And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind…
Moses 7:18
That verse of scripture seems straightforward enough, yet I struggle to understand it. I take it to mean that people in Zion will be the same in some important ways, but that is where the interpretation gets tricky, at least for me. How will we be the same? What differences will exist? Does Zion require unanimous agreement on all issues large and small? One of our early, failed attempts at establishing Zion took place in Orderville, Utah, where the residents tried to “have all things in common”. They wore the same clothing and ate the same meals in a communal dining hall. In the October, 1974 general conference, Elder Bruce R. McConkie said:
“To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to take the Lord’s side on every issue. It is to vote as he would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation.” (emphasis added)
I don’t know what to make of that statement. We live in a world where members of the First Presidency have political differences; does that mean one of them has to be wrong? And it seems almost blasphemous to think that God cares who becomes dogcatcher or commissioner of sewage disposal. But maybe I’m wrong, and if Mormons were bettors, the smart money would be on the apostle, not on me. Ultimately though, this post isn’t about Elder McConkie, or politics. It’s about how we handle differences.
One of my best experiences serving in the church was in an elders quorum presidency. They were all wonderful men, but they had their quirks. The president was a xenophobe who believed that ammunition was an essential part of food storage, to be used when the marauding hordes from those festering cesspools of sin in Murray and West Jordan came to our rural corner of Sandy looking for wheat and powdered milk. He believed in the Bavarian Illuminati and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fervently as he believed the Articles of Faith. The first counselor was a big shot in the local electrician’s union, and a True Believer in the working man. In his mind, failure to pay union dues was like failure to pay tithing, and crossing a picket line was the sin next to murder. Counselor # 2 was something of a hippie burnout. If he hadn’t been Mormon, he’d have probably been a roadie for the Grateful Dead, or lived happily on a commune somewhere, growing pot and practicing free love. He once spent twenty minutes with me in the hallway during Sunday school, trying to help me understand the meaning of the word ‘holistic’. I was the secretary, and the only normal one of the entire bunch.
At first, going to presidency meeting felt like going to the zoo, but I eventually began looking forward to Thursday evenings. We made a great presidency, and were able to help many people put their lives back in order. As I watched them serve and contribute the gifts they had, I came to love those men deeply, even though the differences never went away, or even diminished. As I reflect on those two years of service, I’ve concluded that much of our success was not only in spite of our differences, but because of them. I also learned that understanding someone is not a prerequisite to loving him, and that knowledge came in very handy when teenagers started to inhabit my house.
C. S. Lewis gets quoted often enough in conference that I think we can grant him quasi-emeritus status. This is how he imagined individuality in Heaven:
“There are no real personalities anywhere else. Unless you have given up yourself to Him, you will not have a real self. Sameness is to be found among the most ‘natural’ men, not those who surrender to Christ. How monotonously alike all the great tyrants have been, how gloriously different are the saints.”
What do you all think? How do you approach differences with love and respect? For my part, I hope Lewis is right. I’m quite fond of many of the quirky people I know, so I hope our vision of togetherness includes them. And that goes for some of you whackjobs, too.
August 21, 2007 at 11:15 am
There are real dilemmas here. We know that Joseph Smith taught that Jesus and God the Father had exactly the same physique and personality — so one might reason from the idea that we’ll become one with them like they are one with each other that exaltation entails a total surrender of individuality. Or maybe not; we might generalize from the proclamation on the family to the idea that people have inherent and eternal traits that God and Jesus don’t have — including but not limited to, for example, being female.
One resolution might be to follow Maxwell and say that following Jesus requires being willing to sacrifice all of our individuality, even if the full sacrifice will never be required.
August 21, 2007 at 11:37 am
Wonderful post, Mark. In my last LDS church calling, I served as a stake executive secretary. The presidency was made up of two BYU graduates who worked as university professors, and one remarkable tradesman. The stake clerk was as thorough a “blue-collar” man as I’ve ever met.
