Navidad

I think the concept of baptism as a testimony of a new beginning was very familiar to Jews of the first century. So I think Christ went to his cousin's baptism to testify to the validity in the Jewish community of John's baptism. He was supporting his cousin. In the same vein of thinking, I think that Jesus was publicly testifying by his baptism to a new stage in his own earthly ministry. Ditto with the verbal affirmation of the Father at the same occasion - a public (verbal) affirmation of his pleasure with his son. Everything I know of about water baptism in the New Testament was affirmational. My son was baptized by a dear Mennonite bishop with a pitcher of water because of our son's autistic fear of water. I thought that was very kind of our bishop. It allowed our son to testify publicly without being traumatized by it. I believe he was about 14 years of age. Mennonites in that conference only baptized by immersion. Our bishop had “the authority” to make an exception for our son. I was glad he did that. You would say he had no authority to even baptize my boy, that his baptism was improper, nonprocedural, or not-authorized. That is really really sad. Had you been there, perhaps you would have had a different perspective, regardless of your church's doctrine.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. I think baptism is a testimony to someone's relationship with God. My LDS friends frequently give testimonies to this or that. I think baptism is similar to that. It is a public confession, statement, agreement that one has accepted Christ's offering and gift of redemption. I don't think it is required for anything. I do not think it is salvific or confirming, except in the sense that it is an individual confirming their commitment to Christ publicly. We ask people to give a testimony to the congregation before being baptized. The baptism itself is a symbolic reflection on Christ's death. burial, and resurrection, which is why we immerse in almost the same form as the LDS do. Baptism and the difference in its administration are interesting, but not determinative. If I were to join the Catholic Church, I would not have to be rebaptized; they accept the validity of mine. If I were to join many Lutheran churches, I would have to be rebaptized, not because they believe my initial baptism to be invalid, but solely as a requirement to experience Lutheran baptism to be Lutheran. I could live with that because it does not insist on the invalid nature of my first baptism, as my LDS friends insist. LDS doctrine has proved itself to be variable based on thirty-year cycles. Although it matters naught, I believe that someday the doctrine regarding baptism and other Christian believers will change in the LDS church. LDS culture, identity, and doctrine are tightly linked together. It is much the same in the Mennonite church. Best wishes, Navidad

Hi amigo: I am not sure how to answer you. Neither authority nor ordinances have ever been important to me in my faith tradition. For me, they are similar to the creeds. I never used them, liked them, or was even particularly interested in them until my LDS friends began telling me I was creedal, because they seemed to have been taught that all non-LDS Christians are creedal. That confused me like your focus on ordinances and authority confuses me. They sound to me like the old divine rights of certain kings, where only certain kings had the divine right to do something and were then only responsible to God for the results. The only ordinances I ever performed were baptisms, weddings, communion, and in a few cases, foot washing. I never thought that my baptizing anyone granted them anything. I still don't. I baptized people as a public testimony of their faith—nothing more or less. I married people with the authority to do so from the state. It was a sacred event, with legal approval. Communion (your sacrament) was a memorial service. We remembered what Christ did for us as a congregation. Nothing more or less. We didn't need my authority as pastor to remember; we encouraged each parishioner to do so quietly on their own. We didn't do confirmations. I never laid my hands on anyone for them to receive the Holy Spirit. I didn't need to have that authority. They received the Holy Spirit directly from God. No need for my authority or hands. No authority was involved in foot washing—only humility and remembering Christ's love and humility were the goals. Frankly, I don't want authority. I would probably someday somehow misuse it. I didn't have the authority to remove someone from our congregation and didn't want it. I have watched numerous LDS ordinances as done outside the temple. I never saw much difference in what I did as a pastor. I never observed any authority in the young deacons. They seemed more worried about needing to do it right. Sometimes I felt bad for them. Sorry. Gotta run. Take care.

Hi Calm: Yes I have both. I have quite a library of all the Pooh books in many languages, as well as all the books written about interpreting the Pooh literature, including the biographies of Milne. I also had a lady, I believe a great niece of his, who worked for me. I spent a lot of time talking with her about the stresses in Milne's life and family. Then when I was the headmaster of a Mennonite school, I recieved ties from everyone on holidays. I remember roaming little book stores in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Kenya, Costa Rica, Liberia, etc. etc. for Pooh books in the local language. That was fun.

Methinks the Biblical pattern is the Spirit working wherever and through whatever means it desires. Take care.

