Des News (Opinion): 7 signs your counselor may be undermining your faith

[Calm]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Beagles are really hard dogs.  But super cute!

Now you tell me!  😛 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps we define "intrinsically" differently. That is ok. For me, "intrinsically" means something has within it the capability, roots, or potential for."

I am not disagreeing with you that spiritual authority, all authority in my view, has the potential to be abused.  Joseph Smith agrees to.  

D&C 121:

Quote

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen."

However, to avoid being misunderstood in the future you might want to alter your use of intrinsic as that is commonly viewed as stronger than just saying something has potential, it is saying something is necessarily that way.  The potential for abuse is intrinsic to authority, but it is not intrinsically abusive as that would mean it’s always abusive.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

Quote

belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something

the intrinsic worth of the company

the intrinsic brightness of a star

 

Edited Monday at 10:11 PM by Calm

[Navidad]

On 8/31/2026 at 2:06 PM, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate here?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "violence."

I am a big fan of Bourdieu and his concept of "symbolic violence" as a true form of violence. It is something similar to the idea of "soul wounds" which epigenetics takes such an interest in. Bourdieu's symbolic violence can be defined (online at least) as "Pierre Bourdieu defines symbolic violence as a subtle, non‑physical form of domination in which the dominated unknowingly accept and legitimize social hierarchies through everyday meanings, norms, and classifications. It operates through misrecognition, habitus, and cultural capital, making inequalities appear natural rather than arbitrary. While this is a bit long-winded, it speaks to the kind of violence created within religious inequities and domination created by doctrinal or dogma norms. It goes beyond disagreement in that it makes the  dominated "less than" or "the other" according to a church or individual. If, for example I, as a seventy-year Christian, am deemed as having zero likelihood of being able to access the Gift of the Holy Spirit in my life within my own Christian community, then I am relegated to being less than every baptized and confirmed member of the LDS Church on earth. Probably not two in ten members of the LDS church would acknowledge that as doing me violence, yet I have seen my dear wife come home in tears after being assured of the truth and certainty of the LDS doctrine that however godly she may appear, she does not know the fullness of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and they do. They would  determine this, not based on her own spirituality, but on their own doctrine, which trumps what they see in her. This is a prime example of religion as conflict, which can be averted by a nice dose of incertitude, which in reality is a great foundation for faith, probably better than certainty. The protest of the Third Convention Mexican members of the Church in the 1930s is another example of religious violence - in this case better characterized as "protest violence." Protest violence is not physical violence except in that it is manifested with the feet - in leaving. It can be considered violence to the perpetrator as well as to the Church. Interesting stuff. That is it for now. Best wishes.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am a big fan of Bourdieu and his concept of "symbolic violence" as a true form of violence. It is something similar to the idea of "soul wounds" which epigenetics takes such an interest in. Bourdieu's symbolic violence can be defined (online at least) as "Pierre Bourdieu defines symbolic violence as a subtle, non‑physical form of domination in which the dominated unknowingly accept and legitimize social hierarchies through everyday meanings, norms, and classifications. It operates through misrecognition, habitus, and cultural capital, making inequalities appear natural rather than arbitrary. While this is a bit long-winded, it speaks to the kind of violence created within religious inequities and domination created by doctrinal or dogma norms. It goes beyond disagreement in that it makes the  dominated "less than" or "the other" according to a church or individual. If, for example I, as a seventy-year Christian, am deemed as having zero likelihood of being able to access the Gift of the Holy Spirit in my life within my own Christian community, then I am relegated to being less than every baptized and confirmed member of the LDS Church on earth. Probably not two in ten members of the LDS church would acknowledge that as doing me violence, yet I have seen my dear wife come home in tears after being assured of the truth and certainty of the LDS doctrine that however godly she may appear, she does not know the fullness of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and they do. They would  determine this, not based on her own spirituality, but on their own doctrine, which trumps what they see in her. This is a prime example of religion as conflict, which can be averted by a nice dose of incertitude, which in reality is a great foundation for faith, probably better than certainty. The protest of the Third Convention Mexican members of the Church in the 1930s is another example of religious violence - in this case better characterized as "protest violence." Protest violence is not physical violence except in that it is manifested with the feet - in leaving. It can be considered violence to the perpetrator as well as to the Church. Interesting stuff. That is it for now. Best wishes.  

