The Folk Prophet

I didn't say that scripture was in context. I said I pasted a generic list and not everything was going to be relative. I suppose that depends on how one defines "insults". Certainly certain appropriate communication is still "insulting" to some. There are, in fact, some who will be insulted no matter what is said because they are determined to be insulted. But the goal, imo, is not to reach agreement through compromise. The goal is to reach agreement through truth. And the only way to do this is for all to accept truth. The only way for this to happen is through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Well I'm not talking about favorite foods, the best method for lawn care, or Ford vs. Chevy. I'm talking about the conflict in the church over doctrine (or, in some cases, even the meaning of doctrine). Then how do you reconcile Christ's direct teaching that there be no disputations among us? Why? Truth isn't relative. Morality isn't relative. Is it not reasonable (particularly in light of Spirit Dragon's excellent post above) that such things could, actually, be done away with. Such as?

What's wrong with these phrases in the context of this discussion? I am not asking about how can we get along better, how we can be less disagreeable, or how we maintain civil discourse. That is an important thing, of course, but it's not the discussion I'm after, per se. Now, whereas I have no doubt that part of having "unity" is being able to get along while disagreeing, I'm not so sure I believe that being of one mind means disagreeing but agreeing civilly to disagree. It strikes me that being of one mind fairly fully means that we all agree with each other.

I just copied and pasted the links at the end of the page (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/unity?lang=eng). I wasn't intending that every one was directly applicable. I removed a few that were obvious non-applicable. But I'm not taking anything out of context or implying every link is applicable in that page. Depends, I suppose. From my experience, no. The only way to overcome disagreement is to...you know...agree.

Huh?

A. No one's debating the point that the kid (or at least his mother) was offended and disappointed. and B. It doesn't take a weak mortal to do so. There were many who were offended and disappointed in Christ. They crucified him for it. So I'm not sure I'm convinced by the "if you offended you're in the wrong" argument. Yes. People do say stupid things when they shouldn't. But can we show as much compassion and understanding for them as we do for those offended? And can we not blame the church because people are people? I'm not sure your point. Yes, the "branding" of the church plays into it's missionary efforts and the like. Does this extend to the relinquishing of eternal truths, principles, or doctrines to please those who are offended by such though? Are we meant to only say things that are pleasing to "the world" so as to strengthen our brand? Within reason, yes, we should work to put our best selves forward and build on common ground, etc. But if we don't actually warn our neighbor then it won't much matter how well the church is branded in the end. It behooves us to warn our neighbor. We have, in fact, been commanded to. Sure, the "how" is somewhat in question. But I'm not sure we can get away with no offense and still warn our neighbor. The warning, after all, is offensive. Repent or be damned...and all that. I don't doubt there is always improvement to make. But the advent of the internet and the ability for every sour-puss to proclaim injustice to the world doesn't exactly define reality. I believe it was just this most recent conference where we were assured that the church wasn't actually experiencing some huge exponential decline its numbers. People don't go inactive because of truth spoken over the pulpit. No way. No how. There is only one reason this lady and her son have a problem and were offended and were complaining, and it's not because of what the stake president did or did not say. It cuts through every word she writes as plain as day. Pride.

Heh. I don't believe in divorce much...and there are very, very few things that would get me to advocate for such. But pulling a gun on my kid hits the nail pretty square on the head as to... ...wait... ...are we really discussing whether you should divorce him? Shouldn't the question be what name should I change ours to and which obscure state should I move to?

Okay...so..."From such turn away," and "earnestly contend for the faith". But...you see...this is exactly why I thought it an interesting point of discussion. Earnestly contending for the faith and no disputations among you seem...at odds one with another.

I just pasted the entry for "Unity". It's not like I did some thorough exploration of all scriptures prior to posting the question. :) Edit: See my previous post.

Another related scripture that doesn't come up in the Unity search, but is applicable. 3 Nephi 11:28: "...And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been." So along the same lines. When someone who should know better "among us" starts flapping at the mouth some pernicious falsehood, how do we deal with the no-disputations-among-you command? Because, 'only civil disputations' and, 'no disputations' are, in my thinking, not the same thing at all.

