Navidad

As an American Evangelical, I find this very confusing. I would say it was done by a Fundamentalist, but then no Fundamentalist would list Jehovah Witnesses as Christians. They barely accept Evangelicals as Christians. Something isn't right. Sometimes draft documents get published as final ones. I know that is true from working for years in school districts. We will see.

I am sure that somewhere in northeastern Utah, there is a Fillerup gas station attendant! Ha! One day some years ago, I was researching the Fillerup family here in the Mexican colonies. Someone told me there were Fillerups near Vernal, Utah. Being an educator, I figured the best place to find out was to call the local high school to see if they knew of any Fillerups in the area. A very pleasant lady answered my call. When I explained the reason for my call, there was some silence, then a laugh. “I'm a Fillerup,” she said. “My ancestors were all in the Mexican colonies.” I have relatives all over this part of Utah! So my journey into the history of Vernal began!

Thanks. If you can recommend a good history of the area that takes it from Middle Ages to Modern Times, I would really appreciate it. The Moravian Church runs tours to that area. Maybe some day I will hitch a ride and go on their tour. You know me by now! I need to know and understand! Best!

You are correct! The reason they say that is because they get language training, but as far as I can figure out, no missiological training as in understanding the specific cultures of the people to whom they are specifically witnessing. I served on the international council of one of the largest Evangelical non-denominational mission organizations. We were "fanatic" about getting our missionaries training in missiology as a discipline, even the short-timers.

Please tell me if I am wrong. Wasn't Bohemia the kingdom and Moravia a region within the Kingdom? In that sense the Moravians were Bohemians, but not all Bohemians were Moravian? Is that correct? The whole nomenclature of the area is confusing. I want to get it right! Thanks.

Agreed. Nor are they the friends of the vast number of Evangelicals, since they are by and large, Fundamentalists!

I think there is much to be learned about this before we know "the truth" about it. I predict there will be some clarification or change in this. Could it be that those creating the list sought the advice of someone in the LDS church who requested a different "label" that all other Christian groups? Perhaps someone in the Church requested a unique and separate listing from all of the rest? I have had conversations with members of the LDS church who prefer not to be considered as Christian because of their unique claims to unique truth and status with the Savior. It will be interesting to watch how this works out. I think we might have some here on the forum who reject the identity as Christian to separate from identity with other run-of-the-mill non-pleasing to Christ Christians.

I am writing a book on truth. I am enjoying thinking through the whole idea of truth as a noun. In most cultures I have studied, truth is more a verb than a noun. It is something we live, are, and seek to be; not an accumulation of correct facts. It is certainly that in Hebrew and Greek (especially pre-Aristotle and in Koiné Greek which was influenced by Hebrew). I have never enjoyed writing a book so much as this one. That's the truth! Ha!

I have never quite understood the concept of presiding either, whether at a sacrament service where it was always announced who was presiding to the home. The context in which it was always explained to me was if a bishop or some church authority went into a home, the "head of the house" the male priesthood holder, presided in whatever happened, not the bishop, stake president, etc. I remember asking, What about a non-member's house?. It was clearly explained to me that the male figure, whether church member or not, presided over any LDS priesthood holder visiting the home. I often reminded my wife of that! It never got me very far! Ha! As a pastor, I sometimes got in trouble with my more conservative parishioners because I taught that the biblical model in the home was mutual submission based on love. I based that on the middle voice in Greek of the verb to submit. The person submitting initiates the action, not the person seeking to be submitted to. I hope that made sense. I found out that the concept of mutual submission in the home didn't go over well with my very conservative friends, including my uncle, who excoriated me for such a non-Biblical belief! My aunt just rolled her eyes!

