Today’s guest post is from Andrew Ainsworth. I find it significant that Christ’s ultimate prayer in Gethsemane was for unity, and that unity is the ultimate goal of Eastern religions as well (they even take unity to the metaphysical level, viewing the ultimate unity as having our individual souls cease to be independent entities and to merge with the whole of existence).
One thing I’ve thought a lot about over the years is what we should unite around. Christ prayed that we would be one with God, and one with Him, and one with each other. So one could say that we are to unite around “God’s will,” whatever that may be. However, because we all have different perspectives, we inevitably disagree about what “God’s will” is. As a result, the mechanics or methodology of how to achieve that desired “oneness” has proved elusive to Christendom and the world at large. Which brings me back to my original question: If we are to unite, what are we to unite around?
From an LDS perspective, it seems the fact that God allowed there to be a “war in Heaven” demonstrates that God does value some principles above even the principle of unity, and that those principles are what we are to unite around. It seems at least one of the principles that God values above unity is the agency to believe and say and do what one feels is right. Thus, unity is the goal, but God values the principle of agency above even the principle of unity, and therefore will not sacrifice or infringe upon our agency to achieve that desired unity.
We may not agree with each others’ views or actions, but we can be united in our belief that each of us has that agency. As an earthly example, that is precisely the sort of unity—the unity in our right to disagree with one another—that unites the United States. Which also goes to show how much disagreement can be tolerated amongst a “United” people.
I’m also cognizant that calls for “unity” are often employed by those in power who wish to quash any dissent and discourage people from exercising their agency. Earthly rulers have long been fond of calling for unity whenever their policies become unpopular. Those in power cry for unity on the assumption that unity must mean accepting whatever they hand us and keeping our mouths shut. This sort of cynical attempt to use a call for unity as a tool of manipulation and control is something I think we need to look out for as well. “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” was the desire of Hitler and all other totalitarians before and after him. It was the desire of Lucifer according to LDS scripture. Tyrants want us to unite around the principle of their authority, rather than uniting around the inviolable principle of our individual agency. In their view, unity means keeping our mouths shut, rather than being united in our right to voice our disagreement with one another.
I’ve often heard apologists, and general authorities, cite the goal of unity to excuse the persistence of church policies that seemed obviously un-Christian (e.g., the priesthood ban against blacks), or to discourage members from publicly voicing their disagreement with such church policies, on the theory that unity (which they seem to define as a lack of dissent) is a more important principle than, say, not treating black people like they are the inferior creations of a racist God who is, as it turns out, a respecter of persons. When apologists make this argument to defend the persistence of that un-Christian policy, it has always seemed odd to me that they assume God would prefer having his children be united in sharing gross misconceptions about His character handed down to them by those in Authority, rather than tolerating some honest disagreement amongst His children in His church in the hopes that those in power might come to a more perfect understanding of who He really is. To be honest, this has caused me to question whether the GAs’ concept of “unity” is in harmony with the Lord’s, or whether it more closely resembles that of Lucifer and other would-be tyrants. In saying that, I don’t ascribe any Satanic influence or motivation to the GAs. But it is possible for all of us to forget godly principles, especially agency, when we are desiring to influence others and to control an institution.
A church can choose to unite around any number of principles. Christians unite around Christ. Catholics take it a step further by uniting around Christ and the Pope. Similarly, Mormons unite around Christ, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and a belief in living prophets, coupled with an expectation that you support, or at least refrain from publicly disagreeing with, their teachings and policies. A belief in Christ makes you a Christian, but you’re required to believe in Joseph Smith and his “Restoration” to become a Mormon or go to the temple. And you must also accept the fact that you cannot publicly disagree with Church leaders’ teachings or policies without having it cost you your membership—all in the name of “unity.”
Are we united around the right things? If not, what are the right things to unite around?
Wheat & Tares 
Thanks for this blog post. It’s thought-provoking. My understanding of God is that there can be unity AND diversity in much the same way that the cells in a human body are diverse, but are also united. The scripture that comes to mind is the one about differing gifts and the body of Christ, Romans 12:3-8ish.
