Unity

[laronius]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I see it as a bludgeon that progressives use to cow those who stand up for truth at the expense of being considered "disagreeable" because of their views. I'm sure you've seen the same.

And...also....

If?

I think I get what you are saying now. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are alluding to the false narrative that some put forth that once a consensus is reached by a majority of people (though often it actually hasn't but they want you to believe it has) that it becomes the duty of everyone else to fall in line and no longer oppose whatever it is they do/think/say.

Edited September 26, 2017 by laronius

[anatess2]

I gave a Relief Society lesson on this a few years back.  The topic was about "Becoming One".

Unity is not about becoming one with your spouse or becoming one with your friend or becoming one with others.  Unity is about becoming one with Christ.

So that, in a marriage for example.  To become one doesn't mean you agree with your spouse or your spouse agree with you or even that you compromise to meet in the middle.  No.  To become one means you both unite yourselves with Christ.  Each step closer to Christ is one step closer to unity.

So, the challenge is not necessarily to know what your spouse wants.  The challenge is to know what Christ wants so you can align yourselves with it.

Edited September 26, 2017 by anatess2

[SpiritDragon]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have seen a lot of comments in recent years about unity with the underlying idea being that individual unity with others is the measuring stick of our Christianity. Without getting into the details of it yet, I reject this concept.

Discuss.

I can't say that I've seen it as much with the banner of unity as I have with love and acceptance where these words are distorted to mean that we have extremely low expectations of anyone and rather than help anyone improve tell them they are wonderful the way they are. From that angle I am not going to be interesting to discuss with because I'll just be a yes man agreeing with you that it is a perversion of love to suggest we accept sinful actions as much as it's a perversion of unity to mix serving God and Mammon - it's a true principle that no man can serve two masters. I'm sure it is very similar to your discussion on contention, clearly arguing about doctrine isn't of God; so we should accept what the Lord has taught and what His prophet's have taught instead of pushing our own agenda's on any given point. If we have a personal take on something that is still in harmony with the Lord's teachings but not something spelled out for everyone than I would suggest we should live up to each principle to the best of our own understanding and give others the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the same. However, when clear contradictions to revealed truth are taking place I believe it is important to reach out in love and call others to repentance (or ourselves for that matter).

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I gave a Relief Society lesson on this a few years back.  The topic was about "Becoming One".

Unity is not about becoming one with your spouse or becoming one with your friend or becoming one with others.  Unity is about becoming one with Christ.

So that, in a marriage for example.  To become one doesn't mean you agree with your spouse or your spouse agree with you or even that you compromise to meet in the middle.  No.  To become one means you both unite yourselves with Christ.  Each step closer to Christ is one step closer to unity.

So, the challenge is not necessarily to know what your spouse wants.  The challenge is to know what Christ wants so you can align yourselves with it.

I read this article which led me to start the thread. Confirms what you're saying.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/08/unity?lang=eng

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, Fether said:

Those situations still fit that standard. The Kingmen weren't just an opposing belief, but were putting the nation of the Nephites at risk.

You are essentially asking about unifying ourselves with those that want to kill us. Killing in the defense of our lives and freedom has long been condoned by God.

I'm asking how you support a claim that at some level we must be unified with those who are trying to kill us, our families, or friends, either physically, spiritually, or otherwise.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, laronius said:

I think I get what you are saying now. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are alluding to the false narrative that some put forth that once a consensus is reached by a majority of people (though often it actually hasn't but they want you to believe it has) that it becomes the duty of everyone else to fall in line and no longer oppose whatever it is they do/think/say.

It doesn't necessarily need to be a consensus. Even individually. If someone is railing against the truth, despises me and everything I stand for, and goes out of their way at every turn to hurt me and the things I hold dear, need their be unity with said individual at any level? Yes, their needs to be civility, turning the other cheek, etc., on my part. But unity?

Even if we don't go so extreme -- if there are concepts that our fellow saints are espousing that are contrary to the truths of the gospel, do we seek harmony and unity above truth? That's the real question. I hope the plain answer would be obvious. No...we do not. Truth stands supreme.

[Fether]

39 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm asking how you support a claim that at some level we must be unified with those who are trying to kill us, our families, or friends, either physically, spiritually, or otherwise.

I like Vort said. Unity is not THE measuring stick of Christianity. We are to seek unity. If it is unattainable, and if our lives are in danger, we can break that unity in defense of our lives.

Christ himself wasn't unified with everyone, why should we?

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Even if we don't go so extreme -- if there are concepts that our fellow saints are espousing that are contrary to the truths of the gospel, do we seek harmony and unity above truth? That's the real question. I hope the plain answer would be obvious. No...we do not. Truth stands supreme.

