How Right Are You?

[mfbukowski]

I think God, being a God of natural laws, causes the universe and all in it, including us, to unfold along lines which are in some ways planned, and in other ways not planned. It's like planting a seed, in a sense the seed's development is "programmed" and yet it interacts with its environment. I believe that was partially the message of the parable of the sower, where some seed fell on rocky soil and others did not, etc.

I have no problem with science, which is actually designed to take God out of the equation and examine the natural "laws" by themselves. I believe that what is CALLED "evolution" is this unfolding of the universe, and science in its rather myopic view, leaves God out of the model it chooses to create. But of course we need not use the same description science does in statements about religion. That is what I am attempting to do here. One might speak about "evolution" or one might speak about the transformation of species and ideas along natural laws of development which were designed by God. But notice I am NOT speaking of what is known as "intelligent design"- which purports to be a scientific theory, when indeed it is not. My point is a blatantly metaphysical and theological position, not an attempt at pseudo-science, as I believe "intelligent design" is. Yet, as theology, the idea has some merit in my opinion.

Similarly, I think we are all gods in embryo- I need not go into that in detail since we are all familiar with the LDS position. I think that morality grew and unfolded from rather primitive relations at first to at least where we are today. As we grow culturally, our morality becomes more refined and unfolds further growing more complex. We now believe, for example that slavery was wrong, though entire societies were based on it less than 200 years ago. Women are now regarded as being intellectually equal with men in every way, but a mere 50 or 60 years ago, that was not the case. I am not a "feminist"- men and women are different but complementary and most assuredly "equal".

I am not going to get into politics, but what should be considered a "right" is obviously a question currently being debated vigorously in our culture. Is health care a right? Abortion? Gay marriage? Is "freedom from hunger" a right? Should we have debtors prisons? Do prisoners in jails have rights? How about animals?

The mere fact that these are now even being considered as possible "rights", when two hundred years ago we bought and sold our fellow human beings, I think is incontrovertible evidence that morality develops over time. The mere fact that these ideas are being debated is evidence enough in my opinion.

[mfbukowski]

I believe that anyone can be moral regardless of a belief in God, and that morality does not come from religion. I do believe that in its purest form, morality is of God and available to each individual through the Light of Christ. As we apply and modify it through individual and groups filters, and express it through various means from generation to generation, it certainly changes, but this change does not necessarily mean it is evolving. At its best, I would describe any improvement in individual or group morality as “arriving at” or “returning to” the unadulterated form—no natural man can improve upon what God gives him without becoming as a child (moving ahead by moving backwards, so to speak).

I agree- I mean it in the sense expressed above. "Evolution" is simply on one hand the scientific term, and secondly is about the only word we have which conveys development toward what can be seen a "higher sphere" over time.

I sometimes call it "guided transformation" but then no one knows what I am talking about. Any suggestions?

The idea is that God guides what we call "evolution" in a scientific godless context. But "intelligent design" doesn't work either since it implies the pseudo-scientific positions that confuses science with theology (in my opinion)

[CV75]

I agree- I mean it in the sense expressed above. "Evolution" is simply on one hand the scientific term, and secondly is about the only word we have which conveys development toward what can be seen a "higher sphere" over time.

I sometimes call it "guided transformation" but then no one knows what I am talking about. Any suggestions?

The idea is that God guides what we call "evolution" in a scientific godless context. But "intelligent design" doesn't work either since it implies the pseudo-scientific positions that confuses science with theology (in my opinion)

I also think that by using “evolution” we are talking about the latest morality of the human species as a whole built upon periodic interjections of “mutations” which, absent a divine plan, are randomly generated and are found to thrive in the environment, ensuring the perpetuation of the species in said environment. Genetics or some other mechanism that is more subject to human agency would be the mechanism for this process to occur (this not to say that genetics is already or soon to be subject to human agency). We can look upon the great moralists of civilization (and in our case, Jesus) as moral mutants that benefit their genetic, mimetic or memetic descendants.

