Navidad

With the growth of the LDS church in Africa and in Asia, shouldn't the church look to a gathering more central to its new black and brown-skinned majority, which is virtually sure to increase? Isn't the Church going to have to make some big cultural shifts in order to remain relevant to its new members? The Mennonite Church is facing the identical situation.

I think that JRR Tolkien, in his speech at St Andrews in 1938 speaks to these kinds of issues. He said, As a child . . . "I had no special 'wish to believe.' I wanted to know." In that one simple statement, he fills us in on the difference between belief (the domain of the faithful) and knowledge (the domain of the seeker) - to use my words. I Navidad, for example, have no need, nor any particular desire to believe in the Book of Abraham. Many on this forum have that need and do indeed believe. I Navidad, have no desire to prove anyone who believes in the Book of Abraham as wrong. That would be an impossible task, and one in which I would take no joy or satisfaction. There are others who would take great joy and satisfaction in converting me to a belief in, rather than a knowledge of The Book of Abraham. Part of my challenge is that I find no spiritual satisfaction in the Book of Abraham, as I do in the Book of Mormon. Ditto for Doctrine and Covenants. Neither speak to me as does the Bible and the spiritual part of the BOM. I have no desire or need to dig into the historicity of the BOM because I: 1. see no place for it in the history of Mexico, of which I have knowledge, and 2. I am content with its spiritual message of Christ of whom I am a believer. I have to run. I hope this makes some kind of sense to you all. Best, Navidad

I would respectfully suggest that saying there is a "the accepted historical reality" within the huge Biblical Archaeology and history community is like saying "The King James Bible is the "accepted version" of the Bible in world-wide Christianity. The reality is so much more complex than what such a reductionist statement calls for. Minimalists and maximalists debate each other as do Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, as do Roman and Eastern Catholics and on and on. Scholars like William Dever were attacked from all sides as too this or too that. Conservatives mock scholarology (David Otis Fuller), while scholars dismiss whoever is not in their particular school of scholarship, Biblical or otherwise. Just my .02 cents.

Have you read "On Fairy Stories, by Tolkien?" Everyone should read that forty-page essay/speech.

As far as it goes, it is accurate. It is also incomplete. Of course it is on a site that has a broad scope, so in fairness, it cannot present exhaustive information. The relationships between LDS and LeBaron are fascinating. The 1980s into the present are fascinating as well. The evolution of the LeBarons to a culture instead of a faith is fascinating. The evolution of the careful crafting of power here in Mexico is perhaps the most fascinating. Joel's church still exists, and they honor him above all others as a religious leader. Their consolidation of power in the Galeana region is fascinating. The murders of 2019 are fascinating. To my knowledge, there has never been an academic study of the LeBarons that has been published. The sensationalism has overwhelmed the scholarship and the non-sensational part of their story. I especially enjoy their interrelationships over time with the LDS folks. It is rarely acknowledged openly, even here in the colonies. The true story of them coming out of the LDS church and their various tenures here is fascinating. The relationships of various fundamentalist groups and the LDS church here in Mexico are fascinating. I have done many talks on these various subjects, and folks just seem to be completely surprised by the interrelationships of the Third Convention, the LDS folks, and the LeBarons. Then there are contemporary groups like the La Mora colonia folks, and it all just gets more . . . . fascinating. Of course it all comes together in the US drywall industry! You guessed it! Ha!

Their principal source of authority came through Benjamin F. Johnson

Just my own personal observation of the life of Wilford Woodruff and that of his son. I don't believe President Woodruff ever got over the rejection, as revelation, by the apostles of his Desert Revelation (sometimes called his Sunset Revelation or Wilderness Revelation) in 1880 or 81. I don't know why, but I believe he took that personally. His son, Abraham died an early death as a result of infection from his wife's illness during a visit to Mexico. One died in Mexico City; one died in El Paso.

