Scott Lloyd Posted June 16, 2020 Author Posted June 16, 2020 49 minutes ago, Ahab said: Scott said the "greatest degree of spiritual kinship". And he tied that to the covenants of the Church, saying he would feel the greatest degree of spiritual kinship with someone who has sincerely entered into the covenants of the Church (baptismal, temple, etc.) and who he knows is earnestly endeavoring to live up to them. I generally tend to think and feel the same way. I also feel some degree of spiritual kinship with people who have not accepted those covenants, or who it seems to me are not earnestly endeavoring to live up to them. It's generally just to a lesser degree. Right on point. Bravo!
Scott Lloyd Posted June 16, 2020 Author Posted June 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Yeah but you still might wrestle with me and others who fit that description, at least sometimes. Being committed to living up to those covenants doesn't mean we are without any flaws or that we will always agree on how to be perfect. Feeling spiritual kinship with someone does not necessarily mean agreeing with him always in every particular. We each have our individual flaws.
Navidad Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Scott said the "greatest degree of spiritual kinship". And he tied that to the covenants of the Church, saying he would feel the greatest degree of spiritual kinship with someone who has sincerely entered into the covenants of the Church (baptismal, temple, etc.) and who he knows is earnestly endeavoring to live up to them. I generally tend to think and feel the same way. I also feel some degree of spiritual kinship with people who have not accepted those covenants, or who it seems to me are not earnestly endeavoring to live up to them. It's generally just to a lesser degree. How would you know in a mixed group where you had no idea about the specific church affiliation of each individual? Let's assume just for fun you weren't allowed to discuss church affiliation. How would you know the difference between folks? I am suggesting that you couldn't discern the difference! If one could discern a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on a greater-than spirituality due to him being a one of a kind priesthood holder, I would agree with you. My point is that you could not! Godliness and spirituality is a trait of an individual, regardless of church affiliation. If LDS folks were one of a kind due to their relationship to their church, then they would indeed be one of a kind in spirituality, holiness, spirituality, and righteousness. I have never seen any evidence of that one of a kind-ness! I am not suggesting they are less. I am arguing for a equality in commitment that reflects in their lifestyle and faithfulness to the gospel. Edited June 16, 2020 by Navidad 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 16, 2020 Author Posted June 16, 2020 I just received this in an email from my temple presidency. It is a quote from a May 2015 Facebook post by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. As I read it, it occurred to me that it exemplifies what I have in mind when I speak of shared ideals and how they are of greater value to me than shared culture. Elder Holland wrote: What a terrific time to be alive! The gospel of Jesus Christ is the most certain, the most secure, the most reliable, and the most rewarding truth on earth and in heaven, in time and in eternity. Nothing—not anything, not anyone, not any influence—will keep this Church from fulfilling its mission and realizing its destiny declared from before the foundation of the world. Ours is that fail-safe, inexorable, indestructible dispensation of the fulness of the gospel. There is no need to be afraid or tentative about the future…. If there are some bumps along the way while waiting to see every promise kept and every prophecy fulfilled, so be it. If you haven’t noticed, I am bullish about the latter days. In nothing could I have more faith than I have in God the Eternal Father, in Jesus Christ His Son, in Their redeeming gospel, and in their divinely-guided Church. Believe. Rise up. Be faithful. And make the most of the remarkable day in which we live!” (Emphasis by the temple presidency) 1
Rain Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 7 hours ago, Navidad said: Hi Scott: I am trying to figure out if I agree with you. Let me try this - based on my experience I would much rather interact with a faithful member of the LDS church than with an unfaithful member of any other faith group. I have had the privilege of being in the presence of small groups of faithful members of a number of different groups. I find no greater affinity with the Mennonites in the group than with the Mormons in the group. Put faithful Godly members of either group in a room and I think anyone would be hard-pressed to tell the difference or who is from which group based on their demeanor, conduct, and the way they talk about their relationship with Christ. I have felt this, but I think circumstances matter. For example one Christmas Eve my daughter and I spent the evening at a small Spanish church serving some people in need. At one point I was very stressed over the safety of those we were helping and the pastor and his wife of that church came to pray over me. I felt such a strong spiritual connection with them, members of my church, members of other churches, including Jews. There is just something about service at times like this that bonds you spiritually even when beliefs are different. The charity/love between people can somehow transcend differences in beliefs. There are other times where it could happen as well, but it's not something likely to happen with a visit to a grocery store, ball game or loud concert. The circumstances matter. 7 hours ago, Navidad said: Take them on a camping trip for a week and I still think you could not tell the difference by anything tangible in what they say, how they conduct themselves, or their obvious commitment to Christ. In the spirit of this discussion, it seems to me that it is the individual who makes the difference, not the specific Christian group to which he or she belong. It wouldn't be fair to compare an ungodly member of one group to a Godly member of another. Put two, ten, or thirty Godly members of different Christian faith groups together for a prolonged period of time and again, I think you would be hard-pressed to see a difference in them based on their group affiliation. That is my experience from having done that very thing many times. Just my thoughts on what I think is an excellent topic. 2
Meadowchik Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 12 hours ago, bluebell said: From what he's said, it sounds like you've misunderstood him. No, I don't think so. I think his case, as a whole, i disjointed and inconsistent with the gospel ideals he claims are so important and kinship-building. It is indeed wonderful to feel like someone else values the ideas we find most valuable. Yet using church membership as a proxy for that is harmful to relationships, in my opinion.
