Navidad

First, thanks so very much for all the time you took to write these posts and in that sense, minister to me. I recognize that and appreciate it. I also recognize that of all LDS doctrines, this particular one is the most personally painful for me, so it is the hardest for me to "get over," "let go," or "ignore." To me, this doctrine of incompleteness is as or more symbolically violent as was the priesthood ban. I am incomplete; therefore, I am less than. I need to be made whole (complete). How does that happen? Baptism and confirmation into the LDS church and no other manner. The most basic and important tools of the Christian life are denied me. This past year I have very much needed the gifts of the Spirit. It has been an emotionally challenging time. I don't believe God has withheld them from me, waiting for me to become LDS. When I was a pastor and in desperate need of wisdom, I don't believe God withheld that from me, waiting for me to become LDS. I have often wondered what I would be like in the moments, hours, days, and months after being rebaptized and confirmed in the LDS Church. How would I be existentially spiritually different (more complete) than I am now? In pragmatic reality. It is my personal truth that I observe and sense no difference between the average LDS Christian and the average non-LDS Christian in terms of evidence of fruit or gifts of the Spirit. How would the wonderfully godly Catholics on this forum be existentially and spiritually different as LDS Christians than they are now as they minister to each of us (LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians) via their wisdom? I have no doubt that Elder Uchtdorf is a wonderful and godly man. I enjoy his teachings and spirit, just like I did that of John R. W. Stott. Yet, like me, he has his own blind spots. I read through his talk several times. It seemed to me that in each case his belief is that the Faith of our Fathers is important because it leads people to become LDS, and therein to find fullness or completeness. Its purpose is singular in that regard: to make non-LDS Christians like me complete via baptism and confirmation in the LDS church. I am aware I bother you all with this "you are less than" and "you are incomplete" pain I feel from my LDS friends—far too often. I will do my best to simply be quiet about it. I don't want to lose the good will of my friends here. I have enough of my own blind spots to deal with. I certainly am not a "complete" Christian; probably far from it. I simply have an idea that as an LDS Christian I would most likely be just as "incomplete" as I am now. Thanks for your faithfulness.

I appreciate you saying that on more than one occasion. I believe that is your teaching, and while I appreciate it very much. Here is what I read on the Church website in the article on the Gift of the Holy Spirit: "Have you ever considered all the ways you’ve been blessed through the gift of the Holy Ghost? All of God’s children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His gospel. But the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism. This gift is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost—a member of the Godhead. It is no ordinary gift—it can’t be seen—but its power is undeniable when you choose to receive it through righteous living. Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation, and enjoy the blessings known as “the gifts of the Spirit.” Let's go down through that. 1. All of God's children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His Gospel. - In other words I can experience the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding me to the LDS Church. That's a pretty limited influence for me since I already have accepted Jesus Christ and His Gospel - just not in the LDS Church. Not much benefit for me there, right? 2. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism. That of course means no Gift of the Holy Ghost without LDS baptism and covenants. My baptism and covenants don't count. So there is no benefit there for me, right? 3. This gift (the one available in 2. is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. So this one isn't available to me, is it? No constant companionship. Maybe sometimes, once-in-a while companionship? I have no idea what this one even means. 4. This is the big one!!! "Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation and enjoy the blessings known as "the gifts of the Spirit." This is a doozy (as my mother used to say). So. . . I haven't received the gift of the Holy Ghost, therefore I have not been cleansed from sin, I cannot receive personal revelation and by far, worst of all, I cannot enjoy the blessings known as "the gifts of the Spirit." What does this mean except that I have no access to enjoy: Wisdom, Understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, Fear of the Lord, Faith, Healing, Miracles, prophecy, discerning Spirits, tongues, administrations and helps. Also, what about the fruits of the spirit? Without the Gift of the Spirit, how do I enjoy the fruits of the Spirit? That eliminates: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These four items are devastating exclusions for me as a non-LDS Christian. As a non-LDS Christian, I clearly am less than. Over the last few months I have never felt more less than when it comes to our local LDS friends. So now I have to say I have experienced most all of these things to one degree or another, so of course my personal truth is that I reject this LDS doctrinal exclusion of all of this in the lives of non-LDS Christians. So your thinking seems to me to be non-orthodox on this issue. You are kind so you state the Gift of the Holy Ghost is one kind of direct influence of God in my life, not the only kind. So what are the other kinds of direct influences of God in my life? Certainly you can't mean the Light of Christ that is available to everyone on earth????? As a non-LDS Christian, what are the direct (to use your word) influences of the Holy Spirit I have available to me, given the exclusions listed in: Gift of the Holy Ghost ? Thanks so much. I own that I get really frustrated on this one. It seems to me to be one of the principal doctrines of the LDS Church that when discussed with kind LDS Christians, I am told, "Well, we don't really mean that . . . . . . oh and its not something personal! Huh? No personal revelation isn't personal? I would rather not hijack this thread, but it is pretty related to the concept of a great apostasy. Anyway, I do appreciate your kindness as always, but the website isn't as kind as you are, is it?

