Unity

[Guest]

Sacrifice comes from the same root as sacred or to make sacred thus it is impossible to be righteous or right without the intent to make sacred or sacrifice.

But then: The ISIS operative sacrificed all that he has to follow Muhammad and join the war to behead Christians. He is nowhere closer to righteousness nor unity.

Edited June 26, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

Traveler's point is nevertheless valid: One cannot become sacred without sacrificing. That some people sacrifice for the wrong ends and, in effect, worship a false god doesn't negate Traveler's point.

 

(Note that I am talking about the narrow point Traveler made, not the larger discussion, which I have largely given up commenting on.)

[The Folk Prophet]

Traveler's point is nevertheless valid: One cannot become sacred without sacrificing. That some people sacrifice for the wrong ends and, in effect, worship a false god doesn't negate Traveler's point.

 

No one's dissing sacrifice or the becoming sacred by it.

 

That wasn't Traveler's full point though. His point was that the first step in unity is sacrifice. Anatess disagrees (as do I). The first step in unity is righteousness. By contrast, Traveler is saying that unrighteous sacrifice is the better choice.

 

By way of response, I quote 1 Sam 15:22: Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice

[The Folk Prophet]

What in your mind should not be sacred

 

Evil.

 

for who did Jesus not include in his sacrifice?

 

What on earth does that have to do with my comment?

[Vort]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I was commenting specifically on Traveler's post #122, not on any larger context of the discussion. I thought it important because I have noticed that some Saints appear not to understand that the willingness to sacrifice, and I believe the actual act of sacrificing, is vital to achieving holiness. So I was underlining this particular principle.

[The Folk Prophet]

You completely misunderstand me and the reason I post. For me winning or being right is not the purpose of a debate or discussion no one would post without thinking they are right. Since I understand this about others my personal reason for discussion is to bring new ideas and thoughts to the table that are unknown or being ignored.

There is a saying - someone convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. My whole purpose is to encourage thinking outside the little box we tend to think in. If I can convince someone to consider something new and discover some new truth they have not yet realized even if it is different from my conclusions then Perhaps we both can win a new perspective. If it is not a win for others then it is not a win for me.

 

I don't think I misunderstand. In previous discussions we have covered this. In a marriage, for example, you have stated that sacrifice is more important than being right. I contend that being right is the most important thing. You have taken that to mean that I believe one must always be stubborn and win arguments, which is not being right at all.

[Traveler]

I don't think I misunderstand. In previous discussions we have covered this. In a marriage, for example, you have stated that sacrifice is more important than being right. I contend that being right is the most important thing. You have taken that to mean that I believe one must always be stubborn and win arguments, which is not being right at all.

 

It is my observation and idea that I put forward is that what is right is often the cause of contention and division.   And at the same time it appears to me that the effect of actual sacrifice is not in dispute - with the exception of someone that is willing to argue what is right but is unwilling to make a similar sacrifice.  Thus my point - to achieve unity is not found through efforts to be right but the willingness to sacrifice what is thought to be right for a cause to bring unity.

 

The problem is that if one then thinks that sacrifice is being right - then it is my impression they really do not understand but are arguing for the sole purpose to be right and avoid an actual sacrifice.  Which if you think about it was the essence of Lucifer's argument - which was a lie and turned all his rightness (light) into darkness.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Traveler

[Traveler]

But then: The ISIS operative sacrificed all that he has to follow Muhammad and join the war to behead Christians. He is nowhere closer to righteousness nor unity.

I believe history does not agree; the sacrifice of a martyr does more to bring unity to any cause right or wrong - above and beyond all arguments of what is right.  If one desires unity - sacrifice is the first necessity - put anything else first and unity will not be achieved.

 

Unity with G-d come through sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  Understanding correct doctrine is always a good thing - but it is not enough for unity which can only occur with a willing sacrifice.  There is no divine covenant (that I am aware of) to be right but there is a covenant with G-d associated with the law of sacrifice.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

what is right is often the cause of contention and division. 

 

This is true.

