Navidad

It is good to be back on this forum. This is quite a thread . . . . so many topics in one thread. I will limit myself (aren't you glad?) just to respond to a couple: 1. I am not a critic of the Church. I am certain that as great a percentage of members of the LDS church are Christian as there are in any mainstream Christian group. I defend my LDS Christian friends to those few non-LDS Christian friends who would deny Christendom to my LDS friends, The vast majority of whom are Fundamentalists and not Evangelicals. To have my LDS friends insist that Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are simply two points on the same continuum is like me insisting that my LDS and LeBaron friends are simply two points on the same continuum. I don't think most of you would go for that. 2. As most of you know, I live in Mexico, among the Mormon colonies, so I am genuinely interested in LDS Mesoamerican history. Even if I were inclined, which I am not, to try to disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon as far as connections to Mexico, I would suggest that the responsibility is on the LDS to prove their claims. It is not on me to disprove them. Most of the focus on this thread is on the opposite; the naysayers can't disprove the book's historicity, therefore it stands redeemed. I would propose that it would be as equally as great a challenge for a non-LDS Christian to disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon to a faithful and conservative member as it would be for a faithful conservative member of the Church to prove the book's historicity to the non-member. Especially to the non-member critic. Either side in that debate will land on the side of their faith-beliefs. Strong faith in either is virtually indestructible by facts. So virtually no one wins. Both lose. I have a wise South African friend who once said, “A good friend is one who shows his friend another view of the world, without making his friend's view wrong.” That is a paraphrase. It is a worthy aspiration, one I cherish. 3. My focus in the above quote is on the last four lines. I thought it misrepresented much of non-LDS Christianity, including those who reject the Church's truth claims, until I finished the last few words at the end of the last sentence. It may very well be a “very pervasive attitude and paradigm adopted by (usually) the most vocal critics of the Church who engage on online platforms.” With that caveat, we cut down the percentage of non-LDS Evangelicals who are that kind of a critic to the fringe. If we are talking about non-LDS Fundamentalists, we are talking about the fringe as well, albeit a greater percentage of the group. I have often taught that we Mennonites and Mormons are alike in having adopted a doctrine of undeserved persecution as part of our faith group's identity. The other day I was speaking to a group of LDS church members. One commented about how the Mexican revolutionaries had turned against the Saints in 1912 during the Mexican Revolution. I suggested to him that they did, but it wasn't because they were Saints. It was because they were perceived as rich, manipulating resources, non-Mexicans, and living in isolated colonies. I assured him the average revolutionary probably knew very little about the details of his Catholic faith, let alone that of the Saints. He was quite put out with me. You see, most of the Church's sacred history about the Saints in Mexico presents that theme of innocent persecution. It is endemic to LDS history and has impacted its doctrines over the years. If you have ever heard of the Monroys here in Mexico, you have probably heard they were hanged for being saints—martyrs for the faith. They were indeed hanged, but the act was committed by carrancista soldiers who thought them to be zapatistas in recently conquered zapatista territory. We Mennonites greatly value a thousand page book about all our martyrs during the Reformation. We have that in common. Best wishes to all.

Well, I am, in truth (my truth), not a fan of missionary work to other Christians by any Christian group. It seems from the direction of posts in this forum of late that there is indeed some concentration on exmos, as some call them. I would rather have exmos return to their own church than migrate over to mine. If indeed they are angry, then they need to heal, not to bring their anger somewhere else. I am not certain that "harvesting" Christian souls into another Christian community is indeed pleasing to Christ. Migration between Christian groups is common and is fine with me as long as it is a joyous and voluntary thing due to changes in preferences, styles of worship, emphasis of teachings, or even new and exciting doctrines. I think most of my LDS friends see any movement out of the LDS church as a bad thing for whatever reason. There are many things about the Mennonite church that aren't for everyone. Ditto for just about every church group on earth, including the LDS. Perhaps you would take a try and explaining the second half of D&C 1:30 to me . . . The author makes a clear distinction between the collective church to which He is speaking and the individual church to which He is apparently not speaking. Isn't it a reasonable interpretation to see the collective church as the broad community of Christians with which Christ is well-pleased? I know that sets up a conflict with the First Vision and D&C 1:30, but it wouldn't be the first time religious teachings within the same tradition contradict themselves.

