Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been on my mind an awful lot. 

 

The GA's have repeatedly spoken on disagreeing without being disagreeable. I think we need to start there. I would also argue that those of us who claim to sustain our leaders need to do so, by defending them and following them. We should keep our baptismal covenants in taking care of each other, even though we're not always going to see eye to eye. We should see and treat each other with the kindness and understanding that we would want from others, which we CAN do while disagreeing and defending our beliefs. It's not easy, but it can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been on my mind an awful lot. 

 

The GA's have repeatedly spoken on disagreeing without being disagreeable. I think we need to start there. I would also argue that those of us who claim to sustain our leaders need to do so, by defending them and following them. We should keep our baptismal covenants in taking care of each other, even though we're not always going to see eye to eye. We should see and treat each other with the kindness and understanding that we would want from others, which we CAN do while disagreeing and defending our beliefs. It's not easy, but it can be done.

 

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.

 

  • 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? 

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one scripture you've missed is D&C 82:19:

 

Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God.

 

We can disagree civilly as long as a) we all fulfill this injunction, and b) we believe that our co-laborers in Zion are also fulfilling this injunction.  If those conditions are met, the process described in D&C 121:41-44 will feel very natural. 

 

Things get ugly when selfishness or mistrust enter the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one scripture you've missed is D&C 82:19:

 

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:

 

We can disagree civilly as long as a) we all fulfill this injunction, and b) we believe that our co-laborers in Zion are also fulfilling this injunction.  If those conditions are met, the process described in D&C 121:41-44 will feel very natural. 

 

Things get ugly when selfishness or mistrust enter the picture.

 

 

See my previous post.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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" start 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.

 

This isn't a seminary-approved exegesis; but I rather suspect that 3 Nephi 11:28 refers specifically to the sort of scenario outlined in D&C 82:19--where everyone does have the will of God and the interest of their fellowman at heart.  But of course, Paul (2 Tim 3:1-5) and Jude (Jude 1:3-4) recommend very different courses of action when dealing with individuals who are not acting in good faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a seminary-approved exegesis; but I rather suspect that 3 Nephi 11:28 refers specifically to the sort of scenario outlined in D&C 82:19--where everyone does have the will of God and the interest of their fellowman at heart.  But of course, Paul (2 Tim 3:1-5) and Jude (Jude 1:3-4) recommend very different courses of action when dealing with individuals who are not acting in good faith.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems I cannot respond to a gospel-centered discussion without quoting this fellow. 

 

"If all experienced God in the same way and returned Him an identical worship, the song of the church triumphant would have no symphony, it would be like an orchestra in which all the instruments played the same note. Heaven is a city, and a Body, because the blessed remain eternally different; a society because each has something to tell all the others--fresh and ever fresh news of God. For doubtless the continually successful, yet never complete, attempt by each soul to communicate its unique vision to all others (and that by means whereof earthly art and philosophy are but clumsy imitations) is also among the ends for which the individual was created." C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems I cannot respond to a gospel-centered discussion without quoting this fellow. 

 

"If all experienced God in the same way and returned Him an identical worship, the song of the church triumphant would have no symphony, it would be like an orchestra in which all the instruments played the same note. Heaven is a city, and a Body, because the blessed remain eternally different; a society because each has something to tell all the others--fresh and ever fresh news of God. For doubtless the continually successful, yet never complete, attempt by each soul to communicate its unique vision to all others (and that by means whereof earthly art and philosophy are but clumsy imitations) is also among the ends for which the individual was created." C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

 

Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the words of J. Golden Kimball: “I won't go to Hell for swearing because I repent too damn fast!” 

 

Now that sentence spoken by a general authority will probably offend some and give others a good chuckle. Personally, I try to to keep things civil but PC ain't running in my southern redneck veins. There are disagreements over issues among general authorities. Brigham Young vs Orson Pratt, and Charles W. Penrose vs B. H. Roberts come to mind.  

 

To earnestly contend for the faith is to contend for what you believe according to the light of understanding within you. Everyone has different understandings. J. Golden had soul deep experiences with the Southern States Mission and as best I can recall J. Golden’s comment about the Southern States mission was “the only way to convert the South is to burn it down and baptize for the dead.”

 

I try not to burn the house down in conversations but I don't do PC, I don't do well with people who talk in circles, and I don't sing Kumbaya.  Maybe that's a sign of weakness to some but to me its a mark of character to stand for what you believe in without being phony.

Edited by Average Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few months ago I asked a general authority how we can build unity in the church.  He said that we build unity among the members by showing appreciation, gratitude, and thanks.
 
 
This is difficult to do when there are church members (no one here that I am referring to) that claim to be active, devout members that dispute fundamental doctrines of the church and teach undeniably false doctrine.  

For example, I cannot grasp the concept of an active member having a profile on ordain women.  Why?  Ordain women is apostate!!  If someone believes in what ordain women preaches, why would they want to be a member  of a sexist, male chauvinistic church that oppresses women?!?!??!? 
 
I mean....I....can't........understand.........mind.....exploding........
 
<"https://www.youtube.com/embed/9CS7j5I6aOc">

Edited by Str8Shooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

believer should not be united to an unbeliever: D&C 74:5 .

Respectfully, that passage is somewhat taken out of context. It, and the passages it is referencing, is in the context of marriage.

 

 

But upon reflection and consideration of these verses, Can civil disagreement within the church really count to fulfill this command to be one? 

