Sounding the Retreat?

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Peaked in numbers, maybe (births will continue and keep it just above death rates). I do think it has peaked in influence, no Olympics or Mitt Romney. Once you leave heavily Mormon areas, the Church has very, very little influence on anything and is a speck of a church. For most people it is a little afterthought.

[Five Solas]

On 5/23/2017 at 9:53 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting word, chance. Related to the word choice. Like a lottery, in Calvinism you pays your money and you takes your chances. Paying your money is living a life of depravity totally out of your control and facing an eternity of damnation that you cannot choose - and unless your ticket is drawn capriciously, you have no chance at all. One's chances to be saved are precious few under Calvinism, kind of like the odds of winning the lottery. You must be one of the winners? If so, congratulations on a job well done....oh, wait.....

There is no difficulty. It's a well-known LDS doctrine called foreordination. Calvinism is an erroneous version of it. I said nothing about not working hard. We do that every day all over the world and have done so since the first days of the Restoration. What I said is that billions of Mormons in the last days is not in the plan and we should not be concerned about that. Since we are the Church of Jesus Christ, we will do as He instructs to bring His gospel to all people. 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a 110-year life expectancy for inactive/lost membership purposes, but that's hardly worth wasting time debating. I'm glad to belong to the Church that keeps record of all its baptized members and makes continual effort to seek them out as we are commanded in the scriptures, old and new. As a bishop, seeking to inflate membership numbers was about as far from my mind as anything could be. We sought to find the lost sheep for the purpose of offering them ministry, repentance, fellowship, service, help, and comfort when needed - as we are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ. That was my covenanted duty. So sad you have such a jaded view of the sincere effort and sacrifice we make. 

There used to be a sizable cohort of Calvinists here. Made for some interesting discussions.

Okay, clearly we're not going to agree on your lottery analogy or whether 110 is an honest & reasonable life expectancy assumption for counting and reporting LDS Church membership as related to lost members. 

So I will move on and ask you this: Do you consider the prediction of "few" in terms of last-days LDS membership count (which you took from the Book of Mormon, your post page 4 on this thread) to be an example of "foreordination" as LDS have defined that word?  (Y/N)  And as a follow-up: Is there *anything* LDS can do (e.g., by working harder, employing their "free agency") to change "few" into "many"?  If not, what sort of "agency" is this that is thus caged?

And one more thing, Bernard.  I'm happy to have you edit my text when you quote me--provided you use an ellipsis, strike-through or other mechanism to make clear to our readers the original has been edited.  I do this myself all the time.  But when you flip the order of my 3rd and 4th paragraphs and delete the opening words of the 3rd and present them together as the original--well, you just make me look foolish and incoherent.  In my original prose, the 3rd paragraph builds to the conclusion in the 4th.  As you edited and presented it--my experience as a ward clerk comes across as a pointless, idle boast.  (Look at me, I used to be somebody, ain't you sad I left?)  Which I really don't appreciate (though some here possibly did).

--Erik

________________________________________

And on the street tonight
An old man plays
With newspaper cuttings of his glory days
And if you tolerate this
Then your children will be next

--Manic Street Preachers, 1998

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Okay, clearly we're not going to agree on your lottery analogy or whether 110 is an honest & reasonable life expectancy assumption for counting and reporting LDS Church membership as related to lost members. 

So I will move on and ask you this: Do you consider the prediction of "few" in terms of last-days LDS membership count (which you took from the Book of Mormon, your post page 4 on this thread) to be an example of "foreordination" as LDS have defined that word?  (Y/N)  And as a follow-up: Is there *anything* LDS can do (e.g., by working harder, employing their "free agency") to change "few" into "many"?  If not, what sort of "agency" is this that is thus caged?

And one more thing, Bernard.  I'm happy to have you edit my text when you quote me--provided you use an ellipsis, strike-through or other mechanism to make clear to our readers the original has been edited.  I do this myself all the time.  But when you flip the order of my 3rd and 4th paragraphs and delete the opening words of the 3rd and present them together as the original--well, you just make me look foolish and incoherent.  In my original prose, the 3rd paragraph builds to the conclusion in the 4th.  As you edited and presented it--my experience as a ward clerk comes across as a pointless, idle boast.  (Look at me, I used to be somebody, ain't you sad I left?)  Which I really don't appreciate (though some here possibly did).

--Erik

________________________________________

And on the street tonight
An old man plays
With newspaper cuttings of his glory days
And if you tolerate this
Then your children will be next

--Manic Street Preachers, 1998

Any misrepresentation or effort to make you appear foolish was unintented. Sorry for the offense. 

I still reject your characterization of our efforts to account for all members. 

No.

No. 

Parable of the sower. Tree of Life vision. Hen gathering chicks.

