Unofficial definition of "active" LDS

[Bensalem]

I actually didn't repent and condemnation was not at all what I experienced. It's interesting that this is what you inferred from my comments....that I needed repentance.

What if I were to tell you that God himself led me out from amongst the church. What would you say to that? Do you think its possible that God would give someone an experience like that?

Sorry I misunderstood. I equate guilt with self-examination not with God's condemnation. And when you said, you "reconnect(ed) with the truths I love", I assumed repentance and being healed through the Atonement was one of them.

Would God lead you out of the Church? Perhaps if He wanted to save you from the crime of hypocrisy, He would. But I think He would lead you to repentance first.

[Misshalfway]

I appreciate your position on hypocrisy. While reading your last post, I was reminded of the comparison of the Nephites to Lamanites in Jacob and how the Lamanites were "more righteous" for various reasons.

I guess what I want to add is that I think that God wants more than just compliance. I think God is so very interested in our personal development. It's why the covenant relationship exists in the first place. So we are in proximity to Him. So he can teach us higher things.

But in the same breath God doesn't get caught up in the law. Jesus tried to teach over and over that the law was dead. Nephi understood the law was dead....necessary but dead. I think this is an essential perspective when talking about obedience. I don't think we do ourselves any favors when we created a new version of the law of moses.

[Bensalem]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bensalem.

You can't consider yourself active if you don't pay your tithe.

Well that throws out about 30%+ people that show up every Sunday.

note - I disagree with the above statement.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bensalem.

Therefore, my lesson in warning can only have a positive outcome in that they will return to an active faith or withdrawal physically, which is better than living their present hypocrisy.

You actually think withdrawing physically is preferable? I certainly hope you are NEVER in a position of authority.

You can't teach them if they are not there.

The Church is not a resting place for the perfect, its an aid station for the ill.

Are those 30% repenting of not paying tithe? Doesn't repentance include restitution? Are they paying tithe the following week or are they just 'repenting' again? Doesn't repentance mean change? In my mind they are spiritually inactive. Physically active or spiritually active, which defines faith?

Hypocrisy is worst than disobedience because it is dishonest disobedience.

You say, "You can't teach them if they are not there." But neither can the Spirit teach them if they are not spiritually present.

The best outcome is to repent and stay in the Church.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Bensalem

[Bensalem]

Sorry but I consider it incorrect teaching. It is your personal opinion, so it has value to you, but to teach it as fact, well, that's wrong IMHO.

Until you specify my incorrectness, I find it unproductive to address your opinion.

[Vort]

I am saying it is better to be a sinner outside of the Church, than a hypocrite inside the Church.

Depending on how you define "hypocrite", I may not agree. I go for a technical and literal definition of "hypocrite" as one who puts on a false face, attempting to appear righteous and "whited" while, inside, being full of corruption and "dead men's bones". (Interesting phraseology used by the Lord in comparing hypocrites to "whited sepulchres"; if such hypocrites are full of dead men's bones, that means their own bones, and thus they themselves, are dead -- spiritually dead.) Anyway, under such a definition, hypocrisy definitely is a grievous sin, more especially for those under covenant. In such a case, I would agree with your pronouncement.

But in my experience in the Church and on this list, few Latter-day Saints (or others) use "hypocrite" in this literal manner. Rather, they use "hypocrite" to refer to those who are inconsistent and do not "

". In this broad sense, we are all hypocrites -- and

, if everyone's a hypocrite, then in effect, no one is. Because the term loses its ability to distinguish between people. By this reckoning, the smoker who tells his children not to smoke is a hypocrite.

Using this looser and more common (though, to be blunt, wrong) definition of "hypocrite", I strenuously disagree that it is better not to be under covenant than to be under covenant and struggling.

[Dravin]

No, that's not what I am saying at all.

I am saying it is better to be a sinner outside of the Church, than a hypocrite inside the Church.

Okay considering we've already had some miscommunication I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by inside and outside the Church. Are we talking physical location? If you don't mean physical location what are you talking about? Removing one's name from the records?

Edited July 16, 2012 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

so you really have NO stewardship over those you wish to counsel and either frighten (teach) them back into activity or get them to get their rears out and stop being hypocrites.