Meadowchik Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Feeling spiritual kinship with someone does not necessarily mean agreeing with him always in every particular. We each have our individual flaws. I do remember clearly realising years ago, back when I was a believing member, that it's possible for an atheist to be closer spiritual kin to a devoted believer than some believers are. I think it's a good thing to appreciate the spiritual fruits that are yielded despite church affiliation.
bluebell Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: No, I don't think so. He stated that what you claim he is saying isn't what he is saying. Do you think he's lying? Quote I think his case, as a whole, i disjointed and inconsistent with the gospel ideals he claims are so important and kinship-building. It is indeed wonderful to feel like someone else values the ideas we find most valuable. Yet using church membership as a proxy for that is harmful to relationships, in my opinion. "I would feel a greater spiritual kinship with the most recently baptized devout Latter-day Saint in the remotest Third World country than with a disaffected member of record in my own locale, especially one who has set himself up as a strident critic of the Church or its teachings" In Scott's quote, both people are members though. 2
Meadowchik Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 21 minutes ago, bluebell said: He stated that what you claim he is saying isn't what he is saying. Do you think he's lying? "I would feel a greater spiritual kinship with the most recently baptized devout Latter-day Saint in the remotest Third World country than with a disaffected member of record in my own locale, especially one who has set himself up as a strident critic of the Church or its teachings" In Scott's quote, both people are members though. I use "church membership" for lack of a better term. He's saying that he's putting vocally disaffected members on one side away from kinship and all other members who are presumably believers on the side of kinship. He's trying to deny that I am correct, but he has not clarified his remarks in any convincing way to me. When I asked how he knew church members (obviously the ones who are not vocal, disaffected members) shared the gospel ideal he said he would give them the benefit of believing their sincerity. My issue is that this attitude is not isolated and that it is damaging to relationships.
Ahab Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 14 hours ago, Navidad said: How would you know in a mixed group where you had no idea about the specific church affiliation of each individual? Well, certainly, if I had no idea about what church they are associated with, then I would not know if I had a closer spiritual relationship with that person than I have with any regular person on this planet. I already know so I would still know that all of us are children of our Father in heaven, and therefore are brothers and sisters through him, but I don't know if others are also adopted as children of Jesus Christ unless I know they are also in the covenant relationship with him, as I am, and even then that doesn't necessarily mean that I know if they are earnestly endeavoring to live up to those covenants. 14 hours ago, Navidad said: Let's assume just for fun you weren't allowed to discuss church affiliation. How would you know the difference between folks? I am suggesting that you couldn't discern the difference! Probably not. Just as I probably wouldn't know if I shared a closer family kinship with someone than I do with a regular person if I don't know how closely we are connected in our family tree. But we could still have that closer spiritual kinship connection even if I didn't know they had accepted and were endeavoring to live up to those covenants that bind us together in that closer relationship. 14 hours ago, Navidad said: If one could discern a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on a greater-than spirituality due to him being a one of a kind priesthood holder, I would agree with you. My point is that you could not! Godliness and spirituality is a trait of an individual, regardless of church affiliation. If LDS folks were one of a kind due to their relationship to their church, then they would indeed be one of a kind in spirituality, holiness, spirituality, and righteousness. I have never seen any evidence of that one of a kind-ness! I am not suggesting they are less. I am arguing for a equality in commitment that reflects in their lifestyle and faithfulness to the gospel. As people, we are all somehow connected to our Father in heaven as his children. But not all of us have a closer family connection to Jesus Christ. To all of us, he is our brother, but to some of us, he is also our Father. And since none of us enter into the covenants that make Jesus Christ our Father by accident, we all know that he is our Father in that connection even if we don't know who our brothers and sisters are through him.