Yes, It is worse than some fiery Fundamentalist explanations! No part or portion of the Spirit of the Lord! Wow! Lots of evil in that description. Take care and very best wishes, Navidad

Good morning: Methinks neither parable has to do with Christians proselytizing or criticizing other Christians. A movement from being a non-LDS Christian to an LDS Christian is a migration within the same tribe, not a conversion. Ditto for the reverse. Ditto also for criticism either way. Of course I fully acknowledge this is my perspective and belief, and hence, my truth. I don't expect it to be yours. Have a good day, Navidad

Fascinating. . . Is it a fact that there are "many more ex-Mormons than there are active Mormons in the world"? If so, then it is about time that the Saints back off on we non-Mormons and focus on their internal losses and divisions! Oh, and I would say the same thing to non-LDS Christianity in relation to its own splits and losses. Any data on how many ex-Mormons exist?

I am sorry my friend, but I have always found chapter 41 of the Gospel Principles a cacophony of confusion, especially related to the spirit prison side of it. It is defined in different ways, inclusive of hell. It also quotes the Book of Mormon to describe Spirit prison (one of the two states of the spirit world) as the place of the wicked. “And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. “Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection” (Alma 40:12–14). It further states: "The spirits are classified according to the purity of their lives and their obedience to the will of the Lord while on earth. The righteous and the wicked are separated (see 1 Nephi 15:28–30), but the spirits may progress as they learn gospel principles and live in accordance with them." Again the division of the righteous and the wicked. This is not sound like a benevolent place for growth and learning. Ditto for chapter 46. I am looking for something more consistent and deeper that Gospel Principles. It seems to be both a declaration of beliefs (a kind of creed - yikes!) and a missionary device designed to appeal to investigators (friends). In trying to be both things, it ends up being neither. Just an observation of an informed inside-outsider! Thanks.

I am sorry, I just don't know. I don't know enough (hence I ask for books—in - in depth studies of the LDS eschatological doctrines). Likewise, I am not sure which judgment (if you believe in two) to which you are referring. It sounds like you believe at some point in the future some will cease to exist as spirits - I don't know if that is pre- or post-judgment or pre or post-which judgment. I don't understand what future resurrection is in LDS doctrine. So, if you want to start a thread that goes into all of this, I will certainly be a part. Thanks.

Your opening or original post is a bit too angrily screedish (notice the embedded word!) for me. It seems to me that your phrase I have quoted is pivotal. Many organizations and individuals, including groups with large missionary contingents, may be guilty of what you have stated in this insightful phrase. Having said all that, I have never watched Mormon Stories. So I can't opine at all on them. I can opine, however, on the art of directional persuasion as taught by many groups.

I would be happy for you to start another thread where I can respond as I normally might do. I will simply say now that I am sorry if I came across a few posts higher as confused or surprised that most of the LDS would hold that a vast majority of those in the spirit world who are approached by those who have evidence of proxy baptisms and confirmations, would agree to receive them. This is obviously even more true if, as my LDS friends seem to believe, the only Christian group represented in heaven is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I say "seem" because I don't know that I have ever been provided a consensus answer on that from the LDS perspective - whether there will be those with a Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Orthodox, or even perhaps Muslim or Buddhist identity in the spirit world, together with advocates for their positions. Perhaps Christ might enjoy that, even advocate for it. I don't know. The very day my son died, the senior LDS church leader came to our house with my wife. I wasn't even home yet from El Paso where he died. My wife says she asked the leader where he thought Chris was at that hour, some four hours after his death. My wife said the leader simply paused and then said, "In the spirit world." I might have said the same thing, perhaps using different terminology. I welcome you to a more in-depth conversation with all of us on the forum on the topic. I have no certainty on any of it. I don't want to have any certainty on any of it, because, as I have said before, I believe certainty closes the door to learning, and absolute certainty locks it. For me, uncertainty is a blessing. It reinforces my faith in a way that certainty cannot. Best, Navidad