I appreciate this. And without meaning to take anything away from it (because I do believe it is, probably, the end all of what we can actually do about this), does disagreeing civilly actually fulfill the Lord's command to be one? I mean, let me just paste the last several entries from the link I provided in the OP. united unto the church of Christ: 3 Ne. 28:23 .your duty to unite with the true church: D&C 23:7 .one in me as I am one in the Father: D&C 35:2 .if ye are not one ye are not mine: D&C 38:27 .assemble yourselves together to agree upon my word: D&C 41:2 .be one, even as I have commanded you: D&C 51:9 .believer should not be united to an unbeliever: D&C 74:5 .every decision made … must be by the unanimous voice: D&C 107:27 .a whole and complete and perfect union: D&C 128:18 .called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind: Moses 7:18 .Certainly your advice is valid when it comes to interacting with those who are not of our faith. But upon reflection and consideration of these verses, Can civil disagreement within the church really count to fulfill this command to be one?

Which is sad, because women are awesome! And I don't mean the brainless bimbos that the world thinks are "real women". I mean the humble, sincere, pioneer spirited, sweet, tender-hearted daughters of God. Women are awesome! People, on the other hand, are sniveling, bratty, nasty, self-indulgent, horrible creatures, both men and women, unless, of course, they yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, put off the natural man, and become as little children, willing to submit to whatsoever their Lord seeth fit to inflict upon them. To the OP, I suggest this course.

Lot's of scriptures speak of one heart, one mind, etc. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/unity?lang=eng But I find it quite obvious that there are many whose minds and hearts are simply not one with mine (I'm looking at you, you know who you are). And yet, we both claim to be adherents of the gospel. Discuss.

It might be useful to consider also Moses 7:18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them. Clearly, based on this description of Zion, not only can we not include "good" people who are of a different mind about truth and whatnot, but we clearly cannot include many church members, what with all the current discord and what-have-you in the church. Of course is should surprise no one that Zion has yet to arrive. One heart and one mine -- a different discussion. Think I'll open another thread.

I'm not sure that Zeezrom's intent changes anything. I don't recall any "unless they're like this" exceptions to the rules of how we are to persuade others. But...perhaps. For the most part I agree with you. My bias may lean a bit differently not having the kids who ought to be on missions under my roof (though, knowing myself, it would likely sway my bias even more the way I tend to lean rather than less) but in principle, I accept that a lot of people tend to stick their noses in where they don't belong. Maybe. But it's also quite innocent, I believe. Moreso. It's actually done with good and just reasoning -- in a sincere effort to build the kingdom, uplift and encourage others, etc. So I have to ask (and understand, please, this is a generic asking, not implying or accusing you of anything), why is it wrong to judge someone for imperfectly choosing to not serve a mission, but it's somehow acceptable to judge someone for putting their arm around them and asking them why they aren't on a mission. Is it, as omega seems to suggest, okay to judge someone because they're able to take it? As to D&C 121, let's look a bit closer just for discussion's sake. Here are the attributes. I'll address each in terms of this particular blog in question: persuasion-Is teaching someone that they cannot serve both God and Mammon, that they are either on Christ's side or Satan's side not within the bounds of an effort to persuade? long-suffering-Same question as above as applicable to long-suffering. gentleness-Can this teaching not be given gently? Does the concept, itself, define what is and isn't gentle? Or does the tone and intent play into gentleness as well? meekness-Is not true meekness absolute deference to God's truth as defined by His word, which clearly teaches that we cannot serve God and Satan? love unfeigned;-If someone truly and honestly loves someone, would not that person's eternal welfare take precedence over even their potential hurt feelings? Does love unfeigned lead us to accept wrong-headedness in the name of "love", or does it lead us to embrace eternal truths? kindness-Same question as gentleness. pure knowledge-Is not truth truth? Should we speak something other than the things we know to be true because those truths might hurt someone? without hypocrisy, and without guile—-We cannot know if there was hypocrisy or guile involved. If there was, shame on the SP, of course. But the natural implication of the story, even as told by the disaffected, is that the SP was sincere. Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost-We're not really sure how "sharp" (whatever that means exactly) the actual moment was, but let's be clear. Betimes means "quickly". And sharpness, although ambiguous to an extent, pretty much sums up all of the Lord's words. His words are sharp. They are clear, and they cut to the very soul. and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;-As we don't really have the full story, we don't really know if any effort was made in this regard. My point? Does D&C 121 teach that all blunt discourse is wrong? Or is it, perhaps, oft times used as an excuse to condemn anything we don't like to hear, and an excuse for the disaffected to criticize church leaders and justify their pride?