bluebell Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I use "church membership" for lack of a better term. He's saying that he's putting vocally disaffected members on one side away from kinship and all other members who are presumably believers on the side of kinship. That doesn't seem to match what he said though. He said he felt more kinship with one than the other (which implies feeling kinship with both, just at different ), not that one is on one side and the other is on a different side. 1
Meadowchik Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 15 minutes ago, bluebell said: That doesn't seem to match what he said though. He said he felt more kinship with one than the other (which implies feeling kinship with both, just at different ), not that one is on one side and the other is on a different side. By all means, see it how you want. He made the differentiation.
Ahab Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I use "church membership" for lack of a better term. He's saying that he's putting vocally disaffected members on one side away from kinship and all other members who are presumably believers on the side of kinship. He's trying to deny that I am correct, but he has not clarified his remarks in any convincing way to me. When I asked how he knew church members (obviously the ones who are not vocal, disaffected members) shared the gospel ideal he said he would give them the benefit of believing their sincerity. My issue is that this attitude is not isolated and that it is damaging to relationships. What do you think is damaging to relationships? Feeling a closer connection to people who have accepted and are endeavoring to live up to those covenants? Or seeing/sensing that some people are not and therefore not feeling as close to them?
bluebell Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: By all means, see it how you want. I'm going off of his quote, which isn't a function of seeing something how I want, but of taking his words at face value. He clearly did not say, in that quote, what you claim he is saying. It's definitely possible that he said it somewhere else (feel free to quote other relevant sections but I'm not asking you to spend your time or energy tracking anything down). For my part, I'm sticking with the quote because you quoted it in your post where you said it was gross and offensive. I'm trying to figure out what, in that quote, was gross and offensive. Quote He made the differentiation. And, he also said that you weren't interpreting him correctly. It's easy to misunderstand each other on here; we all read things with biases that sometimes get in the way. I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just wondering if you are creating a division (an offensive, to use your specific word) based more on your perception of Scott than what he actually said. You have always been an advocate of calling out false narratives or misperceptions or biased understandings, and I also agree that doing that can be very useful in getting rid of unnecessary divisions and contention. Edited June 16, 2020 by bluebell 2
Thinking Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 16 hours ago, Navidad said: How would you know in a mixed group where you had no idea about the specific church affiliation of each individual? Let's assume just for fun you weren't allowed to discuss church affiliation. How would you know the difference between folks? I am suggesting that you couldn't discern the difference! If one could discern a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on a greater-than spirituality due to him being a one of a kind priesthood holder, I would agree with you. My point is that you could not! Godliness and spirituality is a trait of an individual, regardless of church affiliation. If LDS folks were one of a kind due to their relationship to their church, then they would indeed be one of a kind in spirituality, holiness, spirituality, and righteousness. I have never seen any evidence of that one of a kind-ness! I am not suggesting they are less. I am arguing for a equality in commitment that reflects in their lifestyle and faithfulness to the gospel. I teach at a high school in Utah County (mostly LDS). Some years ago there was a male student that was very popular for a lot of reasons. He treated everybody with respect. He earned good grades. He also happened to be on the football team, was good looking, and wasn't a "player." In the spring of his senior year I happened to be chatting with the football coach when this kid walked by. The football coach said, "Can you believe he's not Mormon?" I don't remember my exact reply but I think I said something like, "There are a lot of good people who aren't Mormon." Anyway, I learned that during his time at the high school many students tried to get him to consider becoming LDS because he was such a good person. He politely refused. Even though he was not LDS I believe he had a strong spiritual influence on his classmates and that there was a spiritual kinship. 3
