Navidad

I agree completely. However, a lot of religiously motivated folks describe their faith as certainty and their certainty as faith. I think that does damage to faith. All churches have members who could be described in this way.

Perhaps when we think of being neutral about something, we are thinking about being wishy-washy or vacillating in a way that is unhealthy, especially when it come to matters of faith. I would simply like to suggest the opposite for your consideration. To me, being neutral means I am willing to "receive" what someone else has to offer me, whether it is a new way to make snickerdoodles (no way), to think about heaven, or a new perspective on some historical event, especially one I have researched. I think resistance to new ways of looking at things, even at matters of faith lead us into a kind of closeted darkness. Receiving something does not mean accepting, embracing, or even valuing it. It means listening, learning, gaining new insights, at the very least to how sincere others think and believe. I once took part on a three person panel to talk about the real facts behind the Missouri War between Saints and non-Saints. My two companions on the panels were the authors of the two best books on the history of the Saints in Missouri. Both faithful (more or less) to the LDS faith, their books, presentations, and conclusions could not be more different. I didn't fully agree with either of them, but I enjoyed listening and learning from them that day. Yes, even history can become a sacred matter for debate. We learn best when we listen, consider, and honor our differences, even those that are spiritual, perhaps especially those that are spiritual, especially especially because we know that now we see through a glass darkly. In that sense certainly leads us into the dark, not into the light.

Doubt is like incertitude. It is often the precursor for wonderful growth. "Finding value in uncertainty opens the door to learning and growth. Certainty closes the door. Absolute certainty locks it."

"The third trait of Mormonism is that idea that there is no universal standard by which everyone is judged, nor is the LDS Church the only repository of truth. As Joseph Smith said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism,' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." He also noted "God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." Mormon theology suggests that all are judged by their individual circumstances. There is no list of specific requirements for salvation that holds true in every case (or even in a majority of cases). Everyone is given an equal opportunity for salvation, even if we don't always understand how that opportunity presents itself. This functions both within the faith, and external to it. Even within the membership of the church, uniformity of belief and understanding is not a requirement for salvation." I copied and pasted this part of Benjamin's message from a few hours ago. I love his post, but I can't figure out who he is quoting when. So, Benjamin, if you read this post, please tell me who you are quoting from in the very first sentence and in the last few sentences of this paragraph. Perhaps these are your own thoughts? Whenever I read or listen to something like this from a faithful member of the LDS church, I just reflexively sit back in my chair and shake my head in amazement. If the church is not the only repository of truth, then I don't understand how it can be the only repository of power and authority. It cannot be the only church composed of the only individuals who are the only ones pleasing to Christ and Heavenly Father. Truth is the source of authority and power. To believe that one is the only source of authority and power, one would need to believe, I think that they and theirs is the only font of truth. Of the hundreds or more members I have interacted with, I don't believe I have ever met someone willing to accept doctrinal, theological, or spiritual counsel from a non-member. One might say about my wife, of course she exhibits some gifts of the Spirit, but she is not LDS; therefore, she cannot have thee Gift of the Spirit. Or, perhaps someone might say, as whoever wrote your quote said, "There is no list of specific requirements for salvation, but there sure are when it comes to exaltation or an eternity in the presence of God. It used to be plural marriage was a requirement. Then that changed, and perhaps now a requirement for eternal marriage or family is required for eternal life in the regular presence of Christ. The ordinances, provided by a specific person in a specific manner at some specific time (pre or post death) are required, are they not? Is that not a requirement of the church? My goodness, in the Juarez Ward they are now even the requirement to give a sacrament talk, sing a solo, or be a substitute teacher. Even LDS history is bounded by the idea of the church being thee repository of truth. Historically, persecution of the LDS individual had been seen as "innocent persecution." Whenever I give a talk in which a nasty deed comes up that was committed by a faithful member, it seems like everyone is waiting for me to say why that person was justified in that deed. Whenever a faithful member was hung, like the Monroys in Hidalgo, they are martyrs. No one ever mentions they were connected to an oppositional militia. Being hanged for being a zapatista is not nearly as edifying as being hanged by non-religious people for refusing to renounce your faith. I must ponder for a while if I have ever met a faithful member of the church who is willing to receive doctrinal, theological, or spiritual light from a non-member, especially if and when that light is contrary to that of the church. Perhaps when someone feels a bit bad about denying someone like me any valid spiritual experience in my life, they roll out the "light of Christ" guilt reduction device. Well, after all, of course, Navidad, "you have the light of Christ. You are welcome to walk down the dark path as far as that light will take you." Then when you have gone as far as you can, come back to us and we will lead you the rest of the way down the path to where we are. That is why it was said (I guess), "God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." There is never enough light for salvation. or certainly for exaltation of the non-member, no matter how faithful, no matter how much godliness or sanctification she manifests for the member or the missionary, even if they say there might be enough for favorable judgment by God, which may manifest itself in a telestial kingdom, with its absence of the presence of the Savior waiting for you. Congratulations . . . it really will be wonderful for you! Surely you don't expect any more, not having consented to the truths of our Church, which is by the way, "not the only repository of truth." Huh? It just makes my head spin! Uh oh, head spinning! Not a good sign! Ha! Best wishes to all.

