Navidad

I am certainly with you there. Since I was a child, raised until about 14 years of age in a pretty literal Fundamentalism, I have wondered about the eternal destiny of folks who never have, don't , used to, but don't now name the name of Christ as the means for their eternal destiny. Probably most of them never even thought about an eternal destiny. I am working this afternoon on my book on truth. I just published and had the big conference last Saturday on a biography I finished on a revolutionary war general who had a big impact on the Saints here. With that behind me, I can now concentrate on other topics that mean more to me. Oh, and about the biography. I finished the last chapter, the one about his legacy with a photo that was given to me of him holding an LDS baby girl in his arms the day or so before he was killed. I doubt that the photo has ever been published. With your family connect to the colonies, you may know who Nelle Spilsbury Hatch was. She wrote about Salazar's last few days on earth, spent in Colonia Juarez with the Saints. About Salazar in those last days, she said, "He was a changed man!" That is good enough for me. I do not know if that is good enough for Judgment Day, but it does no good to perseverate on that. So that was the last line in the book, "He was a changed man!" I certaintly think that is a worthy epitaph. Back to my book on Truth, today I found a quote from the Hindu Upanishads. It says, "The face of Truth is covered with a golden vessel. Uncover it, O Sun, that I who am devoted to the truth may behold it." I really like that. It speaks, as did almost all ancients of truth as a hidden attribute that needed uncovering, revealing, unhiding." That is what Christ did, he revealed the truth (aletheia) about God's plan. He was the Son, not the Sun, but he did what the old Hindu wiseman requested. He is continuing to do that in our lives today. I am seeking more truth, more clarification about the truth, but not to supplant my faith with it. I am so sorry to hear of your dad's passing. I did not know that. You have a wonderful heritage and lineage. I wish all your family the very best. Blessings.

And may God bless them for doing so. I just wish (and this is a me thing) that the missionaries had better training in missiology in cross-cultural situations, like we have where I live. I have been here twenty years. I am unaware of one convert to the LDS Church from the missionaries' work here in our village. The spiritual need is great; the spiritual thirst is virtually absent. The missionaries need better training in bridging that gap. Just my opinion as I wish them well in their work. I don't question their sincerity or passion. I question their lack of training in how to do the task to which they are called.

Not really. My concerns about the certainty of LDS beliefs are not at all related to eschatology. My concerns are related to how the certainty of LDS beliefs impacts my relationships with dear friends in the grocery store, the rodeo grounds. and the hospital (where my wife and son) spent months collectively last year and this year. When doctrine negatively impacts relationships and ranks friends as "in or out" in a way that changes with different applications of authority, that concerns me. I hope that makes sense. Best to you, and thanks so very much for allowing me to post here, even though I am more out than in.

I admit (or stipulate) to the fact that I don't understand what the claims of the Book of Mormon are for itself beyond being another testament of Jesus Christ. In trying to understand, I buy and read everything I can find on the subject. It appears that my varied LDS friends have very varied understandings of what its claims are (from the text itself). I have just finished Tom Murphy's new book on the integration of Iroquois myths (Settling Scriptures) into the text of the Book of Mormon. My father pastored a church in Niagara Falls, where he (we) went to the Tuscarora reservation on Sunday afternoons, where he preached. If my memory serves me correctly (I was a child then), he was adopted into the Tuscarora nation in some manner. So, I have more than a casual interest in the subject. I also spent time each summer near Lake Simcoe, where Benjamin F Johnson says he heard many stories from the natives on an island in the lake. Benjamin F Johnson is an important person in the history of the Mexican colonies. I see his descendants virtually every day. So he interests me. As a historian, that interests me. I also am interested in the claims of the Bible for itself and the interpretations of varied literature styles contained therein. I am finishing up William Davis' book, "Visions in a Seer Stone." He approaches the origin of the Book of Mormon from the perspective of a 19th century preacher's methodology. Fascinating information. I like both books in that after having digested them, I am uncertain as to the relationship of the authors with the LDS Church. That is a real positive for me. Neither writes from the perspective of a critic or a zealot. They are academics writing from their expertise. I like that. I am beginning to think that many LDS folks make greater claims for the Book of Mormon than it does for itself. That often happens with adherents and scriptures. Just my own personal perspective is that the D&C is a much more important book for doctrinal polity. The General Handbook is more significant for orthopraxy on a day-to-day basis. It is an interpretation of the General Handbook that led us to be unable to continue worshiping, fellowshipping, and ministering in the CJ ward. That interpretation created soul wounds, so it was powerful. I am intrigued by your use of the term "authentic testament." I am intrigued because I am uncertain (of course) as to your meaning in the use of that phrase. I suppose it is like the word "intrinsic" - it can have several meanings. I would love for you (if you care to) to explain what you mean by "authentic." Oh, and I wonder if your family ever got the date fixed on the tombstone in Dublán? Take care and best wishes.

