Being Faithful - What does it mean?

[rodheadlee]

On 1/2/2018 at 10:55 AM, 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've been thinking about this for about a week now or ever since you posted it. I don't see how you can be faithful to something you don't believe in or someone you don't believe in. Being faithful to me means getting to know that person and being able to trust Him or her to do what they say they are going to do. Whether it's Heavenly Father or your wife or your mother and father, or even just a friend.

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I've been thinking about this for about a week now or ever since you posted it. I don't see how you can be faithful to something you don't believe in or someone you don't believe in. Being faithful to me means getting to know that person and being able to trust Him or her to do what they say they are going to do. Whether it's Heavenly Father or your wife or your mother and father, or even just a friend.

Thanks rodheadlee.  It sounds like your description of faithfulness is all about trust and loyalty, and that makes sense to me.  When I hear people talk about being faithful to God in Mormon context they often believe it means having orthodox perspectives.  However, I think that with my personal beliefs evolving, that I continue to feel like I'm being faithful to God even when I'm not sure I believe God exists. 

So this makes me think that faithfulness is really only in the eye of beholder.  In your example, if you know your spouse well enough that you can truly trust them, then you have to acknowledge that sometimes their actions may look on the surface like a sign of unfaithfulness.  Yet, I imagine you give them the benefit of the doubt because of your underlying trust, that even if specific actions may look out of step with what you'd expect, that you have that underlying trust that they are actually acting in good faith.   

What if you find out in the future the complete details about those actions that looked like unfaithfulness.  And what if after confronting your spouse and hearing their side of the story that you still felt like those actions were unfaithful.  But what if you spouse explained that from their perspective they were being faithful, but that you both disagreed on what constitutes faithfulness with respect to this situation. 

I think a reasonable outside observer might say that both people were being equally faithful, because this outside observer could more objectively evaluate the situation and understand the perspectives of both parties.  I'm wondering if this isn't needed sometimes, a humility that we can acknowledge that what seems like faithfulness to us, might be perceived differently by others, and the reverse is true as well.

Just wanted to share my thoughts based on your comment.  Thanks

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks rodheadlee.  It sounds like your description of faithfulness is all about trust and loyalty, and that makes sense to me.  When I hear people talk about being faithful to God in Mormon context they often believe it means having orthodox perspectives.  However, I think that with my personal beliefs evolving, that I continue to feel like I'm being faithful to God even when I'm not sure I believe God exists. 

So this makes me think that faithfulness is really only in the eye of beholder.  In your example, if you know your spouse well enough that you can truly trust them, then you have to acknowledge that sometimes their actions may look on the surface like a sign of unfaithfulness.  Yet, I imagine you give them the benefit of the doubt because of your underlying trust, that even if specific actions may look out of step with what you'd expect, that you have that underlying trust that they are actually acting in good faith.   

What if you find out in the future the complete details about those actions that looked like unfaithfulness.  And what if after confronting your spouse and hearing their side of the story that you still felt like those actions were unfaithful.  But what if you spouse explained that from their perspective they were being faithful, but that you both disagreed on what constitutes faithfulness with respect to this situation. 

I think a reasonable outside observer might say that both people were being equally faithful, because this outside observer could more objectively evaluate the situation and understand the perspectives of both parties.  I'm wondering if this isn't needed sometimes, a humility that we can acknowledge that what seems like faithfulness to us, might be perceived differently by others, and the reverse is true as well.

Just wanted to share my thoughts based on your comment.  Thanks

I don't worry about outside Observers. Using my wife as the example I try to get to know what she needs and expects from me that way she could have faith in me to do what I say I'm going to do. As long as I'm faithful in my search for this information then I'm being faithful to her. Thank you for replying.

[Jeanne]

What happens when being faithful collides with being true to yourself?

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What happens when being faithful collides with being true to yourself?

I've wondered about this as well, this is a really difficult question.  I've thought about this from a marriage relationship context a few times in recent years.  What if you've changed to the point that you feel somewhere deep down inside that you're not being true to yourself by staying in a relationship that you feel violates some of what is core to your being.  But you've made a commitment to that other person, yet things have changed for both sides and you no longer feel like you want to keep that commitment.  

I think it would take a lot of introspection, and I believe it would be different for everyone.  I don't take the marriage commitment lightly, so for me personally I would put a lot of effort into building the relationship and trying to find new areas of commonality that would strengthen the commitment in new ways that might not have been present at first.  However, I hesitate to say that one size fits all, and that this would be the same for everyone, and sometimes I honor when individuals feel like they need to end the relationship because it violates them being true to their inner self. 

In many ways this same relationship experience can be applied to a relationship with the church or with God.  I find many parallels as I think about it.   What do you think Jeanne, any thoughts from your perspective? 

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've wondered about this as well, this is a really difficult question.  I've thought about this from a marriage relationship context a few times in recent years.  What if you've changed to the point that you feel somewhere deep down inside that you're not being true to yourself by staying in a relationship that you feel violates some of what is core to your being.  But you've made a commitment to that other person, yet things have changed for both sides and you no longer feel like you want to keep that commitment.  

I think it would take a lot of introspection, and I believe it would be different for everyone.  I don't take the marriage commitment lightly, so for me personally I would put a lot of effort into building the relationship and trying to find new areas of commonality that would strengthen the commitment in new ways that might not have been present at first.  However, I hesitate to say that one size fits all, and that this would be the same for everyone, and sometimes I honor when individuals feel like they need to end the relationship because it violates them being true to their inner self. 

In many ways this same relationship experience can be applied to a relationship with the church or with God.  I find many parallels as I think about it.   What do you think Jeanne, any thoughts from your perspective? 

I like this and yes, it would be different for everyone.  To honor a commitment would also be in away...being true to yourself if that commitment holds great value.  Thank you.