The variation in evolved moralities of different groups of people throughout the world’s cultures can also reflect the segregated “kingdoms of glory.” Or they can represent parts of the whole body, where no moral system can say to the other “I have no need of thee” but they all work together as one—if evolution permits it.

I think “guided transformation” sums it up well enough. The idea of mankind developing toward a higher sphere seems to be captured for an LDS audience by such ideas as “the most valiant spirits are reserved for the last days,” which captures both genetic and adoptive aspects to passing moral traits along. Or seeing how long it took for Zion to come about and be taken up, recognizing that the dispensations that preceded it made it possible (or the dispensation of the fullness of times and the Millennium for that matter). All this might be conveyed in the “seven seals” where sacred history relies on the principle that evolution unfolds in a predictable manner, predictable in that the desirable random mutants will eventually occur based on the conditions of the starting point.

One possible LDS-sounding term for “guided transformation” might be “The Spirit of Elijah” where descendants and ancestors evolve by being morally engaged in each other. Where we’re talking about ideas and not genes, death of the ancestors isn’t part of the equation (unless it's the death of a bad idea).

[Deborah]

I think all morality is God-based, but that doesn't mean one has to believe in God to be moral. In fact one doesn't have to believe in God to do God's will, ie Cyrus.

2 Chronicles 36:

22 ¶Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up.

As for the evolution of morality, I think Adam and Eve were equal partners but as time evolved women began to be put down and not held in as high esteem. Likewise slavery was something that evolved as men expanded into conquering lands and wanting to maintain power. But once again we are evolving back to when men and women are equal and all men should be equal in standing before God and each other.

[mfbukowski]

I also think that by using “evolution” we are talking about the latest morality of the human species as a whole built upon periodic interjections of “mutations” which, absent a divine plan, are randomly generated and are found to thrive in the environment, ensuring the perpetuation of the species in said environment. Genetics or some other mechanism that is more subject to human agency would be the mechanism for this process to occur (this not to say that genetics is already or soon to be subject to human agency). We can look upon the great moralists of civilization (and in our case, Jesus) as moral mutants that benefit their genetic, mimetic or memetic descendants.

The variation in evolved moralities of different groups of people throughout the world’s cultures can also reflect the segregated “kingdoms of glory.” Or they can represent parts of the whole body, where no moral system can say to the other “I have no need of thee” but they all work together as one—if evolution permits it.

I think “guided transformation” sums it up well enough. The idea of mankind developing toward a higher sphere seems to be captured for an LDS audience by such ideas as “the most valiant spirits are reserved for the last days,” which captures both genetic and adoptive aspects to passing moral traits along. Or seeing how long it took for Zion to come about and be taken up, recognizing that the dispensations that preceded it made it possible (or the dispensation of the fullness of times and the Millennium for that matter). All this might be conveyed in the “seven seals” where sacred history relies on the principle that evolution unfolds in a predictable manner, predictable in that the desirable random mutants will eventually occur based on the conditions of the starting point.

One possible LDS-sounding term for “guided transformation” might be “The Spirit of Elijah” where descendants and ancestors evolve by being morally engaged in each other. Where we’re talking about ideas and not genes, death of the ancestors isn’t part of the equation (unless it's the death of a bad idea).

Good stuff!

[mfbukowski]

As for the evolution of morality, I think Adam and Eve were equal partners but as time evolved women began to be put down and not held in as high esteem. Likewise slavery was something that evolved as men expanded into conquering lands and wanting to maintain power. But once again we are evolving back to when men and women are equal and all men should be equal in standing before God and each other.

I see that as almost a cultural inevitability, and to get political for a moment, I think that a culture which encourages slavery for example, wastes the human potential in the "slave" gene pool. Who knows how many cures for cancer the world has missed because those who might have made the scientific discoveries of their times were wasting their time forced to work in the fields, thus retarding scientific advancement for the whole society. Or perhaps those same individuals, if allowed to stay in their homelands, might have led their own people to establish their own democracies, etc.

