One of the features of Latter-day Saint thought is the deep and committed response to God’s children having agency or free will. We see this as the founding thought of the cosmos, one that existed as long as God (D&C 93:29-31, 2 Nephi 2:11). In fact, it is ’the agency of man’ to receive and reciprocate the light or love that was ‘plainly manifest unto’ each of us from the ‘beginning’ (D&C 93:31) that aligns quite well with Jesus’ two great commandments in response the question of the greatest commandment in the law (Matthew 22:37-40).

Abraham J. Heschel is worth our reading time. He was a good friend of Martin Luther King, lost his family in the Holocaust, and taught for 27 years at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in Manhattan. I believe he is the one that coined the phrase most moved mover in describing God. His daughter explained that he and Martin Luther King used the phrase.1 I am reading Between God and Man which is a compilation of his writings.

We want leaders to be infallible or completely fallible. It is hard for us to realize the giant grey zone for every leader on the planet - prophets included. That grey zone is called agency or free will in a world full of others that wield the same power. The life of Mark Hoffman, Gordon B. Hinckley, and our prophetic narrative all seem to make people think that this story of the Murder among the Mormons is a faith crusher.

Lately, I try to take quotes from our general authorities and theologians on descriptions of attributes and principles we should have and put them into questions about God. My posts “Does God have faith (Romans 3:3)?” and “Does God exercise faith?” are two examples of this idea. Understanding that our experience on earth does not represent the plan’s culmination, we are, nonetheless, God’s children here to learn of Him and how to act and be like Him. Christians are all too willing to teach the concept “What Would Jesus Do?” in getting us to exemplify the attributes of God in our lives. The assumption of that statement, is that we can do what Jesus does.

One horn of this dilemma is the argument that if an action was caused or necessitated, then it could not have been done freely and hence the agent is not responsible for it. The other horn is the argument that if the action was not caused, then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot be attributed to the agent and hence, again, the agent cannot be responsible for it. -Paul Russell: Freedom and Moral Sentiment, p. 14-

Paul Russel discusses the ‘Horns of the dilemma’ found when we get at the root of determinism and chance. Either way, the extreme of both views means that free agents do not control their choices. They are simply science experiments moved by the experimenter. The religionists hold to God as the great mover in the deterministic model, and the scientists welcome the randomness of nature and laws of physics as the great mover. I believe that both worship a golden calf. William James’ provides a third horn that can resolve the conflict in his 1884 ’The Dilemma of Determinism’.

Some Latter-day Saints (and many others) believe that the future is entirely predictable if one just knew the current state right now. This concept is called causal determinism and, if too intently followed, creates ideas like fixed-future omniscience, predestination, and antagonism towards free-will or Agency. Of course, many events can be predicted in a causal chain, which allows science to progress and humans to reason about the future. However, fanatical focus on causal determinism would argue that when the first living cell formed on earth that my lunch order on Wednesday was determined for my October 23, 2020 order.

This week my second father died of cancer and has allowed me to think about what it means to create one’s life in the image of God. He lived his life as if yesterday were done and that today could be done in such a way to bring joy to his and other’s future. He was the type of person that shined so bright that you couldn’t be in his presence without going through his personality.

I have spent quite a bit of time discussing time and the future in this blog. In fact, many of my conversations with my friends have touched on the topic of time as well. Recently, I was at a small backyard gathering where a friend of mine blurted out, “J’s entire premise is messed up so the logic doesn’t make sense.” He was referencing the concepts of God living within time. However, god living in time is not the premise. It is the result of the driving premise upon which openness theology is based. That God’s entire desire is to be in loving relationships with each of use. His desire to love and let us love is the premise. In this post, I lay out the driving premise of most moved mover in the context of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint’s most cherished teaching - agnecy.

Alma 29:4-5 provides a few stunning statements about agency and God’s response to our agency. I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

Does God need me for His plan to work? Years ago, one of my leaders often said, ‘God doesn’t need us’ when discussing our relevance in God’s plan. I think I understood what he was trying to say, but the phrase didn’t sit well with me. If he was trying to say that God can bring about the Plan of Salvation with or without me, then I agree. However, if he was saying that God’s work moves without His people, I don’t agree.

Any of my friends that have been willing to engage me on the concept of a contingent future and openness theology often find the idea persuasive enough to ponder its impacts on scripture. Eventually, they ask a question about the many prophetic statements found in scripture. Their questions fall along the lines of the following, “What about …” the prophecy of the civil war starting in North Carolina by Joseph Smith?

In 2 Nephi 26:23-28 we get a series of great questions about our relationship with the Lord to which all are answered with a ‘Nay’ from Nephi. Doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness?

In Doctrine and Covenants 93:30-32 we read, All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

Background The story of Isreal’s relationship with the Gibeonites is an excellent example of relational theology. In this story, we see God call Joshua, command Joshua, then support Joshua in his calling. It is a fascinating story of how God works with His people in a mutual relationship of trusting decision making. The relational Story Joshua’s call and command In Deuteronomy 34:91, Joshua’s call to lead the people is signaled through the description of Moses laying his hands on Joshua and the children of Isreal’s willingness to hearken to Joshua’s words.

The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are in the New Testament (NT) this year.1 The last time we were deep in the NT, we were naive to leadership in times of national and world stress. We had experienced so many years of bliss that we forgot what being a leader meant. COVID-19 struck just after we finished our last study of the NT. As we have explore the NT, I hope we pay special heed to the leadership exemplified by John, Jesus, Peter, and Paul.

In D&C 82:8-10 we learn that God wants to bind himself to His Zion people. He is kind enough to provide insight on how we can ‘act before him’ to become as He is. Maybe it is just my thinking when I hear this verse read; However, I often hear this verse imply a type of inverse slave/master relationship between God and us. In the second half of verse 10, I understood that God would throw us to the lions if we didn’t do what he said.

His meekness honors our power of agency and waits for us to invite. He can work with His prophets in their agency to initiate, consolidate, and facilitate His plan. His meekness would not allow Him to manipulate them or dictate what they must do to enact His plan. He persuades, and with any persuasion, there are alternatives that they can choose. He is prepared for their choices, but He will not discourage or limit their voluntary intention to seek His views.

Lately, I try to take quotes from our general authorities and theologians on descriptions of attributes and principles we should have and put them into questions about God. My posts “Does God have faith (Romans 3:3)?” and “Does God exercise faith?” are two examples of this idea. Understanding that our experience on earth does not represent the plan’s culmination, we are, nonetheless, God’s children here to learn of Him and how to act and be like Him. Christians are all too willing to teach the concept “What Would Jesus Do?” in getting us to exemplify the attributes of God in our lives. The assumption of that statement, is that we can do what Jesus does.

Chad Ford introduced me to the term ‘Dangerous Love’ that pushed me to see the love he describes as the love of God. Chad helps us see love as a willingness to be right in the relationship over being right in the facts. We can view love as a willingness to bring as many parties into the solution or plan as possible. Does the love that Chad describes help us understand God’s love?

I am reading The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, and I have found the authors to be articulate in their explanation of the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism. The two theologies are relatively consistent in their views of God’s Omnipresence. But, their opinions on Omnipotence and Omniscience are different, and the contributing authors highlight these differences. The theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appears to be much more aligned with the Arminian view, but we have some Calvinistic strains. In this post, you will see how the LDS community caveats the Omnis and be able to compare our caveats to other theologies.

Omniscience is not used in the Bible or Latter-day scripture. This leaves humanity guessing as to whether God agrees with the word He has never used in His revelations. All Christian religions have taken the concept into their vocabulary; However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done little to dogmatize the definition of omniscience. Let’s look at the history of omniscience and how various Christian denominations define it.

The Old Testament has multiple verses that tell us that God is a jealous God. The Book of Mormon and the New Testament have just a couple of verses that reference the jealous God. Oxford’s definition from a Google search of Jealous helps us see that Zealous is just as viable of a translation when reading scripture. It also helps us see that ‘Jealous’ is most often used to understand that there is an intense emotion attached to a being’s relationship to their possessions or relationships.

N.T. Wright is the C.S. Lewis of our day, according to Robert Millet and with that comparison, he has such clout that religious scholars respect his word and Time magazine publishes his articles. Last December, he wrote a short essay titled, ‘The New Testament Doesn’t Say What Most People Think It Does About Heaven’. He calls out Plato, of whom Aristotle was a student, for creating the conventional Christian view of humanity dying and leaving this world to go up to heaven.

Latter-day scripture has a curious phrase about wisdom that pops up quite often. It is the use of the words, ‘for a wise purpose’ about God working with a prophet on a current decision that affects the future. In 1 Nephi 9:5, Nephi is the first to introduce us to the phrase when he says, ’the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

Let me start this post with a big caveat. Metaphors are useful for conveying ideas about specific points of reality and inadequate for conveying the entire complexity of our lived experience. The chess metaphor falls short in explaining the plan of salvation that God has for His kingdom. Still, it can be an excellent metaphor for understanding the relationship between God’s wisdom, power, knowledge and our agency. I want to frame parts of the chess game before we read the following quotes.

In 1 Corinthians 1:19-27 Paul tells us that foolish and wise are the same things, just different positions on the scale of wisdom. We would put wisdom as the great attribute at the top of the range and foolishness as the worst form of wisdom at the bottom of the scale. In verse 25 Paul states this fact clearly; Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; In my ‘What is wisdom?

What is wisdom? The prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon provides one of the most succinct injunctions in scripture when he says, ‘O be wise; what can I say more?’ (Jacob 6:12). To Jacob’s question after the injunction, I would ask many of the following questions, Can you describe wisdom? Is wisdom that much different than knowledge? Does wisdom require an existence with randomness or uncertainty? Can one exemplify wisdom in a world without unknowns?

John 5 provides a narrative of a conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership on Sabbath day activities. It is interesting that Jesus does not attempt to quote scripture to justify his behavior. Neither, does he build a strong logical argument using jointly believed assumptions. In verse 19, he simply states, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

I have written posts that included references to the Lectures on Faith in the past.1 I used those previous posts to discuss the attribute of the faith of God directly. This post discusses the attribute of the knowledge of God and how the Lectures describe His knowledge. We should carefully recognize what the Lectures on Faith explain about the knowledge of God to see what knowledge of God we must understand for our faith to grow.

In Romans 3:3, we encounter a bold statement from Paul about God. He says, ‘For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?’ Paul’s question forces all readers of the bible to ask, ‘What is the faith of God?’ A quick search on the internet will leave a searcher wanting concerning any explanation about the ‘faith of God’ because any description of the attributes of God leaves out faith.

This week most of the Christian world will celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Much of Christianity recognizes the physicality and mortality of Christ. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands apart from traditional Christianity in proclaiming that Christ’s mortality and then immortality through resurrection was progression in God’s plan. It was not a brief interlude to commune with His creatures on earth so that He could get back to His timeless immateriality.

Do we believe that we can feel satisfied? Or do we all wonder as did the Apostles of old in saying, ‘From whence can a man satisfy these men … here in the wilderness?1 In Proverbs 13:25 we are told, ‘The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want.’ We often struggle to find satisfaction when so many immediate needs pull us into envy and might appropriately classify us as having the belly of the wicked.

Introduction I am reading The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence by John Sanders. It is a thorough explanation of openness or relational theology. His writing is clear, and he is sources and footnotes are detailed. In Chapter 6, Risk and the Divine Character, he discusses the varied views of Omniscience (6.5). As I have had discussions with friends, I have heard many of these views explained (without being given a name).

James E. Faust shared a devotional at BYU in 1993 titled, The Voice of the Spirit. Mormon messages used this talk to create the following message. Elder Faust shares an impactful quote about light (or truth) being part of our very essence. Signaling that truth is much more than facts. You will not be able to travel through life on borrowed light. The light of life must be part of your very being.

According to John Sanders, the concept of truth has multiple meanings. There are three main theories of truth in Western thought. The correspondence theory: This theory holds that truth is that which corresponds to a state of affairs or fact of reality. The coherence theory: a statement is true if it fits (coheres) with a set of other statements accepted as true. The pragmatic theory: an idea is true if it is fruitful and workable in relation to our experience.

Meekness in context In my previous post I asked, ‘How might we describe God’s attribute of meekness?’ I have pulled a few lines from that post to help highlight how His quality of meekness could explain our1 interaction with Him. Patient and responsive to agency He is open to our earnest petitions and will modestly, graciously, and discreetly support us in our journey. As the holder of perfected meekness, he will be patient with our learning, and He will sincerely share all that He can with any that desire.

His and our attribute At times we discuss attributes that we must have to progress in the kingdom of God, but we limit the conversation to us and forget that God also holds the fullness of those attributes. I will review scripture and latter-day prophet’s words on meekness to see if we can understand God’s meekness. In a later post, we will examine what the perfected attribute of meekness implies about our relationship with him.

Background The simple answer is yes. The more complicated conversation is in how God exercises faith. I hope to use scripture, the Lectures on Faith, and some insightful commentary around the first lecture to discuss how His faith could be applied.1 Lectures on Faith Latter-Day Saint history has a unique interaction with a set of philosophical notes on faith that were developed by early leaders of our church. For a long time, many would say that Joseph Smith was the author.

Background: My last post about the omniscience of God motivated me to look at the LDS topical guide under God, foreknowledge of. I quickly realized that foreknowledge is a very complicated concept in protestant Christianity and in LDS teachings. Before we tackle the references under God, foreknowledge of, Election, Foreordination, and Predestination we need to work through what each word means, how they relate, and how they are different. One of the issues with each word is that their definitions are nuanced by the various beliefs of each Christian theology.

Background I have had a few discussions recently where I have been surprised by the answers given concerning God and how he relates to time. Once again, I think many of us are unwittingly letting Aristotle’s unmoved mover philosophy drive our beliefs in God. The scriptures are full of clear statements about God and his relation to time. The Old and New Testaments have a few verses that provide value to this discussion.

In December of 2000, Clark Pinnock published an article titled, “God as Most Moved Mover”. He had previously worked on a book titled “The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God” that I believe pushed this theology out into the open. However I don’t think that book used the phrase ‘Most Moved Mover’. He then published a book titled, “Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness” in 2001.

Background In “Does God have a Future?” John Sanders explains the open theist view of omniscience and foreknowledge. Here are a few key quotes; I prefer to think of “perfect” in dynamic terms: relational perfection. God is always in perfect relationship with us, and as the relationship changes so God changes. -Pg. 90 First, let me say that Jesus did not experience “powerlessness.” Rather, he exercised the power of love and chose not to use other types of power available to him.

Background In God of the possible by Gregory Boyd he makes an eloquent argument about the joy of our sociality as humans and how this relates to traditional views of the exhaustive foreknowledge of God. In light of the Latter-Day Saint view on the sociality of heaven being similar to our current existence, I found his argument enlightening. He asked some great questions in the quotes below. Why would this eternally static view of divine knowledge be greater than a view of God enjoying novelty, adventure, spontaneity, creativity, and moment-by-moment personal relationships?

In Elder Holland’s book titled, Christ and the New Covenant, I first encountered the fascinating idea that God could change his behavior based on our prayers and faith. This paragraph stretched my mind. A final explanation-and in terms of the brother of Jared’s faith the most persuasive one-is that Christ was saying to the brother of Jared, “Never have I showed myself unto man in this manner, without my volition, driven solely by the faith of the beholder.

Introduction I have quoted and will continue to quote elements from BH Robert’s Seventy’s Course in Theology. Since I first read The Mormon Doctrine of Deity at the turn of the century, I have been impressed with his clarity and directness. He was firmly in the Democrat camp when it came to politics. I think his political views and desire to build a theological argument for Mormonism made him a bit of an outsider even though he was a general authority.

Background I think many of us are good at applying our daily reading to our lives. This application is essential and has eternal impacts on our lives and our relationship with Deity. We also need to pull scripture together to find a comprehensive meaning. We need to spend the struggle and time to see the big picture - not just the maps and storyline big picture, but the attributes of God big picture.

President Wilford Woodruff shared this story in his journal. He was the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On the 23rd of November my wife, Phoebe, was attacked with a severe headache, which terminated in brain fever. She grew more and more distressed daily as we continued our journey. It was a terrible ordeal for a woman to travel in a wagon over rough roads, afflicted as she was.

For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. Hosea 2:8, KJV Do we believe this verse of scripture? Do we think that our God will give us all that he can, even when we are using those things to honor another God? Do we believe that God gives good to those who do wrong?

The story of Gideon in Judges 6 provides a narrative for discerning magical thinking from faith. What I love about Gideon’s story in Judges is how it helps me understand where faith and reason can help us break down the magical thinking often bubbling to the surface in Sunday lessons and our lives. Remember from my previous post that magical thinking is the idea that by a grand sacrifice, magical action, or special connection, you can earn special privileges to information or prevent causally unrelated misfortunes to you or others.

In December 2020, I had a pointed post on how a religion teacher at BYU was teaching a false truth that God doesn’t change in a relationship with us. It related to his interpretation of the Bible Dictionary’s definition of prayer. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other In that post, I said

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. … And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost Acts 2

If you look, the blessing of wind is scattered throughout the scriptures. However, wind is also used to identify cursings and the influence of Satan. I see the wind as a fascinating metaphor used by God to represent covenants.

I suppose that the wind was the source of cooling, movement, power, and destruction most often experienced by the ancients. They didn’t have jet engines, air conditioning, guns, or bombs that responded to their commands. They depended on and succumbed to the wind and gave it metaphorical powers.

In D&C 82:8-10 we learn that God wants to bind himself to His Zion people. He is kind enough to provide insight on how we can ‘act before him’ to become as He is. Maybe it is just my thinking when I hear this verse read; However, I often hear this verse imply a type of inverse slave/master relationship between God and us. In the second half of verse 10, I understood that God would throw us to the lions if we didn’t do what he said.

One unique phrase that Joseph Smith brings into The Church’s vocabulary is ‘one eternal round.’ He translates that English phrase three times in The Book of Mormon and uses it in two revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. At the end of Joseph’s life, he brings the phrase front and center in one of his final sermons titled, ’The King Follet Sermon.’ I have heard this phrase misused to imply that God is timeless and thought it would be worth referencing here to provide the correct context.

In Moroni 7:33-37, Mormon speaks on the power of faith. The middle two verses are full of questions to push us to ponder the reaches of God’s omnipotence and the power that comes from having faith in Him. Mormon’s final question includes, ‘Or will he, so long as time shall last?’ about God. Did Mormon think that time had an end? The full set of questions from verses 35 and 36 include;

In our conversations of Adam and Eve, we often see the first sin as the partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. However, if we believe in a fortunate fall, then partaking of the fruit was the progression that God desired, not something in opposition to Him. Also, it seems that they could not sin while in the Garden (see 2 Nephi 2:23; Moses 5:11) which implies that anything that happened before and up to the partaking of the fruit could not be a sin.

A Greek woman had an ailing daughter who arrived at Jesus’ feet to beg for His miracles in her family. Jesus responded, ‘Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.’ His response seems to say that His mission did not involve her or her people. He had a plan, and it did not involve miracles for her as a Greek woman. She then responds in humility, ‘Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.’ This response gives Jesus insight into His mission and His interaction with her. He responds, ‘For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.’ Did the Greek woman change Jesus’ mind?

There are a few of us that would believe outlandish lies. People have differing beliefs on Big Foot’s reality, whether we landed on the moon, or if COVID-19 is a health pandemic. What makes the belief of those concepts different from believing in God the Father? The fascinating relationship between all of these beliefs is humanity’s inability to comprehend rare occurrences. What we often refer to as possible outcomes instead of probable outcomes is hard to imagine.

As you read all commentary in General Conference about Jacob 4:14, you will notice that they focus on our part of the relationship with God - our role and how we have ’looked beyond the mark’ in rejecting the Christ. Jacob 4:14 provides details on God’s part in the relationship that causes our ‘stumbling’, which offers insight about God’s work with each of us. It helps us understand ‘stumbling’ within the complexity of partners in a relationship.

