Being Faithful - What does it mean?

[hope_for_things]

What does it mean to be faithful?  I hear this phrase used frequently as I read and listen to Mormon conversations, particularly in the more progressive and apologetic Mormon communities.  I hear it frequently used in the context of maybe pointing out a soft critique of something, but then emphasizing that they of course are remaining faithful to God or the church.   So I ask this question, what does it mean when someone says they are being faithful, and what exactly does can be defined as being faithful?

I found this quote from Gordon B. Hinckley in 1984 on the subject.  

Quote

Be faithful to the gospel. Be faithful to the Church. We have all about us those who are seeking to undermine it, to look for weaknesses in its early leaders, to find fault with its programs, to speak critically of it. I give you my testimony that it is the work of God, and those who speak against it are speaking against him.

Be faithful to him. He is the one true source of your strength. He is your Father in Heaven. He lives. He hears and answers prayers. Be faithful to God.

Just a couple thoughts.   Throughout my faith journey of the last few years I've experienced varying degrees of activity, lack of belief, deconstruction and reconstruction.  And as I reflect back on all these experiences I can't say that I feel like any of my actions actions or attitudes would constitute being unfaithful to God.  Sometimes I don't know that I even believe in God anymore, or am not sure what I believe about God, but I still don't feel this lack of concrete believe is an act of unfaithfulness.  

I think for me to feel like I've been unfaithful I would have to feel like I've violated a core moral value.  Something down deep that I actively act against.  This would constitute being unfaithful at some level to me, and throughout my faith journey I believe I've followed these deeper impulses even and especially when those impulses have been in contradiction to the direction of the institutional church and its leaders.   

So when President Hinckley criticizes those who speak critically as being unfaithful, I actually believe that at times I would have been unfaithful if I didn't speak up and criticize the church.  I've tried to do so in respectful ways, but I believe that staying silent would have been unfaithful at those times.  

So, what do others think of this idea of being faithful?  Has any one else noticed this tendency to emphasize faithfulness by people in the Bloggernacle as they discuss soft critiques of the church?  

[Glenn101]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So when President Hinckley criticizes those who speak critically as being unfaithful, I actually believe that at times I would have been unfaithful if I didn't speak up and criticize the church.  I've tried to do so in respectful ways, but I believe that staying silent would have been unfaithful at those times. 

Do each of us get to define our own terms? Or do we need to understand it the way President Hinckley portrayed it?

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Do each of us get to define our own terms? Or do we need to understand it the way President Hinckley portrayed it?

It would be hard to know exactly what President Hinckley's opinion on the subject is since he can't join in the conversation and clarify, but if you care to share what you believe he meant that would be great.  I wasn't attempting to mischaracterize his position. 

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What does it mean to be faithful?  I hear this phrase used frequently as I read and listen to Mormon conversations, particularly in the more progressive and apologetic Mormon communities.  I hear it frequently used in the context of maybe pointing out a soft critique of something, but then emphasizing that they of course are remaining faithful to God or the church.   So I ask this question, what does it mean when someone says they are being faithful, and what exactly does can be defined as being faithful?

I found this quote from Gordon B. Hinckley in 1984 on the subject.  

Just a couple thoughts.   Throughout my faith journey of the last few years I've experienced varying degrees of activity, lack of belief, deconstruction and reconstruction.  And as I reflect back on all these experiences I can't say that I feel like any of my actions actions or attitudes would constitute being unfaithful to God.  Sometimes I don't know that I even believe in God anymore, or am not sure what I believe about God, but I still don't feel this lack of concrete believe is an act of unfaithfulness.  

I think for me to feel like I've been unfaithful I would have to feel like I've violated a core moral value.  Something down deep that I actively act against.  This would constitute being unfaithful at some level to me, and throughout my faith journey I believe I've followed these deeper impulses even and especially when those impulses have been in contradiction to the direction of the institutional church and its leaders.   