I don’t understand this reasoning. Can you clarify? If you made a pagan cry because you asserted that Jesus is the Christ rather than affirming their own beliefs, then you would be being committing symbolic violence towards that pagan?

Also, are you saying that the best way to have faith is to abstain from all certainty? So the best way to have faith in Christ is to remain uncertain that He is the Christ, for example? That seems like a paradox considering some of the  things you have asserted previously so I must be missing something. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am a big fan of Bourdieu and his concept of "symbolic violence" as a true form of violence. It is something similar to the idea of "soul wounds" which epigenetics takes such an interest in. Bourdieu's symbolic violence can be defined (online at least) as "Pierre Bourdieu defines symbolic violence as a subtle, non‑physical form of domination in which the dominated unknowingly accept and legitimize social hierarchies through everyday meanings, norms, and classifications. It operates through misrecognition, habitus, and cultural capital, making inequalities appear natural rather than arbitrary.

This seems to be quite vague and subjective.  It can be deployed to describe almost anything.  

How do we go about quantifying what is and is not "symbolic violence?"

For example, when Christians declare that Jesus is the sole source of salvation, do you take that as "symbolic violence" leveled against non-Christians?

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

While this is a bit long-winded, it speaks to the kind of violence created within religious inequities and domination created by doctrinal or dogma norms. It goes beyond disagreement in that it makes the  dominated "less than" or "the other" according to a church or individual.

How do we know when a thing "goes beyond disagreement?"

In this context, for example, the Church presents, as a foundational truth claim, that angelic ministers descended from heaven and restored priesthood authority that had previously been lost from the earth.  This is a teaching that, while public, is not really publicized. It's an important doctrinal principle, as disagreements over authority have long impeded professed Christian groups and individuals in various ways.  It's in our belief system, and it's in our manuals and missionary lessons, but we don't go around and publicly flaunt it or brag about it.

If two people separately approach a house, one of them being a police officer with a search warrant for the house (looking for weapons) and the other being a private citizen who keeps tabs on things in the neighborhood, one of them has legal authority to enter into the house, and one of them does not.  The civilian genuinely feels cares for the welfare of his neighbors, and that is admirable, but it's not the same as actually having law enforcement authority.  I don't think it is "symbolic violence" to say so.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If, for example I, as a seventy-year Christian, am deemed as having zero likelihood of being able to access the Gift of the Holy Spirit in my life within my own Christian community, then I am relegated to being less than every baptized and confirmed member of the LDS Church on earth.

That "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.  

The Latter-day Saints believe that the "Light of Christ" influences, or can influence, every child of God.  We also believe that the Spirit can and does move and influence people of every walk of life.  We do have a particularized assessment of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" as referenced in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45.  Acts 2:38 associates it with baptism, and so with priesthood authority.  We believe such authority is something that must be bestowed by those who have it and under proper authority.  And we do invite anyone who wants to join our church to do so through baptism.  I struggle to characterize this as "symbolic violence."

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Probably not two in ten members of the LDS church would acknowledge that as doing me violence, yet I have seen my dear wife come home in tears after being assured of the truth and certainty of the LDS doctrine that however godly she may appear, she does not know the fullness of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and they do.

I am sorry to hear this has happened.  "{W}hen we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."  (D&C 121:37.)

I can't formulate a good faith circumstance in which the above behavior is expressed.  It ought not to be.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

They would  determine this, not based on her own spirituality, but on their own doctrine, which trumps what they see in her.

Gratifying pride and vain ambitions, methinks.  I'm sorry about that.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

This is a prime example of religion as conflict, which can be averted by a nice dose of incertitude, which in reality is a great foundation for faith, probably better than certainty.

Also worthwhile tools to avert conflict: humility, kindness, circumspection.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The protest of the Third Convention Mexican members of the Church in the 1930s is another example of religious violence - in this case better characterized as "protest violence." Protest violence is not physical violence except in that it is manifested with the feet - in leaving. It can be considered violence to the perpetrator as well as to the Church. Interesting stuff. That is it for now. Best wishes.  

The Third Convention was a very interesting chapter in the history of the Church:

Quote

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Latter-day Saints in most of the world were organized under the leadership of a mission president from the United States who was assigned to their country.  From 1936 to 1946, about one-third of Latter-day Saints in Mexico formed a group known as the Third Convention, which taught the doctrines of the Church while rejecting the authority of mission presidents assigned to Mexico who were not ethnic Mexicans. In 1946, Church President George Albert Smith traveled to Mexico to preside over a reunification conference, bringing Third Convention members back into fellowship with other Church members.