Jacob 4:14 states;

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

Alma 13:7-9 includes multiple statements about God’s existence concerning beginnings and ends. The verses include references to his foreknowledge and Priesthood’s reality. In my previous post, I discussed Kathleen Flakes response to understanding no beginnings and no ends. This post looks at all of the verses with this reference and LDS commentary around this phrase.

In 1993 then Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles shared a moving General Conference address titled Constancy amid Change. As I have discussed my ideas about Truth’s ability to progress from D&C 93:30 (post 1, post 2), I think some of my friends hear that nothing is constant. President Nelson’s talk helps me clarify a few points on Truth’s progression. In his 1993 address, he shares a conversation with Ruth and John, where they asked, ’What can we trust?

I admit that my views on jealousy may be more visually impeeding than others that read verses with the phrase, ‘jealous God’. When I hear the word ‘jealous’, I instantly see an abusive boyfriend in a wife-beater representing nothing of quality about love. Clearly, the term does not have to mean this when referencing God; But, I decided to remix the scripture verses that reference a jealous God with the definitions of jealous and zeal.

Korihor was one of three named teachers of religions against Christ in the Book of Mormon. He was the only one specifically called an Anti-Christ in Alma 30:6 and 12. His primary argument against Christ was that we could not know the future. His was hyper-focused presentism that was equally cynical of historical tradition as well. His argument against Christ sits on the concept that any knowledge future was impossible. Those that proposed such a knowledge were ‘frenzied’.

Alma 29:4-5 provides a few stunning statements about agency and God’s response to our agency. I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

Joseph Smith’s translation of Fascimile 2 provides a few detailed insights into this question. In the facsimile, there are added numbers which the Book of Abraham labels as Fig. 1 through Fig. 21. Last week, the missionaries visited and brought up Fascimile 2 and asked what I thought about the statement, ‘Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord’?

Does God change his mind (Numbers 23:19 & 1 Samuel 15:29)? Too often, when we talk about changing another’s mind, the implication is that we moved them from a wrong belief to a correct understanding. Or maybe, that one was so persuasive that another moved from their current thinking - regardless of the truth of either position. There is a third space where minds or decisions change. A relational space where new actors enter the scene and others within the group, knowing there are multiple viable options, are willing to mold their plans to accommodate the new dynamic.

In 2 Nephi 3, Lehi shares with his son Joseph a fascinating revelation that Joseph of Egypt1 saw the Nephite day over a thousand years in the future as well as Joseph Smith’s day over 2000 years farther into the future. This example is often shared with me from my friends when we get farther along with the conversation about the openness of God. It is an excellent example to push us to think about God’s knowledge of the future and how He could know Joseph Smith’s name if His children made free choices from Joseph of Egypt’s day (1700 BC) to 1830 New England times.

In LDS culture, Matthew 24:36 is quoted as witnessing that God knows the exact moment of His second coming. Without the surrounding verses, it is powerful in its statement of God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus says, ‘But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.’ Two analogies wrap verse 36 about nature and seasons that strongly implies a relational view of the timing of the second coming instead of a stopwatch or Japanese train arrival view.

Nephi’s Story: In 1 Nephi 4:10, Nephi starts his truth reasoning about what he should do with Laban after finding him passed out drunk as he planned to obtain the brass plates that he was commanded to retrieve. And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man.

Does God have wisdom? We discuss many other attributes of God which have a direct similarity in man but are more excellent with God. For example, Mortals understand limited ways to love but understand that God is better at love. Some humans can maintain massive amounts of information in their brains, but God can store an infinite amount. Humans have built technology that allows us to be in many places at once, but God can extend His reach to all locations.

Latter-day scripture has a curious phrase about wisdom that pops up quite often. It is the use of the words, ‘for a wise purpose’ about God working with a prophet on a current decision that affects the future. In 1 Nephi 9:5, Nephi is the first to introduce us to the phrase when he says, ’the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

In 2 Nephi 26:23-28 we get a series of great questions about our relationship with the Lord to which all are answered with a ‘Nay’ from Nephi. Doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness?

I previously asked, What did Elder Neal A. Maxwell think about time and God? and proposed that he may have tempered his views on fixed future omniscience based on conversations with Blake Ostler. However, I have since found a few more quotes from Neal A. Maxwell after 1984 that are still fairly forceful and I want to add to the record on mostmovedmover.com about his views in this additional post. I hope to be respectful to his words while discussing how they relate to an openness view of God’s future.

Introduction During the early ’90s (I think), my church ran some commercials under the catchphrase, ‘Family, it’s about time.’ One of them is below. I always thought the ads had a great play on the wording. The phrase could imply that it is about time that we focus on the family or that you can’t be family without investing time. It is from those commercials that I build the premise and title of this post.

I have heard Abraham 2:8 often used as a description of the timelessness of God. When friends reference this verse, they have a look that says, ’need I say more about the timelessness of God’ when they say the phrase, ‘God knows the end from the beginning.’ However, that phrase does not need to imply anything about timelessness. I will use Deiter F. Uchtdorf’s See the End from the Beginning April 2006 conference talk and Russell M.

As I have studied specific verses around God’s knowledge, I don’t see fixed future omniscience coming from the scripture. Still, I do see how many verses could confirm a preconceived belief in fixed future omniscience. 1 Nephi 7:12-13 and 1 Nephi 9:5-6 are two scriptures blocks that might confirm fixed future omniscience at first read. One of the complicated issues of fixed future omniscience is that it is often a lens that most of Christian society looks through to interpret scripture.

In Romans 3:3, we encounter a bold statement from Paul about God. He says, ‘For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?’ Paul’s question forces all readers of the bible to ask, ‘What is the faith of God?’ A quick search on the internet will leave a searcher wanting concerning any explanation about the ‘faith of God’ because any description of the attributes of God leaves out faith.

True and Living (D&C 1:30) In Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 the Lord says through Joseph Smith And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

Two posts ago, I talked about truth progressing where I put forth the idea that truth changes in time. I want to take a little more time on this topic and make sure it is clear truth exists and that it is not relative. However, it is relational with us in time, and we must all work together to progress into greater truth. When I hear President Nelson say that “We’re witnesses to a process of restoration” 1, I think I hear progress into greater truth.

Under a timeless model of God, many LDS quote Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 as a statement of truth never changing as it is ‘knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.’ There are 24 conference references to this verse alone. Many of the references to this verse emphasize truths as never-ending facts that are timeless1. Below are two examples from general conference that highlight how verse 24 is referenced.

In our Come Follow Me New Testament Reading for the last week of October, there is a section on Philemon 1:17-21. In these verses, Paul offers to cover Onesimus’ debts that might be owed to Philemon. In one section of this Come Follow Me topic, there are a series of questions that are asked to prod a conversation. You can see the questions in the screenshot below. I was visiting relatives while on a work trip, and one of their children was guiding the conversation.

In Doctrine and Covenants 93:30-32 we read, All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

Background The story of Isreal’s relationship with the Gibeonites is an excellent example of relational theology. In this story, we see God call Joshua, command Joshua, then support Joshua in his calling. It is a fascinating story of how God works with His people in a mutual relationship of trusting decision making. The relational Story Joshua’s call and command In Deuteronomy 34:91, Joshua’s call to lead the people is signaled through the description of Moses laying his hands on Joshua and the children of Isreal’s willingness to hearken to Joshua’s words.

Having previously finished a book on timelessness (see my previous post) and a book about perceiving truth through metaphor and physicality (see my ‘Oh say, What is truth?’ post), I have been pondering the words that are used by God in scripture. In Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 the Lord says, ‘And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;’ which is often quoted with Jacob 4:13.

In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus shares the parable of the importuning Widow and Unjust Judge (also called the parable of the persistent widow). In this parable, we learn that persistent prayers receive answers. The parable proposes that prayers can be answered through faithful wearying. The widow petitions the king, and the king ignores her. Finally, the king relents. Not out of compassion but because of her wearying. It looks like the rationale or justness of the request, the king’s character or the woman’s character is not justified or explained.

In Revelation 10:6 we read, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: This verse coined the phrase ’that there should be time no longer’ and the context of Revelation 10:6 is around the second coming and the establishment of Zion.

If you Google ‘LDS views on time’ the first article that comes up is an article in LDS living by C. Robert Line titled ‘How Does God’s Time Work? How Can He Listen to All Our Prayers at Once? Robert initially wrote the article in September 2015. Robert repeats quite a few quotes out of context that we have discussed previously. See the following posts as a more detailed and alternate view of how he is referencing a few quotes and scripture.

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:7 we read; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. This verse is often quoted as a statement of God’s timelessness by Latter-Day Saints1. However, few remember the question and answer in verses 4 & 5 of this same section.

Words of Mormon 1:3-7 The Book of Mormon consists of multiple books much like the Bible. Within the Book of Mormon there is a book called ‘Words of Mormon’. In Words of Mormon we get some commentary from Mormon about how he compiled the plates which Joseph Smith recieved from Moroni. In verse 3 Mormon discusses how he found a small record from Nephi, Jacob and others. Then in verse 4 we read some statements about prophecy and the future1.

Previously, I referenced Alma 40:8 when I asked Does God live within time? In this post, we will keep our focus on Alma 40:8. It reads; Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men. This verse can get quoted out of context.

Background: When discussing the openness of God with my friends a few different chapters in the LDS canon pop up in the conversation. These chapters provide a fairly detailed narrative of future events. Sometimes, they even have verses with statements that many LDS have traditionally seen as statements of fixed future omniscience. Two of the most often referenced chapters include; Moses 7: Enoch foresees the coming of the Son of Man, His atoning sacrifice, and the resurrection of the Saints—He foresees the Restoration, the Gathering, the Second Coming, and the return of Zion.

Background: I wanted to pull all the references from the topical guide under God, Omniscience of to help us get a ‘deeper acquaintance with the word of God.’ In a future post we will look at the topic of God, Foreknowledge of (As a side note, I am developing a small R package to process items from the topical guide). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a Topical Guide to the Scriptures that was initially published in 1979.

Background In “Does God have a Future?” John Sanders explains the open theist view of omniscience and foreknowledge. Here are a few key quotes; I prefer to think of “perfect” in dynamic terms: relational perfection. God is always in perfect relationship with us, and as the relationship changes so God changes. -Pg. 90 First, let me say that Jesus did not experience “powerlessness.” Rather, he exercised the power of love and chose not to use other types of power available to him.

Many Christians have adopted the Boethian view of a timeless God and then read all scripture to confirm that belief. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have unwittingly adopted this timeless philosophy when they read scripture. Joseph Smith has a quote about God’s eternal ’now’ that seems to be a prime example of reading with Boethian glasses. This post pulls together references to many other posts to provide my most detailed explanation of latter-day scriptures’ view on God and time to provide a time-based view of the eternal ’now'.

Korihor was one of three named teachers of religions against Christ in the Book of Mormon. He was the only one specifically called an Anti-Christ in Alma 30:6 and 12. His primary argument against Christ was that we could not know the future. His was hyper-focused presentism that was equally cynical of historical tradition as well. His argument against Christ sits on the concept that any knowledge future was impossible. Those that proposed such a knowledge were ‘frenzied’.

Joseph Smith’s translation of Fascimile 2 provides a few detailed insights into this question. In the facsimile, there are added numbers which the Book of Abraham labels as Fig. 1 through Fig. 21. Last week, the missionaries visited and brought up Fascimile 2 and asked what I thought about the statement, ‘Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord’?

During the Sunday morning session of the general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I heard Elder David A. Bednar talk about the growth of temples during the lifetime of President Russel M. Nelson. It gave me an idea to plot an exponential growth that would bring joy to the LDS faithful. I am amazed at exponential growth and its implications.1 For those that are R programmers, you can get the code here.

Any of my friends that have been willing to engage me on the concept of a contingent future and openness theology often find the idea persuasive enough to ponder its impacts on scripture. Eventually, they ask a question about the many prophetic statements found in scripture. Their questions fall along the lines of the following, “What about …” the prophecy of the civil war starting in North Carolina by Joseph Smith?

Introduction I am reading The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence by John Sanders. It is a thorough explanation of openness or relational theology. His writing is clear, and he is sources and footnotes are detailed. In Chapter 6, Risk and the Divine Character, he discusses the varied views of Omniscience (6.5). As I have had discussions with friends, I have heard many of these views explained (without being given a name).

Background: Recently President Nelson invited the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to use the full name of our church in our daily referencing of the church. A few of my friends have taken this pronouncement in different ways. Most have started the journey of changing our historical habits of calling ourselves Mormons. A few have recoiled at President Nelson’s invitation as an attack on statements of our previous prophets.

A friend of mine shared a story when he and a buddy were at a bar eating their dinner. They started discussing how the beer machine worked. They wondered how the handle levered the internal system and how the beer poured out of the system so clean. The mechanics started to intrigue them, and they pondered the entire contraption. The wonder got the best of them, and they asked the bartender how the machine worked.

Community and the quest for the right path. What would you think I was describing if I said I wanted to talk to you about a group with dietary restraints, garment adornments, public behavior traditions, and leader fidelity? Some may respond, ‘cult’ or ‘religion’ with a bit of disdain for those fools that allow themselves to fall into those traps. Cults exemplify an extreme form of the above features that usually start with a heavy dose of leader fidelity.

taking positions so dogmatic as to stifle the honest and thoughtful inquiries

Henry Eyring

Science and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the ability of ‘honest and thoughtful inquiry’ to break through entrenched dogmas that define a community’s beliefs. However, both can succumb to respect for historical decisions to the point that ideas become dogmatic in that no other thinkers are allowed to question the status quo. If we all held to the status quo, we would still be on a flat earth, ignoring that Christ ever came. Sincere questioning and answering are needed to pull us out of our dogmatic beliefs.

We struggle to differentiate dogmatic arguments from reasoned arguments. In our struggle, we can succumb to fidelity tests in place of sustained reasoning. Every cult or ‘cult’ure has to face this struggle almost daily. Whether we depend on one person or a community to establish ’truth’, we face the overwhelming challenge to filter out the wheat from the dogma. Dogma thrives when we silo our reasoning into isolated echo chambers.

A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.

The Old Testament is full of family-based small networks as examples of both the good and the bad that can come from depending on one person as the conveyor of truth. If we are not careful, we will look to the Bible’s experiences to justify letting one man tell us what the truth is at the expense of all other truth sources. If we examine the life of Christ, we will see in his example, a leader that taught using history, scripture, and logic to convey truth. He is also careful not to enforce his right at the expense of other’s agency. I appreciate the picture that I see in the gospels. How can we discern between those that speak the truth without succumbing to those that demand dogmatic devotion?¹

When did Christ atone for me? Indeed, it happened in Calvary. It must be his death on the cross that set us free. But didn’t he bleed from every pore On a hill where he suffered in agony? Surely, it happened in that dark time before. Can both be included in his atoning reach? Each moment seems part of his love for me. Yes, his sacrifice was more than one momentary breach.

N.T. Wright is the C.S. Lewis of our day, according to Robert Millet and with that comparison, he has such clout that religious scholars respect his word and Time magazine publishes his articles. Last December, he wrote a short essay titled, ‘The New Testament Doesn’t Say What Most People Think It Does About Heaven’. He calls out Plato, of whom Aristotle was a student, for creating the conventional Christian view of humanity dying and leaving this world to go up to heaven.

The testimony of Christ comes from more than historical facts. It comes from more than the biblical witness. It is more significant than knowledge from the living prophets. It reaches farther than the witness in Latter-Day scripture. These witnesses with the testimonies of our forefathers establish a footing that stabilizes our view into His heavens. They provide stability for patient ponderings within our soul. The testimony of Christ lives through the grace of His covenants

Gregory A. Boyd’s book God of the possible is where I found my tagline for the MostMovedMover website. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in openness and how the Bible testifies of God’s relation to man’s agency. It is thorough in its detail around the biblical references and theology related to God and a contingent future. I recently found a short YouTube video from Greg that provides an excellent six-minute summary of his book and what ‘God of the possible’ means.

Introduction I have quoted and will continue to quote elements from BH Robert’s Seventy’s Course in Theology. Since I first read The Mormon Doctrine of Deity at the turn of the century, I have been impressed with his clarity and directness. He was firmly in the Democrat camp when it came to politics. I think his political views and desire to build a theological argument for Mormonism made him a bit of an outsider even though he was a general authority.

The following is the full excerpt from the chapter on the brother of Jared in Christ and the New Covenant. I have added the various emphases. Before examining the doctrinal truths taught in this divine encounter, it will be useful to note two seemingly problematic issues here, issues that seem to have reasonable and acceptable resolutions. The first consideration rises from two questions the Lord asked the brother of Jared: “Why hast thou fallen?

Thorleif Boman wrote Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek where he has a 50-page chapter on Time and Space which compares Western thought to Hebrew thought. Here is a more detailed list of quotes from the section. Western minds represent time as a straight line upon which we stand with our gaze directed forward; before us we have the future and behind us the past. On this line we can unequivocally define all tenses by means of points.

President Wilford Woodruff shared this story in his journal. He was the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On the 23rd of November my wife, Phoebe, was attacked with a severe headache, which terminated in brain fever. She grew more and more distressed daily as we continued our journey. It was a terrible ordeal for a woman to travel in a wagon over rough roads, afflicted as she was.

The story of Gideon in Judges 6 provides a narrative for discerning magical thinking from faith. What I love about Gideon’s story in Judges is how it helps me understand where faith and reason can help us break down the magical thinking often bubbling to the surface in Sunday lessons and our lives. Remember from my previous post that magical thinking is the idea that by a grand sacrifice, magical action, or special connection, you can earn special privileges to information or prevent causally unrelated misfortunes to you or others.

Comparing Scientism, Faith, and Magical Thinking Over the years, we have all seen the battle between religion and science, faith and logic, belief and reason, Christian and Atheists, or however it is called in the latest stir-up. These contrived battles between perceived ‘opposites’ put many of us into thought camps that may make us hold on to fallacies much longer than we should. I was raised in a family of faith that wanted to make sure I never succumbed to science’s intellectualism, which has helped me hold on to a few ‘magical beliefs’ much longer than I should have.

The Chosen TV series is framing many attributes of God in such a fantastic way. I especially enjoy Season 1 Episode 6 for how it depicts Christ’s interactions with those around him. The scene starts with Jesus sharing the parable of the importuning widow found in Luke 18 then it builds to the moment where two different characters make a petition of Jesus. The contrast of these three examples of petitioning God provides excellent insight into how we should petition Him.

There are a few of us that would believe outlandish lies. People have differing beliefs on Big Foot’s reality, whether we landed on the moon, or if COVID-19 is a health pandemic. What makes the belief of those concepts different from believing in God the Father? The fascinating relationship between all of these beliefs is humanity’s inability to comprehend rare occurrences. What we often refer to as possible outcomes instead of probable outcomes is hard to imagine.

Our western society has been diverging quickly on the understanding of knowledge. Some feel that it is our personal liberty to know what we want to know and that our individual freedom allows us to ignore experts that have spent a lifetime building up knowledge in a domain. Others argue that all deference must be given to experts and that we are not justified in criticizing experts as our understanding is too limited.

In Romans 3:3, we encounter a bold statement from Paul about God. He says, ‘For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?’ Paul’s question forces all readers of the bible to ask, ‘What is the faith of God?’ A quick search on the internet will leave a searcher wanting concerning any explanation about the ‘faith of God’ because any description of the attributes of God leaves out faith.

Background The simple answer is yes. The more complicated conversation is in how God exercises faith. I hope to use scripture, the Lectures on Faith, and some insightful commentary around the first lecture to discuss how His faith could be applied.1 Lectures on Faith Latter-Day Saint history has a unique interaction with a set of philosophical notes on faith that were developed by early leaders of our church. For a long time, many would say that Joseph Smith was the author.

During the fall of 2021, our family got the chance to stay a few days with one of my wife’s childhood best friends. Her husband is a preacher for the Churches of Christ, which Wikipedia explains ‘have their historical roots in the Restoration Movement, which was a converging of Christians across denominational lines in search of a return to an original, “pre-denominational” Christianity’ (emphasis mine). We spent two three-day weekends at their home.