This is my challenge. If someone starts teaching a new form of baptism, I am wont to oppose it. If someone openly advocates that the name of the Church be change to The Church of the Latter-day Saints, I will not be unified. You might even say I would contend and dispute against it. But these are the cases brought before Jesus where He condemned disputations and contention. I'm not sure how this is to be resolved (I have my suspicions, but I wonder on the practicality (perhaps due to my own faithlessness)).

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I have my suspicions

Do share.

[Traveler]

 

I believe unity is a divine principle that cannot be understood nor comprehended with “worldly logic”.   There are a few terms that are important; for example; worldly logic – worldly logic is at its heart and core self-centered and self-serving.  To a worldly-minded person unity is all about getting their way, extoling their ideas and measuring others in how they support their agenda.

The first great principle of divine unity is sacrifice.  It is the sacrifice of self for the high benefit of the whole.  A very good example is the covenant relationship of marriage.  Many enter into marriage thinking that the institution of marriage will make them better; in that the marriage will fulfill their wants, needs and desires.  Such selfishness is hardly unity especially when both parties stubbornly demand the other bend to their wants, needs and desires.  This is not unity but the exact opposite – even if all parties word to such an end – it only fulfills the wants, needs and desires on the one.  Unity must fulfill the wants, needs and desires of all.

The problem is that the wants, needs and desires of all are always in conflict such that any two individuals being different will need, want and desire self which is the definition of selfishness.  Selfishness is the natural man. 

But unity is a discipline borne of love and sacrifice.  It is not natural at all.  The tendency is to absorb any love and sacrifice of others and bask in our own selfishness.  This is the very essence of disunity.

Some may use Caption Moroni as an example – and how he put to death all the kingsmen that would not cooperate.  But they miss the sacrifice of Moroni.  Moroni did not put to death the kingsmen because he found great delight is taking their lives.  Nor did he do it to enhance his own greatness.  He did so to preserve those he loved.  He did so as a sacrifice for the higher benefit of others.

G-d takes the first step to unify his children.  He first sacrifices many things precious to him that we may have and exercise our own agency.  But unity can only come when we also sacrifice many things precious to us so we can become unified. 

Strange as it may seem – unity comes from discipline and sacrifice even to the point that others may choose wrongly and destroy their place as part of the unity.

 

The Traveler

[laronius]

I think this is why charity is so key to our salvation. It looks past all differences and sees the thing common to us all, our relationship as brothers and sisters and as sons and daughters of God. When we do this our responses to differences in beliefs and attitudes will always be motivated out of love for the person. So I guess the unity we should seek is that as ought to be found in a family, where love and compassion prevail despite differences that may arise. Yet another reason for Satan to corrupt the definition of family.

[The Folk Prophet]

36 minutes ago, laronius said:

I think this is why charity is so key to our salvation. It looks past all differences and sees the thing common to us all, our relationship as brothers and sisters and as sons and daughters of God. When we do this our responses to differences in beliefs and attitudes will always be motivated out of love for the person. So I guess the unity we should seek is that as ought to be found in a family, where love and compassion prevail despite differences that may arise. Yet another reason for Satan to corrupt the definition of family.

Matt 10:34-37

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

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

This is my challenge. If someone starts teaching a new form of baptism, I am wont to oppose it. If someone openly advocates that the name of the Church be change to The Church of the Latter-day Saints, I will not be unified. You might even say I would contend and dispute against it. But these are the cases brought before Jesus where He condemned disputations and contention. I'm not sure how this is to be resolved (I have my suspicions, but I wonder on the practicality (perhaps due to my own faithlessness)).

Your answer shows the bigger problem with calls for "unity". They always mean "unite under my values." Think of this-if a Catholic demands "unity" he/she means "Accept that authority of the pope." If an LDS demands "unity" he/she means "accept the validity of the Book of Mormon." If a Jewish person demands "unity" he/she means "do not accept Christ being the Savior."  If a Muslim demands "unity" they mean "Accept that Mohammed is a prophet". Notice a pattern? 

 Calls for unity might make us feel better, but in the real world it'll never happen. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by MormonGator

[laronius]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Matt 10:34-37

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

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

If people choose to react this way what does that have to do with having charity for them?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, laronius said:

If people choose to react this way what does that have to do with having charity for them?

Sure, if one wants to define being totally at odds with one another (but with love and charity on one side) as "unity". Then...sure.

Edited September 26, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

If ye are not "one" ye are not mine. In this essence "unity" is representative of our Christianity, our love for God. Zion, where they are of one heart and one mind.  This is also evidence that if we are not unified then something is missing.