I think we agree on much more than we disagree. I have a different view of John 14: 6 perhaps. I believe that verse is stating a simple fact. No one will come to the Father but by Christ as the judge on the Day of Judgment. He is the judge and jury. He makes the decision, so yes we will "come" to the Father by (or through Christ). He is the decider in chief. The question is what will His criteria be? That is where my uncertainty comes to the foreground. I don't believe the Bible gives us the criteria given the vast disparity of billions of living people over the millennia. I still can't quite figure out what the Book of Mormon claims to be beyond another testament of Jesus Christ. I stipulate that it is that. I am with you on all your certainties and uncertainties in your list. I am certain that the LDS church is a Christian church, filled with some who are themselves Christians and others who are not, just like any other Church. Being a Christian is an individual thing; I am pretty certain of that. Will there be non-Christians (in this life) who Christ will welcome into the presence of the Father? Yes, I think so. That is where the wideness in His mercy part comes in. Best wishes.

I don't think Peter Enns teaches with certainty that certainty is a sin. I think he teaches that it can be sinful. No, I am not certain the LDS are wrong in their beliefs. I just don't worry about it. My wife and I were just talking about all the folks in Tibet-Nepal border area who died in the flood. Probably less than 1% of them Christians of any kind. Am I worried for their eternal destiny? Not really. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy. They will all appear on that day in front of Christ since no man (or woman) cometh unto the Father but by Him. He will be a loving and just judge. I leave them in his hands.

But it does when used to create onlys and others. Using the Johari Window as a valid construct, many of my LDS friends have huge blind spots. As do virtually all religious groups who base their doctrine on certainty and onlyism. I have no certainty on what criteria Christ will base his judgment about the eternal destiny of those who appear before Him. I value incertitude because it gives greater meaning to my faith in Christ as impartial judge. I also am replete with my own blind spots which I freely admit. I also have my own hidden quadrant in my life's Johari Window. I might not go so far as Peter Enns, the Evangelical scholar, in declaring certainty as a sin. However, I do believe in a wideness in God's mercy and trust Christ's judgment in that final day. I do not believe there will be Mormons, Moravians, Muslims, Methodists and Mennonites at the judgment seat. I believe there will be humans there, judged by an all-wise and benevolent judge. That might be a good thought for you with your lawyer mentality. Best wishes.

