Unity?

[nuclearfuels]

Heard a talk last Sunday about Unity. 

Curious: Promoting and calling for more unity means what like concretely and quantitatively? My best guess:

- more ministering?

- more Temple attendance?

- more family history?

- more commandment keeping?

- more tithe-paying?

I understand being more unified might mean different things for different people. 

I don't understand metrics or signs of declining unity - perhaps those are interpretations based generally on US politics?

If we're supposed to be more unified while voting against each other in elections and such, how do we increase unity? 

[blackstrap]

" If ye are not one ye are not mine " 

I am reminded of Christ's prayer wherein He wanted the cup removed but submitted His will to the will of the Father. 

How much are we willing to forego in pursuit of our own will/goals to be one with our fellow saints and leaders? 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Heard a talk last Sunday about Unity. 

Curious: Promoting and calling for more unity means what like concretely and quantitatively? My best guess:

- more ministering?

- more Temple attendance?

- more family history?

- more commandment keeping?

- more tithe-paying?

I understand being more unified might mean different things for different people. 

I don't understand metrics or signs of declining unity - perhaps those are interpretations based generally on US politics?

If we're supposed to be more unified while voting against each other in elections and such, how do we increase unity? 

A few thoughts:

1. I reject the notion that there is any one-to-one correlation between being a faithful Latter-day Saint and being a member/supporter of any particular political party or ideology.

2. I think an individual's political choices are, or should be, "downstream" from the Restored Gospel. 

3. I believe political ideologies vary, sometimes significantly, from the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as to some moral/religious issues.

4. We should listen to God and His servants as to matters of morality, ethics, etc., and then - having considered prophetic counsel and having sought personal revelation - make decisions as to finding political platforms / parties / policy positions / candidates that, in the aggregate, kinda-sorta get closer to aligning with some of the principles of the Restored Gospel as compared to other political platforms / parties / policy positions / candidates.

5. The foregoing efforts are pretty subjective, and therefore must largely be left to the individual.

6. I think we as individual Latter-day Saints must allow for disagreement between reasonable minds on sociopolitical issues.

7. The Church's formal statements on political participation merit regular review:

• Political Neutrality and Participation
• First Presidency letter emphasizes Latter-day Saints’ participation in elections and civic affairs, reaffirms political neutrality
• Church of Jesus Christ affirms positions on political neutrality, civil discourse, abortion

8. I think religious unity of the sort referenced in prophetic counsel must transcend any other sort of difference, whether it be political, nationalistic, racial/ethnic, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[manol]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Heard a talk last Sunday about Unity. 

Curious: Promoting and calling for more unity means what like concretely and quantitatively? My best guess:

- more ministering?

- more Temple attendance?

- more family history?

- more commandment keeping?

- more tithe-paying?

I understand being more unified might mean different things for different people. 

I don't understand metrics or signs of declining unity - perhaps those are interpretations based generally on US politics?

If we're supposed to be more unified while voting against each other in elections and such, how do we increase unity? 

Obviously I didn't hear the talk, but imo a call for "unity" could refer to a paradigm shift from seeing the world through a lens of "us and them", to seeing the world through a lens that sees "there is only us". 

If thoughts are cause, and actions are their effects, then imo "unity" is a concept that can change the world, and finally and truly bring about peace on earth.   And if not this, then what? 

Edited October 14, 2024 by manol

[MustardSeed]

IMO unity can be measured by how Christlike we are with those who are different from us.  
The level of ego, gossip, defensiveness, conflict and cruelty among church members as well as communities and nations is deplorable,  and I myself am too often part of the problem. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Heard a talk last Sunday about Unity. 

Curious: Promoting and calling for more unity means what like concretely and quantitatively? My best guess:

- more ministering?

- more Temple attendance?

- more family history?

- more commandment keeping?

- more tithe-paying?

I understand being more unified might mean different things for different people. 

I don't understand metrics or signs of declining unity - perhaps those are interpretations based generally on US politics?

If we're supposed to be more unified while voting against each other in elections and such, how do we increase unity? 

We increase the right kind of unity by seeking unity with God first. Then it is a matter of agency as opposition presents itself.