The words of a father, Lehi, to his sons, "arise from the dust, my sons, and be ^amen, and be determined in ^bone mind and in one heart, united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity." If his sons were "unified", if his sons were determined in "one mind and in one heart" the wars in the Book of Mormon would have never occurred (assuming rising generations also kept the command to be "one"). (emphasis added)

I fully accept it, as it is a command from God that we are unified.

Unity: https://www.lds.org/topics/unity?lang=eng

Edited September 26, 2017 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

If people choose to react this way what does that have to do with having charity for them?

@laronius

I appreciate your posts.  Matt Chapter 10 is a special admonition and console Jesus gave in a special meeting exclusive to his Apostles.  It is a warning of what would happen in the world when they took his message of charity and love among the Gentiles.  As history records this prophetic warning would also be fulfilled among the Jews.

History also records that many claiming to be Christians believed this to be a commandment to them.  For example, Charlemagne took this to be a general commandment to all disciples of Christ when he determined to convert Northern Europe to his impression or interpretation of scripture.  With the power of the sword Charlemagne marched through Northern Europe burning entire communities of Pagans (men, women and children including infants) – and any Christians (families – men women and children) that would allow pagans to live in peace among them.   Charlemagne murdered more people in Northern Europe than were taken in the Black Plagues.  Even more than Hitler.

It is my impression that Jesus does not intend that unity with him to be done by the sword.  I believe such methods of unity and desire to used such methods are indicative of those inspired by the one that will unify those that are not unified in Christ

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

If ye are not "one" ye are not mine. In this essence "unity" is representative of our Christianity, our love for God. Zion, where they are of one heart and one mind.  This is also evidence that if we are not unified then something is missing.

The words of a father, Lehi, to his sons, "arise from the dust, my sons, and be ^amen, and be determined in ^bone mind and in one heart, united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity." If his sons were "unified", if his sons were determined in "one mind and in one heart" the wars in the Book of Mormon would have never occurred (assuming rising generations also kept the command to be "one"). (emphasis added)

I fully accept it, as it is a command from God that we are unified.

Unity: https://www.lds.org/topics/unity?lang=eng

 

I agree – war can be justified to protect and preserve those unified.  The Book of Mormon (in my view) justifies war to protect – an act of defense.  War is not justified to force others to comply and should not be offensive.  

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

If ye are not "one" ye are not mine. In this essence "unity" is representative of our Christianity, our love for God. Zion, where they are of one heart and one mind.  This is also evidence that if we are not unified then something is missing.

The words of a father, Lehi, to his sons, "arise from the dust, my sons, and be ^amen, and be determined in ^bone mind and in one heart, united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity." If his sons were "unified", if his sons were determined in "one mind and in one heart" the wars in the Book of Mormon would have never occurred (assuming rising generations also kept the command to be "one"). (emphasis added)

I fully accept it, as it is a command from God that we are unified.

Unity: https://www.lds.org/topics/unity?lang=eng

In your opinion, how can we control this then? Are we to control other's agency? Because being one, it strikes me, is a two way street.

Edit: I suppose I have the same concern with any commandments that apply to a people as a whole instead of an individual. The unique thing about being one with each other is that it literally cannot exist without the whole. If someone else doesn't pay their tithing it doesn't keep me from paying my tithing. But if someone is not of one heart and mind with me, what can I do about it without betraying what I believe to to be truth and right?

Edited September 26, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In your opinion, how can we control this then? Are we to control other's agency? Because being one, it strikes me, is a two way street.

Edit: I suppose I have the same concern with any commandments that apply to a people as a whole instead of an individual. The unique thing about being one with each other is that it literally cannot exist without the whole. If someone else doesn't pay their tithing it doesn't keep me from paying my tithing. But if someone is not of one heart and mind with me, what can I do about it without betraying what I believe to to be truth and right?

The original question is whether or not "unity" is a measuring stick of our Christianity. The answer to this question is "yes" unity is a measuring stick of our Christianity. To be unified is a commandment from God. What you are asking now is a separate question. Does our willingness/unwillingness to keep a commandment have any reflection on our commitment to the Lord -- our personal Christianity? Yes, it does.

Do you share the same concern regarding the commandment for couples, husband and wife, to "cleave" and to be "one" with each other? This commandment is based between two people, and cannot exist without the whole striving for the same end goal. Neither couple can control the other's choices, and their individual choices in a marriage is a reflection of their Christianity, especially if serious sin ends the relationship.