A friend of mine shared a story when he and a buddy were at a bar eating their dinner. They started discussing how the beer machine worked. They wondered how the handle levered the internal system and how the beer poured out of the system so clean. The mechanics started to intrigue them, and they pondered the entire contraption. The wonder got the best of them, and they asked the bartender how the machine worked.

Community and the quest for the right path. What would you think I was describing if I said I wanted to talk to you about a group with dietary restraints, garment adornments, public behavior traditions, and leader fidelity? Some may respond, ‘cult’ or ‘religion’ with a bit of disdain for those fools that allow themselves to fall into those traps. Cults exemplify an extreme form of the above features that usually start with a heavy dose of leader fidelity.

Abraham J. Heschel is worth our reading time. He was a good friend of Martin Luther King, lost his family in the Holocaust, and taught for 27 years at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in Manhattan. I believe he is the one that coined the phrase most moved mover in describing God. His daughter explained that he and Martin Luther King used the phrase.1 I am reading Between God and Man which is a compilation of his writings.

What might it mean for a church to look at itself and discover that it has moved beyond Christ? I don’t think it is much different than a child of God looking at themselves and notice that they have strayed beyond Christ. In one of the more exciting dilemmas of Christianity, God invites us to move forward in a very tumultuous sea. We can’t just drop anchor and stay in the same spot.

We want leaders to be infallible or completely fallible. It is hard for us to realize the giant grey zone for every leader on the planet - prophets included. That grey zone is called agency or free will in a world full of others that wield the same power. The life of Mark Hoffman, Gordon B. Hinckley, and our prophetic narrative all seem to make people think that this story of the Murder among the Mormons is a faith crusher.

When did Christ atone for me? Indeed, it happened in Calvary. It must be his death on the cross that set us free. But didn’t he bleed from every pore On a hill where he suffered in agony? Surely, it happened in that dark time before. Can both be included in his atoning reach? Each moment seems part of his love for me. Yes, his sacrifice was more than one momentary breach.

Ok, it’s not really about time. It is about a relationship with God in time. However, as soon as we push the concept of God working with us in our mortal lives in a compassionate give and take relationship, it strikes the cords of a common Christian belief of God’s timeless perfection. This traditional Christian belief often aligns with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I didn’t understand how far-reaching a timeless God assumption could infiltrate all other aspects of God’s nature.

taking positions so dogmatic as to stifle the honest and thoughtful inquiries

Henry Eyring

Science and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the ability of ‘honest and thoughtful inquiry’ to break through entrenched dogmas that define a community’s beliefs. However, both can succumb to respect for historical decisions to the point that ideas become dogmatic in that no other thinkers are allowed to question the status quo. If we all held to the status quo, we would still be on a flat earth, ignoring that Christ ever came. Sincere questioning and answering are needed to pull us out of our dogmatic beliefs.

We struggle to differentiate dogmatic arguments from reasoned arguments. In our struggle, we can succumb to fidelity tests in place of sustained reasoning. Every cult or ‘cult’ure has to face this struggle almost daily. Whether we depend on one person or a community to establish ’truth’, we face the overwhelming challenge to filter out the wheat from the dogma. Dogma thrives when we silo our reasoning into isolated echo chambers.

A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.

The Old Testament is full of family-based small networks as examples of both the good and the bad that can come from depending on one person as the conveyor of truth. If we are not careful, we will look to the Bible’s experiences to justify letting one man tell us what the truth is at the expense of all other truth sources. If we examine the life of Christ, we will see in his example, a leader that taught using history, scripture, and logic to convey truth. He is also careful not to enforce his right at the expense of other’s agency. I appreciate the picture that I see in the gospels. How can we discern between those that speak the truth without succumbing to those that demand dogmatic devotion?¹

After last week’s post, I realized how many prayer posts I have had in the previous two years. This post includes a poem I wrote about prayer with a summary of those previous posts. Except for the Tyler Griffin post last week, these prayer posts came about as I talked with my brother and His wife as we dealt with his terminal illness. He was a great mentor and friend, and we would often spend 2-4 hours talking gospel topics whenever I visited. We had differing views on God’s omniscience, which made for some energetic conversations over the last year. It was in those conversations that I derived many of these prayer posts for mostmovedmover.com.

We have coined the phrase ‘social networks’ as primarily a set of apps and websites connected to the internet. Our national and religious leaders use this phrase to imply how we talk to people through our phones. There was even a movie given that title to represent the rise of Facebook. However, social networks have been vital in humankind’s existence since the fall of Adam and Eve. As humans, we build truth beliefs based on the social connections that surround us¹. God and Satan both know that social networks are how we find and learn the truth and use it to their advantage. I connect the latest in social network science with examples from our scriptural history and current environment to see that we build truth and lies on the same foundation.

Our western society has been diverging quickly on the understanding of knowledge. Some feel that it is our personal liberty to know what we want to know and that our individual freedom allows us to ignore experts that have spent a lifetime building up knowledge in a domain. Others argue that all deference must be given to experts and that we are not justified in criticizing experts as our understanding is too limited.

This week my second father died of cancer and has allowed me to think about what it means to create one’s life in the image of God. He lived his life as if yesterday were done and that today could be done in such a way to bring joy to his and other’s future. He was the type of person that shined so bright that you couldn’t be in his presence without going through his personality.

Once there were grandparents that had more money than could be counted by any grandchild. These grandparents announced that tonight’s dinner would be on them at McDonald’s and that everyone could pick whatever they wanted from the menu. This promise seemed almost unreachable by some of the grandchildren. How could they pay for so many people without knowing what they would even order?

I admit that my views on jealousy may be more visually impeeding than others that read verses with the phrase, ‘jealous God’. When I hear the word ‘jealous’, I instantly see an abusive boyfriend in a wife-beater representing nothing of quality about love. Clearly, the term does not have to mean this when referencing God; But, I decided to remix the scripture verses that reference a jealous God with the definitions of jealous and zeal.

The Old Testament has multiple verses that tell us that God is a jealous God. The Book of Mormon and the New Testament have just a couple of verses that reference the jealous God. Oxford’s definition from a Google search of Jealous helps us see that Zealous is just as viable of a translation when reading scripture. It also helps us see that ‘Jealous’ is most often used to understand that there is an intense emotion attached to a being’s relationship to their possessions or relationships.

This post may get a little political in my attempt to share President M. Russell Ballard’s 2016 fireside with the church educational system teachers. I think the Church’s struggle with history are a result of early conflicts with the establishment press and government. It has a comparable narrative with our current political climate and the difficulty of understanding facts an how those facts are interpreted. I appreciated President Ballard’s acknowledgment early in his message on our attempts at church history in the past.

Each year the Seminary and Institute teachers of the Church Education System for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hosts a night with a general authority. I remember attending these when I was trying to get hired as a seminary teacher. BYU-I faculty are invited to participate in a remote stream of these firesides. My wife and I attended with a few friends that also teach at BYU-I at the beginning of the year.

This post focuses on President Eyring’s talk titled, ‘He Goes before Us. However, the broader conversation is around how western culture has mixed up wisdom and knowledge to the point that we rarely differentiate the two words. As seen from the image above for this post, our writing guides even recommend them as synonyms. I want to take a journey through a few ideas before I tackle President Eyring’s quotes from his message about knowledge and time.

During the Sunday morning session of the general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I heard Elder David A. Bednar talk about the growth of temples during the lifetime of President Russel M. Nelson. It gave me an idea to plot an exponential growth that would bring joy to the LDS faithful. I am amazed at exponential growth and its implications.1 For those that are R programmers, you can get the code here.

In 1 Corinthians 1:19-27 Paul tells us that foolish and wise are the same things, just different positions on the scale of wisdom. We would put wisdom as the great attribute at the top of the range and foolishness as the worst form of wisdom at the bottom of the scale. In verse 25 Paul states this fact clearly; Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; In my ‘What is wisdom?

What is wisdom? The prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon provides one of the most succinct injunctions in scripture when he says, ‘O be wise; what can I say more?’ (Jacob 6:12). To Jacob’s question after the injunction, I would ask many of the following questions, Can you describe wisdom? Is wisdom that much different than knowledge? Does wisdom require an existence with randomness or uncertainty? Can one exemplify wisdom in a world without unknowns?

In a recent Neal A Maxwell institute podcast, Terryl Givens said, Well, you know, we’re suffering waves of defection, and there are lots of reasons for that and lots of remedies that have been suggested, but I think it’s unavoidable to acknowledge that one of the main reasons we’re losing people is that we’re boring them to death. I think the job of a Sunday School teacher is to excite the people, it’s not just to reiterate the old formulas.

More than once in the last year, I have encountered a space-time explanation from friends when we are discussing the topic of God and timelessness. In almost every instance, there is a phrase, something like, “Time is just another dimension. God can just step outside of it. Like in the book Flatland.” Often, they leverage time as a human construct that does not relate to God because one of our leaders talks about timelessness1 and Einstein taught us about space-time.

I have quoted many books on this blog over the last ten months. I thought it would be good to keep a better record of the books that I have read and cited on this blog. Besides the list, I provide more detail on a few of my number ones.1 Going forward, I will keep a link to the current book list on the homepage. The Number Ones At the end of this post, I have an alphabetized list of the books I have read and cited.

The semi-annual general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is happening this weekend. The time when all LDS can justify staring at a big screen for 8-10 hours from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon. My ears perked up when President Dallin H. Oaks shared a talk on what our life will be like after death. Early in his message he quoted Brent L. Topp, I believe a BYU religion professors article on this subject had it right when he wrote, ‘When we ask ourselves, what we know about the spirit world, from the standard works.

Having responded to a few people that have posted on my blog, I got up the nerve to comment on another Latter-day Saint’s blog. Dennis Horne is the author of that blog, and he has even published a book on LDS doctrine. I think I was direct and clear without condemnation. Dennis was also relatively cordial to me, but not to Terryl Givens. It looks like Dennis and Terryl represent a significant fissure that exists in the LDS faithful.

In June 1883 The Chautauquan magazine asked, “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings, would there be any sound?” 1 This is one of those philosophical questions that can create a lively conversation if asked among the correct group. Today, I have a similar question, “If nobody understands the truth, is it still a truth?” I know that I may have already made half of the eight people that read this blog stop reading because they don’t want to have this lively conversation.

James E. Faust shared a devotional at BYU in 1993 titled, The Voice of the Spirit. Mormon messages used this talk to create the following message. Elder Faust shares an impactful quote about light (or truth) being part of our very essence. Signaling that truth is much more than facts. You will not be able to travel through life on borrowed light. The light of life must be part of your very being.

According to John Sanders, the concept of truth has multiple meanings. There are three main theories of truth in Western thought. The correspondence theory: This theory holds that truth is that which corresponds to a state of affairs or fact of reality. The coherence theory: a statement is true if it fits (coheres) with a set of other statements accepted as true. The pragmatic theory: an idea is true if it is fruitful and workable in relation to our experience.

Since the posts have come based on my previous week’s thoughts and readings without any organization, a navigation guide has become essential. We now have a static page titled Reader’s Guide that guides newcomers and provides a reference for previous users. For those that use ‘RSS’ to get updates the Subscribe link has the appropriate file. The rest of this post is a copy of the Reader’s Guide. Introduction This page introduces new readers to mostmovedmover.

The testimony of Christ comes from more than historical facts. It comes from more than the biblical witness. It is more significant than knowledge from the living prophets. It reaches farther than the witness in Latter-Day scripture. These witnesses with the testimonies of our forefathers establish a footing that stabilizes our view into His heavens. They provide stability for patient ponderings within our soul. The testimony of Christ lives through the grace of His covenants

During the fall of 2021, our family got the chance to stay a few days with one of my wife’s childhood best friends. Her husband is a preacher for the Churches of Christ, which Wikipedia explains ‘have their historical roots in the Restoration Movement, which was a converging of Christians across denominational lines in search of a return to an original, “pre-denominational” Christianity’ (emphasis mine). We spent two three-day weekends at their home.

This post may get a little political in my attempt to share President M. Russell Ballard’s 2016 fireside with the church educational system teachers. I think the Church’s struggle with history are a result of early conflicts with the establishment press and government. It has a comparable narrative with our current political climate and the difficulty of understanding facts an how those facts are interpreted. I appreciated President Ballard’s acknowledgment early in his message on our attempts at church history in the past.

Our western society has been diverging quickly on the understanding of knowledge. Some feel that it is our personal liberty to know what we want to know and that our individual freedom allows us to ignore experts that have spent a lifetime building up knowledge in a domain. Others argue that all deference must be given to experts and that we are not justified in criticizing experts as our understanding is too limited.

I have written posts that included references to the Lectures on Faith in the past.1 I used those previous posts to discuss the attribute of the faith of God directly. This post discusses the attribute of the knowledge of God and how the Lectures describe His knowledge. We should carefully recognize what the Lectures on Faith explain about the knowledge of God to see what knowledge of God we must understand for our faith to grow.

When did Christ atone for me? Indeed, it happened in Calvary. It must be his death on the cross that set us free. But didn’t he bleed from every pore On a hill where he suffered in agony? Surely, it happened in that dark time before. Can both be included in his atoning reach? Each moment seems part of his love for me. Yes, his sacrifice was more than one momentary breach.

I previously asked, What did Elder Neal A. Maxwell think about time and God? and proposed that he may have tempered his views on fixed future omniscience based on conversations with Blake Ostler. However, I have since found a few more quotes from Neal A. Maxwell after 1984 that are still fairly forceful and I want to add to the record on mostmovedmover.com about his views in this additional post. I hope to be respectful to his words while discussing how they relate to an openness view of God’s future.

I have been listening to conference addresses by Apostles and Prophets starting with the April 1971 conference, which is provided on the church’s website or on the Gospel Library app. I have made it to October 19801, and I found Bruce R. McConkie’s, ‘The Lord God of the Restoration message. This general conference message came a few months after the famous, or maybe infamous, The Seven Deadly Heresies talk at BYU in June.

In June 1883 The Chautauquan magazine asked, “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings, would there be any sound?” 1 This is one of those philosophical questions that can create a lively conversation if asked among the correct group. Today, I have a similar question, “If nobody understands the truth, is it still a truth?” I know that I may have already made half of the eight people that read this blog stop reading because they don’t want to have this lively conversation.

Background I first encountered Terryl Givens name while watching ‘The Mormons’ in 2007. He was included as an expert on Latter-day Saint beliefs. He had been publishing in the LDS space since 1997. Around 2014 I listened to him, and Richard Bushman at a Mormon Studies conference at The University of Virginia while visiting my nephew. Wrestling the Angel I just finished Wrestling the Angel and found the book to be thorough in its discussion of the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Having previously finished a book on timelessness (see my previous post) and a book about perceiving truth through metaphor and physicality (see my ‘Oh say, What is truth?’ post), I have been pondering the words that are used by God in scripture. In Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 the Lord says, ‘And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;’ which is often quoted with Jacob 4:13.

I titled this post after the witty comment made by Nelson Pike in his book titled, ‘God and Timelessness’. The entire book was a careful philosophical and theological evaluation of the argument of timelessness as an attribute of God.1 His actual statement says; St. Thomas says that God’s preservation activity is ‘without either motion or time.’ I wonder if this isn’t a little like saying that when Gabriel blows his horn, he does it while holding his breath.

In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus shares the parable of the importuning Widow and Unjust Judge (also called the parable of the persistent widow). In this parable, we learn that persistent prayers receive answers. The parable proposes that prayers can be answered through faithful wearying. The widow petitions the king, and the king ignores her. Finally, the king relents. Not out of compassion but because of her wearying. It looks like the rationale or justness of the request, the king’s character or the woman’s character is not justified or explained.

In Revelation 10:6 we read, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: This verse coined the phrase ’that there should be time no longer’ and the context of Revelation 10:6 is around the second coming and the establishment of Zion.

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:7 we read; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. This verse is often quoted as a statement of God’s timelessness by Latter-Day Saints1. However, few remember the question and answer in verses 4 & 5 of this same section.

Our challenge: As we listen to oft-quoted phrases, many people take them as facts without finding a source. Once we find a source and validate the quote, then we get the chance to discern the signal from the noise. We could start to recognize the signal with the following questions; What does the quote mean in context? What words in the quote are taken as givens or facts that may not be as clear cut?

Words of Mormon 1:3-7 The Book of Mormon consists of multiple books much like the Bible. Within the Book of Mormon there is a book called ‘Words of Mormon’. In Words of Mormon we get some commentary from Mormon about how he compiled the plates which Joseph Smith recieved from Moroni. In verse 3 Mormon discusses how he found a small record from Nephi, Jacob and others. Then in verse 4 we read some statements about prophecy and the future1.

Previously, I referenced Alma 40:8 when I asked Does God live within time? In this post, we will keep our focus on Alma 40:8. It reads; Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men. This verse can get quoted out of context.

Introduction I have quoted and will continue to quote elements from BH Robert’s Seventy’s Course in Theology. Since I first read The Mormon Doctrine of Deity at the turn of the century, I have been impressed with his clarity and directness. He was firmly in the Democrat camp when it came to politics. I think his political views and desire to build a theological argument for Mormonism made him a bit of an outsider even though he was a general authority.

The Parable of the Rich Fool In Luke 12:16-21 we read the parable of the rich fool. Before Jesus shares the parable he responds to a petition about worldly wealth with; Watch and beware of all types of greed, because a person’s life is more than the quantity of his possessions. -Luke 12:15 Wayment Translation1- He then shares the parable where the foolish rich man measures his life of possessions and thinks that it defines his soul.

Introduction In John 8:31-32 Jesus makes a bold statement about how we can be free. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. To which the group of believers responded, ‘How sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?`. Jesus then states a central point of John 8 & 9 in verse 34.

The testimony of Christ comes from more than historical facts. It comes from more than the biblical witness. It is more significant than knowledge from the living prophets. It reaches farther than the witness in Latter-Day scripture. These witnesses with the testimonies of our forefathers establish a footing that stabilizes our view into His heavens. They provide stability for patient ponderings within our soul. The testimony of Christ lives through the grace of His covenants

Background: My nephew shared this amazing podcast from the Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University of a conversation between Terryl Givens and Steven Peck. You can watch the video of the podcast below or read the full transcript. I have included a few impactful parts of their conversation that relate to our discussion here at mostmovedmover.com. As I was sharing ideas from this podcast with my daughter, she shared D&C 133:17 and D&C 65:1 where the Lord asks us to ‘make his paths straight.

Background: When discussing the openness of God with my friends a few different chapters in the LDS canon pop up in the conversation. These chapters provide a fairly detailed narrative of future events. Sometimes, they even have verses with statements that many LDS have traditionally seen as statements of fixed future omniscience. Two of the most often referenced chapters include; Moses 7: Enoch foresees the coming of the Son of Man, His atoning sacrifice, and the resurrection of the Saints—He foresees the Restoration, the Gathering, the Second Coming, and the return of Zion.

Background: Recently President Nelson invited the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to use the full name of our church in our daily referencing of the church. A few of my friends have taken this pronouncement in different ways. Most have started the journey of changing our historical habits of calling ourselves Mormons. A few have recoiled at President Nelson’s invitation as an attack on statements of our previous prophets.

Background I think many of us are good at applying our daily reading to our lives. This application is essential and has eternal impacts on our lives and our relationship with Deity. We also need to pull scripture together to find a comprehensive meaning. We need to spend the struggle and time to see the big picture - not just the maps and storyline big picture, but the attributes of God big picture.

Background The simple answer is yes. The more complicated conversation is in how God exercises faith. I hope to use scripture, the Lectures on Faith, and some insightful commentary around the first lecture to discuss how His faith could be applied.1 Lectures on Faith Latter-Day Saint history has a unique interaction with a set of philosophical notes on faith that were developed by early leaders of our church. For a long time, many would say that Joseph Smith was the author.

As Latter-Day Saints, we see God as a relational God. In fact, this strong view of loving familial relationships can create misunderstandings by other groups that believe in Christ. Often those that want to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will drop the question, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”. The question is inflammatory. The underlying concept is that we believe in a pre-mortal existence where we all lived as children of our Heavenly Father.

