Reasoning Together, Part 1: Our Lord is Reasonable

And for this cause — that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed — the Lord sent forth the fullness of his gospel and his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity to prepare the weak for those things which are coming upon the earth, and for the Lord’s errand in the days when the weak should confound the wise, and the little one become a strong nation, and two should put their tens of thousands to flight.

—T&C 58:7

Of the many words of praise we might use to describe the positive attributes of our Lord, this one may be the least expected: Our Lord is Reasonable.

Not reasonable in the “moderately priced” sense of the word, and certainly not in the “within the bounds of common sense” implication. Rather, I mean this particular word of praise to highlight our Lord’s willingness to engage in reasoning and persuasion with mankind. He can be reasoned with, and in turn He reasons with mankind.

This appears to be a truth lost from ancient scripture as both the Old and New Testaments tend to portray reasoning as a human, rather than a Godly activity, and the Book of Mormon is largely silent on the issue. 

But in modern revelation found in the Teachings and Commandments, we encounter the notion of God’s reasoning repeatedly. 

“Come,” the Lord says in 1831, “and with him that comes I will reason, as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning.” (T&C 31:3)

“Hearken,” the Lord says “and I will reason with you, and I will speak unto you and prophesy as unto men in days of old. And I will show it plainly, as I showed it unto my disciples as I stood before them in the flesh” (T&C 31:4)

Come, says the Lord by the spirit unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together that you may understand. Let us reason even as a man reasons, one with another, face to face. Now, when a man reasons he is understood of man because he reasons as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand. (T&C 36:3)

How remarkable it is that He deigns to reason with fallen humanity, even as we exist in a state of alienation from him. He could demand: He has the right. He could command: He has the authority. But with those willing to “come,” to “hearken,” and to “understand” He extends the invitation to “reason together.”

We find extra emphasis on this invitation in the Answer to Prayer for Covenant (T&C 157). 

Regarding the scripture project, the Lord says: 

“…what I say unto one I say unto all: I have given to you my doctrine, and have also revealed teachings, commandments, precepts, and principles to guide you, and it is not meet that I command you in all things — reason together and apply what I have given you, and it will be enough.” (T&C 157:45)

Again, the Lord advises, “Study to learn how to respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason, and persuasion, rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger.” (T&C 157:54)

Note the important caution against sharply disputing and wrongly condemning and thereby causing anger, because “Even a single soul who stirs up the hearts of others to anger can destroy the peace of all my people. Each of you must equally walk truly in my path, not only to profess, but to do as you profess,” and all this because “you have not yet become what you must be to live together in peace. If you will hearken to my words, I will make you my people and my words will give you peace.” (T&C 157:19)

With this extensive scriptural warrant from our Lord in His own words before us, we must carefully consider what it means to “reason together” so we may become what we must to live together in peace, ultimately in preparation to dwell in Zion which is, after all, “a place of peace and safety.” (T&C 157:51)

Verbing the Noun

Reasoning together seems rather simple on the surface. The verb form of the word “reason” relies on the noun form for its definition. In other words, to reason together is to employ reason or logic in a mutual exchange to persuade, influence, or arrive at a shared understanding. It requires logical thought, well-supported premises and clear presentation, ultimately resulting in persuasion. It presumes all involved parties are imbued with sound judgment and good sense. Indeed, an archaic definition of “reason” means intact mental faculties, as opposed to insanity. 

Note also that reason tends to be the opposite of emotion. Arguments and conclusions reached or held by emotion are the antithesis and enemy of reason. 

Reasoning together, therefore, may be easy to understand in principle, but in practice is actually very difficult. Here’s an overview of what it takes:

Non-emotional approach: Reasoning together necessarily requires letting go of emotion, including emotional motivations and conclusions. In practical terms, this requires that nobody come to the table with anger, accusations, fear, jealousy, revenge, or any other emotion as their motivation. If the opening premise of reasoning together consists of accusations against the other side, you have already made them your enemy, likely stirred up anger, and made significant steps toward “destroying the peace of [the Lord’s] people.” Reasoning together is not likely to occur with such a beginning.