This is very powerful. Well said. This is compelling. Well said. I was on the pastoral staff of at least six different churches (in varying capacities) including as senior pastor. In those capacities, I prepared teachings, sermons, instruction for two Sunday morning teachings, two Sunday evening teachings, and a Wednesday and/or Thursday evening Bible study. Every week. Every year, except perhaps when we had special speakers or I was on vacation. During those years no one ever told me what to teach or preach. There was no curriculum, no calendared formal schedule of lexicon to follow. For all those sermons/presentations/teachings, I prayed, studied, taught, and interpreted the gospel as I learned (I was always learning) it to be. It was quite a full-time job with visiting hospitals, shut-ins, administering the church, etc. In all of those situations, I was teaching in some form. I was telling the folks something in some way new every presentation. I prayed diligently for wisdom and guidance from the Holy Spirit as I prepared and then delivered each talk. At least over one thousand times at the very least. In some ways my teachings were authoritative for my congregations. Were they dogma? I don't know. I never thought of it that way. Were they canonical? Perhaps for some in my congregations who had an overly high estimate of me. Were they a revelation? Yes, I think so - at least, to @webbles point using my definition of the word. I never once consulted a creed, unless I was doing a series of teachings on creeds. In the same way, but to a much much much lesser degree and with no authority, except that which anyone has giving a LDS Sacrament talk, I took my turn (as did my wife) giving sacrament talks. I prepared in the same way. No one told me what to teach. I think I did it occasionally more often than "my turn" because if someone got sick, the bishop could count on me at the last minute. So, do I believe in new revelation from the Holy Spirit? Yes, every week as I taught. No, if you mean as authoritative for some church beyond my own. I preached in churches with bishops, in the case of Mennonite churches (and LDS chapels - if you will accept a Sacrament talk as a preaching - I do, because I really didn't do anything differerent, except make the talks a whole lot shorter. My "sermons" and Bible teachings in my full-time service were never less than an hour. I bet that doesn't surprise any of you! Ha! I just offer all of this up to you to suggest that even when we speak of teaching, preaching, revelation, inspiration, explaining, or whatever we call it, we, who were in full-time ministry were always, often five times a week teaching and interpreting new stuff for our congregations from the sacred desk of the pulpit. Perhaps, no more than five times in all those efforts did I preach a sermon I heard someone else give or that I got from a book written by someone else. Was I a revelator? Yes and No. Now of course, and you can imagine I can't resist saying this, I am told that I don't even have the Gift of the Holy Spirit because I am not LDS. I guess I was deceiving myself all those times I believed I did what I did under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. So no, I can't agree with that onlyism of my LDS friends in that regard. Perhaps it is at best my personal truth. I would ask you all to accept that even if it runs counter to your doctrine which is your own corporate truth. I think that fits into what @webbleswas trying to say in the above quote. Anyway I love you all in Christ. I treasure this forum as a place where the vast majority of posters honor and respect each other. I think that makes Christ smile. Best to all Navidad.

OOOPS! I fixed it.

Where was I? Well, you might guess it. I was in the Sarasota, FL LDS Family History Center on S. Beneva, doing research on some long-forgotten aspect of LDS history. I was sitting, working on the computers, when the ladies turned on the televisions in the center. You may not remember that on the same morning, President Bush was also in Sarasota, reading to the children at Emma Booker Elementary. My wife was teaching her gifted kids at a different school in town. I remember well how they shut down almost all of northern Sarasota to get the president safely to his plane at the airport. It was a chilling morning; I shared with new LDS friends, putting aside our mutual interest in LDS history and focusing on the history that was unfolding in front of us. The impact on Sarasota was significant. It was one of a thousand mornings I have probably spent in LDS history centers, but it most likely was the most memorable one for me. best, Navidad.