I would like to share a few random thoughts as a historian of the church - not from the church, of the church, or against the church. The entire subject of this thread is a reflection of the challenge of doing sacred history, especially when there are historians who are "for" and "against." The topic at hand is filled with deceptions (on the part of individuals at all levels), personal ambitions, exaggerated statements, denial of what was, jealousies, anger and resentment, faith, belief, sincere confusion, conflated events, micro-events with immense importance, and inconsistencies. This is not unique or specific to the LDS church. It is the result of human stuff. It neither condemns nor exonerates the church. Neither is not the work of the historian. The meaning of words is vital to understanding the topic at hand. A term like "approval of the leaders" is fraught with multiple hermeneutics. In the case of the hundreds of plural marriages performed here in Mexico after both manifestos, there was clearly unclear compliance on the part of church leaders with what was happening. A church president didn't need to authorize something. Those who did the deed knew it was ok (with someone in the hierarchy) to do so, sans any formal approval. The informal approval grapevine dominated. Someone said the LeBarons did not approve of Woolley's statements. Well, I would suggest that may depend on which LeBaron to whom one is addressing the question. The LeBarons are the most powerful Mormons (I use the term intentionally) in Mexico. They also represent a culture more than a faith. The authority of Benjamin F. Johnson tends to dominate here in some circles. The diversity of their personal religious beliefs and experiences is both deep and wide. Its cultural power has overtaken its familial heritage. As this thread demonstrates, there is and was much confusion about this entire issue between the late 1880s and 1920s. Claims and counterclaims, statements and counterstatements, don't indicate intentional deceit, even though probably was some of that. I think the leaders at every level in those years were genuinely confused about finding and knowing God's will for something critical at that time. Don't lose your faith in your church over the conflation and the confusion. Both were the reflection of the times and of the growing determination on the part of the church to be the Only. In the "for whatever it is worth" department, I recommend B. Carmon Hardy's books on plural marriage. For me, his works are the best on plural marriage and on the colonies. He was a pioneer LDS historian who lost his membership over his work and other issues. However, he continued his work as a faithful historian, faithful to history and the church he so clearly loved.

What you are describing is a methodology widely-used across the host of ideological positions. One's life experiences in general are often presented as "evidence" of the validity of a certain position. While that may be true for the one experiencing such things, they do not validate Truth with a capital T.

I haven't read this whole thread in total. Let me just postulate this - what is the little-known factor that so many of the actors in this drama had in common? Their tight connection with the Mexican colonies, where plural marriage clearly continued little-abated into the 1920s - secret codes and all. Let me assure you that there was more to the involvement than turkey hunting on the Lunt family ranch in Pacheco! Anthony Ivins, Joseph F. Smith, Brigham Young, Jr., John W. Taylor, Matthias F. Cowley, Heber J. Grant, George Q. Cannon, J. Reuben Clark, Erastus Snow, Moses Thatcher, George Teasdale, and Abraham O. Woodruff - those are the apostles off the top of my head who had an in-depth engagement with our colonies and who, in not a few cases had a role in the continuation of plural marriage therein

John W Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley were significant and influential apostles in the Mexican colonies. Some years ago I presented a paper at an annual MHA meeting on the Apostles and the Colonies. I don't even remember where it was given; methinks in SLC.

Amen! Thanks for using the F-word instead of the E-word! Ha!

Of course it would be interesting to determine the context in which the word was used. It also would be fun to figure out how it reaches down into the vocabulary of the average pew member, let's just say for fun in a ward in distant Chihuahua! I thihk it would be used four times a week in a sermon in an Evangelical community. It is a very important concept, second only to salvation. Take care all.

I most likely exaggerated when I said the word "sanctification" was dropped. I simply never heard it once in six years of attendance at an LDS ward - not in Elders Quorum, Gospel Doctrine or during a Sacrament talk. I obviously heard the sacrament prayers hundreds of times, but that was to sanctify the bread and water, not the people taking it. I have also chatted with many LDS folks at various conferences, and they have told me it historically was not used very much at all, and only recently do they remember hearing the word in church. I was also told once it is a term that "Christians" use. I am only referencing my own experience. Sorry for making a generalization. I dislike doing that.

The Whitmers, for example, were Mennonites who helped found the River Brethren community before helping found the LDS church. I believe they were baptized several times in the Susquehanna River (probably as Mennonites and River Brethren) and then, as members of the LDS church, in Lake Seneca, one of the Finger Lakes. As a boy, I went many times to summer camp at Letourneau Christian Camp on Lake Canandaigua while my father preached in the adult campground. It was another Finger Lake and home to a number of restorationist groups. I remember great music and preaching at that place. Wonderful religious history in that area.