One of the professors was hypervigilant, to the point of agonizing over the spiritual danger facing men who wore non-white shirts to church (really), and kept a Franklin Planner with enough task-oriented notes to turn any hour-long meeting into three hours. The clerk was a good man, but simply incapable of grasping how any good person could think differently than he did in terms of religion and politics. All these men were highly conservative.
And then there was me, the local democratic precinct committee chairman. We joked on occasion that I was the “token liberal” in our meetings. The reality, however, was that I was not only welcome to express my opinions, but encouraged. I tried to decline giving my opinion once when it was requested, because I was sure I’d ruffle some feathers. The stake president actually insisted that I speak my mind, and to my surprise, it made a big difference in the deliberations.
I think we simply had a very wise, very good stake president, who understood that good men could differ in their views. He understood the value of councils, and did all he could to make sure that all were forthcoming with their views. Most importantly, I think he valued his relationships with others, more than he valued being “right.” To me, that’s what made all the difference.
August 21, 2007 at 11:41 am
RT- so far as i know, Maxwell never said that. He said we should give our wills to God, as it is all we have to give….
August 21, 2007 at 11:56 am
The theory that we should “give our will” to deity, as “that is all we have to give” has never really made sense to me. It may sound nice, but why would any worthwhile deity want such a thing? This piece of advice amounts to surrendering our decision-making abilities to deity, which is entirely contrary to the purpose of human existence. Furthermore, such a thing would make deity accountable for our actions, rather than ourselves. “I just did what ____ told me to” didn’t fly at Nueremburg, and I don’t see how it can lead to godhood.
August 21, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Nick, I have a quite different understanding.
August 21, 2007 at 12:22 pm
If I have to be exactly like God, I hope that He has my dry, sarcastic, pessimistic personality. From some of His words and choices, I think I’ll fit right in.
August 21, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Nick,
“The theory that we should “give our will” to deity, as “that is all we have to give” has never really made sense to me…and I don’t see how it can lead to godhood.”
Such are the mysteries of the kingdom. Interesting anecdote about the SP, by the way.
Mark,
“But maybe I’m wrong, and if Mormons were bettors, the smart money would be on the apostle, not on me. ”
I imagine so
August 21, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Jacob, with a dry cool wit like that, you could be an action hero! (skip to 8:30/9:00)
August 21, 2007 at 12:53 pm
If we reconcile ourselves to God and cleanse ourselves from sin then the Spirit can lead us into what God would have us do, cf. D&C 50:26-30. In this sense, we have to be the same in that we have the same desires, goals, and intentions as God. But, that doesnt mean we are identical to him in every way. The idea that we have to be superficially identical to Him (comment 1) doesnt hold, since Jesus has claim on the Father as his literal father of his mortal body, where we do not.
Jesus’ test of discipleship was in doing what he taught, there was no doctrinal test of orthodoxy, never has been, never will be. How we come to the doing of something matters not so much as doing it. If Jesus teaches us to feed the orphans and widows, there are many ways to accomplish that. So long as we do what he taught, how we arrive at that ends is, I believe, largely irrelevant.
August 21, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I have had the same type of experience that Nick described in #2. It is amazing to see. My mother used to be one of Pres. McKay’s secretary’s, and she can tell some fascinating stories of how the FP at the time interacted. My wife and I are close to opposite personalities in many ways – which makes us perfect for each other as we try to become whole and complete as one.
I view unity based on these experiences, but also based on the Sermon on the Mount – where “perfect” is defined as “complete” or “whole” – not as mistake free. (That is a conversation in and of itself.) In all seriousness, I agree that there is an inherent conflict in the way that too many members view unity as an ideal. I prefer to think of it in terms that I think are taught in the Gospels and that formed the foundation of Joseph Smith’s efforts – by talking of “community” (a societal completeness and wholeness of unique but united individuals) as opposed to the “sameness” of classic socialism.
Frankly, if I lose my twisted, slightly perverted sense of humor, I don’t think I will be perfect – meaning complete and whole.
August 21, 2007 at 1:26 pm
#7 Frank:
Such are the mysteries of the kingdom.