Flexibility: Reasoning together requires that all parties be open to changing their minds, willing to listen and consider, and sincerely seeking common ground and understanding. There is no room for foregone conclusions, demands, deal breakers, or inflexible opinions. All parties must be making a good-faith, sincere attempt to find common ground and unity, rather than to simply “win” the argument. The moment one sides prioritizes “winning” over unity, reasoning has ceased.

Honesty: It should go without saying that all sides must be meticulously honest about their intents, motivations, desires, and agendas. Hidden agendas are not only dishonest, but also antithetical to reasoning together. It is impossible to seek unity on the basis of lies. This is a hard lift for humanity, who generally prove willing to employ deception in the hope of gaining what is wanted. Anyone unwilling to clearly and honestly state the truth of what they hope to accomplish is not someone with whom others can reason in good faith.

Start from Common Ground: Any reasoned discussion must begin from a point of common ground and shared understanding and agreement. If the discussion begins with foregone conclusions on one side or the other about which there is no agreement, any further discussion is already damaged by the disputed, faulty premise underlying the discussion. This may sound confusing, so perhaps a simple illustration is in order:

If there is to be a reasoned discussion between friends about where to go for lunch, it must begin with the agreement that it is lunchtime and that the friends plan to eat together. If one points out that it’s actually 3:00 AM and all the restaurants are closed, no amount of pushing by the other side will result in a fruitful discussion, much less a satisfying meal experience. The whole lunch premise is faulty, and therefore not a reasonable starting point. 

Any discussion that begins with a false premise, or a disputed premise that one side attempts to establish as fact, is likely to produce more heat than light.

Humility: All parties must be supremely aware of their own limitations: in knowledge, in experience, in understanding. Before reasoning out a matter it’s important to start with a deep realization of one’s own ignorance and a recognition that others may be better informed or more experienced in the area being considered. Following this requirement to its logical conclusion leads to the realization that, though we are equals, not all opinions are equally correct or valid. We all enjoy the equal right to express our opinions, but we must fight against the unfortunate tendency to believe that whatever we think must be not only correct, but necessarily superior to what anyone else thinks. Some opinions, no matter how sincerely held, are not correct. Likely even some of yours and some of mine. 

Such is doubly disastrous when one side or the other insists that God agrees with them, or threatens God’s punishment for disagreeing with them. The Lord specifically warned against this practice:

Take care how you invoke my name. Mankind has been controlled by the adversary through anger and jealousy, which has led to bloodshed and the misery of many souls. Even strong disagreements should not provoke anger, nor to invoke my name in vain as if I had part in your every dispute. (T&C 157:54) 

Naturally, any reasoned discussion of topics involving the belief and practice of a religious community must rely on scripture, and be reasoned from scripture. But playing the “God told me…” card is a step too far. Taking the Lord’s name in vain is not only misguided and wrong, but the tactic is also doomed to fail in producing the sought results. 

Submission vs. Control: Reasoning together ceases the minute anyone involved attempts to exert control or dominion over others involved. In practical terms, as a group of equals, it should be unheard of for someone to “pull rank” or exert their supposed authority to force others to conform. In the secular world where there are power and authority structures to which appeal can be made, this invariably happens, as parties call the manager, the teacher, the police, or the courts in attempts to exert control and win. But among our groups, with no “strong man” or power structure to exert, we are left to reason through our differences as equals, with nobody over anybody else and nobody able to arbitrarily pull rank and force an outcome.

I should add here that voting as a body is a different path to resolution, involving the will and voice of the people. Because all have an equal say, it is not an arbitrary means of control over anyone. Taking a vote is the opposite of a power play by an individual or small group dictating an outcome. Voting is not ideal, but it is better than disputation and contention. More on that later.