I wonder what is meant by "rituals" that cannot be performed in a Church meetinghouse? Is prayer a ritual? Is reciting The Lord's Prayer a ritual? Our son passed away last December. We had a celebration of his life/funeral for him in our home. We cleaned out the living room and put around 65 chairs in it. He was cremated, but we did not yet have the ashes. We had tables with photos and mementos of his life out on the patio. They were very similar to what we have seen at every LDS funeral in the ward chapel. The entire service was in English and Spanish. Of the sixty five or so attendees, I would guess forty-five were from the ward. That is almost half of the active members of the ward. The stake president and his wife came. The bishop and his wife came. The stake patriarch and his wife came. A former bishop of a Spanish-speaking ward came. He is also a historian friend. We had the Catholic municipal historian ( a dear friend) open the service with a prayer and a simple remembrance of Chris. My wife and I both shared our thoughts. One of our workers read a biography of Chris in both English and Spanish. Several officials from our municipality attended, along with other neighbors and friends. Our dear friend from the ward sang a song and played the guitar. We had a brief time for testimonies or remarks about Chris. Several people spoke and were very kind. He (our LDS friend) then closed in prayer. Both prayers (opening and closing) were beautiful. I was most pleased that the folks sat intermingled in the seats. There wasn't a segregation of Anglo Mormons and non-mormon Mexicans as there often is at events. It was in our home. I am aware of the LDS practice that the man of the house presides in his home, whether LDS or not. I guess I presided. The service lasted an hour and five minutes. I was very pleased that we had a full house and that everyone seemed to be comfortable. The local ward leadership was all very kind. I say all of this to simply state that all did their best to make it positive for my wife and me. We had an interfaith service that honored both our son and the Lord. I am grateful to all who came and made it a kind and reassuring time. Just thought you might be interested in how we all got together to handle what would normally be a bit of an uncomfortable time here in our region. best, Navidad

I am unaware of any such claims made publicly by Benjamin F Johnson. He was a quiet humble guy, but fiercely proud of his relationship with Joseph Smith. He may have overstated that a bit later on in his life while living in Mesa. What we know is that the family believes that Joseph Smith passed on the presidency of the High Priesthood and the Firstborn Sceptre of Israel (I think that is the correct term) to Benjamin F Johnson. Johnson then in turn passed it on to Alma Dayer LeBaron in Mesa as a boy. It is widely accepted that Johnson, a firm supporter of polygamy, left behind 800 descendants when he died in Mesa. It is very possible that he did tell his grandson (he had many) this story. The LeBarons were from his first wife, Melissa. That could have given them priority over the others. It may also be possible that Joseph Smith did indicate to Benjamin Johnson that he was passing these keys of authority to him. We will most likely never know. There certainly were confusions over various claims of succession in 1844. Benjamin lived here in Colonia Diaz with his more outgoing brother, William Derby Johnson. The Johnson family was one of the leading families of that colony. William Derby was bishop there for years there. Two Johnson sisters married two Fillerup brothers. They became very active in Colonia Juarez at the LDS academy. Charles Fillerup became director, and Erastus was head of music, arts, and drama. Erastus died an early death in 1910 when he fell from the railroad bridge that was being constructed here in the little town where I live. He left behind his wife who was pregnant, and five children. Alma Dayer LeBaron SR. also lived in Colonia Juarez as early as 1904 when he would have been a teenager. It is all pretty complex. Alma Dayer LeBaron and Maud, his wife had twelve children. None of the children stayed in the LDS church. Some left, and some were excommunicated as late as 1944 or so. Several of the boys did missions for the church. The parents were excommunicated for polygamy around 1924. They continued to live in Colonia Juarez until they moved to Pacheco, up in the mountains. They then began to buy land south of Galeana, and the rest is history. The sons established two fundamentalist churches and fought among themselves for authority within those churches. Several of the sons lived in SLC, but did not stay in the LDS church. Today Joel is recognized as the legitimate founder of the church they established that still survives. Ervil's church, to my knowledge, no longer exists here in this part of Mexico, but may exist in SOCAL, Texas, or the Baja. There are still relatives living in Colonia Dublán and active in the LDS church. They are related to LDS members who left the church to join the LeBarons. These familial ties are strong. The reasons and wherefores for why the LeBarons did what they did are complicated, too complex, and personal for this forum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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