The Establishment of Zion

I’ve thought a great deal ultimately on the establishment of Zion here on the earth. Hugh Nibley’s book “Approaching Zion” has thrown a new light on the subject for me, as did Elder Christofferson’s recent conference talk.

Nibley makes the point that Zion is a possibility and that “the instant one realizes that Zion is a possibility, one has no choice but to identify himself with the program that will bring about the quickest possible realization of its perfection.” (p. 28) I agree with this statement and believe it includes Elder Christofferson’s charge: “to care for the poor and needy with such effectiveness that we eliminate poverty among us. We cannot wait until Zion comes for these things to happen—Zion will come only as they happen” (“Come to Zion;” General Conference October 2008)

We know from Elder Christofferson’s talk and the scriptures that the establishment of Zion means the elimination of poverty. We know that in Alma’s early church, they were blessed because, “in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need” (Alma 1:30). King Benjamin asks the powerful question: “Are we not all beggars?” (Mosiah 4:19). He makes it clear that we are not to judge a person for why they happen to be in poverty, but only to help them get out of it. The Lord Himself taught the Church in the early days that “it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” (D&C 49:20). Some of the best people to walk the earth came in the generations following the Lord’s appearance to the Nephites. One of the defining passages about them describes that there were “no manner of –ites (among them); but they were in one, the children of Christ” (4 Ne. 4:17). I could go on with many other examples, but it is clear that Zion can only be established where there is equality among people.

After a brilliant discourse on the evils of wealth and coveting, Nibley states, “All my life I have shied away from these disturbing and highly unpopular--even offensive—themes (the uses of money). But I cannot do so any longer, because in my old age I have taken to reading the scriptures and there have had it forced upon my reluctant attention, that from the time of Adam to the present day, Zion has been pitted against Babylon, and the name of the game has always been money—‘power and gain’” (p. 58).

Satan taught Korihor principles of the free competitive market when he said, “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17). Does this not bring to mind our capitalistic society?

In 1875 The First Presidency stated in a letter to the Church that “The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice.”

This contrasts with President Benson’s statement (then a member of the quorum of the twelve) that, “a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism! . . . It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity” (“A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion;” BYU Devotional 1977). Perhaps giving taxes to help the poor does not constitute "charity," but until the day comes when we willingly live the law of consecration, it seems that the welfare system serves a decent, albeit distant, substitute.

Nibley states that "the man who devotes himself to tiring routines of business should be rewarded, but should all others be penalized who do not engage in that particular line of work?" He quotes Joseph Smith in the first chapter saying, "Here are those who begin to spread out buying up all the land they are able to do, to the exclusion of the poorer ones who are not so much blessed with this world's goods, thinking to lay foundations for themselves only, looking to their own individual families . . . now I want to tell you that Zion cannot be built up in any such way." I figure we should strive for Zion, even if it's an unlikely outcome, and that the welfare system works toward a Zion outcome more than the alternative.

It seems that whether we lift up the poor by our own free will, or whether it is mandated by the Church, or whether it is mandated by the government—it needs to happen. I hear people say that they would give more if they were taxed less. Perhaps, but that doesn’t seem to be our inclination as a collective group, at least in my personal experience. I’d rather my taxes go to the welfare system and help people by mandate, than me keep more and maybe give an additional $10 to fast offerings every month. I think our unity and our holiness (the other two pillars discussed by Elder Christofferson), are getting better and better as a church. It’s the third pillar, that of “caring for the poor” where I feel we are falling further and further behind. I saw it personally in my inner-city mission; perhaps that is why I feel so strongly on the subject.

Thoughts?

Why Cant Brigham Young Go To Brigham Young University?