Background: In October 2017 Elder Ronald A. Rasband shared a message titled, “By Divine Design”. This talk caused a little bit of a stir in my ward. I think the teachers that got a chance to teach this talk in a lesson at church may have over-interpreted his talk and created a false idea that Elder Rasband was not promoting. I heard about two different teachers getting a little exasperated at how the talk seemed to imply that God controlled every moment in our lives and neither of them could work out how that could be true.

Background: My last post about the omniscience of God motivated me to look at the LDS topical guide under God, foreknowledge of. I quickly realized that foreknowledge is a very complicated concept in protestant Christianity and in LDS teachings. Before we tackle the references under God, foreknowledge of, Election, Foreordination, and Predestination we need to work through what each word means, how they relate, and how they are different. One of the issues with each word is that their definitions are nuanced by the various beliefs of each Christian theology.

Background: I wanted to pull all the references from the topical guide under God, Omniscience of to help us get a ‘deeper acquaintance with the word of God.’ In a future post we will look at the topic of God, Foreknowledge of (As a side note, I am developing a small R package to process items from the topical guide). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a Topical Guide to the Scriptures that was initially published in 1979.

Background I have had a few discussions recently where I have been surprised by the answers given concerning God and how he relates to time. Once again, I think many of us are unwittingly letting Aristotle’s unmoved mover philosophy drive our beliefs in God. The scriptures are full of clear statements about God and his relation to time. The Old and New Testaments have a few verses that provide value to this discussion.

Background In “Does God have a Future?” John Sanders explains the open theist view of omniscience and foreknowledge. Here are a few key quotes; I prefer to think of “perfect” in dynamic terms: relational perfection. God is always in perfect relationship with us, and as the relationship changes so God changes. -Pg. 90 First, let me say that Jesus did not experience “powerlessness.” Rather, he exercised the power of love and chose not to use other types of power available to him.

Background In God of the possible by Gregory Boyd he makes an eloquent argument about the joy of our sociality as humans and how this relates to traditional views of the exhaustive foreknowledge of God. In light of the Latter-Day Saint view on the sociality of heaven being similar to our current existence, I found his argument enlightening. He asked some great questions in the quotes below. Why would this eternally static view of divine knowledge be greater than a view of God enjoying novelty, adventure, spontaneity, creativity, and moment-by-moment personal relationships?

In Elder Holland’s book titled, Christ and the New Covenant, I first encountered the fascinating idea that God could change his behavior based on our prayers and faith. This paragraph stretched my mind. A final explanation-and in terms of the brother of Jared’s faith the most persuasive one-is that Christ was saying to the brother of Jared, “Never have I showed myself unto man in this manner, without my volition, driven solely by the faith of the beholder.

Background About three years ago my friend Nathan Richardson shared a paper with me by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. titled Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions that had some insightful ideas about prophets and prophecies. Dr Pratt, like most Protestant Christians, shares ideas within a historical perspective of the Bible. As Latter-Day Saint Christians, we believe in a living reality of prophets and prophecies. So his thoughts resonated with my views on the Bible as well as my opinions of living prophets and prophecy.

Introduction I have enjoyed reading dialogues between LDS scholars and Evangelical scholars over the last decade with a friend, who is an evangelical pastor, to understand my faith. We started with How Wide the Divide? by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. I enjoyed Robinson’s writing and have found his writing style enjoyable. I read Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News and Following Christ: The Parable of the Divers and More Good News when I was 18.

I have found two enlightening thinkers in LDS theology. From what I have read and the places that they publish, their work is well respected among LDS religious scholars. They are also recognized in the broader community of theological scholars. David L. Paulsen has been on my radar for years. I have enjoyed all his material on philosophy and theology. Additionally, I have read a couple of articles by Blake T.

The following is the full excerpt from the chapter on the brother of Jared in Christ and the New Covenant. I have added the various emphases. Before examining the doctrinal truths taught in this divine encounter, it will be useful to note two seemingly problematic issues here, issues that seem to have reasonable and acceptable resolutions. The first consideration rises from two questions the Lord asked the brother of Jared: “Why hast thou fallen?

President Wilford Woodruff shared this story in his journal. He was the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On the 23rd of November my wife, Phoebe, was attacked with a severe headache, which terminated in brain fever. She grew more and more distressed daily as we continued our journey. It was a terrible ordeal for a woman to travel in a wagon over rough roads, afflicted as she was.

Introduction I have quoted and will continue to quote elements from BH Robert’s Seventy’s Course in Theology. Since I first read The Mormon Doctrine of Deity at the turn of the century, I have been impressed with his clarity and directness. He was firmly in the Democrat camp when it came to politics. I think his political views and desire to build a theological argument for Mormonism made him a bit of an outsider even though he was a general authority.

Background I think many of us are good at applying our daily reading to our lives. This application is essential and has eternal impacts on our lives and our relationship with Deity. We also need to pull scripture together to find a comprehensive meaning. We need to spend the struggle and time to see the big picture - not just the maps and storyline big picture, but the attributes of God big picture.

For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. Hosea 2:8, KJV Do we believe this verse of scripture? Do we think that our God will give us all that he can, even when we are using those things to honor another God? Do we believe that God gives good to those who do wrong?

One of the features of Latter-day Saint thought is the deep and committed response to God’s children having agency or free will. We see this as the founding thought of the cosmos, one that existed as long as God (D&C 93:29-31, 2 Nephi 2:11). In fact, it is ’the agency of man’ to receive and reciprocate the light or love that was ‘plainly manifest unto’ each of us from the ‘beginning’ (D&C 93:31) that aligns quite well with Jesus’ two great commandments in response the question of the greatest commandment in the law (Matthew 22:37-40).

Chad Ford introduced me to the term ‘Dangerous Love’ that pushed me to see the love he describes as the love of God. Chad helps us see love as a willingness to be right in the relationship over being right in the facts. We can view love as a willingness to bring as many parties into the solution or plan as possible. Does the love that Chad describes help us understand God’s love?

As you read all commentary in General Conference about Jacob 4:14, you will notice that they focus on our part of the relationship with God - our role and how we have ’looked beyond the mark’ in rejecting the Christ. Jacob 4:14 provides details on God’s part in the relationship that causes our ‘stumbling’, which offers insight about God’s work with each of us. It helps us understand ‘stumbling’ within the complexity of partners in a relationship.

Jacob 4:14 states;

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

I have spent quite a bit of time discussing time and the future in this blog. In fact, many of my conversations with my friends have touched on the topic of time as well. Recently, I was at a small backyard gathering where a friend of mine blurted out, “J’s entire premise is messed up so the logic doesn’t make sense.” He was referencing the concepts of God living within time. However, god living in time is not the premise. It is the result of the driving premise upon which openness theology is based. That God’s entire desire is to be in loving relationships with each of use. His desire to love and let us love is the premise. In this post, I lay out the driving premise of most moved mover in the context of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint’s most cherished teaching - agnecy.

The Old Testament has multiple verses that tell us that God is a jealous God. The Book of Mormon and the New Testament have just a couple of verses that reference the jealous God. Oxford’s definition from a Google search of Jealous helps us see that Zealous is just as viable of a translation when reading scripture. It also helps us see that ‘Jealous’ is most often used to understand that there is an intense emotion attached to a being’s relationship to their possessions or relationships.

Alma 29:4-5 provides a few stunning statements about agency and God’s response to our agency. I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

In 2 Nephi 26:23-28 we get a series of great questions about our relationship with the Lord to which all are answered with a ‘Nay’ from Nephi. Doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness?

Time and the cardinal attribute of enduring (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) In the April 1990 General Conference, Elder Neal A. Maxwell shared a touching message titled, ‘Endure it Well’. He has some great discussion about the benefits of time that is worth reviewing on MostMovedMover. This post should be read along with my two other posts about Elder Maxwell’s views on time (7/19 post and 3/20 post). As we work through his quotes, I highlight a couple of questions about progression, endurance, time, and mortality.

I previously asked, What did Elder Neal A. Maxwell think about time and God? and proposed that he may have tempered his views on fixed future omniscience based on conversations with Blake Ostler. However, I have since found a few more quotes from Neal A. Maxwell after 1984 that are still fairly forceful and I want to add to the record on mostmovedmover.com about his views in this additional post. I hope to be respectful to his words while discussing how they relate to an openness view of God’s future.

More than once in the last year, I have encountered a space-time explanation from friends when we are discussing the topic of God and timelessness. In almost every instance, there is a phrase, something like, “Time is just another dimension. God can just step outside of it. Like in the book Flatland.” Often, they leverage time as a human construct that does not relate to God because one of our leaders talks about timelessness1 and Einstein taught us about space-time.

If you Google ‘LDS views on time’ the first article that comes up is an article in LDS living by C. Robert Line titled ‘How Does God’s Time Work? How Can He Listen to All Our Prayers at Once? Robert initially wrote the article in September 2015. Robert repeats quite a few quotes out of context that we have discussed previously. See the following posts as a more detailed and alternate view of how he is referencing a few quotes and scripture.

His and our attribute At times we discuss attributes that we must have to progress in the kingdom of God, but we limit the conversation to us and forget that God also holds the fullness of those attributes. I will review scripture and latter-day prophet’s words on meekness to see if we can understand God’s meekness. In a later post, we will examine what the perfected attribute of meekness implies about our relationship with him.

His meekness honors our power of agency and waits for us to invite. He can work with His prophets in their agency to initiate, consolidate, and facilitate His plan. His meekness would not allow Him to manipulate them or dictate what they must do to enact His plan. He persuades, and with any persuasion, there are alternatives that they can choose. He is prepared for their choices, but He will not discourage or limit their voluntary intention to seek His views.

Meekness in context In my previous post I asked, ‘How might we describe God’s attribute of meekness?’ I have pulled a few lines from that post to help highlight how His quality of meekness could explain our1 interaction with Him. Patient and responsive to agency He is open to our earnest petitions and will modestly, graciously, and discreetly support us in our journey. As the holder of perfected meekness, he will be patient with our learning, and He will sincerely share all that He can with any that desire.

His and our attribute At times we discuss attributes that we must have to progress in the kingdom of God, but we limit the conversation to us and forget that God also holds the fullness of those attributes. I will review scripture and latter-day prophet’s words on meekness to see if we can understand God’s meekness. In a later post, we will examine what the perfected attribute of meekness implies about our relationship with him.

Does God need me for His plan to work? Years ago, one of my leaders often said, ‘God doesn’t need us’ when discussing our relevance in God’s plan. I think I understood what he was trying to say, but the phrase didn’t sit well with me. If he was trying to say that God can bring about the Plan of Salvation with or without me, then I agree. However, if he was saying that God’s work moves without His people, I don’t agree.

One horn of this dilemma is the argument that if an action was caused or necessitated, then it could not have been done freely and hence the agent is not responsible for it. The other horn is the argument that if the action was not caused, then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot be attributed to the agent and hence, again, the agent cannot be responsible for it. -Paul Russell: Freedom and Moral Sentiment, p. 14-

Paul Russel discusses the ‘Horns of the dilemma’ found when we get at the root of determinism and chance. Either way, the extreme of both views means that free agents do not control their choices. They are simply science experiments moved by the experimenter. The religionists hold to God as the great mover in the deterministic model, and the scientists welcome the randomness of nature and laws of physics as the great mover. I believe that both worship a golden calf. William James’ provides a third horn that can resolve the conflict in his 1884 ’The Dilemma of Determinism’.

A Greek woman had an ailing daughter who arrived at Jesus’ feet to beg for His miracles in her family. Jesus responded, ‘Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.’ His response seems to say that His mission did not involve her or her people. He had a plan, and it did not involve miracles for her as a Greek woman. She then responds in humility, ‘Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.’ This response gives Jesus insight into His mission and His interaction with her. He responds, ‘For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.’ Did the Greek woman change Jesus’ mind?

Omniscience is not used in the Bible or Latter-day scripture. This leaves humanity guessing as to whether God agrees with the word He has never used in His revelations. All Christian religions have taken the concept into their vocabulary; However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done little to dogmatize the definition of omniscience. Let’s look at the history of omniscience and how various Christian denominations define it.

Does God change his mind (Numbers 23:19 & 1 Samuel 15:29)? Too often, when we talk about changing another’s mind, the implication is that we moved them from a wrong belief to a correct understanding. Or maybe, that one was so persuasive that another moved from their current thinking - regardless of the truth of either position. There is a third space where minds or decisions change. A relational space where new actors enter the scene and others within the group, knowing there are multiple viable options, are willing to mold their plans to accommodate the new dynamic.

In 2 Nephi 3, Lehi shares with his son Joseph a fascinating revelation that Joseph of Egypt1 saw the Nephite day over a thousand years in the future as well as Joseph Smith’s day over 2000 years farther into the future. This example is often shared with me from my friends when we get farther along with the conversation about the openness of God. It is an excellent example to push us to think about God’s knowledge of the future and how He could know Joseph Smith’s name if His children made free choices from Joseph of Egypt’s day (1700 BC) to 1830 New England times.

In LDS culture, Matthew 24:36 is quoted as witnessing that God knows the exact moment of His second coming. Without the surrounding verses, it is powerful in its statement of God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus says, ‘But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.’ Two analogies wrap verse 36 about nature and seasons that strongly implies a relational view of the timing of the second coming instead of a stopwatch or Japanese train arrival view.

In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus shares the parable of the importuning Widow and Unjust Judge (also called the parable of the persistent widow). In this parable, we learn that persistent prayers receive answers. The parable proposes that prayers can be answered through faithful wearying. The widow petitions the king, and the king ignores her. Finally, the king relents. Not out of compassion but because of her wearying. It looks like the rationale or justness of the request, the king’s character or the woman’s character is not justified or explained.

In Elder Holland’s book titled, Christ and the New Covenant, I first encountered the fascinating idea that God could change his behavior based on our prayers and faith. This paragraph stretched my mind. A final explanation-and in terms of the brother of Jared’s faith the most persuasive one-is that Christ was saying to the brother of Jared, “Never have I showed myself unto man in this manner, without my volition, driven solely by the faith of the beholder.

In December 2020, I had a pointed post on how a religion teacher at BYU was teaching a false truth that God doesn’t change in a relationship with us. It related to his interpretation of the Bible Dictionary’s definition of prayer. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other In that post, I said

Dr. James E. Faulconer, a philosopher, theologian, and research fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, was on the Maxwell Institute podcast to discuss his latest book - Thinking Otherwise: Theological Explorations of Joseph Smith’s Revelations. James Faulconer’s discussion covered many topics that we discuss on MostMovedMover. I enjoyed every minute and found joy in aligning his views with a few of our posts. The list below highlights the relationship between snippets of his quotes with posts from MostMovedMover.

After last week’s post, I realized how many prayer posts I have had in the previous two years. This post includes a poem I wrote about prayer with a summary of those previous posts. Except for the Tyler Griffin post last week, these prayer posts came about as I talked with my brother and His wife as we dealt with his terminal illness. He was a great mentor and friend, and we would often spend 2-4 hours talking gospel topics whenever I visited. We had differing views on God’s omniscience, which made for some energetic conversations over the last year. It was in those conversations that I derived many of these prayer posts for mostmovedmover.com.

I am reading The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, and I have found the authors to be articulate in their explanation of the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism. The two theologies are relatively consistent in their views of God’s Omnipresence. But, their opinions on Omnipotence and Omniscience are different, and the contributing authors highlight these differences. The theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appears to be much more aligned with the Arminian view, but we have some Calvinistic strains. In this post, you will see how the LDS community caveats the Omnis and be able to compare our caveats to other theologies.

Gregory A. Boyd’s book God of the possible is where I found my tagline for the MostMovedMover website. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in openness and how the Bible testifies of God’s relation to man’s agency. It is thorough in its detail around the biblical references and theology related to God and a contingent future. I recently found a short YouTube video from Greg that provides an excellent six-minute summary of his book and what ‘God of the possible’ means.

I have spent quite a bit of time discussing time and the future in this blog. In fact, many of my conversations with my friends have touched on the topic of time as well. Recently, I was at a small backyard gathering where a friend of mine blurted out, “J’s entire premise is messed up so the logic doesn’t make sense.” He was referencing the concepts of God living within time. However, god living in time is not the premise. It is the result of the driving premise upon which openness theology is based. That God’s entire desire is to be in loving relationships with each of use. His desire to love and let us love is the premise. In this post, I lay out the driving premise of most moved mover in the context of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint’s most cherished teaching - agnecy.

Alma 13:7-9 includes multiple statements about God’s existence concerning beginnings and ends. The verses include references to his foreknowledge and Priesthood’s reality. In my previous post, I discussed Kathleen Flakes response to understanding no beginnings and no ends. This post looks at all of the verses with this reference and LDS commentary around this phrase.

Joseph Smith’s translation of Fascimile 2 provides a few detailed insights into this question. In the facsimile, there are added numbers which the Book of Abraham labels as Fig. 1 through Fig. 21. Last week, the missionaries visited and brought up Fascimile 2 and asked what I thought about the statement, ‘Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord’?

In 2 Nephi 3, Lehi shares with his son Joseph a fascinating revelation that Joseph of Egypt1 saw the Nephite day over a thousand years in the future as well as Joseph Smith’s day over 2000 years farther into the future. This example is often shared with me from my friends when we get farther along with the conversation about the openness of God. It is an excellent example to push us to think about God’s knowledge of the future and how He could know Joseph Smith’s name if His children made free choices from Joseph of Egypt’s day (1700 BC) to 1830 New England times.

Nephi’s Story: In 1 Nephi 4:10, Nephi starts his truth reasoning about what he should do with Laban after finding him passed out drunk as he planned to obtain the brass plates that he was commanded to retrieve. And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man.

Does God live in Greek time? (Experiencing time as growth). Relational theology focuses on man’s relationship with God. However, in pondering a relationship with God, time is the first concept that throws Christians into a mental tailspin. We can pull out of this death spiral. However, to untangle God and time, we have to understand Eastern and Western (Greek) views of time. I am of the firm opinion that Western perceptions of time do not constrain God.

Does God have wisdom? We discuss many other attributes of God which have a direct similarity in man but are more excellent with God. For example, Mortals understand limited ways to love but understand that God is better at love. Some humans can maintain massive amounts of information in their brains, but God can store an infinite amount. Humans have built technology that allows us to be in many places at once, but God can extend His reach to all locations.

Latter-day scripture has a curious phrase about wisdom that pops up quite often. It is the use of the words, ‘for a wise purpose’ about God working with a prophet on a current decision that affects the future. In 1 Nephi 9:5, Nephi is the first to introduce us to the phrase when he says, ’the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

Let me start this post with a big caveat. Metaphors are useful for conveying ideas about specific points of reality and inadequate for conveying the entire complexity of our lived experience. The chess metaphor falls short in explaining the plan of salvation that God has for His kingdom. Still, it can be an excellent metaphor for understanding the relationship between God’s wisdom, power, knowledge and our agency. I want to frame parts of the chess game before we read the following quotes.

Any of my friends that have been willing to engage me on the concept of a contingent future and openness theology often find the idea persuasive enough to ponder its impacts on scripture. Eventually, they ask a question about the many prophetic statements found in scripture. Their questions fall along the lines of the following, “What about …” the prophecy of the civil war starting in North Carolina by Joseph Smith?

I previously asked, What did Elder Neal A. Maxwell think about time and God? and proposed that he may have tempered his views on fixed future omniscience based on conversations with Blake Ostler. However, I have since found a few more quotes from Neal A. Maxwell after 1984 that are still fairly forceful and I want to add to the record on mostmovedmover.com about his views in this additional post. I hope to be respectful to his words while discussing how they relate to an openness view of God’s future.

Introduction During the early ’90s (I think), my church ran some commercials under the catchphrase, ‘Family, it’s about time.’ One of them is below. I always thought the ads had a great play on the wording. The phrase could imply that it is about time that we focus on the family or that you can’t be family without investing time. It is from those commercials that I build the premise and title of this post.

