What if Being One Doesn't Mean What We Think?


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

A funny thing happened in our Come Follow Me discussion last night.  The subject of "being one" came up.  My son asked,"How am I supposed to 'be one'?"

I noticed the complete absence of "with others" or "with the Lord."  Then I suddenly realized that I'd never heard the commandment to "be one" combined with the word "with".  I did a search on the phrase "be one with".  Only one time does it appear in all of scripture D&C 31:2.  And this indeed talks about being united with family in the gospel.  Nowhere does that phrase appear as "being one with the Lord."  Nowhere does it say the Father and Son are "one with each other."  They are merely "one."

Why?  I'd say it could be a linguistic quirk in Hebrew or Greek.  I don't know.  Maybe.  But in English?  Only tradition does the phrase "be one" necessarily mean "be united".  So, what if it means something else?  Could it?  Would it be plausible?

I went on to think about two alternatives.

  • "One is the beginning"  "someone has to start."
    • Starting at the beginning means humility.
    • Starting means one must lead.
    • Starting from nothing and leading means strength and power.
  • Entropy vs Order
    • Entropy is about making everything the same.
    • Entropy is decay. 
    • It is Chaos.
    • Eternal life is about order.
    • It is about identity. "Remember who you are."
    • It is about being unique "God is one, for there is none like him."
    • The Lord binds man to free man.  Satan frees man to bind man.

Maybe "Being One" is more about these things than "united".  The Father found us and saw that we had the potential for "intelligence."  What does that mean?  What if it means that we could have identity.  It meant that we could have power (The Glory of God is Intelligence).

Maybe it does include the concept of being united.  Maybe there are more than one applications of the phrase.  Maybe I'm really far off with all this.  But it hit me pretty powerfully last night.  And I can't shake it.

This is a nascent philosophizing in my head right now.  But I feel like it could be much more.

Thoughts?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of using the word "with" with "one" is that it automatically implies more than one. If I say I am "one with" nature then I am making a distinction between me and nature. That's not a true oneness. But we understand the intended point so we don't really think about it. But a true oneness, to me, would ultimately lead to a loss of individual identity. In the gospel of Jesus Christ this is brought to fruition through taking upon us the name of Christ and all that implies. We don't physically become Christ but our identity is swallowed up in him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, laronius said:

The irony of using the word "with" with "one" is that it automatically implies more than one. If I say I am "one with" nature then I am making a distinction between me and nature. That's not a true oneness. 

That is a good point.  Ironically, all the more reason to need the word "with".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being one connotates that there is a binding covenant.  Trying to look at being one as something more or less causes confusion and misunderstanding - especially concerning individual identity.  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't John 17 speak to this issue.  Lets see what it says:

 

John 17:20-23

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Apparently we are to become one as the Father and Jesus are one and that we may become one in them.  We are to seek the same glory that they have with one another, that we may be one, even as they are one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Apparently we are to become one as the Father and Jesus are one and that we may become one in them.  We are to seek the same glory that they have with one another, that we may be one, even as they are one.

There is that word "with" again that we can't help but put in there all on our own.  But even the verses you quote never use that word.

14 hours ago, onefour1 said:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

However, you do shine a light on another word:  "in".  We have vague ideas of what that may mean.  But it is certainly different than "united" or "with" isn't it? 

So, even if we ignore my musings for a second.  What would "in" mean in the context of "being one"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There is that word "with" again that we can't help but put in there all on our own.  But even the verses you quote never use that word.

John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

OK, that's a new find.  It is rather round about wording, though, isn't it.  Upon a few reads, it still sounds like He's referring to "sharing glory with". Notice that verse does not say "be one" or such.

If "being one" means "sharing glory with"... that could be quite a long discussion.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK, that's a new find.  It is rather round about wording, though, isn't it.  Upon a few reads, it still sounds like He's referring to "sharing glory with". Notice that verse does not say "be one" or such.

If "being one" means "sharing glory with"... that could be quite a long discussion.

I think the whole idea of "being one with the Father" is exactly that—sharing his glory. Note that Lucifer jealously regarded God's glory and wanted it for himself. Sharing was not enough.

The glory belongs to the Father. Christ made that clear. But the Father shares all that he has with those who accept his invitation.

IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I think the whole idea of "being one with the Father" is exactly that—sharing his glory. Note that Lucifer jealously regarded God's glory and wanted it for himself. Sharing was not enough.

The glory belongs to the Father. Christ made that clear. But the Father shares all that he has with those who accept his invitation.

IMO.

Great thought Vort. To me that is the essence of the law of consecration, Zion, the second great commandment, and especially the at-one-ment:: a shared experience. Which is an essential element in the development and growth of that most divine attribute of them all: love. We experience it all the time. As we share experiences with people a bond forms. The ultimate manifestation of this principle is found in the suffering of Christ as he shared our suffering with us. In turn he asks that we share his yoke. I think if we truly understood this principle all manifestations of selfishness (the opposite of oneness) would be far less appealing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vort said:

I think the whole idea of "being one with the Father" is exactly that—sharing his glory. Note that Lucifer jealously regarded God's glory and wanted it for himself. Sharing was not enough.

The glory belongs to the Father. Christ made that clear. But the Father shares all that he has with those who accept his invitation.

IMO.

I wonder if the word and concept of sharing carries something in the connotation that leaves out critical elements.  For myself, I prefer the term "vested".  Often it seems to me that things that are shared are seldom appreciated as much as things the are owned.  The term vested - implies more of a two way commitment, feeling of responsibility and actual ownership.  

 

The Traveler

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