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
This is Rob Adolpho and I'm responding to your request to offer insight for your more full repentance. I respect the right, importance, and necessity of making assumptions, but assumptions are cloaked as though they are fact is a point on which you could more fully repent. During the process of the statement of principles you promoted your assumptions of the Lord's disappointment with us as a people if we did not move hastily to vote and print, you claimed a timeline to further the rush, you implied the Lord's ire and pruning for those who stood in opposition, ...and that has been instrumental in our inability to listen, reason, and find mutual agreement through our collective maturity. You clearly saw through the rubbish of COVID-19, and their mask mandates and forced vaccinations, but was not able to recognize your own actions that had the same impact. Your assumptions above concludes that disputation is a "behavior," but a behavior is simply a way a person conducts themselves, making dispute into self-discipline, supporting your idea that we self-discipline mutual agreement, choosing not to dispute. Your assumption leaves lots of room for results in a surface appearance (lip service), when the heart of the matter is far from choosing not to dispute.
ReplyDeleteQ introduced a Blackfoot word Nitsiitapi, meaning "real people." You took the liberty and license to define the term to something without discipline, equating it to "the natural man." You're free to have the opinion, but that is not the sense of the word in Blackfoot, nor is it the sense of the same concept in Hawaiian or Navajo, who also use the same term. The point of the term "real people" is as Q described it, where their words and their actions align. It runs counter to your idea of dispute being a behavior. Behavior is external and can be used to deceive, however when words and actions are aligned (real people), the authenticity and sincerity is embodied.
Your repentance process is your business, and I'll not get in your way. You once wrote about my actions, correlating my expression of disagreeing with a voting process with crows. When assumptions are adopted and identified as facts, assumptions are very difficult to be questioned. When assumptions are maintained as assumptions, questioning them produces less resistance.
Hi Rob!
DeleteThank you for reaching out, and for making me aware of your thoughts on these matters. I would appreciate the opportunity to speak directly about these things. Your thoughts about assumptions are important and worth considering. I believe we may not fully agree on some things, but that's OK, so long as we can do so respectfully.
I offer my apologies to Q for misunderstanding what she shared.
You bet, I’d be glad to contact you personally. I don’t mind respectfully disagreeing. What I’d like though, before we respectfully disagree, is to have clarity and agreement on where we disagree. The word respectful isn’t just about appearances or behaviors to me. I value the specifics of the disagreement for the purpose of wrestling with the Lord in search for resolve, or at least further light and knowledge on the subject. If we can agree to that, I think we will have forward motion, at least five more yards.
DeleteYou apologized for not understanding what Q shared. Your expression wasn’t attempting to understand her. You disagreed with her expression and redefined the concept as you interpreted it, repackaging “real people” to equate to “the natural man.” I guess I don’t understand your apology.
I appreciate the repair attempt.
Through some study, I have learned about a component of niitsitapi (real people) (see Part 3 comments) which is very similar to the LDS culture. Fundamentally, niitsitapi must be accountable to the family, clan, and nation—it is not optional or secondary. This collective identity lies at the very heart of what it means to be a "real person" in Blackfoot culture.
DeleteTo be niitsitapi—a "real person"—is to live in relational, ethical, and spiritual alignment with Blackfoot ways of being. It means honoring your place within a web of life, people, land, and spirit. It’s not just about being human—it’s about being rightly human, according to the values, laws, and responsibilities of the Blackfoot people. This goal or aspiration would present a communication barrier in our incipient Zion community where there would then exist two separate sets of “values, laws and responsibilities” (Indian vs. the way the Lord is instructing us).
I am going to assume (unless corrected) that it’s true that niitsitapi are accountable to their clan/nation. It’s certainly true in the LDS clan, where members/ saints (real TBM’s) are conditioned not only to bow to and obey authority, but to believe what the leaders say is gospel truth and sacred. TBM’s must openly align themselves (“raise your right hand”) with the church leadership. Or they aren’t considered TBM’s, but apostate.
