Navidad

I also think that it is those groups within Protestantism, especially those within Fundamentalism who are most strident in the correctness of their particular beliefs, that spend the most time on apologetics. Or it is those who are most marginalized, like Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, and strident Reformed Presbyterians, who do the most apologetic defense and attack work. Those who believe they are or were persecuted often are on the defense or attack the most. There are exceptions, however. I am unaware of apologists in the Anabaptist communities or the earlier reformationists like the Moravians. In fact, the Moravian group motto is "Unity in essentials, Liberty in non-essentials, and Love in all") - that is pretty close; it may not be exact. I really like the "love in all" part. I agree with the OP and have said so many times on this forum that Fundamentalists are notorious within the Protestant community for focusing on what they are against more than what they are for. Of course, they are equal opportunity critics, berating other Protestants, especially Evangelicals, that they don't like, perhaps even more so than they do non-Protestants. I would bet (a small amount) that the body of negative apologetics from within the Fundamentalist community is more anti-Evangelical than anti-Mormon. And remember, there are many groups who folks associate with Protestants who don't themselves claim that label. Anabaptists, certain restoration churches, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. do not claim to be Protestants. The Reformation did not create a monolithic group now known collectively as Protestants. There was a Magisterial Reformation, a Primitive Reformation, and a Czech (Bohemian) Reformation - this latter one being my personal favorite - involving Huss and Comenius, my personal favorite reformer. The Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans often claim their own unique form of reformation distinct from the others. There even was a counter or Catholic Reformation led by Catholic contemporaries like Erasmus, who had frequent communications with the Dutch version of Mennonites. Many early Anabaptists had frequent dialogues with Zwingli. Many of their disagreements were about class, society, and governmental differences. I wonder if the OP's use of the term Protestant to refer to apologetic movements, forms, and content is not simply too broad to be meaningful? Please notice that is a question, not a challenge. Mainstream Protestants, especially Europeans, are the most academic in their apologetics. Evangelicals are the most practical theology-driven, while Fundamentalists are as the OP describes - "Whatever it is that isn't them - they're 'agin' it." The OP describes that branch of Protestant apologetics well but makes it a bit too generalized and normative by labeling it under one banner for my taste. My reply is meant as commentary on his post, not criticism of it.

I am not so sure if I agree with that. I was on the international council of a nondenominational mission organization. You might even be familiar with it. We met every three years to provide answers to "practical" problems faced by missionaries in their work, including things like baptizing polygamists, methods of baptism, denominational differences, etc. We had many late-night discussions with missionaries from fourteen countries (cultures) and many denominations. We always managed to work out a solution that all could, even if begrudgingly, accept. It was collaboration at its best (and once in a while, at its less than best). We had ordained people, pilots, schoolteachers, carpenters, etc., all engaged with no hierarchy in the decision-making. Obviously, some were more persuasive than others. Some of our member denominations ordained women, others did not. I don't remember ever failing to come to a policy consensus.

Thanks for asking. My son is not doing well. We take him for a CT scan on Tuesday. Hopefully that will tell us what is wrong so that it can be treated.

I do believe (not know) that there is a true church - the collective broad church of Jesus Christ, the ecclesia - the called ones. But, don't stop reading here. I also do not believe that a church, any church, or thee church is the mechanism, provider, or means of salvation, however it is defined. Salvation for any one individual will be decided at the judgement seat of Christ, by Him individually and alone. As I said before, to me that is both scary and comforting. In this life, then, I cannot fall back on some form of assurance or certainty to rest on. No need to argue about eternal security, Arminianism, which church I was a member of, or some decision I made as a child. No baptism methodology fights, etc., etc. I rest in the fact that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one will come to the Father but by Him (Christ) on the day of judgment. I prefer to trust in the wisdom and judgment of Christ instead of some specific gathering of humans, dominated by their fallibility, biases, claims, and needs. Will my Muslim friends be individually ushered into the presence of the Father? That will be Christ's decision, won't it? I am a Christian. Not because of where, when, or by whom I was baptized, or by how much water was used. Exclusivity goes out the window. What a relief! I do trust in a wideness in God's mercy. I also don't think one of the questions asked of me by Christ will be, "To which earthly human denomination or church did you belong in your life?" I think that would be irrelevant to Christ, as he probes my life for that which is determinative to my eternal destiny.

