Navidad

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

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

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

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

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

If you are unaware that the Evangelical movement split off from Fundamentalism in the 1940s and that the differences have expanded ever since, then you are not as informed about non-LDS Christians as you think. Fundamentalists are often or more often witnessing to Evangelicals as they are to the LDS. They think we have apostasized from the truth, so perhaps we (Evangelicals) are even worse than the LDS. The Evangelical community broadens in incremental ways, especially within theological distinctions. I am a "wideness on God's mercy" Evangelical. That makes me center left in the Evangelical community. I have been to Temple Square many times, but never once to witness. I, in fact would be far more likely to chastise my Fundamentalist friends that to my LDS friends. Cherry picking websites and youtube posts is not a particularly good way to make a point. Anyway, I don't think you are of a mind to dialogue with either me or your more moderated brothers and sisters here from the LDS community. BTW strickly thinking, I have never seen an Evangelical witnessing at Temple Square or at a pageant. Many Fundamentalists, yes, but never an Evangelical. But, best wishes anyway.

If you had made a point, I would not have downgraded your post (not you). Likes and dislikes are valuable currency in this forum. You are both generalizing and normalizing in your posts. Those are two of the five precursors to human conflict. They rarely, if ever, bring about understanding or dialogue. This is a dialogue forum. I haven't seen a desire in your few posts for much dialogue. Your statements are sweeping and written with certitude. Neither is the stuff of dialogue and consensus building. Methinks you are conflating Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, two very distinct and often mad-at-each-other communities within conservative and middle-of-the-road non-LDS Christianity. Conflating Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is kind of like conflating LeBaron and Kingdom of God Mormonism with LDS Mormonism here where I live. BTW, it surprises me that you are opposed to "witnessing." So are you equally opposed when LDS missionaries "witness?" Take care.

In my first response, I did so from a rather light-hearted, personal perspective. Let me simply add that I think the article you quote is spot-on. It was written twenty years or so ago and I think things have improved since then. I only would add my perspective that I hinted at before, that the blind spots, generalizing and normalizing are equally to be found among both groups. I claim to be able to say that because I have lived most of my life watching Evangelicalism evolve and I actually taught a few sessions of Old Testament study in a Mormon ward adult Sunday School (Gospel Doctrine class) as a non-member. The desire and thirst to understand the Bible was as great or perhaps even greater than when we moved on to the other LDS scriptures (which I did not teach)! At 77 years of age I no longer have the quest for confrontation that I had as a sixteen year old. Today (as I write this) I am aware of a greater sense of sadness about the tropes, straw men, and fallacious debates that are often had among our two groups (especially conservative traditional members of the LDS church and Fundamentalists (who I still rigorously maintain need to be understood by my LDs friends as distinct from Evanglicals. My personal experience is that there is pretty equal reluctance to budge from what is sometimes spuriously described as doctrine on both sides. That is why I enjoy hanging around this forum. All that noise is quite muted here. Sometimes I wish some of us could get together for hotcakes and bacon; something that in my experience might really bring us together (spoken maple syrup in cheek)!

Well Congratulations! I have been on this forum for around nine years now. I have never given anyone's post (that I remember) a down vote. Now I can't say that anymore!

So we are all equal opportunity criticizers! That sounds to me like something @The Nehor would enjoy!

My thoughts are that there are plenty of blindspots to go around. As an Evangelical I am not unprepared; nor do I ignore our differences. I choose rather to engage in hotcakes with bacon well done. They bring more people together than all the apologetics in the world. As an Evangelical I don't deny the LDS the fullness of their relationship with Christ. I might simply suggest that in denying the fullness of my participation in the Holy Spirit you have the blind spot which is generated by your apologista and doctrine. You may not even get to know me prior to assuring me that I cannot possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non- LDS Christian. As some LDS have told me "It's nothing personal!" Ha, talk about a blind spot! Best wishes to you anyway!