Thanks ever so much. This is incredibly interesting and helpful. I haven't had an opportunity to do a deep dive into all that your response deserves, but my initial reactions are as follows: The original Articles and Covenants that I read (from your link) is quite orthodox and even Evangelical in just about every way. I say that in the belief that my LDS friends err when they interpret other churches's teachings about revelation to be that they believe in no continuing revelation. If that were true, we would never be taught to pray to seek and discover God's will and direction for our lives. Of course, as an Evangelical, I believe in new and additional revelation in addition to that found in the Bible. I don't know anyone in my community who does not. The original Articles and Covenants could be the statement of faith, articles of faith, or, dare I say, creed of virtually any Arminian Christian group. My reformed friends would have some issues with some of the things therein, but they also would have issues with more than a few of my beliefs as well. That doesn't mean they or I are not Christians. We just disagree on stuff. So let it be for the Saints! That leads me to my third reaction. There is not a hint of "Onlyism" in the document as I read it. As with many US-based restorationist groups, the "only" part, in my viewpoint, crept in as the church grew in sophistication, self-importance, and sense of persecution. I have even noticed a change recently in some of that, as the concern seems to have evolved from mistreatment at the hands of non-LDS to that of the ex-LDS. We Mennonites are experts at the innocent persecution part and readily avoid discussions of Münster, with its polygamy and violence. An analysis of each aspect of that original document and how it has changed, including why it is not more prominent in LDS-speak today, would be fascinating. I guess it is forgotten since it has clearly evolved into its modern version of a canon, especially as Doctrine and Covenants has morphed over time. I could join a church based on the document as it existed "in the beginning." I wouldn't have to disown or discredit my previous baptism. It would be like a Lutheran thing. I would have to be rebaptized to join, not because mine was invalid in the eyes of Christ and the Father, but just because that is a requirement of membership in some Lutheran groups. It would be more like the requirements of the Catholic Church. I can join without rebaptism because they accept the immersion as performed by my father. I would have to be trained, as in a catechism, and subsequently confirmed, but no bashing of anything that came before in my life, regardless of how important and precious that is to me. Oh, and it also includes the word "sanctification." Amen to that. That is a word that seems to have been dropped from LDS vocabulary. It seems sanctification and exaltation might be cousins, but probably not synonyms. Ok. That is it for now. Thanks ever so much for your response. I appreciate it very much. Wow! I like that 1830 doc.!

OK. I would simply add that there is most likely much of that in every ideological endeavor of whatever type.

Perhaps an add-on question. . . . In his own words, what did Joseph specifically claim about the canonicity or revelation (inspiration?) of the Book of Mormon and about his own position as prophet, seer, and revelator? I probably should know this, and I am embarrassed for asking, but where did the term "prophet, seer, and revelator" originate? I guess that is two more questions!

We have very different definitions of these two groups. Being Fundamentalist or Evangelical has nothing to do with church or denominational affiliation. Coming from a Mennonite background, I would suggest that Amish and Stuff (not sure about who Stuff is) are neither fundamentalist nor evangelical, the same way that Mormons and Mennonites and many Pentecostals are neither Catholic nor Protestant. By the way, I didn't CFR you. I don't like it when people do that on a discussion and dialogue forum. Fundamentalists were identified as such when groups of conservatives identified themselves as such because of their opposition to the social gospel movement of the turn of the twentieth century. Fundamentalism became codified as an identity in the early twentieth century. Perhaps Evangelist Dwight L. Moody was an example, except that he preached in the Mormon Tabernacle at least twice. Fundamentalists took a strong stand against "modernism" and aligning with "the world". Gradually as a movement (not a denomination), they became known for what they were against, not what they were for. They became isolationists and, to some degree, "onlyists." Their gospel was the only gospel and was codified, not in a creed but in five key beliefs. There are still many fundamentalists in the Christian community. My father was initially, in his ministry, a Fundamentalist pastor (he was Baptist and then Plymouth Brethren). Around the early 1940s, many Christians became discontented with the negativity of the Fundamentalist movement, and Christians like Billy Graham and others began to adopt the "Evangelical" name for a new movement. It sought to be more inclusive and to bring a positive focus on the gospel without "onlying" those who did not believe exactly like them. The Evangelical movement was codified in the very early fifties and attracted folks from many Christian communities. Billy Graham became the voice of the Evangelical movement, which grew rapidly as a movement, not a denomination or specific church. Many folks migrated from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism, as did my father. You will find both groups within most Christian denominations, so it does not help to try and align the two movements with denominations. There are Evangelical individuals, groups, colleges, mission movements, and churches that have adopted a more inclusive attitude. I am one of them. I was ordained Baptist and licensed Mennonite. That has nothing to do with my Evangelical alignment. In my Christian commitment I am first a Christian, second an Evangelical, and third, a Mennonite. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy and that LDS Christians are just that, the same as non-LDS Christians are Christians. That's enough for now. I don't want to derail the thread. If there were negative people about the Michigan situation, I would suggest they were those in the Fundamentalist Movement, like are most of those with signs around Temple Square. They are not Evangelicals. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are not two points on the same continuum. Thanks, Navidad.