So cultures which allow for such values do not develop as well as others which allow for for all and the free competition and subsequent advancement of ideas, people, business, the arts, etc.

How many technological advances or advances in anything for that matter do we see coming out of North Korea, compared to South Korea? That is a perfect example- of one people divided for half a century by political differences- of what a difference in cultural development and the advancement of humanity those political differences can make.

I have always been fascinated by the Didache, which speaks of the "Way of Life" as opposed to the "Way of Death", essentially saying that those values which lead toward life are those like the golden rule, which allow for moral reciprocity and decency while those which lead toward death are those in which there is no consideration for others.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

The Didache

The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.

Chapter 1. The Two Ways and the First Commandment. There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there for loving those who love you? Do not the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy....

Chapter 5. The Way of Death. And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and accursed: murders, adultery, lust, fornication, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rape, false witness, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing a reward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good, but for that which is evil; from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing revenge, not pitying a poor man, not laboring for the afflicted, not knowing Him Who made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him who is in want, afflicting him who is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.

So I see this as coming full circle. We need to recognize these early christian statements for what they were- statements of the way of life which leads to life contrasted with the lifestyle which leads to "death", both spiritually physically and culturally.

In the 21st century, we put it differently. We say that "morality has evolved" meaning that living morally allows us to live better and have families and more children, and therefore such societies prosper and those which do not have such values die off.

Big modern insight.

Duh.

What do you think the writer of the Didache was saying 20 centuries ago??

[CV75]

Good stuff!

So what next, or have we just about wrapped this one up?!?

[Monster]

I can be wrong, you can be wrong, but when men claim God is speaking to them they had better be right 100% of the time, otherwise God is wrong.

[mfbukowski]

So what next, or have we just about wrapped this one up?!?

Well if you read the OP, you will see we really haven't addressed the OP question at all

[mfbukowski]

I can be wrong, you can be wrong, but when men claim God is speaking to them they had better be right 100% of the time, otherwise God is wrong.

That's depends on the question. The answer for "What should I do?" could be different for you than me.

[Avatar4321]

Depends on the topic and the situtation.

[CV75]

Well if you read the OP, you will see we really haven't addressed the OP question at all

Here's what I wrote a few days ago:

I think being one with Christ is the same as being right, and is manifest in different ways under different situations. Where this is a function of subjecting our will to His, it is not manifest as enmity against others, but as the pure love of Christ towards them. It takes some finesse and inspiration to address honest differences with charity, humility and the help of the Spirit.

The battle stories in the Book of Mormon show how this works on a grand scale, and the letters between Moroni and Pahoran show it on a smaller scale. I would say that such inspired records are more reliable about the correct spiritual principles involved than conclusions drawn from a biography no matter how close the source.

Not just anyone can correctly tell whose outspokenness is inspired of God (and which of these influences His servants into action), and whose uninspired outspokenness is leveraged by God to bring about His purposes through His servants. It is telling who is taking or attributing credit for a change and how, or who is left on the outside looking in when this occurs. I think a key to understanding this dynamic is recognizing who have the keys.

[stemelbow]

Hey all, I appreciate the responses. There are plenty I'd like to comment on individually but there are probably too many, so I'll just make a general response here.

There are two circumstances which makes me wonder on this topic.