Such a tradition (aligning oneself to one’s own traditional ways) must be rejected and repented of because it “works cross-purposes to God” (see “Iniquity” in glossary). You can’t serve two masters. I am still trying to repent of following anything but God. A tradition (TC 93:11) of being accountable to a clan/nation is not compatible with a remnant group of people seeking Zion, seeking Christ, seeking to align themselves with His will. Such a tradition is not compatible for a people trying to wait on the Lord and get through the pass to the glory of the Fathers (TC 163).
In that vision, the beast was “ever occupied with attacking others”. No doubt the beast was/is leading the charge in creating disputations and contention by encouraging the criticism of motes/sawdust in others’ eyes, instead of humbly repenting of the beam in one’s own eye.
Those who safely slipped by the beast were no doubt peacekeepers because they were aligned with Him.
The process is what matters: trying to be a peacemaker, trying to not accuse, trying to apologize, being contrite and humble, trying to agree with thine adversary quickly (which is a MAJOR lesson to be gleaned from Jesus’ life as it shows he chose not to dispute all the time), trying to be obedient to all His commandment and ordinances, etc.
I have some sincere questions for you.
(continued)
Rob and Q,
DeleteThis is Joe in KY.
I would love to hear your response to these inquiries:
1) In light of niitsitapi (real people) being absolutely required to be accountable to their family, clan, and nation (again, assuming what I’ve read is true and assuming you consider yourselves niitsitapi), can you prioritize loyalty to Christ over all other Indian traditions as a matter of religious tenet of your Christian faith? In other words, can you acknowledge that we must be aligned with Christ’s will to be saved? An alignment with anything else cannot save and can only impede a group attempting to align with God.
I’d assume you’ll answer YES to this. While I do know the “pull” the LDS tradition had on me, I don’t know the pull your traditions have on you. Maybe you’re perfectly okay with stating openly that all your traditions are on equal footing with Christ’s teachings being restored anew.
2) Can you offer concrete steps that will lead to mutual agreement, or do you believe what the Lord has instructed us already is sufficient (which has been well organized and recapped in this post)?
3) We’ve failed to follow teachings that would produce harmony and peace among us. (See pg 25 of “God’s Covenant People" talk). How have you (not others, but you) failed to be obedient to the Lord’s teachings? This exercise (like what have we learned, ought to have learned?) is a wonderful exercise for you and all of us, because it’ll lead to weak things becoming strong (see Ether 5:5) and it’ll lead anybody to obtaining faith and hope and being accepted by God (see Moroni 7:8).
4) Sincerely, how do you think the Lord feels about you challenging that disputing is a behavior? He commands to not dispute. He did not engage in that behavior as a way of life. Your response is to proclaim your kind of disputing is different. You say it’s not a behavior if you’re being “real”, if your “words and actions are aligned”! Where do you find your view backed up in Scripture? You may find justification in the Blackfoot tradition, but in Scripture you don’t find a license to dispute if your “words and actions are aligned (real people).” That’s your tradition, not Christ’s, do you agree?
5) In closing, I can list many false LDS traditions that I have had to renounce because they conflict with the Lord’s commandments and teachings. If you’d like I can start listing those here. My question for you and Q is, Which false traditions are you willing to openly part ways with? Will you name some here? Would that be offensive to your heritage or your ancestors, or to those you know who are now living? For my LDS brethren, you’re darn right it’s offensive to them. Aside from the formal casting out procedure, they react mainly by just going silent. “Joe’s lost his way. He’s departed from the LDS “niitsitapi” way.” My LDS friends, if asked these same questions, would choose to not engage because their tradition holds them tight (TC 93:11).
If I'm incorrect on something, please advise. I'm praying that my tone embodies sincerity and love.
Warm Regards.
Joe
Hey, Joe.
DeleteIt sounds like you’re also claiming to know Nitsiitapi, and you agree with it representing the natural man, which is an enemy to God (by your comparison to LDS). To begin, I identify with the covenant. I also recognize that remnants have value, that value pointing to truth. Your attitude in wrestling with me concepts of our culture conflates my argument to say Native ways are pure and undefiled. They are not, and the broken covenant is the reason for our being scattered, bottom line. However, Mormon is to gather and value all truth. The best way to understand Nitsiitapi is authenticity.