The word advocate is used five times in the New Testament. It is used both of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. From the contexts, it seems that Christ is described as the paraclete, or the called alongside someone in advocacy with the Father (as in the Final judgement - hence I believe in the wideness in God's mercy where Christ serves as advocate (perhaps judge is a poor appellation)). I have always been fascinated in that. The other contexts describe the Holy Spirit as our comforter. Called alongside us to comfort us when and as we need it - no eternal destiny involved. I am also interested (of course) in the OPs' statement - "each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan." I am unaware of Evangelicals responding in judgment against the LDS in Michigan. I certainly don't know any who did. I am sure some Fundamentalists may have, but then they like to react with judgment against almost everyone who isn't them, including Evangelicals! You know Navidad is back when he starts getting back to his pet peeve - when folks, including my LDS friends, conflate Evangelicals and Fundamentalists! Ha! It is good to be back!

Thanks for this reply. I appreciate the time and attention it took to write it out.

About fifteen minutes ago I was wrapping up the time I wanted to spend learning about Brian D. Stubbs resulting from another thread. I became a bit disinterested when he made several claims in his writing to be an "authority" on this or that. Methinks that kind of evaluation is best left to others. In looking at one of his books on Amazon, I came across a review that got me thinking. The review made the point that Stubb's work adds to the "enormous body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be." I pondered on that statement for a while, and decided I would bring that question here. It has most likely been asked in a hundred ways or more, but my question is a bit specific. What does the Book of Mormon (just the text, not the title page, which I believe has been amended several times) claim for itself? Not, "What does each of you claim for it" or "What do I claim for it?" What does it claim for itself within its own text? Not what the Doctrine and Covenants claims for it. . . . but what does the book itself claim for itself, and in which text do we find those claims? I have read the BOM on a number of occasions. I cannot remember (not saying it doesn't exist) where it makes a claim for itself as a collection of texts joined as one. Just to be fair (no pun intended), I could ask the same question related to the Bible. I am unaware of it making claims for itself as a volume in its entirety. This question seeks to neither challenge nor confirm The Book of Mormon. Just asking, "What is it that the Book of Mormon claims to be based on its own sense of its own phenomenological self? Thanks.

I apologize for all the typographical errors in my recent posts. In my recent stress and tiredness, I have become sloppy and lazy in posting. As many of you know, the remaining Mexican Mormon colonies have had terrible flooding as of late. Last Sunday it finally caught up with me. A day after arriving home from Phoenix, our house was flooded and our beautiful property badly damaged. The stress of the past month has caught up with me. No excuses, but I have not been as careful in checking my posts as I should. Mea culpa.

I believe I am correct that Anthony Ivin's highest position before bring made an apostle was as stake president of the Juarez stake that included all the early Mexican Colonies. Ruben Clark became an apostle aster he was serving as a counselor to the then president. I believe I am correct (not certain 😊) that he never served a church calling prior to being named the church president's counselor.

I am not sure how this impacts BOM Historicity. Proto Uto Aztecan languages have been around the US southwest and northwest Mexico for thousands of years in an oral form. Are you suggesting that BOM people's interacted with Uto Aztecans of the south as did the Spanish Franciscans when they migrated here, using a Spanish model to create a UT Nahuatl orthography? If so. why did not that orthogrsphy exist into Hispanic times. It seems the Franciscan linguists would have piggy-backed on it? Or are you suggesting those who built Teotichuan list their written language due to invaders prior to the Spanish? I am trying to understand the connection and why it didn't survive into the 16th century? Thanks