Diversity is Overrated

Kaimi made an interesting post recently at Times and Seasons about Times and Seasons. He was writing about the benefits of being an inter-ideologically diverse group blog. He mentioned how many group blogs are places where birds of a feather flock together. I suppose he could have been talking about Blogger of Jared and similar blogs. The contributors here tend to be fairly similar, and from my understanding this is intentionally the case. When I was first invited to join this blog I asked a couple of my blogging friends for their advice. One comment was made that ‘I can’t tell those guys at BofJ apart’. Well, just scroll down a couple of posts to see an example of a strong difference of opinion! But generally speaking, we are similar people. Is this such a bad thing? Does it make BofJ boring and irrelevant?

This has caused me to think a bit about whether or not there are benefits to diversity in a group blog when what is being discussed is so often the doctrines and practices of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Is diversity within a blog and within the church in these areas a desirable thing? For now I think the answer is no, it is not.

Now don’t get me wrong. (I say that a lot). I delight in the differences of personality, style, knowledge, experience, etc. that I find in the bloggernacle, and in life. I like what Brigham Young said about stereotype Mormons, although I could not find the reference today (little help?). I’m talking more about ideological, or perhaps more specific, theological diversity as it relates to the doctrine, and to a lesser extent practices, within the church and within Mormon blogs. Should we not in general be a united people in these areas?

Brigham Young had a lot to say about unity. In fact there is an entire chapter on the subject in Discourses (Chapter 25). This chapter starts out with the following paragraphs:

Be of one mind and one heart – I pray, my brethren, the Bishops, the Elders, the Seventies, the Apostles, yea, every man and woman and child who has named the name of Christ, to be of one heart and of one mind, for if we do not become of one heart and mind we shall surely perish by the way.

If we were one, we should then prove to heaven, to God our Father, to Jesus Christ our Elder Brother, to the angels, to the good upon the earth, and to all mankind that we are the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. If we are not one, we are not in the true sense of the word the disciples of the Lord Jesus.

And quotes like that continue throughout the chapter.

The writings of Paul are filled with pleadings that the saints in various areas are united. I will give just one as an example ‘Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.’ (1 Cor. 1:10) Look in the TG under unity to get quite a list of similar verses. But this is not all.

In the intercessory prayer Jesus himself says. ‘Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20-21).

During the wonderful time after the Saviors visit to the Americas it was said of the people:

And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. And how blessed were they! (4 Ne. 1:15-17)

The D&C states, ‘I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.’ (D&C 38:27)

Also, ‘Hearken, O ye elders of my church whom I have called, behold I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall assemble yourselves together to agree upon my word.’ (D&C 41:2)

To ultimately agree upon the word of God. Should that not be the desire and goal of those who gather with saints here or elsewhere? Sure, it may be fun for a time to debate and speculate regarding certain gaps in the revelations – but to what end?! Should we not seek to become a united people?

And if I have not beat the horse quite dead yet, There is verse three of ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ (Hymn 246)

Like a mighty army Moves the Church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where the Saints have trod.
We are not divided; All one body we:
One in hope and doctrine, One in charity.

Well, I did not seek the bloggernacle out for argument or debate. It seems to me there are plenty of sources for ideologies and theologies that are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Life is challenging enough for me. I hope for peace and unity within the gospel. Greater understanding, not additional confusion. I am sincerely grateful for all the uplifting, faithful, interesting, and uniting contributors out there. Perhaps there are some who find BofJ a tad boring. Well, there are also those who find the scriptures boring. And conference. And the Ensign. And prayer. We certainly do not put ourselves in the same category as those sources, but hopefully the similarity you may see in us here in some way represents a type of unity which comes from being part of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not divided; All one body we: One in hope and doctrine, One in charity.


31 Responses to “Diversity is Overrated”

  1. 1 J. Stapley July 17, 2006 at 9:29 pm

    I think that the diversity movement with identity policts as an inherent good is bit sketchy. More important is a civil discourse (with humility, patience, and all that other wonderful christian stuff) and a healthy dialectic.

    There are plenty of shows on television that purport to put different ideologies together…with very little exception, they are all drival.

  2. 2 Connor Boyack July 17, 2006 at 9:45 pm

    I agree – diversity has its pros and its cons. I know that in my life, I seek to surround myself with people who think like me and who have similar principles and morals.

