Navidad

Thanks so much. Quick questions: Those who do not accept the ordinances performed on their behalf. What happens to them? Will there be emissaries (since someone didn't like the term missionaries) from other churches in the spirit prison? Will I be cognizant of my Mennonite membership in heaven? Is my father cognizant of his Plymouth Brethren commended worker status in heaven? More importantly, will Christ be aware of those things in "a preliminary judgment?" Will there be joyous reunions in spirit prison before or after the preliminary judgment? Who will perform the preliminary judgment, and what will be the basis of that verdict of that judgment? The person's godliness and faithfulness on earth? Christ's mercy? Solely and only the person's relationship to the LDS church in their life? Will I be judged more harshly because I had plenty of opportunities, all of which I rejected, to join the church in my earthly life? I am assuming there is a pathway (metaphorically speaking) between paradise and spirit prison. Is that pathway only for the LDS member? Will a temple recommend matter in placement? Will only LDS members be assigned to Paradise initially after the preliminary judgment? Obviously that is a lot of questions. This is just how my mind works. I have a high need to know and understand. Thanks so very much in advance for providing me the information you did, and for answering any of my questions that you care to answer.

Hi Webbles: I have lots of references. I probably won't be able to get back online tonight, but I can do so tomorrow. Take care, Navidad

Just a brief comment. Plural marriage did not end within ten years of Brigham Young's death. It is clear from the evidence that plural marriage continued into the 1920s in the Mexican colonies. Brigham Young Jr. was involved in the post-First Manifesto plural marriage in the colonies. Joseph F Smith and most likely, Heber Grant as presidents and a number of apostles continued the process in the colonies until 1924 or so. A. F. Macdonald, as patriarch, performed many of these marriages. Brigham Young Jr. performed 10 of them at once on a train just inside of Mexico.

I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for them. In my OP, I asked for advice, counsel, and information. You all are providing that for me. Some of it opens up many more questions for me, and like you, I hesitate to ask them, especially after asking for your thoughts. When I asked, I imagined there would be things said with which I would not agree. That is ok. What I am still lacking is a clear concept of LDS beliefs about the afterlife. I have a large library on LDS doctrine, but virtually nothing that touches on the immediate afterlife of a deceased LDS Christian, or a deceased non-LDS Christian (from an LDS perspective). Joyous reunion or spirit prison for my son? Both my son and his aunt (my sister) died outside the LDS church. Are they having a joyous reunion or languishing in some place called spirit prison? If his proxy work has not been done, then what is his relationship to the LDS folks who are there to minister to him? Will there be more proxy work done in the spirit world, specifically in spirit prison? And on and on. I think all churches tend toward murkiness and inconsistency regarding the afterlife. "Absent from the body and present with the Lord" is used for comfort in some churches. As for me, I believe God is no respecter of persons, either in this life or the next. I can't see any place for denominations and any other concept of church in heaven other than the true church—the gathering of all those who claim Christ as their Savior. Maybe that is what the neglected part of D&C 1:30 means - "the collective church"as opposed to the "church individually." I have only ever heard one LDS speaker opine on that. Ok, I don't want to get into a debate after I promised I would not. I would simply go online today and buy any book (that I don't already own) that any of you can recommend on the LDS perspective of the hereafter that gives specific examples and situations. Right now I am fascinated with the ethical (at least) and moral/spiritual (at most) significance of using data gathered through FamilySearch from people who think they are simply going on a great family heritage genealogy site. My son is not on FamilySearch, and right now I am not inclined to put him there until I resolve this dilemma in my own mind. Someone else might. Who knows? Thanks and very best wishes.

