Navidad

I can only speak for where I live, which is in a small village in the state of Chihuahua in Mexico. I believe that the church does not grow in our area because of the constant turnover of the missionaries and the isolation of the existing members. Rural Mexico is incredibly social in all of its interactions. It is also extremely familial in its social structure. In virtually every case, one of a pair of missionaries is Anglo. Right or wrong, that is a negative. On the other hand, many of the missionaries who are mestizos come from central Mexico - the big cities or more highly developed areas. They clearly (to me at least) are not comfortable up here in the boonies of rural northern Mexico. There is deeply rooted prejudice both ways here in Mexico - both north and central/south. They each have not-very-nice names for each other. The cultures vary greatly. Combine that with the rapid turnover (every six weeks or so) of the missionaries, and there is no way to build relationships - an essential element for winning converts or doing anything here. Of course, here we also have more than a century of bad relations between the Anglo Mormons and the Mestizo Mexicans. I am uncertain that will ever go away. The LeBarons do much better here in that regard. If anything, over time it may be getting worse. The more I type, the more I think we have some unique factors here. Anyway, that is my two cents.

I agree with 3DOP. Can you be more specific about your concerns? I am 77 years old and can testify that crazy things have been going on in the world my entire life and for millennia previously. My father was an avid and knowledgeable preacher on prophetic themes throughout the 1950s and 70s. He believed fervently that then current events indicated the end times. Well, respectfully, he was wrong. Tell us more about your concerns.

Isaac Haight had a heart attack in Thatcher, AZ on his way from Mexico to receive his second anointing (I think it was to be in the St. George Temple). I have understood that the Second Anointing is an ordinace rarely used anymore. I don't know if that is true.

I think this phrase is using the modern definition of truth, is it not? Truth as something correct, the real facts about something. I don't think this definition of truth correlates to 'emet in Hebrew or to aletheia as in the New Testament or veritas (to a lesser degree) in Latin and on and on. In modern times we have distorted the idea of truth as held by virtually every ancient (pre-modern) language and cultures I have reviewed. Therefore when we place our modern word truth on any older construct -the Arabic name of God as truth, for example, we err. Almost all preachers use modern constructs for ancient constructs. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Do we really think of the meaning of any of these three terms as used in Biblical times? Is the modern word truth, the best word for Hebrew-influenced Greek aletheia? I think not. I think faithfulness, sincere, steady, consistent, revealing that which was hidden, would all be better words than truth.

Maybe dumb questions? Does the Holy of Holies have a handicapped ramp for access for the president? Does only the temple in SLC have a Holy of Holies? If the president receives a revelation or a vision there, is that recorded and/or made public? If so, is there any record of a vision or revelation having been received there? Since there are photos and a thread here, I assume it is ok to ask these things.

Years ago, when I first met Elder Steven Snow, the historian of the church, I didn't know who he was. Rick Turley, Jr. introduced me to him. I didn't know the protocol, and he was about my age, so I said "Hi Steven, good to meet you!" The church members in the little group, looked at me with a look I interpreted as horror. I didn't realize he was a General Authority and Historian of the Church. Way back then, I probably still would not have known how to address him. I learned real quickly that he was "Elder Snow." After years of association, I am still not sure who gets the title "Elder" and why. Elder is sometimes used in the Mennonite church. There it is an honorific title, a sign of highest respect, not something ever used for a 19 year old youth. I find it interesting how we use the same words and often mean something different by them. So then the person listening interprets what the other says through their own meaning. The whole conversation may go south! Ha!

In Old English, the word truth and tree come from the same root word. I really like that. I think being on the journey to truth means someone is grounded, steady, and reliable, yet open to movement. It may have little to do with being "correct." The word truth in English didn't start to mean "correct" until the mid-16th century. Then it took years to come to the meaning it has today. Its earlier use was as a verb or adverb- something we do or are; not something we have. That is the theme of my book. When I truth my wife, I am like a tree with her. I like that metaphor. The Greek New Testament was heavily influenced by Hebrew. I think then, the meaning of truth in the New Testament is very different from how we portray it, using our modern concept of truth. It would be totally foreign to a Hebrew, Greek, or even Arabic culture. Different from Maya, Swahili, Hausa, and early Chinese - pre-Mandarin. I have a question. I love some of the comments already on this thread. I am ignorant on the policy for quoting or using comments from the forum. Will someone please enlighten me? A phrase like, ""It makes space for grace." That is powerful. My inclination is to ask permission of the poster. If I receive permission, then how do I attribute? Or is doing that simply a"no-no"? Or???

Thanks my friend. Great summary. Truths of Faith is a chapter in my little book. Take care.

From my point of view and experience, you have really hit the nail on the head. I wish I could have said it so well. You have accurately described many of my experiences with missionaries and with members of our ward when we see them in the grocery store. Of course, I acknowledge that they might be feeling the same thing about me.

changed my mind

In the discussions in this thread about God being bound by His own covenants, word, and promises. It was only a few comments. I am sorry I didn't make my post clearer as to what I was referring. That tends to be a big debate among Calvinist and Reformed-leaning folks.