1. I"m a believer, if you didn't already know. But, I do have that question of whether all things said and done by the Church (meaning that which is official from the Church) is inspired of God. I mentioned one big issue that gives me the impression that humans do have their say on some official positions and doctrines. There are others. It does make me wonder if we ought to just go along with it for the sake of unity or if we ask questions, probe and think individually? For instance if I lived in 1948, perhaps it wouldn't be so wrong for me to question the priesthood ban. Perhaps the very efforts to question it, from within, can lead to the reversal..perhaps in a way that is what happened (I tend to think that is true). We are to seek truth from whatever source it comes. Perhaps there are other things we merely hold to as true or good, but is not actually good or true. Perhaps there are other peoples or cultures that can open our minds and teach us that which we don't understand. And perhaps when that lesson comes it won't be well-received by the church or within the Church for sometime, until those within start to question, start to think and in so doing be a part of the refining of true doctrine. But...perhaps I'm thinking wrongly, perhaps I"m thinking too big (as per the individual's role).

This inevitably leads me to the question of whether its wise to make a big stink if, eventually, God will cause the Church to get it right?

2. In reviewing criticisms of the church I quite often find some sticking to the most trivial of points and perhaps the most petty of complaints. I certainly would feel embarrassed if I was a part of that. in truth i find many defenders also getting rather petty in their defenses--I've been petty many times and I've considered trivial points to be quite significant sometimes. Oops..that was embarrassing. Also, I've noticed many times that when it boils down to it, sometimes, we often agree (we being myself and a critic) far more than we are willing to accept. Anyway, my point here is it seems we might be causing people to put up stronger defenses then necessary. We often cause enmity. I personally need to step back often to make sure the argument I want to pursue is even worth it.

Anyway, many posts in this thread are far better than mine. I just plain appreciate reading others ideas here. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

stemelbow

First thanks for your posts here and in other places, if you catch my drift

I think the bottom line, and probably everyone knows this, but sometimes it bears repeating, is that we always need a testimony of every principle. That said, there are times we just need to obey for obedience's sake- there is value in learning obedience and learning that our will is not always God's will for us, and the only way we will discover that is by obedience for its own sake.

On the other hand, should it be a principle we are seriously seriously opposed to, I don't think we have an obligation to follow it- the idea that we must have a testimony at some point will finally override blind obedience.

That was the way I felt at the end of my time as a member of another church- I felt it was just wrong and I didn't believe it anymore, and it was time to leave.

We cannot violate our own consciences, and must always be led on the path we know inside of us is the best.

Some think that violates the principle that this is the "one true church". In my mind it does not at all, because one of the central doctrines of that one true church is the primacy of personal revelation. To me, the fact is that God teaches us in ways that are beyond our understanding and I think that eventually we will all find the "right" path that the Lord wants us to be on.

Our church actually teaches that principle- that eventually all will see the truth and that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ- even if it takes time beyond the veil to learn those principles.

That in itself makes it the "true church" in my book- consistent with other principles of the church is the idea that we are here to find our own way back to God. If that takes a bit of meandering in the darkness, I think that is a built in part of the plan. So in some cases, I think that even those who leave the church, may need to learn that principle, but even their leaving actually fulfills God's purposes for them individually just as Adam and Eve were actually fulfilling God's plan for them by transgressing.

I think there is a reason that story is there in Genesis- yes it might be literal, but it has meanings far beyond what seems to be written on the page. We are all to consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve. That story is the story of every human being who ever lived- the fall from innocence and wandering in the darkness and eventual repentance and finding the true path to redemption.

I think where people go wrong is in leaving the church but not leaving it alone. We know who we are talking about there, don't we?

[CV75]

Hey all, I appreciate the responses. There are plenty I'd like to comment on individually but there are probably too many, so I'll just make a general response here.

There are two circumstances which makes me wonder on this topic.

1. I"m a believer, if you didn't already know. But, I do have that question of whether all things said and done by the Church (meaning that which is official from the Church) is inspired of God. I mentioned one big issue that gives me the impression that humans do have their say on some official positions and doctrines. There are others. It does make me wonder if we ought to just go along with it for the sake of unity or if we ask questions, probe and think individually? For instance if I lived in 1948, perhaps it wouldn't be so wrong for me to question the priesthood ban. Perhaps the very efforts to question it, from within, can lead to the reversal..perhaps in a way that is what happened (I tend to think that is true). We are to seek truth from whatever source it comes. Perhaps there are other things we merely hold to as true or good, but is not actually good or true. Perhaps there are other peoples or cultures that can open our minds and teach us that which we don't understand. And perhaps when that lesson comes it won't be well-received by the church or within the Church for sometime, until those within start to question, start to think and in so doing be a part of the refining of true doctrine. But...perhaps I'm thinking wrongly, perhaps I"m thinking too big (as per the individual's role).