I am a big fan of Bourdieu and his concept of "symbolic violence" as a true form of violence. It is something similar to the idea of "soul wounds" which epigenetics takes such an interest in. Bourdieu's symbolic violence can be defined (online at least) as "Pierre Bourdieu defines symbolic violence as a subtle, non‑physical form of domination in which the dominated unknowingly accept and legitimize social hierarchies through everyday meanings, norms, and classifications. It operates through misrecognition, habitus, and cultural capital, making inequalities appear natural rather than arbitrary. While this is a bit long-winded, it speaks to the kind of violence created within religious inequities and domination created by doctrinal or dogma norms. It goes beyond disagreement in that it makes the dominated "less than" or "the other" according to a church or individual. If, for example I, as a seventy-year Christian, am deemed as having zero likelihood of being able to access the Gift of the Holy Spirit in my life within my own Christian community, then I am relegated to being less than every baptized and confirmed member of the LDS Church on earth. Probably not two in ten members of the LDS church would acknowledge that as doing me violence, yet I have seen my dear wife come home in tears after being assured of the truth and certainty of the LDS doctrine that however godly she may appear, she does not know the fullness of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and they do. They would determine this, not based on her own spirituality, but on their own doctrine, which trumps what they see in her. This is a prime example of religion as conflict, which can be averted by a nice dose of incertitude, which in reality is a great foundation for faith, probably better than certainty. The protest of the Third Convention Mexican members of the Church in the 1930s is another example of religious violence - in this case better characterized as "protest violence." Protest violence is not physical violence except in that it is manifested with the feet - in leaving. It can be considered violence to the perpetrator as well as to the Church. Interesting stuff. That is it for now. Best wishes.

Greetings, my friend. Perhaps we define "intrinsically" differently. That is ok. For me, "intrinsically" means something has within it the capability, roots, or potential for." So, yes, I agree that all authority, including spiritual authority, has within in the potential for abuse. Many aspects of religion have the intrinsic capacity to be abusive, in all religious groups. In religions we sometimes manifest the "all but mine" syndrome. We may either deny, rationalize, or justify toxicity based on our doctrine or dogma. Once we take possession of the truth, especially sole possession, the doors for abuse swing wide open, yes, even in my faith. Religious authority is filled with the potential for symbolic violence a la Bourdieu. It is, of course, easier for me to see in the LDS Church than it is for me to see it in the Mennonite Church. The blind spot is a core quadrant in the Johari Window. For example, if the LDS Church held that I have no spiritual authority to baptize in the LDS Church, that would make perfect sense to me. But when the LDS Church claims that my father had no spiritual authority when he baptized me in our church, hence my baptism is invalid according to Christ. Or when it is said I had no spiritual authority when I baptized the 100 or so people that I baptized; therefore, they all need rebaptized by someone with "proper" authority (aka an LDS elder). That doctrine extends to a denial of my spiritual authority, the Gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. in a way that does me and my spiritual condition violence. "But it is our doctrine;" it is nothing personal," you say to me. Well, ditto for when a Fundamentalist or an Evangelical, or a Mainstreamer claims the LDS are not Christians "It is their doctrine; it is nothing personal" Well, it often becomes pretty personal for the LDS Christian pretty quickly, doesn't it? Symbolic violence is both personal and violent in a non-physical way (even if said with a kind smile). I am a project on a journey. I try not to allow my doctrine to become a sling to cast stones, nor to justify the slinging, especially when I know that even doctrinal stones hurt. I think spiritual authority is laden with latent potential for violence, both in interfaith and intrafaith situations. I don't know if any of this responds to your thoughtful comments. Best wishes.

There is no question (in my mind, at least) that some usages of spiritual authority can be intrinsically oppressive. And I would expand that to some usages of any kind of authority can be intrinsically oppressive. I would also add that denying spiritual authority to others who are not you can be intrinsically oppressive and abusive as well. Some usages are indeed abusive. As with most everything involving humans, it is complex.

I have noticed something in my readings over the past few months. I find LDS folks using the term "fundamentalist evangelical" more often. I wonder what the source of that is? I don't remember seeing that term at all in years past. I use the term "conservative Evangelical" often because the Evangelical community, on its own a continuum. The other day I think I mentioned in a thread I had also read the term "mainstream fundamentalist." I like the beginnings of what may be an interest in being more careful and more specific about identifying those in the non-LDS Christian community. At the same time I am seeing the term "neo mormon" with greater frequency. Interesting stuff!

I'm not sure. Is Ostler a member in good standing? He is a bit of an independent guy with independent views. Of course, I like that, but I am not sure his writings can be used as harmonizing with the church's perspective on this or that issue.

