Navidad

Thanks for this reply. I appreciate the time and attention it took to write it out.

About fifteen minutes ago I was wrapping up the time I wanted to spend learning about Brian D. Stubbs resulting from another thread. I became a bit disinterested when he made several claims in his writing to be an "authority" on this or that. Methinks that kind of evaluation is best left to others. In looking at one of his books on Amazon, I came across a review that got me thinking. The review made the point that Stubb's work adds to the "enormous body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be." I pondered on that statement for a while, and decided I would bring that question here. It has most likely been asked in a hundred ways or more, but my question is a bit specific. What does the Book of Mormon (just the text, not the title page, which I believe has been amended several times) claim for itself? Not, "What does each of you claim for it" or "What do I claim for it?" What does it claim for itself within its own text? Not what the Doctrine and Covenants claims for it. . . . but what does the book itself claim for itself, and in which text do we find those claims? I have read the BOM on a number of occasions. I cannot remember (not saying it doesn't exist) where it makes a claim for itself as a collection of texts joined as one. Just to be fair (no pun intended), I could ask the same question related to the Bible. I am unaware of it making claims for itself as a volume in its entirety. This question seeks to neither challenge nor confirm The Book of Mormon. Just asking, "What is it that the Book of Mormon claims to be based on its own sense of its own phenomenological self? Thanks.

I apologize for all the typographical errors in my recent posts. In my recent stress and tiredness, I have become sloppy and lazy in posting. As many of you know, the remaining Mexican Mormon colonies have had terrible flooding as of late. Last Sunday it finally caught up with me. A day after arriving home from Phoenix, our house was flooded and our beautiful property badly damaged. The stress of the past month has caught up with me. No excuses, but I have not been as careful in checking my posts as I should. Mea culpa.

I believe I am correct that Anthony Ivin's highest position before bring made an apostle was as stake president of the Juarez stake that included all the early Mexican Colonies. Ruben Clark became an apostle aster he was serving as a counselor to the then president. I believe I am correct (not certain 😊) that he never served a church calling prior to being named the church president's counselor.

I am not sure how this impacts BOM Historicity. Proto Uto Aztecan languages have been around the US southwest and northwest Mexico for thousands of years in an oral form. Are you suggesting that BOM people's interacted with Uto Aztecans of the south as did the Spanish Franciscans when they migrated here, using a Spanish model to create a UT Nahuatl orthography? If so. why did not that orthogrsphy exist into Hispanic times. It seems the Franciscan linguists would have piggy-backed on it? Or are you suggesting those who built Teotichuan list their written language due to invaders prior to the Spanish? I am trying to understand the connection and why it didn't survive into the 16th century? Thanks

I would like Elder Eyring. He has roots in the Mexican Colonies!

Oh well, I am 76, so I guess that leaves me out! Just kidding, no disrespect intended.

As a non-member I should not opine, but that has never stopped me. I vote for a counselor Elder Snow, former first seventy and church historian. He is a wonderfully Godly man and it is about time a historian gets recognized for their vital work. Besides if you understand the history of the Church, then you understand how it's doctrine has developed and morphed over the years. They are inter-connected. Oh, and I always thought he looked like a leader of the Church, whatever that means. Elder Snow, former Church historian for counselor!

I have not been able to post since around the 16th of September. My wife had been in coronary ICU almost all of that time. Last night she was transferred to a hospital in a suburb of Phoenix from El Paso to have a greater likelihood of experiencing an open heart surgery at a bigger hospital. So here I am in Phoenix with her waiting for the doctors to make up their minds about her surgery since she has infections in both her heart and spine, and has experienced a number of strokes from the no-longer-functioning mitral valve. I mention this for two reasons- to explain my sudden absence and to offer my best wishes to all My LDS friends in their loss of their prophet, a pioneering open heart surgery physician. My heart is tender because of the proximity of the loss of my dear wife of 55 years. I offer my condolences and heart felt grief for each of you who lost he who was a leader and the thee leader of your church. Also, I am in grief with you over those who lost so much today in Michigan. I am uncertain of the details, but it is a terrible to thing to have happen. Best to all.