This inevitably leads me to the question of whether its wise to make a big stink if, eventually, God will cause the Church to get it right?

2. In reviewing criticisms of the church I quite often find some sticking to the most trivial of points and perhaps the most petty of complaints. I certainly would feel embarrassed if I was a part of that. in truth i find many defenders also getting rather petty in their defenses--I've been petty many times and I've considered trivial points to be quite significant sometimes. Oops..that was embarrassing. Also, I've noticed many times that when it boils down to it, sometimes, we often agree (we being myself and a critic) far more than we are willing to accept. Anyway, my point here is it seems we might be causing people to put up stronger defenses then necessary. We often cause enmity. I personally need to step back often to make sure the argument I want to pursue is even worth it.

Anyway, many posts in this thread are far better than mine. I just plain appreciate reading others ideas here. Thanks.

RE: #1, I would say in principle that:

1. God responds to our problems (individually and collectively) in His own timeframe;

2. pointing out problems is helpful a) to God so He can answer our prayers in a way that teaches us and makes us part of the solution; b) to His servants so they can pray to God about them;

3. today’s problems are often yesterday’s inspired solutions and yesterday’s inspired solutions are often today’s problems; and,

4. we are all in this together, as President Monson said on 10/02/11: “I love you; I pray for you. I would ask once again that you would remember me and all the General Authorities in your prayers. We are one with you in moving forward this marvelous work. I testify to you that we are all in this together and that every man, woman, and child has a part to play. May God give us the strength and the ability and the determination to play our part well.”

RE: #2, I would say that the characteristics in Mosiah 3:19 and Alma 13:28 favor an orientation toward unity in Christ as a means to be doing the right things.

[stemelbow]

Great thoughts above. Thanks.

Going back to something I mentioned in the OP: Christ's atonement clearly, to me, is accomplished so mankind can find unity--not just with ourselves but with Deity. Let's peel back the scales from our eyes are realize that. If the Atonement is the great work I say it is, then the greatest purpose we have is to seek unity with others--but that unity is far more than unity of agreement of thought. It just so happens agreement of thought is so hard for us to accomplish. Its also unity of love. Its also officially bound relationships, which are to be for eternity.

I hate to put it this way, but I will, there is so much more to the Atonement in LDS thought when compared to others.

I can see it this way too: I disagreed with my dad over many things, but I had such a respect for him the things I disagreed with him on seemed minor. I still hold him in the highest regard. He was a good thoughtful man, afterall. I don't hold his positions that seem odd or wrong against him at all.

With that said, I find extremely hard to find unity. I suppose in a way that means we create enmity in expressing ourselves and our thoughts. I fear, greatly, hubris developing within me to the point of me thinking I'm so right that I cause others to feel enmity--to feel pushed away. How to embrace all and yet take stands? How to embrace the concept of being one and still leaving room for others to bring something to the table if they ever care to join in?

It ain't easy.

[mfbukowski]

Here's what I wrote a few days ago:

I think being one with Christ is the same as being right, and is manifest in different ways under different situations. Where this is a function of subjecting our will to His, it is not manifest as enmity against others, but as the pure love of Christ towards them. It takes some finesse and inspiration to address honest differences with charity, humility and the help of the Spirit.

The battle stories in the Book of Mormon show how this works on a grand scale, and the letters between Moroni and Pahoran show it on a smaller scale. I would say that such inspired records are more reliable about the correct spiritual principles involved than conclusions drawn from a biography no matter how close the source.