I’d love to address each issue you posed, but an exhaustive one go at it would either oversimplify or require a lot of words, which this site limits and breaks apart. There is an online forum I participate in (thatwebeone.com) where I would be glad to engage regarding each of your points of questioning. All are invited to be there, to comment, or just observe. Your line of questioning would be helpful for bridging the gap of the issues that were addressed in Denver’s recent talk. I also would be available to talk on the phone if you wanted to: 808-909-4423. Adrain requested we discuss things personally as well. I’m open. If this is the forum of your preference, however, we will have to address things a little at a time rather than all at once.
Connecting Nitsiitapi to clan systems and tribal values is not accurate. I get the desire to quote a source. I do not quote a source stating Nitsiitapi as authenticity; where words are aligned with actions. It’s my experience. Experience is anecdotal, for sure. However, the concept of authenticity, aligning words with actions, that’s principle and not anecdotal.
Look forward to hearing from you in whatever way you desire.
Hi Rob,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response and desire to engage in answering those questions.
I 100% don’t claim to know Nitsiitapi. I’ve learned what I know from you/Q and from some personal research this week. On a personal note, as far as I understand what you and Q are saying, I endorse and am a champion in of being “authentic” where one’s words and actions align (with Christ). If I may dare to put words in your mouth: the most noble Nitsiitapi will align his words, actions, and his heart with Jesus Christ. Do I hear a big Amen from you and Q?
Agreement on this point signifies that the most important duty is to align ourselves with Christ. So whether or not any Covenant Christian understands your POV or even agrees with your belief on the Nitsiitapi way or anything you have to say (and vice versa), it is immaterial. We can agree to disagree, and not argue about it and focus on alignment with Christ (I think that’s how an inspired Nitsiitapi would put it – alignment with Christ is the target). In this way, Indian culture, Italian culture, Pakistanian culture, etc. all remain intact as everyone submits to the Lord’s way, and not to his own way becoming a law unto himself.
As far as persuading people to accept certain ideas, we often are not successful. Jesus the greatest Teacher of all time failed and fails even now all the time at persuading others. That’s just reality, because compulsion is not an option for Him or His disciples. Neither you or I can force acceptance of any idea of ours. We can’t force mutual agreement either. But we can bridle (Alma 18:4) OURSELVES (through self-discipline) to not dispute. We all want to please Christ and His Parents, so shall we stop being froward or disputatious? The Heavenly Mother hates the froward mouth. Think about Her strong feelings on what She’s witnessing in our group. It’s exasperating and sad that we can’t fulfil the commandment to mutually agree. She (the Holy Order) yearns to come to us but can’t because She will not be around us due in maybe large part to our jarrings and contentions (disputations) (TC 156:3, 157:3, 157:9, 157:58).
By any definition you look at (and everyone I’ve looked at confirms it), “disputing” is a behavior! Meaning, we can choose to behave in a Christlike way and not dispute, or be damned by choosing a contrary course.
(continued)
No, we are not in agreement on aligning our words and actions, specifically “with Christ.” Claiming to be authentic (word and actions aligned) is tough enough. Claiming also to be aligned with Christ is incredibly presumptuous. Q gave a talk where she described the temple endowment, referencing conversing with the Lord through the veil. What was wanted initially gets changed through the process of conversing with the Lord through the veil, and that process passes you through the veil into the Lord’s presence. My point of differentiation with your statement is that your statement assumes too much. What is wanted is a haunting question. We claim we want Jesus, but we can barely align our words and our actions to be authentic.
DeleteYour idea, which aligns with Adrian’s, that choosing to not dispute is simply a “behavior” negates the entire argument of necessitating alignment of words and actions, as behavior is merely an action, and your recommendation refuses to address the nuances of words that are misaligned. Assumptions are being wagered in your idea, and that’s fine, but if assumptions can be made in exactly the opposite direction, who’s to say that you’re the one causing mutual agreement to fail?
Perhaps you and I and Adrian can agree that we disagree on the point of choosing not to dispute being self discipline. I mean, I am certain you, Adrian, and I could not be guilty of lacking self discipline. Although I know some about you, and much more about Adrian, I would never dismiss our disagreement based on lacking self discipline or a desire for free disputation or trouble maker virus of some sort. Quite the opposite, all three of us are doing are best to obey God. But that does not mean our conflict necessitates invalidating another’s point of view, simply because we cannot see how both things can be so.
