Unity

[The Folk Prophet]

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. 

 

I didn't say that scripture was in context. I said I pasted a generic list and not everything was going to be relative.

 

And how can we reach agreement if insults are acceptable? 

 

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

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

 

Kidding aside, perhaps it's valid to say, rather: Just agree with Christ and His mouthpieces on every discussion and we'll have unity.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Kidding aside, perhaps it's valid to say, rather: Just agree with Christ and His mouthpieces on every discussion and we'll have unity.

So discussions about racism, or other divisive topics are fair game? :)

Seriously, I think I understand what you are saying and it is a great ideal to work toward...just as the Savior's counsel to be perfect is something to work toward.

But I don't think either one is possible at this time.

[The Folk Prophet]

So discussions about racism, or other divisive topics are fair game? :)

Seriously, I think I understand what you are saying and it is a great ideal to work toward...just as the Savior's counsel to be perfect is something to work toward.

But I don't think either one is possible at this time.

 

Why not?

[estradling75]

I think the scripture that is cited to require us to be united also show how we get there.  How did they over come there disagreements?  They took it to their leader (Christ) and respected his call on the matter.  I am highly confident that once the leader (Christ) said this is the way it is going to be be, everyone came in line.

 

Right now I think we are way to quick to find reasons not to follow those whom the Lord has called over us. Thus we lack unity.

 

Now don't get me wrong I know that our leaders are human and that they can make mistakes, but how much time to we spend trying to justify our rebellion because of the mortal failings of another?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Well the part about being perfect is obvious, right. So for the other part, to answer that we need to be more specific about what topics you are referring to. I'll start though with an issue I see as 'complicated': illegal immigration. Some take a letter of the law stance, and others support compassion.

The church has asked for compassion so we can agree on that right? Or not, because my assumption is that you would take the hard line. I would argue for compassion.

I'm guessing many topics that are disagreed upon could be boiled down to a justice or mercy basis. And I think most of they time I would argue for mercy and you would argue for justice. Since justice and mercy are both necessary we are likely both right sometimes but being imperfect beings it's hard for us to see clearly....thus we can't agree until we're perfect.

[The Folk Prophet]

Now don't get me wrong I know that our leaders are human and that they can make mistakes, but how much time to we spend trying to justify our rebellion because of the mortal failings of another?

 

Question for all: Does the fallibility of our leaders somehow justify the lack of unity? Or, rather, in spite of "mistakes" should we not be unified in following them? Is it justified, as some seem to think, to rail against them and the very idea of "follow the prophet" because of their mortal weaknesses, or does their calling, position, and authority mean that we should get in step, toe the line, they say jump we ask how high, etc., regardless of our personal feelings on any given matter?

[Finrock]

Hi Just_A_Guy! Hope you are well. :)

 

You stated:

Things get ugly when selfishness or mistrust enter the picture.

 

I can confirm, unfortunately through experience, how destructive these character flaws are. My marriage has almost ended because of selfishness and mistrust. Almost nothing fruitfull can be accomplished with these mindsets or dispositions in place. I can tell you that we as a people will never be one if we do not eliminate these character flaws.

 

-Finrock

[Traveler]

I wonder if perhaps the most difficult hurtle in unity is in the realization and appreciation for someone that has something unique and different to bring to the table.  I am impressed that unity is about inclusion; not exclusion.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well the part about being perfect is obvious, right.

 

Perhaps. But uniting in a principle as given by God through our leaders isn't the same thing. We don't have to understand or even believe fully in any given principle to support it.

 

So for the other part, to answer that we need to be more specific about what topics you are referring to. I'll start though with an issue I see as 'complicated': illegal immigration. Some take a letter of the law stance, and others support compassion.

 

I don't think that when Christ commanded unity in the church he meant that we must agree on politics - just the same as he doesn't much care if we prefer Chevy or Ford. And that's about the importance that a lot of politics has in the eternal scheme of things, after all. Specifically, in 3rd Nephi, he was speaking of the disputation over the manner of baptism, right? I'm not sure taking different political stances (on most matters) really comes into play as to my concern. Politics can, of course, come into play when morality is part of it. So I accept it's complicated. Certainly though I can't understand how anyone could feel comfortable taking a stand opposite to a political issue that the church has taken a clear and decisive stand on.

 

because my assumption is that you would take the hard line.

 

Which goes to show that you don't know me as well as you think you do.

 

I'm guessing many topics that are disagreed upon could be boiled down to a justice or mercy basis. And I think most of they time I would argue for mercy and you would argue for justice. Since justice and mercy are both necessary we are likely both right sometimes but being imperfect beings it's hard for us to see clearly....thus we can't agree until we're perfect.