If you’ll excuse me for saying so, that sounds distressingly close to “That’s the beauty of it!” (Not that you’ll get the reference if you were endowed after April 1990….)
August 21, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Matt W. #3, my sense is that you’re offering a distinction without a difference. In Maxwell’s vocabulary, our will is defined as all that is uniquely personal. So our will is just exactly our individuality, in Maxwell’s terms “part of us that is ultimately sovereign, the mind and heart.” So Maxwell is indeed asking us to place our individuality on the alter; although his terminology differs, I would be perfectly willing to define individuality as he defines will, i.e., the part of us that is ultimately sovereign.
August 21, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Steve – Unfortunately I don’t have sound at this computer, so I will have to hear the dialogue, but equating me with the Simpsons places you in my utmost admiration.
Ray – are you sure it’s only slightly perverted humor??
August 21, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I was just thinking about this Sunday as the topic of my next talk. I agree that we need to be willing to give up those things that we consider our individuality in theory, or in th end. In the meantime, we need to be united in th things that really matter and let the rest be life’s rich pageant. Of course, deciding what really matters is a tricky question, but hey, that’s why we ponder the scriptures, no? Anyway, my talk isn’t until October, so I’ll keep mulling.
August 21, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Nick, I went on my mission in 1994. So the reference is lost on me. As noted by ED, Christ came into the world “to do the will of the Father” (3 Nephi 27). So if you think this idea of surrendering one’s will is all hogwash, then you probably are missing something (or, alternatively, you don’t believe 3 Nephi…)
August 21, 2007 at 2:21 pm
IMO, a HUGE part of the disconnect in many discussions like this is the general assumption that “doing the will of God” somehow means “having God dictate one’s every action” – essentially allowing Him to act in a Calvinistic puppeteer role. When you change the paradigm, focus on the will of God being a very broad accomplishment (growth toward eventual perfection / complete wholeness – or bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man) as opposed to an obsession over minute details – such a difference in perspective completely changes the discussion. It goes from an OT checklist of actions (where unity means robotic sameness) to a NT change of heart and refinement of effort – which allows me to “give my will to God” in my own unique way while gaining perfection for my own unique soul.
Due to my view of what God’s will is, I have no problem with an injunction to submit to that will.
August 21, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Jacob, Everyone who knows me fairly well would classify my humor as interesting; those who know me well would call it slightly perverted; my wife refuses to tell anyone how she views it. I would give some examples to evaluate, but I promised her I wouldn’t – so I’ll have to leave it up to your own imagination and hope that doesn’t affect your eternal salvation.
August 21, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Is ignoring differences an option? I live in a part of the world where the Church is not normal and in order for me to be able to attend Church, I need to ignore the many differences I see because is a cultural issue and nothing can be done about it. That’s how I deal with them. I just ignore them. A couple of recent examples:
1. RS sister shares in RS meeting how she met her husband and describes in FULL detail her first sexual encounter with the guy when they were not married as yet. Everybody laughs, including the RS President. No, I am not kidding.
2. Brother A brings a weapon to Church and threatens another member. Police is not called and his wife who is 100% support of her husband’s actions is called in a leadership position a couple of weeks after the incident.
The big issue is that everyone see these things (and what I shared is only a tiny part) as “normal”. How do you deal with that? Before, I used to “fight it”, try to reason with some members, leaders, etc but I have wasted too much energy because they can’t see it since it’s a cultural issue, they were brought up like that and that’s all they know.
So how I deal with all this and more? I just ignore…
August 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I am with you all the way Mark. I am a big proponent of individuality in heaven.
August 21, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Frank, # 7,
“But maybe I’m wrong, and if Mormons were bettors, the smart money would be on the apostle, not on me. ”
I imagine so
Frank, actually I thought of your argument as I was writing that sentence. It was sort of creepy, like hearing the still, small voice of Frank McIntyre.
August 21, 2007 at 3:54 pm
RosieRose: can I visit your ward? It sounds interesting.
August 21, 2007 at 4:11 pm
#11. Ha Ha! I miss some of those old lines so much.