It will be interesting what they do with odos (way). Christ says He is the road, the path. In the New Testament, its most common meaning is a road or path. Now that is a means to a destination, so it is easy to understand it metaphorically, as are both other words. Just for me, their discussion was a bit too literal an interpretation of aletheia. It is like looking for a door on a heart. Christ says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. It obviously necessitates a metaphorical interpretation, as do the terms in John 14:6. Best, Navidad . . . . oh and no, I am not literally Christmas!

@bluebellI watched the podcast today. I enjoyed it. I may not be in exact accord with their claiming that Christ was personifying Himself as "the truth" in the Johanine passage. I might see it more as He was declaring Himself to be the Revelator of the Truth of His Father's plan for humanity as contained in what we call the plan of salvation. The Greek word aletheia signifies an unhiding of what has been hidden. So in that sense Christ is the unhider of what was hidden about God's plan for humanity. I ordered the book they mentioned that has been written by two BY affiliated folks. I look forward to reading that. Thanks for bringing the podcast to our attention. I'm in favor of truth as a verb and have used it in my book. It is more important that we truth (as a verb) than that we think we have the truth. I guess that is my bottom line. Thanks again and best wishes. I think I have something you asked me the other day left unanswered. I will try and go back through the threads and find it. The topic of truth is very complex indeed. All of my grammar checkers do not like me using truth as a verb. They seem to be programmed not to recognize such. Take care.

Yep!

It all depends on how you define truth. That is the essence of the book I am working on. I am too tired tonight to go into it, but I will try in the morning. Christ is the truth in the Greek/Hebrew concept of truth . . . very different from the modern concept of truth as correct and incorrect, right and wrong. Christ is the truth in the aletheia sense, that of being the revelator of that which had been hidden before Him. Truth as being is the ancient view of truth. My concept was that faith that is based on the modern concept of truth (correct vs. incorrect) is no longer faith. Faith that is based on truth as revelation - revealing that which was hidden is indeed faith. That is the kind of truth that Christ claimed to be. We no longer see truth in that way. More on that tomorrow.

The Wikipedia article has its strong and weak points. One that I find fascinating is found footnoted in footnote 66. It is a New York Times article that seeks to answer why Fundamentalists Love Trump. This is not a political article, so I copy a small portion for your reading enjoyment: "It makes no sense until you understand that the true distinction between fundamentalism and mainstream beliefs isn’t what fundamentalists believe but how fundamentalists believe. As Richard Land, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, once told me, “Fundamentalism is far more a psychology than a theology.” That’s why, for example, you can have competing Christian fundamentalisms, competing Muslim fundamentalisms and secular movements that possess fundamentalist characteristics. I grew up in a church that most would describe as fundamentalist, and I’ve encountered fundamentalism of every stripe my entire life. And while fundamentalist ideas can often be quite variable and complex, I’ve never encountered a fundamentalist culture that didn’t combine three key traits: certainty, ferocity and solidarity. Certainty is the key building block. The fundamentalist mind isn’t clouded by doubt. In fact, when people are fully captured by the fundamentalist mind-set, they often can’t even conceive of good-faith disagreement. To fundamentalists, their opponents aren’t just wrong but evil. Critics are derided as weak or cowards or grifters. Only a grave moral defect can explain the failure to agree.That certainty breeds ferocity. Indeed, ferocity — not piety — is a principal trait of every truly fundamentalist movement I’ve ever encountered. Ferocity is so valuable to fundamentalism that it can cover a multitude of conventional Christian sins. Defending Trump in 2016, Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Dallas, an evangelical megachurch, explained, “Frankly, I want the meanest, toughest son of a gun I can find. And I think that’s the feeling of a lot of evangelicals.”Yet certainty and ferocity are nothing without solidarity. It’s the sense of shared purpose and community that makes any form of fundamentalism truly potent. There is an undeniable allure to the idea that you’re joining a community that has achieved an understanding of life’s mysteries or discovered a path to resolving injustice. As angry as fundamentalists may feel, at the same time, there is true joy among comrades in the foxhole — at least as long as they remain comrades. I’m reminded of an infamous quote by Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, regarding the necessity of loyalty. Explaining Trump’s hostility toward Ron DeSantis, Huckabee said, “I think there are two virtues — loyalty and confidentiality. Be loyal to the people who helped you and learn how to keep your mouth shut.” Again, that’s not piety. It’s solidarity. When you recognize the psychology of fundamentalism, fundamentalist Christian enthusiasm for Trump makes considerably more sense. His fundamentalist supporters are certain that he is fulfilling a divine purpose. They are ferocious in their response to opponents, especially those Christians they believe to be weak or squishes. And they experience great joy in their motivated, activist solidarity. But the keys to fundamentalist success are also the source of its ultimate failure. Certainty, ferocity and solidarity can combine to create powerful social and political movements. They can have a steamrolling effect in institutions because their opponents — almost by definition — have less certainty, less ferocity and less solidarity. We’ve seen this phenomenon in both secular and religious spaces across the political spectrum. A small number of extremely confident and aggressive people can turn an organization upside down. Political activists who possess fundamentalist intensity can push through resistance — at least until their inherent intolerance creates sufficient backlash to trigger real opposition. That’s how fundamentalism fails. Certainty, which gives so much purpose, ultimately struggles in the face of complex realities. Ferocity, which allows fundamentalists to bully and intimidate opponents, also limits the ability to win converts. And solidarity, which creates community, can become stifling, as it encourages conformity and punishes those who raise good-faith questions." These three traits: certainty, ferocity, and solidarity do indeed characterize Fundamentalism wherever it is found and in whatever faith it is found, whether LDS, Baptists, Methodists, Islam, or Judaism. I think this part of the article is very well written. While still confusing Fundamentalism as a branch of Evangelicalism, it certainly examines the psychological roots of Fundamentalism wherever it is found. All I would add is that it might clarify that it is characterizing a group or organizational psychology more than an individual psychology. I would love to read your thoughts on it. best, Navidad