The White Table is looking quite dark lately. Nobody to purify, enlighten, or cleanse it. Happy engagement to Light! And happy BYU to Fire! Happy LSAT-is-done for Reverence! It seems we are all quite busy. Or, maybe the last post was dragging on and we need a new topic. I think a bit of both. I want to present a new post. It is a silly one, and one which will spark some debate, but I don't think it will last too long because I think the right-wrong in it is more apparent than the eternal debate concerning The Dark Knight. Speaking of the DK, I have concretized my opinion that it is a valid, and moral movie worth viewing. Last night on TV was Spider Man 2, and Jodie and I watched most of it. I will always love SpiderMan, but I firmly disagree that it is in anyway a better film than the DK, on any grounds; morally, cinematically, thematically. There are plenty of questionable parts, but the one thing I can say about it, is that the "goodness" of Spiderman is much more apparent than The DK. Especially in the script, such as when Aunt Mae and Peter discuss how "sometimes, to do what is right, you much forgo what you want, even your dreams." This is clearly in line with the gospel. I also do enjoy how clear the sacrifice in behalf of others is made by Spider Man. But The DK has equal goodness and maybe even more layers too it. Plus, I don't know why Peter and MJ don't get together! He could love her as Peter Parker, and fight crime as Spider Man. Peter's relationship with Aunt Mae never jeopardized her. Clearly a writing flaw in Spider Man 2. Anyway, just a few quick thoughts. Some response is welcome, even though I'm creating a new post.

NEW POST INFO:

So a debate broke out at the Staples house recently. It was me versus my mom, at first. Slowly everyone ganged up on me and it became me against the world. The reason for such a lop-sided debate is due to the topic of debate. I chose a hard argument to defend, and became the only one who would do so. The topic was the BYU honor code. My mom, and eventually everyone, defended the honor code, while I argued decidedly against it. Again, part of me was playing the devil's advocate, and defending a point to which I do not fully subscribe, but I think its healthy to consider opposing opinions. It was a fun and lengthy debate. Here are the main points, and I present it to the table for more Light, Fire and Reverence.

For:

1. The Honor Code is established by the brethren, therefore is to be non-negotiably accepted.
   
2. The Honor Code helps provide a safe-haven from distractions that impede from the main goal of a University....education.
   
3. The Honor Code draws a line against which people can measure themselves, and gives clear goals and standards.
   
4. The Honor Code is not a Church Code, and is unique to the school. So it is not to be looked at as a "worthiness interview."
   

Against:

1. The imposed enforcement of the Honor Code restricts agency
   
2. Certain elements of the Honor Code are counterintuitive, specifically the dress and grooming standards, because one could attend the temple with a certain haircut but cannot take a test on campus.
   
3. The Honor Code has changed overtime, which raises questions of "absolute truth" within the Honor Code. At one point women could NOT wear jeans. Also, sandals could only be worn with socks (creating the uniquely Utah/Mormon style)
   
4. Mustaches are allowed, for some reason, which just seems silly, and beards are not. Why cant Brigham Young (and 6 other prophets) go to Brigham Young? Mustache-wearing fools, however, would have no problem getting into the testing center, such as Hitler, Saddam, Charlie Chaplin, Tom Selick, Freddie Mercury. Funny to think about.
   

I definitely don't believe the Honor Code is a bad thing. I agree with every rule and admonishment, with exception to the dress and grooming standards. But I wonder about the restriction of agency in some cases.

My mom really got me going at one point. I wasn't mad, but strongly disagreed. She argued that "its true that a man with a pony-tail or beard can attend the temple, but you also know that he is not a bishop or stake president." Im not sure if I would go as far as to say that Bishops and Stake Presidents should be able to have pony-tails, but I did not like the comment as I saw it as an unfair judgment. Maybe the pony-tailed or bearded-man has been a bishop in the past, or will be in the future. Grooming, to me, has little to do with worthiness. It also seems weird to project these standards into other countries as the church grows. For example, my mission did not have stakes yet established. And if I understand correctly, the grooming standards are not yet fully enforced at the district/branch level, since many leaders in the West Indies sport mustaches and beards. The branch president in one area had a large, full beard. He was great. If the district becomes a stake, he will have to shave. Why!?! That seems silly. I am not totally sure of this as a rule, however, so I may be mistaken of that enforcement. Also, black-skinned people often have a MUCH more difficult time keeping a clean shave, because curly hairs are more prone to become in-grown. Thus we see more black people with facial hair than white people. That a bishop or stake-president must be clean-shaven could potentially be unfair to the black people in this regard. I believe it was Gene R. Cook who said that the first sign of an apostate is facial hair. Wow.