Yes, you nailed it. The Holy Spirit cannot be limited to only certain “authorized covenant servants and ordinances.” I would never suggest the Spirit is not present in those. I would propose that limiting the Spirit to those is limiting God. God would never, and I believe, has never, granted the authority to anyone or any church to limit or contain Himself. The Spirit works wherever and whenever it chooses. In the forest, at a rock concert, in a library, in a hospital room, or wherever the Spirit chooses to be active on both believer and unbeliever. This includes the Spirit using all the resources of the LDS church, inclusive of the Book of Mormon, for example. Hymns, are used by the Spirit - hymns from all churches or a hymn composed by a guy sitting by a river! My own most powerful personal (emotiona) and spiritual experiences have come in an ICU ward. For years I taught courses on the integration of psychology and theology. I know it is tricky sometimes to discern the spiritual from the emotional. That is all very complicated. But, I guess I just can't imagine the power, authority, mercy, love, and grace of God being limited to, owned by, or majority controlled by one church, any church, or all churches put together, including the invisible church - the gathering of all believers. God cannot be fenced in or out from whomever or wherever God will speak, give gifts, minister, love, discipline, or provide eternal life with Himself, His Son, and Spirit. Oh, and just to be clear, I am just as sure that no other church has that hold on God either. Gotta go. Best wishes to all.

What does YMMV mean? Thanks for taking time to create your response. Take care and very best wishes.

Let me respond to the several parts of your wonderful reply one at a time. 1. I am not certain about very much. I find that certainty stops me from listening to others with different worldviews than my own. I am a lesser man for that. So I resist certainty. 2. I see a need for ordination (I am ordained). I don't see a need for ordained priesthood authority if that keeps the Christian in the pew from focusing on Christ. I am not certain I even know what ordained priesthood authority means outside of Christ's priesthood authority that He wields. Human exercise of God's authority is feeble at best and power-centered at worst. 3. Temple ordinances: for me, no ordinance has any salvific authority. To the degree that any ordinance is a source of comfort, joy, or closeness to Christ for the participant, I am all for it, wherever it is found. 4. Covenants - I am a kind of covenant theologian. So yes, I value covenants as long as they are horizontal with my wife and vertical with my Savior. I don't know of anything or anyone else with whom I desire to covenant. I certainly have no desire to covenant with any institution. 5. Doctrinal truth. Hmm. I have to divide that into two - 5a. Doctrine? I find myself at this point in my life (77) relatively free from stressing about doctrine and doctrinal differences. That is a positive. 5b. Truth? I am very much dedicated to that. I am in fact, writing a book entitled "Truth as a Journey: A Path to Walk-not an Object to be Owned." I am exploring the history of the word Truth in eight languages and cultures, and in the various forms we (humans) have given to truth over the centuries. It is the first in a series of Focus Books I am writing (each one under 100 pages -this the focus) on topics of interest to me. So yes, truth is important to me. I see a great need for being truth (using truth as a verb, not as a noun). 6. Becoming like Christ - Oh my, this is probably the most significant of all at this stage of my life. In the last six months I have lost my only son, who lived with us his entire 47 years, and almost lost my wife to heart failure and infection. So those paths have led me to a passion to be more like Christ and less like Navidad. So yes, becoming like Christ is very significant for me right now. I hope that helps. Take care.

As I was reading a lot of your wonderful responses to me, I thought of this Spurgeon quote. While I have four favorite preachers, Spurgeon comes out most likely on top. This is a quote from a devotional book built on his teachings: “It is ever the Holy Spirit’s work to turn our eyes away from self to Jesus; but Satan’s work is just the opposite of this, for he is constantly trying to make us regard ourselves instead of Christ. He insinuates, “Your sins are too great for pardon; you have no faith; you do not repent enough; you will never be able to continue to the end; you have not the joy of his children; you have such a wavering hold of Jesus.” All these are thoughts about self, and we shall never find comfort or assurance by looking within. But the Holy Spirit turns our eyes entirely away from self: he tells us that we are nothing, but that “Christ is all in all.” Remember, therefore, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee—it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee—it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that be the instrument—it is Christ’s blood and merits; therefore, look not so much to thy hand with which thou art grasping Christ, as to Christ; look not to thy hope, but to Jesus, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Jesus, the author and finisher of thy faith. We shall never find happiness by looking at our prayers, our doings, or our feelings; it is what Jesus is, not what we are, that gives rest to the soul. If we would at once overcome Satan and have peace with God, it must be by “looking unto Jesus.” Keep thine eye simply on him; let his death, his sufferings, his merits, his glories, his intercession, be fresh upon thy mind; when thou wakest in the morning, look to him; when thou liest down at night, look to him. Oh! let not thy hopes or fears come between thee and Jesus; follow hard after him, and he will never fail thee.” When I read that, it reminds me that my redemption is not in my church, my faith, practices, or beliefs. It is in Christ. I believe we can be so bound to our institutions that those bindings can cause us to take our eyes off the simplicity that is in Christ. Any time any of our churches tries to persuade us that it is the means for our salvation, it takes our eyes off the Savior. It dims our eyes from simply waking up in the morning and thanking Him for another day to journey a few steps farther in getting to know and appreciate Him. Sometimes I think our institutions come between us and Jesus. If any Christian finds him or herself talking or thinking about their church more than about the Savior, they have lost at least some of their joy in their salvation. Somehow I think this thought goes along with this thread.