It certainly gives me pause for reflection, as I often encourage folks (non-LDS) to be active on FamilySearch, as I am myself. My parents were born in 1910. That is 115 years ago. I wonder if they have been proxy baptized. I have been provided great access into FamilySearch, but as a non-member, I can't see the ordinance records. Maybe allowing that (at least for baptismal records of non-members) would open the transparency of what happens behind the scenes in FamilySearch. Is it possible for a church non-member to put in a request that their ancestors never ever be proxy baptized into the LDS church? Or, could I put in a request that I never be proxy baptized? Hasn't the broad Jewish community been effective in negotiating that with the Church? It seems I remember that from somewhere. Does the Church have a form for that? If so, would they still be allowed to use FamilySearch? I do think there might be some significant backlash if this use of FamilySearch were widely known. I have known it to be a fact for many years, but I guess I never really thought about the "offense factor" until this week with my son's death. Now I am thinking about my Plymouth Brethren parents and my wife's Mennonite bishop great grandfather, and so on. I suppose the fact of this usage must be included in some terms of service, those long statements that I never read. I'll have to check that out sometime when the urge strikes.

Hey @Kenngo1969 you might make a really great Baptist preacher someday! Ha! As the Baptists are so fond of saying, "That'll preach!" Thanks, my friend.

Thanks. I also appreciate the Martha illustration. That sounds a lot like something a Mennonite would say. Best wishes.

To all: I made a mistake last night. I replied to Stargazer from a position of hurt, confusion, and yes - pain. I should not have done that. A doctrinal back-and-forth on the validity of the exclusive authority of the LDS church is for another day, or perhaps better yet, not to have at all except as an exercise in apologetics, a field I don't particularly enjoy. I was wrong in my reply because it might discourage others from replying as well. I don't want that. So, I publicly apologize to my friend from England. Sometimes we don't agree because we don't understand. Sometimes we don't understand because we don't understand, while other times we don't understand because we don't want to understand because understanding may bring the risk of change. Wow, what a sentence that was! Ha! Perhaps I should have started a thread that requests your prayers for peace for me in the absence of my son and in the presence of my still very ill wife. It is not a spiritual peace I need, but an emotional one. I hope that makes sense to my LDS friends. There are many conservative non-LDS Christians, especially from the Reformed tradition, who do not believe in the emotional as a valid font of need. To them, everything that isn't physical in a human is spiritual. They have a term, "nouthetic" to refer to that belief. I don't know what you all believe on that issue, or maybe there is a great diversity in your beliefs about that, as there is in the non-LDS Christian community. I believe in a tripartite view of humanity: body, soul (mind, will, and emotions), and spirit (the spiritual). I think the LDS doctrine teaches body and spirit, so maybe you are aligned with a nouthetic approach? Not something to debate now. I just think what I need right now is emotional peace. BUT, I don't want to debate that either. Best wishes to all. I value all your replies, and again I apologize to Stargazer.

I understand that. You did nothing wrong. You simply answered the question I asked. It is I who wanted to debate, because I don't like your answer, I am very stressed, and am afraid I am not done with loss. I appreciate your time and effort. Thanks and very best wishes.

Thanks for asking. Life with him was often a challenge, but it was also a commitment born out of love. Therefore, our commitment (covenant) to love him always won out, regardless of the circumstances of any given day. I think from his perspective our relationship with him was a bit "go away closer." He wanted his independence while craving our love and approval. Perhaps that is no different from the desires of any child. He is the only child we ever had. We adopted him at six months of age. Therefore, he was our child of choice. He struggled with loving back; no manner of role modeling could change that. He had a rare syndrome that dominated his life. I said to my wife tonight that I am surprised at how much I miss him. Perhaps that sounds terrible, but it is what I am feeling this evening. I like the music of the Eagles. I have thought a lot tonight about their song, "A Hole in the World." Well, there's a hole in the world tonight in our home. There will probably be a hole in the world tomorrow as well. Right now I am really struggling to get my head around this LDS concept of proxy baptism. I most likely have too much going on right now to be able to be objective about it. I want to rant a bit about many of the temple recommendation holders I have known. But that would be contrary to the spirit of this thread. I asked a question, and now I am getting the answers. I must honor those who do me the kindness of answering my question, regardless of whether I like the answer or not. My wife is still weak. I am scared of still losing her. Things are a bit topsy turvy and no amount of doctrinal back-and-forth will help me tonight. Thanks, Chum, for asking me the question that you did. That helps me reflect on the moment, not on 110 years from now! Take care and best wishes.

