Sign in to follow this  
Fether

Singular righteousness vs unified righteousness

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Traveler said:

think the results of our experiences are in line with where our heart, might, mind and strength is centered.

27 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't think so.  Especially since worthiness doesn't necessarily = righteousness.  Depending on how you define it, the temple is full of bad apples.   Not really my place to judge someone who lied to get their recommend as better or worse than the guy who loses his temper, or the habitual minor lawbreaking speeder, or the sinner going through disfellowshipment and at the temple as part of the process worked out with the bishop.

I suppose one could say the guy who lied to get into the temple is keeping his neighbors from being righteous enough to get translated like the folks in the city of Enoch, but then so am I.

A couple follow up question. So If I spent the day drinking, participating in the vilest of media, and blaspheming, that has no effect on the people in the room with me that during the endowment?

What about the notion of how if a family lives righteously, you can feel it in the home? There seems to be some aura that comes with righteous living. Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fether said:

A couple follow up question. So If I spent the day drinking, participating in the vilest of media, and blaspheming, that has no effect on the people in the room with me that during the endowment?

I'm less a "this has some sort of spiritual/superatural impact on the souls surrounding the sinner" person, and more of a "we strive to be clean and live in holy places and raise our kids in righteousness, because a righteous population sees miracles and blessings individually and collectively" person.

When I play a game, I can fly my space fighter through a radioactive nebula that gives me -2 shield strength.  I don't really see spiritual reality in the same light.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fether said:

The worthy. Does one had apple in the bunch effect the good ones?

Yes and no. Think of the first time the three witnesses were praying and how one individual was preventing the experience -- for them all -- to happen.

And yet, no, because God doesn't withhold revelation from me due to another person's choices.

Think about the temple prayer and one statement in the prayer regarding "feelings."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to say.

If we take Brigham Young's ideas of what a perfect Zion would have been like, the City of Enoch would probably have been a place where those who did not fit in would not want to live.

Brigham Young had a city which he considered the closest to Zion on Earth.  In this city everyone wore the same clothes, everyone ate communally the same food.  No one really had any possessions of their own to speak of.  The objective to gain worldly goods was no longer something they pursued.  Instead, everyone was equal from the food they ate to the clothes they wore to the places they slept in.  No one really had ANYTHING they truly owned.  It was all communal.  There was no longer mine, or yours, or anything of the sort.  What was owned by one was available to everyone.  It was not the perfect Zion as of yet, but it was the closest thing that Brigham Young could see at that time.  Regarding what the world would consider worldly wealth (gold, jewels, racing wagons, elaborate buildings, nice furniture, fancy clothes), none of this existed in that community.  This was sometimes bewailed by the youth who wanted to have different clothes and sought after worldly items (in their minds, we probably would not consider what they wanted as anything great or big), but the community as a whole was equal in almost all things.  They were still not equal to the City of Enoch though.

Expanding that, the City of Enoch was probably a place where people did not seek to have anything of their own.  Everything was communally owned.  You were not given a house with a bed to be a "steward" over like some here imagine the Law of Consecration to be...you didn't control ANYTHING of your own.  That was NOT what you sought after.  That was not what you were after.  That was not what you wanted.  Instead, the focus is making sure your neighbor has all that they need.  As you love them as yourself, ALL your might was spent in order to make your neighbors be equally cared for.  In such a place it is likely that there is not going to be a great deal of worldy wealth being utilized.  Someone of the world going there would see there was nothing of value that they would want...and as no one would really care to work or progress such an individual or the greed of such, there would be nothing there for those who were not part of the community to gain.  As such, those who were of the world would probably be quickly disenfranchised and turn away to find someplace else where they could enact greedy schemes of gain far more effectively.

So, in that light, it could be that it is a community effort, but in such a community of like minded individuals, I think it would make it far greater that those who were not of the same mindset would quickly turn away and find another place besides that city where they could fit in far better.  In that way, the community of such people probably would be self propagating eventually, where those who did not want to live like the City would leave, and those who were of like mind to share all would stay.