 

Matthew 10:34 - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

There is no divine covenant (that I am aware of) to be right

 

Certainly there is a covenant, however, to do right. To teach right. To follow right. To choose right. To speak right. To think right. To act right.

 

It's an interesting thing to me that you are trying to separate "being" from these things. As if someone can "be" right by doing, choosing, speaking, thinking, and acting wrong in any regard.

 

with the exception of someone that is willing to argue what is right but is unwilling to make a similar sacrifice.  Thus my point - to achieve unity is not found through efforts to be right but the willingness to sacrifice what is thought to be right for a cause to bring unity.

 

I believe my thinking about the value of sacrificing right was made in the scripture I posted from 1 Sam.

 

The sacrifice of "right" is, never can be, and never will be, a good thing. Sacrifice is ONLY good within the confines of obedience. And wrong is not rendered right by sacrifice, nor any other principle.

[Traveler]

This is true.

 

Matthew 10:34 - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

 

Certainly there is a covenant, however, to do right. To teach right. To follow right. To choose right. To speak right. To think right. To act right.

 

It's an interesting thing to me that you are trying to separate "being" from these things. As if someone can "be" right by doing, choosing, speaking, thinking, and acting wrong in any regard.

 

 

I believe my thinking about the value of sacrificing right was made in the scripture I posted from 1 Sam.

 

The sacrifice of "right" is, never can be, and never will be, a good thing. Sacrifice is ONLY good within the confines of obedience. And wrong is not rendered right by sacrifice, nor any other principle.

Part of the problem is in understanding of terms. The ancient understanding of sacrifice is not to to give away or abandon but to make suitable to be given to G-d. This is my intent. For example we can sacrifice our sins. I submit that in this life we will always fall short of G-d's right. You may think you are right or can choose right but compared to G-d you are fallen and of yourself cannot obtain that which is right before G-d. No one can sacrifice right because it is not theirs to do with as they please.

One can only sacrifice that which belongs to them. The scripture in 1Sam is not about making a sacrifice for others but the exact opposite and attempting to gain something for oneself,

This is the problem I have with those centered on what is right. -- because if they seek to profit themselves their right will be wrong. Only by offering themselves as a sacrifice can anyone overcome pride and bring unity. One can be prideful even in choosing the right and such pride will destroy unity. If one is not willing to sacrifice pride any hope of advantage in choosing right will be useless.

[The Folk Prophet]

Part of the problem is in understanding of terms. The ancient understanding of sacrifice is....

 

If you want to apply "ancient" definitions to things...well, we're pretty much guaranteed to have a communications breakdown.

 

The scripture in 1Sam is not about making a sacrifice for others but the exact opposite and attempting to gain something for oneself,

 

The scripture in 1 Sam is about obedience -- or in other words, doing what's right instead of what's wrong in the supposed name of some principle like sacrifice, love, or mercy.

 

One can be prideful even in choosing the right 

 

No. You cannot do wrong and choose right. If you are prideful you are choosing the wrong. You may be choosing partial right. But you can also pay tithing but not pay fast offerings...and the wrong part is still wrong in spite of the right part. The only way to choose right is to do, think, act, and be right. And if one is prideful, then one is not choosing the right. Pride, as we well know, is wrong. And wrong is never right.

[askandanswer]

I only read pages 1 - 3 of this discussion and then skimmed through the remaining pages. Going back to the OP, the following quote from the most recent General Conference might shed some light on the idea of how to "contend" without being contentions.

(By Elder Ulisses Soares Of the Presidency of the Seventy https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/yes-we-can-and-will-win?lang=eng )

 

 

I learned this principle when I served as a young missionary. My companion and I were serving in a very small and faraway branch of the Church. We tried to speak with every person in the city. They received us very well, but they liked to debate the scriptures and asked us for concrete evidence regarding the truthfulness of what we were teaching.

I recall that each time my companion and I set out to try to prove something to people, the Spirit of God left us and we felt totally lost and confused. We felt that we should more strongly align our testimonies with the truths of the gospel we were teaching. From that time on, I remember that when we bore a testimony with all our hearts, a silent confirming power coming from the Holy Ghost filled the room, and there was no space for confusion or discussion. I learned that no evil forces exist that are capable of confusing, deceiving, or subverting the power of a sincere testimony of a true disciple of Jesus Christ.