Hi @Calm: I can't answer your question because to do so, I would have to challenge the likelihood that things will happen as you outlined. I don't want to do that; in fact, I promised I wouldn't when I started the thread. It is not my position to answer your question. The very fact of the scenario that you outlined, simply in and of itself, does an outstanding job of confirming what I suggested. I thought that it was the assumption of most members of the LDS church that just about everyone would accept the ordinances, because it will be obvious at that point that the LDS were/are correct, especially since, as you suggest in your post, Christ will sustain (to use your faith's word) the truth of your scenario. You just confirmed what I said. It is not my place in this thread, at this time to debate that whole scenario. That is what I would have to do to answer your last question. Given your scenario, the assumption as I outlined it is true for all the reasons you included. Perhaps another day, on another thread, we can have a dialogue about the whole scenario as you outlined it. Not tonight. Not on this thread. My best wishes, Navidad.

Good morning @Clear Welcome to the forum. From your opening, it appears you belonged to a Restrictivist branch of Protestantism. Might I ask to which group of Protestant belief you belonged? I was raised, studied, and have lived another side of non-Catholic Christianity. I was raised with a wideness in God's mercy perspective and view of judgment day. We were never certain about very much, because much of theology was beyond our certainty. There was no "moral dilemma," just a quiet confidence in God's goodness and mercy. You use the rarely used (In my experience) non-LDS term "Heaven." Where will he be if he is in heaven. You also state "regardless of his religion" - Would you include faith and faithfulness in your use of the word "religion?" Is it not fair that most LDS folks will tell you that while there is no pressure in the after life to accept the ordinance, there is an assumption that just about everyone will, because it will be obvious at that point that the LDS were/are correct. It has never seemed to me to be evident that there is much thought given to the destiny of those who do not accept. The assumption (perhaps not a good word) is that the vast majority will - perhaps not universalism, but close to it, especially for those who are not sons of perdition. I like your phrase that grief is a manifestation of love, without any place to go. As you might have heard when you were a Protestant, "That'll Preach!" Again, welcome and thanks for your comments.

I liked Wilford because of this emphasis on eschatology. He had an amazing vision that was never approved as revelation, but he persevered in his interest. I also admire his son who was also an apostle. He and his wife died in a manner connected with Mexico. Stephen L Richard was a twentieth century apostle and first counselor to David O McKay in the presidency in the 1950s. He was a brilliant man with a rare intellect. He was so advanced, he may have been the only apostle in history to have his entire general conference speech from 1932 (I think) erased from the general conference record. It was a delightful speech, but way ahead of its time. Read it sometime. It was great. It is also a wonderful church trivia question! Several in the Richards family were leaders in the church hierarchy for many years. Richard's grandfather Willard was very close to Joseph Smith. I like Stephen because he was smart, a bit of a radical and served faithfully inpsite of being ahead of his time. Oh, and also because his middle name was L - just L, no period, no short form for any other name. I don't think I have ever heard of that before - another great trivia question!