Maybe I’m missing something. The most difficult scripture for me has always been the saying of Jesus that if a man finds his life he will lose it, but that in he losing his life for Christ’s sake he will find it. I used to feel that scripture come against something hard in me. That hard part of me was the part that wanted to create myself, or find myself, or become myself, or be myself. In fact, what could I have ever been but myself, even if myself unrealized. If I have come anywhere, it is because I’ve given that up in an attempt to follow Christ. To have my will subsumed in His. Do I succeed, naturally not as often as yes. But in so far as I do succeed, I’m strengthed and chaged, and life opens up to me – and I certainly don’t find myself MIA, though changed, I’m still as in here with me as I ever was.
Living according to one’s personality and inclination is always a dead end. And our society -a bunch of little Byron’s writ little – is one big dead end. We worship personality: every man walketh in his on way, after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon …
wheeee ….
~
August 21, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Thomas, I know what you mean. I wonder if part of that ego-resistance comes because we confuse subsuming our will in God’s with somehow becoming mindless, or ceasing to be independent actors.
August 21, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Thomas,
I take the problem of our own will and ego for granted, but as a separate problem. I’m really trying to reconcile the one heart/one mind teaching with the the doctrines implicit in the Proclamation that suggest that we are unique and will always be that way. As long as I can remember, I’ve been taught that I was given unique gifts and talents that I am responsible to develop. If I carry that idea forward and apply it to others too, I think we need to believe that we will be very different in many ways.
August 21, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Might the whole body of Christ concept from Paul fit into this? I was just thinking/reading on this topic last nite, actually, so I’m glad to see it addressed here and elsewhere.
August 21, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Of couse D&C 38:27 says: “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” It seems the purpose of life is to become one with God.
August 21, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Mark,
I tend to think that our uniqueness is fundamental and inalterable, but also inexpressible. A person can change, in fact make 180 degree changes in many aspects of their life, be quite a new man, and yet still be very much the same person in a way that is hard to define. It’s like you hit the bottom of the personality, and there beneath ideas, habits, mannerisms, etc. is something that doesn’t change. I think we can, through Grace, find ourselves conforming to the mind of Chirst, and receive His image in our countenance, without touching the fundamental uniquiness.
In a similar vein, I think the _essential_ differences between the sexes exist, but can’t be defind in any of the ways we try to define them. For instance, any woman may be no more nurturing than any given man. But, no matter how masculine or feminine, as we think of those things, that person remains, at very bottom, man or woman. I have encountered people whose personality strains this idea of mine (and many who think their personality strains this idea)- but very few.
Steve,
Yeah. I think that’s pretty much it. In choosing to surrender our will we think we are going to surrender our freedom, and instead we find that we aquire it. While in giving in to identities that resonate with us, and in following our inclinations, we feel like we are becoming free. But in the end we find ourselves confined, painted into a corner: emotionally, intellectually, even metaphysically, eh? That’s the paradox.
~
August 21, 2007 at 7:45 pm
#15 Frank:
Actually, I think there’s a big difference between “doing the will of the Father,” vs. surrendering one’s will. “Doing the will of the Father” is a conscious choice to do what one perceives deity wishes. It is, in itself, an act of self-will, rather than giving up one’s will.
August 21, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Nick, arguably unless you buy into a kind of mystic experience where one doesn’t will, then “doing the will of the father” and “surrendering ones will to the Father” is the same. One simply takes what one perceives as what the Father would do and does that. It has to be a conscious choice.
Now if you believe that one can turn the conscious off then one could make a distinction. Since then there’s a distinction between doing what you think God wants and being One with God. I’m not sure I buy the mystic view.
August 21, 2007 at 11:25 pm
The ideal of perfection entailing becoming God’s remote control toy seems rather unrealistic. How can we say that the Father’s will for us is determinate enough to substitute for our own? D&C 58:27-29 implies the opposite.
The whole idea that there is a singular perfect course of action in any situation seems about as likely as the suggestion that there is a perfect ordering of the absolute merit of all musical pieces. If God was so perfect in and of himself, he would hardly have a need for us anyway.