I remember someone else who was determined to get us all saved, no matter what. Sometimes I wonder if he didnt have that little piece of him that KNEW he was not going to succeed in passing through mortal existence with free will and gentle persuasion so latched onto his idea of saving us all with no chance of 'failure'. Of course he was going to get the credit and praise for 'saving' everyone.

He kinda missed the point didnt he. We are here to be tested and overcome our own weaknesses.

Every member is a missionary but we have NO stewardship over other members in the church unless we have been given that by proper priesthood authority. We cant just decide one day we get to go around and fix those 'condemned inactives'. It is wrong. It is insulting. It is judgmental.

By the way we remain 'saints' by not being excommunicated or taking our names off the rolls of the church.

Inactivity does NOT mean inactive faith. I remember a talk not all that long ago by a GA in conference. Sorry but dont remember by who. He said a lot about inactive members and he made a point of making it clear that inactive did NOT mean unfaithful. So is the GA wrong?

I believe your comparison of my intentions to that of Lucifer's is misplaced. I am calling inactives to repentance and obedience to Christ. Would Lucifer do that?

More likely, he would be happy to persuade them that everything will be just fine in spite of their disobedience and hypocrisy. You see, he wants everyone to be like he is.

[Bensalem]

This thread highlights one of the things I love the most about the church. Something I think we miss sometimes. And that is that our worship and our relationship with the Lord is such a personal thing! It's such a beautiful concept that God can be strict and strong while being so flexible and individual. We need more of this kind of wise flexibility. Developing such perspectives only makes us better parents and partners and discerners of others.

God will force no man to heaven. That is why our choices here are so important. Neither can man obtain what they do not deserve.

Don't confuse His flexibility with His inevitability in justice.

[Misshalfway]

God will force no man to heaven. That is why our choices here are so important. Neither can man obtain what they do not deserve.

Don't confuse His flexibility with His inevitability in justice.

I'm not. I'm equating it with his patience and wisdom.

[Bensalem]

Well then I have a very serious problem.

I was inactive for over 40 years, just return since the death of my wife.

I now consider myself active, and yet I was not active in the building my faith remained strong.

Since returning I have not accepted Sacrament , because I don't feel worthy/entitled because I still have some issues with the WOW I am still dealing with due to bad habits I developed during my inactivity.

For at least 35 of those years I did not step foot in my ward mainly due to the conceived hypocrisy I felt and didn't want to project on those in my ward, by pretending to be what I am not. Should that keep me from attending the services and partaking in the spirit?

I still have a lot of things to work on and out, but returning to church was the step I took in hope I could at least work them out, in hope to better myself and the relationships I have with God and my children.

So far I have not been judged by or have judge others in my ward, and yet it seems as if I may have already been condemned by your and your "fellowship"

In yesterday High Priest meeting we talked about OYM [Open Your Mouth] and how we are all missionary, and how too many members were no longer attending church due to this idea, the church and it's members not setting the proper examples, but walking the walk and not being overly boastful, which has been a major turnoff to non member and member alike.

So let me ask you, what example are you setting? Many convert are made by seeing how we live our lives outside of church, you make me think I am now wasting my time trying to rekindle my relationship with the church and God, because I am far from perfect, I am not even a good Mormon overall but should it keep me from trying to improve myself and my relationship with God??

Should it stop from wanting the fellowship and asking Christ and the Holly Ghost for help to overcome my many shortfalls.

Should my current in obedient of the WOW stop me from attending church to aid me overcome my faults, and out of the church?

Glad to have you back. I hope you have spoken with your bishop about how you feel. He will surely direct you appropriately.

I don't see how anything I said would make you feel you are "wasting (your) time trying to rekindle (your) relationship with the church and God". I have recommended repentance and partaking of the sacrament. All inactives should work with their bishop toward that goal, which I have equated to active faith.

Good luck, brother.

[Bensalem]

Th(at) brings to mind this scripture:

3 Nephi 18

22 And behold, ye shall meet together oft; and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you and forbid them not;

23 But ye shall pray for them, and shall not cast them out; and if it so be that they come unto you oft ye shall pray for them unto the Father, in my name.

24 Therefore, hold up your light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. Behold ye see that I have prayed unto the Father, and ye all have witnessed.

25 And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptation.

***

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

My words forbid nobody; they call the disobedient to obedience.

But if they repent not they shall not be numbered with the saints.

Aren't inactives just fooling themselves? I do not wish to support their delusion.

