[the Jerusalem Conflict]
I grew up in Germany - and except for 3 longer trips to the Philippines (one during my early childhood I barely remember) spent most of time here. My Mother is from the Philippines, my Father is the offspring of a former SS soldier, ... and I don't look particularly German. Within this I grew up with some racial blindness. I could recognize that black dudes were on one, and white ones on the other end of a spectrum where I found myself pretty much in the middle of. Most of the time I was surrounded by white and brown people. Thereby I came to recognize myself as more on the 'white' end. Even more, basically, than on the brown one - simply by whom or "what" I was surrounded by.
My first friends in school, ... there were basically 4. One group of 2 was white dudes, the other was a German and a Turk. Both groups would amount to bad influence eventually. But I barely spent any time with them either. My own growth to being bad influence in some ways came totally of my own I think.
Well, I however liked to do nonsense outside. And there are two things I did I am not particularly proud of. One thing is to conspire against arbitrarily determined entities (there were 3 in total) and the other to harass arbitrarily determined entities (... 1?). Usually there was some group dynamic in play. Each of the three entities conspired against (1 random dude someone else brought up, not my call; 1 homeless guy who supposedly had stayed around our "base" (a wild green patch with an abandoned (later crumbled) hut in it) and finally a classmate) was suggested to a group. Neither of any did go anywhere - except that we once "boobie trapped" the hut by mixing those nasty plants into a bunch of flowers. Well ... the harassment thing; We ... picked up cherries from a tree and plastered one of our neighbors garden with it. Turned out that they were black. The person that incited it was a Turk I believe.
I guess I could also shift the blame to the group at each instance, but I also would see myself as this groups leader. But what I so, in defense of my own, would generally 'do' was to play outside "in the wilds". To me there was 'that' side and "the town" ... so, the urban side, the place of town further away and on the other side of two big roads. And to me, ... I think it was all about that. Kids who played on this vs kids who played on that end. But more so from perspective of playing on 'this' end. Eventually we also played on the other end, and here the think was totally different. I was no leader, but just hanging by.
So, from "owning" a place to play at - those who'd want to play there were welcome and influences that would be in the way of that had to be conspired against. And well. I just understand that this is the intention behind Gods 'command' to get rid of stranger people from the grounds of Israel. So, that all stranger inhabitants had to die. The story is that the nations of Canaan in first place stood against Israel and we don't know about the word of mouth. So, we don't really understand the political 'depth' of this. But certain things show there was some vivd exchange between the people of Israel and others. They even get 'particularly' mentioned on some Egyptian stone thingy (Stele). (Merneptah)
There also is a 'House of David' inscription somewhere.
But back to the thing, after Israel was done with Canaan there were a few that remained. Various places 'within' and the Philistines. "The Host of Hosts" didn't want that. But at first these get to so be a remainder of the war, maybe "the good people left". The story goes that some were left and through those came an influence that made the Israelites demand a King. So we transition into the story of the Kings. Saul was out to raid those places. David, after made King, cleansed Israel and beneath Salomon it got torn apart. Israel vs. the House of David. Israel now pictured as Anti-God and David as Pro-God. The truth may have been different though - as the winner writes history? Well, there is something that happened that isn't directly mentioned. There is though the notion of a King where the Texts have been re-discovered. (2 Kings 22). His predecessor "did things that God disliked" ... which is one of two labels generally slapped on Kings during those times. Thats however "the end" now of something that began within Salomons reign. Salomon turned against God - and since then ... ... . Well, we read that Rehabeam, one of Salomons sons and proclaimed Heir, was asked to redeem Israel of the Joke that Solomon had put on them but he doubled down instead. Yet the story goes on to say "And so Israel fell from the house of David and is renegade to this day." 1 Kings 12.
Then note that the King who "found" the "Law Books" is mentioned in 1 Kings 13 - where it is announced that one day a King will come who will restore Order sotospeak.
Rehabeams brother created Idols so that people wouldn't go to Jerusalem to sacrifice to "God" - while all the wealth of Salomon?