You seem to be separating salvation and exaltation. I always thought they were both part of the process of salvation for the LDS. I guess I was wrong. As far as the ad hominem attack on me, have at it . . . I know there are many problems and issues with me. I stipulate to that. No need for you, who don't even know me to remind me of that truth.

I am too tired this evening to go into a long response to the OP. His view of Protestants is very narrow while at the same time generalizing to a fault. That is the challenge of responding to something that is overly broad and overly narrow at the same time. Let me quickly respond with another point of view born of a very intimate and personal reality. Pardon please a few details. On September 12, on the advice of a trusted friend and LDS doctor. I took my wife to the emergency room in the US. For the next seven weeks straight, she was in 3 different hospitals. She had open heart surgery, more than 10 strokes, and infections from spine to heart to brain. She is now home in Chihuahua recovering. During that time our home here in Mexico was badly flooded. Our 47 year old son became terribly sick with a strange infection. Who ministered to us in Chandler, in El Paso, and here at home? It was our beloved LDS friends. Meal after meal, Melchizedek blessings, notes, kindnesses and on and on. The problem isn't that Protestant apologists don't know enough LDS doctrine, it is that the don't know enough LDS people. Ditto for my LDS apologist friends. They simply don't know enough non-LDS people personally to feel their love and kindness. Stereotypes melt away in the face (literally) of kindness and love. "Protestant ls too broad a term to generalize about anything. The spectrum is too broad to normalize the fringes. Ditto for the LDS and other Mormon communities . I need to stop for fear I am going to lose this response on my little phone. Perhaps another day I can respond more. All I can say is that tonight when I go to bed I will offer a prayer if thanks for my LDS friends, with zero regard to our supposed doctrinal differences .

Wow. I guess I missed that. You asked me what I mean by salvation. I replied that what I mean is irrelevant to my question. Then you hypothesized two possibilities for what I meant by "salvation." Again that was irrelevant to my question. I want to know what you believe are the beliefs necessary for salvation according to your knowledge of the LDS doctrine. I am unaware that you have answered that question. Perhaps you did and I missed it

I don't mean either of those categories you have suggested in this post. But again, as I just said, my interest is to better understand the LDS perspective since it was used by the one who wrote it in the LDS context. Perhaps the "essentials" with all other things being "appendages." My concept of salvation is not the same as either category you suggested, but that is not relevant to me. I know what I believe and don't believe what I believe to be thee Truth or thee only truth. I believe whatever are the essentials of salvation may never be revealed to us until judgment day, when Christ, in his infinite wisdom, deals with each one of us as individuals, not members of a denomination, group, or church. As a Mennonite and an Evangelical, the "Enduring faithful until the end" is an especially tricky construct. I will leave that in Christ's hands when it comes to judging Navidad. That is both scary and comforting.

I am not the one who used the word salvation in the context of this thread. How I define it doesn't really matter. My question was specific to the LDS perspective on salvation, which I understand to be redemption and exaltation, both of which are in some way related to glorification both here on earth and afterward. If it does indeed matter, I would simply use the word "sanctification" in place of "exaltation." All the rest is the same for me. I may be in error or incomplete in my concept of LDS salvation. That is why I asked. I continue to desire to refine my knowledge of LDS doctrine, even thought to some degree it continues to be something of a scattergram, as is often the truth among non-LDS Christian groups.

I am intrigued by your question. On the one hand, it gets into the wideness of God's mercy and what might happen on Judgment Day that would certainly surprise both Evangelicals and Mormons. It also may get into my personal belief that there will be no earthly denominations in the spirit world, afterlife, or whatever you choose to call life after death. Then there is the other perspective that Lewis is bringing a conclusion to a great novel with no intent for it to be a metaphor for the means by which our eternal destiny will be decided, or that service to Buddha is or is not the same as service to Christ. Not everything Lewis did was theologically motivated; neither was everything that Lewis believed theologically sound from a conservative perspective. If anything, he was a "Jack" Anglican - pun intended (from several perspectives)!