So when President Hinckley criticizes those who speak critically as being unfaithful, I actually believe that at times I would have been unfaithful if I didn't speak up and criticize the church.  I've tried to do so in respectful ways, but I believe that staying silent would have been unfaithful at those times.  

So, what do others think of this idea of being faithful?  Has any one else noticed this tendency to emphasize faithfulness by people in the Bloggernacle as they discuss soft critiques of the church?  

I think a generally faithful person can still commit a faithless or wicked act, whatever his core moral code may be. Hopefully for him, his moral code aligns with others in his community or even across the globe, and that repentance is part of his moral code!

I think Elder Hinckley was referring to the kind of unfaithfulness that seeks to speak against and undermine the Church, and some of the ways this is done that sound like “hard” critique (to borrow your phrase, but actually, "critique" is very, very different from "criticism"; see quote below, taken from "Writing Alone, Writing Together; A Guide for Writers and Writing Groups" by Judy Reeves http://abacus.bates.edu/~rrichar2/learn/ui/critique.html ):

The Difference between Critique and Criticism resource

    Criticism finds fault/Critique looks at structure

    Criticism looks for what's lacking/Critique finds what's working

    Criticism condemns what it doesn't understand/Critique asks for clarification

    Criticism is spoken with a cruel wit and sarcastic tongue/Critique's voice is kind, honest, and objective

    Criticism is negative/Critique is positive (even about what isn't working)

    Criticism is vague and general/Critique is concrete and specific

    Criticism has no sense of humor/Critique insists on laughter, too

    Criticism looks for flaws in the writer as well as the writing/Critique addresses only what is on the page

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think a generally faithful person can still commit a faithless or wicked act, whatever his core moral code may be. Hopefully for him, his moral code aligns with others in his community or even across the globe, and that repentance is part of his moral code!

 

I think Elder Hinckley was referring to the kind of unfaithfulness that seeks to speak against and undermine the Church, and some of the ways this is done that sound like “hard” critique (to borrow your phrase, but actually, "critique" is very, very different from "criticism"; see quote below, taken from "Writing Alone, Writing Together; A Guide for Writers and Writing Groups" by Judy Reeves http://abacus.bates.edu/~rrichar2/learn/ui/critique.html ):

 

The Difference between Critique and Criticism resource

 

    Criticism finds fault/Critique looks at structure

 

    Criticism looks for what's lacking/Critique finds what's working

 

    Criticism condemns what it doesn't understand/Critique asks for clarification

 

    Criticism is spoken with a cruel wit and sarcastic tongue/Critique's voice is kind, honest, and objective

 

    Criticism is negative/Critique is positive (even about what isn't working)

 

    Criticism is vague and general/Critique is concrete and specific

 

    Criticism has no sense of humor/Critique insists on laughter, too

 

    Criticism looks for flaws in the writer as well as the writing/Critique addresses only what is on the page

Thanks, good points.  I like these distinctions and I think its important to try and handle things in a mutually respectful manner.  These differences are important, yet I wonder how objective the distinctions are.  I think the eye of the beholder may have a large effect on how something is perceived.  

Another important point that I wanted to emphasize is not just in the tone and approach of what we do, but also that a person may believe they have to oppose and criticize to follow their convictions.  That this very opposition is faithful to their core values and to God.  Do what is right, let the consequence follow kind of idea.  

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, good points.  I like these distinctions and I think its important to try and handle things in a mutually respectful manner.  These differences are important, yet I wonder how objective the distinctions are.  I think the eye of the beholder may have a large effect on how something is perceived.  

Another important point that I wanted to emphasize is not just in the tone and approach of what we do, but also that a person may believe they have to oppose and criticize to follow their convictions.  That this very opposition is faithful to their core values and to God.  Do what is right, let the consequence follow kind of idea.  

I didn’t think they were very objective, and in their common usage they are often substituted one for the other. But if the conversants can agree on them, they can be helpful distinctions. For example, do you see any difference between “soft criticism” and “hard criticism”? Perhaps a distinction between “hard” and “soft” might help – what do you see as “hard” and “soft” critique?