 

PS:  Even today, I think most members would be averse to living in such a place and with such a mindset.  I think most would probably leave such a community if given a choice as such a mindset where greed and want are no longer any thing to give thought to is such an unknown idea in our society today.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Fether said:

A couple follow up question. So If I spent the day drinking, participating in the vilest of media, and blaspheming, that has no effect on the people in the room with me that during the endowment?

What about the notion of how if a family lives righteously, you can feel it in the home? There seems to be some aura that comes with righteous living. Am I wrong?

It is my personal and often flawed opinion that you are not wrong and yet are not completely correct in your assessment.   With out exception there is strength in numbers and I also believe that with righteous living (living through covenant) that the whole is much greater than all its parts.  But I have also come to the conclusion that through the atonement of Christ all the sins created in our mortal probation have been redeemed and that all the sins or any individual will have no effect on others in the eternities.  That because of the atonement of Christ sin will only have any enduring effect on the individual that has submitted themselves to sin and refused to repent. 

I am also convinced that we can release ourselves from any and all sins committed by others through the process of forgiveness.

There is a Buddhist parable of two Buddhist monks traveling together - one older and wiser that is mentoring a young apprentices monk.  Like LDS missionaries Buddhist monks are required to abstain from relationships with the opposite sex and in addition are forbidden to even touch someone of the opposite sex.  As the two monks were traveling they came upon a young and beautiful madden alone on the banks of a river.  The madden was in tears because she was unable to cross the river.  The elder monk quickly picked her up and carried her across the river and put her down on the other side.  Thought she attempted to thank the older monk - he ignored her thanks and refused to acknowledge her but quickly continued his journey with the younger monk.  The younger monk began to think on what had happened and began to be concerned.  He wondered how it was that the older monk would carry the beautiful madden and then not receive her thanks.  The more he pondered it, he was convinced the older monk was wrong and needed to be rebuked for his actions of disobediences.

As they walked the younger kept pondering the events and was becoming more and more concerned.  After several miles the younger monk finely came to a point where he decided he must take action and say something.  He accused the older monk of disobedience and call on him to acknowledge his spiritual failings.  The older monk turned to the apprentice and said, "I did carry the madden across the river but when I reached the other side I put her down and continued my journey - but you have been carrying her ever since.  

When we fail to forgive others - even when they do not care to be forgiven and wish to continue in their transgressions - me make their sins and the the burdens of their sins our own.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It's hard to say.

If we take Brigham Young's ideas of what a perfect Zion would have been like, the City of Enoch would probably have been a place where those who did not fit in would not want to live.

Brigham Young had a city which he considered the closest to Zion on Earth.  In this city everyone wore the same clothes, everyone ate communally the same food.  No one really had any possessions of their own to speak of.  The objective to gain worldly goods was no longer something they pursued.  Instead, everyone was equal from the food they ate to the clothes they wore to the places they slept in.  No one really had ANYTHING they truly owned.  It was all communal.  There was no longer mine, or yours, or anything of the sort.  What was owned by one was available to everyone.  It was not the perfect Zion as of yet, but it was the closest thing that Brigham Young could see at that time.  Regarding what the world would consider worldly wealth (gold, jewels, racing wagons, elaborate buildings, nice furniture, fancy clothes), none of this existed in that community.  This was sometimes bewailed by the youth who wanted to have different clothes and sought after worldly items (in their minds, we probably would not consider what they wanted as anything great or big), but the community as a whole was equal in almost all things.  They were still not equal to the City of Enoch though.

Expanding that, the City of Enoch was probably a place where people did not seek to have anything of their own.  Everything was communally owned.  You were not given a house with a bed to be a "steward" over like some here imagine the Law of Consecration to be...you didn't control ANYTHING of your own.  That was NOT what you sought after.  That was not what you were after.  That was not what you wanted.  Instead, the focus is making sure your neighbor has all that they need.  As you love them as yourself, ALL your might was spent in order to make your neighbors be equally cared for.  In such a place it is likely that there is not going to be a great deal of worldy wealth being utilized.  Someone of the world going there would see there was nothing of value that they would want...and as no one would really care to work or progress such an individual or the greed of such, there would be nothing there for those who were not part of the community to gain.  As such, those who were of the world would probably be quickly disenfranchised and turn away to find someplace else where they could enact greedy schemes of gain far more effectively.