Ok. I understand the difference between the two disciplines. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the higher or better part. Heiser was a professor in the distance program at Liberty. He was a graduate of Bob Jones University. He died of the same cancer that killed both my parents and according to odds, will also take me some day. Many Bob Jones graduates have an uncanny knack of navigating its Fundamentalism, transitioning into Evangelicalism, and appreciating academic scholarship. It is a unique place with a unique history. Ditto for Liberty. I simply don't think he would react well to being thought of as higher or better than his counterparts who are equally Evangelical, with an added (not better or lesser) belief in the need to understand the role of the Holy Spirit in Old Testament transmission and hermeneutics. In today's Evangelicalism, one can be committed to academic scholarship in the study of the transmission and interpretation of the text and an Evangelical . It isn't one or the other. I am not talking about Fundamentalist inerrancy. There is a wideness in today's Evangelical tent that hasn't always existed in the past. He represented that by his engagement with Liberty. Traditional Evangelism has widened. I apprecite that as I admire your posts and engagement in the study of the Old Testament. Best wishes.

I am uncertain as to what you mean. In what way are these scholars "above" such theologians who take a different perspective? One precursor to conflict is ranking. This reads a lot like ranking. Help me understand. Thanks.

FWIW, Most Mennonite bishops are also pastors of a church. They do get paid for their pastoral work and for travel expenses as a bishop (they may cover several states) as in the southeast USA. Moravian bishops don't receive any salary for the positions but get travel expenses paid as well. Every few years there is a worldwide meeting of Moravian bishops. Do the LDS bishops or stake presidents ever get together in a big Bishopric Conference somewhere? I knew many Southern Baptist pastors who were "bi-vocational." They held full-time jobs and pastored a church for very little, if any salary. I was a music and youth pastor in several Baptist churches. I received a small salary and in two cases, lots of vegetables and beef from the local Texas Baptist farmers in the churches. We ate well! I also was the English pastor of a Mandarin Baptist Chuch. My wife and I learned how to make awesome (he says humbly) Chinese food!

Thanks for this. I wonder what the word "uniform" means? Does it mean the same amount, or for the same specific expenses, which could vary widely across the world? In my mind, uniform might mean a list of things for which they are paid: mortgage payment, rent, utilities, repairs, and ongoing maintenance. Or it could mean $10,000 a month for everyone. In that case, the general authority would have to prove with documents that they spent the money on its intended use (housing expenses) and nothing else. Travel expenses, could not come out of that, for example. They could deduct travel expenses for their ministry but not out of housing allowance. If the Church pays their travel expense (on a church credit card, for example), they would have to follow Church travel policy for travel expenses, whatever that might be. It might be $80 per night maximum or $100 per day for meals. Or only fly coach, or, or, or. I once worked for the Marriott corporation. They had fairly strict travel expense rules. I know that has nothing to do with the Church. So, if a GA has his house paid off, he would not be allowed to have a housing allowance that included any mortgage or rent purposes. I don't know if general authorities collect social security, but they would have to pay into that as does everyone. I don't think age matters, but I really don't know. Furthermore, I am no longer receiving any funds from a ministry allowance. Oh, and as an aside, I remember flying home from a conference in Boise (love the Bacon Restaurant in downtown Boise). I was in line, and two general authorities got in line behind me for the same flight. One, I believe, was Elder Cornish of the First Seventy. So I can testify that general authorities fly Southwest!! I would also suggest that a "living allowance" that doesn't follow the IRS rules for clergypersons, is a salary and taxable income, any way you slice it.