I would very much appreciate some recommendations for sources that explain in some detail the LDS concept of God the Father as an exalted man. My guess is that it would be inclusive of describing His spirit nature and perhaps soul. If that is a distinction that is made. It would be helpful if it also includes the Father's literal relationship (physical and spiritual) with Christ. I have several books on the "Mormon" Jesus, but I don't believe I have any specifically about the Father from a modern LDS scholar. Thanks.

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask. But I am rather curious about the official LDS Church position on interpretation of its three unique scriptures. I was taught in college and seminary that the Bible contains at least five different types of literature, each requiring a unique manner and method of interpretation. The one thing that they all have in common is their inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the process of the Bible's creation. To be properly understood, however, each type of literature in the Bible requires a correct description as the type of literature it was intended to be. I don't think I have ever read an interpretative guide for the Book of Mormon officially sanctioned by the LDS Church. In part I ask because over the past few months I have been reading several well-written books on the manner and method of the creation of the content of the Book of Mormon. However, neither book really deals with how the reader is to interpret a given passage based in part on the type of literature (poetic, prophetic, parable, etc.) that it represents. Thanks. I hope this question does not take the thread off track too much.

But I live in Mexico. Where are the mules, cows, and coyotes?

Well, yeh! That is what I have been trying to say on this forum since 2017! Ha! It is most likely a truth, because our Fundamentalist friends make it a point to seek out and approach members of the LDS Church wherever they can be found! Pageants and Temple Square are such places!

Thanks, I have posted the link to the site. I understand most of what the author is saying, but it is an astonishing cornucopia of terms and concepts. Someone did a lot of work on this. It is a shame it is almost impossible to decipher.

If any of you would like to make your head spin, please go to the Reformed fundamentalism wikipedia site. It may win the prize for the biggest mish-mash of terms I have ever read. It even talks about mainstream fundamentalism and a whole host of other terminology. It speaks about your example of Reformed Baptists, who tend to be more fundamentalist than evangelical. (notice small f and e). Anyway, I don't know if the rules allow me to post the link to this Wikipedia site, but it is really entertaining and confusing to a fault. I have enjoyed reading it. I hope you all enjoy it too. It appears I can post the link to this miasma of terms. I am 77 years old and I have never seen such a hodge-podge of terms. Enjoy! Reformed fundamentalism - Wikipedia

If anyone is interested, when we were faithful nonmember participants in the ward, we were not allowed to tithe. We were, however, allowed to donate to the fast offering. They gave us envelopes to do so.

Exactly. That is a great way to discern a Fundamentalist from an Evangelical.

I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but if someone identified to you as an Evangelical who was aggressively and with certitude bashing members of the LDS church, I wouldn't both correcting them. They aren't going to change. Now, to be clear, I would correct them, but I don't think a member of the LDS Church should, unless you simply want to change the subject. I think it greatly depends on if they are asking questions, clarifying, or critiquing rather than onlying and othering. As an Evangelical professor, I taught all my students to be curious and to ask questions of others of all faiths. As an Evangelical, I am also used to and comfortable with differences. For example, I enjoy the current Evangelical debate about Genesis 1 and 2, whether those passages deal with material creation, or functional creation. That is a huge difference and is a wonderful, although sometimes caustic, debate among Evangelicals. Fundamentalists wouldn't even engage in the debate. They would simply inform me they are praying for me to get it right, which of course means, as they see it. I personally think the idea of Gen 1 and 2 as functional creation is brilliant. It means I don't have to bash or be in conflict with what science teaches. If you do anything, I would ask them what they think the difference is between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical. See what they say. That is a way to learn and have a fun discussion without getting into an argument. I enjoy doing something similar in discussing with LeBaron and LDS Mormons. They dress and look alike; but it doesn't take long to sense the differences. If I didn't answer your question, please ask again. Thanks.

There is certainly nothing wrong with critiquing someone's beliefs. That is often fun. Where we err is when we walk down the slippery slope to symbolic violence: Ranking, Generalizing, NormalizIng, Onlying, and Othering. Those are, in my experience, precursors to much of human conflict and all of the many forms of violence.

