Amulek

Sorry, I've been off on vacation (and will be leaving again tomorrow), but I wanted to swing back by and address this, because I think there may be a conflation here between two different categories of claims. One category is epistemic: how a person comes to believe something is true. In that sense, yes, religious belief often involves personal spiritual conviction. Evangelicals appeal to the Spirit for assurance, Catholics do too, and Latter-day Saints do as well. I don't think I ever said differently. But that is different from a historical or institutional claim about authority. For example, Joseph Smith’s claim was not merely, “I feel spiritually authorized.” His claim was that heavenly messengers conferred priesthood authority and keys for the restoration of Christ’s covenant Church. Likewise, the existence of the golden plates are not just an inward feeling thing. They are presented as historical claims tied to witnesses, testimony, documents, and events that can be discussed historically, even if they involve the supernatural. That is categorically different from someone independently saying, “The Spirit told me I now have authority to administer ordinances on God’s behalf.” The New Testament consistently treats covenant authority as something conferred, recognized, and transmitted through Christ’s established order, not merely self-authenticated through personal experience. That is why the NT repeatedly ties ministry and ordinances to sending, ordination, laying on of hands, and stewardship (e.g., “how shall they preach, except they be sent?” (Romans 10:15), “No man taketh this honour unto himself” (Hebrews 5:4), etc.). So the issue is not whether spiritual experiences are real. The issue is whether private spiritual experience, by itself, creates covenant authority, and I just haven't seen any compelling evidence that New Testament ever treats it that way.

I disagree. LDS theology, whatever else one thinks of it, is at least making a concrete ecclesiological claim about authority, ordination, ordinances, witnesses, and covenant structure, not merely elevating private spirituality by itself. The LDS argument about authority is not simply, "I had a spiritual feeling." It's a historical and theological claim about whether Christ's priesthood authority was granted through claimed ordination events, witnesses, ordinances, and restored institutional continuity. Someone can reject those claims, of course. But that is a different category from purely subjective inward impressions detached from any external structure or historical claims.

I am not saying Navidad’s experiences are fake. In fact, I have repeatedly said I believe God genuinely works among sincere people everywhere. The issue is not whether spiritual experiences can occur outside LDS covenant authority. Clearly they can. The issue is whether spiritual experience alone becomes self-interpreting and self-authorizing. Because once we say that it does, we immediately run into a major problem: contradictory spiritual claims all become equally binding. One believer says God revealed infant baptism. Another says God revealed believer’s baptism only. One says God revealed Calvinism. Another says God revealed Arminianism. One says God revealed apostolic succession. Another says all institutional authority is unnecessary. At that point, private experience alone cannot arbitrate truth claims because the experiences point in contradictory theological directions. That is precisely why the New Testament consistently grounds the Church in more than inward experience alone and establishes things like apostles, ordination, and authorized ministry. None of that means God is absent outside those structures. But it means the New Testament does not treat personal spiritual experience by itself as sufficient to establish covenant authority or binding doctrine. And honestly, the New Testament itself demonstrates this tension repeatedly. Jesus warns about sincere deception. Paul warns about false apostles. John warns believers to “try the spirits.” Even miraculous manifestations are not treated as automatically self-validating. So yes, Navidad and other may absolutely have spiritually rich experiences with Christ. I have no problem acknowledging that. And, for clarity, I'll do so again now - I'm grateful God is working in his life. But that still does not answer the separate ecclesiological question: Did Christ establish a visible covenant Church with real authority and ordinances? Those are related, but not identical, questions.