What is clear is that something had been going on. And it comes back to the structure of Power. Israel demanded a King and now that King was Salomon. A King has power to rule - and after Davids success the King of Israel was Gods King. That would explain Rehabeam and his friends, ... well ... aspirations of grandeur. He overestimated himself and Israel "fell off". At that point ... there is a 'maniac' in Jerusalem while whatever happened happened and by 2 Kings 22 we have a totally different generation. One that may have been sufficiently 'distant' from their ancient roots with here and there a few rumors maybe, that they might just add some prophecy to the Chronicles - stitch two pieces together - and go on with it. So would the picture be that 'Juda' was the remainder of the structure of power that had emerged from Saul over David through Salomon. One that just couldn't really work after it lost the support of 10 tribes. (Out of 12). A question though remains is how the book of Kings and the Chronicles came together. In 1 Kings 14 22 then Juda is however introduced as the negative figure. So in a 'tonal' opposite to just before. So is it relatively clear to me that the Bible as we know it is a remainder. Something that once got overlooked and has survived the decades of religious chaos - and we could say: And the contentions about what these scriptures mean continue unto this very day. So here you would read the situation "as is" - while somewhere else you'd read about the reforms this would implicate. Its plausible that the Book got fixed before Josia did all the things he then did.
The message though: The stranger influences led to the religious downfall, starting with Israels desire for a King. Rehabeams Mother wasn't an Israelite - and as Salomon possibly had his mind allovertheplace he wasn't really familiar with the Israelite God. Of Salomon we read that because David was so good, Salomon would be protected. So, because David, Salomon is King. Clear!
Right and Wrong left aside, the Story at the beginning was that there were those that still wouldn't acknowledge Gods dominance and God didn't strike them down himself. People were to speak that out - and thus the Chaos unfolded, up unto this very day.
Eventually we played less and less in the wild; And to me also Videogames became more and more interesting. So - as I grew older and playing outside wasn't much of a thing anymore I got stuck in gaming and being myself a social outcast. As you might judge me by my childhood, I got what I deserved. And while I went to school far away from where I lived at some point; And nobody would know of it; It was still so. But it didn't matter much to me, relative to how innocent I had been in these things.
While you could call what I did 'hate crimes' - they weren't so to me in my heart and yet did I receive according to that. I was fine being an outsider, bonding over Videogames and sticking to my own in the things I was doing.
So in the last year of High School I would say I was a gamer. I was hanging out with those that would talk about Games ... and most of them were Germans. And our Prof. Doctor Computer Nerd was a bit of a right-wing guy. But we still did stuff together - and as he repeatedly told me, its not about race. Its about politics. Or ... Cultural Behavior.
The story here should be that we all are each others enemies. And if we all were one, who would that become? ... So, we need to uphold ... [wreeep] ... no, I ... was about to make a Joke but that it might not get misunderstood anywhere it has to stop right there.
And thats in about it. When there is an order or structure of way of life that is to succeed, the forces that endanger its existence have to be eradicated. What isn't so clear as of the old Covenant is the stance of Religious Unity in spite of Cultural differences. Its one side to the history of Israel that succeeded despite Gods acts against those - while what God ultimately acted against was the misconduct that emerged within Israel through the Kings implicit authority upon religion. An authority that wasn't anywhere explicitly 'given' or even mentioned, but is simply assumed as by their reported actions.
We can read what Josia did get rid of and given that those accounts are accurate only imagine what must have been going on the years leading up to that. We would speak of the Kings of David as the self-proclaimed Arbiters of Truth and the Kings of Israel as possibly Kings of tolerance. The downfall of Israel/Samaria could have been one argument that ruled in favor of the house of David - and thats also why Israels Royalty had to end. God didn't want there to be a King. That we can read in the scriptures. So would the Law speak against it forever - and so it had to go away and that is what went down. Nebuchadnezzar took it.
And the same ideology is pursued by Christ as we read of his rage in the Temple.
