Gospel Fruit

[HappyJackWagon]

If one were to experiment on the word and judge the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on the fruits it bears as evidenced on this message board, what results do you feel that experiment would yield? Would the fruit seem good, evil, or tasteless?

Put another way, if at least a portion of the value of the gospel message is determined by the lives of the people it produces, as measured in faith, hope, charity, and love, is the gospel fruit good?

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If one were to experiment on the word and judge the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on the fruits it bears as evidenced on this message board, what results do you feel that experiment would yield? Would the fruit seem good, evil, or tasteless?

Put another way, if at least a portion of the value of the gospel message is determined by the lives of the people it produces, as measured in faith, hope, charity, and love, is the gospel fruit good?

It is good when we live it, it is not so good when we don't

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If one were to experiment on the word and judge the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on the fruits it bears as evidenced on this message board, what results do you feel that experiment would yield? Would the fruit seem good, evil, or tasteless?

Put another way, if at least a portion of the value of the gospel message is determined by the lives of the people it produces, as measured in faith, hope, charity, and love, is the gospel fruit good?

I believe it's good, absolutely.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe it's good, absolutely.

Ok- If the only evidence of the fruit is found on this board, you think it is absolutely good? I just want to make sure I understood.

[stemelbow]

I'd say it falls in the tasteless range.  Some good, some bad.  I find that typical among members generally too.  In most wards I've been in the talk has been that they feel they are above most of the world (a distinct we're in the world but not of it mentality), but on average I'd say members are no better or worse than most others.  I think the fruits of this board bear that out. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ok- If the only evidence of the fruit is found on this board, you think it is absolutely good? I just want to make sure I understood.

Yes.  

When we are asked to judge the fruit of the gospel, it is never based on judging the choices someone else is making.  Whenever the scriptures talk about judging the fruit of something, it's always in relation to that thing and ourselves, not how others react to that thing.

[Rain]

I sometimes find that question in general hard to answer.  Like Pogi said - if I don't follow the commandments is it my fault or the church's fault?  If I teach my children correct principles and they go completely against them, did I teach badly or did they just have agency? So I'm having a hard time answering your question specifically to the board.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

I sometimes find that question in general hard to answer.  Like Pogi said - if I don't follow the commandments is it my fault or the church's fault?  If I teach my children correct principles and they go completely against them, did I teach badly or did they just have agency? So I'm having a hard time answering your question specifically to the board.

 

 

I agree. It would be foolish to blame the church because a person behaves badly. On the other hand, I recall Pres. Hinkley's statement about the symbol of our faith being the lives of the members. So if the church is to make bad people good and good people better, should the bad/good/better lives of the people be totally disregarded? Or is there an expectation that the church should make some kind of difference in those lives?

Quote

I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/the-symbol-of-our-faith?lang=eng

 

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If one were to experiment on the word and judge the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on the fruits it bears as evidenced on this message board, what results do you feel that experiment would yield? Would the fruit seem good, evil, or tasteless?

Put another way, if at least a portion of the value of the gospel message is determined by the lives of the people it produces, as measured in faith, hope, charity, and love, is the gospel fruit good?

From me, tasteless but probably not the way you meant the word in your post.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

From me, tasteless but probably not the way you meant the word in your post.

 

And sometimes a word is used precisely because it has two meanings  

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. It would be foolish to blame the church because a person behaves badly. On the other hand, I recall Pres. Hinkley's statement about the symbol of our faith being the lives of the members. So if the church is to make bad people good and good people better, should the bad/good/better lives of the people be totally disregarded? Or is there an expectation that the church should make some kind of difference in those lives?

If you ask any active believing member who lives the gospel to the best of their abilities, they will report that the gospel has made a difference in their life for the better.  That is not something that we can objectively measure and compare against other people in any meaningful way. 

Quote

 

I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/the-symbol-of-our-faith?lang=eng

 

 

He is not saying that Mormons will be measurably better people than those of other faiths.  The symbol of the cross on a church, or having it tattooed on your arm, does not automatically make you a better person.  It is just a symbol of what they worship - that they are Christians and worship Christ.   He is simply saying that we, "must become" the expression of our faith.  He is saying that it is more meaningful if we can make our lives an expression of whom we worship.  How we live our lives is the symbol of our worship.  The more pure our worship, the more pure and Christlike our lives will be.  It will vary from person to person.  Even just going to church and taking the sacrament is a symbol of our worship, magnifying our callings is a symbol of our worship, paying tithing is a symbol of our worship, etc. etc. etc. 