August 22, 2007 at 12:03 am
Priceless.
August 22, 2007 at 12:49 am
As long as I can remember, I’ve been taught that I was given unique gifts and talents that I am responsible to develop. If I carry that idea forward and apply it to others too, I think we need to believe that we will be very different in many ways.
I’ve always seen these gifts and talents as more of a mortal thing. If we ultimately have the opportunity someday to receive all that the Father has, to be added upon, won’t that sort of give us all godlike characteristic, traits and abilities and even the playing field? I guess I see less use for our differences/individuality if we all ultimately have the opportunity to receive and become the same. Differences now help us develop and do the Lord’s work in this limited sphere, not necessarily to continue on needing all our differences to somehow get things done.
I guess my question would be this, to turn it around — is there possibly a gift, talent, ability, positive characteristic or trait, perspective, or whatever else makes us us, that God doesn’t have or isn’t? I can’t imagine that there is, so I can’t imagine that there will be differences like we know differences now whenever we get to godhood, except where the whole male and female thing comes in, however that does.
So a question I have is: Is there even a place for the concept of individuality in a plan that ultimately is about a linked and glorified community?
August 22, 2007 at 5:40 am
m&m, there is nothing you’ve ever said about which I hope more fervently that you are wrong! (And that is saying something
) The idea that we’ll all be essentially the same when glorified is horrifying to me on a visceral level. I’m not sure I have an argument for why it should not be as you suggest; I just can’t believe it.
I guess the one little scrap of argument might be in the eternal nature of gender–if that difference will persist, why not others? If gender means something beyond different procreative plumbing, then presumably the traits peculiar to each gender (whatever they are) will persist. And if those do, then why not others?
I know, not much of an argument. It’s just hard for me to imagine that a god who bothered to create umpteen thousand species of ants would ever want his children to be all alike, except in the fullness of their gifts.
August 22, 2007 at 8:14 am
“Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” (John 12:24-25) For those who will have become one as the Son is one with the Father, individuality may not matter so much to them or even be an identifiable trait. I have wondered if there is any preference, such as favorite seashore, that would differ between the Father and the Son.
August 22, 2007 at 8:42 am
Nick,
“Actually, I think there’s a big difference between “doing the will of the Father,” vs. surrendering one’s will.”
What Clark said. I mean, that pretty much has to be what Elder Maxwell meant, since there is no operational way to give up one’s free will and hand it over to God in the negative sense you’ve imagined. So instead of thinking that the rest of us are endorsing something that is both operationally impossible and undesirable, perhaps we are all actually on the same page, but using different words. Although, personally I prefer the “doing the will of” terminology to the “surrender” terminology.
Mark,
“It was sort of creepy, like hearing the still, small voice of Frank McIntyre.”
Yeah, I agree that that is creepy. You might want to look into D&C 50:31-33.
August 22, 2007 at 9:00 am
Good one, Frank. If we ever meet in person, I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t shake your hand.
m&m,
Good to see you around.
I’m not so sure. Does God have to have a good singing voice? I honestly don’t know. But I’m thinking of Zion as something that is actually attainable now, before we die. In my imaginary Zion, does everybody need to be good at public speaking, or hold the same opinions? I know some people who probably qualify for the label of saint. Their lives exemplify all that is good, and if they were translated tomorrow, I wouldn’t be surprised. Yet those people are very different from one another.
August 22, 2007 at 9:11 am
I think until we’re perfect, there’s lots of room for individuality. Maybe even then. Remind me to revisit the issue once that’s done.
August 22, 2007 at 10:23 am
“Does God have to have a good singing voice?”
YES
(Otherwise, I will have to start worshiping Thomas Hampson)
August 22, 2007 at 11:11 am
The human example of unity that is held up for us is the unity of marriage, and, while couples who have been married for decades do tend to start looking like each other and thinking like each other, they certainly don’t lose their individual personalities. My parents are about as united as it is possible to get, but they are VERY different in so many ways.