[askandanswer]

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.

 

TFP, all you have to do is unite your heart with mine and then the two of us will be united. Then we just need to "get" Literate parakeet and that will make three of us and the three of us together will probably be able to get the traveller. It's just a matter of time and numbers.  As for JAG, well, I'm not sure if I'd ever want to be united with him. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by askandanswer

[askandanswer]

Luke 20: 1-7 might be interpreted by some as an example of Christ appearing to stir up contention by deliberately asking a question that He knew would create a division among the people. 

 

 1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

 2 And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?

 3 And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:

 4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?

 5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?

 6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.

 7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.

 8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Acts 23: 6 - 9 also gives an interesting example of when Paul, while preaching the gospel,  deliberately created a contention, ostensibly to get himself out of a difficult situation. Ironically, it was the situation that he thereby created that led to him being taken into protective custody, and ultimately sent to Rome and executed.

[Traveler]

If you want to apply "ancient" definitions to things...well, we're pretty much guaranteed to have a communications breakdown.

 

 

The scripture in 1 Sam is about obedience -- or in other words, doing what's right instead of what's wrong in the supposed name of some principle like sacrifice, love, or mercy.

 

 

No. You cannot do wrong and choose right. If you are prideful you are choosing the wrong. You may be choosing partial right. But you can also pay tithing but not pay fast offerings...and the wrong part is still wrong in spite of the right part. The only way to choose right is to do, think, act, and be right. And if one is prideful, then one is not choosing the right. Pride, as we well know, is wrong. And wrong is never right.

Are you hopping are waiting for a response to this?

[theSQUIDSTER]

Luke 20: 1-7 might be interpreted by some as an example of Christ appearing to stir up contention by deliberately asking a question that He knew would create a division among the people.

1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

2 And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?

3 And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:

4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?

5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?

6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.

7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.

8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Jesus wasn't creating contention or division. With his insightful counter-question he was exposing the hypocrisy and duplicity of the so-called spiritual leaders. The contention and division was already there.. firmly planted in the hearts of these wicked and conspiring men. In a masterful way he quickly exposed it and then refused to answer since it was not an honest inquiry to begin with.

So, what I take away from this is that pure evil has no desire to ever reach an understanding .. only to dominate and/or destroy all differing views by whatever means available. We cannot ever become unified with it.. only expose it and banish it or stand in silent testimony against it if we're required of the Lord to endure it and not yet allowed to remove ourselves from it.

Edited June 29, 2015 by theSQUIDSTER

[Guest]

I believe history does not agree; the sacrifice of a martyr does more to bring unity to any cause right or wrong - above and beyond all arguments of what is right.  If one desires unity - sacrifice is the first necessity - put anything else first and unity will not be achieved.

I'm having a hard time following your logic.

Are you trying to say that the ISIS sacrifice to behead Christians - even through it's wrong - is better than being right because it brings people unity by avoiding contention?

[Guest]

This is the problem I have with those centered on what is right. -- because if they seek to profit themselves their right will be wrong.

That's why I said in an earlier post - it is not about Right. It's about Righteous.

Righteous - in my use of the term and my understanding - is what Christ deems as right (not what each of us understands to be right).

Hence, the FIRST STEP - is to step closer to Christ - to be righteous. Sacrifice is, of course, a necessary step in that direction, but sacrifice is useless to Unity if it is not done in righteousness, hence my example of the ISIS operative. Being united with the Devil still will not bring us Unity.

Edited June 29, 2015 by anatess

[Traveler]

I'm having a hard time following your logic.

Are you trying to say that the ISIS sacrifice to behead Christians - even through it's wrong - is better than being right because it brings people unity by avoiding contention?

 

Perhaps part of the problem is the idea that ISIS is actually making the sacrifice - in the case you are giving the exact opposite is true.  That is the the Christians are making a sacrifice of their lives - ISIS is not making a sacrifice but are the means of the Christian sacrifice.