You are right. I didn't think of a personal God in the way you describe. I understand much better now. I don't think of some of the groups that you mentioned as Christians in the traditional sense. That doesn't mean I think they will not see eternal life in the eternities. That is up to Christ, not me! Very interesting. Thanks.

I am writing the first volume in a book series I am creating. The first volume is entitled “Truth as a Journey: A Path We Walk—Not an Object We Own.” I would appreciate any of your thoughts, ideas, and beliefs about the nature of truth. I am not limiting this to religious truth. Of course, if you think there is no truth outside religious truth, please share away. I appreciate your input. Thanks!

I don't know any Christians who reject a personal God.

Someone on this thread asked a critical question, and I want to answer it. Why does Navidad keep coming back to this forum with many of the same questions (since 2018 or so)? Without belaboring the point, but trying to answer honestly, here is my answer. It is because Navidad has some pretty deep soul wounds from his experience with the Saints here in Chihuahua. It is also because Navidad had some deep joys from his experience with the Saints here in Chihuahua. It is also because Navidad had a traumatic time in 2025 from October through December, and is still seeking to understand and deal with the pain of all of that. Don't get me wrong; I am a better man for having experienced all of that. I am grateful for that, but am still in significant pain from it. We live in a tiny village. There is no human place for me to turn to for understanding. I had that in our former bishop and ward friends. Both of those sources are now gone. The special “authority” you all talk about has taken our fellowship and friends from us. So forgive me for some anger about that and non-enthusiasm for such authority, which can be as harmful as it can be helpful, depending on whose hands hold it. I come back to this forum for fellowship. I come back to have someone to "talk to." I come back because, at least as of this point, you all haven't taken away my right or welcome to be here. Perhaps someday you will tire of my long posts, questions, and answers, so you will decide to disbar me from fellowship here. At least you have not done that as of this point. I appreciate the discussion and patience you have with me. In that sense it may not be an exaggeration to say you are in some way a family for me. Your names are familiar, your responses are familiar, and I need that familiarity right now. I hope that helps answer your questions. My best wishes, and with a grateful heart, Navidad

You all sound somewhat like Reformed Presbyterian Calvinists having this discussion!

Absolutely and all of those things are instructional and helpful. One of my workers and friends here in Chihuahua just went through that process as a late 30's adult male ( a bold thing to do in our culture). He is a different person for having done that. I can see the difference every day.

Hi my friend: I hope that you can accept that we have very different interpretations of some New Testament passages. I read the same passages you do and draw very different conclusions about them. Interpretation is endemic to all Biblical studies. One of the reasons for all of the different Christian groups is because of those differences in interpretations. I can acknowledge that I disagree with many such interpretations. I must just as quickly acknowledge that my disagreement doesn't make any of them wrong, any more that my agreement with them would make them correct. We are not privileged to have certainty in this dispensation because God is content with us seeking through a glass darkly as we decide, interpret, understand, and choose. We each do our best.

Thanks my friend. Well said. We learned about Chris's fear when trying to give him a bath as a baby!

I would suggest that in this, I am influenced by the meaning of “brother” and “sister” in the Mennonite church culture. It is not an appellation that is easily used. It is reserved mostly for only those who are fellow Christians and close friends, and for some, only for those who are Mennonites, and for some, only for those who are the right kind of Mennonites. I am selective (I must admit) in which LDS friends I call brother. I guess I hadn't realized that before, but now that I think of it, it is true. So, once again, we are folks divided by a common language. My Pentecostal friends even have a different use of the word “brother” or “sister.” I think in the LDS culture it may be used in the sense of “friend.” Perhaps I am wrong. I am around the LDS all the time, and I rarely hear them using the term for someone they don't really know. I don't know whether that helps or not.

I couldn't be rebaptized if the reasons were 1. my original baptism was declared not pleasing to Christ. 2. If the rebaptism was for the remission of my sins and necessary for eternal life. Both of those beliefs would be way outside my comfort zone. My sins were remitted seventy years ago; no need to agree to a need for that again, especially when the method is via an ordinance. I hope that helps.

Ordination serves the purpose of identifying those who have the spiritual maturity and knowledge to be able to lead and serve a particular flock of Christians. It also conforms to certain legal aspects or religious service (chaplainship, marrying, etc.). Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other purpose ordination serves. In my tradition, there is virtually no power or authority connected with it. I am unaware of any Biblical ordinance (understanding that varies by group) that has any salvific purpose. I am not certain; I am simply unaware of any that do. The next part of the answer needs to be, For me, what are the ordinances? For me the Biblical ordinances include communion, marriage (in most cases), baptism as profession of faith, and footwashing (a Mennonite thing). I am uncertain if there are others. I suppose there are in other religious traditions, like in Catholicism. I am simply not competent to describe them well. I don't know which of those are thought to be salvific by their practitioners. Thanks for your questions. I hope I have answered them. It is like when I talk about footwashing to an LDS audience. They just look blankly at me. I believe I am correct, however, that the LDS apostles up until the early 1900s watched each other's feet when they went into session to make major decisions, like when they decided if Woodruff's Sunset or desert revelation was canonical. I always thought that was perhaps a carryover from the Whitmer's practice of it while they were in various Anabaptist groups before their LDS years.