So, in that light, it could be that it is a community effort, but in such a community of like minded individuals, I think it would make it far greater that those who were not of the same mindset would quickly turn away and find another place besides that city where they could fit in far better.  In that way, the community of such people probably would be self propagating eventually, where those who did not want to live like the City would leave, and those who were of like mind to share all would stay.

 

PS:  Even today, I think most members would be averse to living in such a place and with such a mindset.  I think most would probably leave such a community if given a choice as such a mindset where greed and want are no longer any thing to give thought to is such an unknown idea in our society today.

This far off topic, but I would challenge this few of Zion. What you are describing is a Zion with little resources, where everything is figuratively melted down and separated evenly.

I imagine a Zion of unlimited resources where the “common” doesn’t mean we all have the same clothes and material, but rather we have everything we want and need. Everyone working together to create and beautify the world and each others lives. I would like a 7 piece drum set with a double pedal, 4 crashes, a ride, 2 splashes and 2 China cymbals. The guy next to me may want a cherry wood Gibson guitar. I have no use for that, so I don’t care to have one... but should the day come that I desire one cause I am getting into guitar, it will be available to me. 

I don’t love the idea of Zion being a world of hand-me-downs and subpar entertainment, I see a world of such abundance and love that there is no need of “ownership” because there is so much to go around. Or more realistically, there is so much unity and talent that the people will provide the wants for each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fether said:

A couple follow up question. So If I spent the day drinking, participating in the vilest of media, and blaspheming, that has no effect on the people in the room with me that during the endowment?

What about the notion of how if a family lives righteously, you can feel it in the home? There seems to be some aura that comes with righteous living. Am I wrong?

I think it would have an effect...but to what degree I cannot say. The Holy Ghost cannot abide with one participating in sinful behavior, but I also do not think the Lord would withhold revelation from those who are clean, and diligently seeking His counsel. That being said, I don't see why He also couldn't withhold revelation in that specific circumstance...but I would not presume to know what His actions would be. We all know the story of Martin Harris needing to repent before the three witnesses received their revelation, as well as other similar events. The main reason we have temple recommend interviews in the first place is to maintain the temple as a place of revelation...the Lord's house. Hopefully in some degree we can prevent overt sin from staining a sacred place...to limit the influence of Babylon inside of Zion. Also, those attending the temple need to prepare themselves, and be trying to keep their covenants. We are all unworthy, but the Lord's mercy allows us a closer glimpse of heaven through temple ordinances and service. But, one who participated in the behavior you mentioned is clearly not trying to live the life of a disciple of Christ.

As far as our homes are concerned, I believe 100% that you can feel the spirit in the home in different degrees, because I have felt it. If the spirit is there you cannot hide it from anyone...they will feel it also. As a missionary I went into well over 1000 different homes of church members and non-members alike, and I can tell you that there were some home where the spirit was present in a big way, and these feelings have continued as I continue to serve in the church. Two in particular from my mission stand out. In both of them the kids were running around in diapers, toys were on the floor, parents were running late, etc... However, as soon as I entered I felt love and peace despite the commotion. I firmly knew that these parents taught the gospel of Jesus Christ in their home, and those were the homes we chose to have lessons in with investigators. And guess what...baptisms occurred in those areas with those people. Coincidence?...maybe. I have also been in the homes of members of stake presidencies and bishoprics (one just a few weeks ago actually) and not felt the spirit the way I thought I would. I don't know any specifics regarding their family, but I felt that something was off, and other than saying I felt uncomfortable, I cannot describe it. Most homes were just plan homes, but what I felt years ago left an impact on me, and that is the reason why me and my wife hold family home evening every week, read our scriptures with our children every day, and pray as a family every day. As they grow older I want them to be able to feel that spirit whenever they are in need of it...which will be often. They are certainly worthy of my best efforts to foster a Christ centered home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fether said:

This far off topic, but I would challenge this few of Zion. What you are describing is a Zion with little resources, where everything is figuratively melted down and separated evenly.

