tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707960843925805135.post3706858823166426131..comments2023-11-02T07:21:32.077-05:00Comments on We might be windmills: Civitate DeiUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707960843925805135.post-60466930155272278032007-07-26T17:42:00.000-05:002007-07-26T17:42:00.000-05:00Good thoughts, all. No, Caebza, you're right; a H...Good thoughts, all. No, Caebza, you're right; a Holy City and a holy wilderness do not have to be mutually exclusive. I don't think there's anything inherent in a city to make it good or bad just by virtue of being a city. I guess what I'm interested in here is not just the idea of the city itself, but the rhetoric of the scriptures and how that rhetoric engages the idea. Can we draw a conclusion from it, or are there too many exceptions to generalize?<BR/><BR/>The ineter/co-dependence really makes sense. It reminds me of Urusla Leguin's novel, the Dispossessed. It describes a planet much like our own, where a free-market capitalist society is the norm, where hedonism and selfishness are celebrated, where competition leads to excellence, where there is vast inequality, but where even the poor are materially better off by comparison. Orbiting around this planet is a moon, stark and barren, but barely capable of sustaining life. The moon is large enough that it pulls on the planet, so they are in some way, orbiting around each other. Almost twin worlds. The moon is populated by the third generation descendents of a group of utopian communitarian pilgrims who went there to escape the selfishness and enmity of a society based on competition. They have no concept of private ownership (they eliminated possessive nouns from their language) and they are unbelievably poor. The protagonist is a scientist born on the moon who travels to the planet. As a result he is shunned by his own and never really accepted by the sister world. In the end, the flaws of both worlds are explored in detail. But the fact that they co-exist and orbit each other creates the idea that utopia is to found between the two worlds.<BR/><BR/>Amanda, that simple insight may be the key. In contrast to the pure divine creation that is the wilderness, it is the humanity of the city that dooms it, unless it can claim divine assistance through repentance (Ninevah) and communion with God (Zion).<BR/><BR/>Maybe the cities in the scriptures represent steps in a process of becoming: sin (Babylon et al), repentance (Ninevah), then exaltation (Zion).JKChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18318850320568944070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707960843925805135.post-52151759890487646302007-07-26T14:37:00.000-05:002007-07-26T14:37:00.000-05:00As I read through this really interesting blog, I ...As I read through this really interesting blog, I realized that I generally think of a city as something man-made and the wilderness as something created by God.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if this simple idea sheds an interesting light on what has already been said. Viewed in this light, it makes sense to me that the wilderness as God made it is most often seen as being sacred, that it can also be something used for divine purposes (such as punishment?) or even something that men can corrupt. <BR/><BR/>The city is something inherently flawed because it is built by flawed human beings. The city can become a sacred place, though, through divine assistance just as human beings have divine potential.<BR/><BR/>I think the idea certainly has its limitations, but it could explain some of the ambiguities already mentioned.Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04386560623177476553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707960843925805135.post-19539626035940799222007-07-26T14:30:00.000-05:002007-07-26T14:30:00.000-05:00Sorry, Enos was from Nephi, not Zarahemla. I wish...Sorry, Enos was from Nephi, not Zarahemla. I wish you could edit comments on Blogger...Cabezahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11999687733029976277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707960843925805135.post-11045223054076678862007-07-26T13:30:00.000-05:002007-07-26T13:30:00.000-05:00I really like this post--it made me think a lot an...I really like this post--it made me think a lot and I think it's a theme worth visiting.<BR/><BR/>However, before I can respond with my two cents (probably more than that), I have to say that you're kind of setting up a false dichotomy here (if you get to say "peregrinations," I get to say "false dichotomy"). The ideas of the Holy City and the sacred wilderness are not mutually exclusive. Nor are cities, in my opinion, meant to be static archetypes of one way of living or another. As you say, there are cities that represent corruption and the violation of nature's laws (Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah), there are cities that represent an exception from that (post-Jonah Nineveh), and there are cities that represent the apotheosis of righteousness (Zion).<BR/><BR/>I think that for a complete analysis, you must look at the cities individually and the archetypes they represent. Babylon is the world and its corruption. Sodom and Gomorrah are hedonism and enmity toward God and his servants. Nineveh becomes a city representative of mercy and redemption, and Zion is the pure in heart.<BR/><BR/>The cities are also representative of greater nations. Jerusalem becomes the standard raised by the House of Israel. Zion, or the New Jerusalem, is the capital of God’s reestablished kingdom, restored on the American continent. Harold B. Lee demonstrated this point well:<BR/><BR/>"In the wisdom of the Almighty, this ensign of liberty was raised to the nations to fulfill an ancient prophecy that 'out of Zion [should] go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem' (Isa 2:3). How could this be? The answer is clear: through the Constitution, kings and rulers and the peoples of all nations under heaven may be informed of the blessings enjoyed by the people of this land of Zion by reason of their freedom under Divine guidance, and be constrained to adopt similar governmental systems and thus fulfill the ancient law to which I have already referred." -Harold B. Lee, <I>Ye Are the Light of the World</I> 232-33; from a memorial service for President John F. Kennedy, Salt Lake City, UT, 25 Nov 1963<BR/><BR/>The wilderness is also not necessarily static. One could say that the wilderness was a punishment for the Children of Israel because they weren’t worthy to enter Canaan. They needed to enter Canaan to establish themselves and build permanent homes, a place for the temple rather than the tabernacle (in other words, cities). For them, the wilderness was a banishment. But overall, I would agree with you that the wilderness is generally a holy place.<BR/><BR/>The other thought I had, along the false dichotomy lines, was that the city and the wilderness aren’t necessarily at odds with each other. One is dependent on the other, I think. The city cannot exist without its external refuges and holy places. Enos went to hunt beasts in the forest, but he was from Zarahemla. Elijah and Moses went up to the mountains to commune with the Lord, but eventually both needed to return to where their people were gathered. The Lord builds temples in his cities (Jerusalem, Zarahemla). He holds feasts and conferences there (Jerusalem, Zarahemla). He gathers his people, organizes them, sets them as places for the fulfillment of prophecies. But after Jesus was born in the City of Bethlehem, he went into the wilderness and then Egypt to be raised. The Lord uses both for his purposes. I don’t think one necessarily trumps the other. For more on the codependent relationship between cities and wilderness, read William Cronon’s <I>Nature’s Metropolis</I>. Cronon explores the interdependence of Chicago and its “hinterlands,” starting from the founding of the city. Very interesting read, if a little long. It’s definitely not a religious work, but I think there are parallels to what we’re discussing here.<BR/><BR/>And those are my two cents, plus tip.Cabezahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11999687733029976277noreply@blogger.com