Gods actions all highlight systems of abuse as built upon religious iconography. As of that is one thing that sticks out the sacrifice of Children that certain 'stranger' influences had brought in. We can so imagine a unity of cultures as started by maybe David, but prominently Salomon, in the center of which we 'see' a Religion based Monarchy. Priests had influence. People would look up for guidance, coordination, the "how" of how the greater society works. That which made Israel ask for a King, so someone could rule out all those things they would need in order to organize an Army against their enemies. Thats what they thought they needed in order to defend themselves against Philistine harassment. So we read. (And so it still stands today. And the solution? One has to go - it would seem. Unless they can make peace. But what has this peace to be about? Maybe Philistines have to accept becoming Israelite citizens, while Israel has to give them respective rights. But so Philistines have to bow to their Religion. But what is this religion to be?)
Jerobeam built the two Calves to distract people from going to Jerusalem. Jerusalem. What is it with ... Jerusalem?
One image thats on my mind is how since the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple were in Jerusalem - after "things changed" - there is this ... mystery. "What happened?". Since early on there may have been the desire for 'the Truth'. What was 'really written'. "The question". And the same is true for Christianity. "What happened?" ... to the words of the Apostles? Why is it that the four Gospels aren't directly from these 12? What did they do? Its all just hearsay ... records of old that remained of ... what we could suggest was an idea far greater than that. It echoed further than the other side could run.
Didn't we read that the earth trembled?
Might we so think of signs seen far and broad - and people that had seen it all heard stories about it all - and so there were believers by word of mouth, ... and after periods of war and chaos ... the New Testament is however not the only thing left of it. Apokrypha found here and there leave us to suggest that the demand for knowledge about this One existed in some vacuum. ... err.
But then there is the Book of Mormon. And yes - we can see the same thing happening. There's more than just dots and commas that are different; Comparing the 1830 version to the "Blue Book". And it cuts right to the question of whether Jesus is God or not. Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. God however is not the word, but through the word. And the word is the Light through which God created the Lights in the Sky and the Earth that we stand upon. (D&C 88 ... 6-13)
Here we have "the Golden Chain". Because the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet and therefore his prophecies are true as well and that means that the prophecy that God will not lead his sheep astray is true and therefore the president of the Church is the true Prophet.
And it is broken by the testimony that the scriptures aren't entirely true! Therefore Joseph Smith may have been a Prophet - and I mean that I don't have a reason to doubt it - except, eventually I do but it doesn't even matter all that much; Because I generally have reasons to doubt his story. Either way. Somehow there is something in there that makes it 'true'.
So, its important that 'what' you believe in is true - so that when you share it with others you don't lie to them. What I have to share is about Unification - and well, technically it isn't even right to bring up Christendom. At first. There is the living God - and I heavily assume that the fact of His existence is a strong reason why Religion has been so successful. Atheism simply emerged as a consequence to the physical reality as result of the confusion that exists throughout spiritual leaderships.
Unification then is first about knowing God. The 13 Seals in combination with knowledge of the 3 Principles, 4 Lights and 12 Aeons, when understood properly, surrounding the prayer of Unification, draw that knowledge - and part of it so are the two conditions. These refer to the Gospel, a spiritual cleansing however, and some status of being invited by God. "Found worthy of an invitation" to put it into a formal context. I do that of my own liberty. Am I right? Is it wrong?
Well, whatever - that is 'outside' of these simpler things. So, this is a second layer surrounding the ultimate truth - and scripture then makes up a third layer; Which we further can split into an inner and an outer one.
So, if you could testify to us that you got in without baptism - we had to acknowledge that. As it stands however are the sources to this Material still Christian - where one thing I desperately wanted to share at some points is Colossians 1:15. "He is the image of the invisible God". On the Mormon side are Lehi and Nephi's vision of interest. Its hard to ignore the resemblances between my story and that story. Specifically so Chapters 13 and 14 - if you want to cut to the juice of it.
But what matters now is the role of baptism. The Mormon Doctrine is clear about it. There is an authority required to baptize while there are only three rules: Believe in Christ, Repent and get Baptized. So, if you can testify that you got in although you weren't baptized Mormon, that Priesthood thing might be challenged although some things yet had to be ruled out.
But it makes sense if we had to say that there has to be some union. The presence of the priesthood reflects true authority in the name of Christ, living unity not just by the word. (D&C 88 5)
That would now inevitably be a thing somehow within the physical body surrounding that one central truth. Baptism is one part of it.