely darkened the church door and smoked like a chimney was more faithful, in the perception of the time, than the man never touched forbidden substances and came to meeting every Sunday but failed to devote himself to his vocation.

 

The simple, consistent boundary lines you want to draw between the "faithful" and the "unfaithful" are a fiction. In actual fact, the community has negotiated and renegotiated those boundaries time and again--and I see absolutely no reason to think that will stop.

 

Don

Sounds like I'd fit in better if it were 1935. Cool info, thanks for sharing.

[Kenngo1969]

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

Right.  Because there's a broad consensus about the parameters of openness and honesty (it's not as though there are any detractors who, rather than being content if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were to admit to a few "zits," want the Church, instead, to light its face on fire), about what mistakes it has made, and what the content of any apology should be.  I totally get it.    I don't know what the holdup is.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Russell C McGregor]

Or "tribalism."

Oh, snap!