At 18:45 11/18/2002 +0000, Gib Mij wrote:



Yes, my friend, this is the exact passage that has prompted this question. I read this a couple months ago and have been pondering it in my heart. Now, I'm trying to track down where it started (was it, in fact, Diogones, and what was the work and that which surrounded it and/or the purpose of the statement), how it got into LDS culture, and if it should, as M Nibley states, not be there.

Till





Elmer L. Fairbank wrote:
---
"In the world but not of it" or something of it's ilk.   What's the
source of the saying?
---

According to Nibley--

That is, when I find myself called upon to stand up and be counted, to
declare myself on one side or the other, which do I preferógin or rum,
cigarettes or cigars, tea or coffee, heroin or LSD, the Red Rose or the
White, Shiz or Coriantumr, wicked Nephites or wicked Lamanites, Whigs or
Tories, Catholic or Protestant, Republican or Democrat, black power or
white power, land pirates or sea pirates, commissars or corporations,
capitalism or communism? The devilish neatness and simplicity of the
thing is the easy illusion that I am choosing between good and evil,
when in reality two or more evils by their rivalry distract my attention
from the real issue. The oldest trick in the book for those who wish to
perpetrate a great crime unnoticed is to set up a diversion, such as a
fight in the street or a cry of fire in the hall, that sends everyone
rushing to the spot while the criminal as an inconspicuous and highly
respectable citizen quietly walks off with the loot.

It can be shown that in each of the choices just named, one of the pair
may well be preferable to the other, but that is not the question. There
is no point in arguing which other system comes closest to the law of
consecration, since I excluded all other systems when I opted for the
real thing. The relative merits of various economies is a problem for
the gentiles to worry about, a devil's dilemma that does not concern me
in the least. For it so happens that I have presently covenanted and
promised to observe most strictly certain instructions set forth with
great clarity and simplicity in the Doctrine and Covenants. These are
designated as the law of consecration, which are absolutely essential
for the building up of the kingdom on earth and the ultimate
establishment of Zion. "Behold, this is the preparation wherewith I
prepare you, and the foundation and the ensample which I give unto you,
whereby you may accomplish the commandments which are given you; that
through my providence, notwithstanding the tribulation which shall
descend upon you, that the church may stand independent above all other
creatures beneath the celestial world" (D&C 78:13-14). It is all there,
this law of consecration, by which alone the Saints can implement God's
plans for Zion in spite of the persecution it will bring on them; this
is the foundation on which they must build (see D&C 48:6). The
alternative is to be dependent on baser things, for "Zion cannot be
built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial
kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself" (D&C 105:5).

But should I ask for tribulation? I live in the real world, don't I?
Yes, and I have been commanded to "come out of her,. . . that ye be not
partakers of her sins" (Revelation 18:4). It is not given "unto you that
ye shall live after the manner of the world" (D&C 95:13). Well, then,
you must be "in the world but not of the world." That happens to be a
convenient para-scripture (we have quite a few of them today), invented
by a third-century Sophist (Diognetos), to the great satisfaction of the
church members, who were rapidly becoming very worldly. The passage as
it appears in the scriptures says quite the opposite: "For [whatsoever]
that is in the world. . . is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1
John 2:16). The Lord has repeatedly commanded and forced his people to
flee out of the world into the wilderness, quite literally; there is
only one way to avoid becoming involved in the neighborhood brawls, and
that is to move out of the neighborhood. There is nothing in the
Constitution that forbids me doing certain things I have covenanted and
promised to do; if the neighbors don't like it, they have no legal
grounds against me, but there are ways of getting me to move; "the
tribulation. . . shall descend upon you," said the Lord, but do things
my way and "my providence" will see you through (D&C 78:14). This
inescapable conflict is part of our human heritage, as we learn from
dramatic passages of scripture.


(Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion, edited by Don E. Norton [Salt Lake City
and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon
Studies, 1989], 163 - 164.)

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

==^^===============================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===============================================================

Reply via email to