Very often we mistake sameness for unity, just like we mistake diversity as being only certain things (race, gender, religion, etc.). Both unity and diversity are rich terms that do not exclude each other…or don’t have to exclude each other.
My first impression is that the principle of “opposition in all things” can be seen as a uniting principle, in the same way that the tension bound up in a keystone is what keeps the edifice standing. There has to be some room for disagreement, or pretty soon you run out of things to discuss and work on. Each of the two main political parties in this county dreams of the day when the opposition provided by the “other” party is completely overcome, but it would ultimately prove detrimental, I think. The Book of Mormon ends when the Nephites have finally been vanquished by the Lamanites.
Maybe the moral is, “be careful what you ask for, you may get it”.
I really liked this post – thank you.
I do think there is a dynamic that occurs with “tension” that is not present today. Back in the early 1900’s there were more liberal leaders and more conservative leaders. There were people who wrote about pre-Adamites and others who wrote about evolution being a tool of Satan. There were teetotalers and those who imbibed in moderation. We had J Golden Kimball who might add some spice to a talk. It was a dynamic time.
The beauty of that is that people could find a home. People might agree on some basics, but there was a leader with whom you could relate, almost regardless of your opinion about almost anything.
Now, things are much different. If you don’t agree with the official, or unofficial, doctrine about something as simple as shirt color or how many earrings you have, you are seen as “questioning the prophet”.
Churches are bland as well. Instead of various buildings taking on the character of their locale, it has become a franchise, with the same blandness of a McDonalds. It might be nice to eat at McDonald’s once while in Paris, but that’s not why you go to Paris.
Thoughtful post. The relentless drive for unity, i.e.no dissent, by Church leaders has pushed more than a few people from the Church.
I love your statement: “it has always seemed odd to me that they assume God would prefer having his children be united in sharing gross misconceptions about His character handed down to them by those in Authority, rather than tolerating some honest disagreement amongst His children in His church.”
Great to hear from you again AA, I have taught a number of lessons based on your post’s, the next one might be interesting.
I think it is really difficult to have unity and diversity of thought and action in the modern world of technology, with so many differing voices it would just creat White Noise.
I do believe the GA’s are listening to us, the recent WWLT brought about many positive changes, whilst the train moves slowy it is moving.
But, what we really have is a drive for acceptance of each other, which is a type of unity that really unites us.
Hmm, I had two posts in a row, and the first one disappeared when the second one went up.
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the aworld, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be bone, as we are.”
The message of unity that sticks out to me is that we are to be one or united as Christ and the Father are. Christ’s example of unity was of obedience and submitting his will to the Father. Christ’s example is in contrast to Satan’s who was unwilling to submit himself to the Father and instead opted to vocally oppose Him and seek policy change. The fact that the Father cast Satan out seems to indicate that He will only tolerate so much dissent.
Sorry for the error. “…that they may be one, as we are.”
I think we can only become one (in the sense that it says in the NT) through independent informed choice, not blind obedience or conformity. There can be no path to godhood that goes straight from infancy to adulthood in passive uninformed agreement with authority. We all have to work it out “with fear and trembling.” That doesn’t sound like an easy process to me.
One more thought – I think there’s a distinction not made in the OP that bears exploration. “Unity” as a spiritual principle is not the same as, but is sometimes confused with:
– Unanimity. We are told that the Q15 make decisions in unanimity. IMO, this is just one way to prevent extremism and to slow the pace of change, not to quash dissent.
– Uniformity. There is a sameness to appearance often sought by the church (garments, clean cut, shaven leaders, helmet-haired women, white shirts & ties). This gives the church the comforting feel of repeatability, although it also discourages individual expression and accepting those who look different than our norms.
– Conformity. This is when the majority want the minority to go along with their imposed norms or when the minority want to “fit in” by downplaying their differences.
There can be a desire for “unity” that is based on individual choice, not just “majority rules” or “authority rules.” But that’s a lot tougher to achieve. No wonder people tend to resort to forcing people through authority and peer pressure instead.
Thank you! 🙂 Very well thought out.