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Jean-Luc Picard said:

Peaked in numbers, maybe (births will continue and keep it just above death rates). I do think it has peaked in influence, no Olympics or Mitt Romney. Once you leave heavily Mormon areas, the Church has very, very little influence on anything and is a speck of a church. For most people it is a little afterthought.

Hard to say what the future holds. But it's hard to beat the era when the head of the Senate was Mormon and one major Presidential candidate was Mormon. On the other hand that doesn't mean a decline matters. That's a pretty disproportionate degree of influence.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Hard to say what the future holds. But it's hard to beat the era when the head of the Senate was Mormon and one major Presidential candidate was Mormon. On the other hand that doesn't mean a decline matters. That's a pretty disproportionate degree of influence.

It only takes a little yeast to raise the loaf.

[probablyHagoth7]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

 ain't you sad I left?) 

I am, Erik. 

Please come back....completely.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/23/2017 at 10:53 AM, Gray said:

............................................. 

Patriarchal blessings, healings, giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes, good point. Revelations from the FP and Q2? No, we simply get the outcome of the revelation, with none of that language. 

Patriarchal blessings are a standard form of revelation: Patriarch Richard L. Bushman said, in answer to a question by a non-Mormon theology student at the Claremont Colleges, that he doesn't know how he receives the blessings, only that "they just come."  In a Q&A a couple of years later, he added that he used to transcribe his own patriarchal blessings from the tape recorder.  In doing so, he sometimes edited his own words.  Why?  Because, at the time he received it, he couldn't quite find the right word, but was later able to more accurately state the will of the Lord.

Quote

Possibly. Robert Smith gave me a bunch of reading - perhaps non-canonical revelation worked differently in the early church? Or maybe it didn't? I wonder how much of Joseph Smith's revelations for the church were canonized vs not. Do you have a notion of that? 

Yes.  One does wonder whether the 1844 Joseph Smith Funeral Oration for his friend King Follett should be a formal, published revelation.  Should Apostle Orson Hyde's formal dedication of Palestine to the final gathering of the Jews, and the building of their temple, be included in the D&C?  There are many unpublished revelations, most of which were received in answer to requests for answers.

If you read through the D&C carefully, you will find many different sorts of "revelations."  Some are extracts from letters (D&C 85, 121-123, and Articles of Faith); some are quite poetic, while many micromanage everyday Church governance.  One is the testimony of John Taylor (135).  One is the Constitution of the Church (20). One is a remarkable revelation of Brigham Young (136), in which he adopts the powerful theme of the Israelite Exodus out of Egypt through the wilderness to the Promised Land.  Just like Clan Lehi, the Mormons leaving Winter Quarters and heading for the Great Basin liken themselves to those same Israelites.  Some of the synchronisms of the Camp of Israel are worth remarking:

Brigham sets out with a small vanguard company during Passover of 1847.  He arrives and declares “This is the right place!” on the Jewish Sabbath, July 24, 1847.  Using Oliver's Rod, he designates the location for the SLC Temple on July 28.  The main body of Mormons (1st & 2nd companies) go West during the Jewish Jubilee Year (which runs from Sept 1847 to Sept 1848), in the midst of which Brigham is finally made Church President and the miracle of the Seagulls & Crickets occurs.  Moreover, if one inverts the map of Palestine and overlays it with Utah, one has fresh-water Utah Lake feeding into the Jordan River and ending at a Salt Lake, with all sorts of biblical place-names applied by the Mormons.  Brigham even became known as the "American Moses."  By 1869, he had brought around 70,000 Mormons into the Great Basin.

Are such synchronisms just happenstantial?  Consider that both the Six-Day War of 1967, and the Yom Kippur War of Oct 1973 took place in the midst of Jewish Sabbatical years.  The rebuilt Nauvoo Temple was rededicated in the midst of another Sabbatical (June 2002).  For more of that sort of thing, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Moroni Deliver the Plates on September 22? (Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, front of 2013 edition of the Book of Mormon; cf. Joseph Smith—History 1:59),” KnoWhy #193 (Sept 22, 2016), online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-did-moroni-deliver-the-plates-on-september-22 .  Alternative title: “Why Did Moroni Deliver the Plates on the Jewish New Year?”  Revelation comes in various forms.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Five Solas]

5 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I am, Erik. 

Please come back....completely.

Appreciate the sentiment.  If you're ever in need of a guest speaker for your Gospel Doctrine class--you know where to find me.  My parents live in Utah, so I'm likely in your neck of the woods sagebrush from time to time...

:0)

--Erik

[Five Solas]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Any misrepresentation or effort to make you appear foolish was unintented. Sorry for the offense. 

I still reject your characterization of our efforts to account for all members. 

No.

No. 

Parable of the sower. Tree of Life vision. Hen gathering chicks.

Apology gladly accepted, Bernard. 