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I don't understand metrics or signs of declining unity - perhaps those are interpretations based generally on US politics?

I think you nailed it.  Folks are looking at the divisive rhetoric, and noticing that some of it is being voiced by LDS folks.  Sometimes directed at other LDS folks.

 

[MrShorty]

I wonder if the talk was prompted by Pres. Nelson's article in the Oct 2024 Liahona where he uses 4 Nephi to describe patterns of unity.

I know when I read his article, the things that I focused on were not political but theological. Perhaps just my own quirk, but one of the first things I thought of when reading Pres. Nelson's article was the apocryhpal (almost certainly not true) anecdote of St. Nicholas and Bishop Arius getting in a fist fight/slapping contest over their disagreements over the Trinity at Nicea. Perhaps it was Pres. Nelson's emphasis that those of us who are truly converted to Christ will try to foster unity rather than division that led me to observe that Christians (or alleged Christians, if we want to attempt to judge who is and is not truly converted to Christ) throughout the ages have parted ways over a variety of beliefs and practices.

I didn't feel like Pres. Nelson fully addressed this, but it seems to me that some of the hardest skills when trying to foster unity is how to disagree about important things without causing schisms.

[california boy]

The only thing I can think of is that the Church is trying to circle the wagons tighter.  It can't possibly mean trying to be more inclusive and gather everyone towards Christ given the lines in the sand the Church has sharply drawn towards the LGBT community.  I get that some feel like protecting the borders at all cost is the correct policies that should be enforced.  And that is certainly the prerogative of the Church.  But another viewpoint that the Church seems unwilling to consider is to try and bring ALL unto Christ in whatever way they are able to draw closer to him.

We have our good friend @Dario as a very good example of this.  I don't think anyone on this board wants him ousted from the Church and be excommunicated.  His heart is definitely with wanting to draw closer to Christ.  And fortunately, for some reason, the area he is living in seems to want him to feel welcomed rather than banished.  But we all also know this is not the normal reaction of Church leaders towards gay couples.  And given the recent enforcement concerning transgenders, it seems very unlikely that the Church will be changing policies towards the LGBT community any time soon.  I do wonder though if our little family here on the discussion board is happy that @Dario is being treated in a more compassionate way and somewhat breaking down that fence of us against them that comes out of Salt Lake.

I guess what I am asking is, how does one reconcile a call for unity while still drawing such sharp lines in the sand for those that are different than other members.  Is there any other way to look at this call for unity as really a call to tighten up the wagons?

 

[Dario_M]

Thank you so much dear @california boy  i'm so agree with you that i just wanna scream it out loud!

Because i feel so much excitement by reading your post. The LDS comminuty in my country accept GAY people!💪 That's how it should be in the whole world. I feel sorry for gay people in Utah, California, Idaho and basically all the other parts of the world. There are gay man struggling right now from the LDS community. Even on this very moment.

Forcing gay men in a mixed marriage isn't healty at all. Gay man should be together with other man! Do you hear that Eldar Holland! 🔊📢

Amen.

I'm going to bed. Goodnight everyone. Good night for you to @california boy thank you for your beautiful post. 🫂

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

The only thing I can think of is that the Church is trying to circle the wagons tighter.  

And the supposed threat that is encircling the Church is . . . what?

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

It can't possibly mean trying to be more inclusive and gather everyone towards Christ given the lines in the sand the Church has sharply drawn towards the LGBT community.  

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."  (Matthew 7:21.)

The Church invites all to "come unto Christ."  We do so by exercising faith, repenting, and keeping the commandments.

Part of keeping the commandments is constraining sexual behavior to the parameters prescribed by the Lord.

I appreciate and respect that different people can have different views on these parameters.  Some people think that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, others do not.  Some think that same-sex behavior is acceptable, others do not. And so on.

Within the paradigm of the Restored Gospel as espoused by Joseph Smith and his successors in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, these parameters have been pretty clear for quite a while.  It is up to each individual to choose to accept them or not.  All are invited, however.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I get that some feel like protecting the borders at all cost is the correct policies that should be enforced.  And that is certainly the prerogative of the Church.  But another viewpoint that the Church seems unwilling to consider is to try and bring ALL unto Christ in whatever way they are able to draw closer to him.