Hi Jesse: Thanks for your reply. I have several thoughts and comments on it. I read Canon 844, paragraph 4, after they left because I was referred to that. That is precisely the paragraph under which he did what he did. Danger of death is one, as you mentioned. You skipped the "grave necessity" that is also mentioned as a cause. There is no grave necessity for me, but I would suggest that there is for my wife, who is suffering terribly and very weak from her open-heart surgery, topped off with the loss of her only child, who lived with us for this entire life and who became sick when she went into the hospital, almost the same week. In some ways, she blames herself for his death. The priest was someone who, in this small community we live in would know a lot about many people, especially with my dear friend (the cronista for this municipio) informing him. We are a smallish Catholic diocese. It would not surprise me if he discussed what he intended before the visit with the bishop. He knew we do not have access to a minister of our own faith here. The Mennonites here are very conservative Russian Mennonites of an older order. They do not consider my wife and me proper Mennonites because we don't live in the culture as they see it as coexistent with the faith. I could certainly access a US Mennonite pastor friend via a call or the internet, but not locally. The Catholic community here knows that. Catholic leaders here know I write extensively on the history of Catholicism in Mexico. In that sense, my relationship with the Catholic church in our area is similar to that of my relationship with the LDS church here. The priest who came to our home is a graduate of the Pontifical University in Salamanca, Spain, to my understanding a well-respected Catholic university in that country. Now we get to, do I manifest a Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, and am I properly disposed? That is above my pay grade. Do I regularly attend Catholic services and events in our area? Yes. Was I invited to the inauguration (my word) of the last two bishops of our diocese? Yes. Do I manifest a Catholic faith in respect to the sacraments? I guess that depends on the definition of the same by the one making that decision. It seems important that the whole purpose of the section is to deal with the administration of "these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church." Well, that would be me! So it is expected that there are those who meet the requirements who do not have "full communion with the Catholic Church." Again, it is like me participating in an LDS ordinance in the sacrament service by taking part in it. As someone not in full communion with the LDS Church, I am allowed and yes, encouraged to do so. The question in our ward in that regard was whether we were allowed to open or close the service in prayer, give the sacrament "talk", sing a solo, or share a testimony. All of which we did under one bishop and were not allowed to do under another (except partake in the sacrament elements, as the LDS church clearly permits). I guess the whole thing could be settled by simply suggesting our local priest came by, chatted with us for an hour, and blessed us with his words. Then, he put on his stoll, an act that had some significance (probably about his authority to do so), and used olive oil to bless us, lay hands on us, and prayed for us while doing so, exactly as did our stake president and former temple president (I think I said mission president before). That was in error. Perhaps there was nothing sacramental meant by what the priest did. Maybe he was simply being an effective pastor to a family who he knew to be hurting from the loss of their son and the illness of the wife. I am happy with either. I know we were blessed by both his and our LDS friend's ministrations. That is the key to all of this. We can learn from and be blessed by ministrations from faiths that are not our own. I have experienced that many times in my life. So many never have or never have taken the opportunity to experience that. Indeed, in some faiths there are cornerstone beliefs that such a thing is not possible from those outside their own faith. One branch of the Plymouth Brethren, a conservative, closed, and sometimes Fundamentalist group within Protestantism, believes that. Thanks for your reply. I have tried to fill in some of the blanks. Someday I will seek more information from him when I am with him again. My wife was not in the place to get into theological jots and tittles. She cried and was clearly blessed by what he did, something she testified to me about later on in the evening. That is good enough for me!