I can only speak for and about myself. ere is how I have experienced LDS proselytizing and beliefs. All are quotes: Your wife is godly but does not have the Gift of the Holy Spirit and cannot until she joins the church Your baptism was not valid in form, method, or manner. You cannot receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit until you experience our baptism which is the only baptism that is pleasing to Christ. Christians are ------- pick your choice of negative generalizations and normalizations. . . . . The LDS are victims of systematic innocent persecution You are not spiritually qualified to minister in a manner approved of band pleasing to Christ until you join our church The only spiritual authority recognized by Christ is found in our church Your baptism was not pleasing to, nor is it accepted by Heavenly Father. This is based on no knowledge of my baptism except that it was not administered by a LDS elder. The LDS church is the only living church approved of by Christ. I could go on and on

Yes. From the perspective of a friend, yes,yes, and yes again.

I have just written a chapter on the Anglo ethnoreligious groups who have migrated to Mexico's north for a Spanish language university book here in Mexico. Here we have several different Mormon groups/colonies all of which have their roots in one way or the other in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My chapter went to several blind reviewers for their comments. When I got them back for me to make changes, I noticed that the Mexican professors objected to my use of the term "Saints" to refer to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They believed that would confuse Catholic readers since "Saints" is reserved here for the those with that unique designation in the Catholic Church. I had a hard enough time trying to distinguish between the LDS, the LeBaron, and the Margarito Bautista groups of Mormons in their various roles from Baja Norte to Morelos. So I had to change my reference for all of you from Saints to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Cultural conflict and relevance are an important part of the liminal nature of the Mormons and Mennonites here in northern Mexico. Names can be confusing. In this case the dominantly Catholic editors were having nothing to do with me using the term Saint in a dominantly Catholic culture for folks who are non-Catholic. At any rate, it is rare for an Anglo historian to be allowed to write for a Mexican university volume. I am pleased at the honor, even without the use of the nomenclature "Saints."

If you were referring in this post to my post "putting total blame on religious belief," let me assure you I was not putting any blame, partial blame, or total blame on religious belief for anything. The topic was about violence, and the forum is a forum that, to a significant degree, is about religion. Religious conflict is an interest of mine; it has been a fact of life for many years of human existence. I don't believe the principal tenet of Communism is "anti-religion." Having said all of that, I would love to hear more specifics from you about your claim that "Communism (anti-religion) killed more people in the 21st century (the last twenty-five years) than all holy wars combined throughout history." That is an astounding claim. I am asking you for your citation or references for that claim. I would like to know more. Thanks and best wishes. BTW, I mourn for our world as well.

Usually "they" refers to someone who is not me or my group. It is a dividing mechanism used to create boundaries, fences, and ramparts. It doesn't even have to refer to anyone or any group specifically. I think I have noticed something about this forum since returning. It seems to be a kinder and gentler place than when I left several years ago. That is a good thing. I also perceive a difference in who the "they" is, as well. When I left "the they" were more likely to be non-mormons - those outside the church who were never in. Evangelicals and such were the "they." It seems that the new "they" for this forum are the ex-mos - those who were LDS but, for whatever reason, no longer are. As far as the Kirk murder, there is much more to learn and to know. The tendency today is to jump to conclusions and mount the ramparts before having any grasp on the preponderance of the facts. Let's just all wait a bit longer. The ramparts will still be there. Or better yet, let's just learn from yet another violent episode that neither "side," the "only" or the "other" (whoever they are), has exclusivity when it comes to violence. Let's set aside the slings and the stones. I Cor. 11:28 cautions that we "examine ourselves." Now there's a good idea! Best to all.