Returning to the idea of conversing with the Lord through the veil, the function of doing so was for seeking further light and knowledge, and for the purpose of our obedience. Thus far, what approach has been repeated was to dismiss disagreement and conflict, when it is inevitable. The Lord asked us questions and we are unable to have conversations and to respond as one to converse for further light and knowledge on the disagreement and conflict. I’ve been recommending this method from the get go. Your response is to hold a guilt trip over my point of view for withholding mutual agreement, when I haven’t stopped attempting to discuss the matter. It’s equally presumptions to think we are aligned with Jesus as it is presumptuous to accuse a valid point of view that you don’t agree with. We are attempting at best. And Stephanie is addressing in her podcasts faith development to address the immaturity of these presumptions, calling for the necessity for reasoning and the complexities of dealing with nuances.
No, we do not see things the same. I am stating something that ought to cause pause and reconsideration, but you seem to be clear about representing things as you do, and I have no desire to cause your discomfort by insisting that theirs something missing, any further than you want to hear it. This seems to be the ethos of the entire talk Denver gave.
We are given a name, and the Lord claims us and is working with us. We are offered to learn by precept or sad experience. “With His rod and His staff He doth comfort me…” points to a rod and a staff used to beat sheep. My prayer: God, if you slap me across the face, please use your right hand and not your left because I know the right is for a blessing and the left a curse.
Again, I would love to talk on the phone. We can probably understand each other much faster. But, this works too.
Rob,
DeleteYou said, “we can barely align our words and our actions to be authentic.” Why are you concerned with the group’s words/actions alignment?
Let’s assume that somebody’s (other than you) words and actions do not align. Is there anything you can do about that? The answer is No you cannot, and No you should not attempt to make them other align their words/actions. Agreed?
So why is this a priority for you, why care about the actions of others?
I'll respond to your other comment below.
(Part 2 of 3)
ReplyDeletePersonal story: one thing I felt many months ago (until my wife enlightened me with the wisdom of a woman) was a fear that a majority vote by the upcoming women’s conference would result in an injustice and the movement would be not just set back with an horrific precedent but that the seeds of apostasy would be planted and grow rapidly and even destroy the chance we’ve been given. My wife told me, "That may happen. And if it happens then it happens. But Joe, know that our journey to know the Savior will not be impacted. No majority vote can stop us from progressing. So let’s focus on our own repentance and our family.” That instantly resonated with me, and I ceased to worry about the outcome of the vote. I let go of my fear. My wife has learned long ago to be at peace respecting the wishes of others, and she has no desire to control others. That’s very Christlike in my opinion.
“Mankind allows their fears to control them.” (Talk #7, pg 61)
“We ought to fear God more than we fear the approval or disapproval, the criticism, the ostracism. We ought to love God and fear Him, because it's our relationship to Him, and
Him alone that matters.” (Talk #2, pg 17)
“Everything derived from fear is negative, ultimately devolving into hatred. But the foundation of hatred is fear. On the other hand there is love. If you look at God’s Plan and the fight it led to in the preexistence, it was fear that motivated the rebellion. It was fear that motivated the adversary to become the accuser of the brethren. It was fear behind his opposition to this whole process now underway.” (Talk #8, pg 10)
If you’re not fearing something, why choose to dispute? If the group has not been commanded to receive your wisdom or to agree to your offerings, then we have no obligation to do so. We’re all equals. You’re not a leader and of no stature in this movement, none of us are. There is no hierarchy. There’s no benefit to aspiring to the honors of men. Denver even humbly declares, “I wish none of you had ever heard my name.” (Talk #3, pg 17).
(part 3 of 3)
ReplyDeleteNo matter what rhetoric you employ, it’s not right to hold everyone hostage till they capitulate. That’s a form of control of others, with the consequence to you of “the spirit being grieved and withdrawing from that man, as he is left to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and fight against God” in his froward ways (TC 139:5).