I happen to think that, while AA Milne had many challenges in his life, Winnie the Pooh was (is) a fairly marvelous theologian/pastoral type of bear. He makes me laugh, think, and sometimes almost cry, as does Eeyore.

I am not sure to whom you are asking your questions? I think all of your first questions are for Christ to decide. Not you or me. What do I think about five-point Calvinists? Not much. I don't know any. I have never spoken with any. I have been a Christian since I was six and am now 77. What they believe has no interest to me. Nor does it have any impact on my relationship to Christ now or in eternity. I will just say I think there is a lot more variance in their beliefs than you are stating, as there are in my LDS friends as well. There is always variance in every religious group. I don't think Christ especially wants us to change as much as he wants us to grow in truthing, loving, and caring. More the fruits of the spirit kinds of things. Being kinds-of-things. Right off the cuff, I don't remember any verses exhorting us to change, but to grow in Him in grace, truth, peace, and love. Maybe that is just parsing words. It is like the difference between migrating and converting. In my life I have been non-denominational, Baptist, Mennonite, and if I could be one right now, I would be Moravian. I see each of those as a migration, just as I would see it if I became LDS. Migration doesn't necessarily involve ordinances, rites, creeds, or rituals. Although those vary across all branches of Christianity. If I became LDS, how would I be converting? I would be migrating to a different form of Christianity with all same basic tenets of faith that all the rest of those I have belonged to affirm. As do almost all Christian groups (not all). If I became Muslim, I would be converting, I think. But joining another branch of the vine that is Jesus Christ? I don't think so. I have been to enough LDS sacraments, Sunday Schools, and Elder Quorums to have realized that the teachings are about 85% the same as in every other Christian church I have attended. The other 15% are of no interest to me one way or the other, because I don't value certainty in any believer. Sorry, I wrote too much. Take care.

HI Calm: That is powerful. Every so often I have found myself wishing that my lifelong LDS friends could find themselves as a genuine non-LDS Christian brother being approached by an LDS missionary. I have spoken with scores of LDS missionaries. Far more often than not, their presuppositions about me are what they have been taught to believe about me as someone who is not LDS. Those presuppositions have very little to do with who I or my wife are as individuals. I have driven many missionaries back and forth to their mission field, the village where I have lived for twenty years within fifteen miles of the nearest LDS colony. Never once has one of them ever asked me about our village, the religious makeup of our village, the history of our people or our village, or their feelings about the missionaries. I don't know of one genuine convert to the LDS church from our village. There are only 900 people here at most. Anyway, I am not sure what all that has to do with anything. I am simply not impressed with what I see to be the lack of missiology training for the missionaries. They are culturally oblivious, except for the language component of it. That is not enough. I want them to bring spiritual light to the people of our village. They simply come and go every six weeks or so. As a former missionary for a non-denominational mission, I just don't get it. I guess they just want the folks to, as you say, convert to who they are. That isn't going to work here. I try to help them, but they certainly don't get a non-LDS Mennonite Christian trying to help them. Very intriguing. Thanks. . . . You always have a great way to say things.

Hi my friend: Your response is complete and overwhelming. Thanks so very much for all the work and truth you put into it. The most interesting to me was the section I copied. Without commenting on any of the points, while reading them, I found myself wondering if Christ is going to ask us about our beliefs on any one of those seven questions from His judgment seat? I sort of doubt it. Of course I do so with incertifude. But I have enjoyed sitting here and staring at those questions and trying to see Him making His decision about us on any or all of them. I think there are other things He might be more interested in. But! I could certainly be wrong. I take comfort in that uncertainty. It makes my faith stronger and makes me rely less on reason!