Wilford Woodruff - President; Stephen L Richards - Apostle

Hi Calm: I guess I am a bit uncertain what you mean by "accepting the Gospel and the Atonement." Although I think I like the idea of 1. accepting the proxy baptism; and 2. repenting from human life's unworthiness and accepting the redemption of Christ via His life, death, burial, and resurrection, or perhaps in a later judgment, by His mercy. The second (in my nomenclature) would be necessary to gain "eternal life with Christ" on top of acceptance of an LDS baptism. Of course, most non-LDS Christians don't believe in an opportunity for repentance after earthly death as a salvific option. It is not my point to debate that, just to clarify that perhaps some or most of you might agree that some level of repentance and acceptance of the atonement of Christ may be necessary in addition to acceptance of a proxy baptism in and of itself. I believe in thesimple gospel of Christ; not the LDS gospel, or the Pentecostal gospel, or the Lutheran or Catholic gospel - with all the concurrent distinctions and fences from each other. I believe in the "well" gospel; not the "fence" gospel. I have explained that here before, so I won't go into that concept again. It is interesting to me that just yesterday we had a fine young (everyone is young compared to me) Catholic parish priest in our home. Through an intermediary friend, he asked permission to come and minister to us in our grief. We had a wonderful talk in which he provided much comforting and helpful counsel. Then he asked us if he could pray for us. We said, "Certainly." He kissed his stole and put it on (over his Ecuadorian manta or poncho) and jeans - (I liked him for that). He proceeded to read to himself from what seemed to be a book of rites, anointed (my term) us with olive oil, and laid hands on each of us. According to my friend, who is some kind of elder in the parish, the priest was allowed by the Catholic Church to perform a formal ordinance for us in our grief because 1. he took the time in our chat to deem we were spiritually worthy of such, and 2. Our baptism was acceptable to the Catholic Church. We were blessed by his ministration (very similar to what our stake president and a retired mission president had done for us several weeks earlier). The way it was explained to me, he was able to perform a formal ordinance of the Church (Catholic) instead of a simple blessing or prayer because he deemed both us and our baptisms acceptable to allow him to do so. I believe I am interpreting his Spanish explanation of it all correctly. So there was both the idea of baptism and spirituality involved in that process. That is very Lutheran and in some ways consistent with other non-LDS churches for ordinances. For example, I was only ordained in the Baptist church after a time of examination of both my baptism and spiritual worthiness by a group of elders when I was 23 or so. Perhaps I have erred in thinking that in the numerous LDS baptisms I have observed, it seems like the person is of age, is baptized, is confirmed, and then is a member with all the rights, privileges, and authority of being a member. I was unaware of there being a time of spiritual examination of the baptismal "candidate" (to use our term), beyond the baptismal questions. Ok, I have written too much. Thanks.

But then logically you must allow for those who accept their proxy baptism and still don't go to the other side - to paradise. Or those with temple recommends who have done proxy baptisms but who go to spirit prison instead of paradise due to their own person unworthiness, regardless of their authority or church membership. Right?

If I am accurate at what you are driving at, then I would disagree. It is known and accepted by millions of Christians worldwide, that Christ has one bride - the Church United—the worldwide collective of those who acknowledge Him as the bridegroom. It (singular) is the Church United - "alive and well" as the song goes. For me at least, inclusive of the those who claim Christ as their Redeemer from within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! As in, the group is, the team believes, the crowd was moving. Collective acting as singular! The second half of D&C 1:30 talks about it! -which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually. (emphasis mine) 🙂