The Lord clearly defines mutual agreement among ourselves as choosing to not dispute (TC 174). It is bordering on a very grave miscalculation (see why at TC 157:19) for Q to assert “I also don't think that if someone disagrees, they should simply remain silent to align with the majority.” And yet, Jesus declared we can choose the behavior of remaining silent or not disputing. That doesn’t mean we agree or are in alignment with the majority, but it does mean we remain silent and don’t dispute then and going forward. So you don’t get your way. That’s life. If the group majority votes on an evil Guide and Standard (which is preposterous because it contains only quotes of the Lord) or the process had some flaws, and you vote against it initially, then you will be recognized in Heaven and by everyone in retrospect for your discernment. If however, you choose to dispute and deny the group ability to to keep the Lord’s commandment by reaching mutual agreement, do you want to be that person? Doing that is moving towards fulfilling TC 157:19. Remember that “everything derived from fear is negative, ultimately devolving into hatred” and hatred destroys the peace of Zion. We don't even have Zion, but we can take a necessary step by keeping this commandment.
Jesus held His peace all the time, choosing not to dispute with the people He disagreed with. It was His MO. To use your term, he was being Nitsiitapi, in a way, with His words and actions perfectly in alignment with His Father's (and Mother’s) will to not be contrary with others.
--------
I second the proposed example given in Part 3 to reach a “Level 2” outcome, in which there is a YAY/ NAY vote and then to give the NAYS an opportunity to choose the behavior of not disputing so we can thereby keep the Lord’s commandment of mutually agreeing.
Would you be in favor this proposal?
Nay. I would not be in favor of your proposal. You presume to know what you’re talking about when it comes to the Lord, seeking to control an end result (forcing mutual agreement with your proposal), while condemning me for having a different view that refuses to agree with your proposal, and then claiming that I’m holding you back from obtaining mutual agreement. Agency is the first and foundational law, and your shame, guilt, and fear mongering won’t be my reasons for mutual agreement.
Delete“Agreement” will be the criteria of my mutual agreement. If “lotsters” want to write a statement of principles, subscribing to a list of assumptions, they are free to write it and vote to their hearts content. But that does not demand of me my agreement based on your criteria of majorities. The onus of agreement is the author’s writing something that represents mutual agreement. I know this is the sticking point that you can’t seem to wrap your head around, and because you can’t wrap your head around it you’re resorting to shame, guilt, fear mongering, and quoting Denver at me as if I don’t understand the points you're making. You’re coming short of considering that there could be a position better than the one you’re currently occupying.
Stephanie’s podcast describes spiritual immaturity in terms of rigidity, oversimplification, moral reciprocity, concrete and literal interpretations, and bowing to authority, each of which you’re exhibiting. You claim to understand Denver’s words, using them as a club to push submission, speaking in the Lord’s name as if you understand the Lord’s choice when to dispute and when not to dispute. Your reasoning does not take into account conflicting points of views, and as a result described by Stephanie, immaturity resists forward progress. If maturity were to win out between you and I, this would be a conversation, not a condescension. Currently, all you’re doing is condescending.
Your wife and I have a similar spirit about your fear regarding apostasy. If apostasy happens, it does not impact my relationship with Christ. The origins of my comments to Adrian was in response to his request to more fully repent and to question his authority to overlay “natural man” over top “Nitsiitapi.” I know why I’m here. What’s your reasons for engaging me? Do you know them? So far, you’ve labeled me froward, accused me of stopping you from mutual agreement, and painted “real people” with a brush of “natural man,” which is an enemy to God. You’ve come short of labelling me Satan. I’m not surprised by the accusations. Your low view of me does not impact my relationship with Christ. I just don’t know what it is you’re wanting from me. Maybe you can make a request that I might be able to fulfill without conflicting with my own standards.
I just noticed the parenthetical showing part 2 of 3 in your response to me, and I’m worried that I’m responding to different parts of your post, while incorrectly thinking I’m in a conversation.
In the end, if I’m stopping you from keeping the Lord’s commandment, that will be the Lord’s responsibility to provide the correction with His rod and His staff. Again, if I’m slapped in the face, God, please use your right hand and not your left.
(Part1 of 2)
DeleteYou: “Nay. I would not be in favor of your proposal. You presume to know what you’re talking about when it comes to the Lord, seeking to control an end result (forcing mutual agreement with your proposal),...”