And I confess, I wasn't expecting "No" in response to whether the Book of Mormon prediction of "few" (last days membership count) constituted an example of LDS foreordination.  If "few" hasn't been foreordained (in an LDS / Book of Mormon context)--well, how do LDS think of this prediction/prophecy?  You certainly don't see the number as predestined, do you?

And I'm equally intrigued by the limit you've imposed on Free Agency to achieve results.  LDS don't usually talk about the limits of their agency.  But perhaps this deserves its own thread, time permitting. 

--Erik

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Apology gladly accepted, Bernard. 

And I confess, I wasn't expecting "No" in response to whether the Book of Mormon prediction of "few" (last days membership count) constituted an example of LDS foreordination.  If "few" hasn't been foreordained (in an LDS / Book of Mormon context)--well, how do LDS think of this prediction/prophecy?  You certainly don't see the number as predestined, do you?

And I'm equally intrigued by the limit you've imposed on Free Agency to achieve results.  LDS don't usually talk about the limits of their agency.  But perhaps this deserves its own thread, time permitting. 

--Erik

One hard lesson I have learned dealing with loved ones in addiction is that there is nothing I can do to fix them other than love them, set a good example, and pray for them.

What does that have to do with missionary work? Like the sower of the seed, I do all in my power to scatter seeds wherever I can according to my agency: be willing to open my mouth when the Spirit directs, hand a stranger a Book of Mormon, show Christ through my example, strike up a casual gospel conversation on an airplane or Walmart checkout line, invite them to my home to hear the missionaries, but then the agency of the hearer comes into play. They are the soil. Beyond that, I cannot force them to accept the gospel. I'll leave that to the Protestants and Catholics of old. I don't think anyone is predestined to accept the gospel, or as taught in Calvinism have it imposed upon them by an outside actor. How would you suggested we use our agency to convert billions? How many Calvinists are there? What are you doing to get more?I'm not sure what you are getting at.

As a missionary in Honduras, I, with my companion, contacted everyone in the town of Danlí at least twice. Not many people accepted our invitations and our branch consisted only of several women, a few children, and two men. Yet 35 years later I read in the Church News the formation of the Danlí Stake. Something significant happened. The seeds that were planted by many missionaries brought forth incredible fruit. Even with that stake and others, however, the numbers of the Saints remain few in that country, but they are having a significant impact on their brothers and sisters, as prophesied in the Book of Mormon.  

I'm not sure what you mean by me placing a limit on Free Agency to achieve results. My agency ends when I try to force others to do something against their will. Amen to my authority when I use it in unrighteousness. Does the Calvinist God recognize the agency of His children? Is everyone free to accept the gift of the Son? Is there agency or choice in predestination?

Edited May 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited May 27, 2017 by Tacenda

[Damien the Leper]

On 5/18/2017 at 1:21 PM, JLHPROF said:

 

Oh, I see.  Not important as far as God reaching people.  I would agree with that.  God can reach people with or without the Church.
The problem is people cannot return to his presence without the Church.  That makes it supremely important don't you think?

This is theologically presumptuous and at best an opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/25/2017 at 2:39 PM, clarkgoble said:

Hard to say what the future holds. But it's hard to beat the era when the head of the Senate was Mormon and one major Presidential candidate was Mormon. On the other hand that doesn't mean a decline matters. That's a pretty disproportionate degree of influence.

It strikes me as myopic at best to gauge the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ by who at any given time happens to occupy this or that position in U.S. government or who happens to be running for office.

A couple of generations ago a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (and future president of the Church) occupied one of the cabinet posts in the U.S. presidential administration. I imagine it might have been easy for some to believe -- wrongly -- that things went downhill from there in terms of the Church's influence.

And bear in mind Mitt Romney was not the first member of his family to be a major candidate for president. His father was before him.

And if the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing more than a "speck" or "an afterthought," I wonder why it is that the gay marriage juggernaut has lashed out so viciously against it.

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

This is theologically presumptuous and at best an opinion.

Everyone's religious faith "is theologically presumptuous and at best an opinion" in the eyes of some.

 

[Damien the Leper]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Everyone's religious faith "is theologically presumptuous and at best an opinion" in the eyes of some.

 

Correct. Claiming one's religious path is the more correct path is extremely dangerous. An example of such extremist ideology would be ISIS or the Buddhist extremists of Myanmar. There is no one more correct way that is superior to another. Such philosophy reminds me of The Solar Temple.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Correct. Claiming one's religious path is the more correct path is extremely dangerous.

It is extremely dangerous -- unless it isn't. (The Church of Jesus Christ is no ISIS.)

To claim that, in theory, at least,  there is not one path that is more correct than all others is arguably at least as dangerous as claiming a certain false path is the most correct.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is extremely dangerous -- unless it isn't.