Hi @webbles: I am finally getting around to answering your request. I don't know how to insert a long document into my response. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to do so anyway. Here are a few paragraphs from a talk I gave at a 2019 MHA conference. It touches on your request. If anyone wants the whole document, which is about the role of the Apostles in the Colonies in general, please PM me with your email address, and I will send you the entire document and a PowerPoint that goes with it, if you want that. Here are a few pertinent paragraphs: Visiting Apostles Apostles were also sent to Mexico to resolve differences, preside at conferences, and provide oversight. An example of this is when apostles Brigham Young, Jr., John Henry Smith, and Francis M. Lyman were sent to investigate complaints against prominent colony leaders. They determined that difficult but correct decisions had been made.[1] George F. Richards, Rudger Clawson, and John Henry Smith each visited for different reasons. President Joseph F. Smith visited the colonies on numerous occasions, including the dedication of the new Juarez Stake Academy building. I have found no sources indicating whether Lorenzo Snow visited the colonies, either as apostle or president. He did, however, have an impact on plural marriage in Mexico. In 1901 he found out that Anthony Ivins and A. F. Macdonald were performing plural marriages. He sent Apostle John Henry Smith to warn them of the consequences (potential excommunication). They received mixed messages from other Church leaders. They responded to the President’s warning with partial compliance.[2] Apostles and Plural Marriage In June 1890 Apostle Brigham Young Jr. organized a festive trip to Mexico including ten prospective plural marriage couples plus his own plural wife-to-be. They arrived in Mexico and A. F. MacDonald married all eleven couples the same day![3] Post-manifesto, the colonies were a place where plural marriages continued, performed by certain local leaders and visiting apostles. Patriarch MacDonald, Apostle Teasdale, and Stake President Ivins performed most of the plural marriages at the local level using a clandestine system of approval from certain Church leaders. Ivins was granted the rare authority to seal couples outside the temple.[4] Not all visiting apostles were supportive of performing plural marriages. “Apostle Heber J. Grant, for example, reported that while visiting Mormon settlements in Mexico in 1900, he received 10 applications in a single day requesting plural marriages. He declined them all. ‘I confess,’ he told a friend, ‘that it has always gone against my grain to have any violations of documents [i.e. the Manifesto] of this kind.’”[5] Other visiting apostles performed plural marriages and conducted extended tours of the colonies. Apostles A. O. Woodruff, John W. Taylor, and Matthias Cowley were regular visitors in this regard. The account of A. O. Woodruff is perhaps the most poignant. Apostle Abraham Owen Woodruff was the son of Wilford Woodruff who had two wives. A review of Anthony Ivins’ journals reveals that from 1899-1904 Woodruff was often in Mexico, at least once a year. He traveled the colonies providing ecclesiastical leadership, hunting, and avoiding testifying at the Smoot Senate hearings.[6] He built a home in Colonia Juarez for his second wife Avery, where she lived full-time. In May 1904 Apostle Woodruff made a trip to Mexico with his first wife Helen and their children to see Avery’s new baby girl and attend a Mexico City Conference. In Mexico City, Helen became sick with smallpox. She died within a week. Apostle Woodruff also became sick with the disease and died in El Paso a few days later. This was a tragic loss, especially for Avery. Apostle John. W. Taylor’s three wives (Nellie, Rhoda, and Roxey), together with their children lived in Colonia Juarez in a home he built for them. They were part of a group of wives and children locally known as “the exiles,” a sobriquet to which no stigma was attached. Apostle Taylor was a regular visitor in the colonies and openly interacted with his three wives, as did President Joseph F. Smith and others.[7] Taylor spent time in Mexico after resigning his apostleship. “Visited in Mexico by apostles John Henry Smith, Francis M. Lyman, and Anthony W. Ivins, Taylor accused the church of cowardice in giving up plural marriage in the face of government pressure.” He was excommunicated soon thereafter.[8] Apostle Cowley performed plural marriages in Mexico, but it is not clear how many. It is evident that he used the remoteness of the colonies to hide when deemed necessary. Apostle John Henry Smith was sent to Mexico to find Cowley to have him testify at the Smoot trial. Only upon the direct order of Apostle Smith was he located. Cowley refused to return to testify.[9] That the practice carried on in Mexico was known to the General Authorities cannot be doubted. Many of them visited the Colonies where they could not fail to become aware of what was going on. Among those who came to Mexico on official Church business, some of them many times, were John W. Taylor, Mathias F. Cowley, Hyrum Smith, . . Abraham Owen Woodruff , . . Heber J. Grant, Amasa M. Lyman, B. H. Roberts , . . and President Joseph F. Smith. These men, with few exceptions, preached with fervor the doctrine that plural marriage was a prerequisite to celestial exaltation. They urged the young men in the Colonies to accept and practice the principle.[10] [1] FamilySearch, “A F Macdonald by Taylor MacDonald” https://www.family search.org/photos/artifacts/5986576. [2]Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 157. [3]Alexander F. Macdonald, Marriage Record, 1888-1900 in D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring 1985), 41. [4] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition. [5] Heber J. Grant to Frank Y. Taylor, April 28, 1904, Heber J. Grant Letterpress Copybook, 38:591, Heber J. Grant Collection, Church History Library, Salt Lake City in “The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng#39. [6] L. A. Snyder, & Snyder, P. A. Post-manifesto polygamy: The 1899-1904 correspondence of Helen, Owen, and Avery Woodruff (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2009), 36. This book contains a poignant account of the plural marriage of Abraham, Avery, and Helen, including the death of Abraham and Helen and the bitter aftermath for Avery. It is an excellent read. [7] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition. [8] Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 180, 181. [9] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition. [10] Anderson, Cowboy Apostle. Kindle Edition _______________________________________________ It appears from research done by LDS history gurus that as many as from 225-250 post-first manifesto plural marriages were performed in Mexico, including those performed after the second manifesto up to and including in the 1920s. Most of these marriages were done with some kind of authority and between the first and second manifestos. Plural wives were still living in the colonies up to and including the 1960s and perhaps the early 70s. There are lists of such marriages in several of the sources I am recommending. Were all the marriages performed "with authority"? That is a challenging question, but one that is best responded to as yes, if you consider open and clandestine approvals given by Apostolic authority, including that of the counselors to the presidency during the Joseph F. Smith presidency. Did he give permission for his counselors to authorize marriages in violation of his own manifesto? It appears so, according to several of our most prominent historians. Perhaps it can be said that he was not informed, perhaps, of each marriage authorized by apostles (counselors) under him. It is clear that an elaborate system of codes was set up to inform local officials in Mexico of approval of the performance of such marriages. A number of apostles built homes in the colonies, some of which still stand. Patriarch A. F. Macdonald performed many post-manifesto marriages in Mexico with clear apostolic authority, including those of Brigham Young Jr., John W. Taylor, A. O. Woodruff, Matthias F. Cowley, and several of the Cannons. The episodes of the LeBaron family situation are complex and don't really involve apostolic authority. They are very interesting, however, including impacting the Mexican "Mormon" situation to this day. In some ways, it is not incorrect to say that the LeBarons are the most powerful political group of Mormons in Mexico today. Their intermarriages with current LDS Mormon families make things even more complex. Here are the sources I would recommend to answer your question as well. There are some sources that are popular, but I don't recommend them, so I won't list them: Embry, Jessie L. Mormon Polygamous Families: LIfe in the Principle Van Wagoner. Richard S. Mormon Polygamy: A History Hardy, B. Carmon. Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy Its Origin, Practice, and Demise Hardy, B. Carmon. Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage If you can only get several of these, I would get (personal opinion) that of Embry and both of Hardy's. Embry's is the least known and in some ways, the most helpful. Into the 1930s issues of polygamy in Mexican Mormons (Non-LDS) continued with the third convention issues and the complicated situation with Margarito Bautista. I hope this helps. Navidad