I worked with public school districts in relatively important positions for many years. I am well-experienced at being mocked at and ridiculed at almost every board meeting. I found, however, that the secret to not being reviled was to wear a Winnie the Pooh tie on the dais. No one can mock or ridicule someone in a Pooh tie! I still have around thirty or so!

As usual, all you said is well said. I would just like to clarify that I do probably draw a circle. The circle I draw is around the individual. Your life and life experiences are different from mine. I believe you will be judged and provided access to the Father or not by Christ as you; I will be judged as me. No one else will be judged as I will be. So I guess in reality that is a pretty small circle! Just me standing there all alone! I believe in a wide mercy, but that mercy will be granted or withheld, not because of what church or group I belonged to or not. That is why I believe that not everyone from any group will most likely be judged favorably or negatively by Christ because of that affiliation. It's a one-by-one thing! Countless circles! Take care.

Thanks so much for your kind response. It is well thought out. Just in case it is helpful, I will let you know I have read the Book Of Mormon, Doctine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great price at least a dozen times. I have a personal library of hundreds of books written about Mormonism by Mormons, especially Mormon history. I don't buy stuff by anti-Mormons or ex-Mormons. I have no interest in arguing or being silly. I have attended a Mormon ward hundreds of times, have given sacrament talks, taught Sunday School, and vacuumed miles of chapel carpets, singing as I went. I have been introduced as the "Mennonite guru of Mormon Mexican history," and have prayed with and before general authorities of the church on more than one occasion. After speaking once in SLC, I got accosted by guards for bringing a gift in a box to the general authority who was Church Historian years ago. Thanks to his assistant, that worked out well! I don't say all that to brag (well, maybe some of it) but to let you know that I have been at this journey for a long time. I have prayed, pondered, and struggled over my relationship with the LDS church. I have been on the edge of inside since 2017 or so. Thanks for your wish. My faith journey is a path I walk to truth in all my dealings with myself and other folks. I am more concerned with that than with possessing truth. I see it as more of a verb than a noun. My best wishes to you.

Jesus did tell me that, and I don't believe (I could be wrong) that I am in a pickle because of that. Nothing that any denomination or sect does or believes has any impact on my salvation. No church or denomination has any impact on my salvation. That is between me and the Savior. My salvation is completely dependent on my faith and life. Jesus is the way because He is the one who will make thee ultimate decision on whether you or I will be able to spend eternity with the Father at the judgment seat. That will be a one-on-one situation. The decision He makes about me has nothing to do with the decision He makes about you. Neither does which church I belonged to on earth. My salvation is not dependent on my church. Of that my faith is strong (notice - strong - not certain). I believe certainty destroys faith because they are oppositional. What the criteria Christ will use may differ person by person depending on many factors in their lives. I am content (not certain) to trust in the perfection of his mercy and judgment. So yes, He is the ONLY way. We cannot be in more agreement on that. True and false authority is a very different situation than different authorities. My wife and I have different authorities, but neither is more true or false than the other. Your binary dichotomy is your belief. It has no bearing whatsoever on my authority or relationship with Christ, my life, or my belief. Neither does it bear on how Christ will judge me. There are far more important things in my life for Him to measure me by than by my authority or lack thereof. How I truth my life will be of much greater interest to Him, in my thinking. Best wishes and thanks for the comment.

My thinking on those passages is that they refer to individuals, as only individuals can be redeemed or lost. No one is lost because of what their church says or does, what their pastor says or does, or because of their church's doctrines. Humans are saved or lost because of their personal choices and lives lived. Salvation is a point in time experience while exaltation or sancitification happens over time. Many choices and decisions go into that. False prophets are a metaphor for bad choices. Roads and gates are metaphors for paths lived. Truth is a journey - a path that we walk, not an object that we possess. I hope that helps answer your question for me. I am a Mennonite. There have been many false prophets in the Mennonite church beginning from its very beginning. Nothing that anything they did or did not do impacts my opportunity to be redeemed. .

