Navidad

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.

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!