Common Courtesy: Naturally a free and reasoned exchange of ideas requires the application of common rules of courtesy. Don’t cut people off when they are speaking. Seek to truly listen and understand, rather than waiting for the other party to just stop talking so you can talk. Don’t lecture or monologue for extended time periods. Be aware of time constraints and don’t take more than your share. (No, your opinion is not more important than everybody else’s.) And try to stick to actual reason and logic, rather than appeals to emotion. Keep your own emotions in check so you can listen and contribute in a positive way. 

Opinions and Assumptions: We all have opinions, usually formed for reasons that are sufficient for the one holding the opinion. It’s natural to disagree with some opinions held by others, but calling someone else’s opinion an “assumption” merely because you disagree can be a manipulative tool to belittle their opinion and assert that it is somehow invalid, and worthy only of dismissal. It is a tool to attempt to win, rather than to learn, understand, consider and reason, and does nothing to advance understanding or promote unity. 

The Message, not the Messenger: Too often, there is the tendency to avoid dealing with someone’s legitimate disagreement by condemning their grammar, attacking their tone, arguing about nuances, or simply denigrating the person’s character. This is the cheap, easy, foolish way out of dealing with what they actually think. It is juvenile and weak to avoid the what is expressed by attacking the expression. It is certainly not reasoning together in any way, though it is a tactic often employed by those who enjoy disputation and think they can “win” the argument by attacking an opponent. Remember, the intent to win is the antithesis of reasoning together.

Self-awareness: Here, there is much struggle. We all tend to be blinded by our own opinions to the point that we lack the self-awareness to recognize our failure to meet the above requirements. In other words, it’s possible, even likely that almost all of us will read through the above list and check all the boxes in our favor. “Yep, I’m doing it right! It’s those dirty dogs who disagree with me that need to learn how to reason!” I suppose I needn’t even mention how foolish it is to harbor such thoughts. If you really think you’re on the side of the angels and fully above reproach in any disagreement, you would do well to ask the other side of the disagreement to rate you in the above categories. How do THEY view you and your approach in these areas. If you really want to know and you’re willing to listen, you may learn exactly what is needed to reset the discussion and begin to truly reason together. 

Now, I’ll freely admit my own weakness in knowledge and understanding, my own bias toward dispassionate logic, and my underlying intent to see disputations and contentions cease and peace prevail among the Lord’s people. I’m sure my above list could be improved. I don’t claim to be good at reasoning, but I do claim to have reasoned together on multiple occasions with multiple people holding opinions different than mine, and I have seen the above understanding bear good fruit, for what it’s worth. 

Ultimately, it comes down to this summary. It is impossible to reason with someone who is unreasonable. We must all be willing to be reasonable in every way if we hope to keep the Lord’s command to reason together. And this brings us back to where I started this post: Our Lord is Reasonable. Let us be like Him.

The atonement is not really a singular event, apart from the completion of the preparation. The atonement process is Christ reasoning with, persuading, and forgiving each repentant sinner on an ongoing basis to redeem them. 

—Glossary, “Atonement”

Men's Survey Results

I’ve been asked to post the results from the Survey for Men Regarding Women’s Councils: 

Thank you to all the men who participated in the survey about the Women’s Council. We appreciate your time, perspective, and insight. Below, we’ll share the results for those who are interested. These results are not intended to end discussion or establish any definitive “truth.” They simply represent another set of data — a viewpoint that has not often been considered — which may add helpful context to the ongoing conversations among the women.

An interesting observation: In the open-ended questions, many men shared thoughtful ideas, suggestions, and concerns. Some felt the survey was biased against new movement-wide guidelines for women’s councils, while others felt it was biased in favor of them. This range of feedback suggests that the survey was likely reasonably (though not perfectly) balanced.

If you’re frustrated that this survey exists, please know that no ill will was intended toward any person or group. The purpose was simply to gather honest input and broaden understanding. There was considerable backlash to the survey, which led the creators to seriously question whether to release the results. However, it felt disingenuous to request participation and collect responses from 70+ men without sharing the findings.

