Unofficial definition of "active" LDS

[Bensalem]

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. :)

Well, if they match, that's the goal.

[Vort]

Whether or not it is better to be under covenant or without ever making the promise is a mute point

You don't say?

[Dravin]

You don't say?

Well, aren't all points mute on a message board?

Edited July 17, 2012 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

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.

Out of the reasonable circumstances (meaning we're not talking about someone using a suicide bomber vest or some such) it is never 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.

I would only add that I hope attending church would include partaking of the sacrament.

In comparison, I made these distinctions:

A- Being a hypocrite in the Church is worse than being a sinner outside of the Church.

B- Not keeping our covenants is equal to not making them.

C- Being spiritually inactive is worse than being physically inactive.

I never said, people should not attend church. I said, they should come (return), repent, and be active in their faith.

I did suggest that someone who is inactive should consider removing themselves from the Church records because of "A" above.

One question to you. When should someone remove themselves from the Church records?

[Bensalem]

You don't say?

As I have said...because "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."

Is God obliged to keep His side of the covenant, or can He negate it?

How are we any better off than the one who never made the covenant?

Do the same blessings come to the one who never made the covenant?

Know imagine such a non-repentant covenant breaker at judgment. Does he somehow avoid justice? Please tell the world how?

[Bensalem]

Well, aren't all point mute on a message board?

Yes, of course...and the word I meant to type was "moot".

Edited July 17, 2012 by Bensalem

[annewandering]

Justice. If we go by justice we are all lost, inactive or not. Justice is NOT the higher law. Mercy is. Justice is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Mercy is love God and love each other as we love ourselves. Mercy does not discount justice but it balances the scale with sacrifice and love: ie Mercy.

If you are living the mosaic law then yes I see your point. Good thing we are living the higher law, as taught by Chirst, both in word and action, isnt it.

[Dravin]

I never said, people should not attend church. I said, they should come (return), repent, and be active in their faith.

You said this:

Fifth, inactive members are already "out of the Church", at least spiritual if not physically. 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.

It's hard to read "withdrawal physically" as anything other than "stop being physically in church" which is just another way of saying stop attending. Furthermore you presented it as a better alternative (a positive outcome of your warnings ) for someone who is inactive than the status quo of someone who is spiritually inactive but who (presumably) is still physically attending.

Now you've disclaimed that you meant this, which is fine, we don't have to rehash what you meant to communicate, but just realize that the idea you felt it was better for someone who is spiritually inactive to not come to church did not occur in a vacuum.

One question to you. When should someone remove themselves from the Church records?

I'm not inclined to declare a line which if people cross they should go and essentially do a self-initiated excommunication. But there are motivations and circumstances that make sense for removing your name from the records of the church, namely that you no longer believe it's claims and no longer want to be associated with it. Also, while I do believe that being excommunicated does absolve one of some of the obligations taken upon by faithful members it is not essentially a chance to yell "Take Backsies!" and be as if one has never made covenants or received (presumably) a witness of the Holy Ghost as to the truthfulness of the Gospel.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Dravin

[kartvines]

No I have not spoken to my Bishop relating to these matter, I don't feel it is timely to open those floodgates and put myself in the position of feeling valuable, currently it is too hard just attending, not that I don't value the time a Church I still process all of the burdens I am bearing along with the greif of loosing my wife of 34 years and I don't want them to become an excuse for me to stop attending, because it is all just too much for me to bear at this time, so every step shall be small safe ones.

It is also a special burden and pride that my family were early figures in the Church, and goes back to those who knew and served both J. Smith and B. Young, as well of E. Snow but I don't want to go too deep in this special bond I have with this church, but that is why I have returned after so many years, and I feel there is little value in this threads to rehash stuff I brought up in other threads, it is now just how I see my relations with God is developing and in that my Church relationship would also be strengthen.

Edited July 17, 2012 by kartvines

[Bensalem]

No I have not spoken to my Bishop relating to these matter, I don't feel it is timely to open those floodgates and put myself in the position of feeling valuable, currently it is too hard just attending, not that I don't value the time a Church I still process all of the burdens I am bearing along with the greif of loosing my wife of 34 years and I don't want them to become an excuse for me to stop attending, because it is all just too much for me to bear at this time, so every step shall be small safe ones.