Good thread. For years I taught a course about the integration of psychology and theology. Psychology deals with the soul - used in a non-spiritual sense. The soul is made up of the mind, the will, and the emotions. It also interacts with the body from the brain to the glands and so on. The soul influences many things, both our behavior and our reasoning and thoughts. I think Navidad, our dog for twelve years (who I am named after on this forum), in my opinion, has a soul. She has a mind, a will (amen!), and emotions. She is capable of remembering and acting out of remembrances. She expresses delight, anger, sadness, and she works out problems, like how to get a toy out from under the kitchen table between the chairs. Furthermore, she learns, and she acts on that learning, sometimes seeking (a new toy when I come home from a trip to the states) and sometimes avoiding, when a javelina comes down to our river to drink. What she doesn't have is something I do. She doesn't have a spirit - the primary (not only) subject of theology. I believe the spirit is a uniquely human element because I believe God breathed that spirit into us to give us a divine nature that is a mirror of His own. As humans, that divine nature (spirit) and human nature (soul and body) interact, conflict, and generally make the majority of what and who we are, think, and do. The two (or three) are always in interaction. Think of three concentric circles. In the center, all three are interacting; on the margins, each one acts on its own. Human experience is an integration of the three. Sometimes our spiritual dominates, other times the soul (mind, will, and emotions) dominates, and sometimes the body dominates. Perhaps most of the time they integrate, thus creating moods, adrenaline rushes, psychoses, aspirations, hope, and yes, spiritual sensations, which may indeed be a reflection of the three working together or of the at-that-point dominance of our spirit - perhaps in coordination with God's spirit, which, after all, is what was breathed into us to separate us from other living entities of creation. What I am presenting here is my organization of what it means to be human, complete with body, soul, and spirit. This may not conform exactly to the LDS concept of humanity, but that is ok. What I have presented here is not my own structure but is a model used by many people of faith as they work to help human beings along in their life's walk. So what is the relevance to the thread? Well, I believe that what you describe as spiritual prompting may come from different aspects of the integration of the three parts of humanity at any one time. At that point, discernment, wisdom, and judgment come into play to determine the causative factors at the moment of the insight. As a believer, I include the spirit, which may indeed interact with the Holy Spirit. As a former associate professor of psychology, I include the soul. As one who has had broken bones and who was a licensed apprentice embalmer, I must include the body! (More than you needed to know!) Ha! Let's be aware of the interaction of these three in our everyday life experience. Then we use our judgment and discernment to assign the part of us that is most causing (causative factors) what we are feeling, thinking, or experiencing. Sorry for going on so. Just my thoughts on your subject. As a director of counseling at two denominational colleges, I saw all three in action in the students. My job was to help them sort it all out and come to a resolution when those interactions caused stress, depression, or turmoil in their lives. Of course there are a host of outside factors, in addition to the Holy Spirit, also often involved. I will save those for another sermon! Ha! Best wishes to all!