Meadowchik Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I'm going off of his quote, which isn't a function of seeing something how I want, but of taking his words at face value. He clearly did not say, in that quote, what you claim he is saying. It's definitely possible that he said it somewhere else (feel free to quote other relevant sections but I'm not asking you to spend your time or energy tracking anything down). For my part, I'm sticking with the quote because you quoted it in your post where you said it was gross and offensive. I'm trying to figure out what, in that quote, was gross and offensive. And, he also said that you weren't interpreting him correctly. It's easy to misunderstand each other on here; we all read things with biases that sometimes get in the way. I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just wondering if you are creating a division (an offensive, to use your specific word) based more on your perception of Scott than what he actually said. You have always been an advocate of calling out false narratives or misperceptions or biased understandings, and I also agree that doing that can be very useful in getting rid of unnecessary divisions and contention. I'm not creating a division, just calling Scott out on the one he created in his OP. Do you really think that it was an innocent confession of his feelings? It didn't seem so, the way he swiped at vocal church dissidents was unnecessary to his point on kinship. It really undermines his whole claim that he cares about gospel ideals. That is why I first identified it as tribalistic in nature. I asked him clarifying questions, and he then said that he will just assume that church members (who are not vocally disaffected) shared his ideals He hasn't really clarified his position, beyond those points, as far as I have seen. So yes, it is gross and offensive to imply such disparate values of affiliating LDS versus disaffected LDS especially when his measure for affiliating LDS is so shallow. How about assuming some goodwill and good faith from vocal church dissidents sometimes, eh, Scott?
stemelbow Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I'm not creating a division, just calling Scott out on the one he created in his OP. Do you really think that it was an innocent confession of his feelings? It didn't seem so, the way he swiped at vocal church dissidents was unnecessary to his point on kinship. It really undermines his whole claim that he cares about gospel ideals. That is why I first identified it as tribalistic in nature. I asked him clarifying questions, and he then said that he will just assume that church members (who are not vocally disaffected) shared his ideals He hasn't really clarified his position, beyond those points, as far as I have seen. So yes, it is gross and offensive to imply such disparate values of affiliating LDS versus disaffected LDS especially when his measure for affiliating LDS is so shallow. How about assuming some goodwill and good faith from vocal church dissidents sometimes, eh, Scott? I think i'm largely in agreement, but I think there are competing forces at play as well. The fear of wolves in sheep's outfits is not a theoretical thing, in a Christian mindset. Thus being fearful that there is someone in the Church who is secretly or even unknowingly trying to subvert the point is real. There is usefulness in being either suspicious or cautious, on such grounds. Additionally repeated throughout the scriptures is God's hate for those whom he does not know. It will al play out someday that many will be sent to GOd's left hand and as the BIble and Book of Mormon put it, all of those will be eternally burned with the devil. Included is the notion that many proclaimed believers will end up being those whom God hates bad enough He refuses to give them his notice. So many will pray, or seek HIm, but He will ignore them, apparently. Thus it is only reasonable for a believer to eschew others. To seek those amongst their own believers whom they should dislike, disown, or argue with. On this mindset, not only should believers refuse to find kindship with those who aren't believers--those are they who shall be burned with the devil; but should also refuse kindship with those who are dissidents--those are they whom God does not know and shall be burned too. I'd say Scott is being consistent with the religion he embraces. Of course in my view, the problem is with the religion he embraces. The walls he's constructed in following his religion refuses me, for instance, kinship with him. Although admittedly, as I see it, I can have a kindship with everyone. Nothing really bars me from that. Edited June 16, 2020 by stemelbow
Calm Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 4 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I use "church membership" for lack of a better term. He's saying that he's putting vocally disaffected members on one side away from kinship and all other members who are presumably believers on the side of kinship. How about “church devotion” or “church commitment”?