Finrock, I don't think anyone has suggested or is suggesting that anyone who desires to become part of the kingdom of God would be rejected. Clearly any and all who so desire will be brought into the kingdom. The only question is whether they count as part of the kingdom or not prior to being baptized into said kingdom, and, certainly, that if they reject entrance to the kingdom (a la baptism) then they are then not part of it.

Or even those exact implications. No one has even hinted such.

How hard is it, really, for you to ask your elders quorum president next Sunday at church?

As a general rule I don't disagree. Generally speaking, publicly shaming someone is, obviously, inappropriate. What I have a problem with is the "I know better" attitude that automatically gets applied to the stake president (and/or bishop or any other) in situations like these. As I've said, there are distinct scriptural examples of public shaming, like Amulek and Zeezrom (See Alma chapter 11) and many of Christ's interactions with the Scribes and Pharisees, etc. In the case of Zeezrom it actually worked and Zeezrom converted. Who would guess that Amulek calling him a child of hell would have had that effect? But don't misunderstand my response to be an advocacy for public shaming or harsh treatment. What I am advocating is not judging a situation based on a sob story by way of disaffected hearsay. Please apply a lighthearted tongue-in-cheek tone --> I have to wonder about anyone claiming they don't have time for discussion as they participate in a discussion thread... I am familiar enough with your attitudes, posts, thinking, etc., to know that you are not anti-church-leadership or anything like unto it. Hopefully you know me and my posts, attitudes, thinking, etc., to understand that I am addressing principles rather than attacking you as an individual or just trying to argue.

Is it appropriate to judge others and declare that Satan's methods were being used based on unsubstantiated possibilities? I don't see the connect. You're implying that going to save the one cannot include reprimands or hard truths? Scriptural example upon scriptural example would not support such an idea. Often preaching is harsh to the lost sheep being gone after. I mean, seriously...could there be a better example of the guilty taking the truth hard? I'm not saying (if the story is accurate) that I believe the SP was in the right (nor am I saying he was in the wrong). But I don't see it relative to whether he was leaving the 99 or not. The only thing we know is that one person perceived that they were being singled out, publicly shamed and castigated (actually, all we know is that one person's mother claims they perceived such). We have no idea what was said, the tone of voice, the surrounding dialog(s), or anything of the sort. Presumption that no one could have been uplifted by what was actually said has very little validity to my thinking. And, I have to say again, there are plenty of scriptural examples of people being publicly shamed and castigated when being preached to. I'm just not so certain it's valid to take a "this is always wrong" point of view.

Is it fair for us to apply the mortal view of time to God and the eternities?

I'm not sure why we would pretend that it is when it's A) posted on Mormon Feminist Housewives, B) posted by someone who is obviously bitter and angry, C) reported to that person by someone who has, essentially left the church, and D) can you really imagine any church leader singling out a youth and proclaiming to the entire congregation at hand that said youth was following Satan? The entire thing is fishy, fishy, fishy! Moreover, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we take the literal story as factual and the SP did just this -- Are we to presume that he was not acting under guidance of the Spirit? Is it not just as likely that several others in the congregation were bolstered, uplifted, strengthened, and inspired by his words, and that perhaps the reality is that the kid who was offended was on his way out no matter what who said, and the Spirit, knowing all things, knew what was going to be more effective for more souls, etc., and guided the SP accordingly? Why are we to take these bitter proclamations of supposed problems by disaffected pickle-suckers as the end all of reality? Baloney with a capital B.

Can you give any reason why we should accept this lady's account as accurate?

Spiritdragon, I understand your concern about people jumping all over you, but your insight seems pretty straight forward to me. Desire is part of what makes one worthy to serve.

It has been proclaimed (repeatedly) that it is the "duty" of every worthy, able man of age to serve a mission. The scriptures clearly set doing our duty as a commandment. It's basic math. The Stake President may have been callous and perhaps even inappropriate in calling the young man out in public, though: A. Judgement of the Stake President's actions should be left up to the Lord -- perhaps he was acting under the guidance of the Spirit. B. Are we really to simply take the clearly biased post on a pseudo anti website as factually accurate? Particularly when it's hearsay upon hearsay on top of said probable bias? ...but the core principle is plain. You cannot serve God and Mammon.