I agree about the bishop in the sense that we should not hold anything against him. I also like your term "a separation-based paradigm." I often use the term "a distancing mechanism." I think we may mean close to the same thing. I do find it interesting, however, that he (the bishop) has never spoken to us about our faith and our reasons for not joining the LDS church. The day he came over to our home to speak with us with his two counselors about our new status in the ward is the first and only time he has ever spoken to us beyond "Good morning" or "How is the rain situation where you live?" when we see him at the grocery store.

Basically, to be fair to him, he believes that unless the handbook specifically says a non-member may, they may not. Our former bishop was more of the opinion that if the handbook doesn't say a non-member may not, they may. That is most likely the gist of it all. Over the course of my visits and times spent with LDS friends in leadership positions, they have told me that these kinds of decisions are meant to be made by "local discretion." I guess that makes sense to me, but in our case something we had was taken away. That is always worse than something you never had not being given to you. Honoring the new bishop, I don't want to go into all the details. However, virtually all the ways we had ministered for those six years, from sacrament talks to serving as substitute teachers in Sunday school, to praying in the chapel, to singing special music were taken away. We were told we would be welcomed as visitors and nothing more. So, of course we could take the sacrament as visitors. We had been introduced to folks as "faithful non-members." Then all of a sudden, that category was not in the handbook, so we became visitors and nothing more. Our situation here was not normal in many ways. I understand that. To prevent the tensions that were building up over our no longer being allowed to minister, we decided it best to stay away altogether. I learned a long time ago not to be a stumbling block to anyone. Many here might agree with the bishop. I can't debate that. It just hurt. It is what I deem a soul wound. I hope that helps without me saying too much. As an add-on, our situation most likely reveals the great diversity, even between leaders in the LDS Church, whether on the local level or higher. Best wishes.

I don't think God begins from a position of neutrality. I believe verses like John 3:17, "For God sent not his son into the the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Even if the word might is subjunctive, it implies an intent. Therefore, God the Father and Christ at the judgment day will be seeking to save, not to condemn. I really don't understand the concept of exaltation. I understand sanctification. Perhaps exaltation is sanctification (becoming more like Christ) the continues into the heavenlies. In fact, I am pretty sure it will as we learn and grow in the eternities. We know Christ is the "way," which means to me that Christ decides . . . No one is allowed to the Father except by Him (Christ). So Christ is the center point of salvation - the means, the process, and the decider-in-chief. Grace is the causative factor; works are the symptoms. I find grace comforting. In the opposite sense, sometimes we see racism as a causative factor -the problem to be solved. It isn't. It is but a symptom of the causative factors, which include ranking, generalizing, normalizing, dehumanizing, onlying, and othering. That's why we can't solve racial challenges. We focus on the symptom, not the causes. So it is with the positive side. Grace is the cause; works are the symptoms - the outward evidence of the inward increase of grace and the fruits of the spirit. I don't worry about the sins bothering Christ that much in the future, but the lack of the manifestation of the gifts and fruits that He grants us. We already know that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." That is a given. If that is the data point of the scale, we are all condemned. Certitude (certainty) can be seen as a sin. I see it that way. Certainty is a causal factor, not a symptom. Arrogance, pride, and exclusivity are the symptoms. When I think of the judgment seat, I want to dig deeper into what will be the causes involved in how Christ will decide, given his stated preference that all be saved. Sorry, I did this rushing. It is going to rain, and I have animals to feed. They won't mind the rain. I will. Bye for now.

For me, living for eternity in the absence of the Father and Son would be hell in the sense of sheol.

I hope it is ok to post this link. Your post reminded me of one of my very favorite tidbits of a sermon by a wonderful preacher from Scotland. It speaks to your point about us being "all the failures who barely qualified to come at all."

I like the part I bolded and italicized. I agree completely. I do not, however, believe that we (any of us) have a thorough or complete understanding of the units to be used in measuring us for accountability and judgment on the divine bascula (scale).

I think I like what you are saying, but I also think I am not sure what you are saying . .🙃 When you use the word "separation," to what are you referring? When you talk about "people being treated unfairly" to what are you referring? Thanks, my friend.