 

Hmm. Maybe you should stop pigeon-holing me into some garish caricature you've apparently imagined up.

 

This is a different discussion, but rather to the point. Mercy and justice are not opposites. Mercy must ALWAYS work within justice, and ALWAYS defer to justice. There is no choosing between the two. God implemented the plan of salvation because it is perfectly just, and allowing for mercy was part of that. God is perfectly just -- always, even when applying mercy. And if God did not find a way to apply mercy, He would not be perfectly just, which He is and always will be. The fact that you seem to think that there is ever a choice between the two simply means you have more to learn on the matter.

[Traveler]

Well the part about being perfect is obvious, right. So for the other part, to answer that we need to be more specific about what topics you are referring to. I'll start though with an issue I see as 'complicated': illegal immigration. Some take a letter of the law stance, and others support compassion.

The church has asked for compassion so we can agree on that right? Or not, because my assumption is that you would take the hard line. I would argue for compassion.

I'm guessing many topics that are disagreed upon could be boiled down to a justice or mercy basis. And I think most of they time I would argue for mercy and you would argue for justice. Since justice and mercy are both necessary we are likely both right sometimes but being imperfect beings it's hard for us to see clearly....thus we can't agree until we're perfect.

 

Thanks for your input.  However, it is not just a difference of opinion - it is not wanting to listen or deal with a different opinion.  Many years ago when I was on a high school debate team - my coach said that if we could not see another point of view and believe we could win an argument based on that point of view - we had no right to think we understand it enough to oppose it or think we have a better idea.

[pkstpaul]

Lot's of scriptures speak of one heart, one mind, etc.

 

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.

I seldom find disagreement on your interpretation of doctrine. What I find offensive in many of your posts is a complete disregard for the human experience. Your often flippant responses equate to "if you were more godlike, you wouldn't have a problem". Well yes, if we were more godlike we wouldn't have a problem.

 

You seem to completely ignore that we (those of us on Earth) are in a period of growth; many different stages of growth. Some of us are never going to "get it" while during our Earthly stay.

 

I think we are at one heart and mind when the Spirit wishes it to be so. But short of a Pentecostal awakening, we're not all going to have that same level of experience at the same time, even when reading the same doctrine, or hearing the same talk, or saying the same prayer, simply because we have human filters that block or interpret the Spirit. Some of those are even physiological.

 

Your frustration with us being frustrated with you is a matter of you thinking we are lacking. Yes we are, but you could allow people to be wrong and not feel we are lacking for not having the same full understanding as you.  Who knows, maybe someday you will see things the way we do. :)

[Blackmarch]

I don't expect unity till after the millenium... however we must be constantly trying for it.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Blackmarch

[The Folk Prophet]

pkstpaul, Why does this need to turn into personal criticism and accusation? Have you noticed that every time you post something to me it's mean? It's interesting that you can't seem to show kindness and understanding to me even though you're constantly lecturing me on these subjects.

[Traveler]

I don't expect unity till after the millenium... however we must be constantly trying for it.

 

 

Wow - I fully expected you to be 100% on board and unified long before then.

[omegaseamaster75]

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).

 

 

Lets define doctrine and see if we agree. My Doctrine is canonized scripture as accepted by the president of the church, the twelve and ratified by the body of the church.

 

So we have the bible, BOM, D&C, Official declaration in 1890 repealing polygamy, and Official declaration 2 in 1978 allowing the priesthood to be given to all worthy males.

[Traveler]

I seldom find disagreement on your interpretation of doctrine. What I find offensive in many of your posts is a complete disregard for the human experience. Your often flippant responses equate to "if you were more godlike, you wouldn't have a problem". Well yes, if we were more godlike we wouldn't have a problem.

 

You seem to completely ignore that we (those of us on Earth) are in a period of growth; many different stages of growth. Some of us are never going to "get it" while during our Earthly stay.

 

I think we are at one heart and mind when the Spirit wishes it to be so. But short of a Pentecostal awakening, we're not all going to have that same level of experience at the same time, even when reading the same doctrine, or hearing the same talk, or saying the same prayer, simply because we have human filters that block or interpret the Spirit. Some of those are even physiological.

 

Your frustration with us being frustrated with you is a matter of you thinking we are lacking. Yes we are, but you could allow people to be wrong and not feel we are lacking for not having the same full understanding as you.  Who knows, maybe someday you will see things the way we do. :)

 

Just for the record you are wrong and lacking - and it is almost as bad as what I am.  But not quite.