I agree that the Spirit can work wherever God desires. The question, however, is whether the New Testament therefore concludes that covenant authority becomes unnecessary. I do not think it does. The New Testament simultaneously teaches both: (1) God is not confined geographically or institutionally, and (2) Christ still established a visible covenant Church with authorized servants and ordinances. Those ideas are not opposites. For Example, the Spirit clearly worked outside Israel in the Old Testament, yet priesthood authority still existed. Likewise, in the New Testament, Cornelius receives divine manifestation before baptism, yet Peter is still sent to administer covenant entry. Paul acknowledges spiritual gifts among believers, yet still insists on ordination, order, authority, and proper administration. People can experience miracles outside the apostolic circle, yet ordinances themselves are always tied to authorized administration. So the biblical pattern is not, “Since God can work anywhere, covenant authority disappears.” Rather, it is more like “God works broadly among humanity while still establishing covenant structures and authorized servants.” Otherwise several New Testament realities become difficult to explain. Why apostles at all? Why ordination? Why laying on of hands? Why church discipline? Why qualifications for bishops and elders? Why “keys” in Matthew 16? Why “as my Father sent me, so send I you” in John 20? Why Acts 19 rebaptism? Why Hebrews 5:4 insisting that authority is called, not self-assumed? The LDS position is not trying to fence God in. It is simply recognizing that the New Testament repeatedly fences covenant administration in. Those are two very different things.

That's fine. He can believe anything he wants. But, to my knowledge, the New Testament never treats private spiritual experience as self-authenticating apart from covenant authority. That’s precisely why Christ established apostles, ordinances, laying on of hands, and a Church in the first place. Otherwise, everyone’s personal experience becomes equally binding, even when they contradict each other. There are examples of people acting sincerely, spiritually, or even miraculously outside the apostolic circle, but there are no clear examples of Christ or the apostles affirming unauthorized ordinances as fully valid covenant ordinances. In fact, the evidence points the other direction. A few important examples: Acts 19:1–6 — Paul rebaptizes believers who had already undergone a prior baptism. Their earlier baptism was sincere, but incomplete. Paul does not say, “Your sincerity is enough.” He performs the ordinance properly under apostolic authority. Hebrews 5:4 — “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” This is specifically about priestly authority. Romans 10:15 — “How shall they preach, except they be sent?” Authority is conferred, not self-assumed. John 20:21–23 — Christ explicitly commissions the apostles and gives them authority tied to salvation and forgiveness. Acts 8:14–17 — Philip baptizes converts, but Peter and John must come confer the Holy Ghost through laying on of hands. Again, authority and ordinances are structured, not free-floating. Numbers 16 (Old Testament but highly relevant) — Korah’s rebellion is essentially about unauthorized priesthood action. The biblical pattern is, I think, consistent that sincerity does not replace divine authorization. Protestants sometimes point to passages like Mark 9:38–40 (“he that is not against us is for us”), where someone outside the apostolic group casts out devils in Christ’s name. But that passage is about miracles and ministry, not covenant ordinances. The New Testament distinguishes between spiritual manifestations and ecclesiastical authority. God may work through sincere people outside formal covenant authority, but covenant ordinances themselves are still treated as authority-dependent. If you or Navidad have compelling evidence to the contrary, I'm certainly open to hearing it.

Those aren't necessarily competing choices. Christ gave His apostles both the Holy Spirit and priesthood authority. The biblical pattern is not ‘Spirit versus authority’ – it’s Spirit working through authorized covenant servants and ordinances.

Your mileage may vary.

