Clarification

When I first started becoming aware of the problems of the patriarchy, there were some pangs; there can be good patriarchal things.  

Currently I am working my way through the hymnbook. My current section contains many hymns about Zion. Talk about a term that has taken a beating!

For the rest of the world, Zion comes from the name of a hill referenced in Second Samuel. There was a fort there, and was near where the temple was later built. The name ended up being used for Jerusalem, then the whole land of Israel, and now with a movement of genocidal settler colonialism that guilt over the Holocaust and their own colonialism makes it too easy to other countries to overlook.

For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it is different. Zion means "the pure in heart". 

It was used as a name for the city Enoch built, about which we have this:

And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them. -- Mosiah 7:18

It rules out starving and slaughtering people.

The purpose of today's post is not to focus on Palestine; I've done that.

It is really more a continuation of the train of thought where if this is the end, are we ready?

It is probably pretty obvious that we are not collectively a Zion people now. 

That should still be the goal; we should be of one heart and one mind, and there should be no poor among us. If we can do that, we are ready to face and dwell with God.

It can be possible to get people to be of one mind and not have that be a good thing. There are people with whom I would never want to unite my thoughts.

There is an obvious answer here in that we need to align our wills with God's; then we will be united. There will be people who are so sure they are right.

Yes, normally I talk about the fruits of the Spirit and how you feel. Those are good things and I am not disputing them, but I want to make a point about conformity.

One thing I noticed from the philosophy I have read was that it is easy to think your way is the right way and that the problems we have come from the differences between us.

I remember that from The Republic, but even more from Utopia. If everyone wears the same clothes and eats communally and plays the same games, we will be fine. You shouldn't get too attached to your home, so people will move every few years.

Thomas More liked the monastic lifestyle, but he also liked having children. His plan for a model society stems directly from there.

Differences can be a point of contention, but they don't have to be. There can also be points of contention that have nothing to do with that.

I remember talking about the robes with one friend. She hates deciding what to wear, so she saw the appeal. 

I personally don't have a lot of variety in my dress, but I was sure I would find the monk robes overly stuffy and confining. It does not sound good to me.

I know other people who really enjoy clothes. If they were raised that way they probably wouldn't notice, but having to change would be very distressing.

Alternatively, we could all dress like we want to and not judge each other's choices.

We can prefer different games, and still be friends.

Your home can have a home theater and mine can be given over to cats and we can still work it out.

You can have pineapple on your pizza. Or anchovies. Maybe even both.

There are differences that matter. Sadly, political party counts in that because of the direction one party has taken, though there can certainly be issues with how you practice your politics.

If we all care about each other, and will work for each other's welfare, we don't need to be the same.

That seems like it should be so obvious.

And it's relatively easy compared to working on there being no poor.