I haven't yet remembered how to clip just a part of a post to respond to it. But I am responding to the: "Our only hope is in Christ and He has provided both the way to be The One to Follow and the way to follow Him." I really like that. That'll preach! I believe we all agree on the first part; we probably have some disagreements on the second part. Methinks, regarding the second part (the way to follow Him) - your understanding of that way is a bit more exclusive for this life at this time. My understanding as an Evangelical is a bit more inclusive for this life at this time. Why do I say that? Because I include you, but you (spoken in the generalized "you") don't include me - hence I am sitting home reading this forum on a Sunday morning, content in my relationship to Christ but missing my relationships in the ward. I am brother Navidad, not Brother Navidad. You all are my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, just like many (most?) of those sitting in some other denomination's church this morning. That is how we differ in "the way to follow Him." Thanks for your post. It is well said.

Hi Tony, thanks for your post. I liked your post. I have always (since I joined this esteemed board) thought that a post should be liked if I appreciate the time taken by the poster to share their thoughts with all of us. I also like a post when I think the poster has presented a cogent and interesting point, whether I agree with it or not. Some think a "like" means one agrees with the comment. I have never seen it that way. Of course there is not one right or wrong reason for liking; that is in the mind of the one giving the like. I like the concept behind your post, with the difference, from my point of view, that I think God "allows the various Christian churches to exist in the world" (including the LDS church) "as a way of guiding us to him in an initial point of contact." After becoming aware of Christ, we then commit to him and grow in him through the Holy Spirit as an individual. We each individually manifest the fruits of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit in different ways according to how he has blessed us (gifts) and how we respond to him and others (fruits). In your country, I had an Anglican pastor named John R. W. Stott manifest the gifts and fruits of the Spirit in a powerful way to me during my stay therein. Through his ministry, writings, and preaching, he did so for many other people as well. Through my interactions with a godly LDS bishop, I also grew in the fruits and gifts of the Spirit as I interacted with him over a number of years. Ditto for the ministry of a Mennonite bishop and a Presbyterian leader who had a profound individual impact on my life by the grace of God. My best wishes to you, Tony. Blessings, Navidad.

Perhaps a follow-up question. Let's suppose I am one who never heard of Christianity, but I found either an old, worn Bible or Book of Mormon in the woods one day. I read the book and was led to acknowledge Christ as my savior from my readings. I believe that is a possibility because I believe there is adequate material in either to lead a person to do that. Then I continued living in isolation, never having heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Mennonite Church. In your doctrine, is my only hope for salvation (including exaltation) through post-death ordinances? Would the same be true for me, even though I know of all the earthly churches but rejecting LDS ordinances in this life? My only hope is in post-death ordinance acceptance from an LDS missionary in the spirit world. To be complete, it is my belief (with incertitude, of course), right now, that there will be no earthly denominations, churches, or Christian group affiliations in the afterlife. To be incomplete, it is my understanding of your faith that I will die, see LDS spirit missionaries, and be convinced that your faith is the only enduring one in the afterlife, because there won't be any competing Mennonite, Catholic, or Baptist missionaries there. Threfore it only makes sense I will accept the LDS ordinances at that point. That is the guy-in-the-woods' only hope and my only hope. Is that correct? As always in the past, I am simply trying to understand.

Quickly to answer your premise question - I see no correlation to Peter being a leader in the church (or even thee leader) and my or anyone else's salvation. I am not sure I reject him as having been the leader? It simply is of no importance to me whether he was or not. Peter didn't redeem me, nor did he die for my sins. Without any malintent, I hope that answers your premise question. Thanks for responding. It is good to hear from you again.