 

Isn't respectful dialogue a viable way to overcome disagreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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 could be mistaken, but perhaps a constructive start would be to avoid phrases like "flapping at the mouth" and "pernicious falsehood" from our discourse. :)

 

(As I recall, the instruction from the brethren for online discourse is the encouragement for us to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully, that passage is somewhat taken out of context. It, and the passages it is referencing, is in the context of marriage.

 

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.

 

Isn't respectful dialogue a viable way to overcome disagreement?

 

Depends, I suppose. From my experience, no. The only way to overcome disagreement is to...you know...agree. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Maybe that's a sign of weakness to some but to me its a mark of character to stand for what you believe in without being phony.

How does being polite and showing mutual respect in discourse somehow equate to being phony?

You're saying it isn't being authentic?

 

Or am I hearing you incorrectly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be mistaken, but perhaps a constructive start would be to avoid phrases like "flapping at the mouth" and "pernicious falsehood" from our discourse. :)

 

What's wrong with these phrases in the context of this discussion?

 

(As I recall, the instruction from the brethren for online discourse is the encouragement for us to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.)

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the crux of the matter is the ever ubiquitous attribute of pride. There should be no need to dispute doctrines because they should be clear. Not only because they are clearly presented through both ancient prophetic teachings and modern prophetic teachings and clarifications, but because we are to seek spiritual confirmations of truth.

 

This is largely the state I believe Christianity was in during Joseph Smith's time (and continues to be in general) where wars of words and interpretations create rifts between people trying to follow God. What a victory for Satan when he can have people fighting amongst themselves over opinions steeped in pride as correct because it is the one "I" came to and "your" interpretation is false.

 

I think this is why I was taught as a missionary not to engage in Bible bashing and so on, but to simply bear testimony. Contention chases the spirit away, but testifying of truth invites the spirit. There is a subtle difference in my opinion between testifying of truth and inviting others to embrace it or contending that a certain point is true. In the first case you simply share what the spirit has witnessed to you through study and prayer, in the latter you go out of your way to make a case for something that can only be accepted by faith anyway.

 

As I think this out while I'm typing this I realize that I'm terribly guilty of the latter on many occasions. It's as though proving a point will save face or make me superior somehow, but the reality is it just stirs up contention.

 

I believe firmly that the only way to have unity of the faith and be a zion people will require us to all develop such a powerful personal relationship with our Saviour that we can know His mind. I also think of the parable of the five virgins being a reference to those who are clean (virgins) as to not doing heinous crimes, but only half of them are prepared with oil in the lamp to attend the feast with the bridegroom. So while it is important to have civil discourse and be one in the faith, remember there are those around who simply are not also going to be of one mind. To these I suggest we bear testimony, but engaging in arguments is a waste of time as it generally only further entrenches a view point, right or wrong because of the pride factor that goes into defending a position. It's amazing what people will defend even when they know it's wrong simply because of pride.

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

 

I do not believe that we are meant to be completely united in the sense that we think alike and agree on everything.. or indeed very much of anything besides what are absolute truths. I don't think were are meant to be always without disputation or discussion. Without contention and enmity, of course, but I think we will always disagree on some more "minor" points of doctrine, especially the ones that depend so much on individual experiences in order to be fully understood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe that we are meant to be completely united in the sense that we think alike and agree on everything.. or indeed very much of anything besides what are absolute truths. 

 

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).

 

I don't think were are meant to be always without disputation 

 

Then how do you reconcile Christ's direct teaching that there be no disputations among us?

 

but I think we will always disagree on some more "minor" points of doctrine, 

 

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.

 

especially the ones that depend so much on individual experiences in order to be fully understood. 

 

Such as?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the words of J. Golden Kimball: “I won't go to Hell for swearing because I repent too damn fast!” 

 

Now that sentence spoken by a general authority will probably offend some and give others a good chuckle. Personally, I try to to keep things civil but PC ain't running in my southern redneck veins....

I would assert there's quite a difference between a single GA using profanity at the pulpit generations ago, and using that single example to justify rude language directed AT someone in public discourse.

 

As Paul counseled:

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

 

As to contending for the faith, as you choose to put it, a few verses after the one you've paraphrased, it even says the following, "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation,..."

 

I certainly don't see how being course or insulting in religious discourse can help us within the church arrive at unity. As mentioned recently in this thread, insults tend to spark pride both in the speaker, and in the hearer, which leads both sides to entrench and defend their own egos and prior opinions. I think we can and should do better.

 

And I basically agree with char713 that unity is only important in the essentials. Or, as one Christian put it centuries ago, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and, in all things, charity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It actually is out of context. If you take a moment and read the verse in question, it is quite clear that Paul was giving that statement to the church of his day based on his own opinion, and not through revelation. The surrounding verses confirm that even further. With that context, it makes it odd to combine such a statement with a list of inspired directives. 

 

Depends, I suppose. From my experience, no. The only way to overcome disagreement is to...you know...agree. ;)

And how can we reach agreement if insults are acceptable? If we can't respectfully and patiently abide temporary disagreement, how can we expect the other side to even hear us out and see the merits of what we're saying? And if someone with a differing viewpoint is being insulting, prideful, and/or overbearing, there's a reduced chance we will ever hear them out either. Pride will get even further in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Depends, I suppose. From my experience, no. The only way to overcome disagreement is to...you know...agree. ;)

 

Well, then it's simple.  Just agree with me on every discussion and we'll have unity.  :)  

 

Now obviously, that isn't going to happen...and I don't really think it needs to.  But we (members generally) could disagree without being contentious, as others have stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

achieve perfection before looking at others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share