I claim to be an Evangelical Christian and a student of religion and conflict. In both roles I worry about the potential that beliefs, religion, faith, and the like have to foster environments of conflict, and yes, even violence. I see a continuum in religion that may (notice the "may") foster a climate of conflict. That continuum is that of: doctrine-dogma-duty-destruction. The slope of this continuum is fueled by some religionists' tendency for othering, onlying, self-assurance or self-righteousness, certainty, and ranking. Add to this the assurance of a special divine favor on their particular brand or model of religiosity, and you have the potential for a caldo (stew in Spanish) of justified conflict wherein any opposition is seen as innocent persecution worthy of scorn and righteous indignation. Many doctrinal statements, creeds, fences, etc. have been built in the name of such faiths' histories and dare I say, myths. It happened to the Anabaptists at Muenster, in the variations of the Peasant's Wars of the 14th-16th centuries, in the conflicts of the various caliphates, in Zen Buddhism, and in the many forced conversions throughout religious history. I just mentioned the physically violent situations; the symbolic violence examples from religious history are far too many to enumerate. I have far too many books on such history on my shelves with titles like "Sacred Fury," "When Religion Becomes Evil," "Violence and the Sacred," "Violence in God's Name," and of course "Cruel Creeds and Virtuous Violence," to name but a few. My guess is that most of us on this forum have some forms of religious beliefs, creeds, and/or faith that motivate us in our lives. So did most of those named or mentioned in all of these sad, yet real portrayals in all of these books and the scores of others on my shelves. Our faiths also teach us Blessed are the Peacemakers. Sometimes we people of faith get all tangled upin defending our beliefs like Frodo in the Spider's Web. Those of us of faith have a responsibility (in my mind) not to simply dismiss the possibility of our beliefs going bad, but to guard against it. That doesn't mean a 24hr mounting of the ramparts to watch out for the approach of the enemies (others), but perhaps a careful and cautious approach to what lies within each one of us as individuals and members of faith groups. Sorry again for going on too long. Best to all.

Both physical and symbolic violence are terrible. They leave wounds in both the perpetrator and the victim. We now believe that those wounds may continue generationally. Please don't like, support, share, or in any way applaud memes or posts that foster violence, whether metaphorically or in reality. Please allow me to quote from President Nelson's recent message - I think it bears repeating over and over: A century of experience has taught me this with certainty: anger never persuades, hostility never heals, and contention never leads to lasting solutions. Too much of today’s public discourse, especially online, fosters enmity instead of empathy. Imagine how different our world could be if more of us were peacemakers—building bridges of understanding rather than walls of prejudice—especially with those who may see the world differently than we do. Now that is absolutely prophetic in a way that any Christian can consider prophetic. We have all most likely said or done something we regret moments or years later. Social media, including this forum, gives many more opportunities for that than at any time in the past. "Hostility never heals." I'll shout an Amen to that!

Fair enough. You have been more than kind, as always. Religious beliefs, cultures, and practices vary widely between groups, even between Christian groups, even between Evangelicals, even between Mennonites, and even between different groups of Mormons, including between different wards, and might I suggest, between different bishops, whether LDS, LeBaron, or Mennonite. And I think to be completely accurate, I would have to say differences exist within myself as I ponder my own faith over years of its development. When I was a kid, I was taught that dancing, going to movies, sneaking a peek at a Playboy, playing cards, and watching TV on Sunday were all designated by the Lord as forbidden activities. That is what my church ("the church" for me) taught. Perhaps if the LDS church allowed me into the temple, I would learn something or experience something that is new and spiritually meaningful to me. It might be a great missionary endeavor. Somehow, I doubt that would meet with the favor of the local area mission president! Ha! When I was twenty years old, I experienced a coming-of-age manhood ceremony that was considered sacred by the Borgawa people of Dahomey, West Africa. Outsiders (including women) were forbidden to attend. I became best friends with the nephew of the paramount chief, who reluctantly gave me permission not just to attend but to participate. In a way, it was an honor. That experience had an impact on me that lasts to this day, fifty-six years later. The intensity of that experience is something I can feel as I keyboard this paragraph. Maybe that would happen in the temple. I guess I will never know. I cannot know that which I may not know. I hope that makes sense. Best wishes.

Ok. I am not sure how to respond to that. Perhaps I simply don't understand what makes a temple, like the one here in Colonia Juarez a sacred space any different from the LDS chapel during a Sacrament service, or the Catholic altar, or the woods up in the mountains, or anywhere my wife is. For me, a sacred space is where I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. That could be right here in my office where I am typing this. This office is a space dedicated to Christ, as is the rest of my home. Isn't the space where you kneel before Christ before going to sleep for the night a sacred space? I just don't understand. I admit that. That isn't your problem, nor is it your responsibility to straighten me out. I have a special place on my back patio, just on the river, where the winds and water cool me in the early morning as I take in what God has done for me and my wife. That is one of my many sacred spaces. You are speaking of rituals as in and of themselves sacred. I am not creedal or ritualistic enough to understand that. For a country Mennonite, the church building is simply a place to go to worship, fellowship, and minister. There is nothing therein, and that of itself is sacred. For the faithful LDS member, I guess the temple is sacred, as is the altar and host for the Catholic. I guess as neither LDS nor Catholic, I get to consider any space simply as sacred where I feel and see the Spirit of God. As the creator of all, He is capable of being in and with anyplace and anywhere. Thanks for replying to me. I appreciate that.

