Now, no one is required to walk in lock step with the church. The church cannot compel one's obedience, nor does it have desire to. As it has been since the days of Joseph Smith, the church seeks to teach correct principles, and let people govern themselves. Because of this, I think some people mistakenly believe that church doctrine is somehow up for debate, or discussion, or vote. Agency doesn't mean the freedom to decide what is right, merely what one is going to do with the knowledge of what is right. You can always disagree, but your opinion doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.
On MSNBC today I read this article. It is annoying to read comments like the following:
We need a place where people can have a discussion and get information," said Laura Compton, a contributor at MormonsforMarriage.com. "And people need to know that it's not coming from an anti-Mormon place, or a gay Castro district place. It's coming from a faithful place."
Its not coming from a faithful place. Its coming from one of two places, either someone who has no problem standing in direct opposition to the public stances the church takes, or someone who just flat out does not understand how the church works.
There is a great quote by a church spokesperson in the article, its says:
"The Church, of course, recognizes and accepts that some among its very large membership may view the issue differently," Farah said in a statement."Church leaders teach important principles and invite our members to govern their lives by those principles. We do not desire to compel them, nor can we do so."
No one is compelled to believe anything. But, just because an individual decides that they do not want to stand with the brethren, doesn't mean that those aspects of doctrine can be ignored, debated, or argued over hoping to change them. Not while at the same time claiming to be a faithful member of the church.
This goes right on the list of responses by supposedly faithful members that make no sense to me with responses to Pres. Benson's talk imploring mothers to come home, and Sister Beck's talk about Mother's who know.
7 comments:
Wait, Dan Simpson's been given the responsibility of what constitutes a faithful member of the church? I hadn't heard that.
For the record, I don't disagree with your position -- that most principles in the church aren't matters up for debate. But, I think your tone is inappropriate and, frankly, if I didn't know you better, I'd say it borders on self-righteousness.
Bryan trying to point out that others are self-righteous, is a little hard to swallow. But let me try to respond to your post.
First, no where did I claim to be the arbitor of what makes one faithful or not. Being faithful is up to the individual (not what makes them faithful, but whether or not they choose to be faithful). That choice of theirs is not up to me, or you, or anyone else. However, once someone decides to take a public, vocal stance in direct opposition to the church, they cannot claim in the same breath to be faithful.
They may be faithful to 'their own conscience', or to those things they hold to be true. And that is fine, individuals can believe anything that they want to. But when the church takes a public, vocal, unequivocal stance on an issue, and a member takes a vocal, public, unequivocal stance in opposition. The member can no longer claim to be in line with the church.
Everyone has the right to question. Anytime a doctrine comes from the church, individuals have the right, and the duty, to come to understand and gain their own testimony of it. Some may struggle, this doesn't make them non-faithful members. Some may have a very, very hard time coming to terms with the stances the church takes, as they are contrary to what that individual has long held to be true.
Individuals that can face those struggles, and with quiet dignity come to a reconciliation, have my deep, deep respect. I would even hold people who could not reconcile such problems in respect, if they did not then decide to publicly oppose, and try to either deride or change the church stance that they disagree with.
These individuals have done none of these things. They have publicly, loudly, stood in direct opposition to the stance the church has taken. How in the world can you make it seem like I am taking some sort of mantle upon myself when I call their claim of faithfulness false?
They claim to be faithful, in the same sentence that they publicly denounce a church stance. In fact they claim that standing in opposition to the church comes from their being faithful.
If my saying that that is a load, that they could not be opposing the church publicly, and be faithful members of said church at the same time, is self-righteous, so be it. You are free to your opinion, though I couldn't disagree with you more.
I also don't know what your problem with my tone is (as often happens you don't elaborate on anything you have said.) I am incensed by these people, that was the tone I was going for. I am appalled that they would flaunt their offense at the church as some sort of flag of a higher morality, and faithfulness to the 'truth'.
