Navidad

Happy Easter to all. This is a day I am reminded of the wideness in God's mercy. That means a lot to me and provides me with hope for my own eternal destiny. Related to this thread, I resist being compartmentalized into how I am allowed to respond. For example, I reject both options to respond that Joseph Smith was a fraud or that he was a great prophet. He was the founder of a church. He was one in a long line of founders of churches. It is natural that a member of a church that he founded holds some kind of a hagiographic perspective on his life and work. I don't begrudge them that. I simply am not there. I believe that Joseph Smith most likely wrote the Book of Mormon with help from his friends. I believe he had some visions. I have no idea whether they were from God or not. I reject aspects of some of their beliefs as they developed over time. I reject that Christ told Joseph that all the creeds were abomination to Him. That (for me) was Christological projection. For me, that type of verbiage is inconsistent with the nature of Christ. I place Joseph in the same place I would put many reformers, founders of movements, and heroes of differing faith groups. I put him in the same place I put myself—deeply flawed and in need of Christ. As you all know, I don't believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only anything. Ditto for every other denomination, group, or gathering. So, when it comes to the LDS Church, I bear it no ill will. I regret those exclusivistic doctrines that developed over time because of the lived experiences of its leaders, those responsible for their doctrines and their evolution over time. I believe that has also happened in most other Christian groups, hence the diversity of beliefs within the Christian community. My LDS friends have often told me the others must be wrong because God is not a God of confusion. Ok, but we humans are experts at it. We are also experts at binarisms, throwing stones, ranking, generalizing, normalizing, and dehumanizing those who aren't us. I confess to some feelings somewhere between anger and sadness at the times my wife came home from the ward in tears. Therefore we no longer go. At the same time, I deeply value and appreciate the human kindness shown us by many of our LDS friends. Therefore I am in a conundrum, a conflict, and confused about how to relate to my LDS friends. However, I know I will not cast them out of Christianity because of my confusion. I will not relegate them or their founder to something less than the fullness of the Christian life (even though they have done that to my wife and me . . . Sorry, I just couldn't resist that). I love writing. I have written thousands of pages. Therefore I have no problem with Joseph Smith doing that. The early LDS leaders produced many volumes with many pages of material. Many were quite prolific. I have never tried to figure out an alternative source of the Book of Mormon, because I simply assume that Joseph wrote it with the help of his friends. I have some struggle with the Whitmers, solely and only because they were kind of, sort of religious coddiwomplers, wandering here and there, always thinking of a new way to express their desire for faith. I will continue to defend my LDS friends to the non-LDS Christian Fundamentalists I come across in my work. I will continue to claim a special LDS friend as one of the Godliest men I have ever known. I will continue to believe that D&C 1:30 was written, as it says to the Church collectively and not to the Church individually. I still might agree to write the first academic history of the LeBarons. I have friends in that community who I equate with those in the LDS Church, and every other church wherein I have friends. It is only fair that the LeBarons not be left with only sensationalist writings about their fascinating history. Beliefs are stubborn things, especially when held with certitude and exclusivity. I am with Peter Enns in declaring certainty a sin. Best wishes and Happy Easter again, to all.

I am 77 years old and shar p assss a tick!

I guess the same point as the men on the road to Emmaus. Do not the plates tell the story of the Savior? Cannot Christ use any means to draw people unto Himself? Could he not use Narnia, if He so desired? Maybe He did. Perhaps Lewis was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his wonderful storytelling about redemption. How about the Screwtape Letters? Any literality (is that word) in them. I think not. They were foundational in my early spiritual understandings. For me, The Book of Mormon, stripped of its historical context, is a much more uplifting and enlightening tool than Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price. Of course that is just me.

Can I offer you a fourth?? Well, ok . . . I will anyway. Here goes: 4. The historicity of the plates doesn't matter. It is the shed blood of Christ on our behalf that matters. I have a strong belief that when I get to Judgment Day, He is not going to ask me what I believed about the plates, or Jonah's big fish, or the Garden of Eden.