[Bensalem]

Those are some of the most moving scriptures we have. Christs love for us and His guidance to us to help and love each other no matter, is very clear in those passages.

His love was made true on the cross. The grace of His Atonement stands as witness of His love for us.

Our love can only be demonstrated through obedience to repentance as his Word guides us to partake of the sacrament.

[Bensalem]

I had understood the OP as asking for personal, private definitions of "active" and "inactive". I took this to mean something like, "What do you need to do in order to consider yourself truly active?" I did not interpret this as being a method of passing judgment on whether others were active or inactive or whatever. Unless we are a bishop, that judgment is not ours to make, nor do I see why anyone would even care to pass such a judgment on a fellow Saint.

I have not judged; I have only spoken to answer the question of the OP. Others have taken offense to what I have said and so I am placed in a position to defend it.

That is hardly extraordinary for a discussion forum.

[Bensalem]

Several years ago I was on a Stake mission committee. Activity was defined as attendance once per quarter; essentially 4 times a year.

Nevertheless, don't judge activity by church attendance srtictly.:)

I would venture to say that 90+% of all people who don't even meet the very loose idea of activity above, consider themselves LDS and have good feelings about the church.

I remember my mother being very judgemental about those people that were not there every Sunday, but that is a very incorrect attitude. One doesn't know what's in a heart. And I've personal experience with those who thump a Bible in church, and then go home and thump their wives and children.

The best home teacher in my ward for many years was a person who could not give up smoking. Yet he attended Church every Sunday and was a home teacher. He is now passed away. He will have his reward as a faithful servant of the Lord, I'm sure.

As I have said, at a minimum we should live a repentant lifestyle.

[Misshalfway]

My words forbid nobody; they call the disobedient to obedience.

But if they repent not they shall not be numbered with the saints.

Aren't inactives just fooling themselves? I do not wish to support their delusion.

I had an experience a while back. I was working at the MTC teaching some of the English speaking missionaries. One Elder was ....how shall I say.....a pain in the butt. He came to class late. He wore his pants half down his fanny and bowling shoes. And he had an attitude bigger than Texas. As you can imagine, he was in trouble a lot and spent a lot of time in his Branch President's office.

I, as his teacher, spent a great deal of time calling him to repentance and trying to help see what I thought was "the light". He was such a problem that my companion teacher and I decided to pray and fast about what to do. I'll never forget the answer. Paraphrasing here....God said, "I brought him here. I am working with him in mine own way and in mine own time. Your job isn't to change him. Your job is to teach him. Why don't you get back to your job, and I'll get back to mine."

I was forever changed by that answer.

Months later I got a letter from a very humble, very changed Elder apologizing and testifying.

[Bensalem]

I do measure my activity level based on my participation in meetings and activities. But not nearly as much as I do with my relationship with God and how well I feel I'm doing at living congruently with my beliefs and values.

It's interesting to hear all these "official" definitions. I've never heard of "4 x per year". I guess I grew up in a pretty orthodox household so I tend to make my assumptions accordingly in this regard. But I like that there is some flexibility in this thinking.

I don't think the goal is for people to "(live) congruently with (personal) beliefs and values." I think the goal is to live congruently with Christ's beliefs and values. And since the LDS Church represents those beliefs and values, we should try to live according to the Church's beliefs and values.

[Dravin]

My words forbid nobody; they call the disobedient to obedience.

That was in response to the supposition that somebody who doesn't pay tithing shouldn't come to Church. I gave my reasoning and explanation for quoting the scripture I did, you even responded to it. If we're just going to chase past comments after they've been addressed this thread isn't going to be particularly fruitful.

[Bensalem]

I'm not. I'm equating it with his patience and wisdom.

God certainly has those attributes, but I doubt they will replace justice. We are not judged by His patience and wisdom; we are judged by our deeds. Making covenants and ignoring them is not wise.

[Vort]

I have not judged; I have only spoken to answer the question of the OP. Others have taken offense to what I have said and so I am placed in a position to defend it.

That is hardly extraordinary for a discussion forum.

You misinterpret my words. I was not pointing fingers.

[Bensalem]

Okay considering we've already had some miscommunication I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by inside and outside the Church. Are we talking physical location? If you don't mean physical location what are you talking about? Removing one's name from the records?

Inside means active and outside means inactive, be it spiritually or physically.