Not just anyone can correctly tell whose outspokenness is inspired of God (and which of these influences His servants into action), and whose uninspired outspokenness is leveraged by God to bring about His purposes through His servants. It is telling who is taking or attributing credit for a change and how, or who is left on the outside looking in when this occurs. I think a key to understanding this dynamic is recognizing who have the keys.

:good:

Edited December 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

With that said, I find extremely hard to find unity. I suppose in a way that means we create enmity in expressing ourselves and our thoughts. I fear, greatly, hubris developing within me to the point of me thinking I'm so right that I cause others to feel enmity--to feel pushed away. How to embrace all and yet take stands? How to embrace the concept of being one and still leaving room for others to bring something to the table if they ever care to join in?

I'll tell you a personal story about my own arrogance: I am an old guy and when the Beatles "Strawberry Fields" came out, I mis-heard the lyrics that say "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see".

What I heard and understood was : "Living is easy with eyes closed; it's understanding all you see (which is difficult)"

I thought that I indeed understood all that was possible to understand and that I had a little cubby-hole for any idea, person, whatever that came my way. I knew it all, at least in a general way, and what I didn't YET know would, of course, fit into one of my perfect little cubby holes. In my smugness, it was difficult to see all the things that those poor stupid people around me didn't see. Being so brilliant was a burden, having to deal with these mundane "little people" every day who had no idea what was really going on.

But of course I was wrong.

As a student I had a succession of menial jobs just to get me through school, and a strange thing happened. I met a man named Herb, a co-worker, who was black, (this was in the '60's, so that was actually relevant at the time) and had absolutely NO education beyond 8th grade or so.

He had no interest whatsoever in the philosophy I was studying, and thought it foolish. I thought he was ignorant. Clearly he was one of those "little people".

Well I am sure you can see the conclusion coming.

He taught me more about the practical aspects of life, what is important, family, work, human relationships than I had ever known in my life. The man was a genius. HE was the one who, it seemed to me after getting to know him, knew what was really important in life.

So I started to change and soon saw things entirely differently.

But what was important to my understanding Herb was the understanding that he literally had NO NEED whatsoever to frame things in a philosophical way.

I started to see myself as the one who was lacking.

Why was it that I needed to rationalize (in the sense of "make rational") everything in my life?

Why did I have this obsession to categorize and pigeon hole everything? What was the importance of it all? Why couldn't I be like everyone else and just find happiness in a simple life of work, family, good food, good friends?

I still haven't answered that question, but I do know that some of us have that need, and others don't. IF there IS a difference between "chapel mormons" and "internet mormons" (which I don't believe) THAT alone is the difference.

We have a need they don't have. And that need in some ways makes life more difficult for us than it does for them. But which group is the group which is "lacking"?

That is what is not clear at all to me.

[CV75]

How to embrace all and yet take stands? How to embrace the concept of being one and still leaving room for others to bring something to the table if they ever care to join in?

I agree with your thoughts on the Atonement unifying us with each other as well as with God.

The unity we share is in Christ, but only those that come unto Him will possess it. The invitation to come unto Christ is extended by all who are united with Him. Each member of this body has a gift, talent, or something through which the Spirit can resonate with those who are influenced by such a gift or talent. Agency always has a role in this.

I think attitudinally we can adopt the Savior’s approach, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

[CV75]

We have a need they don't have. And that need in some ways makes life more difficult for us than it does for them. But which group is the group which is "lacking"?

I think that both groups are lacking without each other (in Christ of course).

[stemelbow]

I agree with your thoughts on the Atonement unifying us with each other as well as with God.

The unity we share is in Christ, but only those that come unto Him will possess it. The invitation to come unto Christ is extended by all who are united with Him. Each member of this body has a gift, talent, or something through which the Spirit can resonate with those who are influenced by such a gift or talent. Agency always has a role in this.

