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.

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.