I don’t think there is much doubt that no one intentionally opposes and criticizes contrary to their core values, and for the religious, to their God. In the latter case, I believe they have in their heads a commitment to find and act on truth, to seek God’s will and to add that light to the world. The irreligious have analogous standards. So, in making points with others, content, tone and approach become the most important impressions to leave with others in the exchange of ideas.

Edited January 2, 2018 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I didn’t think they were very objective, and in their common usage they are often substituted one for the other. But if the conversants can agree on them, they can be helpful distinctions. For example, do you see any difference between “soft criticism” and “hard criticism”? Perhaps a distinction between “hard” and “soft” might help – what do you see as “hard” and “soft” critique?

I don’t think there is much doubt that no one intentionally opposes and criticizes contrary to their core values, and for the religious, to their God. In the latter case, I believe they have in their heads a commitment to find and act on truth, to seek God’s will and to add that light to the world. The irreligious have analogous standards. So, in making points with others, content, tone and approach become the most important impressions to leave with others in the exchange of ideas.

Yeah, I think its really subjective too.  Whether someone feels they are being faithful to their core values seems most important to me.  But I just wonder why there seems to be this emphasis on faithfulness to God and the church.  I honestly don't think about it much as I consider my perspectives and I don't common ask myself is this faithful or unfaithful to God and the church.  It seems like the default position would be to assume that people are being faithful to their values most of the time, kind of like the innocent until proven guilty legal default position. 

I wonder why this idea of faithfulness even needs to be emphasized and vocalized so often.  Perhaps its because there is a cultural taboo in Mormonism often brings the motives of others into question, and because of this taboo people feel compelled to frequently articulate their opinions as faithful because they are worried of the perceptions of others in a culture that is judging the attitudes of others.  I would critique this particular cultural tradition as an unhealthy one.  We need to be better, we need to be more humble and open to criticism, honest conversation and vulnerability.  

 

[The Nehor]

Being faithful to yourself over being faithful to God is a form of idolatry.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Being faithful to yourself over being faithful to God is a form of idolatry.

Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.  Seems like being faithful to ourselves is part of being faithful to God and to others.  I see them all woven together.  

[bluebell]

To me, being faithful means being loyal, constant, and steadfast to Christ and His causes (for lack of a better term).

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.  Seems like being faithful to ourselves is part of being faithful to God and to others.  I see them all woven together.  

Maybe, but one of those is the greatest commandment and one is only second greatest. When the two conflict as they sometimes do.....

Edited January 2, 2018 by The Nehor

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To me, being faithful means being loyal, constant, and steadfast to Christ and His causes (for lack of a better term).

I think many would probably agree with your definition.  One challenge is how can anyone objectively measure whether a person's actions or beliefs or opinions are "loyal". 

Also, why do you think people are compelled to so frequently be articulating this loyalty/faithfulness.  Shouldn't the best of intentions be assumed as default for everyone?  I can't imaging constantly telling people to remember that of course I'm faithful to my wife.  I don't think I've mentioned that I'm faithful to her even once to anyone in the whole time I've been married.  I think that's the default assumed position.  So why do you think it comes up so often (this is my observation as I listen to and read the comments of others, and I constantly run across it, people reflect on their faithfulness/loyalty to God and the church as if these things need to be mentioned for fear of the judgment of others that they aren't being faithful.  Seems almost like a paranoid position.)

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe, but one of those is the greatest commandment and one is only second greatest. When the two conflict as they sometimes do.....

I see them as equal commandments, aren't they called the two great commandments, I'm not sure they are ranked as one and two, at least thats not my personal interpretation.  

Overall I think there are times one kind of love could be overemphasized, in which case I would say there is a need for more balance.  Some people may begin to neglect others, or neglect self, or neglect a humility required to love God.  I think any of those things taken to an extreme could become a vice.  Hence the need to moderation and balance.  Putting one of part of these commandments below the other seems like its out of balance to me, I think they all need to be emphasized in harmony.  