I am not sure anyone has mentioned this. . . . But perhaps the problem/challenge is the secrecy in and of itself. Why are the temple ordinances secret in the first place? Or, why are they secret anymore? This might be a better question. Currently, virtually nothing is secret. For a while some years ago, I was a Mason. I thought all the secrecy, the guard at the door, etc. etc. was a carryover from another century, no longer relevant in the world of the internet. Slowly, the threats and penalties inherent in the ceremonies (in Masonry) were diminished and in some cases, done away with completely. Or they were redefined as symbolic, not literal. I have been in several temples during open houses. Very archaic and beautiful designs. So, I guess my question is, why in 2025 are temple ceremonies secret? I am not asking why they are sacred. I am asking why, in this case, is the sacred secret? I honestly don't remember, but were there secret sacred rites in the Book of Mormon? I neither respect nor disrespect the secrecy. I am simply wondering how these rites would be diminished if they were done in quiet reverence. Again, I am not asking why they are the considered sacred. I certainly (ha!) understand that. My question is, why are they required to be done in secret? Doesn't that, by its very nature, open the closed door to speculation and misconceptions? Thanks and best wishes to all.

Ditto for me about disrespect - I don't see disrespect as always wrong or bad either. That is the difference between disrespect and mocking for me. The intent of a mocker is always negative, at least in how it is used in the Bible.

My thought about all of this is, how do we define "disrespect" in a way that would be agreed upon by most? I could make a case that the Mennonite faith as a composite of various Mennonite groups (including the Amish) is the most disrespected religious group on earth. Mennonite customs, doctrines, clothes, beards, prayer caps on ladies are routinely chided or mocked or disprespected, or made-fun-of, or dismissed as archaic, or or or. I did not find the Wall Street Journal disrespectful, but then I am not a member. I have never been to a temple ordinance, but I have studied about them for so many years, that I think I could figure out which is which. Just personally for me, I find something that is "mocking" much worse than something that is "disrespectful." But then, who is to draw the line between mocking and disrespect? I think many memes online are mocking. Others I consider disrespectful. The former bothers me a lot more than the latter. If I don't respect something, does that mean I disrespect it? I don't think so. I think it all depends in the context of the use and meaning of the word. I knew Jerry Falwell, Sr. fairly well. I often drove around with him in his then-ancient Bronco. I read many articles that disrespect him, his vision, and work. That really doesn't bother me. However, when people have nothing better to offer than to mock him, then I can get worked up about their comments. Whenever I hear someone disrespect a modern prophet, I can understand that. However, when someone mocks a modern prophet, that really bothers me. Of course, to further explain that, I would have to define "disrespect," "mock," and "prophet." I consider John R. W. Stott a modern-day prophet and would be upset at someone mocking him. However, I don't consider him a prophet in the same sense as I would an Old Testament prophet. In describing Stott with that word, I am describing his gift of preaching, not of foretelling something before it happens. Ditto for President Nelson. Of course, my LDS friends mean something different than I do by using that term for their leader. So now we are back to needing to define our terms! That will never end.

I am sure someone must have mentioned this in this thread. . . . There is a significant difference between my truth and Thee Truth. My truth about the LDS church has been honed by thirty-five years of close and personal study of and experiences with the Church. I would never suggest that my truth about the church is Thee Truth about the church. I doubt, in fact, that my truth about the LDS Church is anybody else's truth. My truth doesn't make their truth wrong if it is different from mine. Their truth doesn't make mine wrong if mine is different from theirs. "The opposite of one profound truth is most likely another profound truth" (Bohr). So often we confuse truth and Truth. Or we deliberately make truth Truth in order to bolster our truth, which often refers more to our opinions and beliefs than anything else. And we often have data or self-selected facts at our disposal to prove our truth! I am sure that the Bucs are a better team than the Falcons. How do I know that is Thee Truth? The Bucs won yesterday. They beat the Falcons by three points. Case closed! What do you say? The Falcons beat the Bucs three times in a row before yesterday's game. Hogwash! That is irrelevant, says my truth, so quickly converted into Thee Truth. Hogwash! Says you! What? the Falcons beat the Bucs three quarters out of four yesterday? The Falcon kicker missed the game-tying field goal by inches? Hogwash says I. We won! That ends the discussion! And on it goes.