“The great Jehovah contemplated the whole of the events connected with the earth, pertaining to the plan of salvation, before it rolled into existence, or ever ’the morning stars sang together’ for joy; the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal ’now;’ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 220; History of the Church, 4:597)1. My wife has been reading Forgiving Ourselves: Getting Back Up When We Let Ourselves Down by Wendy Ulrich and shared with me a significant section of her book with an insightful way to understand ’eternal now ‘ where she says,2

As I have studied specific verses around God’s knowledge, I don’t see fixed future omniscience coming from the scripture. Still, I do see how many verses could confirm a preconceived belief in fixed future omniscience. 1 Nephi 7:12-13 and 1 Nephi 9:5-6 are two scriptures blocks that might confirm fixed future omniscience at first read. One of the complicated issues of fixed future omniscience is that it is often a lens that most of Christian society looks through to interpret scripture.

I have written posts that included references to the Lectures on Faith in the past.1 I used those previous posts to discuss the attribute of the faith of God directly. This post discusses the attribute of the knowledge of God and how the Lectures describe His knowledge. We should carefully recognize what the Lectures on Faith explain about the knowledge of God to see what knowledge of God we must understand for our faith to grow.

Two posts ago, I talked about truth progressing where I put forth the idea that truth changes in time. I want to take a little more time on this topic and make sure it is clear truth exists and that it is not relative. However, it is relational with us in time, and we must all work together to progress into greater truth. When I hear President Nelson say that “We’re witnesses to a process of restoration” 1, I think I hear progress into greater truth.

A few months ago, my sister-in-law and I were discussing the implications of healing blessings and what it means when the blessing is not answered as pronounced. We have been struggling with the health of one of our family members for the last few years. The last 9-months have been especially grueling. So the discussion was not some esoteric theological pondering but a deep desire to understanding how prayer works so that we can be satisfied with the path we are on.

Under a timeless model of God, many LDS quote Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 as a statement of truth never changing as it is ‘knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.’ There are 24 conference references to this verse alone. Many of the references to this verse emphasize truths as never-ending facts that are timeless1. Below are two examples from general conference that highlight how verse 24 is referenced.

In our Come Follow Me New Testament Reading for the last week of October, there is a section on Philemon 1:17-21. In these verses, Paul offers to cover Onesimus’ debts that might be owed to Philemon. In one section of this Come Follow Me topic, there are a series of questions that are asked to prod a conversation. You can see the questions in the screenshot below. I was visiting relatives while on a work trip, and one of their children was guiding the conversation.

In Doctrine and Covenants 93:30-32 we read, All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

I have been listening to conference addresses by Apostles and Prophets starting with the April 1971 conference, which is provided on the church’s website or on the Gospel Library app. I have made it to October 19801, and I found Bruce R. McConkie’s, ‘The Lord God of the Restoration message. This general conference message came a few months after the famous, or maybe infamous, The Seven Deadly Heresies talk at BYU in June.

Background I first encountered Terryl Givens name while watching ‘The Mormons’ in 2007. He was included as an expert on Latter-day Saint beliefs. He had been publishing in the LDS space since 1997. Around 2014 I listened to him, and Richard Bushman at a Mormon Studies conference at The University of Virginia while visiting my nephew. Wrestling the Angel I just finished Wrestling the Angel and found the book to be thorough in its discussion of the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Having previously finished a book on timelessness (see my previous post) and a book about perceiving truth through metaphor and physicality (see my ‘Oh say, What is truth?’ post), I have been pondering the words that are used by God in scripture. In Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 the Lord says, ‘And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;’ which is often quoted with Jacob 4:13.

Introduction I am reading The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence by John Sanders. It is a thorough explanation of openness or relational theology. His writing is clear, and he is sources and footnotes are detailed. In Chapter 6, Risk and the Divine Character, he discusses the varied views of Omniscience (6.5). As I have had discussions with friends, I have heard many of these views explained (without being given a name).

I titled this post after the witty comment made by Nelson Pike in his book titled, ‘God and Timelessness’. The entire book was a careful philosophical and theological evaluation of the argument of timelessness as an attribute of God.1 His actual statement says; St. Thomas says that God’s preservation activity is ‘without either motion or time.’ I wonder if this isn’t a little like saying that when Gabriel blows his horn, he does it while holding his breath.

In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus shares the parable of the importuning Widow and Unjust Judge (also called the parable of the persistent widow). In this parable, we learn that persistent prayers receive answers. The parable proposes that prayers can be answered through faithful wearying. The widow petitions the king, and the king ignores her. Finally, the king relents. Not out of compassion but because of her wearying. It looks like the rationale or justness of the request, the king’s character or the woman’s character is not justified or explained.

In Revelation 10:6 we read, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: This verse coined the phrase ’that there should be time no longer’ and the context of Revelation 10:6 is around the second coming and the establishment of Zion.

If you Google ‘LDS views on time’ the first article that comes up is an article in LDS living by C. Robert Line titled ‘How Does God’s Time Work? How Can He Listen to All Our Prayers at Once? Robert initially wrote the article in September 2015. Robert repeats quite a few quotes out of context that we have discussed previously. See the following posts as a more detailed and alternate view of how he is referencing a few quotes and scripture.

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:7 we read; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. This verse is often quoted as a statement of God’s timelessness by Latter-Day Saints1. However, few remember the question and answer in verses 4 & 5 of this same section.

Words of Mormon 1:3-7 The Book of Mormon consists of multiple books much like the Bible. Within the Book of Mormon there is a book called ‘Words of Mormon’. In Words of Mormon we get some commentary from Mormon about how he compiled the plates which Joseph Smith recieved from Moroni. In verse 3 Mormon discusses how he found a small record from Nephi, Jacob and others. Then in verse 4 we read some statements about prophecy and the future1.

Previously, I referenced Alma 40:8 when I asked Does God live within time? In this post, we will keep our focus on Alma 40:8. It reads; Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men. This verse can get quoted out of context.

Background: My nephew shared this amazing podcast from the Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University of a conversation between Terryl Givens and Steven Peck. You can watch the video of the podcast below or read the full transcript. I have included a few impactful parts of their conversation that relate to our discussion here at mostmovedmover.com. As I was sharing ideas from this podcast with my daughter, she shared D&C 133:17 and D&C 65:1 where the Lord asks us to ‘make his paths straight.

Background: When discussing the openness of God with my friends a few different chapters in the LDS canon pop up in the conversation. These chapters provide a fairly detailed narrative of future events. Sometimes, they even have verses with statements that many LDS have traditionally seen as statements of fixed future omniscience. Two of the most often referenced chapters include; Moses 7: Enoch foresees the coming of the Son of Man, His atoning sacrifice, and the resurrection of the Saints—He foresees the Restoration, the Gathering, the Second Coming, and the return of Zion.

Background The simple answer is yes. The more complicated conversation is in how God exercises faith. I hope to use scripture, the Lectures on Faith, and some insightful commentary around the first lecture to discuss how His faith could be applied.1 Lectures on Faith Latter-Day Saint history has a unique interaction with a set of philosophical notes on faith that were developed by early leaders of our church. For a long time, many would say that Joseph Smith was the author.

As Latter-Day Saints, we see God as a relational God. In fact, this strong view of loving familial relationships can create misunderstandings by other groups that believe in Christ. Often those that want to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will drop the question, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”. The question is inflammatory. The underlying concept is that we believe in a pre-mortal existence where we all lived as children of our Heavenly Father.

Background: In October 2017 Elder Ronald A. Rasband shared a message titled, “By Divine Design”. This talk caused a little bit of a stir in my ward. I think the teachers that got a chance to teach this talk in a lesson at church may have over-interpreted his talk and created a false idea that Elder Rasband was not promoting. I heard about two different teachers getting a little exasperated at how the talk seemed to imply that God controlled every moment in our lives and neither of them could work out how that could be true.

Background: My last post about the omniscience of God motivated me to look at the LDS topical guide under God, foreknowledge of. I quickly realized that foreknowledge is a very complicated concept in protestant Christianity and in LDS teachings. Before we tackle the references under God, foreknowledge of, Election, Foreordination, and Predestination we need to work through what each word means, how they relate, and how they are different. One of the issues with each word is that their definitions are nuanced by the various beliefs of each Christian theology.

Background: I wanted to pull all the references from the topical guide under God, Omniscience of to help us get a ‘deeper acquaintance with the word of God.’ In a future post we will look at the topic of God, Foreknowledge of (As a side note, I am developing a small R package to process items from the topical guide). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a Topical Guide to the Scriptures that was initially published in 1979.

Background I have had a few discussions recently where I have been surprised by the answers given concerning God and how he relates to time. Once again, I think many of us are unwittingly letting Aristotle’s unmoved mover philosophy drive our beliefs in God. The scriptures are full of clear statements about God and his relation to time. The Old and New Testaments have a few verses that provide value to this discussion.

In December of 2000, Clark Pinnock published an article titled, “God as Most Moved Mover”. He had previously worked on a book titled “The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God” that I believe pushed this theology out into the open. However I don’t think that book used the phrase ‘Most Moved Mover’. He then published a book titled, “Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness” in 2001.

Background In “Does God have a Future?” John Sanders explains the open theist view of omniscience and foreknowledge. Here are a few key quotes; I prefer to think of “perfect” in dynamic terms: relational perfection. God is always in perfect relationship with us, and as the relationship changes so God changes. -Pg. 90 First, let me say that Jesus did not experience “powerlessness.” Rather, he exercised the power of love and chose not to use other types of power available to him.

Background In God of the possible by Gregory Boyd he makes an eloquent argument about the joy of our sociality as humans and how this relates to traditional views of the exhaustive foreknowledge of God. In light of the Latter-Day Saint view on the sociality of heaven being similar to our current existence, I found his argument enlightening. He asked some great questions in the quotes below. Why would this eternally static view of divine knowledge be greater than a view of God enjoying novelty, adventure, spontaneity, creativity, and moment-by-moment personal relationships?

In Elder Holland’s book titled, Christ and the New Covenant, I first encountered the fascinating idea that God could change his behavior based on our prayers and faith. This paragraph stretched my mind. A final explanation-and in terms of the brother of Jared’s faith the most persuasive one-is that Christ was saying to the brother of Jared, “Never have I showed myself unto man in this manner, without my volition, driven solely by the faith of the beholder.

Background About three years ago my friend Nathan Richardson shared a paper with me by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. titled Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions that had some insightful ideas about prophets and prophecies. Dr Pratt, like most Protestant Christians, shares ideas within a historical perspective of the Bible. As Latter-Day Saint Christians, we believe in a living reality of prophets and prophecies. So his thoughts resonated with my views on the Bible as well as my opinions of living prophets and prophecy.

Introduction I have enjoyed reading dialogues between LDS scholars and Evangelical scholars over the last decade with a friend, who is an evangelical pastor, to understand my faith. We started with How Wide the Divide? by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. I enjoyed Robinson’s writing and have found his writing style enjoyable. I read Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News and Following Christ: The Parable of the Divers and More Good News when I was 18.

I have found two enlightening thinkers in LDS theology. From what I have read and the places that they publish, their work is well respected among LDS religious scholars. They are also recognized in the broader community of theological scholars. David L. Paulsen has been on my radar for years. I have enjoyed all his material on philosophy and theology. Additionally, I have read a couple of articles by Blake T.

Ok, it’s not really about time. It is about a relationship with God in time. However, as soon as we push the concept of God working with us in our mortal lives in a compassionate give and take relationship, it strikes the cords of a common Christian belief of God’s timeless perfection. This traditional Christian belief often aligns with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I didn’t understand how far-reaching a timeless God assumption could infiltrate all other aspects of God’s nature.

In December 2020, I had a pointed post on how a religion teacher at BYU was teaching a false truth that God doesn’t change in a relationship with us. It related to his interpretation of the Bible Dictionary’s definition of prayer. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other In that post, I said

The Chosen TV series is framing many attributes of God in such a fantastic way. I especially enjoy Season 1 Episode 6 for how it depicts Christ’s interactions with those around him. The scene starts with Jesus sharing the parable of the importuning widow found in Luke 18 then it builds to the moment where two different characters make a petition of Jesus. The contrast of these three examples of petitioning God provides excellent insight into how we should petition Him.

After last week’s post, I realized how many prayer posts I have had in the previous two years. This post includes a poem I wrote about prayer with a summary of those previous posts. Except for the Tyler Griffin post last week, these prayer posts came about as I talked with my brother and His wife as we dealt with his terminal illness. He was a great mentor and friend, and we would often spend 2-4 hours talking gospel topics whenever I visited. We had differing views on God’s omniscience, which made for some energetic conversations over the last year. It was in those conversations that I derived many of these prayer posts for mostmovedmover.com.

The Bible Dictionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides a definition of prayer that has a unique phrasing. It says, ‘Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other.’ This sentence uses the phrase ‘brought into correspondence with each other’ and leads to two possible interpretations.

Does God change his mind (Numbers 23:19 & 1 Samuel 15:29)? Too often, when we talk about changing another’s mind, the implication is that we moved them from a wrong belief to a correct understanding. Or maybe, that one was so persuasive that another moved from their current thinking - regardless of the truth of either position. There is a third space where minds or decisions change. A relational space where new actors enter the scene and others within the group, knowing there are multiple viable options, are willing to mold their plans to accommodate the new dynamic.

A few months ago, my sister-in-law and I were discussing the implications of healing blessings and what it means when the blessing is not answered as pronounced. We have been struggling with the health of one of our family members for the last few years. The last 9-months have been especially grueling. So the discussion was not some esoteric theological pondering but a deep desire to understanding how prayer works so that we can be satisfied with the path we are on.

Background The story of Isreal’s relationship with the Gibeonites is an excellent example of relational theology. In this story, we see God call Joshua, command Joshua, then support Joshua in his calling. It is a fascinating story of how God works with His people in a mutual relationship of trusting decision making. The relational Story Joshua’s call and command In Deuteronomy 34:91, Joshua’s call to lead the people is signaled through the description of Moses laying his hands on Joshua and the children of Isreal’s willingness to hearken to Joshua’s words.

In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus shares the parable of the importuning Widow and Unjust Judge (also called the parable of the persistent widow). In this parable, we learn that persistent prayers receive answers. The parable proposes that prayers can be answered through faithful wearying. The widow petitions the king, and the king ignores her. Finally, the king relents. Not out of compassion but because of her wearying. It looks like the rationale or justness of the request, the king’s character or the woman’s character is not justified or explained.

As Latter-Day Saints, we see God as a relational God. In fact, this strong view of loving familial relationships can create misunderstandings by other groups that believe in Christ. Often those that want to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will drop the question, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”. The question is inflammatory. The underlying concept is that we believe in a pre-mortal existence where we all lived as children of our Heavenly Father.

In Elder Holland’s book titled, Christ and the New Covenant, I first encountered the fascinating idea that God could change his behavior based on our prayers and faith. This paragraph stretched my mind. A final explanation-and in terms of the brother of Jared’s faith the most persuasive one-is that Christ was saying to the brother of Jared, “Never have I showed myself unto man in this manner, without my volition, driven solely by the faith of the beholder.

The following is the full excerpt from the chapter on the brother of Jared in Christ and the New Covenant. I have added the various emphases. Before examining the doctrinal truths taught in this divine encounter, it will be useful to note two seemingly problematic issues here, issues that seem to have reasonable and acceptable resolutions. The first consideration rises from two questions the Lord asked the brother of Jared: “Why hast thou fallen?

President Wilford Woodruff shared this story in his journal. He was the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On the 23rd of November my wife, Phoebe, was attacked with a severe headache, which terminated in brain fever. She grew more and more distressed daily as we continued our journey. It was a terrible ordeal for a woman to travel in a wagon over rough roads, afflicted as she was.

In December 2020, I had a pointed post on how a religion teacher at BYU was teaching a false truth that God doesn’t change in a relationship with us. It related to his interpretation of the Bible Dictionary’s definition of prayer. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other In that post, I said

What would you do if I dropped all the parts to a contraption made in the early 1800s called a ‘spinning mule’ and asked you to restore it? What if there were no remaining pictures? What if nobody existed that had ever seen one? What if all you knew was that you could use it to cloth people of the early 1800s? How would you know that you had restored it?

Roger Olson is a leading Armenian theologian who teaches at Baylor University. He is articulate, and his blog at patheos helps understand the critical differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. As a Latter-day Saint, I have found quite a bit of benefit in understanding these two historical views on Christianity to understand from whom we claimed our truth (See Brigham Young). In 2011, he and Michael Horton (a devout Calvinist) conversed about their key doctrinal differences. In the short video below, we can hear the differences on their views of sin. In listening to their differences, I hope we can understand our Latter-day Saint views on sin with more clarity.

The Chosen TV series is framing many attributes of God in such a fantastic way. I especially enjoy Season 1 Episode 6 for how it depicts Christ’s interactions with those around him. The scene starts with Jesus sharing the parable of the importuning widow found in Luke 18 then it builds to the moment where two different characters make a petition of Jesus. The contrast of these three examples of petitioning God provides excellent insight into how we should petition Him.

After last week’s post, I realized how many prayer posts I have had in the previous two years. This post includes a poem I wrote about prayer with a summary of those previous posts. Except for the Tyler Griffin post last week, these prayer posts came about as I talked with my brother and His wife as we dealt with his terminal illness. He was a great mentor and friend, and we would often spend 2-4 hours talking gospel topics whenever I visited. We had differing views on God’s omniscience, which made for some energetic conversations over the last year. It was in those conversations that I derived many of these prayer posts for mostmovedmover.com.

The Bible Dictionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides a definition of prayer that has a unique phrasing. It says, ‘Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other.’ This sentence uses the phrase ‘brought into correspondence with each other’ and leads to two possible interpretations.

In the October 1992 General Conference, then Elder Russel M. Nelson shared a message titled, Where is wisdom? that touched on pandemics and social liberties. His 1992 message with his #GiveThanks YouTube message helps us understand President Nelson’s views on pandemics, civil liberties, masks, and Wisdom.

Some Latter-day Saints (and many others) believe that the future is entirely predictable if one just knew the current state right now. This concept is called causal determinism and, if too intently followed, creates ideas like fixed-future omniscience, predestination, and antagonism towards free-will or Agency. Of course, many events can be predicted in a causal chain, which allows science to progress and humans to reason about the future. However, fanatical focus on causal determinism would argue that when the first living cell formed on earth that my lunch order on Wednesday was determined for my October 23, 2020 order.

I have spent quite a bit of time discussing time and the future in this blog. In fact, many of my conversations with my friends have touched on the topic of time as well. Recently, I was at a small backyard gathering where a friend of mine blurted out, “J’s entire premise is messed up so the logic doesn’t make sense.” He was referencing the concepts of God living within time. However, god living in time is not the premise. It is the result of the driving premise upon which openness theology is based. That God’s entire desire is to be in loving relationships with each of use. His desire to love and let us love is the premise. In this post, I lay out the driving premise of most moved mover in the context of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint’s most cherished teaching - agnecy.

In 1993 then Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles shared a moving General Conference address titled Constancy amid Change. As I have discussed my ideas about Truth’s ability to progress from D&C 93:30 (post 1, post 2), I think some of my friends hear that nothing is constant. President Nelson’s talk helps me clarify a few points on Truth’s progression. In his 1993 address, he shares a conversation with Ruth and John, where they asked, ’What can we trust?

Does God need me for His plan to work? Years ago, one of my leaders often said, ‘God doesn’t need us’ when discussing our relevance in God’s plan. I think I understood what he was trying to say, but the phrase didn’t sit well with me. If he was trying to say that God can bring about the Plan of Salvation with or without me, then I agree. However, if he was saying that God’s work moves without His people, I don’t agree.

This post focuses on President Eyring’s talk titled, ‘He Goes before Us. However, the broader conversation is around how western culture has mixed up wisdom and knowledge to the point that we rarely differentiate the two words. As seen from the image above for this post, our writing guides even recommend them as synonyms. I want to take a journey through a few ideas before I tackle President Eyring’s quotes from his message about knowledge and time.

In 1 Corinthians 1:19-27 Paul tells us that foolish and wise are the same things, just different positions on the scale of wisdom. We would put wisdom as the great attribute at the top of the range and foolishness as the worst form of wisdom at the bottom of the scale. In verse 25 Paul states this fact clearly; Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; In my ‘What is wisdom?