    However, I like to be appraised of what the “other side” is up to, what their thoughts are, and what they are saying, but only to a limited extent. This is more for informational purposes than anything else. I think sheltering yourself from diversity and opposition is naive and unhealthy.

    “Moderation in all things” is something I try to live by. There are those that would cram their opposing views down your throat and argue with you until you turned blue, but I don’t see that as healthy or productive. As J. Stapley pointed out above, civil discourse (with humility, patience, and all that other wonderful Christian stuff) is benefecial, uplifting, edifying, and productive. I’m all for that.

  3. 3 mullingandmusing July 17, 2006 at 10:04 pm

    This is something I have thought about a lot. I have always read the scripture in Moses 7 about Zion being one heart and one mind indicative of how we should be as Saints. Unfortunately, the diversity of viewpoints is what breeds discussion, which is what the ‘nacle basically thrives on. I, too, like to know what others are thinking, but I think Eric’s whole point is that there shouldn’t be “sides” in the gospel. We should be one. I’m sad that there is a concept of “the other side” at all. There are way too many “-ites.” To have a Zion-like society, we shouldn’t have -ites at all, should we?

  4. 4 Eric Nielson July 18, 2006 at 5:15 am


    I like your thoughts about identity politics and television shows. But I feel even stronger about this when it comes to the gospel.


    I’m with you again. I also feel that what the ‘other side’ is up to is usually quite obvious, again especially as it relates to gospel topics.


    Thanks for bringing up the Moses scripture regarding Zion. If we are not building unity, we are not building Zion. If we are not building Zion what are we building?

  5. 5 NoSurfGirl July 18, 2006 at 7:44 am

    I guess it depends on what you define as “one in heart.”

    For instance, the doctrines set out by our church leaders should not be too argued about, it is true. And we all do our best to live the sort of lifestyle that will bring us closer to God.

    But there does happen to be diversity, methinks, in the sorts of daily pracitices that each individual engages in to be closer to God. For instance, the whole issue of vegetarianism, which spurrs a lot of controversial discussion. I don’t think this is a bad thing, unless it runs to contention, because we all learn something new and have new food for thought as we examine each others’ differences, particularly as they are inspired by prayer/a desire to be closer to Heavenly Father.

  6. 6 J. Stapley July 18, 2006 at 10:04 am

    As it relates to the Zion unity of heart, I think that it is important to understand what it is we are unified over. I don’t expect that everyone will have the same personal/political/intellectual/civic perspsprective. I think what unites the Zion people is charity. The love of Christ in their hearts and a view of others as God’s children. After that, very little else matters.

    Dialectics are not in opposition to this. One can engage others with differing opinions without forsaking unity of heart.

  7. 7 Eric Nielson July 18, 2006 at 12:59 pm


    I don’t remember seeing your name here before, thanks for leaving a comment. I found a bit of humor, perhaps unintended, in your comment. ‘Food’ for thought as it relates to vegetarianism.

    I think it is reasonable to think that there would be more diversity as it relates to ‘practice’ than there would be as it relates do ‘doctrine’.

    J. Stapely:

    The charity bit you bring up is good. Would one not include the basic principles and ordinances of the gospel, and obedience to the commandments as well? But, I believe the point is the same.

  8. 8 J. Stapley July 18, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    That is an interesting point, Eric. I guess I look at it from the point of myself right now. I don’t have Zion in my home or ward. Why is that? We share the same ordinances and are all at least trying to keep the commandments.

  9. 9 Bradley July 18, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    Elder Oaks once said, “Modern revelation does not say, ‘Be diverse; and if ye are not diverse, ye are not mine.'”

  10. 10 Ryan July 18, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    But Bradley, consider this:

    Someeone says “Scripture 3:10 clearly means we should _________, therefore anyone who ____________ is unworthy…”

    If i happen to be quite sure that the scripture being quoted is taken out of context, is being misquoted or some other fallacy, should I remain silent in the name of unity?

    The problem with making unity the antithesis of diversity of opinion is that it is a misnomer.

    Wade and I recently strongly disagreed on an issue on this blog (and have spent long hours on long car rides debating many other issues). In the end though, our purpose is the same, discerning truth from error and using the truth to build the Kingdom of God.