Good afternoon. I am wondering if you would list for us from your understanding of LDS knowledge, those subjects that are indeed required for salvation. I have often wondered about that. I also am curious because when I ask my Evangelical counterparts the same question, they sometimes hesitate and provide contradictory answers. Thanks, Navidad.

With the growth of the LDS church in Africa and in Asia, shouldn't the church look to a gathering more central to its new black and brown-skinned majority, which is virtually sure to increase? Isn't the Church going to have to make some big cultural shifts in order to remain relevant to its new members? The Mennonite Church is facing the identical situation.

I think that JRR Tolkien, in his speech at St Andrews in 1938 speaks to these kinds of issues. He said, As a child . . . "I had no special 'wish to believe.' I wanted to know." In that one simple statement, he fills us in on the difference between belief (the domain of the faithful) and knowledge (the domain of the seeker) - to use my words. I Navidad, for example, have no need, nor any particular desire to believe in the Book of Abraham. Many on this forum have that need and do indeed believe. I Navidad, have no desire to prove anyone who believes in the Book of Abraham as wrong. That would be an impossible task, and one in which I would take no joy or satisfaction. There are others who would take great joy and satisfaction in converting me to a belief in, rather than a knowledge of The Book of Abraham. Part of my challenge is that I find no spiritual satisfaction in the Book of Abraham, as I do in the Book of Mormon. Ditto for Doctrine and Covenants. Neither speak to me as does the Bible and the spiritual part of the BOM. I have no desire or need to dig into the historicity of the BOM because I: 1. see no place for it in the history of Mexico, of which I have knowledge, and 2. I am content with its spiritual message of Christ of whom I am a believer. I have to run. I hope this makes some kind of sense to you all. Best, Navidad

I would respectfully suggest that saying there is a "the accepted historical reality" within the huge Biblical Archaeology and history community is like saying "The King James Bible is the "accepted version" of the Bible in world-wide Christianity. The reality is so much more complex than what such a reductionist statement calls for. Minimalists and maximalists debate each other as do Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, as do Roman and Eastern Catholics and on and on. Scholars like William Dever were attacked from all sides as too this or too that. Conservatives mock scholarology (David Otis Fuller), while scholars dismiss whoever is not in their particular school of scholarship, Biblical or otherwise. Just my .02 cents.

Have you read "On Fairy Stories, by Tolkien?" Everyone should read that forty-page essay/speech.

As far as it goes, it is accurate. It is also incomplete. Of course it is on a site that has a broad scope, so in fairness, it cannot present exhaustive information. The relationships between LDS and LeBaron are fascinating. The 1980s into the present are fascinating as well. The evolution of the LeBarons to a culture instead of a faith is fascinating. The evolution of the careful crafting of power here in Mexico is perhaps the most fascinating. Joel's church still exists, and they honor him above all others as a religious leader. Their consolidation of power in the Galeana region is fascinating. The murders of 2019 are fascinating. To my knowledge, there has never been an academic study of the LeBarons that has been published. The sensationalism has overwhelmed the scholarship and the non-sensational part of their story. I especially enjoy their interrelationships over time with the LDS folks. It is rarely acknowledged openly, even here in the colonies. The true story of them coming out of the LDS church and their various tenures here is fascinating. The relationships of various fundamentalist groups and the LDS church here in Mexico are fascinating. I have done many talks on these various subjects, and folks just seem to be completely surprised by the interrelationships of the Third Convention, the LDS folks, and the LeBarons. Then there are contemporary groups like the La Mora colonia folks, and it all just gets more . . . . fascinating. Of course it all comes together in the US drywall industry! You guessed it! Ha!

Their principal source of authority came through Benjamin F. Johnson

Just my own personal observation of the life of Wilford Woodruff and that of his son. I don't believe President Woodruff ever got over the rejection, as revelation, by the apostles of his Desert Revelation (sometimes called his Sunset Revelation or Wilderness Revelation) in 1880 or 81. I don't know why, but I believe he took that personally. His son, Abraham died an early death as a result of infection from his wife's illness during a visit to Mexico. One died in Mexico City; one died in El Paso.