“But, what we really have is a drive for acceptance of each other, which is a type of unity that really unites us.”
Nice point Stephen, I think we all have the innate tendency to want to be accepted and accepting each other is something that we can (should?) unite around.
However, we also have the innate tendency to define those who are different from us as “other” in a dehumanizing fashion. Finding a balance between these tendencies can be difficult especially when what is defined as “other” is mandated externally by those with whom we want to be accepted by (church leaders, peers within our culture, family etc).
I liked the post, Andrew. Welcome back, we’ve missed you.
Good food for thought.
There’s a saying attributed to St. Augustine (and some other people): “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, diversity. In all things, charity.”
Obviously, the sticking point here is what counts as “essentials.” I tend towards Paul’s, and Rudolf Bultmann’s, idea that the essentials consist of little more than Christ and him crucified.
So much of campaigns to maintain “doctrinal orthodoxy” seems to have little practical effect on how people who root themselves in the Atonement are molded by God. People can believe dramatically different things about (say) evolution, and still radiate the same spirit associated with Church membership. Since, to borrow from Elder Oaks, what we become is ultimately what matters, far more than the things we believe, I have to conclude that if differences on a doctrinal point don’t yield any different ultimate result, those points are less important.
And too much emphasis on doctrinal conformity, may itself have harmful spiritual consequences. People can come to take pride in being the truly orthodox ones — at the express or implied expense of the purportedly unorthodox. “Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is the other man’s doxy.” The natural man sure loves to be right, and to put the other guy in the wrong. I have to repent of this. A lot.
What I’ve learned from the past year is that the church as a whole does not know how to deal with conflict or dissension.
We are always told that in order to be a good lds person that we should automatically love one another. This is impossible to do. I say a little dissension is a good thing, even healthy at times because your not stifling yourself and with that dissension you can actually grow and be stronger
Unity can be achieved bu excluding all those who disagree with you. Conservative approach.
or by including all those who agree with basics, and allowing freedom on the details. A more liberal approach.
The first approach seems to have become standard practice but restricts very much the ability to bring the Gospel to ALL THE WORLD, even those who are more liberal. Which seems more loving. Did Christ approve of the pharasees?
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (TPJS, p. 121).
I think of this quote when you mention the number of things we become united in by being Mormon. The fundamental principle of being united around Joseph Smith, the BoM, and living Prophets is that they bear witness of Christ. If one views Jesus as the center of Priesthood power and the testimony of His Apostles and Prophets as being delivered with Priesthood authority, then the fundamental principle gets deeper. It is, however, a lay priesthood. There is not supposed to be, in Mormonism, a priestly class. So while I sustain General Authorities, Local Authorities, I am not united around the persona of their office. I respect the authority that the membership has sustained them with to drive policies, but I am not united around the policies. I haven’t felt a need to publicly disagree, but I ponder things in my heart. As to being united around the temple–again, all temple ordinances point to Christ. It his His sanctuary. It may seem questionable why people who drink Red Bull can get a recommend but those who drink Lipton cannot, but I’m not united around that policy. I submit to it, but I don’t view my unity of the Temple as coming from that.
By the way, I also want to thank AA for posting again. How exciting to see the banner that he was guest posting!
The OP states: “From an LDS perspective, it seems the fact that God allowed there to be a “war in Heaven” demonstrates that God does value some principles above even the principle of unity”
I disagree. It seems in the premortal existence, those who were united around Christ were allowed to remain; those who weren’t were not.
I think the Lord wants us voluntarily to unite around Him as He reveals Himself to us.
We are taught that a well-formed council can do this. They can take up discussion of a topic and continue discussing the topic and possible solutions until they are unified in their approach. Elder Eyring has taught that the Quorum of the 12 operates this way. Last week’s training broadcast suggested that ward councils can function the same way. Elder Bednar suggested they are an opportunity for revelation — if that revelation comes to all from the same source, and all are open to it and ready to receive it, it will lead to unity of approach from the council.
As HG said: “There can be a desire for “unity” that is based on individual choice, not just “majority rules” or “authority rules.””