Calm Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 3 hours ago, bluebell said: For my part, I'm sticking with the quote because you quoted it in your post where you said it was gross and offensive. I wouldn’t call it gross and offensive, but it did feel distracting that in celebrating spiritual kinship (Which I find a wonderful sentiment we should do more of) he apparently felt the need to include those he didn’t celebrate the feeling of kinship with. You don’t need to explain how much you love your family by including “I don’t love the neighbours across the street very much”. 1
Navidad Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: The walls he's constructed in following his religion refuses me, for instance, kinship with him. Although admittedly, as I see it, I can have a kindship with everyone. Nothing really bars me from that. I think that is very well said. We all construct walls; but I have never seen a people who construct as many walls to protect themselves from fellowship (you used the word kinship - same thing) with "the other" as do many LDS church members. That is my observation and experience. The last time I was speaking in SLC I walked from my hotel to a lot of events. As I walked from the Radisson to my meeting in the church history library, I was struck by two things: the beauty of the landscaping in Temple Square and the fact of the solid wall around three sides of it and the fence on the other. I think both are appropriate metaphors for the "go away closer" mindset of many church members. Edited June 16, 2020 by Navidad
bluebell Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: I wouldn’t call it gross and offensive, but it did feel distracting that in celebrating spiritual kinship (Which I find a wonderful sentiment we should do more of) he apparently felt the need to include those he didn’t celebrate the feeling of kinship with. You don’t need to explain how much you love your family by including “I don’t love the neighbours across the street very much”. I suppose you could make the argument that the thread didn't need to exist because he said something that is obvious.
bluebell Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I'm not creating a division, just calling Scott out on the one he created in his OP. Do you really think that it was an innocent confession of his feelings? It didn't seem so, the way he swiped at vocal church dissidents was unnecessary to his point on kinship. It really undermines his whole claim that he cares about gospel ideals. That is why I first identified it as tribalistic in nature. I asked him clarifying questions, and he then said that he will just assume that church members (who are not vocally disaffected) shared his ideals He hasn't really clarified his position, beyond those points, as far as I have seen. So yes, it is gross and offensive to imply such disparate values of affiliating LDS versus disaffected LDS especially when his measure for affiliating LDS is so shallow. How about assuming some goodwill and good faith from vocal church dissidents sometimes, eh, Scott? I'm not seeing what you are seeing in his post, and I'm assuming that there are some biases (probably for both of us) that are causing that. I did read where he said that he is assuming that newly baptized members were sincere in their commitment, which seems like a reasonable thing to assume and not noteworthy. I haven't read any other posts by him.
Calm Posted June 16, 2020 Posted June 16, 2020 34 minutes ago, bluebell said: I suppose you could make the argument that the thread didn't need to exist because he said something that is obvious. I enjoy celebrations of even obvious things. 1
Meadowchik Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I'm not seeing what you are seeing in his post, and I'm assuming that there are some biases (probably for both of us) that are causing that. I did read where he said that he is assuming that newly baptized members were sincere in their commitment, which seems like a reasonable thing to assume and not noteworthy. I haven't read any other posts by him. Maybe I just see the danger in something that seems innocuous enough on the surface to you and others. Because I've experienced the harm? There's the issue of eschewing nonbelievers which is obviously damaging to personal relationships. There's also the issuance of too much trust to fellow believers. Affinity fraud is an example. Of course the OPs comments on other threads imo gives the strong impression that he feels animosity towards dissidents. So it would follow that this OP was just as much about celebrating those negative feelings for perceived enemies albeit in a subtle way.
Meadowchik Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 3 hours ago, stemelbow said: I think i'm largely in agreement, but I think there are competing forces at play as well. The fear of wolves in sheep's outfits is not a theoretical thing, in a Christian mindset. Thus being fearful that there is someone in the Church who is secretly or even unknowingly trying to subvert the point is real. There is usefulness in being either suspicious or cautious, on such grounds. Additionally repeated throughout the scriptures is God's hate for those whom he does not know. It will al play out someday that many will be sent to GOd's left hand and as the BIble and Book of Mormon put it, all of those will be eternally burned with the devil. Included is the notion that many proclaimed believers will end up being those whom God hates bad enough He refuses to give them his notice. So many will pray, or seek HIm, but He will ignore them, apparently. Thus it is only reasonable for a believer to eschew others. To seek those amongst their own believers whom they should dislike, disown, or argue with. On this mindset, not only should believers refuse to find kindship with those who aren't believers--those are they who shall be burned with the devil; but should also refuse kindship with those who are dissidents--those are they whom God does not know and shall be burned too. I'd say Scott is being consistent with the religion he embraces. Of course in my view, the problem is with the religion he embraces. The walls he's constructed in following his religion refuses me, for instance, kinship with him. Although admittedly, as I see it, I can have a kindship with everyone. Nothing really bars me from that. Well I guess that depends on who you ask. I'm glad my believing LDS parents aren't like that.
Recommended Posts