Be patient. I am not avoiding your request. I simply haven't had time yet today to answer you with the answers you deserve. There is some debate about the debate of Macdonald's death because his tombstone in Dublan has one day and tradition has another. I think the one who carved the tombstone made a mistake. The tombstone is newer than his death. Much more later; I am a flowing fountain on polygamy in the colonies, and on the activity of the apostles in the colonies! A flowing fount! Ha!

Simple answer: yes, it matters to me. I have high needs to know and understand. I ask those who I respect and trust for help in knowing and understanding. I know you will give me your beliefs and not mine. It is your beliefs that I am interested in understanding. I already know mine. I have a meeting tomorrow morning with the local diocese priest. I expect a similar conversation with him. He is coming to our home accompanied by a respected friend. I expect to ask some of the same questions. Thanks and know that I very much respect and trust you, @Calm.

Thanks so much. Quick questions: Those who do not accept the ordinances performed on their behalf. What happens to them? Will there be emissaries (since someone didn't like the term missionaries) from other churches in the spirit prison? Will I be cognizant of my Mennonite membership in heaven? Is my father cognizant of his Plymouth Brethren commended worker status in heaven? More importantly, will Christ be aware of those things in "a preliminary judgment?" Will there be joyous reunions in spirit prison before or after the preliminary judgment? Who will perform the preliminary judgment, and what will be the basis of that verdict of that judgment? The person's godliness and faithfulness on earth? Christ's mercy? Solely and only the person's relationship to the LDS church in their life? Will I be judged more harshly because I had plenty of opportunities, all of which I rejected, to join the church in my earthly life? I am assuming there is a pathway (metaphorically speaking) between paradise and spirit prison. Is that pathway only for the LDS member? Will a temple recommend matter in placement? Will only LDS members be assigned to Paradise initially after the preliminary judgment? Obviously that is a lot of questions. This is just how my mind works. I have a high need to know and understand. Thanks so very much in advance for providing me the information you did, and for answering any of my questions that you care to answer.