This is one thing I simply don’t worry about at all. I’m with Steve. I’m sure I’ll understand it when I get there, so I’ll look all of you up and compare our senses of humor then.
August 22, 2007 at 11:21 am
I recently wrote a blog post on this very subject:
http://onelowerlight.blogspot.com/2007/08/mormon-zion-and-democratic-ideals-are.html
To summarize, when we hear the words “of one heart and one mind,” we take it to mean that we are united in the conclusions we draw about the world. What if instead it meant that we are united in how we go about coming to an understanding of the world? United in the process instead of the end result? Under that interpretation of the scripture, differences of opinion are perfectly healthy so long as we respect and sincerely listen to each other, and are all engaged in our public discussion of the issues. After all, ancient Zion was built by human beings, not supermen, and how often do we as human beings have all the answers to all of the issues?
Those were basically my thoughts on the question.
August 22, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“Does God have to have a good singing voice?”
YES
Kristine, I hope when you and Bob Dylan and Joe Cocker go slumming from the CK and come down to visit all us lowlifes and smoothies, you’ll at least sing something nice.
August 23, 2007 at 2:38 pm
But I’m thinking of Zion as something that is actually attainable now, before we die.
Sorry…the whole Proclamation comment threw me off. I agree that our differences can be benefits in mortality; I believe that is some of what Paul was getting to when he talked of the body of Christ. I believe it’s part of the reason decisions in the Church are almost always made by council. I heard someone once think that perhaps when different people come to a council, they might be inspired to have different positions so that various facets of an issue can be addressed before the Lord guides them toward a decision. I thought that was an interesting dynamic to consider as possible.
Kristine, I guess on one hand I can understand your response, but on the other hand, I’d rather think of a fulness of what God has as being able to have all the characteristics, talents, gifts He has. I fail to see how He could possibly give gifts that He doesn’t possess, so I see anything good we have or are as a tiny sliver of His goodness and ability. If we have different talents and some undeveloped as gods, I just don’t see how we could fully do what in my mind a god would do 9if He is the giver of all good gifts, is it possible for Him to have any less than all good gifts Himself?).
I also have a hunch that perhaps individuality is a mortally important thing, because we do focus on those unique gifts we have been given and want to develop, as well we should. I just have a hard time imagining such inequality continuing on into our eternal existence.
Such fun questions to mull over, no?
August 23, 2007 at 2:38 pm
oooo, scratch that smiley. Sorry, Steve.
August 24, 2007 at 11:16 am
Perhaps there are many “non-essentials” where our differences do not matter. For an obsurd example, does it matter if one prefers red and another prefers blue? Is there one “true” color that we all need to have as our favorite? I believe there are many similar areas where our preferences, individuality, and differences really do not matter and obviously add a nice variety to our lives.
But perhaps there are some “essentials” where we are expected to be unified and in agreement. When I think of Zion, the main characteristic to me is that of being of one heart- that we all strive for the same thing. We all bring different gifts and abilities to the table, but we offer them willingly for the benefit of the whole.
I like Ray’s reference to marriage. I think there’s a synergy that results from unity, and this is what I hope to achieve in my family.
August 25, 2007 at 12:34 am
Well said, Jim.
August 25, 2007 at 2:01 am
differences do not nessessarily mean inequality, just as equality does not necessarily mean identical.
August 27, 2007 at 12:26 am
MCQ, actually, I agree with that in concept, but I don’t see how we could be like God, whom I see as possessing all good traits, talents, etc. that we might possess (and more), and somehow have different talents from each other. If we receive all that He has, then it seems to me that eternally speaking, we won’t really have differences as we think of them now.
Did you ever hear the Savior tout His differences with the Father to keep His individuality? On the contrary. This is part of what drives my thinking. He was an individual, yes, but there was nothing He did or said that wasn’t what Father would do or say. We think of such “loss of individuality” as a negative in our culture and in our mortal minds, but I just can’t help but think that eternally, that will be more our reality than benefiting from our various differences. But then there is the whole male-female thing, so I dunno how it really will all play out.