    Diversity of opinion, unity of purpose.

  11. 11 Ryan July 18, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    President Hinckley actually says as much quoted in the same talk By Elder Oaks

  12. 12 Eric Nielson July 18, 2006 at 5:46 pm


    I think you’re right. I guess getting the ordinances and keeping the commandments get us on the path so to speak. The christlike attributes – particularly charity – perhaps dictate how far down that path we go, and if we reach zion or not.


    That is an awesome quote! I wish I had known about it.


    I guess I don’t quite understand. We can discuss scriptures, experiences, situations like mad. And have disagreements about it as well. But what is the purpose of discussing those differences if it is not to seek to come to a united understanding eventually? Should seeking diversity of opinion be a type of goal in the ultimate sense? If you and Wade didn’t reach some consensus most of the time (particularly on gospel topics) would that not signal that something was – wrong? This of course would not so much be the case in matters of pure speculation.

    I also don’t quite get the misnomer thing. I am ‘scaling back’ general diversity to a theological or religious diversity within the church and within LDS blogs. I don’t use words like misnomer much.

    Also – diversity of opinion – unity of purpose. So I am guessing you clearly agree on what the ‘purpose’ is. Your opinions therefore, can’t be to far different – can they?

  13. 13 mullingandmusing July 18, 2006 at 7:27 pm

    I loved that Elder Oaks quote. Loved it.

    Something else he said I think bears weight in this discussion. He talked about weightier matters, and not missing the end for the means. Considering that, look at that quote in context:

    In the scriptures, the objectives we are taught to pursue on the way to our eternal goals are ideals like love and obedience. These ideals do not accept us as we are but require each of us to make changes. Jesus did not pray that his followers would be “diverse.” He prayed that they would be “one” (John 17:21–22). Modern revelation does not say, “Be diverse; and if ye are not diverse, ye are not mine.” It says, “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27).

    Since diversity is a condition, a method, or a short-term objective–not an ultimate goal– whenever diversity is urged it is appropriate to ask, “What kind of diversity?” or “Diversity in what circumstance or condition?” or “Diversity in furtherance of what goal?” … Diversity for its own sake is meaningless and can clearly be shown to lead to unacceptable results. …Diversity can be a good method to achieve some long-term goal, but public policy discussions need to get beyond the slogan to identify the goal, to specify the proposed diversity, and to explain how this kind of diversity will help to achieve the agreed goal.
    Our Church has an approach to the obvious cultural and ethnic diversities among our members. We teach that what unites us is far more important than what differentiates us. Consequently, our members are asked to concentrate their efforts to strengthen our unity–not to glorify our diversity. For example, our objective is not to organize local wards and branches according to differences in culture or in ethnic or national origins, although that effect is sometimes produced on a temporary basis when required because of language barriers. Instead, we teach that members of majority groupings (whatever their nature) are responsible to accept Church members of other groupings, providing full fellowship and full opportunities in Church participation. We seek to establish a community of Saints–“one body” the Apostle Paul called it (1 Corinthians 12:13)–where everyone feels needed and wanted and where all can pursue the eternal goals we share.

    I think this gets to Eric’s question — what’s the point of discussing the meaning of scriptures if not to really seek for the truth that can unify us and lead us correctly to Christ and to be more like Him? If we value diversity in and of itself and that doesn’t lead us toward our eternal goals, then it is not something to be embraced. Especially in today’s mindset, diversity is often a smokescreen for allowing everyone the space to do what they want, because not stepping on toes is more important than morality or truth. The gospel, on the other hand, as Elder Oaks said, does “not accept us as we are but requirep[s] each of us to make changes.”

    I don’t imagine Zion being a bunch of cookie-cutter people (which Pres. Hinckley gets at), but I imagine we won’t be diverse on doctrine or what the prophets teach or what the Atonement means — on the things that are essential to our eternal goals. There has to be some level of unity of thought, attitude and behavior — else why would the Savior condemn contention over points of doctrine in 3 Ne. 11:29? I think it’s interesting to discuss how we can come closer to being “one” as a Church. I’m sure we have “diverse” points of view [grin], but I’d love to come to understand what it really means toward being the people God wants us to be. 🙂

  14. 14 Wade July 18, 2006 at 8:00 pm


    You have hit on an interesting topic! I have read with interest what everyone has said so far. And as I have thought about it, I realize I am in full agreement with you here. So much in fact, that I will take the concept (argument if some want to call it that) further; or at least discuss it a bit differently.