Thanks for your time and effort. However, my previous reply still stands. You see, I know my son's worthiness. I have no trust or confidence in the worthiness of some stranger for no other reason than that he possesses a temple recommend while potentially being much less spiritually minded and faithful than my son. If you are betting on authority being the key; I'll take godliness and spirituality any day of the week. Having said all of that, I didn't start this thread to debate. I apologize for doing so. I want to understand and my heart is very sensitive right now. This is no hypothetical doctrinal debate. Thanks for your time and effort in your replies to me. Best wishes.

So if I understand you correctly, in your beliefs, my ultimate destiny does not depend on my faith, belief, faithfulness, or acceptance of the grace, life, redemption, or salvation of Christ. My ultimate destiny depends on the unique authority of one who performed a proxy baptism for me—someone I probably never met, one whose worthiness is less important than their authority. That person will know nothing about my own potential worthiness or not, of eternal life with Christ. So my salvation, including what you deem exaltation, is dependent on that stranger's authority, not mine. It isn't even based on their worthiness either. All they need is a temple recommend, do the ritual forty times a night, and the salvation is granted once I say OK in the spirit world. In a sense there is no faith at all involved on my part. When I die and see that the LDS faith is true with certainty because it is the only one existing in heaven, I will logically conclude that you were right and I was wrong. Then, based on that logical certitude, I accept what is an obvious reality and am rewarded for the same with salvation and some degree of heavenly exaltation. My own personal faith, worthiness, sanctification, belief, trust, etc. etc. have nothing to do with my salvation. Christ accepts me because of the faithfulness of some unknown member of the LDS church who did an act of proxy baptism for me as one of a thousand they did in their lifetime. Perhaps Christ only considers my own faithfulness in deciding in which kingdom to place me. Then, since I have rejected the LDS exclusivity in my life, I have no opportunity for exaltation on the other side beyond my initial placement because of an anonymous proxy baptism, by someone whose own personal worthiness is unknown. Do I have that correct? Sorry, that is in no way a faith for me. Christ isn't interested then in my faithfulness, nor in my personal belief in Him, but in a ritual performed by someone else on my behalf. My son just died. So now, his eternal hope is in some completely unknown stranger's ritual more than a hundred years from now. What is his status for the next hundred years? He died last Saturday. Has he already found out whether you were right and he and I were wrong? If so, why does he have to wait one hundred years to be baptized by a proxy person based on their authority and not on his worthiness? I must be missing something.

Wow! I wonder who programmed this particular AI conclusion? Well, I guess that settles it. AI says that restrictivism is the dominant view of "traditional Protestant theology." As of when? How does AI define "traditional Protestant theology"? Can I rely on AI to provide me accurate doctrinal information on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Hold on and let me ask AI about the LDS traditional dominant view of its own restrictivism? I acknowledge I am having fun at AI's expense. You gave it a good shot, but I am not buying it! What you just quoted just reinforces the concept of artificial intelligence! Ha! Oh, and I just asked AI if the LDS church is a restrictivist group - Here is its summary conclusion: "Conclusion While the LDS Church has had restrictive practices in its history, particularly regarding race and moral conduct, it has made significant changes over time. The church emphasizes a commitment to its doctrines and community standards, which some may view as restrictive." I am not sure if that is an answer or not! Best wishes.