I appreciate the honesty and charity in your post. I also appreciate your acknowledgment that many LDS people genuinely exhibit Christlike kindness. I think we probably agree on more than we disagree. That said, I think your objections ultimately come down to one central issue: whether Christ established a real covenant Church with real authority and binding ordinances – or whether Christianity is primarily an invisible fellowship of sincere believers. That difference affects every point you raised. I think the key question is whether sincerity alone makes an ordinance valid. In the New Testament, authority matters constantly. Jesus chose and ordained apostles (John 15:16), gave them authority to bind on earth and heaven (Matthew 16:19), and sent them to act in His name (John 20:21). Paul even rebaptized believers in Acts 19 because their prior baptism lacked covenantal fullness. So the LDS position is not really “our baptism is better than yours.” It’s that Christ works through divinely authorized ordinances. But Christ Himself established fences. He established discipline, qualifications for leadership, authority structures, and even excommunication in some cases (Matthew 18:17). Every biblical covenant has boundaries. The issue is not whether fences exist – it’s whether Christ authorized them. A covenant without boundaries eventually stops being a covenant. Even wells require walls. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes between public truths and sacred things reserved for covenant participants. Jesus spoke of “the mysteries of the kingdom” given to some and not others. Ancient Israel had restricted sacred spaces culminating in the Holy of Holies. Early Christians practiced sacred confidentiality around certain ordinances as well. But sacred confidentiality is not the same thing as secrecy for secrecy’s sake. The fact that some things are not discussed casually or publicly does not mean we want to hide them from the world. Quite the opposite – we want everyone to come unto Christ, enter into covenants with Him, attend the temple, and receive the blessings associated with those ordinances. The temple is meant to be universally invitational, even if participation in its most sacred rites is covenantal rather than casual. I actually agree that many non-LDS Christians experience real influence from the Holy Spirit. LDS theology already allows for that. Moroni teaches that all good things come from God. The disagreement is whether spiritual experiences are identical to priesthood authority. Scripture itself distinguishes between the two. People in scripture sometimes prophesied, worked miracles, or experienced God’s power without holding covenant authority. The LDS claim is not: “Only Latter-day Saints can feel the Spirit.” The claim is: Christ restored covenant authority through priesthood keys. Those are different claims. I understand that emotionally, but Paul himself taught differing degrees of glory in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:41–42). The Restoration’s view of heaven is actually far more expansive and merciful than the traditional binary heaven/hell model. It recognizes varying capacities for glory while still affirming that all salvation ultimately comes through Christ. To me, the Restoration ultimately rises or falls on one question: Did Christ restore priesthood authority and covenant keys through Joseph Smith? If the answer is yes, then rebaptism, temples, ordinances, and the institutional Church all make sense. If the answer is no, then they do not. YMMV

I think there’s an important distinction between being mistaken about some things and intentionally leading people away from God. Humans, including prophets and apostles, are not omniscient. For example, if Paul held ancient assumptions about cosmology that later turned out to be incorrect, would that make him a false apostle? Most Christians would say no, because his mission was to testify of Christ, not to deliver perfect scientific knowledge. So the existence of a mistaken belief by itself does not prove someone is a false teacher or that they are leading people into sin. The bigger question is whether they are drawing people toward faith in Christ, repentance, love of God and neighbor, etc., or away from those things. Otherwise, every biblical figure would fail some modern test of “perfect doctrine” or knowledge.

Also, it’s kind of hard to call for 'healing’ while simultaneously pressuring one side to surrender more ground after a negotiated settlement was already approved. Genuine compromise requires both sides to accept the final agreement, not continually revisiting it until the other side gives up. If the mayor were genuinely concerned about this causing a "lasting divide in Fairview," perhaps he should focus his efforts on building respect around the outcome of the process. I'm aware that many folks didn't get everything they wanted, but asking the church to reopen negotiations after construction has already begun only risks prolonging division rather than healing it. That's the sort of thing I would expect from a politician - not a leader.

Not a steeple: a bell tower. About 20 years ago, the Methodist church submitted plans to construct a 154' bell tower which was preliminarily given the go ahead with little more than a few minutes worth of discussion and absolutely zero opposition. Of note, the Methodist church happens to be located on exactly the same street (just a block or two down) and is also adjacent to a residential neighborhood. At the time, there were no protests nor any other sort of anxiety / fear over it "forever altering the established rural character" of their precious little town. Ultimately, the bell tower was never constructed. I believe it was a mixture of both budget constraints and leadership changes, but the stark difference in attitude was not lost on members of the Church.

I think that's probably a big consideration from the Church's perspective. Also, even if the Church were to acquiesce in this case, there isn't a way to do so without going through the Town Council again, and I don't see that happening / making anything better.

but nobody noticed

That's a great idea, and a great location to house it.

I took my son to go see this recently as well. He had read the book, and we both really enjoyed the movie. I too, was perplexed at some of the science (e.g., how a vastly advanced alien species would have no concept of relativity), but my son assured me they gave explanations for everything in the book. I'm not certain if I would have found those explanations satisfactory, but hey - there's plenty of stuff in science fiction that breaks down / doesn't always make complete sense, so I try not to get too hung up on it. All-in-all I would give the move a solid 👎