Why I haven’t become a Member: 1. I would have to agree to be rebaptized because of a doctrine that only the LDS baptism is pleasing to Christ in terms of mode, manner, and authority. My own father baptized me. I have baptized many people. I do not believe in the onlyness of LDS baptism and/or authority. It wouldn’t bother me if it wasn’t a requirement for joining. 2. I am in agreement that churches (both individually and as affiliates of a group of churches), broadly speaking, break down into two types: fence groups and well (the kind that provides water) groups. The distinction is that fence churches build policies, doctrine, and guidelines to keep members in and to keep outsiders out. Well churches have a well (metaphorically speaking) built in the center that keeps the flock close by because it is a source of refreshment in the form of teaching, loving, and nourishing. It doesn’t worry about keeping others out or on the edge of fellowship. After six years of full-time faithful non-member worship, fellowship, and ministry, I believe the LDS church is more fence-oriented than well-oriented. That doesn’t work for me. 3. I don’t believe churches should keep secrets, especially about means of growth, participation, and spiritual renewal. I could never take an oath or agree to an expectation that I would keep silent about temple ordinances. I would want to spread the word; not hide it, especially if it is indeed sacred. The more sacred, the more meaningful; the more meaningful, the more it needs to be shared. 4. As probably most of you know, I am very uncomfortable with the onlying, othering, and persecution identity (all three are connected) that have become endemic to the LDS Church's individual and group identity. I think all three are unhealthy and inaccurate. To deny that the godly people I know as non-LDS Christians can have thee gift of the Holy Spirit outside the LDS Church is a non-starter for me. There can be no question of the Holy Spirit's power and Gift in many godly non-LDS Christians. Non-LDS Christians who become LDS Christians are migrants, not converts. 5. Regarding LAD – life after death—I cannot see eternity in a place where Christ and the Father do not dwell as anything but Hell (in the non-brimstone sense). I also do not believe Christian denominational and group identity will survive into eternity. We will all be in the same boat on that ocean. Boats aren’t marked by denomination or earthly affiliation. Those are my five reasons. Having said all that, I must say this as well. . . . . None of that relates, for me, to either salvation or exaltation (which I deem sanctification). So, yes, I believe that LDS Christians are capable of being fully and completely Christians, just as are folks from any other group, Christian or perhaps, according to the wideness in God’s mercy, non-Christian as well. I believe that wideness extends to the Judgment Seat of Christ. Perfect judgment based on love, mercy, and perfect wisdom. No Mennonites, Catholics, or Mormons (sorry) in eternity. There will simply be humans - waiting for Christ to make His decisions one by one. I also must say that as an Evangelical, I hold my beliefs with faith, not with certainty. Humongous difference. I am also 120% convinced of the kindness of a majority of my LDS friends. That kind of kindness can only come from the Holy Spirit. I am open to your thoughts. For those of you who have been around for a while, there is most likely nothing new in what I have said. Best wishes to all.

My favorite image of Christ is the one hanging in my office. It shows Christ reaching down into the water to pull Peter out. I like it because it shows me both the redemptive and the higher expectation of Christ for those who followed Him. Christ neither left Peter to drown in his humanness (fears and doubt) nor did he go beyond a gentle remonstrance. It helps me in my valuing of uncertainty as something of an aid that draws me into dependence on the reliability of Christ, something, at least in my community, we don't talk about very much. Best wishes to all.

Happy Easter to all. This is a day I am reminded of the wideness in God's mercy. That means a lot to me and provides me with hope for my own eternal destiny. Related to this thread, I resist being compartmentalized into how I am allowed to respond. For example, I reject both options to respond that Joseph Smith was a fraud or that he was a great prophet. He was the founder of a church. He was one in a long line of founders of churches. It is natural that a member of a church that he founded holds some kind of a hagiographic perspective on his life and work. I don't begrudge them that. I simply am not there. I believe that Joseph Smith most likely wrote the Book of Mormon with help from his friends. I believe he had some visions. I have no idea whether they were from God or not. I reject aspects of some of their beliefs as they developed over time. I reject that Christ told Joseph that all the creeds were abomination to Him. That (for me) was Christological projection. For me, that type of verbiage is inconsistent with the nature of Christ. I place Joseph in the same place I would put many reformers, founders of movements, and heroes of differing faith groups. I put him in the same place I put myself—deeply flawed and in need of Christ. As you all know, I don't believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only anything. Ditto for every other denomination, group, or gathering. So, when it comes to the LDS Church, I bear it no ill will. I regret those exclusivistic doctrines that developed over time because of the lived experiences of its leaders, those responsible for their doctrines and their evolution over time. I believe that has also happened in most other Christian groups, hence the diversity of beliefs within the Christian community. My LDS friends have often told me the others must be wrong because God is not a God of confusion. Ok, but we humans are experts at it. We are also experts at binarisms, throwing stones, ranking, generalizing, normalizing, and dehumanizing those who aren't us. I confess to some feelings somewhere between anger and sadness at the times my wife came home from the ward in tears. Therefore we no longer go. At the same time, I deeply value and appreciate the human kindness shown us by many of our LDS friends. Therefore I am in a conundrum, a conflict, and confused about how to relate to my LDS friends. However, I know I will not cast them out of Christianity because of my confusion. I will not relegate them or their founder to something less than the fullness of the Christian life (even though they have done that to my wife and me . . . Sorry, I just couldn't resist that). I love writing. I have written thousands of pages. Therefore I have no problem with Joseph Smith doing that. The early LDS leaders produced many volumes with many pages of material. Many were quite prolific. I have never tried to figure out an alternative source of the Book of Mormon, because I simply assume that Joseph wrote it with the help of his friends. I have some struggle with the Whitmers, solely and only because they were kind of, sort of religious coddiwomplers, wandering here and there, always thinking of a new way to express their desire for faith. I will continue to defend my LDS friends to the non-LDS Christian Fundamentalists I come across in my work. I will continue to claim a special LDS friend as one of the Godliest men I have ever known. I will continue to believe that D&C 1:30 was written, as it says to the Church collectively and not to the Church individually. I still might agree to write the first academic history of the LeBarons. I have friends in that community who I equate with those in the LDS Church, and every other church wherein I have friends. It is only fair that the LeBarons not be left with only sensationalist writings about their fascinating history. Beliefs are stubborn things, especially when held with certitude and exclusivity. I am with Peter Enns in declaring certainty a sin. Best wishes and Happy Easter again, to all.