It’s not my proposal. It was somebody else’s, but I liked it and seconded it. It’s not rooted in compulsion. People who freely vote No on the first vote, can choose of their own free will to not dispute and thus reach mutual agreement on the second vote -- it's a brilliant idea. Or they can freely choose to dispute, as you are choosing to do thus far by insisting, as you say, ““Agreement” will be the criteria of my mutual agreement.” That contradicts what the Lord said is the criteria for mutual agreement. You are not at liberty to redefine meanings after the Lord has spoken (TC 174). That is presumptuous, isn't it?
Clarification from earlier comment: Who is claiming to be aligned with Christ? I’m not. I desire to be. The goal is to be at one with God. So your presumptuous remark is a strawman.
You: ”So far, you’ve labeled me 1) froward, 1) accused me of stopping you from mutual agreement, and 3) painted “real people” with a brush of “natural man,” which is an enemy to God.”
1) If I was hypothetically in your shoes, Rob, I could choose to not dispute, even if I didn’t (hypothetically) agree with the majority’s voted-for proposal. I would happily choose to not dispute with a G&S that was 100% scriptural. But you argue the point still and are requiring everyone else to “understand” and comply with your standards. That is “froward” by definition, it’s contrary, argumentative, contentious. It’s an attempt to control. On the other hand, Christ “let it go” every day. If there was a right or wrong idea, He was always right, but He let it go. You won’t though. Let’s assume you are right! Great. Let it go. Why continue to push back?
You play the “victim” for me pointing that you’re being froward by very definition. That’s not fair. I’m not condemning you or judging you unrighteously. I’d hope and want somebody to point out that I was/am being froward. Lord knows I am at times. And fortunately, it happens sometimes, by those who care about me. I'm grateful for the restored teaching on how the Heavenly Mother feels about Her children being forward. It's a life-altering teaching that can change the world. And I believe it is shaping our would-be Zion remnant group.
(part 2 of 2)
Delete2) If you’re choosing to dispute rather than stand down, then by definition you are preventing mutual agreement in the group. You’re playing the victim card again by saying I’m accusing you, but it’s just a fact.
3) It’s a truth that if “real people” are not aligned with Christ, then that lack of harmony IS by definition "the natural man." This is truth, but you’re defensive about it.
All these things are true, Rob. You don’t need to play the victim. What harm have I done to you? If you really feel I've harmed you, then articulate that harm so I can repair the harm.
You self admit you feel conflicted with the request (indeed command by the Lord) to reach mutual agreement because it’s “conflicting with [your] own standards.” These are your words.
I would suggest modifying your standards then. Our goal is to align our standards with Christ’s, and not go rogue by leaning on our own understanding.
In my limited interaction with you, I really like the realness you bring. I’m actually very similar in nature. I’m wired up to be “real” and try to align my words with my actions. I like being authentic. That’s my style, for better or worse. I show you who I am, as Q put it. So I’d fit right in the Nitsiitapi culture. But I realize I’m out of harmony with God, and therefore separated from His presence, so I’m trying to repent. My words and actions (in a vacuum) could be perfectly aligned, but at the end of the day, what victory is that? I must align with Christ, for that is when we get redeemed (per LoF).
If you need me to apologize to you, I will. It’s not a problem. Happy to do so. Happy to pray together with you as well. You can have the last comment, if you wish.
Again, what’s your point for engaging me? I have no intent on justifying my decisions by your criteria. I have no desire to instruct your decisions. I had two things to address Adrian, and I have, and he has asked we talk.
DeleteI am certainly not holding myself to the standard of Christ’s mutual agreement. I can only do as I know how to do, and authentically so. I’ll be judged by the standard I understand. If you have offered a better understanding, I haven’t read it here. You subscribe to the decision criteria that impresses upon you, and I’ll subscribe to what impresses me. I am unafraid to represent myself and my reasons. If we disagree, I hold nothing against you and trust that you have valid reason for not agreeing with me. I have equally valid reasons for not agreeing with you. Perhaps it would serve us better to have a curious conversation exploring the differences and at least agreeing precisely where we disagree.