You know me too well. There are those who consider there to be a single continuum from Fundamentalist to Mainstream - meaning conservative to progressive or liberal within non-LDS Christianity. This view is made without regard to specific denominational affiliation. It is a continuum, something like a normal curve. Others, including me believe they (Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Mainstream) represent three very different movements with different and specific characteristics, history, and orthopraxy in addition to orthodoxies. In my thinking the Mainstream was the original - mainstream Christianity in the USA specifically we might say. Then Fundamentalism arose to counter what had become the Mainstream social gospel at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. It became a distinct movement with specific characteristics and again was regardless of denomination or affiliation. Then in the 1940s, there arose a third, mostly USA-based movement known as Evangelicalism. It arose in reaction to Fundamentalism with its own unique orthopraxies and orthodoxies. Over the eighty or so years of the existence of the Evangelical movement, it has widened to become what is often deemed a “large tent” movement. Very simplistically, it is often said that ask an Evangelical what they believe and they will tell you what they are "for." Ask a Fundamentalist what they believe, and they will tell you what they are "against." This is overly simplistic, but at the same time somewhat broadly effective. Today, in one form or another, the Mainstreamers are characterized by what has become known as the "social gospel." Ask them what they believe, and they will discuss social justice and other "causes." They might be conservative theologically (rarely) or liberal theologically )more common). There are denominations that fall broadly within each of the three, but always with exceptions. Then of course, there are distinctions within each of the three groups, expanding the complexity. Inspite of the complexity it is pretty easy to determine to which your are speaking after about five minutes of conversation. This is moderately comparable to the movements that exist within Mormonism. They may have been formalized by the creation of a new type of Mormonism. They may also be characterized by orthopraxy within each Mormon group. By and large, when I go to a MHA meeting, I am meeting with a different form of Mormonism than when I attend a ward in Chihuahua, or a ward in rural Utah. Same church; different positions on a conservative to progressive continuum. I happen to believe I have friends who are Evangelical Mormons, and certainly there are Fundamentalist (not in the plural marriage meaning) Mormons, and there is a nascent Mormon Mainstream movement with a focus on social justice, and diversity, such as the Global branch of MHA. Since I live in Chihuahua, I have gone to meetings of the Global branch of MHA and I feel like a rank conservative. Then I hold a meeting here that is a family reunion with a group from Vernal, Utah and I feel like a progressive. So it is with Presbyterians (especially), Methodists (who have recently split into formalized groups representing all three (Fund - Evan - Main). In some sense, I see all three represented here in Latin American Catholicism. as well. Then we get back to the challenge of how do I identify and that being a valid indication of anything. That is where it gets very complicated, especially within the growing non-denominational movement within American Protestantism. When I was a boy, I went to an IFCA church; my dad pastored it. IFCA stands for Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America. That was our denomination; our orthopraxy and orthodoxy were clearly Mennonite. In the fifties it was also a way of separating ourselves from the new Evangelical movement and the traditional Mainstreamers. Now the IFCA type grouping is on the decline. It is not "cool" anymore to be Fundamentalist as it was in the fifties. Why? Because much damage has been done to folks in the name of Fundamentalism. So today, it is rare to walk up to someone and say, "Hi . . . are you a Fundamentalist?" They are more than likely to say, "No, I am independent, unaffiliated, or Evangelical" than they are to acknowledge their Fundamentalism, even though their very reasons for entering into a conversation with you may reveal their Fundamentalist tendency. Ok. . . . . . . Writing too much. I hope this helps. Blessings on all: Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Mainstreamers, and none of the abovers. Navidad

This situation with the verifying is horrible. I am having to reverify every time I change pages. Very frustrating.

I don't think I like the metaphors of "losing" and "battle." But that is how a lot of folks on all sides look at it. I this situation I love the principal slogan of the Moravian Church: “In essentials, unity; in non‑essentials, liberty; and in all things, love.” In the words of the song, "And the world would be a better place for you, for me. Just you wait and see!"