It is also a special burden and pride that my family were early figures in the Church, and goes back to those who knew and served both J. Smith and B. Young, as well of E. Snow but I don't want to go too deep in this special bond I have with this church, but that is why I have returned after so many years, and I feel there is little value in this threads to rehash stuff I brought up in other threads, it is now just how I see my relations with God is developing and in that my Church relationship would also be strengthen.

Little steps forward are better than backward steps.

Remember, Christ has already taken up your burdens 2000 years ago. Try not to be so hard on yourself; the work is already done.

I know you didn't ask for my advice, but I find it hard to stay silent of His work and His glory.

Good luck and take care.

[Bensalem]

Justice. If we go by justice we are all lost, inactive or not. Justice is NOT the higher law. Mercy is. Justice is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Mercy is love God and love each other as we love ourselves. Mercy does not discount justice but it balances the scale with sacrifice and love: ie Mercy.

If you are living the mosaic law then yes I see your point. Good thing we are living the higher law, as taught by Chirst, both in word and action, isnt it.

I think the order is: Justice, Mercy, Forgiveness (Salvation), and Glorification (Exaltation).

Forgiveness is greater than mercy because forgiveness means no punishment, since Christ took on the punishment. Mercy cannot usurp justice, however God can be merciful in punishment.

To be unfaithful to our covenants in the Church upon death denies us the glory He promised. To be unrepentant, inactive in the benefits of the Atonement, denies us the salvation He promised. With only justice and mercy we are no better off than Muslims, which means Believer.

The only guarantee to holding on to our progression is to be active in our faith.

[Bensalem]

It's hard to read "withdrawal physically" as anything other than "stop being physically in church" which is just another way of saying stop attending. Furthermore you presented it as a better alternative (a positive outcome of your warnings ) for someone who is inactive than the status quo of someone who is spiritually inactive but who (presumably) is still physically attending.

Now you've disclaimed that you meant this, which is fine, we don't have to rehash what you meant to communicate, but just realize that the idea you felt it was better for someone who is spiritually inactive to not come to church did not occur in a vacuum.

Okay, I now see why some were upset and contested my 'doctrine'. Point number five contradicted my intent to call the inactive to church, repentance, and obedience.

I don't think you were so diligent in correcting those that seemed to be promoting a tolerance for disobedience to our covenants.

But I thank you for your correction of me.

[Dravin]

I don't think you were so diligent in correcting those that seemed to be promoting a tolerance for disobedience to our covenants.

For what it's worth I think Anne's comments about you needing stewardship to make your comments are amiss.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Dravin

[annewandering]

I would never promote tolerance of disobedience, although the wording reminds me a bit of training dogs. I would definitely promote staying out of other people's repentance/growth processes unless I am called to do so or asked to do so by the person involved. I would be friendly, smile and try to make them feel like they are headed the right direction when they are.

Quite often, I am involved in discussions with those who do not believe in many of the things we do. I believe the same relationship of friendship and seeking common ground is of a lot more use, and kindness, than 'teaching and calling to repentance' unless we have specifically been called to do more.

[Magen_Avot]

I used to classify activity like this:

Actively Active

Actively Inactive

Inactively Active

Inactively Inactive

It kinda broke it down in a way that made sense to me back when.

I see things differently now though. To move onwardly closer to my Redeemer, I simply do not judge (either the person or their activity/motives); rather I try to love others like the Savior, act compassionately and bless their lives as only I can, when I can, however I can.

That said, it's not easy and at times hard to ignore glaring inconsistencies "as I see things" sometimes. But I'm trying.

[Bensalem]

I would never promote tolerance of disobedience, although the wording reminds me a bit of training dogs. I would definitely promote staying out of other people's repentance/growth processes unless I am called to do so or asked to do so by the person involved. I would be friendly, smile and try to make them feel like they are headed the right direction when they are.

Quite often, I am involved in discussions with those who do not believe in many of the things we do. I believe the same relationship of friendship and seeking common ground is of a lot more use, and kindness, than 'teaching and calling to repentance' unless we have specifically been called to do more.