No interpretations or conclusions will be offered. The results will be posted exactly as collected, for you to read and interpret yourself in the following graphics. Click any of these to enlarge them.

Survey for Men Regarding Women's Councils

I've been asked to post the following: 

Current discussions among the Covenant Christian women regarding women’s councils have the potential to impact Covenant Christian men, and our broader community. 

As such, we, a group of Covenant Christian women, thought it advisable to gather data about mens’ opinions on these topics and discussions. 

We recognize these issues will ultimately be left to the women to decide, but we believe male voices ought to be an important consideration. 

We would appreciate input from any and all Covenant Christian men.

There is important context to consider before you begin the survey. You will also be required to give your word that you are a man, and that you will only fill the survey out once. 

Aside from those two procedural questions, all other questions are optional. 

There is an area to express additional thoughts or concerns not addressed by the written questions at the end of each short section. 

The survey will close October 10th, 2025 at 11:59 PM. Please submit your response before then. 

Thank you in advance for your time. This data will help us understand the point of view of those who are arguably most heavily affected by women’s councils.

Take Survey Here

Scripture Order Deadline

I wanted to put out a reminder regarding the limited purchase opportunity that soon closes for the second edition restoration scriptures. As you may be aware, all the first edition leather restoration edition scriptures have sold out, and this is the opportunity to get high-quality and up-to-date scriptures. 

In addition to top-quality, world-class construction, this new version includes many new features:

• Addition of KJV and LDS chapter and verse numbering in the text. Now, with LDS and RE numbering for all books, references from past talks and materials will be easy to find, and conversations with LDS scripture users (and other Christians as well) will be greatly facilitated. 
• Added recently canonized sections to the Teachings and Commandments.
• Inclusion of Covenant of Christ
• Updated and expanded Glossary of Gospel Terms
• Hundreds of minor text updates, punctuation fixes, and corrections

ALSO: NEW COLORS!

The initial offering of these scriptures offered only British tan and Black for the 3-volume complete sets. Two additional color choices have been offered: Blue and Firebrick Red. Though these options don't appear on the site, you can email to specify your color preferences at this address: 

scripturesrestoration@gmail.com

Previously placed orders may also change to the new color offerings by sending email to the above. 

The buying window for the new version closes on Saturday July 26^th at midnight Mountain Daylight Time. 

Here's the link where you can place your order:

 

https://scriptures.shop/special-order/2nd-edition/

Covenant Christians, Part 4: Making Peace

Now, my dear people, I’ve taught you this to help you understand your duty to God, to help you be blameless before Him, so you will let the Holy Order of God lead you, which is why God received you. Now I want you to be humble, submissive, gentle, easy to persuade, full of patience and long-suffering, being self-controlled in all things, faithfully keeping God’s commandments, asking for whatever you might need, both spiritual and temporal, always giving thanks to God for whatever you receive. Make sure you have faith, hope, and charity, and then you will always be eager to do many good works.

—Alma 5:6 CC

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

I’ve had a variety of responses to the first three posts in this series—both public and private—which have resulted in delightful discussions and some awkward exchanges. As a result of these interactions, I feel the need to clarify an important definition, which if misunderstood, leads to all sorts of problems. So in the hope of promoting better understanding, I’ll start by stating it as simply as possible:

Disputation is a behavior. 

This is a fundamental and important notion that must be firmly grasped if we are to ever obey the Lord’s command and come to mutual agreement. Disputation is not mere disagreement, and it is not a matter of mere thought. It is a behavior, intentionally engaged in, and is against the Lord’s will. 

Disputation is Not Disagreement

For purposes of this discussion, I’ll classify disagreement as a matter of ideas; it is primarily confined to the realm of thought. Of course, disagreement can and should be expressed. A free exchange of ideas is crucial among any people seeking to be the Lord’s; all should have opportunity to express their ideas, even when they contradict the ideas of others. We need not fear ideas, nor the open discussion of them. Ideas can be discussed kindly, openly, lovingly, and ultimately even productively.