You make a good point. For sure, many non-LDS Christians don't think of baptism in the way you describe. I would guess Catholics do. It would never dawn on me that after 70 years of living the Christian life, that in joining any other Christian church, I would be receiving remission of sins and eternal life via the act of their baptism. I received eternal life and received remission of sins seventy years ago! So now what do you have to testify to me about? Only that I did not receive eternal life and receive remission of sins seventy years ago when I became a Christian by professing faith in the atonement of Christ, asking Him to forgive me, and believing in Him to do so. You are not just saying that my baptism was incorrect, but so was my entire conversion experience, as has been the last seventy years of my mistaken belief in my redemption, are you not? So let's just say Navidad gets baptized by an LDS elder this Sunday after Sacrament service. Is he getting remission of sins and gaining eternal life for the first time in his life? Perhaps this is the real crux of the matter. I haven't been your Christian brother all these years. I have only been your brother in the sense that all humans are progeny of Heavenly Father, so we are all spirit brothers and sisters. We are not brothers and sisters in the sense of Christian brothers and sisters, both redeemed by the shed blood of the Lamb. That is why I cringe every time I am called Brother Navidad by an LDS friend. I know they really don't think I am their brother in Christ or my wife is their sister in Christ, even though in her case the WRS leaders have over and over again spoken highly of her relationship to Christ, her godliness, and her compassion for others. How can she be that without having had remission of sins and assurance of eternal life based on the actions of Christ, who loved her and gave Himself for her? If she insists on the truth of her full and complete relationship with Christ, your doctrine restrains you from believing her or acknowledging that you believe her. I, personally, believe that is why our bishop did not want us in the ward. We were confusing people, not by our words, but by our truthing our faith in a way that could not easily be denied or reconciled with certain LDS doctrines. For many, we were the first non-LDS Christians they ever got to know and love. This is a much bigger issue than I think my LDS friends think it is. We are not always the best at seeing things through the other person's eyes and faith. In fact, we are pretty bad at it. We tend to prioritize our doctrines over the living example of the one standing right in front of us. That is why I am not a doctrine fanatic. I prefer to say "Oh yes, I know Calm from years on the forum. There is no doubt in my mind that she is a complete and full sister in Christ bound for whatever good things lie ahead of us in paradise. Her wisdom can only come from God. What then do I say to someone who asks me? "Dont you know she is a Mormon? What about all the errors in Mormon doctrine?" How do I answer? I would say, "Well, you are mistaken; she is as godly a woman as anyone I have never met!" Ha! My faith gives me freedom to affirm your completeness in Christ. Your doctrine seems to bind you from saying that about someone like me or my wife, or the millions of other faithful non-LDS Christians in the world.

Well, if you remember Spencer Kimball once wrote that when I baptized people I was committing blasphemy. (obviously not me personally) but as an non-LDS minister daring to perform the ordinance. Huge difference in my mind between the viewpoint of the Lutheran and the LDS. The Lutherans say, we value and accept your baptism as valid, but for the purposes of uniting with us, we ask you to agree to be rebaptized by one of us into our church. Not all Lutherans do this. Some do. It is just an example. Baptism is not salvific for most Lutherans. The LDS say, only we are authorized by Christ of all Christians in all the world to baptize. Therefore, any baptism you experienced in your life before coming with us was not pleasing to Christ and was of null effect. Whoever baptized you was not authorized to do so by Christ, so one of us must repeat the ordinance with the method, mode, manner, and authority required for it to be salvific for you. We don't need to know who baptized you, it doesn't matter? Oh? It was your father? No matter. He had no authority because he didn't hold the correct priesthood like our elder does. He didn't know any better. What say you? He had the Melchizedek priesthood according to the Book of Hebrews? I am so sorry you think that. Only our faithful male members can have the Melchizedek priesthood in this dispensation. We are sorry you are so confused. Now, lets get on with the questions. . . . . That is how it appears to a faithful non-LDS baptized Christians.

I assume you are asking me. I think baptism is a testimony, demonstrating the existence and meaning and existence of one's apriori relationship with God. Baptism in no way creates or mpacts that relationship other than human feelings of pride and connectedness with the Savior.l No, I am not sure I agree with number 2 beyond what I said in reply to number 1. Of course, acknowledging a relationship, most likely on a human level, does something to strengthen that relationship. But not in the same way marriage does (in my opinion). I don't think baptism does anything to the relationship from the viewpoint of God; but it probably does from the viewpoint of the human undergoing the ritual. It is like my wife donning an Indiana Fever jersey to watch a Fever game sitting here at home. It strengthens the tie with the team. That is most likely a dumb illustration, but it just came to my mind.