I think attitudinally we can adopt the Savior’s approach, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Your thoughts definitely ring true to me, but with that said, I struggle so so much accepting that unity can be accomplished by only those that accept Christ. We are working towards Christ--all of us, many whether they know it or not. The actual acceptance of Christ wont come for most until after this life. In the mean time can't the ones who will accept Christ, while being on a road to Him, be also those who join in such unity? I think its possible. That's kind of where we go from black and white to grey for me. There have got to be more people coming unto Christ that are otuside the Church then inside it, I hope.

I say this without trying to disagree with you, because I do agree. I know my words here might seem to disagree. Just thinking out loud and kind of going with your thoughts.

[stemelbow]

So I started to change and soon saw things entirely differently.

But what was important to my understanding Herb was the understanding that he literally had NO NEED whatsoever to frame things in a philosophical way.

I started to see myself as the one who was lacking.

I admit I got a tear in my eye thanks to your story. Thanks. That was exactly the type of thing I had hoped to hear about in this thread.

[CV75]

Your thoughts definitely ring true to me, but with that said, I struggle so so much accepting that unity can be accomplished by only those that accept Christ. We are working towards Christ--all of us, many whether they know it or not. The actual acceptance of Christ wont come for most until after this life. In the mean time can't the ones who will accept Christ, while being on a road to Him, be also those who join in such unity? I think its possible. That's kind of where we go from black and white to grey for me. There have got to be more people coming unto Christ that are otuside the Church then inside it, I hope.

I say this without trying to disagree with you, because I do agree. I know my words here might seem to disagree. Just thinking out loud and kind of going with your thoughts.

I agree with you. Personally, I see everything in terms of degree. To me, unity is enjoyed in and by degrees. People accept Christ in and by degrees. All work toward Christ (knowingly and unknowingly) and know and not know Him in degrees. All are on the road to a degree, beginning with the Light of Christ and the almost visceral universal capacity to discern right from wrong. Those who can be identified as accepting Him and do so in and by degrees. All invite, in one way or another, others to come along (in, by and to varying degrees).

I think they key is when the journey begins with an invitation, we find a much higher degree of unity and a much lesser degree of enmity. Telling someone what to do or where to go too often comes across as compulsion and pushes them away. It takes a great deal of humility and self control (meekness) to simply invite. This is why I like the attitude reflected in the Lord's statement, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

[stemelbow]

I agree with you. Personally, I see everything in terms of degree. To me, unity is enjoyed in and by degrees. People accept Christ in and by degrees. All work toward Christ (knowingly and unknowingly) and know and not know Him in degrees. All are on the road to a degree, beginning with the Light of Christ and the almost visceral universal capacity to discern right from wrong. Those who can be identified as accepting Him and do so in and by degrees. All invite, in one way or another, others to come along (in, by and to varying degrees).

I think they key is when the journey begins with an invitation, we find a much higher degree of unity and a much lesser degree of enmity. Telling someone what to do or where to go too often comes across as compulsion and pushes them away. It takes a great deal of humility and self control (meekness) to simply invite. This is why I like the attitude reflected in the Lord's statement, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

I like the cut of your jib or gib, as they say. I'm really not sure what is referred to in that saying, but it doesn't matter. I really like how you put this. Thanks.

[LeSellers]

I like the cut of your jib or gib, as they say. I'm really not sure what is referred to in that saying, but it doesn't matter. I really like how you put this. Thanks.

Origin

The jib of a sailing ship is a triangular sail set between the foretopmast head and the jib boom. Some ships had more than one jib sail. Each country had its own style of sail and so the nationality of a sailing ship, and a sailor's consequent opinion of it, could be determined from the jib.

The phrase became used in an idiomatic way during the XIX. Sir Walter Scott used to it in St. Ronan's Well, 1824:

"If she disliked what the sailor calls the cut of their

jib

."

From Cut of your jib.

Lehi