But above all, the Lord has stipulated that such disagreement can and should be conducted respectfully; in fact He has gone so far as to require us to learn how to disagree! Imagine that! Our Lord, who prizes our agency, which is the root of our individuality, expects us to disagree with one another—indeed to do so on a regular basis! He insists that we learn how to do this thing! And do it in a certain way:

For you to unite I must admonish and instruct you, for my will is to have you love one another. As people, you lack the ability to respectfully disagree among one another.

—T&C 157:3

Discussion of disagreements may result in one or the other party being persuaded. When both have access to the same light and truth, they tend toward unity of thought. Agreement and disagreement, therefore, are a function of information and understanding. But when disagreement leads to disputation and contention, a line has been crossed where our Lord will not go. To help shed some light on these definitions, let’s look in the Glossary of Gospel Terms. the entry for “Disputation” begins with this statement:

The Lord’s elaboration on “disputations” and “contentions” in 3 Nephi 5:8–9 is important and consistent enough that it should all be considered together.

What follows is an elaboration on the inappropriateness of disputing about ordinances. Lest we should too narrowly consider this advice, we would do well to remember that anything ordained by the Lord is an ordinance. This includes the Statement of Principles assignment, which the Lord ordained that his people should accomplish together, without disputation. In fact, His requirement of Mutual Agreement, together with the definition He gave of this term, prevent Him from accepting anything that involves disputation. 

The discussion culminates in the following way (emphasis added):

On the other hand, Christ is saying to keep the ordinances unchanged. And further, don’t even begin to dispute them. They are off limits for argument, dispute, and discussion. “When you open the opportunity to dispute over the ordinances, you are allowing the devil an opportunity to influence the discussion and change the ordinances. Disputes lead to contention, contention leads to anger, and anger is the devil’s tool. So don’t start down that road. Accept and understand the ordinances. If you are perplexed by them, then let those who understand speak, exhort, expound, and teach concerning them. As they do, you will come into the unity of faith and become one. Perplexity cannot exist when there is light and truth. Light and truth comes from understanding the ordinances, not changing them. So do not begin the process through dispute. The purpose of discussion is not to dispute, which leads to contention, which leads to anger. When the Gospel and its ordinances turn into something angry and contentious, then the spirit has fled, and souls are lost. It is the devil’s objective to prevent you from practicing the ordinances in the correct manner. But, more importantly, it is his objective to prevent you from becoming one. When he uses arguments over ordinances to cause disunity, he is playing with two tools at the same time. First, changing the ordinances brings about cursings, and second, encouraging contention and anger grieves the spirit, and prevents the saints from becoming one. The devil knows this, even if men do not. Men are urged to take steps they presume have little effect, all the while being lied to by the enemy of their souls. When men arrive at the point they are angry in their hearts with one another, they are not united by love as they are intended to be. These are the end results of the two paths. One leading to love and joy (Helaman 2:25), and the other to anger and wrath (T&C 69:7).” See also CONTENTION.

Since the entry recommends we also look at the entry for Contention, let’s take a look at that as well (emphasis added):

The more one contends with others the more he is taken captive by the spirit of contention. Everyone becomes subject to the spirit they submit to follow. Those who are prone to contention become more contentious as they listen to that spirit. Eventually they are overcome by that spirit, and it is a great work involving great effort to subdue and dismiss that spirit from the heart and mind of the victim. There are many who dispute the inspiration others have received. There are two concerns with the decision a good person makes to dispute with others: First, the Lord’s example is to refrain from disputing, as He did. When confronted, He would respond, but He did not go about picking a fight with others. He responded. The only exception was when He went up to Jerusalem to be slain. Then He went into the seat of Jewish power and authority to throw it down and provoke their decision to finally judge, reject, and crucify Him. He, and not they, controlled that timing. His provocation at that time was a deliberate act on His part because His “time had come,” and His sacrifice needed to be made. Second, the Lord has given the Doctrine of Christ in scripture. Just before the Doctrine of Christ, He says what His doctrine is not: Neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there hath hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the Devil, who is the father of contention; and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another, but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away (3 Nephi 5:8). And then He proceeds to declare His doctrine of Christ. The more contention and disputation there is with one another, the better the people become at contention. Rhetorical skills are polished. That spirit of contention can take possession, and when it does, one is hard-pressed to be a peacemaker with others.