If by "try and bring ALL unto Christ" you mean to suggest that the Church can and should disregard and/or radically re-define the Law of Chastity, then "in whatever way they are able to draw closer to him" would seem to be addressed in Doctrine & Covenants 3:4:

Quote

For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.

(Emphasis added.)

We cannot do this.  That is made clear in the next few verses:

Quote

5 Behold, you have been entrusted with these things, but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them.
6 And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
8 Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble.

(Emphases added.)

There are a lot of pressures on the Church these days to conform.  To capitulate.  To abandon the precepts of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We cannot do it.  Elder Holland put it well back in 2014:

Quote

In keeping with the Savior’s own experience, there has been a long history of rejection and a painfully high price paid by prophets and apostles, missionaries and members in every generation—all those who have tried to honor God’s call to lift the human family to “a more excellent way.”
...

Surely the angels of heaven wept as they recorded this cost of discipleship in a world that is often hostile to the commandments of God. The Savior Himself shed His own tears over those who for hundreds of years had been rejected and slain in His service. And now He was being rejected and about to be slain.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” Jesus cried, “thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”

And therein lies a message for every young man and young woman in this Church. You may wonder if it is worth it to take a courageous moral stand in high school or to go on a mission only to have your most cherished beliefs reviled or to strive against much in society that sometimes ridicules a life of religious devotion. Yes, it is worth it, because the alternative is to have our “houses” left unto us “desolate”—desolate individuals, desolate families, desolate neighborhoods, and desolate nations.

So here we have the burden of those called to bear the messianic message. In addition to teaching, encouraging, and cheering people on (that is the pleasant part of discipleship), from time to time these same messengers are called upon to worry, to warn, and sometimes just to weep (that is the painful part of discipleship). They know full well that the road leading to the promised land “flowing with milk and honey” of necessity runs by way of Mount Sinai, flowing with “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.”

Unfortunately, messengers of divinely mandated commandments are often no more popular today than they were anciently, as at least two spit-upon, potato-spattered sister missionaries can now attest. Hate is an ugly word, yet there are those today who would say with the corrupt Ahab, “I hate [the prophet Micaiah]; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always [prophesied] evil.” That kind of hate for a prophet’s honesty cost Abinadi his life. As he said to King Noah: “Because I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. … Because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad” or, we might add, provincial, patriarchal, bigoted, unkind, narrow, outmoded, and elderly.

It is as the Lord Himself lamented to the prophet Isaiah:

“[These] children … will not hear the law of the Lord:

“[They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

“Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”

Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

• "Surely the angels of heaven wept as they recorded this cost of discipleship in a world that is often hostile to the commandments of God."
• "You may wonder if it is worth it to take a courageous moral stand in high school or to go on a mission only to have your most cherished beliefs reviled or to strive against much in society that sometimes ridicules a life of religious devotion. Yes, it is worth it..."
• "So here we have the burden of those called to bear the messianic message. In addition to teaching, encouraging, and cheering people on (that is the pleasant part of discipleship), from time to time these same messengers are called upon to worry, to warn, and sometimes just to weep (that is the painful part of discipleship)."
• "That kind of hate for a prophet’s honesty cost Abinadi his life. As he said to King Noah: 'Because I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. … Because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad' or, we might add, provincial, patriarchal, bigoted, unkind, narrow, outmoded, and elderly."
• “'[They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."
• "{I}t is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds."

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

We have our good friend @Dario as a very good example of this.  I don't think anyone on this board wants him ousted from the Church and be excommunicated.  

Agreed.

Nor do we want him to violate the commandments of God.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess what I am asking is, how does one reconcile a call for unity while still drawing such sharp lines in the sand for those that are different than other members.  Is there any other way to look at this call for unity as really a call to tighten up the wagons?

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it, per John 6, "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I hope as many people as can will join the Church.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church, as it affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and enhancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "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."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus excludes the sociopolitically inconvenient and unpopular facets of obeying God.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." 

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World (and even some members of the Church) to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are, I think, not surprising.  To the contrary, they are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Thereafter comes unity.  Unity through revelation and obedience to the commandments of God, not in rebellion against such.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the supposed threat that is encircling the Church is . . . what?