[Jeanne]

I don't think there is any of us that hasn't learned something from each other here...my fruit would learning patience, tolerance and being more open to listening....The bad fruit comes from a certain judgement before total understanding..(I am so guilty of this)...but I love that I can come here and at least participate with all kinds of mormons.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes.  

When we are asked to judge the fruit of the gospel, it is never based on judging the choices someone else is making.  Whenever the scriptures talk about judging the fruit of something, it's always in relation to that thing and ourselves, not how others react to that thing.

I wonder how we apply this thinking to the NT warning.   Are we saying if their teachings, say in the case of Joseph one example is polygamy, are we to try that teaching (his fruit) before we can know whether he is a true prophet or false one?  I'm curious if some of those who feel away with the question of Joseph being a fallen prophet went through this process? 

or

can we be a little more liberal and say if any of his teachings work for us individually, then we can surely know he is a true prophet?  I wonder how this all ends. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If one were to experiment on the word and judge the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on the fruits it bears as evidenced on this message board, what results do you feel that experiment would yield? Would the fruit seem good, evil, or tasteless?

Put another way, if at least a portion of the value of the gospel message is determined by the lives of the people it produces, as measured in faith, hope, charity, and love, is the gospel fruit good?

I would say if its based on the way people interact on this message board, that the fruit isn't very sweet.  Unfortunately message boards in general don't bring out the best in us.  I think its something about the medium being so impersonal, as well as the fact that there is such a wide disparity in world views on this board, it leads to clashes and uncharitable exchanges on a regular basis.  And I'm as guilty as anyone else on this matter. 

If you're talking about the kind of people that Mormonism produces more broadly I see a lot of good fruit, not only in the active Mormons, but the ex-Mormons too, and everywhere in between.  I think Mormons are passionate people with conviction and motivation and determination.  I think they are generally willing to give to those in need and interested in making the world a better place through real effort and sacrifice.  Just sticking to the positives here, there are certainly negatives too.  

[Rain]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. It would be foolish to blame the church because a person behaves badly. On the other hand, I recall Pres. Hinkley's statement about the symbol of our faith being the lives of the members. So if the church is to make bad people good and good people better, should the bad/good/better lives of the people be totally disregarded? Or is there an expectation that the church should make some kind of difference in those lives?

 

I don't think it should be totally disregarded.  I'm just not sure how you decide what is crossing the agency/bad fruit line. 

One of the problems I see is we all have faults.  Sometimes the fault of one person is seeming/acting like a bad fruit.  

[Kenngo1969]

No personal threads.  (Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread is about ... little old moi ... )

P.S.: No comment, Jappy Hack Wagon?  Cat got yer tongue?  

Edited October 28, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder how we apply this thinking to the NT warning.   Are we saying if their teachings, say in the case of Joseph one example is polygamy, are we to try that teaching (his fruit) before we can know whether he is a true prophet or false one?  I'm curious if some of those who feel away with the question of Joseph being a fallen prophet went through this process? 

or

can we be a little more liberal and say if any of his teachings work for us individually, then we can surely know he is a true prophet?  I wonder how this all ends. 

When I think of bad fruit, polygamy is the first thing to come to mind. When I first learned of the abuses in the FLDS group and read several books by those abused. 

[kiwi57]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No personal threads.  (Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread is about ... little old moi ... ) 

It might not just be about little old vous. But if you suspect that it might be a back-handed way of criticising board participants, you might be right.

And if you suspect that the targets of the criticism might not be those who attack, criticise or disagree with the Church of Jesus Christ, you might be right about that too.

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If one were to experiment on the word and judge the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on the fruits it bears as evidenced on this message board, what results do you feel that experiment would yield? Would the fruit seem good, evil, or tasteless?

Put another way, if at least a portion of the value of the gospel message is determined by the lives of the people it produces, as measured in faith, hope, charity, and love, is the gospel fruit good?

Why on earth would anyone think that a website where members are harangued constantly about their faith, their church's history, their founders, and the very existence of God would produce a loving, charitable environment?  This does not even seem rational.  Tell me, of all the critics that are on this website, do you think their a better example of how to talk on a website than faithful LDS? 

Just looking for another way to poke members in the eye based on a false premise.