And here:

Quote

A contributing cause of the dissension may have been the Cristero War of 1926–1929, a counter-revolutionary movement against certain anti-clerical provisions of the 1917 Mexican Constitution. These provisions had expelled foreign clergy from Mexico, resulting in isolation of Mexican Mormons from their church's headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah.^[1]

As a result, a group of Mexican Mormons led by Abel Páez, first counselor of the Mexican district presidency, demanded that church leadership appoint a Mexican mission president "of pure race and blood" (de pura raza y sangre). After three rebuffs, a breakaway faction of the Mexican mission district organized what came to be known as the Third Convention, separate from and without authority from church leadership in the United States. These "Third Conventionists" (as they were known) conducted missionary activity in some small mountain villages in central Mexico.^[2]

The question of authority is interesting and important.  It is not in any way intended to demean or disparage any group or person.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The question of authority is interesting and important.  It is not in any way intended to demean or disparage any group or person.

But it does when used to create onlys and others. 

Using the Johari Window as a valid construct, many of my LDS friends have huge blind spots. As do virtually all religious groups who base their doctrine on certainty and onlyism. I have no certainty on what criteria Christ will base his judgment about the eternal destiny of those who appear before Him. I value incertitude because it gives greater meaning to my faith in Christ as impartial judge. I also am replete with my own blind spots which I freely admit. I also have my own hidden quadrant in my life's Johari Window. I might not go so far as Peter Enns, the Evangelical scholar, in declaring certainty as a sin. However, I do believe in a wideness in God's mercy and trust Christ's judgment in that final day. I do not believe there will be Mormons, Moravians, Muslims, Methodists and Mennonites at the judgment seat. I believe there will be humans there, judged by an all-wise and benevolent judge. That might be a good thought for you with your lawyer mentality. Best wishes. 

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Navidad said:

might not go so far as Peter Enns, the Evangelical scholar, in declaring certainty as a sin.

Isn’t being certain that certainty is a sin or even just wrong contradictory with holding a position of incertitude?

” I have no certainty on what criteria Christ will base his judgment about the eternal destiny of those who appear before Him. ”

Are you not certain LDS are wrong in their beliefs about ordinances and authority being required by God as part of our covenant to enter back into his presence?

Quote

do not believe there will be Mormons, Moravians, Muslims, Methodists and Mennonites at the judgment seat.

Neither do we.  In the end it will be those who want to be of the family of God (those exalted will be of the Church of the Firstborn, the Restored Church is merely a mortal vehicle as should be obvious from the inclusion of “Latter-day” in the name since eternity has no “latter days”, only mortality) and those that don’t.  
 

“The faithful saints were made members of the Church of the Firstborn in eternity, since they receive through Jesus Christ the inheritance of the firstborn (D&C 93:21–22).”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/firstborn?lang=eng

Edited yesterday at 01:54 AM by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Quote

The question of authority is interesting and important.  It is not in any way intended to demean or disparage any group or person.

But it does when used to create onlys and others. 

I am still working on understanding your perspective here.

• John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
• Acts 4:12 - “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
• 1 Timothy 2:5 — “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
• John 10:9 — “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.”
• John 10:7–8 — “I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers.”

Was Jesus here "creat{ing} onlys and others" in John 14:6?  Were His apostles doing that in the other passages?

To be sure, given your experience, I can see how a poor sampling of Latter-day Saint culture has treated sacred matters as things to be bragged about or used to disparage others.  I am very sorry that happened.  I do not think what the Latter-day Saints said to your wife was an accurate representation or reflection or application of the teachings of the Church.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Using the Johari Window as a valid construct, many of my LDS friends have huge blind spots. As do virtually all religious groups who base their doctrine on certainty and onlyism.

Don't all Christians say that "only" Jesus saves?  

As for "certainty," I think it is more apt to say that "we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7).  There may be some very few persons who can legitimately claim to have epistemic "certainty" of certain sacred matters.  For most of us, though, we believe.  We have faith.  That faith can, over time, perhaps be tested and strengthened to the extent that a person may claim "certainty" of some things.  In contrast, there are some rhetorical conventions in the Church which, while well-intended, are the product more of culture and repetitive experiences than actual, studied faith.  Hence when a ten year old girl stands up in Fast & Testimony meeting and says (recites, really) "I'd like to bear my testimony I know this church is true...", I admit I entertain the possibility that this young person has indeed had some fantastic spiritual experience that has removed all doubt, but also the possibility that she has incorporated a stock phrase she has heard several times as a workable formulated expression of faith, and in which "know" means "strongly believe."