Just now I received a Facebook post from a group that appears to be created by faithful Saints. In its discussion of "What is a Living Prophet," it states, "Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What do you all think about that statement? Do you agree with it? Perhaps more importantly, what does it mean? Elevation to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom? I know "salvation" has a different connotation to the faithful Saint than it does to me. Does this have something to do with exaltation? Something else? Thanks so much. Sorry, I closed the thread and can't find the exact origin again. I am trying to find you all the exact source. Take care, Navidad. Edit: The source I read this in was not an official church source, but it apparently copied this statement from an official church website - "It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets. Many people do. For some mysterious reason there is an aura of credibility about them. It is not so with the prophet who lives among us, who must meet life’s everyday challenges. But it is a great thing to believe in the living prophets. Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What Is a Living Prophet? So I guess that answers the first question - it does seem to be official church doctrine. So, now back to my second question. . . . what does that statement mean? Thanks.

I liked your post, so I liked it! I am sorry I copied all of it, but I forget how to copy just the part to which I am interested in responding. In this case, I am interested in responding to just one sentence: "If someone else wants to believe they are in the only true church and mine is not true, what is that to me?" Perhaps a few years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now, one life experience has changed that for me and I believe, I am fair in saying this, for my wife as well. You see, given our circumstances, where we live, etc., we are very limited in how we can find fellowship, ministry, and worship with real live people. Now, you might lightly say, "Just move somewhere else." Well, that isn't an easy thing to do for various reasons. I won't take your time to go into that. We have many people here we can associate with, but not very many with whom we can fellowship, minister, and worship. Stemming in part from my ingrained interest in religious history and our location near the LDS Mexican colonies, added together with an evolving belief that our LDS friends are our Christian brothers and sisters, we found a home in the ward. Our pastor/bishop loved us, valued us, and allowed us to use our gifts of ministry to worship, fellowship, and generally to feel as one with our fellow LDS Christians in the ward. Certainly we had cultural adaptation issues. I was open about them with you all here. The folks, however, helped us overcome them, and we, by and large, found peace in our role we were granted as fellow Christians in the ward - "brothers" and "sisters," as we were often called. Then a visit from a new bishop and all that changed. I learned over the next year that "local discretion" allowed the bishop to "cancel" us as participating faithful non-members and relegate us to the place of "visitors forever." We moved from the edge of inside, where we were comfortable (as seemed to be 95% of the ward), to "others," "outsiders," and brothers and sisters in title only. It was abrupt and sudden. We were in a way "disfellowshipped." What was our sin? I guess it was not being able to acknowledge or agree that our baptisms were of no effect, at best, and "blasphemous" at worst (see Kimball). We couldn't see our LDS brothers and sisters as the only because we didn't see ourselves as the only either. For that shortcoming, sin, or crime (call it what you want) due to a differing interpretation, not of Scripture but of a handbook that apparently requires as much interpretation as does the Book of Revelation. "So what was that to me (or to us)? It was devastating, painful, and heartbreaking (call it what you want). I appreciate that sentence, but pardon me if I find it just a bit flippant. You approach it from the perspective that someone else's beliefs, creed, or interpretation cannot separate you from your own. We discovered the opposite. It can, and it did. For me, posting this on this forum is a kind of catharsis or therapy. None of you have the power of a bishop over us who decided that our faith and commitment to Christ was not "true" in the sense of being valid or reliable enough to allow us to engage in the ward as something more than visitors, seekers, investigators, or friends. In Christ, we were much more than that. So now you know, "What that is to me." Thanks for listening. Therapy over; I will do my best not to allude to it again. Take care. After all, I may just be becoming a better Pippin or Navidad! Ha!

I am not sure if this is relevant to this thread, but I received an interesting email just about four days ago. It was from a highly regarded British historian at a well-known British university. He indicated he is working on a book that includes the instances of Irish/English converts to Mormonism in the 1840s. He is apparently digging through old records from the United Kingdom. In his email he specifically mentioned that he had found evidence of Mormon converts and "trafficked women" being shipped to colonies in Utah in the 1840s. As I understand it, his book and study are not specifically religious in nature. He seemed to have found such records when searching for Anglo (British/Irish) migrations to the United States in general. Of course it has nothing to do with Mexican colonies since there weren't any until 1875, and they were not church-related colonies but groups of Mormons coming to Mexico for economic purposes (mining salt, mostly). In fact, the first officially sanctioned LDS organization in Mexico is overlooked by virtually all LDS scholars because it was not "officially" migration under the direction and orders of Church leaders. This was a Sunday school organized by the authority of an Arizona bishop in Corralitos, Chihuahua. Sorry, I digress. At any rate, this email is the first mention I have ever heard of female Anglo (United Kingdom) Mormon subjects having been "trafficked" to LDS colonies in America. Now, a few days later, I read the term used again here. Two instances do not make a trend - they just make it interesting.