The debate stretched further and we discussed the concept of dressing standards within the church. Generally, leaders, priesthood holders and all other men are encouraged to wear white shirts and ties to church. It is argued that the white is symbolic of purity and cleanliness. This makes some sense, especially when we think of the temple. But, white shirts and ties as formal attire is strictly western in nature. African people look to color as symbols of power and authority. Should local leaders in Africa be able to determine their own, culturally-sensitive, type of attire for Sunday? Hmmm. Not sure. I'd like to gain some Light and feel some Fire on the subject. The discussion of white shirts and ties may be a moot point because pretty-much all of the West Indian and African members that I came into contact with were proud to own a white shirt, and wore it with pride. But, I'm not sure about true-africa.

Okay, let the White Table be cleansed. It is dark and dreary as of late. Hopefully this will get us rolling again. Onward!

Either Up or Down? We'd Spin In Circles!

How fantastic it is to hear from Fire and Light. I am excited in part because the White Table is so encouraging for me to better study the scriptures and gospel teachings. As I read Fire's entry, I realized that my "mind has been on the things of the earth more than on the things of [Him]" (DC 30:2) as of late and I my referencing and reading is embarrisingly rusty. I hope the White Table will forgive me and rekindle my Fire and show me the Light. Quickly, I'd like to suggest a few "housekeeping" ideas for the White Table blog. I suggest that we comment on a single subject until we are ready to move to a different subject. This means that we do not click "new post" as both Light and I have done to discuss Fire's post, instead we click "comment" at the bottom of Fire's post. We will post back and forth until we are ready for another post, or until someone has another question/idea and wants to get a second or third chain going on. That leads me to another idea. We should only have 2-3 active posts, I think. This way we go to the deaper ends of each subject instead of always creating new posts which probabaly leads to overstretch and disinterest. This being said, lets give it a shot. Future comments regarding Fire's post, or Light's response or my response should be made as "comments" underneath my post (since it is the most recent and therefore at the top of the blog). Once we've discussed this for a week or two, or however long we want, we will creat a brand new post and begin commenting there. Does that make sense? Hopefully.

Fire had a very intriguing post, and Light's response was likewise enlightening. The concept of individual VS absolute truth is fascinating. If truth is individual, it threathens the veracity of everything we adhere to. If truth is absolute, there must be clear disctinctions and no ifs ands or buts. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

Fire's post is well supported by scripture and the temple. One that comes to mind is D&C 46:7 which states, "But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils." Also, I know from very personal and real feelings that I most definitely have felt a consistent "ebb and flow" of my spirituality as I make decisions in life. I would say that my life, I assume like most) resembles that of a sound wave. The crest of the said wave could represent the times of great spiritual growth and the trough is times of relative darkness. I hope, that the wave is sloping in a gradual upward direction so that the crests get higher and the troughs do too. This cycle seems normal, and is discussed throughout the scriptures i.e. pride cycles. So, to be clear, I definitely think that Fire's comments are on target and I agree with him in general. But....what would the White Table be without some decenting voicing. Decenting may not be the right word, and neither would "devil's advocate", but how about some critical thinking and "opposition in all things?" Here is my beef:

There are some weeknesses with the argument that "with every choice we make we are either moving forward or backward." First, if we assume that each decision does indeed add or subtract from our spirituality, and we agree that there is an infinite number of decisions possible to make (or at least lots and lots) then we are implying that there is an infinite (or lots and lots) of levels of spirituality and that none are on the same level unless they have made the EXACT same decisions throughout life. Apply this logic to the Prophets. We know that Joseph was a "choice" seer, and that Adam is the Patriarch, and many other's have special callings in Heaven. Which one is higher? Are some latter-day prophets worse than others? Imagine heavenly father lining them up in order of righteousness. The image doesn't sit well with me. What I'm trying to illustrate, is that the idea that "with EVERY choice we are either moving forward or backward" leaves no room for triviality. If I like raspberries, but not strawberries, and I choose to eat the former, but not the latter, in which direction does this decision send me? If President Monson likes chocolate ice cream, but President Hinckley liked vanilla, who will have the upper hand at the last day with respect to ice cream? Christ probably had a beard, longer hair, and simple clothes. Are we all to be judged critically for our decisions to wear jeans and t-shirts? These examples are clearly simple, trivial, and obviously facetious, but the logic is the same as that presented by Fire. My point: some decisions in life must be trivial. It is easy to see that decisions concerning fruit, ice cream, etc. seem silly and not of eternal consequence, but this logic becomes more troublesome when we apply it to more controversial decisions i.e. The Dark Knight.