Hi Webbles: I have lots of references. I probably won't be able to get back online tonight, but I can do so tomorrow. Take care, Navidad

Just a brief comment. Plural marriage did not end within ten years of Brigham Young's death. It is clear from the evidence that plural marriage continued into the 1920s in the Mexican colonies. Brigham Young Jr. was involved in the post-First Manifesto plural marriage in the colonies. Joseph F Smith and most likely, Heber Grant as presidents and a number of apostles continued the process in the colonies until 1924 or so. A. F. Macdonald, as patriarch, performed many of these marriages. Brigham Young Jr. performed 10 of them at once on a train just inside of Mexico.

I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for them. In my OP, I asked for advice, counsel, and information. You all are providing that for me. Some of it opens up many more questions for me, and like you, I hesitate to ask them, especially after asking for your thoughts. When I asked, I imagined there would be things said with which I would not agree. That is ok. What I am still lacking is a clear concept of LDS beliefs about the afterlife. I have a large library on LDS doctrine, but virtually nothing that touches on the immediate afterlife of a deceased LDS Christian, or a deceased non-LDS Christian (from an LDS perspective). Joyous reunion or spirit prison for my son? Both my son and his aunt (my sister) died outside the LDS church. Are they having a joyous reunion or languishing in some place called spirit prison? If his proxy work has not been done, then what is his relationship to the LDS folks who are there to minister to him? Will there be more proxy work done in the spirit world, specifically in spirit prison? And on and on. I think all churches tend toward murkiness and inconsistency regarding the afterlife. "Absent from the body and present with the Lord" is used for comfort in some churches. As for me, I believe God is no respecter of persons, either in this life or the next. I can't see any place for denominations and any other concept of church in heaven other than the true church—the gathering of all those who claim Christ as their Savior. Maybe that is what the neglected part of D&C 1:30 means - "the collective church"as opposed to the "church individually." I have only ever heard one LDS speaker opine on that. Ok, I don't want to get into a debate after I promised I would not. I would simply go online today and buy any book (that I don't already own) that any of you can recommend on the LDS perspective of the hereafter that gives specific examples and situations. Right now I am fascinated with the ethical (at least) and moral/spiritual (at most) significance of using data gathered through FamilySearch from people who think they are simply going on a great family heritage genealogy site. My son is not on FamilySearch, and right now I am not inclined to put him there until I resolve this dilemma in my own mind. Someone else might. Who knows? Thanks and very best wishes.

It certainly gives me pause for reflection, as I often encourage folks (non-LDS) to be active on FamilySearch, as I am myself. My parents were born in 1910. That is 115 years ago. I wonder if they have been proxy baptized. I have been provided great access into FamilySearch, but as a non-member, I can't see the ordinance records. Maybe allowing that (at least for baptismal records of non-members) would open the transparency of what happens behind the scenes in FamilySearch. Is it possible for a church non-member to put in a request that their ancestors never ever be proxy baptized into the LDS church? Or, could I put in a request that I never be proxy baptized? Hasn't the broad Jewish community been effective in negotiating that with the Church? It seems I remember that from somewhere. Does the Church have a form for that? If so, would they still be allowed to use FamilySearch? I do think there might be some significant backlash if this use of FamilySearch were widely known. I have known it to be a fact for many years, but I guess I never really thought about the "offense factor" until this week with my son's death. Now I am thinking about my Plymouth Brethren parents and my wife's Mennonite bishop great grandfather, and so on. I suppose the fact of this usage must be included in some terms of service, those long statements that I never read. I'll have to check that out sometime when the urge strikes.