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."  (Matthew 7:21.)

The Church invites all to "come unto Christ."  We do so by exercising faith, repenting, and keeping the commandments.

Part of keeping the commandments is constraining sexual behavior to the parameters prescribed by the Lord.

I appreciate and respect that different people can have different views on these parameters.  Some people think that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, others do not.  Some think that same-sex behavior is acceptable, others do not. And so on.

Within the paradigm of the Restored Gospel as espoused by Joseph Smith and his successors in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, these parameters have been pretty clear for quite a while.  It is up to each individual to choose to accept them or not.  All are invited, however.

If by "try and bring ALL unto Christ" you mean to suggest that the Church can and should disregard and/or radically re-define the Law of Chastity, then "in whatever way they are able to draw closer to him" would seem to be addressed in Doctrine & Covenants 3:4:

(Emphasis added.)

We cannot do this.  That is made clear in the next few verses:

(Emphases added.)

There are a lot of pressures on the Church these days to conform.  To capitulate.  To abandon the precepts of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We cannot do it.  Elder Holland put it well back in 2014:

• "Surely the angels of heaven wept as they recorded this cost of discipleship in a world that is often hostile to the commandments of God."
• "You may wonder if it is worth it to take a courageous moral stand in high school or to go on a mission only to have your most cherished beliefs reviled or to strive against much in society that sometimes ridicules a life of religious devotion. Yes, it is worth it..."
• "So here we have the burden of those called to bear the messianic message. In addition to teaching, encouraging, and cheering people on (that is the pleasant part of discipleship), from time to time these same messengers are called upon to worry, to warn, and sometimes just to weep (that is the painful part of discipleship)."
• "That kind of hate for a prophet’s honesty cost Abinadi his life. As he said to King Noah: 'Because I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. … Because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad' or, we might add, provincial, patriarchal, bigoted, unkind, narrow, outmoded, and elderly."
• “'[They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."
• "{I}t is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds."

Agreed.

Nor do we want him to violate the commandments of God.

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it, per John 6, "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I hope as many people as can will join the Church.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church, as it affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and enhancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "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."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus excludes the sociopolitically inconvenient and unpopular facets of obeying God.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." 

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World (and even some members of the Church) to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are, I think, not surprising.  To the contrary, they are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Thereafter comes unity.  Unity through revelation and obedience to the commandments of God, not in rebellion against such.

Thanks,

-Smac

Got it.  Gay couples are not welcome under any circumstance to become part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I don't think that is news, and your reaction is pretty predictable.  While you said it way more harsh than I did, I think we both agree on this point unfortunately.

In any event, I hope the Church leaders in @Dario_M area see that he adds value to their ward and continues to reach out to him in a welcoming way.  

 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Got it.  

No, I don't think you do.

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Gay couples are not welcome under any circumstance to become part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Everyone is invited to accept the Gospel.  There is no separate and alternative set of commandments for people who don't like this or that doctrine or precept.

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think that is news, and your reaction is pretty predictable.  

And yet, you asked a question that  you knew would be answered in this way.

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

While you said it way more harsh than I did, I think we both agree on this point unfortunately.

I don't know that we do agree.  

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."  (Matthew 7:21.)  The Church invites all to "come unto Christ."  We do so by exercising faith, repenting, and keeping the commandments.  Part of keeping the commandments is constraining sexual behavior to the parameters prescribed by the Lord.

Do you agree with these statements?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The only thing I can think of is that the Church is trying to circle the wagons tighter.  It can't possibly mean trying to be more inclusive and gather everyone towards Christ given the lines in the sand the Church has sharply drawn towards the LGBT community.  I get that some feel like protecting the borders at all cost is the correct policies that should be enforced.  And that is certainly the prerogative of the Church.  But another viewpoint that the Church seems unwilling to consider is to try and bring ALL unto Christ in whatever way they are able to draw closer to him.

This may or may not be true, I don't know. I sometimes find the church's actions a bit enigmatic. I cannot tell if the church is trying to cast a wide net and bring a wide variety of people and beliefs and practices under its tent or be selective about what beliefs and practices it tolerates. I'm not even certain the church knows what kind of church it wants to be.