What is wisdom? The prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon provides one of the most succinct injunctions in scripture when he says, ‘O be wise; what can I say more?’ (Jacob 6:12). To Jacob’s question after the injunction, I would ask many of the following questions, Can you describe wisdom? Is wisdom that much different than knowledge? Does wisdom require an existence with randomness or uncertainty? Can one exemplify wisdom in a world without unknowns?

Any of my friends that have been willing to engage me on the concept of a contingent future and openness theology often find the idea persuasive enough to ponder its impacts on scripture. Eventually, they ask a question about the many prophetic statements found in scripture. Their questions fall along the lines of the following, “What about …” the prophecy of the civil war starting in North Carolina by Joseph Smith?

“The great Jehovah contemplated the whole of the events connected with the earth, pertaining to the plan of salvation, before it rolled into existence, or ever ’the morning stars sang together’ for joy; the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal ’now;’ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 220; History of the Church, 4:597)1. My wife has been reading Forgiving Ourselves: Getting Back Up When We Let Ourselves Down by Wendy Ulrich and shared with me a significant section of her book with an insightful way to understand ’eternal now ‘ where she says,2

In Romans 3:3, we encounter a bold statement from Paul about God. He says, ‘For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?’ Paul’s question forces all readers of the bible to ask, ‘What is the faith of God?’ A quick search on the internet will leave a searcher wanting concerning any explanation about the ‘faith of God’ because any description of the attributes of God leaves out faith.

True and Living (D&C 1:30) In Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 the Lord says through Joseph Smith And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

A few months ago, my sister-in-law and I were discussing the implications of healing blessings and what it means when the blessing is not answered as pronounced. We have been struggling with the health of one of our family members for the last few years. The last 9-months have been especially grueling. So the discussion was not some esoteric theological pondering but a deep desire to understanding how prayer works so that we can be satisfied with the path we are on.

Under a timeless model of God, many LDS quote Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 as a statement of truth never changing as it is ‘knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.’ There are 24 conference references to this verse alone. Many of the references to this verse emphasize truths as never-ending facts that are timeless1. Below are two examples from general conference that highlight how verse 24 is referenced.

More than once in the last year, I have encountered a space-time explanation from friends when we are discussing the topic of God and timelessness. In almost every instance, there is a phrase, something like, “Time is just another dimension. God can just step outside of it. Like in the book Flatland.” Often, they leverage time as a human construct that does not relate to God because one of our leaders talks about timelessness1 and Einstein taught us about space-time.

In our Come Follow Me New Testament Reading for the last week of October, there is a section on Philemon 1:17-21. In these verses, Paul offers to cover Onesimus’ debts that might be owed to Philemon. In one section of this Come Follow Me topic, there are a series of questions that are asked to prod a conversation. You can see the questions in the screenshot below. I was visiting relatives while on a work trip, and one of their children was guiding the conversation.

In Doctrine and Covenants 93:30-32 we read, All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

In June 1883 The Chautauquan magazine asked, “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings, would there be any sound?” 1 This is one of those philosophical questions that can create a lively conversation if asked among the correct group. Today, I have a similar question, “If nobody understands the truth, is it still a truth?” I know that I may have already made half of the eight people that read this blog stop reading because they don’t want to have this lively conversation.

Based on a recommendation from a colleague, I read A Mathematician’s Lament: How School Cheats Us Out of Our Most Fascinating and Imaginative Art Form. I know the title doesn’t line up with openness theology, scripture, or the teachings of my church. But hear me out - the guts of the book line up well with mostmovedmover.com. In this post, I am going to tweak his quotes to put a religious spin on them.

Having previously finished a book on timelessness (see my previous post) and a book about perceiving truth through metaphor and physicality (see my ‘Oh say, What is truth?’ post), I have been pondering the words that are used by God in scripture. In Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 the Lord says, ‘And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;’ which is often quoted with Jacob 4:13.

In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus shares the parable of the importuning Widow and Unjust Judge (also called the parable of the persistent widow). In this parable, we learn that persistent prayers receive answers. The parable proposes that prayers can be answered through faithful wearying. The widow petitions the king, and the king ignores her. Finally, the king relents. Not out of compassion but because of her wearying. It looks like the rationale or justness of the request, the king’s character or the woman’s character is not justified or explained.

In Revelation 10:6 we read, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: This verse coined the phrase ’that there should be time no longer’ and the context of Revelation 10:6 is around the second coming and the establishment of Zion.

James E. Faust shared a devotional at BYU in 1993 titled, The Voice of the Spirit. Mormon messages used this talk to create the following message. Elder Faust shares an impactful quote about light (or truth) being part of our very essence. Signaling that truth is much more than facts. You will not be able to travel through life on borrowed light. The light of life must be part of your very being.

If you Google ‘LDS views on time’ the first article that comes up is an article in LDS living by C. Robert Line titled ‘How Does God’s Time Work? How Can He Listen to All Our Prayers at Once? Robert initially wrote the article in September 2015. Robert repeats quite a few quotes out of context that we have discussed previously. See the following posts as a more detailed and alternate view of how he is referencing a few quotes and scripture.

According to John Sanders, the concept of truth has multiple meanings. There are three main theories of truth in Western thought. The correspondence theory: This theory holds that truth is that which corresponds to a state of affairs or fact of reality. The coherence theory: a statement is true if it fits (coheres) with a set of other statements accepted as true. The pragmatic theory: an idea is true if it is fruitful and workable in relation to our experience.

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:7 we read; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. This verse is often quoted as a statement of God’s timelessness by Latter-Day Saints1. However, few remember the question and answer in verses 4 & 5 of this same section.

Our challenge: As we listen to oft-quoted phrases, many people take them as facts without finding a source. Once we find a source and validate the quote, then we get the chance to discern the signal from the noise. We could start to recognize the signal with the following questions; What does the quote mean in context? What words in the quote are taken as givens or facts that may not be as clear cut?

The Parable of the Rich Fool In Luke 12:16-21 we read the parable of the rich fool. Before Jesus shares the parable he responds to a petition about worldly wealth with; Watch and beware of all types of greed, because a person’s life is more than the quantity of his possessions. -Luke 12:15 Wayment Translation1- He then shares the parable where the foolish rich man measures his life of possessions and thinks that it defines his soul.

Introduction In John 8:31-32 Jesus makes a bold statement about how we can be free. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. To which the group of believers responded, ‘How sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?`. Jesus then states a central point of John 8 & 9 in verse 34.

Background: Recently President Nelson invited the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to use the full name of our church in our daily referencing of the church. A few of my friends have taken this pronouncement in different ways. Most have started the journey of changing our historical habits of calling ourselves Mormons. A few have recoiled at President Nelson’s invitation as an attack on statements of our previous prophets.

Background I think many of us are good at applying our daily reading to our lives. This application is essential and has eternal impacts on our lives and our relationship with Deity. We also need to pull scripture together to find a comprehensive meaning. We need to spend the struggle and time to see the big picture - not just the maps and storyline big picture, but the attributes of God big picture.

As Latter-Day Saints, we see God as a relational God. In fact, this strong view of loving familial relationships can create misunderstandings by other groups that believe in Christ. Often those that want to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will drop the question, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”. The question is inflammatory. The underlying concept is that we believe in a pre-mortal existence where we all lived as children of our Heavenly Father.

Background About three years ago my friend Nathan Richardson shared a paper with me by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. titled Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions that had some insightful ideas about prophets and prophecies. Dr Pratt, like most Protestant Christians, shares ideas within a historical perspective of the Bible. As Latter-Day Saint Christians, we believe in a living reality of prophets and prophecies. So his thoughts resonated with my views on the Bible as well as my opinions of living prophets and prophecy.

President Wilford Woodruff shared this story in his journal. He was the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On the 23rd of November my wife, Phoebe, was attacked with a severe headache, which terminated in brain fever. She grew more and more distressed daily as we continued our journey. It was a terrible ordeal for a woman to travel in a wagon over rough roads, afflicted as she was.

There are a few of us that would believe outlandish lies. People have differing beliefs on Big Foot’s reality, whether we landed on the moon, or if COVID-19 is a health pandemic. What makes the belief of those concepts different from believing in God the Father? The fascinating relationship between all of these beliefs is humanity’s inability to comprehend rare occurrences. What we often refer to as possible outcomes instead of probable outcomes is hard to imagine.

One horn of this dilemma is the argument that if an action was caused or necessitated, then it could not have been done freely and hence the agent is not responsible for it. The other horn is the argument that if the action was not caused, then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot be attributed to the agent and hence, again, the agent cannot be responsible for it. -Paul Russell: Freedom and Moral Sentiment, p. 14-

Paul Russel discusses the ‘Horns of the dilemma’ found when we get at the root of determinism and chance. Either way, the extreme of both views means that free agents do not control their choices. They are simply science experiments moved by the experimenter. The religionists hold to God as the great mover in the deterministic model, and the scientists welcome the randomness of nature and laws of physics as the great mover. I believe that both worship a golden calf. William James’ provides a third horn that can resolve the conflict in his 1884 ’The Dilemma of Determinism’.

Background: My nephew shared this amazing podcast from the Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University of a conversation between Terryl Givens and Steven Peck. You can watch the video of the podcast below or read the full transcript. I have included a few impactful parts of their conversation that relate to our discussion here at mostmovedmover.com. As I was sharing ideas from this podcast with my daughter, she shared D&C 133:17 and D&C 65:1 where the Lord asks us to ‘make his paths straight.

Background: When discussing the openness of God with my friends a few different chapters in the LDS canon pop up in the conversation. These chapters provide a fairly detailed narrative of future events. Sometimes, they even have verses with statements that many LDS have traditionally seen as statements of fixed future omniscience. Two of the most often referenced chapters include; Moses 7: Enoch foresees the coming of the Son of Man, His atoning sacrifice, and the resurrection of the Saints—He foresees the Restoration, the Gathering, the Second Coming, and the return of Zion.

Background Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf’s “Your Adventure through Mortality” uses the word random in a talk he gave in January 2018. I wanted to take some time to share what randomness means and how it relates to God’s plan and probability. We will know that the Master Artist had a plan for those random dots all along. We will see that He amplified our talents, prepared opportunities, and introduced us to possibilities far more glorious than we ever could have imagined or accomplished on our own.

In December 2020, I had a pointed post on how a religion teacher at BYU was teaching a false truth that God doesn’t change in a relationship with us. It related to his interpretation of the Bible Dictionary’s definition of prayer. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other In that post, I said

What would you do if I dropped all the parts to a contraption made in the early 1800s called a ‘spinning mule’ and asked you to restore it? What if there were no remaining pictures? What if nobody existed that had ever seen one? What if all you knew was that you could use it to cloth people of the early 1800s? How would you know that you had restored it?

In our conversations of Adam and Eve, we often see the first sin as the partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. However, if we believe in a fortunate fall, then partaking of the fruit was the progression that God desired, not something in opposition to Him. Also, it seems that they could not sin while in the Garden (see 2 Nephi 2:23; Moses 5:11) which implies that anything that happened before and up to the partaking of the fruit could not be a sin.

As you read all commentary in General Conference about Jacob 4:14, you will notice that they focus on our part of the relationship with God - our role and how we have ’looked beyond the mark’ in rejecting the Christ. Jacob 4:14 provides details on God’s part in the relationship that causes our ‘stumbling’, which offers insight about God’s work with each of us. It helps us understand ‘stumbling’ within the complexity of partners in a relationship.

Jacob 4:14 states;

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

Alma 13:7-9 includes multiple statements about God’s existence concerning beginnings and ends. The verses include references to his foreknowledge and Priesthood’s reality. In my previous post, I discussed Kathleen Flakes response to understanding no beginnings and no ends. This post looks at all of the verses with this reference and LDS commentary around this phrase.

Does God need me for His plan to work? Years ago, one of my leaders often said, ‘God doesn’t need us’ when discussing our relevance in God’s plan. I think I understood what he was trying to say, but the phrase didn’t sit well with me. If he was trying to say that God can bring about the Plan of Salvation with or without me, then I agree. However, if he was saying that God’s work moves without His people, I don’t agree.

For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. Hosea 2:8, KJV Do we believe this verse of scripture? Do we think that our God will give us all that he can, even when we are using those things to honor another God? Do we believe that God gives good to those who do wrong?

The Parable of the Rich Fool In Luke 12:16-21 we read the parable of the rich fool. Before Jesus shares the parable he responds to a petition about worldly wealth with; Watch and beware of all types of greed, because a person’s life is more than the quantity of his possessions. -Luke 12:15 Wayment Translation1- He then shares the parable where the foolish rich man measures his life of possessions and thinks that it defines his soul.

Introduction In John 8:31-32 Jesus makes a bold statement about how we can be free. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. To which the group of believers responded, ‘How sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?`. Jesus then states a central point of John 8 & 9 in verse 34.

For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. Hosea 2:8, KJV Do we believe this verse of scripture? Do we think that our God will give us all that he can, even when we are using those things to honor another God? Do we believe that God gives good to those who do wrong?

Roger Olson is a leading Armenian theologian who teaches at Baylor University. He is articulate, and his blog at patheos helps understand the critical differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. As a Latter-day Saint, I have found quite a bit of benefit in understanding these two historical views on Christianity to understand from whom we claimed our truth (See Brigham Young). In 2011, he and Michael Horton (a devout Calvinist) conversed about their key doctrinal differences. In the short video below, we can hear the differences on their views of sin. In listening to their differences, I hope we can understand our Latter-day Saint views on sin with more clarity.

In our conversations of Adam and Eve, we often see the first sin as the partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. However, if we believe in a fortunate fall, then partaking of the fruit was the progression that God desired, not something in opposition to Him. Also, it seems that they could not sin while in the Garden (see 2 Nephi 2:23; Moses 5:11) which implies that anything that happened before and up to the partaking of the fruit could not be a sin.

In our Come Follow Me New Testament Reading for the last week of October, there is a section on Philemon 1:17-21. In these verses, Paul offers to cover Onesimus’ debts that might be owed to Philemon. In one section of this Come Follow Me topic, there are a series of questions that are asked to prod a conversation. You can see the questions in the screenshot below. I was visiting relatives while on a work trip, and one of their children was guiding the conversation.

In June 1883 The Chautauquan magazine asked, “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings, would there be any sound?” 1 This is one of those philosophical questions that can create a lively conversation if asked among the correct group. Today, I have a similar question, “If nobody understands the truth, is it still a truth?” I know that I may have already made half of the eight people that read this blog stop reading because they don’t want to have this lively conversation.

The Parable of the Rich Fool In Luke 12:16-21 we read the parable of the rich fool. Before Jesus shares the parable he responds to a petition about worldly wealth with; Watch and beware of all types of greed, because a person’s life is more than the quantity of his possessions. -Luke 12:15 Wayment Translation1- He then shares the parable where the foolish rich man measures his life of possessions and thinks that it defines his soul.

Introduction In John 8:31-32 Jesus makes a bold statement about how we can be free. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. To which the group of believers responded, ‘How sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?`. Jesus then states a central point of John 8 & 9 in verse 34.

This post may get a little political in my attempt to share President M. Russell Ballard’s 2016 fireside with the church educational system teachers. I think the Church’s struggle with history are a result of early conflicts with the establishment press and government. It has a comparable narrative with our current political climate and the difficulty of understanding facts an how those facts are interpreted. I appreciated President Ballard’s acknowledgment early in his message on our attempts at church history in the past.

Each year the Seminary and Institute teachers of the Church Education System for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hosts a night with a general authority. I remember attending these when I was trying to get hired as a seminary teacher. BYU-I faculty are invited to participate in a remote stream of these firesides. My wife and I attended with a few friends that also teach at BYU-I at the beginning of the year.

In a recent Neal A Maxwell institute podcast, Terryl Givens said, Well, you know, we’re suffering waves of defection, and there are lots of reasons for that and lots of remedies that have been suggested, but I think it’s unavoidable to acknowledge that one of the main reasons we’re losing people is that we’re boring them to death. I think the job of a Sunday School teacher is to excite the people, it’s not just to reiterate the old formulas.

Background: Recently President Nelson invited the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to use the full name of our church in our daily referencing of the church. A few of my friends have taken this pronouncement in different ways. Most have started the journey of changing our historical habits of calling ourselves Mormons. A few have recoiled at President Nelson’s invitation as an attack on statements of our previous prophets.

The thesis that God is beyond time has sometimes been introduced to account for God’s omniscience or foreknowledge. For Latter-day Saints, as for the Bible, God’s omniscience is “in time.” God anticipates the future. It is “present” before him, but it is still future. When the future occurs, it will occur for the first time to him as to his creatures. The traditional concept of “out-of-time” omniscience does not derive either from the Old or the New Testament but is borrowed from Greek philosophy. -Brigham Young University’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism-

One unique phrase that Joseph Smith brings into The Church’s vocabulary is ‘one eternal round.’ He translates that English phrase three times in The Book of Mormon and uses it in two revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. At the end of Joseph’s life, he brings the phrase front and center in one of his final sermons titled, ’The King Follet Sermon.’ I have heard this phrase misused to imply that God is timeless and thought it would be worth referencing here to provide the correct context.

In Moroni 7:33-37, Mormon speaks on the power of faith. The middle two verses are full of questions to push us to ponder the reaches of God’s omnipotence and the power that comes from having faith in Him. Mormon’s final question includes, ‘Or will he, so long as time shall last?’ about God. Did Mormon think that time had an end? The full set of questions from verses 35 and 36 include;

Time and the cardinal attribute of enduring (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) In the April 1990 General Conference, Elder Neal A. Maxwell shared a touching message titled, ‘Endure it Well’. He has some great discussion about the benefits of time that is worth reviewing on MostMovedMover. This post should be read along with my two other posts about Elder Maxwell’s views on time (7/19 post and 3/20 post). As we work through his quotes, I highlight a couple of questions about progression, endurance, time, and mortality.

Alma 13:7-9 includes multiple statements about God’s existence concerning beginnings and ends. The verses include references to his foreknowledge and Priesthood’s reality. In my previous post, I discussed Kathleen Flakes response to understanding no beginnings and no ends. This post looks at all of the verses with this reference and LDS commentary around this phrase.

In 2017 Kathleen Flake gave the Annual Neal A. Maxwell Lecture. The entire presentation is engaging and worth your time. I expect to share a few snippets from her presentation in future posts about Joseph Smith and Priesthood insights. This post focuses on a short answer she gave at the end of the discussion about timelessness. I want to imagine what she says is unimaginable. One eternal round means timelessness? The short clip below shows a gentleman asking a question about ‘one eternal round’ and how Kathleen would deal with beginnings and ends.

Many Christians have adopted the Boethian view of a timeless God and then read all scripture to confirm that belief. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have unwittingly adopted this timeless philosophy when they read scripture. Joseph Smith has a quote about God’s eternal ’now’ that seems to be a prime example of reading with Boethian glasses. This post pulls together references to many other posts to provide my most detailed explanation of latter-day scriptures’ view on God and time to provide a time-based view of the eternal ’now'.

Omniscience is not used in the Bible or Latter-day scripture. This leaves humanity guessing as to whether God agrees with the word He has never used in His revelations. All Christian religions have taken the concept into their vocabulary; However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done little to dogmatize the definition of omniscience. Let’s look at the history of omniscience and how various Christian denominations define it.

Joseph Smith’s translation of Fascimile 2 provides a few detailed insights into this question. In the facsimile, there are added numbers which the Book of Abraham labels as Fig. 1 through Fig. 21. Last week, the missionaries visited and brought up Fascimile 2 and asked what I thought about the statement, ‘Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord’?

In 2 Nephi 3, Lehi shares with his son Joseph a fascinating revelation that Joseph of Egypt1 saw the Nephite day over a thousand years in the future as well as Joseph Smith’s day over 2000 years farther into the future. This example is often shared with me from my friends when we get farther along with the conversation about the openness of God. It is an excellent example to push us to think about God’s knowledge of the future and how He could know Joseph Smith’s name if His children made free choices from Joseph of Egypt’s day (1700 BC) to 1830 New England times.