[Guest]

Perhaps part of the problem is the idea that ISIS is actually making the sacrifice - in the case you are giving the exact opposite is true.  That is the the Christians are making a sacrifice of their lives - ISIS is not making a sacrifice but are the means of the Christian sacrifice.

Well, in that case, then the coin is on the same face because I could also say that part of the problem is the idea that stepping towards righteousness is not sacrifice.

So yeah, we're nowhere close to Unity simply because we are intent on sticking to our sentence and dismissing the other when we simply used different sentences to mean the exact same thing.

And we'll never get to unity if we remain intent on making it different instead of understanding how they are the same.

So where in righteousness or sacrifice did we fail? We failed to let go of our pride that is THAT step that would have made us closer to Christ.

Edited June 30, 2015 by anatess

[Traveler]

Well, in that case, then the coin is on the same face because I could also say that part of the problem is the idea that stepping towards righteousness is not sacrifice.

So yeah, we're nowhere close to Unity simply because we are intent on sticking to our sentence and dismissing the other when we simply used different sentences to mean the exact same thing.

And we'll never get to unity if we remain intent on making it different instead of understanding how they are the same.

So where in righteousness or sacrifice did we fail? We failed to let go of our pride that is THAT step that would have made us closer to Christ.

 

I disagree anatress:  Unity is not everything or everybody thinking or acting the same - I see unity as differences coming together to make a whole complete - one adding what the other may have misses, overlooked or lacked in talent.  I always read you comments even when I am not interested in the topic.  There are sever others on the forum that I likewise check out the latest they have to say.  But I wanted you to know that whenever you and I disagree - I always feel I have come away with something I would have otherwise missed.  I value a different view point especially someone like you.  I have assumed that you have also been added upon through our discussions.

 

I believe, now as I think about it - perhaps my greatest error is not acknowledging better the points you add that I have missed -- But when I understand enough to agree I tend to say little to nothing but when there is something to learn - I tend to ask more questions to insure I really understand what I have missed.  I am always confused when someone says my questions indicate arrogance to them -- so I do not know how to continue a dialog - but with you - I always feel I can ask and get an honest answer and a view I can trust though it is different than mine.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Traveler

[Traveler]

I thought I would add something from our last general conference - so I reference a talk in the Sunday morning sessions by the Relief Society President - Linda K Burton.  The title of her talk was "We'll Ascend Together" - or in other words "Unity".

 

 

Sister Linda suggest that:

 

 

We might test ourselves by asking a few questions. With a little adaptation, these questions can apply to most of us, whether we are married or single, whatever our home situation might be. ....

 

5.  When was the last time I chose to be happy rather than demanding to be “right".

 

Of course we want to understand her remarks in the context that her inspired words were made - but I think her message is much the same as mine - that there is something more important in achieving unity than the demand to be right.

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's further convolute the matter.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/dare-to-stand-alone?lang=eng

 

How does standing alone fit with unity?

[Finrock]

First, I don't think we are ever standing alone. God is always with us and has promised to protect or make right any abuses caused by others to those who exercise faith in Jesus Christ. We may stand alone in the crowds that we are associating with in that we may be the only person who is willing to stand up for righteous principles. In a crowd of other people we may be alone in our beliefs in a God. This can require courage because we risk the ridicule, judgement, or possibly even worse from those who do not believe as we do.

 

I don't think that standing alone actually means you are an island. It is a rhetorical tool used to show that you must not forsake God and the principles of righteousness, no matter what.

 

-Finrock

[Syme]

Empathy is necessary for unity. A few spats have happened on this forum which boiled down to "I'm going to take what you said in a negative way," when it was really just statements taken out of context. I just don't get why people will assume the worst in others, even when they've known each other long enough to know better.

 

We should assume that other people are reasonable and carry good will, even when they don't.

 

Regarding disagreement on doctrine within the church: Maybe there are some times when it's better to "call out" someone, but I think this should only be accompanied by a prompting to do so.