I am sure that most of you know about the Mormon Colonies of Mexico. Some of you may also remember from previous posts of mine that we live in a small village within twenty minutes of Colonia Dublán and within ten minutes of Colonia Juárez. We have many friends in both colonies and count as precious our time spent with them. The weekend just past was a time of terrible flooding in Colonia Juárez and the surrounding area. I live within thirty feet of the Rio Palanganas which is one of two rivers that form the Casas Grandes River. The other river, the Piedras Verdes flows through the mountain areas where other colonies were built that are largely abandoned by the Saints today. There are only two colonies left with a population of members of the Church, Juárez and Dublán. They are highly competitive. Both communities are minority Mormon, with perhaps no more than 500 Anglo Mormons still living in both. The Casas Grandes River, after its creation from the two rivers previously mentioned flows north through Dublán. The Piedras Verdes flows through Juárez before its juncture with the river Rio Palanganas about 7 miles north of where I am writing this. Colonia Juárez is in a narrow valley/canyon that opens up in the tiny community of Cuauhtémoc just south of Juárez. This past weekend both communities were terribly flooded by the usually narrow and sometimes dry river. Within six weeks we went from the worst drought, perhaps since 1931, to the worst floods in memory. Scores of homes were flooded and destroyed in both towns. Property damage was immense. Arroyos were filled and flooded, only making things worse from Janos to the famous pottery community of Mata Ortiz. The well-known academy buildings (perhaps the last LDS-owned K-12 left in the world) were spared damage because of their sitting on higher land. Most of the Mormon-owned homes were spared for the same reason. The non-Mormon and predominantly Catholic community in Juárez suffered terribly. I am writing this post to let you all know how very proud I was of the response of my LDS friends to the suffering of their non-member neighbors. LDS folks worked day and night to support those who had lost everything. The great LDS organizational skills came into play to provide food, clothing, places to sleep, and generally meet the needs of those with whom they have often been in cultural conflict over the hundred and forty years of co-existence here in Chihuahua. That is too long a story to tell here and is not the purpose of my post. I am hoping and praying that these thousands of acts of kindness will be able to bring about healing between the local Mexicans and the liminal (as they have been called by scholars) Anglo Mormons of our area. For hours, I was able to witness with my own eyes the labor involved in helping those who had lost so much. When registering for help, no one was asked their membership status. I can testify to that too. I am proud of my many local LDS friends for their sincere and hard work in helping those who lost so much. I saw one Mormon mom glare at her teenage daughter, as I thought only a Mennonite mom could do . . . the daughter was hard at work but also eyeing the cinnamon rolls that had just been brought for a breakfast for the victims. With a certainty in her voice that scared even me (I was eyeing the rolls too), she told her daughter in clear terms, "Those are not for you. You have a home. Those are for people who have no home." Wow! Now, that is the gospel in just a few words!

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We have had terrible floods here and I have been a bit preoccupied. I don't think I would go so far as to say, "Certainty is always a sin." In that sense, certainty is like pride, or perhaps even like anger. I do believe however, that certainty often leads to a fall, just like pride goes before a fall. Using your illustration, I think that a person might be able to say they are certain their spouse loves them, but I am not sure if they can take that to the next step and say they are certain their spouse will always be faithful to them. I don't believe that it is a given that spouses who stray don't love their husband or wife. That is a bit too reductionistic for this former director of counseling. I don't know if that answers your question or not. Best wishes.

I would word it a bit differently. I would suggest that faith never should become certainty because at that point it ceases to be faith. I also would not equate certainty with knowledge. Knowledge is a step on the journey to wisdom. The most knowledgeable person may not be the most certain. A knowledgeable person is aware of what they don't know as well as what they do know. Take care