Good to hear from you. I am trying to figure out who is still here from days gone by. You and I are migrants in similar and different ways. I respect your interests and journeys. I am somewhat of a coddiwompler. But I have always believed that the joys of the journey into the unknown are the unknown joys of the journey. Take care and best wishes.

Good early morning from Chihuahua. My musings this morning center on the broad diversity within the Mormon and Evangelical communities I have observed over the years of my life. After much exposure, admixture, fellowship, as well as a few tensions with both groups, I find it of no useful purpose to try and generalize, normalize, otherize, or onlyize (my own made-up words) about either. My exposure to the Mormon world is perhaps broader than most non-members have had. From sitting in the tabernacle choir loft and singing with a 150-voice choir, to chatting with La Mora folks in rural Sonora, to speaking and attending numerous MHA events, to mingling with church leaders, both here in the colonies and in SLC, Boise, St. Louis, etc. to speaking at a score or so family reunions, firesides, and the like where regular LDS folks of all backgrounds gather and connect, to dialoguing countless times with members of the LeBaron culture, to six years of faithful non-member ministry and attendance in a ward, a number of discussions with Community of Christ folks and Mexican converts, and finally to interactions at least scores of LDS missionaries, both young and full-time-retired about life and faith. I don't have the perspective of one who met the same culture of LDS folks over and over, providing me a narrow viewpoint. My conclusion from all of that? There is a a wide diversity within the wider Mormon culture related to a variety of topics, beliefs, life experiences, doctrinal perspectives, and ideas about non-members and their spiritual capacities and future destinies. Of course I also observed and participated here on this forum for probably four years or so. Great diversity of practice, thought, and belief about their own faith and that of others (used in the non-Navidad sense of the word). I like the diversity I have seen. I think that makes for a stronger faith community. My exposure to Evangelicals has been, of course, even wider. My parents left the Fundamentalist world probably when I was eight to ten years of age and became active ministers in a variety of Evangelical (not evangelistic) communities and ministries. I went to an Evangelical college, seminary, and graduate school in addition to secular universities. I have pastored, ministered, taught, counselled with, and spoken to thousands of Evangelicals over the fifty-some years of my active life. I have interacted with Evangelicals in Europe, across Africa, in the US, and in Latin America. My conclusion from all of that is that there exists a great diversity related to a variety of topics, beliefs, life experiences, doctrinal perspectives, and ideas about non-Evangelicals and their spiritual capacities and future destinies. I also have observed Evangelicals opining about Mormons and Mormons about Evangelicals. The vast majority of both have five encounters repeated over twenty times with similar groups of the other. I vividly remember our Elders Quorum teacher asking the forty or so elders (plus me) in the class, "how many had been in a non-LDS worship service over their lives?. One man (as I remember) indicated he attended a wedding one time in what I remember was a Presbyterian church. Repeated negative encounters with the same brand of each group do not yield generally favorable results. Stereotypes get reinforced, and bias hardens. Yes, I believe there is a wonderful and large diversity among Evangelicals relating to just about everything in life. Reformed Evangelicals are very different from Pentecostal Evangelicals. Catholic and Orthodox Evangelicals are very different from very culturally conservative Southern Evangelicals, unless the Catholic and Orthodox Evangelicals are also culturally conservative Southern Evangelicals! Perhaps many Evangelicals are not aware of their history as a distinct entity, as many Mormons are not aware of their history as a distinct entity either. Ok . . . .so what is the point? Well, perhaps I don't really have a point in taking up your time to read all of this. It is simply what is on my mind as I ponder things on an early Saturday morning in chilly Chihuahua. I do happen to believe, as I am sure many of you know, that generalizing and normalizing about others is both a sin and not a very useful or helpful exercise. I see many of you talking about how Evangelicals do this or say that based on some podcasts you may have watched or some headline you have read. Ditto for my Evangelical friends in their narrow remarks about some of you. I like explaining Evangelicalism to you all, as well as explaining you all to Evangelicals. Somebody has to do it. I prefer it to not be someone with a podcast, an axe, or a grudge. I have to confess to somewhat of a "bone to pick" (not sure where that came from) against our current bishop, but I am assured time will take care of that, and we may be welcomed back into the active flock of our local ward. Best wishes to all.