The Contention entry goes on and recommends also consulting the entry for Mutual Agreement, which is as follows (emphasis added):

In response to prayers and pleadings, the Lord answered with a definition of mutual agreement (as used in the Answer to Prayer for Covenant) this way: “As between one another, you choose to not dispute” (T&C 174:1). Simply put, even if men or women disagree, if they choose to not dispute, they have mutual agreement. “Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me, I will tell you my part (T&C 157:54).” When the definition was given, it was accompanied by the realization the Lord could have disputed every day of His life with someone. He deliberately chose to not contend. He was not an argumentative personality. “As between one another (that is, every one of us because every one of us is involved in a relationship with one another) you choose [to not dispute]. Mind you, Christ could have disputed, he could have corrected, he could have challenged every one of the ongoing religious and social conventions of his day…. How much of the gospel of Christ would not have been possible for Him to preach if He’d gone about contending? He chose not to. In that respect, perhaps His most godly example was the patience with which He dealt with those around him — kindly, patiently, correcting them when they largely came to Him with questions trying to trap Him, but affirmatively stating in the Sermon on the Mount how you could take any group of people and turn them into Zion itself, if we would live the Sermon on the Mount.”

I Will Tell You My Part

In T&C 157:54 we find the following (quoted in part above): 

Study to learn how to respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason, and persuasion, rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger. Take care how you invoke my name. Mankind has been controlled by the adversary through anger and jealousy, which has led to bloodshed and the misery of many souls. Even strong disagreements should not provoke anger, nor to invoke my name in vain as if I had part in your every dispute. Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me, I will tell you my part.

This particular invitation has caused quite a bit of mischief, and I believe is not what it seems. Allow me to explain:

First, the Lord admonishes us to come together and to do so by the peaceful means of precept, reason and persuasion, echoing the prior teaching about disagreeing respectfully. The Lord then prohibits sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger. We need not even question why he commands such. By now we’ve been over it a number of times and know that He chooses to not dispute and expects us to choose likewise. 

Then He cautions us to take care how we invoke his name, together with a caution about anger, “as if” He says “I had part in your every dispute.” Clearly, the Lord does NOT have part in our every dispute, and in fact has consistently counseled that disputes should be avoided altogether. 

He then offers this command: “Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me, I will tell you my part.” 

Let’s suppose, just for a moment, that the Lord was serious about this command, and He really expects people who are sharply disputing and wrongly condemning one another in anger to “pray together in humility” and “meekly present [their] dispute” with the promise that He will “tell [them] His part” if they are contrite. 

First, what do you think the effect of praying together in humility will be on the angry, arguing, condemning parties? Is it possible to remain angry, jealous, and stubborn while also praying together in real humility? 

Second, the Lord expects contrition. Why should they be contrite? 

Well first and foremost because they have sinned. 

What? Sinned how? 

The Lord makes it abundantly clear that disputation, particularly about His Gospel, is against His will, and therefore sinful. It appears the act of approaching the Lord in meekness with contrition is in acknowledgment of the sin in which the disputing parties have been engaged. 

Now, with the foundation of humility, meekness, and contrition laid, the Lord has promised to tell His part. What do you suppose the Lord’s part in a dispute is? To pick sides? To say who was right and vindicated (yay!) and who was wrong and condemned (boo!)? Is that His part? As if He had part in our every dispute? Do we expect he is going to pick sides? 

No, I think not. I dare not speak for the Lord in this matter, but I suspect that in any dispute in which the parties have humbled themselves, come in meekness, and displayed contrition for their sin, the Lord’s part is to forgive and to teach. As he said earlier in the same revelation: 

I speak these words to reprove you that you may learn, not to upbraid you so that you mourn. I want my people to have understanding.