    In my view, it is safe to say that diversity as an end in itself is evil. Yes, I just called diversity evil. To make myself clear, I’m refering to knowledge, opinion, understanding, mind, and all this encompasses (not skin color or culture etc.). I’ll explain.

    Starting with the basics upon which every Mormon agrees: we exist; God exists; Christ lived on earth and taught us that we are to become like God (i.e. perfect). Thus, the grand purpose and design of existence is to become perfect (and thereby obtain happiness).

    What does it mean to be perfect? It means to be like God. What does it mean to be like God? It means to possess and abide by all truth, or to be unified with Truth.

    Elder McConkie taught it this way:

    The greatest teaching device ever devised by Deity, whether in heaven or on earth, whether in time or in eternity, is embraced within the simple statement: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4-5). Every true believer, every person who worships the Father in spirit and in truth, knows because of this one-God concept that if he himself is to be saved, he must be one with his fellow saints and with the Gods of heaven, as they are one with each other.(emphasis added)

    Defining the unity of the Gods, McConkie says:

    They are one and dwell in each other, meaning: They have the same mind one with another; they think the same thoughts, speak the same words, and perform the same acts–so much so that any thought, word, or act of one is the thought, word, or act of the other. They possess the same character, enjoy the same perfections, and manifest the same attributes, each one possessing all of these in their eternal and godly fulness. Their unity in all things, their perfect oneness in mind, power, and perfections, marks the course and charts the way for faithful mortals, whose chief goal in life is to unite together and become one with them, thereby gaining eternal life for themsleves.

    God’s glory consists of two things: 1) intelligence (see DC 93:36); and 2) exalting his children (see Moses 1:39). These two are reconciled by another verse: “It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance” (DC 131:6).

    In ignorance of what? Of intelligence, or all “Light and Truth”.

    What is Truth? It is unchanging reality (See DC 93:24 — things as the are, were, and are to come).

    Thus, one must come to the conclusion that diversity of mind, opinion, or whatever you want to call it, is evil. In order to be saved, one must be unified to unchanging reality. There is no such thing as different realities; a thing is or is not. Indeed, DC 93:25-26 explains it this way: “And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth.”

    Diversity as an end (i.e. those who love diversity and seek to promote it for its own sake) is evil because unity in truth can never be achieved.

    However, there is a fundamental problem with my approach here. That is, no mortal possesses all truth and thus by default we are automatically diverse. So, that we have diverse minds or opinions is not evil in itself if we strive to find the truth in each other and adopt it to ourselves; and on the other hand, we share what truth we have to remedy diversity where possible.

    (Sorry about the long comment)

  15. 15 Wade July 18, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    Bummer, I spent all that time producing what I thought was a smart comment; but while I was plucking away on my keyboard, Mullingandmusing said what I said in a more profound and succinct manner — that Elder Oaks quote is really good stuff, I’ll have to read that talk.

    Thanks Mullingandmusing.

  16. 16 Ryan July 18, 2006 at 8:38 pm

    you clearly agree on what the ‘purpose’ is. Your opinions therefore, can’t be to far different – can they?

    Right. On a broad sense, we both are of the (unified) opinion that our purpose for discussion should be to figure out what “Truth” is.

    On the specifics however, our opinions are sometimes different. Because I respect Wade’s (and yours and many others) opinions and have found you to have a better understanding of many gospel concepts than I do (i.e., your diversity) I allow myself to be corrected when something I have previously thought to be true is shown to be questionable.

    My point is, disregarding opinions on what is true just because of their diversity is not very beneficial. It precludes us from seeing things in a way that perhaps we might have missed.

  17. 17 Bradley July 18, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    Eric, I think the Brigham Young quote you are looking for is actually a Hugh Nibley quote. Nibley was quoting Young, but I’m not sure if he did a good job representing Brigham’s view.

    The Nibley quote from “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift“:

    To quote one of the greatest of leaders, the founder of this institution, “There is too much of a sameness in this community. . . . I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint and do not believe in the doctrine . . . away with stereotyped ‘Mormons’!” Good-bye, all.