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I see them as equal commandments, aren't they called the two great commandments, I'm not sure they are ranked as one and two, at least thats not my personal interpretation.  

Overall I think there are times one kind of love could be overemphasized, in which case I would say there is a need for more balance.  Some people may begin to neglect others, or neglect self, or neglect a humility required to love God.  I think any of those things taken to an extreme could become a vice.  Hence the need to moderation and balance.  Putting one of part of these commandments below the other seems like its out of balance to me, I think they all need to be emphasized in harmony.  

Your personal interpretation of Jesus saying one is the greatest commandment in the Torah  and then giving which is the second? That is a radical interpretation of the text.

And I disagree. Love of God needs no moderation.

Edited January 2, 2018 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I think many would probably agree with your definition.  One challenge is how can anyone objectively measure whether a person's actions or beliefs or opinions are "loyal". 

 

On one hand, I think that most of us know what 'being loyal' looks like and what being disloyal looks like, even if it's difficult to define.  On the other hand, I don't know that it matters if others think we are being loyal or not.  Christ knows.

Quote

Also, why do you think people are compelled to so frequently be articulating this loyalty/faithfulness.  Shouldn't the best of intentions be assumed as default for everyone?  I can't imaging constantly telling people to remember that of course I'm faithful to my wife.  I don't think I've mentioned that I'm faithful to her even once to anyone in the whole time I've been married.  I think that's the default assumed position.  So why do you think it comes up so often (this is my observation as I listen to and read the comments of others, and I constantly run across it, people reflect on their faithfulness/loyalty to God and the church as if these things need to be mentioned for fear of the judgment of others that they aren't being faithful.  Seems almost like a paranoid position.)

Maybe part of it is because we're all human and therefore we all know how easy it is to fool ourselves or justify our weaknesses so we project that onto others as well.  We may require an articulation of loyalty to combat that projection or we may give one if we believe someone else is projecting onto us.

And, most of us also have experience with people who pretend to be faithful but aren't, so that creates a 'once bitten twice shy' mentality.  

Another reason might be because our actions or beliefs might be easily misconstrued so we feel the need to articulate loyalty so we are understood correctly.  

Also, your wife knows you so she knows your faithful by your actions.  If someone doesn't know you, they have nothing to judge you by except your claims.  Being neutral towards your faithfulness is reasonable if such claims are not made.

 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Your personal interpretation of Jesus saying one is the greatest commandment in the Torah  and then giving which is the second? That is a radical interpretation of the text.

And I disagree. Love of God needs no moderation.

I'm not sure what reference from the Torah you're talking about.  I was speaking of Matthew 22.  And there it says the second is "like unto it" in the KJV, but I've read some commentaries that a more accurate translation would imbue a sense of saying that the second commandment is equally important to the first.  

I believe balance is necessary because from my vantage point there are some people who obsess over religious things so much they sacrifice their self or sacrifice others in some false sense of serving God.  How can you love God without serving others, this seems to be what Jesus taught, and is part of that balance I spoke of.  The idea of following rules and checklists and enforcing orthodoxy over loving others is how Jesus critiqued the religious leaders of his day and I believe those same critiques are applicable today.  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

On one hand, I think that most of us know what 'being loyal' looks like and what being disloyal looks like, even if it's difficult to define.  On the other hand, I don't know that it matters if others think we are being loyal or not.  Christ knows.

I have a very different idea of what being faithful looks like that your average orthodox member.  

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe part of it is because we're all human and therefore we all know how easy it is to fool ourselves or justify our weaknesses so we project that onto others as well.  We may require an articulation of loyalty to combat that projection or we may give one if we believe someone else is projecting onto us.

I like this, I think that an insecurity of sorts could be part of the problem, but this is negatively influenced by cultural taboos.  

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And, most of us also have experience with people who pretend to be faithful but aren't, so that creates a 'once bitten twice shy' mentality.  