Removing one's name from the records is a personal choice. But I have suggested it may be better to do that than continue to live in hypocrisy, which is worse than living in sin outside of the Church.

[Dravin]

Inside means active and outside means inactive, be it spiritually or physically.

Removing one's name from the records is a personal choice. But I have suggested it may be better to do that than continue to live in hypocrisy, which is worse than living in sin outside of the Church.

Previously you suggested being inactive was hypocrisy so your statement now reads, to me:

"I am saying it is better to be a sinner and inactive, than inactive and active."

Needless to say that doesn't make sense. Obviously something has been lost in translation, it's probably a result of you addressing multiple people at once, you put a nuance in one context that you don't mean in another.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

Depending on how you define "hypocrite", I may not agree. I go for a technical and literal definition of "hypocrite" as one who puts on a false face, attempting to appear righteous and "whited" while, inside, being full of corruption and "dead men's bones". (Interesting phraseology used by the Lord in comparing hypocrites to "whited sepulchres"; if such hypocrites are full of dead men's bones, that means their own bones, and thus they themselves, are dead -- spiritually dead.) Anyway, under such a definition, hypocrisy definitely is a grievous sin, more especially for those under covenant. In such a case, I would agree with your pronouncement.

But in my experience in the Church and on this list, few Latter-day Saints (or others) use "hypocrite" in this literal manner. Rather, they use "hypocrite" to refer to those who are inconsistent and do not "

". In this broad sense, we are all hypocrites -- and

, if everyone's a hypocrite, then in effect, no one is. Because the term loses its ability to distinguish between people. By this reckoning, the smoker who tells his children not to smoke is a hypocrite.

Using this looser and more common (though, to be blunt, wrong) definition of "hypocrite", I strenuously disagree that it is better not to be under covenant than to be under covenant and struggling.

I accept your biblical definition as taught by Christ.

My warning does not go out to those who are simply struggling through repentance, but to those who have comfortably justified their disobedience and don't partake of the sacrament toward reconciliation.

Whether or not it is better to be under covenant or without ever making the promise is a moot point since the covenant maker negates the covenant by disobedience and non-repentance. He reverts to as if it was never made. He gets no more blessing than the one who never made the covenant.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Bensalem

[Misshalfway]

I don't think the goal is for people to "(live) congruently with (personal) beliefs and values." I think the goal is to live congruently with Christ's beliefs and values. And since the LDS Church represents those beliefs and values, we should try to live according to the Church's beliefs and values.

Yes. But when conversion happens, they (Christ's and mine) become one in the same. This is what gaining a testimony and becoming converted is all about. There is a progressive transition here. On the ground it probably looks more like getting closer to the closer. :)

[Bensalem]

I appreciate your position on hypocrisy. While reading your last post, I was reminded of the comparison of the Nephites to Lamanites in Jacob and how the Lamanites were "more righteous" for various reasons.

I guess what I want to add is that I think that God wants more than just compliance. I think God is so very interested in our personal development. It's why the covenant relationship exists in the first place. So we are in proximity to Him. So he can teach us higher things.

But in the same breath God doesn't get caught up in the law. Jesus tried to teach over and over that the law was dead. Nephi understood the law was dead....necessary but dead. I think this is an essential perspective when talking about obedience. I don't think we do ourselves any favors when we created a new version of the law of moses.

Granted, your point is well stated. The important thing is true commitment not exercised commitment. Although exercising our faith through deeds makes our faith stronger, outward deeds are only as good as our inward intent.

So the Law of Gospel, which is Love of God, will never be obsoleted. And I don't see how we can demonstrate our love honestly except through obedience to our covenants.

[Dravin]

I'm going to try to state my position and cleanly as possible, a clean slate so to speak to avoid the word soup that may have happened.

In given reasonable circumstances (meaning we're not talking about someone using a suicide bomber vest or some such) it is not preferable that an individual stop attending Church given the same circumstances over an individual continuing to attend church. For example:

A) Being a hypocrite and attending church is preferable to being a hypocrite and not attending church.

B) Not keeping your covenants and attending church is preferable to not keeping your covenants and not attending church.

C) Being spiritually inactive and attending church is preferable to being spiritually inactive and not attending church.

If you don't disagree with the above than my earlier objection is moot as it was based on a misunderstanding.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Dravin