Hi @Calm: A creed is an official, normative confession of faith that articulates and defines the core doctrines of a religious body and serves as a standard for teaching, worship, and doctrinal identity. Therefore, it has to be an official, normative, confessional, and definitional statement of core doctrines of a religious body. Certainly there are groups, especially within the Mainstream branch of Protestant Christianity, that adhere to several creeds. However, the largest bodies of Protestant Christianity, the Evangelical and the Fundamentalist, as well as Pentecostals and almost all non-aligned Protestant groups, do not adhere to such documents. I certainly don't. I might agree with most of what one says, but it is neither official, normative, confessional, nor definitional for me in any way. The Nicene Creed requires belief in baptism as salvific, a method to achieve forgiveness of sins. I do not believe that. So it is neither normative, confessional, or definitional for me. I don't disagree with the points in the Apostles' Creed (depending on one's definition of a catholic church (small c, I believe). However, it also is neither normative, definitive, official, or confessional for me. A Statement of Faith is just that. It claims none of the attributes of a creed. I have written down in threads on this forum over the years differing things I believe (statements of my faith). Listing them doesn't make them creedal because they don't meet the standards I mentioned above. Of course, others will perhaps have different definitions of creeds. OK. I have no problem with that. I have answered your question with my understanding and interpretation of a creed. Therefore, I stick to my statement that most Protestant Christians do not adhere to creeds. Some certainly do. I believe more don't. Take care, Navidad.