This seems to be evidence of the cultural taboos I'm talking about.  You have experience with people who pretend to be faithful that aren't?  Ouch.....  I'm not sure I'm comfortable judging others at this level.  Really, you feel confidence enough to call someone else's motives into question?  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Ham Tyler in "V" -- "Faith is for nuns and amateurs."

--------------  

"Flight of the Intruder" script, court-martial scene:

Quote

Court-Martial Captain: You took an oath, Mr. Cole. You, too, Mr. Grafton. You took an oath to defend the constitution and obey the orders of the officers appointed over you. It's the same oath that every officer in the navy has taken for damn near 200 years. And during all that time, the military has obeyed the civilian elected government. Now, they might not have always been right, or wise... or even smart, but they were elected. Any other way and the United States would be nothing more than another two-bit military dictatorship.

Admiral: Why did you do this, Cole? An officer with your fine record? Did you think you were going to win the war?

Cole: Frankly, sir, I think we're going to lose this one. But I do love the work.

Court-Martial Captain: Mr. Cole, you may find that amusing, but we don't. Gentlemen, this is our country you're messing with. Well, Mr. Grafton, you have an attentive audience here. Perhaps you can explain to us why you thought a one-plane war was the way to go.

Lt. Jake Grafton: Well, sir, we bomb worthless targets night after night - I mean, three tents under a tree... sampan repair yards that have been hit ten times already. Sir, you know the list better than I do. My first bombardier and 50,000 other Americans are dead and... can anyone tell me why? I realize that I'm Lieutenant Nobody. I'm... I'm not really sure about anything anymore. This war's become very confusing. Nobody... nobody wants to fight in it. Nobody seems to want to win it. Maybe it never should have happened, but people do die in it. Maybe for me, it got personal, because I do know the difference between dying for something and dying for nothing. I know that's no excuse. I... I know that. And I broke the faith, and for that, I am truly wrong. Perhaps I should hang.

Court-Martial Captain: Hanging, Mr. Grafton, is no longer a punishment much in use. But a prison term in Leavenworth is, or a dishonorable discharge if a court-martial should so decide. But whatever happens,I think it's safe to say that your career in the navy is over. The only question's how.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I have a very different idea of what being faithful looks like that your average orthodox member.  

 

You have a different idea of what it looks like to be steadfast, loyal, and constant than the average member?

Quote

I like this, I think that an insecurity of sorts could be part of the problem, but this is negatively influenced by cultural taboos. 

I'm sure insecurity probably is behind it to some extent.  I don't know if that's a cultural taboo or just a part of being human. 

Quote

This seems to be evidence of the cultural taboos I'm talking about.  You have experience with people who pretend to be faithful that aren't?  Ouch.....  I'm not sure I'm comfortable judging others at this level.  Really, you feel confidence enough to call someone else's motives into question?  

I'm talking about general faithfulness.  You used your faithfulness to your wife as an example of being faithful.  Well, I personally know someone who pretended to be faithful to their wife (and pretended it incredibly convincingly!) and yet were actually sleeping with multiple women over the course of many years.  But speaking spiritually yes, I do know someone who claimed faithfulness until one day they acknowledged that no, they were actually atheists and had just been going through the motions for months.

And we all have experience with people online who have pretended to be faithful members of the church to get street cred with members or non-members when they actually left the church years ago but just never had their names removed.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What does it mean to be faithful? 

I think it means to have and exercise faith.

Having faith is mostly an inner-held thing.

Exercising faith is mostly a demonstrative thing.  Service to others.  Obedience to the commandments.  That sort of thing.

Quote

I hear this phrase used frequently as I read and listen to Mormon conversations, particularly in the more progressive and apologetic Mormon communities.  I hear it frequently used in the context of maybe pointing out a soft critique of something, but then emphasizing that they of course are remaining faithful to God or the church.   So I ask this question, what does it mean when someone says they are being faithful, and what exactly does can be defined as being faithful?

I don't think there is an "exacting" definition.

Quote

I found this quote from Gordon B. Hinckley in 1984 on the subject.  