Coming through the door of the chapel I have no idea if someone is a returning inactive; to me they are active because they are there. Neither do I know if someone is paying tithe or not and I don't keep track of who is taking the sacrament, even when I serve it.

The only way I may find out someone's status is through the missionaries on splits or the ward mission leader.

When I do speak to inactives, I am far less bold than my writings may suggest and far more loving. But I would have no problem reminding them of their covenants and if necessary call them to repentance and continued obedience.

[FlaviusHambonius]

I would only add that I hope attending church would include partaking of the sacrament.

In comparison, I made these distinctions:

A- Being a hypocrite in the Church is worse than being a sinner outside of the Church.

B- Not keeping our covenants is equal to not making them.

C- Being spiritually inactive is worse than being physically inactive.

I never said, people should not attend church. I said, they should come (return), repent, and be active in their faith.

I did suggest that someone who is inactive should consider removing themselves from the Church records because of "A" above.

One question to you. When should someone remove themselves from the Church records?

So let me get this straight -- what you are suggesting is that 2/3 of the membership remove their names from the church records because of their inactivity?

[Bensalem]

So let me get this straight -- what you are suggesting is that 2/3 of the membership remove their names from the church records because of their inactivity?

Way back on page five (last post), I suggested:

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

There are plenty of examples in scripture of Christ pointing out his disdain for hypocrisy, but in regards to Church inactivity I will highlight his teaching of the father who asks one son to go and work in (the) fields. The son refuses, so he asks another son who agrees to go but does no work. Christ leaves us with the question, which son is more condemned?

I am answering that question. The more condemned is the son who made an agreement with his father. The first exercised his free will before making the promise. He at least was truthful. The second son was a hypocrite.

I am not asking anyone to leave the Church; I am suggesting they take their covenants more seriously. I am calling them to repentance.

[Vort]

I am not asking anyone to leave the Church; I am suggesting they take their covenants more seriously. I am calling them to repentance.

Urging people to take their covenants seriously is always appropriate.

Telling people whom you have personally witnessed committing sin that they ought to repent is probably appropriate, depending on how you go about it.

Generalizing a judgment on masses of people based on your presumption of their perilous spiritual state and then "calling them to repentance" is clearly outside your scope of authority. It is not your place to issue such a mass call to repentance.

If your response is, "I'm not talking to specific individuals; I'm simply saying that anyone who meets my definition of hypocrisy needs to repent", then such a call to repentance is useless, on par with the psychotic people who roam the streets screaming at passers-by to shape up. Because literally no one will recognize himself in your description.

[Bensalem]

Urging people to take their covenants seriously is always appropriate.

Telling people whom you have personally witnessed committing sin that they ought to repent is probably appropriate, depending on how you go about it.

Generalizing a judgment on masses of people based on your presumption of their perilous spiritual state and then "calling them to repentance" is clearly outside your scope of authority. It is not your place to issue such a mass call to repentance.

If your response is, "I'm not talking to specific individuals; I'm simply saying that anyone who meets my definition of hypocrisy needs to repent", then such a call to repentance is useless, on par with the psychotic people who roam the streets screaming at passers-by to shape up. Because literally no one will recognize himself in your description.

I believe the commandment is, "Cry repentance unto the people". If the psychotic street roamer did it, would he be wrong? I don't think repentance even requires a church and God can forgive on the spot if the repentant turns correctly to Christ.

I'm sure many voices of God were considered psychotic when the warning came, but that didn't stop them from fulfilling the calling.

Was Jeremiah, Isaiah, Lehi, Joseph Smith, etc. wrong to make "a mass call to repentance" on the streets of Jerusalem or in gatherings in upstate NY? Did they cautiously limit their authority?

My authority is the same as their's; God has warned me and so I warn others. I am a priest in the LDS church, I am a brother to all latter-day saints and the brother of all in His creation (meaning even an atheist remains my brother).

I don't mind having the message corrected, as others have done here, but an attempt to limit the scope of who can hear the message is misplaced. The messengers of old had scribes but no leashes. What we read in scripture of their words is no doubt different from their thunderings on the street. What a pleasure it would have been to have heard it raw.