    Here are Brigham’s quotes in context as found in the JD.

    It is frequently remarked that there is too much of a sameness in this community. True, we do not have the variety they do in the world, drinking, carousing, quarreling, litigation, etc. But if you want a change of this kind, you can get up a dog fight. I think that would be about the extent of the quarreling you want to see. It would be as much as I would desire to witness. I have seen enough of the world, without even desiring to behold another drunken man. I never wish to see another lawsuit. I feel perfectly satisfied without it.
    JD 13:150 approx.

    We have promised the Missionaries, if they will live according to the manifestations of the Spirit, and preach the Gospel by the power of God sent down from heaven, that they will feel more of the Spirit and power of their calling than they have ever felt before. Do you think that we are always going to remain the same size? I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint, and do not believe in the doctrine. Every year the Elders of Israel are improving and learning, and have more power, more influence with the Heavens, more power over the elements, and over diseases, and over the power of Satan, who has ruled this earth from the days of the fall until now. We have to gain power until we break the chain of the Enemy. Are we going to stand still? Away with stereotyped “Mormons.” I have more power than I had last year.
    JD 8:183 approx.

  18. 18 Wade July 18, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    disregarding opinions on what is true just because of their diversity is not very beneficial.

    Agreed. And the opposite is also not beneficial: favoring opinions just because they are diverse (which I think is what Eric was initially trying to address/condemn in his post).

  19. 19 J. Stapley July 18, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    Wade, your hyperbole calling all diversity evil really isn’t useful. I could just as easily say all inequallity is evil. There is similar support for such a statement in the cannon. Such statements are needlessly…devisive…and aren’t particularly true.

  20. 20 Ryan July 18, 2006 at 10:25 pm

    which I think is what Eric was initially trying to address/condemn in his post

    Yes, yes, Well I can’t get caught up with what Eric is saying while I am trying to make my brilliant point can I?! 🙂

    Actually I was initially responding to what I thought was an incorrect usage of Elder Oaks quote (my evidence being the quotes that Elder Oaks pulls from Pres. Hinckley in the selfsame address)

    (As an aside, might I note that the result of the unity post has been a comments thread filled with diverse opinions on… diversity and unity. Odd.)

  21. 21 Ryan July 18, 2006 at 10:30 pm


    I’m not saying that I disagree with your comment, I do, however, think that the argument that Wade’s sentiment is “divisive” doesn’t hold much water. The history of the gospel is ripe with divisive statements, personalities, doctrines, practices, and so on and so forth and whatnot and what have you.

    Wade may or may not be wrong for other reasons. Divisiveness (real word?) isn’t one of them.

  22. 22 Wade July 18, 2006 at 10:47 pm


    your hyperbole calling all diversity evil really isn’t useful. I could just as easily say all inequallity is evil.

    You may want to go back and re-read my comment. You’re alleging I said all diversity is evil. I did not. In fact, I specifically began with a disclaimer about racial, cultural, or ethnic diversity etc. being benign — or non-evil.

    Furthermore, you can call it hyberbole if you want, but my point still stands: we will NEVER be unified in truth if we celebrate diversity in oppinion over truth for the sake of glorifying diversity. As such and in this manner, diversity is evil. I explicitely cited DC 93 wherein it says the introduction of (much less the celebration of) anything more or less than unchanging reality comes from the devil (i.e. is evil).

    Diversity of oppinion about truth ipso facto produces presentations of reality that are false.

    Also, I noted there may be a flaw in my approach; I then said that because people hold diverse oppinions does not make evil, rather I said the glorification of diversity is evil.

    Sorry you misread my point — they say if a point isn’t understood, it is the fault of the point-maker; so I take responsibility here.

  23. 23 mullingandmusing July 18, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    (As an aside, might I note that the result of the unity post has been a comments thread filled with diverse opinions on… diversity and unity. Odd.)

    I don’t think it’s odd seeing as we aren’t yet to a Zion-like state. The way Pres. Hinckley discusses unity is that we are unified in a desire to find the truth, with a common foundation. So we may be accomplishing what can be labeled as unity even as we aren’t completely all on the same page.

