Showing posts with label Mormonism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mormonism. Show all posts

Sunday, February 11, 2024

Voluntary Millennial Holiness

At some point in the past, a commenter on this blog pointed out the resemblance between MSLN and Mormonism with regard to soteriology and eschatology. Having read Gospel Principles, an introduction to Mormon doctrine put out by the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), I think that Mormonism does fit the two basic ideas of millennial holiness of 1) Everyone must become completely holy before going to heaven, and 2) there is a long but finite time in which to complete this process. (I am less sure, but suspect that at least to some extent this is also true of Catholic and Orthodox theology.)

In terms of the potential power of the motivational structure of MSL, I felt as I read that the Mormon perspective does not drive motivation as much as the New Wine System, or my concept of "millennial holiness" would. Millennial holiness, as I defined it before, exists, and we know about how strong it is in motivating people. Certainly the Mormon, and perhaps Catholic or Orthodox, churches are active and productive in their own ways, but they are what they are. Yet, I think that there is something else, which I think I remember from the New Wine System, and which I do see in my own "millennial holiness" doctrine, which is different than Mormonism and may not have ever been implemented in a major way, the way Mormonism has been.

I would say that I emphasize the freedom of the will to the extent that people's salvation is really up in the air. We really could decide not to trust God fully. We really could decide to harden ourselves against God, and shut down our ability to freely choose God. This would be an element of voluntariness to salvation. I can't be sure, from what I read, that Mormonism didn't support this at all "officially" or "on the books". But it was not emphasized in Gospel Principles and if I were writing the equivalent of Gospel Principles for my own beliefs, I would emphasize clearly that there is a risk of hardening, or of failing to fully repent, because this is an important thing to know, to avoid a seriously bad outcome.

So I would add "voluntary" to "millennial holiness", thus "voluntary millennial holiness". Those three words are a mouthful, but they do (I hope) now convey the essentially "New Wine" or "MSL" belief system that I think has such motivational power. I could shorten them to "VMH", which unfortunately adds to the "alphabet soup" of my writing. But at least if someone hears me say "VMH" and asks about it, I can say "it stands for 'voluntary millennial holiness'" and not have too much trouble explaining those three words. Whereas I would have a harder time doing that with "New Wine" or "MSL", and those two labels go beyond what "voluntary millennial holiness" is talking about.

Monday, July 18, 2022

MSLN and Mormonism?

A commenter on this blog pointed out similarities between the New Wine System and Mormonism. Looking at Wikipedia didn't disconfirm what they said.

I think I will regret saying too much before I do my own studying. But a few questions seem okay to ask now.

Does this mean that there is an existing religion (Mormonism) that has something like the MSLN motivational structure? It might be hard to isolate one idea's effect on a culture's motivation, since there might be a lot of other factors. But I would guess that it could give an idea what one New Wine religion looks like, if you could "control for confounders".

Mormonism may have a New Wine structure "on the books" (present in its teachings somewhere) but not emphasize it socially (not really preach it). Is Mormonism "evangelical" (about keeping people out of hell) or is it "civilizational" (about making a functioning society in this life), "people-pleasing" (about reassuring, strengthening, catering to its people and their felt needs), or something else other than "evangelical"? I would guess that it's a mix of all three, and the mix is regulated with preaching rather than teaching. At least that's how things seem (to me) to work in mainstream Christianity. If Mormonism downplays the risk of being lost, or fails to mention it, it would be different than MSLN, although it might still be a basically New Wine-reflecting thing.

Usually I have thought that the Bible gains credence from its compatibility with the New Wine System (and/or legitimism). If God is the God of MSLN, then if he produced a revelation, it would most likely be a New Wine- and legitimism-compatible teaching. Maybe this means that if we found such a teaching, we should try to do what it says, assuming that it certainly could be from God -- we being "searchers" for opportunities to please God, we would reach out toward possible ways to align ourselves with him. Plausibly, LDS scripture as a whole (Bible + books specific to LDS canon) is New Wine, and is compatible with legitimism. Does this mean that MSLN gives credence to the LDS canon? What would be the implications of that? (How does this "giving credence" thing work?)

Well, now I someday intend to read the LDS canon and some secondary materials. I can add that to my list of things to do.