I think this might be what is called a "strawman" fallacy. I grew up smack dab in the middle of mainstream non-LDS Evangelical and to some degree, Fundamentalist Christianity. I then went to an Evangelical college, seminary, and graduate school. I don't remember ever hearing anyone in any of that teach that humans will be "sentenced to eternal torment for simply not having the opportunity to hear their gospel." I certainly have never taught that. Your claim seems to me to be like the claim that some of my LDS friends love to postulate that most Protestant Christians are creedal as a means to dismiss "their gospel" as well. You may be generalizing the views of the most right-wing minority of non-LDS Protestant Christians to be the norm. Even those in the reformed movement within Evangelicalism most often see a different judgment for those who never heard but may be among the "elect" that God has chosen to be His own. No one knows the breadth of that belief. I don't believe in election, but I know many who do and they believe in a great wideness in God's mercy because of the power of grace. I think many of my LDS friends do not understand the depth, power, and width of grace in the doctrines of the Protestant non-LDS Christians because grace has historically not been a focal point of LDS teachings. Best wishes.

Very interesting way to put it. I am going to have to ponder on that for a while. It is hard for me to give that comment a "like," but I will because I believe 1. you are genuine in your comment and 2. I find it helpful, if somewhat disturbing on some level. Just to clarify, do you think that Christ, as part of my judgment, will check to see if my name is on some list of those who have undergone the LDS baptism, whether by proxy or in person? Or???? Thanks.

The last three months have really been a challenge. My wife almost died in September and probably would have if it weren't for a powerful and loyal LDS friend, two insistent cardiologists (one a Sunni Muslim), and a wonderfully sure-of-himself Jewish thoracic surgeon. I mention their faiths just for fun. During November and early December my son was terribly sick. He did die last Saturday morning in a hospital, with me insisting that the doctors and staff let me hold his hand while he died. For those of you who don't know, he was disabled and lived with us (my wife and me) for his entire 47 years. He was unconscious, connected to a respiratory device, and most likely had no idea I was there. The grace of holding his hand was more for me than for him. My wife couldn't travel to the hospitals with me, so she remained behind, here near the colonies, with our dear neighbors, workers, and LDS friends to support her. Needless to say, it has been a struggle. I say all of that for background. We have had tremendous support in a traditional LDS-kind-of-a-way all the way from September to yesterday. I say that positively. They may have done so with or without the support of their bishop, who we have not seen or heard from at any point of this journey. When I pastored, I was not very good at home visits. Perhaps he isn't either. His wife has been here, though, with terrific support for my wife. Now to the point (you all know how long it takes me to get to the point!). What am I going to do if someone from the ward indicates they want to do a proxy baptism for my son? I am not sure how that works, so I am asking here. How does that work? My son was baptized by a Mennonite bishop who I have often mentioned on this forum in my seven years here. He was a wonderfully godly man. You all also know I do not appreciate certainty in faith. Having said that, I am "fairly" certain that my son's baptism was pleasing to the Lord, as was the godly man who ministered it. I am also fairly certain Christ has no preference for mode, amount of water, etc. Nor do I think one of his questions of me at the judgment seat will be by what earthly church and minister was I baptized, or even if I was baptized in my previous life. Now what do I say or do if I am asked permission by one or more of my friends to proxy baptize my son in the temple fifteen minutes from my house? My son was baptized by pouring water from a pitcher. Our church usually baptizes by immersion, but the bishop agreed to baptize my son by pouring at 14 years of age because of his autism and concomitant fear of water. I don't believe I need an LDS baptism for my son as an "insurance" policy. I don't believe he "needs" to be LDS baptized because his baptism was either blasphemy (Spencer Kimball) or displeasing to Christ (any number of LDS sacrament sermons and teachings). So, do I simply smile and say, "No, thank you." Will that last through several years from now when someone else gets his name from a list? Should I simply let someone do it so as not to offend them or their faith? I think that is reasonable. You see, for those of you who may not know . . . I am not a member of the LDS church because I could not affirm that my previous baptism performed by my father was of no validity in God's eyes or ears because the one who did it had no authority. One thing my dad had was plenty of authority! He had so much authority, he pitched men's softball with a tie on! So what is your advice and/or counsel? Is my son already being preached to by LDS missionaries in the spirit world, especially our friends from here who have passed on, including at least one general authority emeritus? Has someone probably already (in the past week) performed a proxy baptism on his behalf without my knowledge? As I said, I realize that as much as I know about LDS stuff, I don't know the answer to questions I am asking here. Thanks so much. Best wishes to all, especially to those of you who supported me and my wife through her crisis in Chandler.