Well, I may be the only person on this forum who has actually pastored and who has received a housing allowance and/or parsonage for my ministry. What the LDS do is what virtually all denominations or churches do regarding clergy compensation. It is a bit complex, but not overly complicated. One must distinguish between income tax and self-employment tax (for social security purposes). This IRS rule is for ordained ministers regardless of faith affiliation. A church or denomination may provide a church-owned parsonage for their minister. The church may pay utilities and grass cutting, and even furnish the house. The value of this each year must be claimed by the minister for social security tax purposes. There are three formulas for calculating the amount of this "housing allowance." In the absence of a parsonage, the church may declare in advance (key concept) how much of a pastor's compensation is paid in housing allowance and how much in salary, if any. The salary is fully taxed for social security and for income tax. The amount of housing allowance is only taxed for social security. Some pastors don't pay into social security and usually (those who I know) have regretted that upon retirement. I spent some time as the director of a church owned retirement center. I was ordained in that church. I often spoke in chapel services and did counseling with the residents. The IRS will decide on an individual basis of the role of the minister meets that intended by the law. Ditto for an ordained professor teaching in a church university. The value of the housing allowance may not and should not exceed the actual cost of the housing, including everything from repairs, lawn maintenance, utilities, etc. It also may not exceed the amount designated “in advance” by the church or religious organization. I have no knowledge if an LDS bishop as an ordained minister is paid a housing allowance by the LDS or not. I have never been a bishop. It also could be up to the individual bishop whether to go that route, just as it is for any other minister of any other church. In addition, the minister can deduct his expenses in his ministry, just like any business or self-employed person can. It is not honest for any minister of any church to claim they have no income for their service if they accept any form of housing allowance. It also is not correct to simply say that housing allowance is not taxed. The only way it is not taxed is if the minister does not pay into social security, which is a possibility. I hope this helps. I once pastored in northern New Jersey; I lived in a church owned parsonage. I never could have afforded to rent or buy a house there. It was a blessing to have a nice (not fancy—but nice) home in which to live. When I moved on of course, I lost that benefit. Take care all.

I hope this response comes across well. . . . Back sometime around 2019 ( I may have the date wrong) or so, I had a VIP tour (just me) of the Beehive House given by the managing director of Temple Square. I think that was his title. I don't remember his name. I was speaking at some meeting in SLC and for some reason, was provided a wonderful tour by an obviously very well-informed church leader who took me anywhere he wanted in the house. He was a friend of Reid Neilson, who at that time was managing director of the church history department. He later was a mission president and now a leader at BYU. I mention him because I hope he is a friend, but more importantly, a really Godly man who taught me some good lessons while having lunch here in our home in the colonies. No one can ever tell me that members of the LDS church are not Godly after my time with Reid Neilson and my many hours with the bishop of our ward here in Colonia Juárez. Perhaps Reid is the one who arranged the tour for me, or perhaps it was Elder Snow. I really don't remember, and I guess that isn't relevant. What was important was that I had a very open and candid tour of all parts of the property. I would describe it as more than just historically accurate. I was grateful for the time and opportunity. I believe that was the trip where I was told that Elder Bednar is my first cousin thirteen times removed! I also got to sing in an impromptu choir in the choir loft of the tabernacle. I was seated in front of the bass pipes. I was glad I had given my talk the day before because I don't think I could hear anything for a week. I got to sit next to two great singers and LDS historians, the Shepherd brothers. Their work on General Conference talks is still one of the best. Anyway, I just want to say all this to say that everyone I met was very open and candid about church history. I enjoyed my time there very much. If I remember right, I was put up at a Radisson hotel right off Temple Square and walked to a Sheraton Hotel somewhere a few blocks away for the conference. There was a Chinese restaurant in between that I really liked. I guess that is enough of my walk down memory lane. All of this to say that in 2017, 18, or 19 . . . Whenever it was, I was very pleased with the kindness and historical openness shared with this non-member!

Very well said. I consider myself to be a “wideness in God's Mercy" kind of a Christian. That term comes from an old hymn that I really treasure. Here are the words, There’s a wideness in God’s mercy, Like the wideness of the sea; There’s a kindness in God’s justice, Which is more than liberty. There is welcome for the sinner, And more graces for the good; There is mercy with the Savior, There is healing in His blood. But we make God’s love too narrow By false limits of our own, And we magnify its strictness With a zeal God will not own. For the love of God is broader Than the measures of the mind, And the heart of the Eternal Is most wonderfully kind. If our love were but more simple, We should rest upon God’s word, And our lives would be illumined By the presence of our Lord. "If our love were but more simple.". . . . I'll say Amen to that! The song is by Frederick Faber from 1862. Oh, and if anyone is interested—Faber was an Anglican migrant to Roman Catholicism. So he was a religious migrant seventeen years before he wrote this song as a faithful Roman Catholic! I like that!