Just a couple thoughts.   Throughout my faith journey of the last few years I've experienced varying degrees of activity, lack of belief, deconstruction and reconstruction.  And as I reflect back on all these experiences I can't say that I feel like any of my actions actions or attitudes would constitute being unfaithful to God. 

I invite you to be careful here.  I don't think it's a good idea to frame questions like this as they pertain to you as an individual.  Doing so basically amounts to an invitation for strangers to to judge you (and, in this case, judging you relative to your faithfulness).  That's not a healthy thing, for you or for us.

Quote

Sometimes I don't know that I even believe in God anymore, or am not sure what I believe about God, but I still don't feel this lack of concrete believe is an act of unfaithfulness.  

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Quote

I think for me to feel like I've been unfaithful I would have to feel like I've violated a core moral value.  Something down deep that I actively act against.  This would constitute being unfaithful at some level to me, and throughout my faith journey I believe I've followed these deeper impulses even and especially when those impulses have been in contradiction to the direction of the institutional church and its leaders.   

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here.

Quote

So when President Hinckley criticizes those who speak critically as being unfaithful, I actually believe that at times I would have been unfaithful if I didn't speak up and criticize the church. 

I don't think that's the way it's supposed to work.

Consider publicly speaking against an institution or person in other contexts.  Do you likewise feel at liberty to publicly "speak up and criticize" your spouse if and when he/she makes a mistake?  I would think . . . not.

How about your employer?  Do you think your employer expects some measure of "allegiance?"  Or do you feel at liberty to publicly speak against your employer?

Have you ever served in the military?  If so, you would know that publicly criticizing your superiors is not allowed.

Note that any of these entities (spouse, employer, military) are certainly capable of making mistakes, and yet I do not feel at liberty to publicly criticize any of them (I'm out of the military now, so I can criticize military leaders, I suppose).

In 1987 Elder Oaks wrote a very thoughtful article on the general subject of handling disputes and disagreements and criticisms within the LDS Church.  Here it is.  I think he makes some very good points.

I submit that membership in the Church does not create a license to publicly speak against it.  To the contrary, I think membership imposes some measure of allegiance, loyalty, and discretion.  In other words, with memberships come some constraints on our behavior.  Publicly speaking against the Church seems, in broad strokes, to be incompatible with membership in the Church.

Quote

I've tried to do so in respectful ways, but I believe that staying silent would have been unfaithful at those times.  

I think there are many options other than A) "staying silent" and B) publicly speaking against the Church.

Again, Elder Oaks addresses this issue quite well.

Quote

So, what do others think of this idea of being faithful?  Has any one else noticed this tendency to emphasize faithfulness by people in the Bloggernacle as they discuss soft critiques of the church?  

I think there is some real risk in folks in "the Bloggernacle" exceeding the bounds of allegiance, loyalty and discretion that are inherent in being a member of the Church.

I think part of the problem arises in how individuals perceive the Church.  That is, some of us seem to view the Church as something akin to a political construct, one that is answerable to its constituency.   That is, that the leaders are somehow elected by the membership of the Church, that they are "answerable" to us in the sense of developing and promulgating teachings and practices that should conform to the expectations of self-selected agitators within the Church.  There is also quite a bit of encouragement of "factionalization," with agitators working to divvy up the body of the Church, and then pitting the subgroupings against each other (gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, socioeconomic condition, etc.).  Consequently, some members feel at liberty to seize upon these tactics and rhetoric, which are normally used to pressure / coerce political leaders into taking a particular course of action, and deploy them against the Church and its leaders.  This tendency is destructive, divisive, and inappropriate. 

I think the foregoing tendency - deploying politically-derived tactics and rhetoric in and against the Church and its leaders and members - is very off-putting to most active Latter-day Saints.  Again, Elder Oaks' remarks are quite relevant to this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yeah, I think its really subjective too.  Whether someone feels they are being faithful to their core values seems most important to me.  But I just wonder why there seems to be this emphasis on faithfulness to God and the church.  I honestly don't think about it much as I consider my perspectives and I don't common ask myself is this faithful or unfaithful to God and the church.  It seems like the default position would be to assume that people are being faithful to their values most of the time, kind of like the innocent until proven guilty legal default position. 