I am 77 years old and shar p assss a tick!

I guess the same point as the men on the road to Emmaus. Do not the plates tell the story of the Savior? Cannot Christ use any means to draw people unto Himself? Could he not use Narnia, if He so desired? Maybe He did. Perhaps Lewis was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his wonderful storytelling about redemption. How about the Screwtape Letters? Any literality (is that word) in them. I think not. They were foundational in my early spiritual understandings. For me, The Book of Mormon, stripped of its historical context, is a much more uplifting and enlightening tool than Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price. Of course that is just me.

Can I offer you a fourth?? Well, ok . . . I will anyway. Here goes: 4. The historicity of the plates doesn't matter. It is the shed blood of Christ on our behalf that matters. I have a strong belief that when I get to Judgment Day, He is not going to ask me what I believed about the plates, or Jonah's big fish, or the Garden of Eden.

Hi Smac: I don't see the debate about the historicity of the Book of Mormon as being very different (if different at all) from the debate about the historicity of the Bible. No one's salvation, eternal life, or the outcome of their judgment day encounter with Christ will depend on their position on the historicity of either book. A fine Evangelical scholar came out with a book in 2009 entitled "The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate." It rocked the boat on the literal interpretation of the historicity of the creation story in Genesis 1. It profoundly rocked the Evangelical boat, but everyone survived what in Spanish we call "Zozobra" - the anxiety over an impending sinking of the ship. There are probably more people in the world hoping to destroy the credibility, consistency, conformity (choose another c word) of the Bible than those interested in doing the same to the Book of Mormon. If one day they succeed, it won't hurt my faith at all, because my faith is in Christ, not in whether Jonah was swallowed by a literal fish. I have several LDS historian friends who are not fans of the historicity of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. They still go to Sacrament Service, have callings, and hold their own personal beliefs. My guess is that the Mormon faith will survive as a branch of Christianity if The Book of Mormon were reduced to being a book of spiritual truth focused on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Isn't that what it is all about? I sincerely doubt you will ever find proof in Olmec ruins of the Nephites or Lamanites as portrayed in the Book of Mormon. Yet, people will continue to convert (non-believers), and non-LDS Christians will continue to migrate to the LDS Church. And vice-versa. I wish both my LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian friends would simply be content to know they have a book that points people to the Savior. I have consciously chosen not to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My decision has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon or the Moroni Test. I simply could not join a church that has as a core belief that it is the only and that all the rest are others, less than pleasing to the Savior. It is that exclusivity, which to my reading is not even found in the Book of Mormon, that keeps me from joining. It has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon's historicity. I can however, understand the importance of that historicity to many of you, as the same is true for many non-LDS Christians. I acknowledge a great outpouring of kindness to me and my wife when she went through her open-heart surgery and when we lost our son during her recovery. The burden was overwhelming, as was our LDS friend's kindness. Yet, through all of that, it was clear we were still outsiders, outside of the church, outside of grace, outside of real fellowship, and outside of the permanence of the Holy Spirit. Take care.