In LDS culture, Matthew 24:36 is quoted as witnessing that God knows the exact moment of His second coming. Without the surrounding verses, it is powerful in its statement of God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus says, ‘But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.’ Two analogies wrap verse 36 about nature and seasons that strongly implies a relational view of the timing of the second coming instead of a stopwatch or Japanese train arrival view.

Does God live in Greek time? (Experiencing time as growth). Relational theology focuses on man’s relationship with God. However, in pondering a relationship with God, time is the first concept that throws Christians into a mental tailspin. We can pull out of this death spiral. However, to untangle God and time, we have to understand Eastern and Western (Greek) views of time. I am of the firm opinion that Western perceptions of time do not constrain God.

Does God have wisdom? We discuss many other attributes of God which have a direct similarity in man but are more excellent with God. For example, Mortals understand limited ways to love but understand that God is better at love. Some humans can maintain massive amounts of information in their brains, but God can store an infinite amount. Humans have built technology that allows us to be in many places at once, but God can extend His reach to all locations.

Any of my friends that have been willing to engage me on the concept of a contingent future and openness theology often find the idea persuasive enough to ponder its impacts on scripture. Eventually, they ask a question about the many prophetic statements found in scripture. Their questions fall along the lines of the following, “What about …” the prophecy of the civil war starting in North Carolina by Joseph Smith?

I previously asked, What did Elder Neal A. Maxwell think about time and God? and proposed that he may have tempered his views on fixed future omniscience based on conversations with Blake Ostler. However, I have since found a few more quotes from Neal A. Maxwell after 1984 that are still fairly forceful and I want to add to the record on mostmovedmover.com about his views in this additional post. I hope to be respectful to his words while discussing how they relate to an openness view of God’s future.

Introduction During the early ’90s (I think), my church ran some commercials under the catchphrase, ‘Family, it’s about time.’ One of them is below. I always thought the ads had a great play on the wording. The phrase could imply that it is about time that we focus on the family or that you can’t be family without investing time. It is from those commercials that I build the premise and title of this post.

I have heard Abraham 2:8 often used as a description of the timelessness of God. When friends reference this verse, they have a look that says, ’need I say more about the timelessness of God’ when they say the phrase, ‘God knows the end from the beginning.’ However, that phrase does not need to imply anything about timelessness. I will use Deiter F. Uchtdorf’s See the End from the Beginning April 2006 conference talk and Russell M.

“The great Jehovah contemplated the whole of the events connected with the earth, pertaining to the plan of salvation, before it rolled into existence, or ever ’the morning stars sang together’ for joy; the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal ’now;’ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 220; History of the Church, 4:597)1. My wife has been reading Forgiving Ourselves: Getting Back Up When We Let Ourselves Down by Wendy Ulrich and shared with me a significant section of her book with an insightful way to understand ’eternal now ‘ where she says,2

As I have studied specific verses around God’s knowledge, I don’t see fixed future omniscience coming from the scripture. Still, I do see how many verses could confirm a preconceived belief in fixed future omniscience. 1 Nephi 7:12-13 and 1 Nephi 9:5-6 are two scriptures blocks that might confirm fixed future omniscience at first read. One of the complicated issues of fixed future omniscience is that it is often a lens that most of Christian society looks through to interpret scripture.

Two posts ago, I talked about truth progressing where I put forth the idea that truth changes in time. I want to take a little more time on this topic and make sure it is clear truth exists and that it is not relative. However, it is relational with us in time, and we must all work together to progress into greater truth. When I hear President Nelson say that “We’re witnesses to a process of restoration” 1, I think I hear progress into greater truth.

Under a timeless model of God, many LDS quote Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 as a statement of truth never changing as it is ‘knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.’ There are 24 conference references to this verse alone. Many of the references to this verse emphasize truths as never-ending facts that are timeless1. Below are two examples from general conference that highlight how verse 24 is referenced.

More than once in the last year, I have encountered a space-time explanation from friends when we are discussing the topic of God and timelessness. In almost every instance, there is a phrase, something like, “Time is just another dimension. God can just step outside of it. Like in the book Flatland.” Often, they leverage time as a human construct that does not relate to God because one of our leaders talks about timelessness1 and Einstein taught us about space-time.

I have been listening to conference addresses by Apostles and Prophets starting with the April 1971 conference, which is provided on the church’s website or on the Gospel Library app. I have made it to October 19801, and I found Bruce R. McConkie’s, ‘The Lord God of the Restoration message. This general conference message came a few months after the famous, or maybe infamous, The Seven Deadly Heresies talk at BYU in June.

Having previously finished a book on timelessness (see my previous post) and a book about perceiving truth through metaphor and physicality (see my ‘Oh say, What is truth?’ post), I have been pondering the words that are used by God in scripture. In Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 the Lord says, ‘And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;’ which is often quoted with Jacob 4:13.

Introduction I am reading The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence by John Sanders. It is a thorough explanation of openness or relational theology. His writing is clear, and he is sources and footnotes are detailed. In Chapter 6, Risk and the Divine Character, he discusses the varied views of Omniscience (6.5). As I have had discussions with friends, I have heard many of these views explained (without being given a name).

I titled this post after the witty comment made by Nelson Pike in his book titled, ‘God and Timelessness’. The entire book was a careful philosophical and theological evaluation of the argument of timelessness as an attribute of God.1 His actual statement says; St. Thomas says that God’s preservation activity is ‘without either motion or time.’ I wonder if this isn’t a little like saying that when Gabriel blows his horn, he does it while holding his breath.

In Revelation 10:6 we read, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: This verse coined the phrase ’that there should be time no longer’ and the context of Revelation 10:6 is around the second coming and the establishment of Zion.

If you Google ‘LDS views on time’ the first article that comes up is an article in LDS living by C. Robert Line titled ‘How Does God’s Time Work? How Can He Listen to All Our Prayers at Once? Robert initially wrote the article in September 2015. Robert repeats quite a few quotes out of context that we have discussed previously. See the following posts as a more detailed and alternate view of how he is referencing a few quotes and scripture.

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:7 we read; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. This verse is often quoted as a statement of God’s timelessness by Latter-Day Saints1. However, few remember the question and answer in verses 4 & 5 of this same section.

Words of Mormon 1:3-7 The Book of Mormon consists of multiple books much like the Bible. Within the Book of Mormon there is a book called ‘Words of Mormon’. In Words of Mormon we get some commentary from Mormon about how he compiled the plates which Joseph Smith recieved from Moroni. In verse 3 Mormon discusses how he found a small record from Nephi, Jacob and others. Then in verse 4 we read some statements about prophecy and the future1.

Previously, I referenced Alma 40:8 when I asked Does God live within time? In this post, we will keep our focus on Alma 40:8. It reads; Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men. This verse can get quoted out of context.

Background: When discussing the openness of God with my friends a few different chapters in the LDS canon pop up in the conversation. These chapters provide a fairly detailed narrative of future events. Sometimes, they even have verses with statements that many LDS have traditionally seen as statements of fixed future omniscience. Two of the most often referenced chapters include; Moses 7: Enoch foresees the coming of the Son of Man, His atoning sacrifice, and the resurrection of the Saints—He foresees the Restoration, the Gathering, the Second Coming, and the return of Zion.

Background The simple answer is yes. The more complicated conversation is in how God exercises faith. I hope to use scripture, the Lectures on Faith, and some insightful commentary around the first lecture to discuss how His faith could be applied.1 Lectures on Faith Latter-Day Saint history has a unique interaction with a set of philosophical notes on faith that were developed by early leaders of our church. For a long time, many would say that Joseph Smith was the author.

Background: My last post about the omniscience of God motivated me to look at the LDS topical guide under God, foreknowledge of. I quickly realized that foreknowledge is a very complicated concept in protestant Christianity and in LDS teachings. Before we tackle the references under God, foreknowledge of, Election, Foreordination, and Predestination we need to work through what each word means, how they relate, and how they are different. One of the issues with each word is that their definitions are nuanced by the various beliefs of each Christian theology.

Background: I wanted to pull all the references from the topical guide under God, Omniscience of to help us get a ‘deeper acquaintance with the word of God.’ In a future post we will look at the topic of God, Foreknowledge of (As a side note, I am developing a small R package to process items from the topical guide). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a Topical Guide to the Scriptures that was initially published in 1979.

Background I have had a few discussions recently where I have been surprised by the answers given concerning God and how he relates to time. Once again, I think many of us are unwittingly letting Aristotle’s unmoved mover philosophy drive our beliefs in God. The scriptures are full of clear statements about God and his relation to time. The Old and New Testaments have a few verses that provide value to this discussion.

Background In “Does God have a Future?” John Sanders explains the open theist view of omniscience and foreknowledge. Here are a few key quotes; I prefer to think of “perfect” in dynamic terms: relational perfection. God is always in perfect relationship with us, and as the relationship changes so God changes. -Pg. 90 First, let me say that Jesus did not experience “powerlessness.” Rather, he exercised the power of love and chose not to use other types of power available to him.

Introduction I have enjoyed reading dialogues between LDS scholars and Evangelical scholars over the last decade with a friend, who is an evangelical pastor, to understand my faith. We started with How Wide the Divide? by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. I enjoyed Robinson’s writing and have found his writing style enjoyable. I read Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News and Following Christ: The Parable of the Divers and More Good News when I was 18.

I have found two enlightening thinkers in LDS theology. From what I have read and the places that they publish, their work is well respected among LDS religious scholars. They are also recognized in the broader community of theological scholars. David L. Paulsen has been on my radar for years. I have enjoyed all his material on philosophy and theology. Additionally, I have read a couple of articles by Blake T.

Thorleif Boman wrote Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek where he has a 50-page chapter on Time and Space which compares Western thought to Hebrew thought. Here is a more detailed list of quotes from the section. Western minds represent time as a straight line upon which we stand with our gaze directed forward; before us we have the future and behind us the past. On this line we can unequivocally define all tenses by means of points.

In December 2020, I had a pointed post on how a religion teacher at BYU was teaching a false truth that God doesn’t change in a relationship with us. It related to his interpretation of the Bible Dictionary’s definition of prayer. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other In that post, I said

What would you do if I dropped all the parts to a contraption made in the early 1800s called a ‘spinning mule’ and asked you to restore it? What if there were no remaining pictures? What if nobody existed that had ever seen one? What if all you knew was that you could use it to cloth people of the early 1800s? How would you know that you had restored it?

A friend of mine shared a story when he and a buddy were at a bar eating their dinner. They started discussing how the beer machine worked. They wondered how the handle levered the internal system and how the beer poured out of the system so clean. The mechanics started to intrigue them, and they pondered the entire contraption. The wonder got the best of them, and they asked the bartender how the machine worked.

Community and the quest for the right path. What would you think I was describing if I said I wanted to talk to you about a group with dietary restraints, garment adornments, public behavior traditions, and leader fidelity? Some may respond, ‘cult’ or ‘religion’ with a bit of disdain for those fools that allow themselves to fall into those traps. Cults exemplify an extreme form of the above features that usually start with a heavy dose of leader fidelity.

Abraham J. Heschel is worth our reading time. He was a good friend of Martin Luther King, lost his family in the Holocaust, and taught for 27 years at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in Manhattan. I believe he is the one that coined the phrase most moved mover in describing God. His daughter explained that he and Martin Luther King used the phrase.1 I am reading Between God and Man which is a compilation of his writings.

What might it mean for a church to look at itself and discover that it has moved beyond Christ? I don’t think it is much different than a child of God looking at themselves and notice that they have strayed beyond Christ. In one of the more exciting dilemmas of Christianity, God invites us to move forward in a very tumultuous sea. We can’t just drop anchor and stay in the same spot.

So, I think that the relativized version of this is relativized to a being who has perfected his way of being relative to other beings.

James Faulconer

Stop and read that quote a few times and make sure you can see what Jim is saying. Do you believe there is such a thing as perfected relativity?

taking positions so dogmatic as to stifle the honest and thoughtful inquiries

Henry Eyring

Science and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the ability of ‘honest and thoughtful inquiry’ to break through entrenched dogmas that define a community’s beliefs. However, both can succumb to respect for historical decisions to the point that ideas become dogmatic in that no other thinkers are allowed to question the status quo. If we all held to the status quo, we would still be on a flat earth, ignoring that Christ ever came. Sincere questioning and answering are needed to pull us out of our dogmatic beliefs.

We struggle to differentiate dogmatic arguments from reasoned arguments. In our struggle, we can succumb to fidelity tests in place of sustained reasoning. Every cult or ‘cult’ure has to face this struggle almost daily. Whether we depend on one person or a community to establish ’truth’, we face the overwhelming challenge to filter out the wheat from the dogma. Dogma thrives when we silo our reasoning into isolated echo chambers.

A dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.

The Old Testament is full of family-based small networks as examples of both the good and the bad that can come from depending on one person as the conveyor of truth. If we are not careful, we will look to the Bible’s experiences to justify letting one man tell us what the truth is at the expense of all other truth sources. If we examine the life of Christ, we will see in his example, a leader that taught using history, scripture, and logic to convey truth. He is also careful not to enforce his right at the expense of other’s agency. I appreciate the picture that I see in the gospels. How can we discern between those that speak the truth without succumbing to those that demand dogmatic devotion?¹

We have coined the phrase ‘social networks’ as primarily a set of apps and websites connected to the internet. Our national and religious leaders use this phrase to imply how we talk to people through our phones. There was even a movie given that title to represent the rise of Facebook. However, social networks have been vital in humankind’s existence since the fall of Adam and Eve. As humans, we build truth beliefs based on the social connections that surround us¹. God and Satan both know that social networks are how we find and learn the truth and use it to their advantage. I connect the latest in social network science with examples from our scriptural history and current environment to see that we build truth and lies on the same foundation.

There are a few of us that would believe outlandish lies. People have differing beliefs on Big Foot’s reality, whether we landed on the moon, or if COVID-19 is a health pandemic. What makes the belief of those concepts different from believing in God the Father? The fascinating relationship between all of these beliefs is humanity’s inability to comprehend rare occurrences. What we often refer to as possible outcomes instead of probable outcomes is hard to imagine.

Our western society has been diverging quickly on the understanding of knowledge. Some feel that it is our personal liberty to know what we want to know and that our individual freedom allows us to ignore experts that have spent a lifetime building up knowledge in a domain. Others argue that all deference must be given to experts and that we are not justified in criticizing experts as our understanding is too limited.

In 1993 then Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles shared a moving General Conference address titled Constancy amid Change. As I have discussed my ideas about Truth’s ability to progress from D&C 93:30 (post 1, post 2), I think some of my friends hear that nothing is constant. President Nelson’s talk helps me clarify a few points on Truth’s progression. In his 1993 address, he shares a conversation with Ruth and John, where they asked, ’What can we trust?

Nephi’s Story: In 1 Nephi 4:10, Nephi starts his truth reasoning about what he should do with Laban after finding him passed out drunk as he planned to obtain the brass plates that he was commanded to retrieve. And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man.

True and Living (D&C 1:30) In Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 the Lord says through Joseph Smith And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

Two posts ago, I talked about truth progressing where I put forth the idea that truth changes in time. I want to take a little more time on this topic and make sure it is clear truth exists and that it is not relative. However, it is relational with us in time, and we must all work together to progress into greater truth. When I hear President Nelson say that “We’re witnesses to a process of restoration” 1, I think I hear progress into greater truth.

Under a timeless model of God, many LDS quote Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 as a statement of truth never changing as it is ‘knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.’ There are 24 conference references to this verse alone. Many of the references to this verse emphasize truths as never-ending facts that are timeless1. Below are two examples from general conference that highlight how verse 24 is referenced.

The semi-annual general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is happening this weekend. The time when all LDS can justify staring at a big screen for 8-10 hours from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon. My ears perked up when President Dallin H. Oaks shared a talk on what our life will be like after death. Early in his message he quoted Brent L. Topp, I believe a BYU religion professors article on this subject had it right when he wrote, ‘When we ask ourselves, what we know about the spirit world, from the standard works.

Having responded to a few people that have posted on my blog, I got up the nerve to comment on another Latter-day Saint’s blog. Dennis Horne is the author of that blog, and he has even published a book on LDS doctrine. I think I was direct and clear without condemnation. Dennis was also relatively cordial to me, but not to Terryl Givens. It looks like Dennis and Terryl represent a significant fissure that exists in the LDS faithful.

In June 1883 The Chautauquan magazine asked, “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings, would there be any sound?” 1 This is one of those philosophical questions that can create a lively conversation if asked among the correct group. Today, I have a similar question, “If nobody understands the truth, is it still a truth?” I know that I may have already made half of the eight people that read this blog stop reading because they don’t want to have this lively conversation.

Having previously finished a book on timelessness (see my previous post) and a book about perceiving truth through metaphor and physicality (see my ‘Oh say, What is truth?’ post), I have been pondering the words that are used by God in scripture. In Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 the Lord says, ‘And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;’ which is often quoted with Jacob 4:13.

James E. Faust shared a devotional at BYU in 1993 titled, The Voice of the Spirit. Mormon messages used this talk to create the following message. Elder Faust shares an impactful quote about light (or truth) being part of our very essence. Signaling that truth is much more than facts. You will not be able to travel through life on borrowed light. The light of life must be part of your very being.

According to John Sanders, the concept of truth has multiple meanings. There are three main theories of truth in Western thought. The correspondence theory: This theory holds that truth is that which corresponds to a state of affairs or fact of reality. The coherence theory: a statement is true if it fits (coheres) with a set of other statements accepted as true. The pragmatic theory: an idea is true if it is fruitful and workable in relation to our experience.

The Chosen TV series is framing many attributes of God in such a fantastic way. I especially enjoy Season 1 Episode 6 for how it depicts Christ’s interactions with those around him. The scene starts with Jesus sharing the parable of the importuning widow found in Luke 18 then it builds to the moment where two different characters make a petition of Jesus. The contrast of these three examples of petitioning God provides excellent insight into how we should petition Him.

Abraham J. Heschel is worth our reading time. He was a good friend of Martin Luther King, lost his family in the Holocaust, and taught for 27 years at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in Manhattan. I believe he is the one that coined the phrase most moved mover in describing God. His daughter explained that he and Martin Luther King used the phrase.1 I am reading Between God and Man which is a compilation of his writings.

What might it mean for a church to look at itself and discover that it has moved beyond Christ? I don’t think it is much different than a child of God looking at themselves and notice that they have strayed beyond Christ. In one of the more exciting dilemmas of Christianity, God invites us to move forward in a very tumultuous sea. We can’t just drop anchor and stay in the same spot.

We want leaders to be infallible or completely fallible. It is hard for us to realize the giant grey zone for every leader on the planet - prophets included. That grey zone is called agency or free will in a world full of others that wield the same power. The life of Mark Hoffman, Gordon B. Hinckley, and our prophetic narrative all seem to make people think that this story of the Murder among the Mormons is a faith crusher.

When did Christ atone for me? Indeed, it happened in Calvary. It must be his death on the cross that set us free. But didn’t he bleed from every pore On a hill where he suffered in agony? Surely, it happened in that dark time before. Can both be included in his atoning reach? Each moment seems part of his love for me. Yes, his sacrifice was more than one momentary breach.

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. … And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost Acts 2

If you look, the blessing of wind is scattered throughout the scriptures. However, wind is also used to identify cursings and the influence of Satan. I see the wind as a fascinating metaphor used by God to represent covenants.

I suppose that the wind was the source of cooling, movement, power, and destruction most often experienced by the ancients. They didn’t have jet engines, air conditioning, guns, or bombs that responded to their commands. They depended on and succumbed to the wind and gave it metaphorical powers.

In D&C 82:8-10 we learn that God wants to bind himself to His Zion people. He is kind enough to provide insight on how we can ‘act before him’ to become as He is. Maybe it is just my thinking when I hear this verse read; However, I often hear this verse imply a type of inverse slave/master relationship between God and us. In the second half of verse 10, I understood that God would throw us to the lions if we didn’t do what he said.

So, I think that the relativized version of this is relativized to a being who has perfected his way of being relative to other beings.