I want to be clear that moral relativity is not my position. Some things are right, some things are wrong. And I believe that one of life’s great challenges is to discern them and live accordingly. But I am not able to agree, in full, that ALL decisions move us forward or backward. I never thought that I would be advocating in behalf of the “grey” team, but I do indeed think that some things are “grey areas”. Maybe grey isn’t the right word because grey is simply white with a bit of black. And we are challenged to cleans “every whit.” But I’m not convinced that one who watches Disney Pixar films and nothing else is worse than one who watches nothing at all. In fact, the notion that seeing NO film is better at all is suspect to me. I would agree, however, that he who watches anything is definitely going to see clearly “black” material that can be deemed wrong, or bad. That I am sure of. Many, maybe most, films are not innocent or trivial.

Another argument is that if each and every decision we make brings us closer or pushes us further from righteousness, would it not be rational to identify those activities that progress us further/faster than others and then devote our entire energy to that activity? For example, would it not be rational, therefore, to spend every free moment at the temple instead of service? Or reading our scriptures instead of anything else? Are we to believe that our Heavenly Father wants us to be non-social beings, but spiritual giants? Is that possible? President Monson chose to attend a Jazz game recently. He could have chosen to study the scriptures. Was his progressions slowed for this decision? Its tough for me to believe that each and every decision has affect on our progression/digression, and it is especially difficult for me to believe that every good decision is both better and worse than another good decision. Which decision is optimal?

We understand that there are 3 degrees of glory and multiple levels of glory in each kingdom. But if each decision brings us closer or further from righteousness, our places in heaven would only be justified if we each had our own, right? Are we to understand that some people will barely make it into a given degree of glory, while others make it with ease? An example of this is one who receives an A grade for his 94%, and one who receives a 98% but still gets only an A. Is one really better off?

What about the differences of opinions and choices amongst the brethren? I know they are not in opposition with each other, but they definitely are not clones either. They make, and have made, many different choices but all are worthy to be special witnesses of Christ. The same discrepancy exists between bishops, mission presidents, relief society leaders, stake presidents etc, as I talked about in my first DK post. I find it audacious to believe that one mission president who allows missionaries to listen to ONLY hymns is any more righteous or right than one who allows hymns AND classical music. This example is the same as that of no movies or Disney Pixar ones only.

Also, we know that the gift of discernment is given to some, but not all since “all have not every gift given unto them” (D&C 46:11, see 1 Cor. 12: 7-10) Some people may genuinely not be as sensitive to the spirit as others but are equally as righteous, since their gift may be a different gift i.e. gift of faith, gift of leadership, gift of tongues.

In conclusion, I want to state that I have beef with my own comments. I feel that they are 2 parts philosophy of men 1 part mingled scripture. I have not sited many sources, which is clearly the most effective way to defend one’s position. But, I don’t think that my thinking is therefore entirely bunk. One question/concern I have felt while writing this is that of the NEED for an opposition in all things. What exactly does that mean? Could understanding the deeper meaning of agency help us answer this debate of individual vs. absolute truth? This is a hot topic. I’m interested to hear back. Mind you that the position I have taken is felt by me, but not necessary to the full extent to which I have written. So…..let the Whiteness begin.

Don't forget the good that can come from bad!

First off, thank you Rev for setting this up and Fire for putting up the first gospel post. I have great hopes for this blog and hope it is something that we can carry on for years and even decades to come. I hope that through this we can be enlightened and become open to new ideas whatever the may be.

Fire – posted “if I choose never to see another movie again in my life, will that keep me ahead in my quest for light and knowledge than someone who only watches Disney-Pixar films? And will the Nemo-Woody-addict be ahead of someone who will watch anything?”

