?????A New Church Narrative is Being Created????? - Bill Reel

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_cwald
_Emeritus
Posts: 4443
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:53 pm

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _cwald »

moinmoin wrote: A whole bunch of garblygook


Image
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _canpakes »

Is this part of the new narrative? ; )

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Thursday in an update to its style guide that the nickname “Mormon” and the abbreviation “LDS” should be avoided. Instead, the church would prefer to be called “the Church,” “the Church of Jesus Christ,” or “the restored Church of Jesus Christ.”
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _Lemmie »

canpakes wrote:Is this part of the new narrative? ; )

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Thursday in an update to its style guide that the nickname “Mormon” and the abbreviation “LDS” should be avoided. Instead, the church would prefer to be called “the Church,” “the Church of Jesus Christ,” or “the restored Church of Jesus Christ.”

I had a similar thought. Maybe it will be easier to leave historicity of the Book of Mormon behind if the nickname "Mormon" has been expunged.
_Stem
_Emeritus
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _Stem »

moinmoin wrote:
Sure I do. Very much!


How do you square the notion of being blessed for being Mormon, for any Mormon not just you, with the notion that God is no respector of persons? If God sends someone here with extra blessings not afforded to others or most, then how is that God not showing preference for some?


I think it's a mix of both PE and here and now. What precise mix, I don't pretend to know, and I think that precise mix is different for everyone (as I've outlined previously).


Well you were blessed by being sent here into a faithful Mormon family, no? If so, how could it be a mix of both?

Using bishops as an example: I, personally, am not one who believes that this office is de facto the result of a PE foreordination. If they were, then it would raise the question of, for example, bishops who apostatize.[/quote]

What question is that? Are you saying one who was foreordained can't apostatize because then God couldn't have really seen the future or something?

This is a question I bring up in discussions with other believing Mormons when discussing absolute vs. limited foreknowledge (like with my wife, or others). Given that there are bishops who apostatize, that puts God in a position of "setting them up to fail" and damning them by putting them in a high position he knows they will fall away from. It's interesting to discuss, that's for sure, and everyone has strong opinions.

We discussed, among many other things, the pre-existence and some of these things this weekend when we visited some good friends this weekend (former ward members, and my former YW president and her family).


Interesting. So would you say each and every thought or action you have is a result of God having first conceived of it? That is, for instance, you might have felt like you made your choices in life, like going on a mission and getting married to whom and when you did, but perhaps God had already conceived of those thoughts and events before you did. If so, how can we possibly say there is any agency? If we all just do as God foreknows, then it isn't us conceiving of our lives but God doing so before the points of our thoughts and actions develop before we even have a choice presented to us.
_moinmoin
_Emeritus
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:40 am

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _moinmoin »

Lemmie wrote:
canpakes wrote:Is this part of the new narrative? ; )


I had a similar thought. Maybe it will be easier to leave historicity of the Book of Mormon behind if the nickname "Mormon" has been expunged.


I really don't think this is what is behind this. Nelson, Oaks, et. al. are, after all, traditionalist hardliners (global flood, anti-evolution, scriptural literalist, etc.). Whatever Nelson's objective or motivation is, I don't think it is as an expeditionary force in preparation of abandoning scripture historicity. Nothing he's ever said or done indicates any tendency of the kind. Quite the contrary.

He has expounded on this several times since 1990; it is clearly really important to him that the full name of the Church be used and nicknames be eschewed. I actually don't want to stop using "Mormon" or "Mormonism," myself.
_moinmoin
_Emeritus
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:40 am

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _moinmoin »

Stem wrote:
How do you square the notion of being blessed for being Mormon, for any Mormon not just you, with the notion that God is no respector of persons? If God sends someone here with extra blessings not afforded to others or most, then how is that God not showing preference for some?


Because I don't believe that it is arbitrary and on a whim.

Well you were blessed by being sent here into a faithful Mormon family, no? If so, how could it be a mix of both?


Because I don't see it as binary, black and white, "If valiant, then Mormon family." I think that all aspects of our placement are complex and meaningful. We don't have the formula.

Are you saying one who was foreordained can't apostatize because then God couldn't have really seen the future or something?


No. I don't believe that at all. I'm a limited foreknowledge person, not an unlimited foreknowledge person. My wife (and many other Mormons) is, though. It makes for interesting discussion!

Interesting. So would you say each and every thought or action you have is a result of God having first conceived of it? That is, for instance, you might have felt like you made your choices in life, like going on a mission and getting married to whom and when you did, but perhaps God had already conceived of those thoughts and events before you did. If so, how can we possibly say there is any agency? If we all just do as God foreknows, then it isn't us conceiving of our lives but God doing so before the points of our thoughts and actions develop before we even have a choice presented to us.


See above. That is the opposite of what I believe. That is the philosophical conundrum I see Calvinists and even absolute foreknowledge Mormons being in. I know why they argue that position (they want to hold God's sovereignty sacrosanct), but like you pointed out, I think it harms true agency.
_Stem
_Emeritus
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _Stem »

Thanks for responding Moinmoin

moinmoin wrote:Because I don't believe that it is arbitrary and on a whim.


I'm not sure that's being very responsive to my question of how do you square the notion of God being not a respector of persons with your belief that you are blessed for being born into a Mormon family? Wouldn't be blessed by God suggest you were given more for some reason than another?

Because I don't see it as binary, black and white, "If valiant, then Mormon family." I think that all aspects of our placement are complex and meaningful. We don't have the formula.