Let me try and clear up the confusion. On 11/14, @Pyreaux answered a question from @theplains about the Doctrines of Salvation. He said: "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation." (emphasis mine) I then asked, quoting this comment of @Pyreaux, what are those subjects that are indeed required for salvation? Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith offered personal views, speculation and opinions on the subjects that are not required for salvation. My reference point was asking "what are such subjects that are not required for salvation." I have no way of knowing, without reading "Doctrines of Salvation" what Smith was talking about. I was asking @Pyreaux what his thoughts are as to what those subjects might be necessary or required, or in the reverse, not required for salvation in the LDS mindset? So I wasn't referring to any specific salvation other than that intended by @Pyreaux in his reply to @theplains. I wasn't defining salvation in any way. I was asking about what Joseph Fielding Smith might have been including or excluding when offering personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation? That is of interest to me since I have an interest in Joseph Fielding Smith because of his Mexican connections. I hope this helps straighten out the confusion. Or perhaps makes it more confusing! I just think this context might help.

The way I read your question is what do today's non-LDS Christians believe about Jehovah in the Old Testament, not what did or do the Jews believe about Jehovah. Therefore, I will try and answer the former, not the latter. The first part of my answer is what you might expect. Modern-day non-LDS Christians are a large and diverse group, not agreeing in unanimity with many concepts, including the answer to your question. I will not attempt to answer the question for modern-day non-LDS Catholic questions. There are others here to do that. I believe other modern LDS Christians, by and large, view Jehovah as the God of Israel, with a modern-day concept of Jehovah as focusing on who we would today deem as the Father. The Holy Spirit also is present in the Old Testament, but seemingly separate from Jehovah. Christ is foretold in the Old Testament in a prophetic sense and is often seen in the Old Testament in an allegorical, but not literal sense. Some modern-day Christian trinitarian advocates see the trinity in Jehovah. They may see Christ in the burning bush, for example. It is not thought that Christ did not exist in OT times, in His pre-incarnate nature, but that He was not active (except perhaps in a trinitarian, allegorical, or prophetic sense) in Scripture until the incarnation, when He fulfilled the promises, prophecies, etc. of Jehovah. I'm in favor of Christ in the NT as Jehovah incarnate and active. Also the word "type" comes into play when talking about Christ in the OT. We believe that there were many illustrations, examples, allegorical predictions about Christ, that we define as "types." A type could be a person, a place, an animal, an object, all might be types of Christ in a foreshadowing sense and indeed separate from mentions of the very concrete God, Jehovah. The God (Jehovah) of the OT developed the plan. The birth, life, death, resurrection, and glorification of Christ was the plan to enable the plan of salvation to become a reality. I may not be clear enough here; I am simply trying to summarize without my usual wordiness. best, Navidad. "

Yes, OSC's ministries came straight out of non-denominational outreach groups - what some (positively and negatively) deem "parachurch" ministries. It is thoroughly Evangelical, coming out of the "reformation" as early as the 1940s and 1950s of Fundamentalism that morphed into Evangelicalism. My only concern (and I acknowledge it is none of my business) is that it is a bit too personality-driven. In that kind of organization, when the pastor "falls" the church often comes apart, since it does not have a denominational connection to hold it together. Yet, at the same time, that is a strength of the Evangelical movement, and gatherings like those in the OSC group. They remind me of the Calvary Chapel movement which has similar roots in parachurch organizations. Take care and very best wishes.

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 .