They speak as if only they know individuals who are gay and have those struggles, and if the rest of us where not so secluded, and protected from the world, we would be with them. They speak as if no one knows struggle, who does not know this struggle. And thus, no one, including the brethren of the church, have any right to take a stance on such things as gay marriage.
Your first paragraph still baffles me, Bryan. Do you really understand everything so little that you truly believe that no one is to make judgements on what is right and wrong? That we are never to stand up against things that are wrong? That any such stance is the sort of unrighteous judgement mentioned in the scriptures?
I did not bring up faithfulness, the individuals in the article did, I merely called the lie what it was, a lie.
Your words:
"No one is compelled to believe anything. But, just because an individual decides that they do not want to stand with the brethren, doesn't mean that those aspects of doctrine can be ignored, debated, or argued over hoping to change them. Not while at the same time claiming to be a faithful member of the church."
While, once again, your argument in principle is more or less correct, you kinda sound like the girls in a student ward who whisper and make comments about who, in their opinion, is taking the sacrament unworthily. Sure, they may know something that the person did or said that might make them unworthy, but, quite frankly, no one has appointed them the arbiter of who is and who is not worthy. I have no problem with pointing out the flaws in people's arguments or stating correct principles. I just happen to think that you're in dangerous territory when you take it upon yourself to determine whether an individual is a faithful member of the church...unless...you know...you're their bishop or something. If you happen to be these people's bishop, my apologies, though I do I think it'd be more appropriate for you to chastise them in a more private setting.
There's a difference, Daniel, between recognizing what's right and wrong and "standing up for what's right" and passing personal judgments on an individual's faith or worthiness when you're not endowed with the authority to do so. The former is a commandment, the latter is pretty much the definition of self-righteousness.
Furthermore, I find it odd that you compare people who publicly argue against the church's position on gay marriage to mothers who choose to work. You're casting a pretty wide net as to who, in your view, can't consider themselves to be faithful. Hope I don't end up in it.
I'll ignore your personal insult at me, but I should note that, the brethren have also warned against speaking unkind words...just sayin'.
I made no such comparisons, my comparison was between people who have decided to be offended at stated stances of the church, and then vocally, publicly, stand against the church.
I also did not claim any judgement of their worthiness, i.e. sacrament, or other ordinances, as such judgement is reserved for their ecclesiatical leadership.
It is not, however, to be someone's bishop to see that they have publicly taken a stand against the church. In fact the very nature of taking a public stand against the church, makes it obvious that one is not a faithful member, as you are specifically, publicly, standing against the organization.
Is this something that makes them unable to take the sacrament, or go to the temple, etc.? Not my call.
But they, I repeat THEY brought up the idea of whether or not they were being faithful members through their stance. They made the argument that they were. I pointed out how the two things are not compatible.
You are splitting hairs. Would you be more comfortable if I had just randomly posed a question: Can one vocally and publicly stand against the church and be a faithful member? And then pointed out how those things are not compatible?
Their statement is false. The stance is wrong. They said that standing against the church came from being faithful, that is not true.
Do you really think I need to be a bishop to understand the principle that you cannot fight against the church and remain faithful?
I would think that that would be an important point that every member should understand.
"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives." --Joseph Smith
He didn't limit this to purely doctrinal issues. Indeed, he said it in 1839, well after his experiences with the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company. He had seen how it applied equally to financial and political matters.
It requires no special authority to point out that these future apostates are by their very dissent not being faithful to their church. That's not self-righteousness; it's following definitions.
I see a contradiction here, in adhering to a faith that claims divine truth revealed top-down, while engaging in a bottom-up movement to change that truth. Is it revealed or isn't it?
Psst, hey Tiffany, I heard that Dan can't take the sacrament because he's too judgy. He says that people who disagree with the prophet aren't faithful. What a jerk.
Don't mind me. I'm just a girl from a singles ward.
Post a Comment