It seems to me that every Christian (including the LDS kind) approaches unity with the tautologically true but ultimately unhelpful idea that, "if everyone would just believe and practice Christianity the way I believe and practice Christianity, then we would finally come to the unity of faith that St. Paul talked about." 2000 years of Christian history (and 200 years of our own Restoration history) don't offer much hope that this is how we achieve unity. This is part of why I found Pres. Nelson's Liahona article disappointing. The overall tone I took away from the article was that, when all of us are truly converted to Christ, then we will all naturally become unified. That doesn't seem to be the way it works. We need to actually figure out and talk about and wrestle with how tolerant we want to be of different beliefs and practices. How are we going to do boundary maintenance? How are we going to understand "them" and "us?"

Personally, I wish we would figure out how to be more tolerant of different beliefs and practices and figure out how to be more inclusive. I also know that there are some factions in the church who wish we would be less tolerant of different beliefs and practices and try to get those on the edges to either move in or move out. I find this a difficult part of my own relationship with the church.

Edited October 14, 2024 by MrShorty
missing "un" on "unhelpful" and other typos

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think you do.

Everyone is invited to accept the Gospel.  There is no separate and alternative set of commandments for people who don't like this or that doctrine or precept.

And yet, you asked a question that  you knew would be answered in this way.

I don't know that we do agree.  

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."  (Matthew 7:21.)  The Church invites all to "come unto Christ."  We do so by exercising faith, repenting, and keeping the commandments.  Part of keeping the commandments is constraining sexual behavior to the parameters prescribed by the Lord.

Do you agree with these statements?

Thanks,

-Smac

I knew the answer you would give.  The questions was not targeted to you.  Nor do I think everyone on this board has the same opinion that you have, which is why I asked the question to EVERYONE on the board.

I agree that not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.  But I don't agree that the Church is the authority on who Christ will let into heaven.   I know, surprising right?  You should quote the rest of the verse for better clarity of what Christ was warning against.

Matthew 7:21-23

²¹ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

²² Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

²³ And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

Edited October 14, 2024 by california boy

[smac97]

On 10/14/2024 at 4:03 PM, california boy said:

I knew the answer you would give.  The questions was not targeted to you.  

And yet you asked the question generally.  And you knew I had commented in this thread.

On 10/14/2024 at 4:03 PM, california boy said:

Nor do I think everyone on this board has the same opinion that you have, which is why I asked the question to EVERYONE on the board.

I agree that not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.  

Rather, "he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" will enter it.

So it becomes important to ascertain that will.  And in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, we have some pretty solid tools to do that.

On 10/14/2024 at 4:03 PM, california boy said:

But I don't agree that the Church is the authority on who Christ will let into heaven.  

"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."  (John 5:22.)

And apparently Jesus has, or will. delegate some judgment authority as well.  From Matthew 19:

Quote

27 ¶ Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

From Mormon 3:

Quote

18 Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem.

From 1 Nephi 12:

Quote

9 And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the twelve apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.
10 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.

From D&C 29:

Quote

12 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

And so on.  See also here: The Judgment Seat of Christ

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 23, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO unity can be measured by how Christlike we are with those who are different from us.  
The level of ego, gossip, defensiveness, conflict and cruelty among church members as well as communities and nations is deplorable,  and I myself am too often part of the problem. 

This is what I think of when I hear calls for more unity.  More of a focus on Christ and less of a focus on ourselves and our personal reactions to those who are different in whatever way.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet you asked the question generally.  And you knew I had commented in this thread.

So?  What’s the issue?  Others have commented on this thread as well.  What difference to cb’s post that you were on the thread?  Serious question as I don’t understand this part of your post as it appears that perhaps you see his post as targeting you?  Otherwise why would it matter you had commented on the thread?

Edited October 14, 2024 by Calm

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet you asked the question generally.  And you knew I had commented in this thread.

Rather, "but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" will enter it.

So it becomes important to ascertain that will.  And in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, we have some pretty solid tools to do that.

"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."  (John 5:22.)