As always, you say things really well. I would simply suggest that there are numerous Protestants who claim a crimson or a scarlet thread back to Christ as well! For many, Luther and his other magisterial reformers were a "johnny come lately"(whatever that means) reformationist group. Reformation often carries a connotation of change from within, as well as change from outside. That is an aspect of Church history that is often ignored. For a portion of Protestantism, that reformation (or restoration, if you will) goes back to Irenaeus and other Christian leaders all the way to Erasmus and beyond to modern times. Truth in a New Testament Koiné Greek sense is a revealing. Christ was the first great revelator of this dispensation of grace. He personified truth as truth was often personified in ancient times. In that sense, Christ was the first reformer personified. Oh, and so as not to offend, restorationists fit in there too! For many, in a modern sense, there is little difference between a reformer and a restorer! Gotta run!

I would suggest that the majority of Protestants are not creedal Christians. “Almost all” is quite a stretch. Certainly, Catholicism, including Orthodox Christianity, is creedal, but they don't represent “almost all” of Christianity. Then I would also suggest that not “almost all” of the rest of Christianity, who are not creedal, believe theirs is “the only true belief system.” They certainly might believe that their belief system is the best interpretation of the Scriptures, but that is very different than believing theirs is the “only true” belief system. Probably some Fundamentalists (capital F) believe that, but they are neither a majority nor are they creedal. There also seems to be increasing diversity within Catholicism. I don't observe “almost all” Latin American Catholics holding such a strict interpretation. Latin American Catholicism is a significant percentage of Catholicism in the world. There also seems to be diversity within Mormonism on the “only true” belief claim. African, Latin, and Asian Christians are significant populations that we often ignore in such claims. We have had these discussions before. I think many in the LDS church find some comfort and identity in thinking of themselves as "unique," in the Christian community but at the same time seem to resist being labeled as "onlyists." I have a bunch of "new" Mormon history friends who are not so comfortable defining their faith as "thee only true belief" system. I think I see a significant increase in LDS church members who question aspects of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, for example, just as I see an increase in non-LDS Christians who question the strict interpretation of Biblical history as has been traditionally held. We have young LDS missionaries, both Anglo and Latino, in our home almost every week for one reason or another. They seem much more diverse in their view of onlyism than perhaps were the missionaries we meet of even ten years ago. I would suggest that, for good or bad, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, the worldwide Christian community is becoming increasingly diverse in many ways. Of course, my observations are not a scientific survey. They are simply my observations as I live my life in a wide interfaith and cross-cultural existence. There certainly seem to be conservatives and progressives in virtually all faith communities, even in non-Christian faith communities. Perhaps both ends are increasing, thus changing the shape of the normal curve when it comes to certainty of believers. I am not sure I said that well, but I have to go! Blessings on all.

I would quietly suggest that your first statement does not represent the truth. Of the thousands of Christian groups in the world, I would suggest that very few insist that they are "the one true church." I would suggest that most suggest they are "a true church," and most probably are. As far as their leaders claiming to be speaking the word of God, I would agree with you, with the caveat that various leaders would claim that with varying amounts of humility, certainty, and confidence. When I pastored, I prayed every week that I would have wisdom and judgment in my teaching and preaching ministry. I recognized that on many points of doctrine, my teachings were just one view of many. I have also learned that just within the LDS church, local leaders, like bishops and stake presidents, have varying understandings of both scripture and the church general handbook, which on a local level. the interpretation is often varied. I should welcome you to the forum. So welcome! We are a widely diverse group with many varying degrees of beliefs and certainty in our midst. Oh, and as far as Hus; his case is quite a bit more complicated than you make it. I thoroughly enjoy the Moravian history and teachings. The Catholic Church, in the person of a recent pope, has apologized for his death. In fact, my wife and I just watched a Moravian church service from Pennsylvania this morning. As far as Arius, you can look up on Cambridge University websites his extant letters and other documents, which offer an excellent summary of his doctrinal beliefs.

Thomas Murphy; Unsettling Scripture: Iroquois and the Book of Mormon. Very in-depth study and excellent from a historical research perspective.

The fact that people come and go does not diminish the faith that I have that the LDS church is a true church. Notice the indefinite article (did I say that right?). That fact confirms for me that the LDS church is just like every other church in Christianity. It is not the only one, forcing my church to be another. It is simply another as well. The Church of Jesus Christ is indeed the gathering of all believers in the world, regardless of specific affiliation. We are all, and each one of us is, subject to lapses of faith, crises of faith, and failures of how we live our respective faith. That is our great commonality. We are all human; the world-wide Church of Jesus Christ is the collective gathering of imperfect humanity; therefore, the ekklesia itself is imperfect, be in Mormon or Methodist. I just finished reading another brand new book about how Joseph Smith borrowed directly from the Iroquois myths and beliefs in crafting the historic part of the Book of Mormon. I can see that book being destined to win some awards for modern academic LDS literature. What the author has discovered and believes in no way diminishes the Book of Mormon in the sense of its truth, unless you structure truth as strictly truth in a binary sense. I don't. I am not LDS but respect and admire many of my LDS friends. At the same time, I have seen enough warts and imperfections in my LDS friends, as I am sure they have seen in me. The LDS church is a wonderful gathering of believers, but it is far from perfect or the only one, just like every other place where humans gather, including all other churches. It is only when my LDS friends insist they are theeeeeee one and only true one that I feel left out and distant. Just like I do when some of my Orthodox Presbyterian friends or other Fundamentalist friends do the same thing. There is now a new bishop in the ward I attended for six or seven years. It will be interesting to see his perspective on the interpretation of the general handbook related to non-members. Take care all and very best wishes.

I am jumping in very late, but aren't we suggesting that the Holy Spirit was what or who was Hellenized? As an Evangelical, I believe that the Holy Spirit played a rather significant role in what came down to us as scripture, both in its initial creation and as the process progressed in the hands of the church. Perhaps the Holy Spirit was a disciple of Plato; or perhaps the Holy Spirit influenced Plato? But it seems to me the single greatest influence in the creation of the Biblical Scripture was the Holy Spirit. Would our LDS friends disagree with that? I haven't read every post in this thread. Having said that, I haven't seen a discussion of the role of the Holy Spirit in superintending that which has been passed down to us over the centuries of human engagement with the text. Excluding the Holy Spirit from a discussion of the creation of the text is like leaving Colonel Sanders out of the development of KFC! I'll take the original recipe any time! Ha!

In the course of my speaking engagements, I am often asked about the distinct beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the unique beliefs of Mennonites. Instead of me (a non-member) trying to highlight my ideas, I generally recommend they read these five books in this order: 1. The Doctrine and Covenants—This seems to me to be the heart of LDS doctrine and beliefs that are unique and specific (therefore distinct). 2. The General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—This seems to me to explain the orthopraxy of the church in real life and practice the best. It seems to me to be the most influential of the five books in the actual life of a typical LDS ward. 3. The Book of Mormon—This seems to me to be the cornerstone document of the church, but not one that is going to teach the reader unique and specific doctrines. It certainly testifies of Jesus Christ, but in a manner that, except for its historical context, is pretty normative in its approach. The history and allegories are interesting, but not definitive in the day-to-day life of the church member in a manner that is different from other Christian groups. 4. The Bible—This book will not provide its reader with information about the distinct doctrines and beliefs that are unique to the LDS church. 5. (I don't understand why 5 insisted on skipping a line, but I can't seem to correct it. So 5. The Pearl of Great Price—I find this book to be the least informative of the five in relation to unique and specific LDS beliefs that would be of interest to those who want to learn more. I believe if someone started with this one, they might not move on to reading any of the others. So there you have it. My audiences are generally very Catholic with a smattering of Pentecostals. They are very curious about both these Ethno-religious groups who migrated into their country. They, themselves, are not very much into doctrine or orthopraxy. They are mainly students at the university level or people who are interested in the history of Mexico from the early days of the Revolution to the present. I tend to speak on a subject that is not widely taught here in Mexico, that of its religious history, especially as it has impacted northern Mexico via migrants. What do you think about my list? Would you change the order? Answer the questions in some other way? I can't and don't refer them to missionaries for various reasons. Thanks for your input. Best, Navidad