Hi Smac: I don't see the debate about the historicity of the Book of Mormon as being very different (if different at all) from the debate about the historicity of the Bible. No one's salvation, eternal life, or the outcome of their judgment day encounter with Christ will depend on their position on the historicity of either book. A fine Evangelical scholar came out with a book in 2009 entitled "The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate." It rocked the boat on the literal interpretation of the historicity of the creation story in Genesis 1. It profoundly rocked the Evangelical boat, but everyone survived what in Spanish we call "Zozobra" - the anxiety over an impending sinking of the ship. There are probably more people in the world hoping to destroy the credibility, consistency, conformity (choose another c word) of the Bible than those interested in doing the same to the Book of Mormon. If one day they succeed, it won't hurt my faith at all, because my faith is in Christ, not in whether Jonah was swallowed by a literal fish. I have several LDS historian friends who are not fans of the historicity of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. They still go to Sacrament Service, have callings, and hold their own personal beliefs. My guess is that the Mormon faith will survive as a branch of Christianity if The Book of Mormon were reduced to being a book of spiritual truth focused on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Isn't that what it is all about? I sincerely doubt you will ever find proof in Olmec ruins of the Nephites or Lamanites as portrayed in the Book of Mormon. Yet, people will continue to convert (non-believers), and non-LDS Christians will continue to migrate to the LDS Church. And vice-versa. I wish both my LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian friends would simply be content to know they have a book that points people to the Savior. I have consciously chosen not to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My decision has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon or the Moroni Test. I simply could not join a church that has as a core belief that it is the only and that all the rest are others, less than pleasing to the Savior. It is that exclusivity, which to my reading is not even found in the Book of Mormon, that keeps me from joining. It has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon's historicity. I can however, understand the importance of that historicity to many of you, as the same is true for many non-LDS Christians. I acknowledge a great outpouring of kindness to me and my wife when she went through her open-heart surgery and when we lost our son during her recovery. The burden was overwhelming, as was our LDS friend's kindness. Yet, through all of that, it was clear we were still outsiders, outside of the church, outside of grace, outside of real fellowship, and outside of the permanence of the Holy Spirit. Take care.

It is good to be back on this forum. This is quite a thread . . . . so many topics in one thread. I will limit myself (aren't you glad?) just to respond to a couple: 1. I am not a critic of the Church. I am certain that as great a percentage of members of the LDS church are Christian as there are in any mainstream Christian group. I defend my LDS Christian friends to those few non-LDS Christian friends who would deny Christendom to my LDS friends, The vast majority of whom are Fundamentalists and not Evangelicals. To have my LDS friends insist that Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are simply two points on the same continuum is like me insisting that my LDS and LeBaron friends are simply two points on the same continuum. I don't think most of you would go for that. 2. As most of you know, I live in Mexico, among the Mormon colonies, so I am genuinely interested in LDS Mesoamerican history. Even if I were inclined, which I am not, to try to disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon as far as connections to Mexico, I would suggest that the responsibility is on the LDS to prove their claims. It is not on me to disprove them. Most of the focus on this thread is on the opposite; the naysayers can't disprove the book's historicity, therefore it stands redeemed. I would propose that it would be as equally as great a challenge for a non-LDS Christian to disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon to a faithful and conservative member as it would be for a faithful conservative member of the Church to prove the book's historicity to the non-member. Especially to the non-member critic. Either side in that debate will land on the side of their faith-beliefs. Strong faith in either is virtually indestructible by facts. So virtually no one wins. Both lose. I have a wise South African friend who once said, “A good friend is one who shows his friend another view of the world, without making his friend's view wrong.” That is a paraphrase. It is a worthy aspiration, one I cherish. 3. My focus in the above quote is on the last four lines. I thought it misrepresented much of non-LDS Christianity, including those who reject the Church's truth claims, until I finished the last few words at the end of the last sentence. It may very well be a “very pervasive attitude and paradigm adopted by (usually) the most vocal critics of the Church who engage on online platforms.” With that caveat, we cut down the percentage of non-LDS Evangelicals who are that kind of a critic to the fringe. If we are talking about non-LDS Fundamentalists, we are talking about the fringe as well, albeit a greater percentage of the group. I have often taught that we Mennonites and Mormons are alike in having adopted a doctrine of undeserved persecution as part of our faith group's identity. The other day I was speaking to a group of LDS church members. One commented about how the Mexican revolutionaries had turned against the Saints in 1912 during the Mexican Revolution. I suggested to him that they did, but it wasn't because they were Saints. It was because they were perceived as rich, manipulating resources, non-Mexicans, and living in isolated colonies. I assured him the average revolutionary probably knew very little about the details of his Catholic faith, let alone that of the Saints. He was quite put out with me. You see, most of the Church's sacred history about the Saints in Mexico presents that theme of innocent persecution. It is endemic to LDS history and has impacted its doctrines over the years. If you have ever heard of the Monroys here in Mexico, you have probably heard they were hanged for being saints—martyrs for the faith. They were indeed hanged, but the act was committed by carrancista soldiers who thought them to be zapatistas in recently conquered zapatista territory. We Mennonites greatly value a thousand page book about all our martyrs during the Reformation. We have that in common. Best wishes to all.