Hello my friend. I certainly (smile) believe that some versions of Christianity are not correct in many of their teachings and doctrine, especially in their dogma (used in a non-strictly Catholic sense of the word). Mostly I would emphasize that incorrectness to be around "only" issues as probably is obvious from my perseveration on that issue. I believe too many Christians use sling and stone to commit symbolic violence against those who are not them. In fact in September, I am taking a break from writing about Mexican history and going to focus for the rest of the year on "stones humans throw - justification and wounding" as the focus of my writing. Enough about religious and other conflicts in 1930s Chihuahua! After this next book, I may have to watch my back when walking in Colonia Dublán or Colonia Juarez! Ha! Sorry, I digress. I guess, I have never really pondered on doubts about the existence of a theistic God being. I have accepted that as one of the few absolute truths without ever actually considering its absence. That is about as honest as I can be. Take care and very best wishes. Phil

Good to be back. Sorry for the delay in responding. I may not be as regular as I used to be. . . My wife is very much limited in mobility due to serious spinal disease. I do my best to care for her as she has done for me all these years together (55). Having said that, let me try and answer you in accordance with my thinking. I believe that Christ is the high priest and judge - the future arbitor of all of those He created (in his Oneness with God the Father and the Spirit). I have no need to identify that unity with the word trinity, but neither do I object to it, even though I can't, in my limited ability, define it. Through his death and resurrection, He paid the price for our (humanity's) nature which includes a propensity for erring, doing the wrong thing (along with many good things), or sin - whichever with one is more comfortable. I also belief our good things can never merit eternity with him at any level. So in that sense our destiny rests in Him, whether we acknowledge that or not. That leads us to criteria. That is where I surrender. I can't declare that I understand or am certain about the criteria. I do believe, as I have said many times before on this forum, that many more will spend eternity with Him that most supporters of one particular faith can fathom. Since He is judge and no one merits a positive judgment regardless of religious affiliation, I do believe he is the Savior, according to His own will and way. I am certainly far from a universalist, but neither am I a restrictivist as are most members of the LDS church I have met. Somehow Christ, in his will for his human children will provide a way to be with him for many, if not most, if not the vast majority of us -- including many, if not most, if not the vast majority of my LDS friends. Thanks for the welcome back.

You are correct. However, if forced to choose, I personally would prefer humble and great to people with whom I theologically agree.

I agree with you completely. I don't think certitude inherently leads to scorning others, but I do believe that certitude and human fallibility often does indeed lead to scorning, discounting, mocking, and a form of isolation. I have come to better understand the concept of symbolic violence as perhaps appropriate for this type of wounding. Symbolic violence is different from physical violence in many ways, but one commonality it has is the resultant wounding of both victim and perpetrator. Your analogy is great. However when it comes to faith, I suggest that Christ is the way (the path or sendero in Spanish). He is the "way" in that He will be the ultimate judge and will judge according to his own perfect wisdom and judgment - something we don't have. Nor has He chosen to reveal to us the exact criteria He will use. I am of the belief (with incertitude) that he may even have differing criteria for different folks. Only He knows what those will be. I guess I choose those to believe (with incertitude), that choice will have nothing to do with denominationalism, breadth of spirituality (we all come short), or any creedal aspects of our belief (which we all have). It is not universalism, but the path is not characterized by its exclusivity either. I prefer to agree with your analogy, but amend it in the sense that no human fully knows with certainty the path through the mountains. We know they are not impenetrable because we know there is a way. Good to chat with you again. Best wishes.