If we don't know the formula how do you know God has blessed you? Maybe your situation was by chance? How would you know otherwise?

stem wrote:Interesting. So would you say each and every thought or action you have is a result of God having first conceived of it? That is, for instance, you might have felt like you made your choices in life, like going on a mission and getting married to whom and when you did, but perhaps God had already conceived of those thoughts and events before you did. If so, how can we possibly say there is any agency? If we all just do as God foreknows, then it isn't us conceiving of our lives but God doing so before the points of our thoughts and actions develop before we even have a choice presented to us.


moinmoin wrote:See above. That is the opposite of what I believe. That is the philosophical conundrum I see Calvinists and even absolute foreknowledge Mormons being in. I know why they argue that position (they want to hold God's sovereignty sacrosanct), but like you pointed out, I think it harms true agency.


I guess i'm confused by your qualifier of "absolute". If say, God knows what you are going to do before you do it, does that not suggest you can only do what God already knows you will do? If not, then God seeing into the future doesn't seem to mean much because we all can totally change the future that he supposedly sees, no?
_moinmoin
_Emeritus
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:40 am

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _moinmoin »

Stem wrote:
I'm not sure that's being very responsive to my question of how do you square the notion of God being not a respector of persons with your belief that you are blessed for being born into a Mormon family? Wouldn't be blessed by God suggest you were given more for some reason than another?


It could suggest that. Or, it could also suggest that it is much more complicated than that, and that there are a lot of factors (unknown to us, for the most part).

If we don't know the formula how do you know God has blessed you?


I feel blessed. Maybe I'm really cursed, and failing miserably.

Maybe your situation was by chance? How would you know otherwise?


From an unbelieving perspective, we could never know. As a believing Mormon, I don't believe that it is random chance. That would be more a Calvinist view (God chooses, and nothing we can do or have done affects it at all).

stem wrote:Interesting. So would you say each and every thought or action you have is a result of God having first conceived of it? That is, for instance, you might have felt like you made your choices in life, like going on a mission and getting married to whom and when you did, but perhaps God had already conceived of those thoughts and events before you did. If so, how can we possibly say there is any agency? If we all just do as God foreknows, then it isn't us conceiving of our lives but God doing so before the points of our thoughts and actions develop before we even have a choice presented to us.


No, I would not say that. I don't believe that God already determined that or knows in advance with 100% certainty how I will choose.

I guess i'm confused by your qualifier of "absolute". If say, God knows what you are going to do before you do it, does that not suggest you can only do what God already knows you will do?


Yes, it does. But I don't believe that.

If not, then God seeing into the future doesn't seem to mean much because we all can totally change the future that he supposedly sees, no?


That lies at the core of the "limited/absolute" debate (which my wife and I disagree on, and is a microcosm of those who have thought about it and have a position). I like B.H. Roberts's explanation: Anything that can be known, God knows. As the future unfolds with the sum total of choices, God knows it. Knowing us more than we can comprehend on earth, God can predict with a high degree of accuracy what people will choose in given situations. The difference lies in whether one believes this is 100%, or approaching 100%.
_Stem
_Emeritus
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _Stem »

moinmoin wrote:
It could suggest that. Or, it could also suggest that it is much more complicated than that, and that there are a lot of factors (unknown to us, for the most part).



I feel blessed. Maybe I'm really cursed, and failing miserably.



From an unbelieving perspective, we could never know. As a believing Mormon, I don't believe that it is random chance. That would be more a Calvinist view (God chooses, and nothing we can do or have done affects it at all).


No, I would not say that. I don't believe that God already determined that or knows in advance with 100% certainty how I will choose.


Yes, it does. But I don't believe that.

That lies at the core of the "limited/absolute" debate (which my wife and I disagree on, and is a microcosm of those who have thought about it and have a position). I like B.H. Roberts's explanation: Anything that can be known, God knows. As the future unfolds with the sum total of choices, God knows it. Knowing us more than we can comprehend on earth, God can predict with a high degree of accuracy what people will choose in given situations. The difference lies in whether one believes this is 100%, or approaching 100%.


Alright I won't push this much more. I think you have tons to reconcile on this though, (probably not more than your views on race though) but I am curious how to reconcile things like Joseph of ancient times seeing the Nephites day, or do you assume Lehi didn't know what he was talking about in that? If God can take people away, even in vision, to see days that aren't their's doesn't that mean God can also see future days? Doesn't that mean God absolutely knows the end from the beginning? If so, that doesn't seem to square well with what you've expressed here. Thoughts?
_ClarkGoble
_Emeritus
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: “A New Church Narrative is Being Created” - Bill Reel

Post by _ClarkGoble »

moinmoin wrote:I really don't think this is what is behind this. Nelson, Oaks, et. al. are, after all, traditionalist hardliners (global flood, anti-evolution, scriptural literalist, etc.). Whatever Nelson's objective or motivation is, I don't think it is as an expeditionary force in preparation of abandoning scripture historicity. Nothing he's ever said or done indicates any tendency of the kind. Quite the contrary.


Nelson clearly disbelieves evolution. I'm curious as to why you think Oaks does. I did a search but couldn't find anything explicit on it. I believe he worked with Hinckley and Evanson on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on Evolution which leaves it quite open. Oaks was well known for defending teaching evolution at BYU back in the 70's.

I'm not saying I know for sure his views, but I had assume he'd adopted a more scientific view.
Post Reply