Well, I am, in truth (my truth), not a fan of missionary work to other Christians by any Christian group. It seems from the direction of posts in this forum of late that there is indeed some concentration on exmos, as some call them. I would rather have exmos return to their own church than migrate over to mine. If indeed they are angry, then they need to heal, not to bring their anger somewhere else. I am not certain that "harvesting" Christian souls into another Christian community is indeed pleasing to Christ. Migration between Christian groups is common and is fine with me as long as it is a joyous and voluntary thing due to changes in preferences, styles of worship, emphasis of teachings, or even new and exciting doctrines. I think most of my LDS friends see any movement out of the LDS church as a bad thing for whatever reason. There are many things about the Mennonite church that aren't for everyone. Ditto for just about every church group on earth, including the LDS. Perhaps you would take a try and explaining the second half of D&C 1:30 to me . . . The author makes a clear distinction between the collective church to which He is speaking and the individual church to which He is apparently not speaking. Isn't it a reasonable interpretation to see the collective church as the broad community of Christians with which Christ is well-pleased? I know that sets up a conflict with the First Vision and D&C 1:30, but it wouldn't be the first time religious teachings within the same tradition contradict themselves.

Yes, It is worse than some fiery Fundamentalist explanations! No part or portion of the Spirit of the Lord! Wow! Lots of evil in that description. Take care and very best wishes, Navidad

Good morning: Methinks neither parable has to do with Christians proselytizing or criticizing other Christians. A movement from being a non-LDS Christian to an LDS Christian is a migration within the same tribe, not a conversion. Ditto for the reverse. Ditto also for criticism either way. Of course I fully acknowledge this is my perspective and belief, and hence, my truth. I don't expect it to be yours. Have a good day, Navidad

Fascinating. . . Is it a fact that there are "many more ex-Mormons than there are active Mormons in the world"? If so, then it is about time that the Saints back off on we non-Mormons and focus on their internal losses and divisions! Oh, and I would say the same thing to non-LDS Christianity in relation to its own splits and losses. Any data on how many ex-Mormons exist?

I am sorry my friend, but I have always found chapter 41 of the Gospel Principles a cacophony of confusion, especially related to the spirit prison side of it. It is defined in different ways, inclusive of hell. It also quotes the Book of Mormon to describe Spirit prison (one of the two states of the spirit world) as the place of the wicked. “And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. “Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection” (Alma 40:12–14). It further states: "The spirits are classified according to the purity of their lives and their obedience to the will of the Lord while on earth. The righteous and the wicked are separated (see 1 Nephi 15:28–30), but the spirits may progress as they learn gospel principles and live in accordance with them." Again the division of the righteous and the wicked. This is not sound like a benevolent place for growth and learning. Ditto for chapter 46. I am looking for something more consistent and deeper that Gospel Principles. It seems to be both a declaration of beliefs (a kind of creed - yikes!) and a missionary device designed to appeal to investigators (friends). In trying to be both things, it ends up being neither. Just an observation of an informed inside-outsider! Thanks.

I am sorry, I just don't know. I don't know enough (hence I ask for books—in - in depth studies of the LDS eschatological doctrines). Likewise, I am not sure which judgment (if you believe in two) to which you are referring. It sounds like you believe at some point in the future some will cease to exist as spirits - I don't know if that is pre- or post-judgment or pre or post-which judgment. I don't understand what future resurrection is in LDS doctrine. So, if you want to start a thread that goes into all of this, I will certainly be a part. Thanks.

Your opening or original post is a bit too angrily screedish (notice the embedded word!) for me. It seems to me that your phrase I have quoted is pivotal. Many organizations and individuals, including groups with large missionary contingents, may be guilty of what you have stated in this insightful phrase. Having said all that, I have never watched Mormon Stories. So I can't opine at all on them. I can opine, however, on the art of directional persuasion as taught by many groups.

I would be happy for you to start another thread where I can respond as I normally might do. I will simply say now that I am sorry if I came across a few posts higher as confused or surprised that most of the LDS would hold that a vast majority of those in the spirit world who are approached by those who have evidence of proxy baptisms and confirmations, would agree to receive them. This is obviously even more true if, as my LDS friends seem to believe, the only Christian group represented in heaven is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I say "seem" because I don't know that I have ever been provided a consensus answer on that from the LDS perspective - whether there will be those with a Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Orthodox, or even perhaps Muslim or Buddhist identity in the spirit world, together with advocates for their positions. Perhaps Christ might enjoy that, even advocate for it. I don't know. The very day my son died, the senior LDS church leader came to our house with my wife. I wasn't even home yet from El Paso where he died. My wife says she asked the leader where he thought Chris was at that hour, some four hours after his death. My wife said the leader simply paused and then said, "In the spirit world." I might have said the same thing, perhaps using different terminology. I welcome you to a more in-depth conversation with all of us on the forum on the topic. I have no certainty on any of it. I don't want to have any certainty on any of it, because, as I have said before, I believe certainty closes the door to learning, and absolute certainty locks it. For me, uncertainty is a blessing. It reinforces my faith in a way that certainty cannot. Best, Navidad