[The Folk Prophet]

Lets define doctrine and see if we agree. 

 

No thank you.

[Traveler]

Lets define doctrine and see if we agree. My Doctrine is canonized scripture as accepted by the president of the church, the twelve and ratified by the body of the church.

 

So we have the bible, BOM, D&C, Official declaration in 1890 repealing polygamy, and Official declaration 2 in 1978 allowing the priesthood to be given to all worthy males.

 

For me - I find doctrine very vague and difficult to pin down but disagreement always to be very specific.

[omegaseamaster75]

No thank you.

In all seriousness, what do you consider doctrine, I am not trying to bait or argue.

[Just_A_Guy]

char713, on 08 Jun 2015 - 9:25 PM, said:

 

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

 

Such as?

 

Well, for example:  You know that idea about the Holy Ghost being a "burning in the bosom"?  That's not how I experience it.  I've never felt it that way.  And because it's not part of my gospel experience, it's not how I personally describe the influence of the Holy Ghost.

[pkstpaul]

Just for the record you are wrong and lacking - and it is almost as bad as what I am.  But not quite.

That's what I said.

[Vort]

Well, for example:  You know that idea about the Holy Ghost being a "burning in the bosom"?  That's not how I experience it.  I've never felt it that way.  And because it's not part of my gospel experience, it's not how I personally describe the influence of the Holy Ghost.

 

It's worth pointing out that the "burning in the bosom" idea was targeted specifically at Oliver Cowdery and specifically toward his (failed) attempts at translating the Book of Mormon. Though it may indeed be a common way of receiving revelation, I do not believe that it was ever meant to be considered the only or the universal or even the primary means of receiving revelation.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Perhaps. But uniting in a principle as given by God through our leaders isn't the same thing. We don't have to understand or even believe fully in any given principle to support it.

I don't think that when Christ commanded unity in the church he meant that we must agree on politics - just the same as he doesn't much care if we prefer Chevy or Ford. And that's about the importance that a lot of politics has in the eternal scheme of things, after all. Specifically, in 3rd Nephi, he was speaking of the disputation over the manner of baptism, right? I'm not sure taking different political stances (on most matters) really comes into play as to my concern. Politics can, of course, come into play when morality is part of it. So I accept it's complicated. Certainly though I can't understand how anyone could feel comfortable taking a stand opposite to a political issue that the church has taken a clear and decisive stand on.

Which goes to show that you don't know me as well as you think you do.

Hmm. Maybe you should stop pigeon-holing me into some garish caricature you've apparently imagined up.

This is a different discussion, but rather to the point. Mercy and justice are not opposites. Mercy must ALWAYS work within justice, and ALWAYS defer to justice. There is no choosing between the two. God implemented the plan of salvation because it is perfectly just, and allowing for mercy was part of that. God is perfectly just -- always, even when applying mercy. And if God did not find a way to apply mercy, He would not be perfectly just, which He is and always will be. The fact that you seem to think that there is ever a choice between the two simply means you have more to learn on the matter.

Do you realize how condescending your last line is? Not so much what you said but the way you said it. Is being civil really so hard? For someone who claims to want unity you sure have a strange way of going about it. I don't disagree with what you said about justice and mercy which goes to show that you don't understand me as well as you think you do.

So what is your opinion about illegal immigration? You said I misjudged you so now I'm curious. I'll be happy to apologize if I was wrong, but I need more information first.

Edited June 9, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

 

Well, the distinction I was trying to make is that it depends on the type of character we think we're dealing with.  Humans are humans, and every now and again we're going to come up with an interpretation that's just plain wrong.  Someone who has genuine questions and is sincerely in harmony with the two great commandments (love God, love fellowman) should get the treatment outlined in D&C 121--and interestingly (given your later post about whether individually-fallible priesthood leaders justifies disunity, D&C 121:45 promises that if the prescribed method is used "the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul".  Now, other readings are certainly plausible; but I read that as saying that observance of the dispute-resolution procedure outlined in the preceding verses cannot help but reconcile us to our priesthood authorities.)

 

But, quite candidly:  There are also quite a few people running around in the Church who are stuck on themselves and are in dire need of a swift kick in the pants.  (I've been one of those people, on more occasions than I'd care to admit.)  That, I think, is when a more Pauline/Judean approach becomes appropriate.  For example--my understanding is that John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer, and Rock Waterman all had periods spanning months or--in some cases--years, during which their bishops tried to work with them before finally convening disciplinary councils.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Just_A_Guy