James Faulconer

Stop and read that quote a few times and make sure you can see what Jim is saying. Do you believe there is such a thing as perfected relativity?

Dr. James E. Faulconer, a philosopher, theologian, and research fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, was on the Maxwell Institute podcast to discuss his latest book - Thinking Otherwise: Theological Explorations of Joseph Smith’s Revelations. James Faulconer’s discussion covered many topics that we discuss on MostMovedMover. I enjoyed every minute and found joy in aligning his views with a few of our posts. The list below highlights the relationship between snippets of his quotes with posts from MostMovedMover.

taking positions so dogmatic as to stifle the honest and thoughtful inquiries

Henry Eyring

Science and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the ability of ‘honest and thoughtful inquiry’ to break through entrenched dogmas that define a community’s beliefs. However, both can succumb to respect for historical decisions to the point that ideas become dogmatic in that no other thinkers are allowed to question the status quo. If we all held to the status quo, we would still be on a flat earth, ignoring that Christ ever came. Sincere questioning and answering are needed to pull us out of our dogmatic beliefs.

In the October 1992 General Conference, then Elder Russel M. Nelson shared a message titled, Where is wisdom? that touched on pandemics and social liberties. His 1992 message with his #GiveThanks YouTube message helps us understand President Nelson’s views on pandemics, civil liberties, masks, and Wisdom.

In our conversations of Adam and Eve, we often see the first sin as the partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. However, if we believe in a fortunate fall, then partaking of the fruit was the progression that God desired, not something in opposition to Him. Also, it seems that they could not sin while in the Garden (see 2 Nephi 2:23; Moses 5:11) which implies that anything that happened before and up to the partaking of the fruit could not be a sin.

This week my second father died of cancer and has allowed me to think about what it means to create one’s life in the image of God. He lived his life as if yesterday were done and that today could be done in such a way to bring joy to his and other’s future. He was the type of person that shined so bright that you couldn’t be in his presence without going through his personality.

Alma 13:7-9 includes multiple statements about God’s existence concerning beginnings and ends. The verses include references to his foreknowledge and Priesthood’s reality. In my previous post, I discussed Kathleen Flakes response to understanding no beginnings and no ends. This post looks at all of the verses with this reference and LDS commentary around this phrase.

In 2017 Kathleen Flake gave the Annual Neal A. Maxwell Lecture. The entire presentation is engaging and worth your time. I expect to share a few snippets from her presentation in future posts about Joseph Smith and Priesthood insights. This post focuses on a short answer she gave at the end of the discussion about timelessness. I want to imagine what she says is unimaginable. One eternal round means timelessness? The short clip below shows a gentleman asking a question about ‘one eternal round’ and how Kathleen would deal with beginnings and ends.

Each year the Seminary and Institute teachers of the Church Education System for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hosts a night with a general authority. I remember attending these when I was trying to get hired as a seminary teacher. BYU-I faculty are invited to participate in a remote stream of these firesides. My wife and I attended with a few friends that also teach at BYU-I at the beginning of the year.

Does God live in Greek time? (Experiencing time as growth). Relational theology focuses on man’s relationship with God. However, in pondering a relationship with God, time is the first concept that throws Christians into a mental tailspin. We can pull out of this death spiral. However, to untangle God and time, we have to understand Eastern and Western (Greek) views of time. I am of the firm opinion that Western perceptions of time do not constrain God.

N.T. Wright is the C.S. Lewis of our day, according to Robert Millet and with that comparison, he has such clout that religious scholars respect his word and Time magazine publishes his articles. Last December, he wrote a short essay titled, ‘The New Testament Doesn’t Say What Most People Think It Does About Heaven’. He calls out Plato, of whom Aristotle was a student, for creating the conventional Christian view of humanity dying and leaving this world to go up to heaven.

Let me start this post with a big caveat. Metaphors are useful for conveying ideas about specific points of reality and inadequate for conveying the entire complexity of our lived experience. The chess metaphor falls short in explaining the plan of salvation that God has for His kingdom. Still, it can be an excellent metaphor for understanding the relationship between God’s wisdom, power, knowledge and our agency. I want to frame parts of the chess game before we read the following quotes.

Introduction During the early ’90s (I think), my church ran some commercials under the catchphrase, ‘Family, it’s about time.’ One of them is below. I always thought the ads had a great play on the wording. The phrase could imply that it is about time that we focus on the family or that you can’t be family without investing time. It is from those commercials that I build the premise and title of this post.

In our Come Follow Me New Testament Reading for the last week of October, there is a section on Philemon 1:17-21. In these verses, Paul offers to cover Onesimus’ debts that might be owed to Philemon. In one section of this Come Follow Me topic, there are a series of questions that are asked to prod a conversation. You can see the questions in the screenshot below. I was visiting relatives while on a work trip, and one of their children was guiding the conversation.

Having responded to a few people that have posted on my blog, I got up the nerve to comment on another Latter-day Saint’s blog. Dennis Horne is the author of that blog, and he has even published a book on LDS doctrine. I think I was direct and clear without condemnation. Dennis was also relatively cordial to me, but not to Terryl Givens. It looks like Dennis and Terryl represent a significant fissure that exists in the LDS faithful.

James E. Faust shared a devotional at BYU in 1993 titled, The Voice of the Spirit. Mormon messages used this talk to create the following message. Elder Faust shares an impactful quote about light (or truth) being part of our very essence. Signaling that truth is much more than facts. You will not be able to travel through life on borrowed light. The light of life must be part of your very being.

According to John Sanders, the concept of truth has multiple meanings. There are three main theories of truth in Western thought. The correspondence theory: This theory holds that truth is that which corresponds to a state of affairs or fact of reality. The coherence theory: a statement is true if it fits (coheres) with a set of other statements accepted as true. The pragmatic theory: an idea is true if it is fruitful and workable in relation to our experience.

Our challenge: As we listen to oft-quoted phrases, many people take them as facts without finding a source. Once we find a source and validate the quote, then we get the chance to discern the signal from the noise. We could start to recognize the signal with the following questions; What does the quote mean in context? What words in the quote are taken as givens or facts that may not be as clear cut?

His and our attribute At times we discuss attributes that we must have to progress in the kingdom of God, but we limit the conversation to us and forget that God also holds the fullness of those attributes. I will review scripture and latter-day prophet’s words on meekness to see if we can understand God’s meekness. In a later post, we will examine what the perfected attribute of meekness implies about our relationship with him.

Previously, I referenced Alma 40:8 when I asked Does God live within time? In this post, we will keep our focus on Alma 40:8. It reads; Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men. This verse can get quoted out of context.

Introduction In John 8:31-32 Jesus makes a bold statement about how we can be free. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. To which the group of believers responded, ‘How sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?`. Jesus then states a central point of John 8 & 9 in verse 34.

The testimony of Christ comes from more than historical facts. It comes from more than the biblical witness. It is more significant than knowledge from the living prophets. It reaches farther than the witness in Latter-Day scripture. These witnesses with the testimonies of our forefathers establish a footing that stabilizes our view into His heavens. They provide stability for patient ponderings within our soul. The testimony of Christ lives through the grace of His covenants

Background: My nephew shared this amazing podcast from the Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University of a conversation between Terryl Givens and Steven Peck. You can watch the video of the podcast below or read the full transcript. I have included a few impactful parts of their conversation that relate to our discussion here at mostmovedmover.com. As I was sharing ideas from this podcast with my daughter, she shared D&C 133:17 and D&C 65:1 where the Lord asks us to ‘make his paths straight.

Background: My last post about the omniscience of God motivated me to look at the LDS topical guide under God, foreknowledge of. I quickly realized that foreknowledge is a very complicated concept in protestant Christianity and in LDS teachings. Before we tackle the references under God, foreknowledge of, Election, Foreordination, and Predestination we need to work through what each word means, how they relate, and how they are different. One of the issues with each word is that their definitions are nuanced by the various beliefs of each Christian theology.

Background I have had a few discussions recently where I have been surprised by the answers given concerning God and how he relates to time. Once again, I think many of us are unwittingly letting Aristotle’s unmoved mover philosophy drive our beliefs in God. The scriptures are full of clear statements about God and his relation to time. The Old and New Testaments have a few verses that provide value to this discussion.

Background In “Does God have a Future?” John Sanders explains the open theist view of omniscience and foreknowledge. Here are a few key quotes; I prefer to think of “perfect” in dynamic terms: relational perfection. God is always in perfect relationship with us, and as the relationship changes so God changes. -Pg. 90 First, let me say that Jesus did not experience “powerlessness.” Rather, he exercised the power of love and chose not to use other types of power available to him.

In Elder Holland’s book titled, Christ and the New Covenant, I first encountered the fascinating idea that God could change his behavior based on our prayers and faith. This paragraph stretched my mind. A final explanation-and in terms of the brother of Jared’s faith the most persuasive one-is that Christ was saying to the brother of Jared, “Never have I showed myself unto man in this manner, without my volition, driven solely by the faith of the beholder.

The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are in the New Testament (NT) this year.1 The last time we were deep in the NT, we were naive to leadership in times of national and world stress. We had experienced so many years of bliss that we forgot what being a leader meant. COVID-19 struck just after we finished our last study of the NT. As we have explore the NT, I hope we pay special heed to the leadership exemplified by John, Jesus, Peter, and Paul.

One of the features of Latter-day Saint thought is the deep and committed response to God’s children having agency or free will. We see this as the founding thought of the cosmos, one that existed as long as God (D&C 93:29-31, 2 Nephi 2:11). In fact, it is ’the agency of man’ to receive and reciprocate the light or love that was ‘plainly manifest unto’ each of us from the ‘beginning’ (D&C 93:31) that aligns quite well with Jesus’ two great commandments in response the question of the greatest commandment in the law (Matthew 22:37-40).

The thesis that God is beyond time has sometimes been introduced to account for God’s omniscience or foreknowledge. For Latter-day Saints, as for the Bible, God’s omniscience is “in time.” God anticipates the future. It is “present” before him, but it is still future. When the future occurs, it will occur for the first time to him as to his creatures. The traditional concept of “out-of-time” omniscience does not derive either from the Old or the New Testament but is borrowed from Greek philosophy. -Brigham Young University’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism-

So, I think that the relativized version of this is relativized to a being who has perfected his way of being relative to other beings.

James Faulconer

Stop and read that quote a few times and make sure you can see what Jim is saying. Do you believe there is such a thing as perfected relativity?

Dr. James E. Faulconer, a philosopher, theologian, and research fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, was on the Maxwell Institute podcast to discuss his latest book - Thinking Otherwise: Theological Explorations of Joseph Smith’s Revelations. James Faulconer’s discussion covered many topics that we discuss on MostMovedMover. I enjoyed every minute and found joy in aligning his views with a few of our posts. The list below highlights the relationship between snippets of his quotes with posts from MostMovedMover.

One horn of this dilemma is the argument that if an action was caused or necessitated, then it could not have been done freely and hence the agent is not responsible for it. The other horn is the argument that if the action was not caused, then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot be attributed to the agent and hence, again, the agent cannot be responsible for it. -Paul Russell: Freedom and Moral Sentiment, p. 14-

Paul Russel discusses the ‘Horns of the dilemma’ found when we get at the root of determinism and chance. Either way, the extreme of both views means that free agents do not control their choices. They are simply science experiments moved by the experimenter. The religionists hold to God as the great mover in the deterministic model, and the scientists welcome the randomness of nature and laws of physics as the great mover. I believe that both worship a golden calf. William James’ provides a third horn that can resolve the conflict in his 1884 ’The Dilemma of Determinism’.

Chad Ford introduced me to the term ‘Dangerous Love’ that pushed me to see the love he describes as the love of God. Chad helps us see love as a willingness to be right in the relationship over being right in the facts. We can view love as a willingness to bring as many parties into the solution or plan as possible. Does the love that Chad describes help us understand God’s love?

A Greek woman had an ailing daughter who arrived at Jesus’ feet to beg for His miracles in her family. Jesus responded, ‘Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.’ His response seems to say that His mission did not involve her or her people. He had a plan, and it did not involve miracles for her as a Greek woman. She then responds in humility, ‘Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.’ This response gives Jesus insight into His mission and His interaction with her. He responds, ‘For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.’ Did the Greek woman change Jesus’ mind?

Time and the cardinal attribute of enduring (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) In the April 1990 General Conference, Elder Neal A. Maxwell shared a touching message titled, ‘Endure it Well’. He has some great discussion about the benefits of time that is worth reviewing on MostMovedMover. This post should be read along with my two other posts about Elder Maxwell’s views on time (7/19 post and 3/20 post). As we work through his quotes, I highlight a couple of questions about progression, endurance, time, and mortality.

In 2017 Kathleen Flake gave the Annual Neal A. Maxwell Lecture. The entire presentation is engaging and worth your time. I expect to share a few snippets from her presentation in future posts about Joseph Smith and Priesthood insights. This post focuses on a short answer she gave at the end of the discussion about timelessness. I want to imagine what she says is unimaginable. One eternal round means timelessness? The short clip below shows a gentleman asking a question about ‘one eternal round’ and how Kathleen would deal with beginnings and ends.

Omniscience is not used in the Bible or Latter-day scripture. This leaves humanity guessing as to whether God agrees with the word He has never used in His revelations. All Christian religions have taken the concept into their vocabulary; However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done little to dogmatize the definition of omniscience. Let’s look at the history of omniscience and how various Christian denominations define it.

I previously asked, What did Elder Neal A. Maxwell think about time and God? and proposed that he may have tempered his views on fixed future omniscience based on conversations with Blake Ostler. However, I have since found a few more quotes from Neal A. Maxwell after 1984 that are still fairly forceful and I want to add to the record on mostmovedmover.com about his views in this additional post. I hope to be respectful to his words while discussing how they relate to an openness view of God’s future.

In Romans 3:3, we encounter a bold statement from Paul about God. He says, ‘For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?’ Paul’s question forces all readers of the bible to ask, ‘What is the faith of God?’ A quick search on the internet will leave a searcher wanting concerning any explanation about the ‘faith of God’ because any description of the attributes of God leaves out faith.

I have been listening to conference addresses by Apostles and Prophets starting with the April 1971 conference, which is provided on the church’s website or on the Gospel Library app. I have made it to October 19801, and I found Bruce R. McConkie’s, ‘The Lord God of the Restoration message. This general conference message came a few months after the famous, or maybe infamous, The Seven Deadly Heresies talk at BYU in June.

In June 1883 The Chautauquan magazine asked, “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings, would there be any sound?” 1 This is one of those philosophical questions that can create a lively conversation if asked among the correct group. Today, I have a similar question, “If nobody understands the truth, is it still a truth?” I know that I may have already made half of the eight people that read this blog stop reading because they don’t want to have this lively conversation.

Background I first encountered Terryl Givens name while watching ‘The Mormons’ in 2007. He was included as an expert on Latter-day Saint beliefs. He had been publishing in the LDS space since 1997. Around 2014 I listened to him, and Richard Bushman at a Mormon Studies conference at The University of Virginia while visiting my nephew. Wrestling the Angel I just finished Wrestling the Angel and found the book to be thorough in its discussion of the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:7 we read; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. This verse is often quoted as a statement of God’s timelessness by Latter-Day Saints1. However, few remember the question and answer in verses 4 & 5 of this same section.

Background: My nephew shared this amazing podcast from the Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University of a conversation between Terryl Givens and Steven Peck. You can watch the video of the podcast below or read the full transcript. I have included a few impactful parts of their conversation that relate to our discussion here at mostmovedmover.com. As I was sharing ideas from this podcast with my daughter, she shared D&C 133:17 and D&C 65:1 where the Lord asks us to ‘make his paths straight.

Background: In October 2017 Elder Ronald A. Rasband shared a message titled, “By Divine Design”. This talk caused a little bit of a stir in my ward. I think the teachers that got a chance to teach this talk in a lesson at church may have over-interpreted his talk and created a false idea that Elder Rasband was not promoting. I heard about two different teachers getting a little exasperated at how the talk seemed to imply that God controlled every moment in our lives and neither of them could work out how that could be true.

In Elder Holland’s book titled, Christ and the New Covenant, I first encountered the fascinating idea that God could change his behavior based on our prayers and faith. This paragraph stretched my mind. A final explanation-and in terms of the brother of Jared’s faith the most persuasive one-is that Christ was saying to the brother of Jared, “Never have I showed myself unto man in this manner, without my volition, driven solely by the faith of the beholder.

I have found two enlightening thinkers in LDS theology. From what I have read and the places that they publish, their work is well respected among LDS religious scholars. They are also recognized in the broader community of theological scholars. David L. Paulsen has been on my radar for years. I have enjoyed all his material on philosophy and theology. Additionally, I have read a couple of articles by Blake T.

The following is the full excerpt from the chapter on the brother of Jared in Christ and the New Covenant. I have added the various emphases. Before examining the doctrinal truths taught in this divine encounter, it will be useful to note two seemingly problematic issues here, issues that seem to have reasonable and acceptable resolutions. The first consideration rises from two questions the Lord asked the brother of Jared: “Why hast thou fallen?

President Wilford Woodruff shared this story in his journal. He was the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On the 23rd of November my wife, Phoebe, was attacked with a severe headache, which terminated in brain fever. She grew more and more distressed daily as we continued our journey. It was a terrible ordeal for a woman to travel in a wagon over rough roads, afflicted as she was.

What would you do if I dropped all the parts to a contraption made in the early 1800s called a ‘spinning mule’ and asked you to restore it? What if there were no remaining pictures? What if nobody existed that had ever seen one? What if all you knew was that you could use it to cloth people of the early 1800s? How would you know that you had restored it?

In the October 1992 General Conference, then Elder Russel M. Nelson shared a message titled, Where is wisdom? that touched on pandemics and social liberties. His 1992 message with his #GiveThanks YouTube message helps us understand President Nelson’s views on pandemics, civil liberties, masks, and Wisdom.

This post focuses on President Eyring’s talk titled, ‘He Goes before Us. However, the broader conversation is around how western culture has mixed up wisdom and knowledge to the point that we rarely differentiate the two words. As seen from the image above for this post, our writing guides even recommend them as synonyms. I want to take a journey through a few ideas before I tackle President Eyring’s quotes from his message about knowledge and time.

Does God have wisdom? We discuss many other attributes of God which have a direct similarity in man but are more excellent with God. For example, Mortals understand limited ways to love but understand that God is better at love. Some humans can maintain massive amounts of information in their brains, but God can store an infinite amount. Humans have built technology that allows us to be in many places at once, but God can extend His reach to all locations.

Latter-day scripture has a curious phrase about wisdom that pops up quite often. It is the use of the words, ‘for a wise purpose’ about God working with a prophet on a current decision that affects the future. In 1 Nephi 9:5, Nephi is the first to introduce us to the phrase when he says, ’the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

Let me start this post with a big caveat. Metaphors are useful for conveying ideas about specific points of reality and inadequate for conveying the entire complexity of our lived experience. The chess metaphor falls short in explaining the plan of salvation that God has for His kingdom. Still, it can be an excellent metaphor for understanding the relationship between God’s wisdom, power, knowledge and our agency. I want to frame parts of the chess game before we read the following quotes.

In 1 Corinthians 1:19-27 Paul tells us that foolish and wise are the same things, just different positions on the scale of wisdom. We would put wisdom as the great attribute at the top of the range and foolishness as the worst form of wisdom at the bottom of the scale. In verse 25 Paul states this fact clearly; Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; In my ‘What is wisdom?

What is wisdom? The prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon provides one of the most succinct injunctions in scripture when he says, ‘O be wise; what can I say more?’ (Jacob 6:12). To Jacob’s question after the injunction, I would ask many of the following questions, Can you describe wisdom? Is wisdom that much different than knowledge? Does wisdom require an existence with randomness or uncertainty? Can one exemplify wisdom in a world without unknowns?

John 5 provides a narrative of a conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership on Sabbath day activities. It is interesting that Jesus does not attempt to quote scripture to justify his behavior. Neither, does he build a strong logical argument using jointly believed assumptions. In verse 19, he simply states, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.