[MrSpruceMoose]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If one were to experiment on the word and judge the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on the fruits it bears as evidenced on this message board, what results do you feel that experiment would yield? Would the fruit seem good, evil, or tasteless?

Put another way, if at least a portion of the value of the gospel message is determined by the lives of the people it produces, as measured in faith, hope, charity, and love, is the gospel fruit good?

It depends on how much of what is put out by the church is considered "gospel". If one looks at the influence of scripture, I whole-heartedly believe it is an influence for good and the fruits that come from that will no doubt be reflected by those who follow it. If you go to other church material such as 'For the Strength of Youth', than in my experience I would have to say no. When I was in the young mens program, I knew far too many other kids who "lived the standards" as are outlined in the pamphlet, yet there was a subtle condesention from many of them. I remember one young woman gossiping about another girl behind her back because she wore a two piece swimsuit that covered as much as a one piece, yet was "immodest" because it was technically in two pieces. It's a small example, but one that I feel reflects what someone could call a pharisee mentality; living the letter of the law and believing that those who are not as righteous as you are lesser than you, and because of this you miss the purpose of those laws.  

So to answer the question about gospel fruit being good, I would say that is only good when people truly live the gospel as taught by Christ because they want to follow Christ. If Christ if left out and it is just used as some sort of code to live by, it is much more likely to produce righteous arrogance than good fruits. 

That's just my opinion though. 

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

When I think of bad fruit, polygamy is the first thing to come to mind. When I first learned of the abuses in the FLDS group and read several books by those abused. 

I am a "fruit" of polygamy, or, to be more precise, polygyny ... so I guess, res ipsa loquitur and quod erat demonstrandum?  (And, of course, we all know that how polygyny is practiced by the FLDS and by other such groups today is exactly how it was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 19th century ... right?  )

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

When I think of bad fruit, polygamy is the first thing to come to mind. When I first learned of the abuses in the FLDS group and read several books by those abused. 

Saying all polygamy is bad because of the FLDS fruit is the same as saying all Christianity is bad because of the Westboro Baptist fruit.

[MiserereNobis]

You can't judge Mormons or ex/non-Mormons by what goes on on this board, so I think the premise to the question is false. As has been pointed out, a board creates problems unique to its situation (and also attracts a certain type of person) so it's not generalizable.

As a group, from my experience, Mormons are usually looked at by others as good solid people who have wacky beliefs. In my personal experience, that tends to be true, too (sorry about the wacky beliefs part -- I'm sure some of you think some Catholic beliefs and practices are rather weird, too  )

I also think that any group of people actively practicing their religion tend to be good, solid people, too. In other words, the fruit of the Mormon church (the lives of active members) seems to me to be about the same as the fruit of other Christian churches (the lives of their active members).

The active Catholics in my parish are extraordinarily wonderful and giving people, but I know there are some harsh Catholic forums out there, too.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Saying all polygamy is bad because of the FLDS fruit is the same as saying all Christianity is bad because of the Westboro Baptist fruit.

 

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I am a "fruit" of polygamy, or, to be more precise, polygyny ... so I guess, res ipsa loquitur and quod erat demonstrandum?  (And, of course, we all know that how polygyny is practiced by the FLDS and by other such groups today is exactly how it was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 19th century ... right?  )

I didn't say all of polygamy is bad, and I am fruit of polygamy in my lines. I'm just saying there is bad fruit on the polygamy fruit tree. Because there is. Are you two saying there is no bad fruit in the church? 

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

I didn't say all of polygamy is bad, and I am fruit of polygamy in my lines. I'm just saying there is bad fruit on the polygamy fruit tree. Because there is. Are you two saying there is no bad fruit in the church? 

There is no bad fruit in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Matthew 7:16-20).  Not everything that every member or leader has ever done constitutes a "fruit" of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I don't judge Islam (or, for that matter, Catholicism, or Christianity in general, or any religion or any organization) by the atrocities (or the less-egregious sins, or even the simple mistakes) committed by those purporting to act in accordance with its teachings do.  Others' faults and flaws are between God and them, your faults and flaws are between God and you, and my faults and flaws are between God and me.  If you insist on standing in judgment of the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole or of anyone else in the Church when you might not have all the facts or the perspective necessary to do so, I suppose that's your business.  As for me, I prefer to remember Matthew 7:2-5.