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 👎

Yeah, the official names are a bit clunky. They need to be pared down to something shorter and/or something that can be conjugated better in normal speech. There really should have been a focus on coming up with solid, 1-word names. Builders is serviceable from a language perspective, and quite possibly a net positive identity-wise; Messengers, I think, is solid; but I'm really leaning toward Radiants over Gatherers.

Initial reaction: not a fan. If we're going to go back to weekly meetings in each class, then just go back to three hours. Don't get me wrong, I love going back to having weekly check-ins with the youth in both classes again - I see that as a positive change - but 25 minutes seems way too short to me. I would almost prefer they cut Sacrament Meeting down to 30 minutes, with a 10 minute overage / transition time, and then allow 40 minutes for each class. In most cases, that would just mean cutting a speaker and maybe an extra hymn or two, or (miracle of miracles) getting the High Council speaker to deliver a reasonably long talk. The only downside would be when it comes to Fast Sunday as there would be very little time for testimonies. I'm happy to give the new plan a shot, but I suspect you're still going to run into situations where sacrament runs long, the young men don't have enough time to break down the sacrament table, etc. and Sunday School is going to get short shrift. I know Primary has to put up with quite a bit of that already, but 8 year olds can get by with only a 15 minute lesson. For youth adults, that's barely going to be anything and is going to feel a lot like musical chairs.

From a believing perspective, the plates were necessary because they were the source – an actual ancient record – so their existence answers the "where did this come from?" question in a concrete way. Also, I'm not certain the plates were just there for the purposes of translation mechanics – they were about witness. Multiple people testified they saw / handled them. If Joseph was inventing a story, I tend to think that creating a tangible artifact others could examine actually increases the risk of being exposed, rather than decreasing it. And stepping back a bit, I would say this fits within a broader pattern we see in LDS theology. God doesn’t tend to work in a purely abstract, disembodied way. He uses physical things as part of how He reveals Himself. Not because He has to, but because that’s how He consistently operates. You see it all over: tablets for Moses, the Ark for Noah, the temple serving as the axis mundi between heaven and earth, ordinances involving water, bread, oil, hands, etc. I mean, even Jesus had to come to Earth to perform the Atonement. None of those are strictly “necessary” if the goal is simply to transmit information, but they serve to ground the divine in the real, physical world. The plates fit that same pattern. They’re not just about needing something to read from. They’re a physical witness that revelation is tied to real history, real people, real records. Even if the translation itself was revelatory rather than academic, the plates still function as an anchor to the claim that this record existed prior to Joseph. So calling them a “prop” kind of misses the point. If anything, they’re more like a recurring feature (and, hence, additional witness) of how God works.

Thanks for clarifying. I was thinking more about the leaders the overwhelming majority of members actually interact with on a regular basis. Even if we limit the discussion to the First Presidency and Apostles, I'd still be careful about drawing a straight line from 'it took a long time to change' to 'leaders must have mistaken policy for revelation.' That assumes we can see all the factors they were weighing, which we really can’t. Institutional change in a global church isn’t just about recognizing a problem - it’s also about timing, unity, consequences, and confirming direction (sometimes repeatedly). Even in the example you gave, there were leaders prior to 1978 who openly wrestled with the issue and sought change, so it wasn’t simply a matter of everyone uncritically assuming 'this is doctrine, full stop.'

Okay, but how would a Bishop or Stake President go about changing a policy they don't have authority to change?

How do you tell the difference between a leader who believes a given policy is doctrinally based (and follows it) as opposed to one to believes a certain policy is based primarily on tradition (yet also follows it)?

I think you’re putting your finger on a real pattern, but I’d frame it a bit differently. It’s not necessarily that every policy is officially taught as doctrine or revelation. Rather, there’s a very human tendency among members to treat existing policies that way - especially when they’ve been in place for a long time or are tied to sensitive questions. Stability can be perceived as confirmation. At the same time, the Church itself maintains a distinction (even if it isn’t always emphasized in day-to-day discourse): doctrine is generally anchored in canon and repeated prophetic teaching, while policies and practices can (and do) change as leaders respond to new circumstances, needs, or further light. What complicates things is that local leaders don’t operate in a vacuum. A bishop, for example, seeks revelation, but he also works within a defined structure and is accountable to stake and general leadership. So in practice, revelation is often exercised within an established framework rather than independently of it. That can also make policies feel more fixed than they actually are. So I don’t think it’s just hindsight revisionism when something changes. It’s more that we are watching the ongoing tension between continuity and adaptation play out in real time. That being said, I do think there are people who only recognize what was “just policy” after it’s been adjusted, but that doesn’t mean it was actually doctrine to begin with.

I meant to pull the case after it completed (here), but I've been super busy for the last few months and haven't made it around to the courthouse. But yes, the Church held a small groundbreaking ceremony which was comprised of a member of the Area Presidency and a handful of youth. Nobody from local government was in attendance, though I don't know if they were even invited. My understanding is that it was an intentionally low-key event.

Makes complete sense. This is yet another example of a policy change where the previous policy was rooted more in administrative tradition than actual doctrine.

Lost to my many deleted throw-away chats already. The main point I was trying to make is that AI is inherently limited when it comes to these sorts of questions. AI can't actually weigh sources with a transparent methodology; it doesn't model different frameworks in a defensible way; and it certainly doesn't resolve conflicting data the way a historian would (e.g., this account is late, this one is hostile, etc.). Instead, it tends to default to what its training data makes most available and narratively compressible - which, spoiler alert, is often going to correlate to what is popular online, not what is best-supported. As others have pointed out, it's also very vulnerable to prompt framing. So, even if your prompts says, "don't assume all these points are true," the mere presence of those points steers the answer that direction. While I believe AI may be the most transformative technology that comes along during my lifetime, certain questions are going to require us to find the answers on our own.