To claim that, in theory, at least,  there is not one path that is more correct than all others is arguably at least as dangerous as claiming a certain false path is the most correct.

That is an argument of "I know you are but what am I?"

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

That is an argument of "I know you are but what am I?"

The Church of Jesus Christ has had 187 years to become an ISIS-like menace. Hasn't happened yet.

So much for immoderate declarations.

[Damien the Leper]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church of Jesus Christ has had 187 years to become an ISIS-like menace. Hasn't happened yet.

So much for immoderate declarations.

The ideology is the menace and pandemic. Physical actions are the sad consequence. Fortunately, such actions aren't always the the end result.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It strikes me as myopic at best to gauge the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ by who at any given time happens to occupy this or that position in U.S. government or who happens to be running for office.

A couple of generations ago a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (and future president of the Church) occupied one of the cabinet posts in the U.S. presidential administration. I imagine it might have been easy for some to believe -- wrongly -- that things went downhill from there in terms of the Church's influence.

And bear in mind Mitt Romney was not the first member of his family to be a major candidate for president. His father was before him.

And if the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing more than a "speck" or "an afterthought," I wonder why it is that the gay marriage juggernaut has lashed out so viciously against it.

 

After all of these threads and discussions we have had on this issue, you really don't know why the "gay marriage juggernaut" is so angered at the Mormon church?  When an organization works as much as the Mormon church did to take away a minority's civil rights, it is a big deal.  It is hard to sweep something like that under the carpet.  

I never start threads on this issue.  Nor do I often initiate discussions on this issue.  BUT when it is brought up, I certainly am not going to let a comment like this slide.  Even with all of my comments on this issue, evidently I have not done a very good job in being clear why the "Mormon juggernaut" against gay rights  is such a big deal.  

And no I am not going to derail this thread on this issue.  I have made my statement, once again.  

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

After all of these threads and discussions we have had on this issue, you really don't know why the "gay marriage juggernaut" is so angered at the Mormon church?  When an organization works as much as the Mormon church did to take away a minority's civil rights, it is a big deal.  It is hard to sweep something like that under the carpet.  

I never start threads on this issue.  Nor do I often initiate discussions on this issue.  BUT when it is brought up, I certainly am not going to let a comment like this slide.  Even with all of my comments on this issue, evidently I have not done a very good job in being clear why the "Mormon juggernaut" against gay rights  is such a big deal.  

And no I am not going to derail this thread on this issue.  I have made my statement, once again.  

Well...the suicides of many gays could be a clue.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

After all of these threads and discussions we have had on this issue, you really don't know why the "gay marriage juggernaut" is so angered at the Mormon church?  When an organization works as much as the Mormon church did to take away a minority's civil rights, it is a big deal.  It is hard to sweep something like that under the carpet.  

I never start threads on this issue.  Nor do I often initiate discussions on this issue.  BUT when it is brought up, I certainly am not going to let a comment like this slide.  Even with all of my comments on this issue, evidently I have not done a very good job in being clear why the "Mormon juggernaut" against gay rights  is such a big deal.  

And no I am not going to derail this thread on this issue.  I have made my statement, once again.  

So you apparently disagree with feaux Jean Luc-Picard, then that "Once you leave heavily Mormon areas, the Church has very, very little influence on anything and is a speck of a church. For most people it is a little afterthought."

Seems like the critics can't agree among themselves whether the Church of Jesus Christ is an insignificant "speck of a church" or, as the scriptures put it, "terrible as an army with banners."

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And if the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing more than a "speck" or "an afterthought," I wonder why it is that the gay marriage juggernaut has lashed out so viciously against it.

Some would say that the LDS Church is a speck or an afterthought until it tries to trample on the rights of a group of citizens.

[Damien the Leper]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you apparently disagree with feaux Jean Luc-Picard, then that "Once you leave heavily Mormon areas, the Church has very, very little influence on anything and is a speck of a church. For most people it is a little afterthought."

Seems like the critics can't agree among themselves whether the Church of Jesus Christ is an insignificant "speck of a church" or, as the scriptures put it, "terrible as an army with banners."

 

The LDS church isn't very relevant to American culture these days. It's just another religious institution that is not unique. What it does share with other theistic religions is that it is the great and spacious building made manifest.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

What it does share with other theistic religions is that it is the great and spacious building made manifest.

By which you mean it stands looking out over the world and mocks those on a different path?
I think that is somewhat true of every religion.
But if we are going to use the symbols of that vision, even if we consider the Church to be as the great and spacious building, then we have to acknowledge that there is still one true path to follow by holding to the rod on the singular course to the tree of life.
We may disagree as to which Church that rod passes through and which Church is the great and spacious one, but there is still only one path.

We all have a little Rameumpton in us.  But that doesn't change that there are only 2 churches.  We may be prideful in thinking we are part of the true one, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS one true one.