I imagine a Zion of unlimited resources where the “common” doesn’t mean we all have the same clothes and material, but rather we have everything we want and need. Everyone working together to create and beautify the world and each others lives. I would like a 7 piece drum set with a double pedal, 4 crashes, a ride, 2 splashes and 2 China cymbals. The guy next to me may want a cherry wood Gibson guitar. I have no use for that, so I don’t care to have one... but should the day come that I desire one cause I am getting into guitar, it will be available to me. 

I don’t love the idea of Zion being a world of hand-me-downs and subpar entertainment, I see a world of such abundance and love that there is no need of “ownership” because there is so much to go around. Or more realistically, there is so much unity and talent that the people will provide the wants for each other.

Actually, that "Zion" was very prosperous.  The thing was, they didn't VALUE the things we value.  In this, Wealth was only a tool to ensure that they had what they needed.  The prosperity was NOT actually kept by the people but sent to the Church headquarters.  They only used what they needed. 

However, your statement shows why it was also so hard for many to accept that type of lifestyle and why those who did not want to live that lifestyle would not stay.  They could not put off the desires that they had and put the community and church first.  It is such a drastic difference of how one views the world.  It would probably drive out those who were focused more on other things than that of the community and the Church.

The thing to note is that while Brigham Young said the community was closest to what the Lord would want, they still were not perfect or as close to it as the City of Enoch. 

You could play the guitar.  There would be musical instruments, but it would not be YOUR Guitar.  If it followed suite it would probably be in a hall with many other instruments and that is where you could play it if you so wanted.  It would not be YOURS though, it would be the Church's guitar first, and the communities guitar second.  It would NOT be your guitar.  It would not be a hand me down per se  (though, ironically, some of the greatest instruments are those which have existed for decades or even centuries and have been owned by others before...so it's an odd example of one to use), and may even be a top of the line instrument.

There wasn't a lack of things in the community.  They had more than they needed and were actually very valuable in helping the economy of the Utah territory of that time, at least with the Saints.  It was that they had different purposes in life. 

As I said, if Brigham Young's idea was pointing in the correct direction, there really were no rich or poor in that community.  The rich didn't exist, nor did the poor.  There was equality and freedom for all, though perhaps not the freedom to possess things, but the freedom to do as they desired towards religion.  They had problems with the youth, however, as some of the youth wanted to wear different clothes, and to have more fashion or other things.  There were those that did not want to live in such a manner...and eventually some of those would leave.

I imagine that IF the City of Enoch was like that, the problem of those who did not want to live righteously or like the rest of the community probably would take care of themselves.  In our modern time some of the rest of the world would probably mock them as they could not understand such a society that places the welfare of the Church and the community before themselves.  I imagine those in our modern world would either avoid the place like the plague, or at least avoid it and point to it as missing the point of life.  It is such a drastic difference of mindset and the desires of life.

I suppose if you want to compare it to something we have in the world today, look at what Roddenberry probably had idealized in Star Trek the Next Generation (but probably a little more extreme than even they went).  In this, if I understand correctly, they did not pursue to obtain items, but personal growth.  They may have things of personal worth that they treasured and kept, but most of the things they used were elsewhere.  They all wore the same uniform during the day, they all had similar quarters (sure, it was on a ship too, but using it as something you might be able to understand).  They didn't clutter their quarters with things they had gotten, but kept them neat and circumspect. 

Imagine that as a community, but with more emphasis on the goals of Church and Community (rather than personal growth, it is spiritual growth and the welfare of the Church and your neighbors instead).  Instead of an atheist society, it is one where the Lord and his ideals are set first and foremost.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this