I wonder why this idea of faithfulness even needs to be emphasized and vocalized so often.  Perhaps its because there is a cultural taboo in Mormonism often brings the motives of others into question, and because of this taboo people feel compelled to frequently articulate their opinions as faithful because they are worried of the perceptions of others in a culture that is judging the attitudes of others.  I would critique this particular cultural tradition as an unhealthy one.  We need to be better, we need to be more humble and open to criticism, honest conversation and vulnerability.  

I think an emphasis on faithfulness to God and the Church is appropriate when that is the topic at hand. Everything needs to tie back to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I often quote Joseph Smith: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

In the talk you quoted, President Hinckley (2^nd Counselor at the time) referred to the broader theme of the particular general women’s meeting in which he spoke, which was “Stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” Accordingly, he shared many other principles and themes in addition to faithfulness to God, ourselves, the best within us, the gospel, and the Church, basing his rather comprehensive remarks on the Lord’s revelation to Emma Smith in D&C 25 and applying them to the LDS sisters.

I haven’t had many, if any, interactions with LDS where they defensively or preemptively articulate their opinions as faithful. I’ve seen it happen in some of these threads, but that’s about it. Far more often I hear, when opinions are shared, “That’s the gospel according to me.”

In addition to the willingness I mentioned earlier (to seek the Lord’s will, seek to add light and unity to the discussion), I think taking a council approach to discuss potentially touchy subjects is helpful but requires a bit of preparation. In the January Ensign there is an article about councils as the feature of the first Sunday of the month quorum and Relief Society meetings and had a lot of good pointers about how we communicate with others about spiritual themes and matters: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/01/to-sit-in-council?lang=eng

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I didn’t think they were very objective, and in their common usage they are often substituted one for the other. But if the conversants can agree on them, they can be helpful distinctions. For example, do you see any difference between “soft criticism” and “hard criticism”? Perhaps a distinction between “hard” and “soft” might help – what do you see as “hard” and “soft” critique?

From Elder Oaks' 1987 article:

Quote

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

...

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

I think trying to distinguish between "hard" and "soft" public criticisms is difficult.  Too much of a slippery slope.  Imagine me trying to justify/rationalize "soft" public criticisms against my wife.  I suppose I could thread that needle if I really needed to, but if I became acclimated to publicly criticizing my wife, I think the distinction between "soft" and "hard" criticisms would be tested, over and over again.  And would eventually be crossed, over and over again.  And my relationship with my wife would suffer as a result.

Quote

I don’t think there is much doubt that no one intentionally opposes and criticizes contrary to their core values, and for the religious, to their God.

I guess the question, then, is where those "core values" come from.  For example, some people allow their political ideologies and beliefs ("values") to predominate over their religious "values."  For example, political leaders and writers and talking heads, then, can hold greater sway in the formulation of "core values" than the scriptures and the Spirit.  

In an LDS context, I think there is danger in letting the political ideology predominate over religious principles and beliefs.  There is no political party or platform or ideology that perfectly meshes with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This has never happened, and it never will, not until "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess {at Judgment Day that Jesus Christ is our Lord}."  (Mosiah 27:31).  So we all make compromises and accommodations.  We look for political candidates, parties, and ideologies that hew most closely to those principles we deem important.  The Church reminds us every election cycle that all political parties have principles consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that we each should use prayer and research to study each individual candidate and issue and reach decisions relating thereto.

Nevertheless, political ideology should not, IMO, dictate our religious views and decisions.  That is, some of us look at what trends are politically (and socially) popular with our peers, and then let that popularity have greater influence over us than the scriptures, the counsel of modern prophets and apostles, and the Spirit.  I think this is a mistake, as our moral code, our "core values," will be better when it is based on principles revealed to us from God through prophets and through personal revelation.  This will keep us well-grounded amidst the storms of varied opinions and ideologies.  In other words, faith should predominate.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4).