I would like to share a few random thoughts as a historian of the church - not from the church, of the church, or against the church. The entire subject of this thread is a reflection of the challenge of doing sacred history, especially when there are historians who are "for" and "against." The topic at hand is filled with deceptions (on the part of individuals at all levels), personal ambitions, exaggerated statements, denial of what was, jealousies, anger and resentment, faith, belief, sincere confusion, conflated events, micro-events with immense importance, and inconsistencies. This is not unique or specific to the LDS church. It is the result of human stuff. It neither condemns nor exonerates the church. Neither is not the work of the historian. The meaning of words is vital to understanding the topic at hand. A term like "approval of the leaders" is fraught with multiple hermeneutics. In the case of the hundreds of plural marriages performed here in Mexico after both manifestos, there was clearly unclear compliance on the part of church leaders with what was happening. A church president didn't need to authorize something. Those who did the deed knew it was ok (with someone in the hierarchy) to do so, sans any formal approval. The informal approval grapevine dominated. Someone said the LeBarons did not approve of Woolley's statements. Well, I would suggest that may depend on which LeBaron to whom one is addressing the question. The LeBarons are the most powerful Mormons (I use the term intentionally) in Mexico. They also represent a culture more than a faith. The authority of Benjamin F. Johnson tends to dominate here in some circles. The diversity of their personal religious beliefs and experiences is both deep and wide. Its cultural power has overtaken its familial heritage. As this thread demonstrates, there is and was much confusion about this entire issue between the late 1880s and 1920s. Claims and counterclaims, statements and counterstatements, don't indicate intentional deceit, even though probably was some of that. I think the leaders at every level in those years were genuinely confused about finding and knowing God's will for something critical at that time. Don't lose your faith in your church over the conflation and the confusion. Both were the reflection of the times and of the growing determination on the part of the church to be the Only. In the "for whatever it is worth" department, I recommend B. Carmon Hardy's books on plural marriage. For me, his works are the best on plural marriage and on the colonies. He was a pioneer LDS historian who lost his membership over his work and other issues. However, he continued his work as a faithful historian, faithful to history and the church he so clearly loved.

What you are describing is a methodology widely-used across the host of ideological positions. One's life experiences in general are often presented as "evidence" of the validity of a certain position. While that may be true for the one experiencing such things, they do not validate Truth with a capital T.

I haven't read this whole thread in total. Let me just postulate this - what is the little-known factor that so many of the actors in this drama had in common? Their tight connection with the Mexican colonies, where plural marriage clearly continued little-abated into the 1920s - secret codes and all. Let me assure you that there was more to the involvement than turkey hunting on the Lunt family ranch in Pacheco! Anthony Ivins, Joseph F. Smith, Brigham Young, Jr., John W. Taylor, Matthias F. Cowley, Heber J. Grant, George Q. Cannon, J. Reuben Clark, Erastus Snow, Moses Thatcher, George Teasdale, and Abraham O. Woodruff - those are the apostles off the top of my head who had an in-depth engagement with our colonies and who, in not a few cases had a role in the continuation of plural marriage therein

John W Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley were significant and influential apostles in the Mexican colonies. Some years ago I presented a paper at an annual MHA meeting on the Apostles and the Colonies. I don't even remember where it was given; methinks in SLC.

Amen! Thanks for using the F-word instead of the E-word! Ha!

Of course it would be interesting to determine the context in which the word was used. It also would be fun to figure out how it reaches down into the vocabulary of the average pew member, let's just say for fun in a ward in distant Chihuahua! I thihk it would be used four times a week in a sermon in an Evangelical community. It is a very important concept, second only to salvation. Take care all.

I most likely exaggerated when I said the word "sanctification" was dropped. I simply never heard it once in six years of attendance at an LDS ward - not in Elders Quorum, Gospel Doctrine or during a Sacrament talk. I obviously heard the sacrament prayers hundreds of times, but that was to sanctify the bread and water, not the people taking it. I have also chatted with many LDS folks at various conferences, and they have told me it historically was not used very much at all, and only recently do they remember hearing the word in church. I was also told once it is a term that "Christians" use. I am only referencing my own experience. Sorry for making a generalization. I dislike doing that.