Like you Fire, I believe that we are never at a stand still and we are either growing towards god or going in a diverse direction. Similar to the all too famous “moon” quote, we are either waxing (i.e. growing in spirituality) or waning (i.e loosing spirituality.) But I also think great things can come from bad moments, situations and acts. It sometimes takes “troughs” or down times in our lives as Screwtape would say to realize why we seek or want “high’s” in our lives. On a different note there is something to say about never giving into temptation. When I was a sophomore in high school, my bishop Dave Dunford asked me in an interview if I had drank alcohol or any substance like that? I responded to him that I had never even tasted it and he told me that I would be blessed immensely for the rest of my life if I never even take a sample taste. When he told me this, I was hit hard and realized the many blessing that are ours if we refrain from temptation all together. Conversely to that idea I have seen batman three times now. Believe me Rev and Fire, I’m not one who really like comics and movies associated with them but I had an opportunity to see it on opening night and made the decision to go. Consequently, I have seen two more times because I loved it so much.

Batman is an extremely dark movie about good vs. evil. In the movie there are haunting scenes of horrible acts of evil but through it all the light still shines forth. Near the end of the movie Alfred explains to Batman that he needs to be whatever Gothom needs him to be. If he needs to be the hated one, then that is okay because it allows the people of Gothom to prove their worth in goodness. By doing so he is doing a greater good for the people then just being a super hero. Essentially Alfred is teaching a lesson on selflessness and paralleling it to life of the Savior. Upon finishing the movie I left extremely uplifted and hopeful of society and had much more gratitude for my savior and his role in the plan of salvation. I share this experience because I feel that Batman at face value probably isn’t something that most of us would look at and say “that will bring me closer to God,” and I agree. On the other hand, good can be derived from anything and even the most horrible and daunting things can be turned into positive uplifting things. That’s not to say that we should seek negative situations, nonetheless I feel that we can gain light and knowledge through acts that normally appear unspiritual. President Hinkley probably was the greatest figure we’ve ever known that encouraged us to be positive and optimistic in times of bad and to seek the good in everything.

Either Up or Down

I begin the first White Table Post with some disquietude. I hope that the discussion is as enlightening as were the many conversations had around the White Table, with steaming chicken bowls before us.
I thought it would be appropriate to begin the White Blog with a discussion about progression and individual versus absolute truth. Are we always rising or falling? Does everything we think, say, or do (which include the senses of watch and hear) draw us nearer or further us more from Christ?
My argument is that, yes, everything takes us closer or further from God. Alma asks, "If ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye? Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd." (Alma 5:39) Moroni says that "the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil" (Mor 7:16). It sounds to me from these two verses that you are either the devil's sheep or the Savior's sheep and that good and evil are the same for every man.
How individual is progression in light and knowledge? If I decide to do something that either adds or takes away from my light and knowledge, would you experience the same result upon taking the same action? I'm thinking beyond the specific commandments that we know will add or take away from our light (e.g. breaking the law of chastity or not paying tithing).
For example, if I choose never to see another movie again in my life, will that keep me ahead in my quest for light and knowledge than someone who only watches Disney-Pixar films? And will the Nemo-Woody-addict be ahead of someone who will watch anything? Were the Anti-Nephi-Lehis better than the other Nephites because they buried their weapons of war? Or were they just making different choices, both of which can take them to exaltation? One more hypothetical, outside the media. If you bike to work, are you gaining more light and knowledge than someone who drives?
I believe that God is the same yesterday, today and forever (1 Ne. 10:18). I believe that good is good and bad is bad, no matter your background or personal preferences. I believe that with every choice we make we are either moving forward or backward. Amulek teaches that "every whit points to the great and last sacrifice" (Alma 34:14), in 3rd Nephi we learn that those who performed miracles were cleansed "every whit" from iniquity (3 Ne. 8:1). I believe that in order to achieve that state, everything we choose to see, smell, think, read, watch, say, hear, and do should bring us closer to Christ.
Now, let the White Table, and others who feel so inclined, speak.

The Return of The Table!

After many years in darkness, Light. After many years of empty cold, Fire. After many years of chaos, Reverence. The Table has returned. Come one, come all, and let us begin the welcoming as we anticipate a White future at the Table. Light, Fire, Reverence...the Table is back.