    From Pres. HInckley (quoted in the Elder Oaks talk):
    ” remember when President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., as a counselor in the First Presidency, would stand at this pulpit and plead for unity among the priesthood. I think he was not asking that we give up our individual personalities and become as robots cast from a single mold. I am confident he was not asking that we cease to think, to meditate, to ponder as individuals. I think he was telling us that if we are to assist in moving forward the work of God, we must carry in our hearts a united conviction concerning the great basic foundation stones of our faith. . . . If we are to assist in moving forward the work of God, we must carry in our hearts a united conviction that the ordinances and covenants of this work are eternal and everlasting in their consequences. [TGBH, p. 672] ”

    I also like Elder Oaks’ concluding statement:
    “diversity and choice are not the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters that move us toward our goals of eternal life are love of God, obedience to his commandments, and unity in accomplishing the work of his Church. In this belief and practice we move against the powerful modern tides running toward individualism and tolerance rather than toward obedience and cooperative action. Though our belief and practice is unpopular, it is right, and it does not require the blind obedience or the stifling uniformity its critics charge. If we are united on our eternal goal and united on the inspired principles that will get us there, we can be diverse on individual efforts in support of our goals and consistent with those principles.”

    All of that said, I’m still not 100% sure how to get my mind around all of this, ya know? 🙂

  24. 24 Eric Nielson July 19, 2006 at 5:47 am

    Wow. Such great comments.


    I am agreeing with you here as well. Although ‘evil’ might seem like a strong word, in priciple I agree.


    Thanks for the quote. That is the one I was looking for. I had not realized I was thinking about Nibley mis-quoting Young.


    Thanks for providing the quote from the Oaks talk. I gotta get this one.

  25. 25 J. Stapley July 19, 2006 at 9:14 am

    The Clark quote is especially poignant considering the divisions in Church Hierarchy at the time. there were “Clark Men” and “McKay Men.”

    the argument that Wade’s sentiment is “divisive” doesn’t hold much water.

    Alas, I should have know better than to try build irony into the discussion 🙂

    Wade: we will NEVER be unified in truth if we celebrate diversity in oppinion over truth for the sake of glorifying diversity. As such and in this manner, diversity is evil.

    I still think this is hyperbolic. Would you say: “We will never be unified in Zion if we celebrate economic inequality. As such and in the manner, economic inequality is evil.”

    I suspect that Zion is further out of our reach for socioeconomic reasons that for doctrinal disputes.

  26. 26 mullingandmusing July 19, 2006 at 11:22 am

    I suspect that Zion is further out of our reach for socioeconomic reasons that for doctrinal disputes.

    Why do you say this?

  27. 27 OKIE July 19, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    To say diversity is evil or not in alignment with Gods plan in my opinion is off base. If the diversity is in the form of personal intrest or in personal belief, it is something to celebrate. We all know that to be exalted we will all follow a set of rules, beliefs and actions down a narrow and straight path. That kind of unity comes from common purpose. What you guys seem to be describing is pride masquerading as diversity. We were created diverse and it was good. We were created to excel in divers areas and that is good. (1st Corithians 12) We are created individuals by Gods hand. The beauty of His plan is that we choose to follow a path back to him and bring our diverse butts back home.

  28. 28 tyler July 19, 2006 at 12:11 pm

    Sorry for an unrelated comment, but if anyone has a minute to go to Mormon Hippocrates (www.mormondoctor.blogspot.com) and respond in a civil manner to the comments on my Jennifer 3 post there, I would appreciate it–I won’t have time till later this afternoon.


  29. 29 Eric Nielson July 19, 2006 at 7:33 pm


    You say that we all know we must follow a set of rules, actions, beliefs, to go down the straight and narrow path. Well, we don’t ALL know that, and there is disagreement as to what rules actions beliefs are required.

    Those of us who do know, and accept these things are united. Other differences are of lesser importance and expected and good.

  30. 30 OKIE July 20, 2006 at 11:08 am

    I was refering to this group and to a lesser extent the church. We all do know there is only one way to be exalted, even if we don’t want to admit it. –

  31. 31 Anonymous August 2, 2006 at 7:03 am

    Here are some links that I believe will be interested

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 361 other followers

The Author


Blog Stats

  • 178,587 hits

%d bloggers like this: