Navidad

I would suggest it is a blending—a syncretism of the old, which is traditionally safe with the new which is most appealing when it does not threaten the old. Hence, the Pentecostal emphasis on healing using prayer and traditional methods was safe because it did not threaten the historical patrimony of healing as a part of faith that existed in indigenous cultures. Same for the dancing cross of the mountain people here. Mennonites grew providing physical security in terms of agricultural production, wells, fertilizer, medical care in addition to what the Africans already knew about Christianity. The LDS missed the opportunity here in Mexico in the 1930s by insisting on Anglo leadership down to the local level. They made the indigenous and mestizo folks feel special with the Lamanite stories, but then made them feel out of control by virtue of Anglo leadership. The locals found this confusing and for a number of years abandoned the LDS church. Some of the groups they formed in that interim continue to this day. One last thing: I have sometimes asked our local friends why no one in our village has converted to the LDS church. The answer I get is the same every time. Apparently, there is some emphasis on this - if a person joins the LDS church, they must renounce their faith in the Virgin of Guadalupe. That is a step too far for the locals. It is accepting something new at the cost of losing something old and familiar. Some missionaries have apparently tried to assure the folks that heavenly mother is similar to the Virgin of Guadalupe. That doesn't seem to work, nor perhaps is it an accurate depiction of LDS beliefs.

By both. What started as a necessity for me to survive the toxicity and soul wounds of my childhood then became a choice not to trust proximity again. the way to do that was to stay on the edge. That was easy to do as a consultant. That is why what the bishop decided about us hurt so much, probably more than he or anyone else realized. In his mind, he was just "following his interpretation of the handbook." It was much more than that for us.

One more thought. I think that perhaps the idea of the self and secular humanism being important factors in the loss of religiosity might be too much of a Western, US, or academic cultural perspective on the issue. As you can tell, I am uncertain how to describe it. I would suggest that from where I live and have traveled/ministered, I think that one of the principal issues worldwide is almost the opposite. It is the willingness for people to ally themselves with the formerly primitive kinds of faith that might have been unthinkable or unavailable earlier. For example, Pentecostalism is sweeping Latin America. It was not heard of here in Mexico before 1920. It is now everywhere. Pentecostalism is winning hearts and minds at the most basic or primitive (in a certain use of the word) level. It syncretizes where other faiths convert. It finds common denominators where other faiths do not. It is now the great competitor of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Latin America. Santa Muerte is undergoing rapid growth in the US and all over Latin America for the same reasons. A primitive Aztecan system of beliefs, it is not strictly the narco faith that it is characterized to be. What has been deemed as primitive traditions like the Mennonites are growing rapidly (as are the LDS) in Africa and Asia. In the Mennonite sense, what was once a conservative, isolated, Anglo, ethno-religious group is now more Black and brown than Anglo. The largest Mennonite church in the world is in Ethiopia. No Pennsylvania Dutch there! I think people are more willing today to try something they deem as, or that feels as "authentic," whatever that means to them. A famous quote here in Mexico from the time of the upswing in curanderos in Mexico in the late 19th century is when the people of Tomóchic declared they wanted to be free to "worship a ravine if that is what they chose to do." I think the same thing is happening today across the globe.

Mormon fundamentalist (rather than the Community of Christ) groups tend to point to one of two sources for their authority as the true spiritual heirs of Joseph Smith's authority: either the Woolley family or Benjamin F Johnson. The Woolleys groups trace the authority from Joseph Smith through John Taylor to the Woolleys and the LeBarons (for example) trace it via Johnson. There is no question that Johnson was very close to Joseph Smith. He was a spiritually adopted son, and spent countless meetings alone with Joseph Smith as a private secretary. He was also an important member of the Council of Fifty, remonstrating those who belonged, but did not regularly attend their confidential meetings. His first wife was Melissa LeBaron, hence the LeBaron connection. Johnson retired in Mesa. His grandson Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr. apparently spent time with the extended family there as well. As a man, he claimed that Benjamin F. had passed along the power of the prophet, making Alma the "one mighty and strong." Various of the LeBaron sons claimed the title from their father. Their story is long and complicated, but fascinating and a study in family dynamics, both positive and negative. To my knowledge, there has not been an academic biography of the LeBaron family. I am a bit old to take that on, but I am also uniquely situated to do it. Whoever does it must gain the family's trust. It is a powerful force in Chihuahuense politics and agrarian rights conflicts. I hope that helps a bit.

I appreciate your use of this term for me. It really has me thinking about my position. I never would have described myself as "mentally and spiritually aloof." I think I am organizationally aloof, or perhaps aloof in the sense of belongingness (is that a word?), hence I stay on the edge of inside, or perhaps the edge of outside of most of my relationships. That started with my family of origin and has been characteristic of me ever since. I want to know everything about everything. I keep asking and asking until I arrive at understanding. Then I move on to the next need to know. I worked in, with, and for more than 100 school districts. I loved being a consultant - fix the problem here and go on to the next one. Repeat over and over. So I got to work in Apalachicola and in Anchorage. From Salem to San Diego and Seattle. From Boston to Broward. And on and on. Everywhere I worked, I learned something. I learned there was no one way to do public education or to faith or to truth. I learned there is not just one way to love one wife! Perhaps I tried to keep myself safe. In so doing, I kept myself aloof. At this point in my life, I am not certain whether I am better or worse off for that. I just know that I need to know. I guess that is enough “navel gazing” for one comment! Ha!

Hi SMAC - I didn't look up the meaning of the phrase "navel gazing" prior to using it. It was a common phrase in the culture I grew up in. It did not have the negative connotations implied by this dictionary or textbook definition. It was a moderately humorous observation about someone who was a bit self-absorbed, nothing else. I didn't mean it to carry all the negative baggage represented in the definition. I am sorry. I meant it to be humorous, not offensive. Good lesson - something in one culture can mean something completely different in another.

Last night, trying to better understand the relationship between Benjamin F. Johnson and my neighbors, the LeBarons, I reread the autobiography of Benjamin F Johnson. He is an ancestor of a lot of the Mormon (used deliberately) folks here in Mexico, both LDS and otherwise. The book gives some information about his wife Melissa LeBaron, but stops short of his time in Mesa and relationship with his grandson Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr. As I was reading his book, I came across an account in Canada that really caught my attention. Johnson was alone, young, and broke as a missionary. He hadn't baptized anyone (by his own account) and was a bit down. He camped out by Lake Simcoe in Ontario. That immediately caught my attention because, as a boy, I regularly went with my father to an AGC (Associated General Churches of Canada - or something like that) Bible conference very near the shores of Lake Simcoe. My dad would preach every day to the families vacationing there. It was called Fair Haven Bible Conference. It still exists. At any rate, Johnson apparently met with some natives who were living on an island on Lake Simcoe. He indicates they were Mohawk. He wanted to both learn from them about their history and preach the gospel to them, especially since they were Lamanites. He indicated one of them spoke English well, and he was able to communicate. Then he indicated he prayed and received the gift of tongues, which allowed him to preach the gospel in Mohawk to them with fluency. The event seemed to lift his spirits and validate his ministry just before the time he was to go home to Kirtland. I could almost picture the island in my mind. Those lakes are a beautiful part of Ontario. As a child, I enjoyed these Bible Conference trips. The account of him speaking in an unknown language — glossolalia with the Mohawks encouraged me to start this thread to see if you all can enlighten me and recommend further academic reading on the history of tongues and the LDS Church. Generally, in my world, the gift of tongues is divided into two parts: the ability to speak in an unknown human tongue, and the ability to speak an angelic language - perhaps the language of heaven. It took me back to the time on my mission to Dahomey when a tribesman asked us if the people in heaven spoke Boko, the language of his people. I have read a number of accounts of tongues and the Saints, but this one interested me for various reasons. The LeBarons tend to believe that Johnson was the true heir of the authority of Joseph Smith, who then passed it on to Alma Dayer Sr. , Johnson's grandson. We have a large extended Johnson family here in the colonies who trace their heritage back to Ezekiel Johnson, the father of Benjamin Franklin Johnson via Benjamin's brother. Enough meandering—so what is your collective thinking about tongues and the LDS church? Is the practice of the gift of tongues approved by the church? Is it heavenly or earthly language, or both? Is it ever practiced in a Sacrament service? If not there, then when? The 1890s brought about considerable shifts in LDS practice and doctrine. Are tongues something that shifted during that decade of changes in the Church? An inquiring mind (mine) needs to know. Sorry for the meandering history stuff. I just love it! Thanks in advance for your comments. best, Navidad.

Excellent post. Lots to unpack. Oh, and what exactly is a "Grok summary?" Is Grok a being, kind of like Shrek? Please excuse my cultural ignorance. I read this with lots of interest. I see movement in and out of 1) religiosity and 2) specific religious groups (including and beyond Christianity) as "migration;" not loss, leaving, or languishing spiritually. People naturally migrate—I think that is a part of being human. They try new things, return to old things. They move on, move up, move over, and sometimes move against. I am 77 years old. At 7 years of age I converted; all the rest of my life I have been migrating. I was baptized once, as a testimony when I became a Christian. I have lived in the USA, Dahomey (Benin), and Mexico. The best I can figure out I was conceived in Canada while my dad pastored there. I have lived in 11 different states. I have belonged to six different church affiliations over my life: Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Independent Baptist, Mennonite, Community (non-denominational), and IFCA. I left none of those mad. Differing circumstances led to differing affiliations. I find myself a bit confused and mildly entertained about all the fuss and introspection over "leaving." People come. People go. People arrive. People leave. People remain. If we (people) don't physically migrate, we often culturally migrate, intellectually migrate, or spiritually migrate in the same place. Perhaps there is more navel gazing in the LDS church than in any other church with which I am familiar. The Mennonites are probably a close second. Oh, and just to muddy the water - if I had a way to do so right now at 77, I would most likely join the Moravian Church. Wonderful history, doctrine, people, fellowship, and they own John Amos Comenius, one of the greatest minds in historic Christianity. Not a prophet (he was a bishop), but one of the founders of the concept of public education in Bohemia, which led to its expansion everywhere else. He was a member of the Unity of the Brethren, which led to the Moravian church, a restorationist church at least 230 years before the founding of the LDS church. That would be another migration, not a conversion. Not a leaving - but an exploration of a new path on my life's journey. Best to all, Navidad.

I am intrigued by the concept of rebaptisms in the LDS church. It seems, from my readings of LDS history that rebaptisms were much more common years ago than they are now. Am I wrong about that? If baptism is for the remission of sins in the LDS church, then is it efficacious only for past sins? It seems like there would be a lot of rebaptisms going on if it were needed for the remission of sins on a continual basis. I am uncertain how that works in the LDS church. In my world, baptisms having nothing to do with sinning. Therefore I am a bit uncertain how the connection works in the LDS church. I also am uncertain about this, but it seems like the constant talking about those who leave the LDS church seems to indicate that those who leave are fairly often angry. I wonder if that is an unfair generalization (something I greatly dislike when I see or hear it). It seems like there may be a lot of anger on the part of the one leaving and on the part of those who are “left behind” by the one leaving. I once went to a large outdoor LDS funeral where the one providing the homily (a brother of the deceased) really railed at the deceased member's sons, who he thought were in danger of leaving "empty chairs" at the family dinner table in eternity. It turned the funeral service into a bit of a scolding about the lack of loyalty to the church of her sons. That injection of church stuff and personal and family stuff seems so much stronger in the LDS church than in any other church group I have known. Of course, again—I don't want to be generalizing. I teach that generalization is a precursor (among other things) to all the isms that so damage human relationships. Of course, sometimes I find myself guilty of the very thing I warn against! Best wishes to all.

Yes I have heard of both terms. I just have never heard of either action being taken against anyone. I guess I associate with a boring crowd!

I think I have all of Terryl Givens' books. I like his stuff!

Well, probably not. I am also uncertain whether such information would be included in official documents that I would have seen. I have been ordained and licensed in several different groups. I have never been trained in how to supervise an excommunication process. Based on that, I doubt that it exists in modern times in most Christian denominations.

My results were closest to Terryl Givens with a 68% likeness. I had individual scores as high as 90% and as low as 20%. I mostly wrote out my answers, explaining from my somewhat progressive Evangelical perspective. I was second closest to a Progressive Mormon perspective. So there is hope for me yet!

OK, but I stand by my statement that I don't know anyone or know of anyone in my lifetime who was excommunicated from their Christian denomination or church, other than from the LDS church. I am not saying there has been none. I am simply stating that in my life in Christianity I don't know anyone or of anyone. I hope that clarifies.

Ah! St Mary's, KS - One of the most unique small cities in America! My wife has a lot of family in that area.

Me too.

I wonder what the statistics are on churches that excommunicate members who are critical or disagree with certain beliefs. It appears that few of these disagreements listed in this thread are salvific. Oh, and as this thread is going on, the “Mormon” History Association is actively meeting in Las Vegas. Interesting coincidence. I don't believe in twenty years of living here, I have ever heard a Mexican non-Mormon use the term LDS, Saint, or Latter-day Saint to refer to a member of the LDS church. LDS, Fundamentalists, and LeBarons are equally deemed as Mormons in every corner of Mexico I have ever traveled. I am 77 years old and have never heard of, or known of, anyone excommunicated from any other Christian denomination. There seems (to me at least) to be something unique in the DNA of being LDS that forms identity, interprets history, and creates boundaries (fences). There is something similar in the DNA of Mennonites that is inexorably changing as the narrow identity of church (Mennonite) members expands around the world. Culture, doctrine (orthodoxy), orthopraxis, and dogma (in a non-Catholic sense of the word) are inexorably tied in together, especially in churches with strong ethno-religious identities. Many denominations have handled non-salvific changes well; some have not. I have LDS historian friends who have identified thirty-year periodic cycles (changes) in the LDS church in terms of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy, especially as indicated in General Conferences. It is all very intriguing. I didn't go to MHA this year because we have too many medical bills right now. I will miss being the Mennonite Guru! Ha!

I am uncertain what is meant by a spiritual witness, truth, or truthfulness in this regard. Certainly the Book of Mormon contains truth, but truth is not a possession it exclusively owns. A. W. Tozer's powerful book, "The Pursuit of God" contains powerful spiritual truth as well. Ditto for a hundred other books I could name. Tozer was an important early leader in the Christian and Missionary Alliance. My uncle was president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. However, I never had a desire to join that church. I love the works of St. John of the Cross. Wonderful truths therein, but I have never desired to become Catholic. I think a witness of the truth is not the same as a desire to join.

I have a special place in my heart for the Moravian Church. Are you familiar with them? I would join them in a heartbeat if I could. Dr. Lakin is buried on the Liberty University campus. He was very close to Dr. Falwell. I met him numerous times. He was an excellent natural preacher. He could have you laughing one minute and almost crying the next. Too many folks are too certain about too many things, many of which are not essential for salvation. We are all pilgrims, journeying through our lives, migrating to find a place that makes sense for us. We are like kaleidoscopes, turning and turning the thing until we find a design that makes sense for us. I think that congruence in life is when we finally find that design. You are a good man. I am grateful for your wisdom and kindness to me over the years.

I don't mean to ask something that is out of line with this thread. Lately, I have been doing a lot of studying of Buechner's concept of the gospel as drama, comedy, and fairy tale. I also am investigating Tolkien's concept of faerian as myths that have meaning and much more. In those studies I have come across the idea of the paracosm. A paracosm is a world invented by a child with its geography, customs, languages, morals, etc. There is a whole new field of psychology devoted to the paracosm in gifted children, not as an escape mechanism, but as the work of a creative and highly intelligent child. There are those who believe Narnia is such a world. I wonder if there has ever been a study of the Book of Mormon world as a possible paracosm of Joseph Smith? The little we know of his childhood indicates he might have been such a child and could have created the world through visions created by his own fertile mind. I am not interested in suggesting this as the origin of the world of the Book of Mormon. But I am indeed interested in knowing if such an explanation as the paracosm has ever been proposed in the case of Joseph Smith. Thanks so much .

Hi My Friend: I grew up inside the hardcore prophetic movement of Darby and Scofield (1917 edition). As a boy, I was never home during the summers because my dad and I were constantly traveling to the great Bible conferences held during the summer all over the eastern United States. For my LDS friends, Bible conferences were like rustic resorts for Fundamentalists to vacation over the summer, receive morning and evening Bible teachings from many of America and Europe's great conservative Bible teachers (prophets in a forthtelling sense). The music was wonderful, softball was plentiful, fishing, and always a kids camp connected. One of my favorites, by the way, was Letourneau Christian Camp in Canandaigua, New York, on Lake Canandaigua, very close to the area of the founding of the LDS church. My dad was right in the middle of it as a prominent Bible teacher. He was very academic about it; not very hell-fire and brimstone, but more into the Greek, Hebrew, and geographical significance of it all. I remember the massive charts, showing in minute detail what would happen when (not by date, but by event). This was premillennial, pre-tribulational prophecy at its most influential for the thinking Fundamentalist. I often stayed with my dad in the adult conference center instead of in the kid's camp. I enjoyed the music and teaching of the adult camp. Since my dad was a speaker, we got to stay in the nice speaker's cabin, where each speaker had a private bedroom, and they all stayed up real late exchanging theories and debating the importance of Meschek and Tubal. My dad wrote little pamphlets, which were all the rage back then. "Why I am a Friend of the Jews," "In Times Like These," "What is the Fate of the Jew?" "Is Israel Palestine?" and on and on. At sixteen years of age, I preached my first sermon at our church, which was semi-Mennonite and semi-pre-millennial (Mennonites in those days were amillennial). My sermon was on Ezekiel 38 and the influence of Gog and Magog. I was well-trained! Or at least well-exposed. That is why I have always been so interested in Woodruff's Desert or Sunset Revelation. It is prophetic teaching at its finest. It is interesting that the Brethren did not find it to be official revelation for the Church. If he had the revelation a few years later as president, it might have been a revelation, and the church's view of eschatology might today be according to that revelation. Who knows? I say all this to inform my friends about the world in which I grew up where prophetic teachings were the norm. Daily routines were amended depending on what was happening in the Middle East. That movement has lost its potency in the Evangelical post-Fundamentalist world of today. Of course such prophetic interest remains, especially in independent non-denominational Bible churches and conservative Baptist circles. It has nowhere near the influence today that it had in the forties and fifties and then in the late sixties and seventies. I worked for Jerry Falwell, Sr., in the late seventies when he was moving towards Evangelicalism and away from his Southern Fundamentalist roots. As I remember, he never had the passion for prophecy that some of his preacher friends had. I hope this simple historical review of what it was like to grow up in the heart of one example of the prophetic movement in the United States, England, and Scotland is interesting for those who may not be familiar with it.

I never have quite understood this witness of the Book of Mormon concept. I have read the Book of Mormon. I believe in many places therein can be found a wonderful testimony of Jesus Christ. I also believe He is the Savior. But those have never led me to desire to join the LDS Church because of them. I could say the exact same thing about the spiritual books, witness, and testimony of scores of other Christian groups, but I have never had an interest in joining any of them. I do not understand the correlation between the witness and desire to join the church when I see the same witness in many other churches. I would be church-hopping every time I got inspired by something written by their founder or leaders. Not sure I understand. Best to all.