I am not sure how to answer the various points or questions you raise. I am not adept at doing that with such a long and intricate post. I do not offer my perspective to make or suggest yours is wrong. I simply, as a colleague on this forum, offer you a different view on certain things. I would ask you to receive them; not necessarily to accept them. There is a significant difference. Those of us who have grown up in a church are pretty much all conditioned by that experience. It becomes part, perhaps a large part of our faith. I believe the more any of us turn away from that conditioning, the closer we can draw to the truth, at least our personal truth. I do not reject thee Church of gathered believers world-wide, inclusive of the LDS. I do think it unwise to equate or engage the doctrine of ecclesiology as being on the same theological level or importance as the doctrine of Christ. No organization died for our sins or by its virtue or efficacy grants redemption to humans. There is no salvation in any organization, only in a person. That person is Christ. If any authority is given to an individual, it is still Christ's authority, not the individual's. Kierkegaard, a contemporary of Joseph Smith once said, "The self-assured believer is a greater sinner in the eyes of God than the troubled disbeliever.” I really like that, but it might sound very strange to my LDS friend's ears. Your remarks about the Protestants are great. I would offer one difference. You use the word creedal - "In the creedal sense". . . . . I would suggest eliminating the word creedal if you are going to describe us. The majority of Protestant Christians are not creedal in any sense of the word. In fact, we reject creeds. Many of my LDS friends are conditioned to see all or most non-LDS Protestant Christians as creedal. I would simply propose that is an error in perspective. Not that a word makes much difference, but "creed" and "creedal" are often used in a pejorative sense by my LDS friends. It is a way to dismiss a belief once it is deemed creedal - going all the way back to the 1838 take on the First Vision. Physically constructed brick and mortar or stone and mortar temples for us serve no need. They may even be perceived as contrary to Biblical scripture. We take Hebrews very seriously. We take the priesthood of the believer very seriously. Of course we do not believe Christ's authority was granted to only one church. The onlyism of the LDS church is a big stumbling block for me. I cringe when I am told that that onlyism is nothing personal. It sure is. One of the men who assured me in our ward that my wife does not and could not possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit is now a higher-up in the CEC of the LDS Church. That (in my opinion) is problematic. Of course, a faithful member probably would not see it that way. Yes, Christ taught in the temple. There is no evidence in the New Testament that he was ever “comfortable” there. In fact, since you are an attorney, I would suggest there is more evidence of his discomfort there.

I posted within minutes of your non-edited post. I did not see the part about the catacombs. I assumed you were talking about unadorned simple Catholic churches where the mass either could or would not be as meaningfully experienced as in Notre Dame. I reacted, because my little community has two very non-adorned Catholic churches. They also have no heat or air-conditioning. So they are quite uncomfortable for the parishioners. Ditto for the Pentecostal Assembly of God church in our village. But I would not call them dreadful and undesirable settings. I thought you were doing so. Then, I left the room for a few minutes and came back and deleted my post (still not having seen the catacombs part). I just decided that my one post today was one too many, so I deleted my second one. My truth about today is that my wife and I both are having very bad health days today. I regret it when I am not up to taking the very best care of her. I was worried that truth was eeking out into my posts. That in and of itself might be a dreadful and undesirable thing. Best, Navidad

changed my mind

That is very well said. I had a friend who became rather well known for saying, "A true friend is one who offers you a different view of the world without making yours wrong." I really like that a lot. If I come across as offering my opinion/belief in order to make yours wrong, then I have failed my friend's test. That wasn't my intent. If your comment was in connection with my latest post, then I receive and accept the kind rebuke. I just hope that doesn't mean that I can no longer offer the same in the future. Please be assured that I will and have offered the same to any church or organization of every kind, just as I have done to organizations all my life. It is how I earned my living. Having said that, I don't want to be in denial because I have blind spots. @bluebell thanks for your comment whether it was offered to me, or not. You have made me think as you so often do. I appreciate that.

I am certainly more pro-LDS than not. I would simply like to offer my thought. Putting statues, paintings, or mentions of Christ in the buildings and literature would not be nearly as effective, (in my opinion—nothing more) until the Church itself emphasizes Christ more than it emphasizes itself. I think I hear more about "the Church is" than I do about "Christ is." Of course, I say that from the place that my primary spiritual identity is as a Christian first and foremost. My Evangelical identity is a distant second and describes (when accurately understood) the branch of Christianity to which I belong. A distant third is my affiliation (membership) within Christianity, which most recently has been Mennonite. Ok, and while I am in trouble, I would suggest that the beauty of a temple would never create within me more of a desire to worship there, than would a simple building. I guess that is my country and Mennonite roots. My guess is that Christ would have been more comfortable in the latter than the former. I submit that in the same spirit that I recommend the missionaries get better training in missiology before hitting the road. I want the LDS Church to draw people to Christ, not to itself. I would love for the LDS Church to better minister to people based on the truths of their lives, not based on the truth, however unique or not, of the organization. In our village there is a massive gap between the spiritual need and the spiritual thirst. No one is filling that gap (not any church, at least). Our new village priest came to visit us last week, but like the LDS missionaries, he didn't ask a single question about us or the truths we are living with right now. He pretty much got right into his truth . . . . They need new pews to make the sanctuary more comfortable. Our needs? Not so much.

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.