I don’t subscribe to your literal interpretation of just choose to agree. I get that you believe it that way. I just don’t agree, and I think there’s more to mutual agreement than that. More, meaning more work. You can paint me as you please. I’ve been called worse. Frowbert was the most creative name I’ve been called. Call me what you like, just don’t call me late for dinner! I’m no victim, just a man in process. You might be new to all of this. None of this is new to me.
You have my number and are invited to use it. A conversation by phone would be more constructive than this has been. I’ll not run away, stone wall, be defensive, or use contempt. I love this movement. All of it. I’m not going away. I’m willing to labor to cultivate the Lord’s vineyard.
Hi Adrian. I don't get the association of "mutual agreement" with voting or more broadly decision making. I understand why we historically thought it was before the definition was given, but I don't see how "As between one another, you choose to not dispute" is really tied to voting, but rather how we conduct ourselves during discussions.
ReplyDeleteFor example, consider a hypothetical fellowship scripture study:
Q1: is this even a situation where a person could choose to dispute with another? (and dispute in a contentious or argumentative way. You could add froward and showing rancor as further synonyms).
Q2: if so, according to your understanding, would it be wrong to choose to dispute?
Q3: if so, what would repentance of that look like?
What about when watching a game of football with a friend? Same 3 questions.
More broadly, if you answered “yes” to both Q2's, can you name any interactions between people (within the Covenant or not) where it is right to choose to dispute.
I claim that the Lord was not part of votes on a daily basis, but rather that He had normal interactions with others every day and could have corrected others in a contentious or argumentative manner, but he deliberately chose not to do so (I would think in many instances He did not correct them at all). Therefore, that should be our guide in our daily walks in all our interactions. It is a journey, not a destination.
Jimmy
HI Jimmy!
DeleteThese are some great questions and thoughts. Here are my ideas:
1. I think the idea of associating Mutual Agreement with voting came about because our initial introduction to the term was in this context: “But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people…” (T&C 157:55). Because the verb “adopt” implies some sort of group canonization action by the people, the idea of voting became associated with Mutual Agreement. I would add that there must be something about which to agree or disagree as a people, which also implies putting a proposal before the people for consideration.
2. Your question about a fellowship scripture study is a good one. Clearly there is room for respectful disagreement and discussion. But we ought remember “In truth I tell you: Anyone who welcomes the spirit of conflict doesn’t follow Me, but is following the accuser, who’s the father of conflict. He incites people to angrily fight with each other.” (This is the CoC language. The BoM language uses “contend” and “contention.” Anger, fighting, contention—these are to be avoided, even in watching a game of football.
3. Interactions where it is right to choose to dispute (or fight angrily). Good question. I suppose we can find some examples in the Book of Mormon where people fought and even killed righteously in defense of their homes, families and country. Even then, it seems anger was not the primary driving factor, nor was it the need to be “right” while insisting others are “wrong.” When it crossed the line into physical violence, it never seems to have been instigated by the righteous. In Biblical accounts, the Lord commanded His people to go to war and to kill. But again, it was not generally over a dispute, but rather at the Lord’s insistence. And finally, the above examples are generally between one people and another, and not within a single people sharing a single identity and seeking to become “one.”
4. Regarding the Lord and voting, you make a great point. He chose to not dispute, even when others attempted to dispute with him. I suppose you can’t make the choice to not dispute when there is nothing over which to disagree. But when there is a disagreement, or even incitement, one can make the active choice to not dispute. I believe this is reflected in our Lord’s example. I love your point, “Therefore, that should be our guide in our daily walks in all our interactions. It is a journey, not a destination.”
Yes. That.
But in the case of the Statement of Principles, there is indeed a destination; we have a specific commandment to “adopt” it as a people by Mutual Agreement. This is a commandment we have not kept, as there are still those who choose to dispute. I have asked repeatedly for concrete steps, or even ideas, about how we keep this commandment with regard to the Statement of Principles, but thus far I have not received any proposals other than my own, which is admittedly flawed.
Any thoughts about how we get there?