Wards are commanded to be "one" and our willingness in our wards to be "one" is a reflection of the "wards" Christian desires. If God was not "one" with Christ, and the Holy Ghost was not "one" with Christ and the Father, would this be a reflection on the Godhead, especially since they are the ones commanding "unity"? Yes, it would.

Although, I can see the intended meaning, I am using the literal meaning for point, "if someone is not of one heart and mind with me." This lies the problem -- "me." We are to be "one" with Christ and the Father, through the power of the Holy Ghost (spirit of prophecy and revelation). If what we believe to be "truth and right" is wrong, then we have need to change, repent, and thus be one with God. I believe the Church is seeking to show us a great example of "becoming" one with other faiths and churches; although they hold different beliefs that would indeed betray a trust with God if they accepted. Is this a reflection on the Church's Christianity and the desire to do as God has commanded -- Yes.

 

[CV75]

On 9/26/2017 at 6:28 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

In your opinion, how can we control this then? Are we to control other's agency? Because being one, it strikes me, is a two way street.

Edit: I suppose I have the same concern with any commandments that apply to a people as a whole instead of an individual. The unique thing about being one with each other is that it literally cannot exist without the whole. If someone else doesn't pay their tithing it doesn't keep me from paying my tithing. But if someone is not of one heart and mind with me, what can I do about it without betraying what I believe to to be truth and right?

The Lord invites us to be one in Him. By definition that is what the Church is, and we invite others to join us and become one in Christ. Ultimately this is expressed in opur being sealed into the family of Adam and doing what it requires to enter into the Church of the Firstborn.

I think it is key to sustain and follow our leaders in terms of how we relate to factions that might arise within the Church or our countries. The Book of Mormon gives us some superb standards in this regard as to the conditions under which such action would take place, and when we act, we act in unity upon that point. This is why authorized, presided councils are so essential -- functioning properly, they bring minds, hearts and hands together.

Edited September 28, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

dup-dup!

Edited September 28, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

dup!

Edited September 28, 2017 by CV75

[The Folk Prophet]

On 9/26/2017 at 9:01 PM, Anddenex said:

The original question is whether or not "unity" is a measuring stick of our Christianity. The answer to this question is "yes" unity is a measuring stick of our Christianity. To be unified is a commandment from God. What you are asking now is a separate question. Does our willingness/unwillingness to keep a commandment have any reflection on our commitment to the Lord -- our personal Christianity? Yes, it does.

Do you share the same concern regarding the commandment for couples, husband and wife, to "cleave" and to be "one" with each other? This commandment is based between two people, and cannot exist without the whole striving for the same end goal. Neither couple can control the other's choices, and their individual choices in a marriage is a reflection of their Christianity, especially if serious sin ends the relationship.

Wards are commanded to be "one" and our willingness in our wards to be "one" is a reflection of the "wards" Christian desires. If God was not "one" with Christ, and the Holy Ghost was not "one" with Christ and the Father, would this be a reflection on the Godhead, especially since they are the ones commanding "unity"? Yes, it would.

So your interpretation of the matter is that the command is to "try" and be one with another -- or a command to be "willing"?

On 9/26/2017 at 9:01 PM, Anddenex said:

Although, I can see the intended meaning, I am using the literal meaning for point, "if someone is not of one heart and mind with me." This lies the problem -- "me." 

You're going to have to walk me through this. If I have the attitude that getting up and going to help my neighbor move (or some other service) is important, and so I do it, but another in my ward feels like it's not important, they can't be bothered, etc., and so they don't do it, then the problem is with me?

[The Folk Prophet]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Lord invites us to be one in Him. By definition that is what the Church is, and we invite others to join us and become one in Christ. Ultimately this is expressed in opur being sealed into the family of Adam and doing what it requires to enter into the Church of the Firstborn.

I think it is key to sustain and follow our leaders in terms of how we relate to factions that might arise within the Church or our countries. The Book of Mormon gives us some superb standards in this regard as to the conditions under which such action would take place, and when we act, we act in unity upon that point. This is why authorized, presided councils are so essential -- functioning properly, they bring minds, hearts and hands together.

A command to be one with God is an individual thing dependent upon ourselves alone. We either do so or we do not. But a command to be one with other fellow mortal, sinful beings is not only dependent on our own efforts, but also dependent upon the other mortal's efforts, willingness, and choice -- something we have no control over for the most part. Part of what I'm exploring is how can we keep or not keep a command that we have no control over?

I can sustain and follow my leaders. I cannot control whether my neighbor sustains and follows his/her leaders. Is it not factual that if I sustain my leader but my neighbor does not sustain that leader that I am not one with my neighbor in that regard?