—T&C 157:5

Repent and Forgive

Anyone who has been involved in disputations within the covenant body is therefore invited to repent, myself included. This involves acknowledgement, humility, meekness and contrition. But it must start with the realization that contention and disputation are sinful—not merely to be avoided, but also to be the object of repentance. 

So this leads us back to the beginning of this post: Disputation is a behavior. In fact, it’s a sinful behavior—that not only mars those engaging it, but also damages the entire covenant body to the point that the Lord cannot work with us as a people. He gave us an assignment over seven years ago that still lacks completion, and the path to completion is repentance. 

If we cannot repent, we cannot advance. 

Repentance is personal. Nobody can repent on behalf of someone else, nor can we engage in organized, institutional repentance. The closest we can come is to acknowledge the harm of our behavior to those we have harmed and ask forgiveness. Likewise, having realized our sin, both collective and individual, we must forgive one another so we can be of one heart. 

“Be one,” the Lord says, “and if you are not one, you are not mine.” (T&C 22:7)

The path forward is clear. It is simple. It is crucial. And it beckons. 

For myself, I acknowledge that I have engaged in disputation and contention, and I intend to avoid such behavior in the future. If I have given offense to anyone reading this, please reach out and let me know so I can repent more fully. 

When the Lord Disputed

In all things, our Lord is our example. As is noted in the glossary entry on Contention: 

…the Lord’s example is to refrain from disputing, as He did. When confronted, He would respond, but He did not go about picking a fight with others. He responded. The only exception was when He went up to Jerusalem to be slain. Then He went into the seat of Jewish power and authority to throw it down and provoke their decision to finally judge, reject, and crucify Him. 

From this we learn the only time the Lord chose to dispute, it resulted in His death. And it will surely result in ours as well. 

Let us choose a better path. 

The Path of the Peacemaker

In His sermon, our Lord pronounced a blessing upon the peacemakers (Matt 3:12 RE). As we read in the glossary entry under “Peacemaker”:

More often than not, those who are “peacemakers” will be abused. They will have to endure aggression and give a soft word in return (see Proverbs 2:152). There will be no end to the peace which comes from Christ because there was no end to the suffering He was willing to endure (see Isaiah 4:1). When mankind hearkens to the Lord’s commandments, they have peace like a flowing river (see Isaiah 17:3). This is because the Lord will fight for them, and they can hold their peace. The Lord will fight Zion’s battles.

We have the opportunity before us to be gathered into a city of peace. But such a gathering cannot take place until there is a people of peace to be gathered. Peacemakers are those who choose to not dispute, and refuse to engage in such behavior. They turn the other cheek. (Matt 3:25 RE) They find blessing in being persecuted for His name’s sake. (Acts 3:9 RE; Matt 3:14 RE) They make peace. 

Covenant Christians

And now this discussion comes full circle back to the beginning of this series. The Lord has put his name upon us and claimed us as His own. Though His offer is real, it is not yet fully realized. Nevertheless, it is based upon His faith and hope that we will respond to his teachings, learn by precept, and truly become His in very deed by overcoming our disputations and contentions, and becoming true peacemakers. 

This is His path and the way in which we become His. 

“Blessed are all the peacemakers,” said He, “for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matt 3:12 RE). God is indeed with them. (3 Nephi 5:9 CC)

He offers us everything! And all he asks is that we lay down our burdens of disputation and tread upon them like stones under our feet on a path to His house. If we desire to become His children, we will demonstrate it by responding to His generous offer. We will repent. 

I descended below it all, and know the sorrows of you all, and have borne the grief of it all, and I say to you, Forgive one another. Be tender with one another, pursue judgment, bless the oppressed, care for the orphan, and uplift the widow in her need, for I have redeemed you from being orphaned and taken you that you are no longer a widowed people. Rejoice in me, and rejoice with your brethren and sisters who are mine also. Be one. 

—T&C 157:50