In contrast, letting popular social/political trends and ideologies determine our moral code will, I think, not work well for us.  There are too many conflicting and contradictory ideas being thrown into the mix.  Too many secret combinations.  Too many notions which sound nice superficially, but which in reality are corruptions and perversions.  So a person whose moral code is determined by the prevailing sociopolitical trends of the day is going to have a hard time, perhaps even to the point of abandoning the Restored Gospel.  "But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they."  (Mormon 5:18).

Quote

In the latter case, I believe they have in their heads a commitment to find and act on truth, to seek God’s will and to add that light to the world. The irreligious have analogous standards. So, in making points with others, content, tone and approach become the most important impressions to leave with others in the exchange of ideas.

Good points.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From Elder Oaks' 1987 article:

I think trying to distinguish between "hard" and "soft" public criticisms is difficult.  Too much of a slippery slope.  Imagine me trying to justify/rationalize "soft" public criticisms against my wife.  I suppose I could thread that needle if I really needed to, but if I became acclimated to publicly criticizing my wife, I think the distinction between "soft" and "hard" criticisms would be tested, over and over again.  And would eventually be crossed, over and over again.  And my relationship with my wife would suffer as a result.

I guess the question, then, is where those "core values" come from.  For example, some people allow their political ideologies and beliefs ("values") to predominate over their religious "values."  Political leaders and writers and talking heads, then, can hold greater sway in the formulation of "core values" than the scriptures and the Spirit.  

In an LDS context, I think there is danger in letting the political ideology predominate over religious principles and beliefs.  There is no political party or platform or ideology that perfectly meshes with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This has never happened, and it never will, not until "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess {at Judgment Day that Jesus Christ is our Lord}."  (Mosiah 27:31).  So we all make compromises and accommodations.  We look for political candidates, parties, and ideologies that hew most closely to those principles we deem important.  The Church reminds us every election cycle that all political parties have principles consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that we each should use prayer and research to study each individual candidate and issue and reach decisions relating thereto.

Nevertheless, political ideology should not, IMO, dictate our religious views and decisions.  That is, some of us look at what trends are politically (and socially) popular with our peers, and then let that popularity have greater influence over us than the scriptures, the counsel of modern prophets and apostles, and the Spirit.  I think this is a mistake, as our moral code, our "core values," will be better when it is based on principles revealed to us from God through prophets and through personal revelation.  This will keep us well-grounded amidst the storms of varied opinions and ideologies.  In other words, faith should predominate.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4).

In contrast, letting popular social/political trends and ideologies determine our moral code will, I think, not work well for us.  There are too many conflicting and contradictory ideas being thrown into the mix.  Too many secret combinations.  Too many notions which sound nice superficially, but which in reality are corruptions and perversions.  So a person whose moral code is determined by the prevailing sociopolitical trends of the day is going to have a hard time, perhaps even to the point of abandoning the Restored Gospel.  "But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they."  (Mormon 5:18).

Good points.

Thanks,

-Smac

Regarding Elder Oak’s article and your example of your wife, this is certainly the case when viewing the Church as the Bride of Christ, and why councils are so essential in identifying areas for improvement and making them. In more casual discussions, I think applying the same spirit is just as helpful and is borne out in the tone and approach we use. And as with councils, I think content should be as factual and objective as possible.

I wasn’t even thinking in terms of politics and ideologies (and come to think of it, the sciences), but those are great points, and I think taking the council approach helps us keep these in perspective and at bay. Plus, as in spousal relationships, charity, and not politics, ideology or science, prevails.

[filovirus]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it means to have and exercise faith.

Having faith is mostly an inner-held thing.

Exercising faith is mostly a demonstrative thing.  Service to others.  Obedience to the commandments.  That sort of thing.

This. It's interesting how our actions (works) help to define our faith.