And apparently Jesus has, or will. delegate some judgment authority as well.  From Matthew 19:

From Mormon 3:

From 1 Nephi 12:

From D&C 29:

And so on.  See also here: The Judgment Seat of Christ

Thanks,

-Smac

We might disagree, but thank you for your opinion

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The only thing I can think of is that the Church is trying to circle the wagons tighter.  It can't possibly mean trying to be more inclusive and gather everyone towards Christ given the lines in the sand the Church has sharply drawn towards the LGBT community.  I get that some feel like protecting the borders at all cost is the correct policies that should be enforced.  And that is certainly the prerogative of the Church.  But another viewpoint that the Church seems unwilling to consider is to try and bring ALL unto Christ in whatever way they are able to draw closer to him.

We have our good friend @Dario as a very good example of this.  I don't think anyone on this board wants him ousted from the Church and be excommunicated.  His heart is definitely with wanting to draw closer to Christ.  And fortunately, for some reason, the area he is living in seems to want him to feel welcomed rather than banished.  But we all also know this is not the normal reaction of Church leaders towards gay couples.  And given the recent enforcement concerning transgenders, it seems very unlikely that the Church will be changing policies towards the LGBT community any time soon.  I do wonder though if our little family here on the discussion board is happy that @Dario is being treated in a more compassionate way and somewhat breaking down that fence of us against them that comes out of Salt Lake.

I guess what I am asking is, how does one reconcile a call for unity while still drawing such sharp lines in the sand for those that are different than other members.  Is there any other way to look at this call for unity as really a call to tighten up the wagons?

 

Our unity in Christ and having the same covenant relationship with Him translates into keeping the two great commandments, which may come across as offensive or defensive posturing until peacemaking prevails. Even when the covenants aren't held in common, the two great commandments can be; where the two great commandments are interpreted differently, where two or more are gathered in His name, peacemaking and peace will prevail for the participants.

[Malc]

I'm impressed with the answers so far. I know that I'm not adding anything completely new here, but my thoughts on "how do we achieve unity" are:

Q: What causes disunity? 
A: Different people having different views, or opinions, or practices.

Q: How do we eliminate disunity?
A1: Find a way to accommodate divergent views, opinions, and practices, or
A2: Determine the "best" or "only acceptable" views, opinions, and practices, and remove people not willing or able to conform to the best

A1 may be an exercise in creating unity by inclusion
A2 is an exercise in exclusion

I believe that A2 is much more likely than A1.

[The Nehor]

The development of a monoculture? Which is also somehow a big tent?

When many individuals call for unity they are actually just calling for more people to agree with them on stuff.

Too much focus on unity is likely to erode liberalism (in the premodern sense) in general. There is an irony that the Church that praises the constitution’s liberal principles where individuals have areas where government and society cannot encroach also wants everyone’s will to be swallowed up together. It is a paradox but some paradoxes work in theology.

When the call for unity is co-opted to get you go to a really boring fireside though unity becomes a burden. I mean…..they usually don’t even have a real fire!

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Malc said:

I'm impressed with the answers so far. I know that I'm not adding anything completely new here, but my thoughts on "how do we achieve unity" are:

Q: What causes disunity? 
A: Different people having different views, or opinions, or practices.

Q: How do we eliminate disunity?
A1: Find a way to accommodate divergent views, opinions, and practices, or
A2: Determine the "best" or "only acceptable" views, opinions, and practices, and remove people not willing or able to conform to the best

A1 may be an exercise in creating unity by inclusion
A2 is an exercise in exclusion

I believe that A2 is much more likely than A1.

I think you are right, but I think the fact that A2 is so much easier to do proves that Christ was talking about A1.   

[CV75]

I recommend this appraioch:

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/10/digital-only/3-principles-for-building-unity-in-your-ward-or-branch?lang=eng&cid=email-CCD_EM_LTG_1024_OctLTGAdult1_Unity&mkt_tok=NzUyLUlOUS02NzQAAAGWMnLcTB1yyX7pEd1UPUEvqdsigY6p-J1wAFuyis5_VomeZAjU51r5-XIVjq6jwoyeX-TlU9o25-LNmtl079Iy4nRhH1Jf6nDJSnw3CO3p3g

[MiserereNobis]

Join a Union!

Solidarity Forever!