I suppose that I see the nature of the assignment differently. Sadly the definition does not drop into the answer directly. “But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the 'As between one another, you choose to not dispute' of my people” is not a proper sentence, so there some is some interpretation on how to make it work. To me, a fine paraphrasing of this could be “A statement of principles must be voted upon to be added to the scriptures and while doing so you should not get angry or see others as enemies.” I think this view is consistent with the paragraph before T&C 157:54, the last part of paragraph 55, and even the overall message of the Answer.
DeleteDid people get angry and treat each other poorly? Sure, but it does not invalidate the result. It just shows we are not perfect. If someone did get angry, the repentance process for the statement of principles is no different than repenting of choosing to dispute at scripture study or the football game. You accept your weakness, strive to do better, ask the Lord for forgiveness and help overcoming the issue, and maybe apologize to the ones impacted. For many (myself included) avoiding anger will probably be a lifelong struggle. But you don't rewatch the football game or keep redoing the same scripture study over and over again.
From a certain point of view, the statement of principles triggered one of my great relationships in the movement with the late Chris Chandler. I made a passing public comment about my thoughts on the subject after the final vote, and he reached out and wanted to talk. He was one of the people who voted opposed on the final adoption (while I voted in favor). He briefly explained his experience and reasoning. And for me, it was a moment of “oh okay that makes sense” and that was it. I don't think we ever talked about it again, because we greatly preferred digging into the scriptures rather talking about drama and events. I selfishly wish he were still here with us; and if he was I would feel that even five minutes spent revisiting the statement of principles would be five minutes wasted.
I only bring this up here, because we are trying to understand the Covenant and what the Lord is trying to do today. While I disagree with the premise of your question, I will give my answer anyway: Jimmy's concrete plan to achieve mutual agreement is replace the time we spend talking about people and events with time spent discussing ideas from the scriptures (and other good books).
Great points, Jimmy. I like your paraphrase and your thoughts about repentance. I agree we are best served by leaving the past behind and moving forward with better things. Well said.
DeleteAdrian and Jimmy,
DeleteI’m sorry for writing as anonymous. I don’t know how to have it represent me. I’m Rob Adolpho.
Why are you guys so certain about the end results of the statement of principles and the assumptions you’ve subscribed to when we’ve been strongly reprimanded? Your assumptions result in shutting down conversations, or at least filtering conversations, resulting in an end product remaining unable to be questioned. When, given the most recent talk, everything should be questioned, letting go of the end result, and laboring for a united process.
Adrian, you asked for help to more fully repent, and when I offered you suggestions you asked for a private offline conversation. It appears as though your asking was insincere because both my suggestions and your seeking a private conversation has not been acted upon. You have my number. Yet, the assumptions are still being made, and those assumptions continue to filter for an end result, unaware that process is being forfeited to defend your preferred end result once again. You asked Jimmy for suggestions to keep the commandment, but both you and Jimmy want something that fits within the ability to “not question” what was produced. Somehow you both feel like our being reprimanded repeatedly and being confirmed by the Lord through a “parable,” and you both read it through the lens of “good enough, so let’s move on.” Don’t talk, don’t question, don’t discuss, subscribe to the definition of mutual agreement that self-disciplines “choosing,” …these are the recommendations you would prefer, …just not question the results. Your assumptions are all so certain. Why be so certain when everything at this point should be questioned?
I have been requesting a conversation to discuss the points of disagreements for years, almost for a decade. Your kind of assumptions get used to justify not engaging those discussions, saying that thousands of hours have been spent on talking, claiming trauma surrounding the subject matter, etc. A book has been written, avoiding actually speaking with the subjects of the book, the title attempting to sound as if it’s factual, and not biased. When facts are presented, they take on the values of the reteller, and those values have motives. All signs surrounding the effort points towards an end result and not towards a process. We sacrifice the process in service to the desired end, even if the desired end is just to end it all.
My recommendation was to reengage discussions with a focus on identifying common points of disagreement, being clear where we disagree, and doing so respectfully so we can get the Lord’s part. That “can” regularly gets kicked down the road. People need to reengage. “Better” should be our aim.
I love this movement. I sincerely am in this for the long game. Perhaps rather than fighting for a complete end result, we should look at just five yards.
Again, this is Rob Adolpho