Anyway, "blind spots."  Yes, we all have them.  I quite agree with you there.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I have no certainty on what criteria Christ will base his judgment about the eternal destiny of those who appear before Him.

None at all?  John 14:6 seems to indicate that those who affirmatively refuse to accept Jesus Christ's atonement will not be the beneficiaries of it.  Isn't that a pretty big criterion?  Perhaps the most fundamental and almost exclusive one?

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I value incertitude because it gives greater meaning to my faith in Christ as impartial judge.

I too value incertitude, because is gives us the opportunity to thresh our beliefs and differentiate between what we believe in with "certainty" or much potency, and what we believe in as matters for which uncertainty is the byword.

Jesus Christ as the Son of God?  I strive for certainty on that point.

Obedience to the commandments as an expression of faith in Christ?  I strive for certainty on that point.

Repentance as an essential component of daily life?  I strive for certainty on that point.

Is the Book of Mormon what is claims to be?  I strive for certainty on that point.

Was Noah's flood global or local?  I don't know.  Uncertainty/incertitude governs that question (though I lean to the latter).

Was Job a real person or not?  Uncertainty/incertitude.

Were the conquest of Canaan and the slaughter of the Amalekites divinely mandated as depicted in the OT?  Perhaps.  Lots of uncertainty/incertitude.

Has God ever mandated polygamy?  Apparently, but I struggle with it.  Uncertainty.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I also am replete with my own blind spots which I freely admit. I also have my own hidden quadrant in my life's Johari Window. I might not go so far as Peter Enns, the Evangelical scholar, in declaring certainty as a sin.

Unearned or false certainty likely is.  But maybe certainty can happen in some limited respects.  "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

I don't know.  Frankly, I'm not sure it is always incumbent upon us to pursue "certainty" where faith and obedience are sufficient to carry the day.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

However, I do believe in a wideness in God's mercy and trust Christ's judgment in that final day. I do not believe there will be Mormons, Moravians, Muslims, Methodists and Mennonites at the judgment seat. I believe there will be humans there, judged by an all-wise and benevolent judge. That might be a good thought for you with your lawyer mentality. Best wishes. 

It is a good thought, and one I endorse and share.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 02:03 AM by smac97

[Navidad]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t being certain that certainty is a sin or even just wrong contradictory with holding a position of incertitude?

” I have no certainty on what criteria Christ will base his judgment about the eternal destiny of those who appear before Him. ”

Are you not certain LDS are wrong in their beliefs about ordinances and authority being required by God as part of our covenant to enter back into his presence?

I don't think Peter Enns teaches with certainty that certainty is a sin. I think he teaches that it can be sinful. No, I am not certain the LDS are wrong in their beliefs. I just don't worry about it. My wife and I were just talking about all the folks in Tibet-Nepal border area who died in the flood. Probably less than 1% of them Christians of any kind. Am I worried for their eternal destiny? Not really. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy. They will all appear on that day in front of Christ since no man (or woman) cometh unto the Father but by Him. He will be a loving and just judge. I leave them in his hands. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am still working on understanding your perspective here.

• John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
• Acts 4:12 - “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
• 1 Timothy 2:5 — “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
• John 10:9 — “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.”
• John 10:7–8 — “I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers.”

Was Jesus here "creat{ing} onlys and others" in John 14:6?  Were His apostles doing that in the other passages?

To be sure, given your experience, I can see how a poor sampling of Latter-day Saint culture has treated sacred matters as things to be bragged about or used to disparage others.  I am very sorry that happened.  I do not think what the Latter-day Saints said to your wife was an accurate representation or reflection or application of the teachings of the Church.

Don't all Christians say that "only" Jesus saves?  

As for "certainty," I think it is more apt to say that "we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7).  There may be some very few persons who can legitimately claim to have epistemic "certainty" of certain sacred matters.  For most of us, though, we believe.  We have faith.  That faith can, over time, perhaps be tested and strengthened to the extent that a person may claim "certainty" of some things.  In contrast, there are some rhetorical conventions in the Church which, while well-intended, are the product more of culture and repetitive experiences than actual, studied faith.  Hence when a ten year old girl stands up in Fast & Testimony meeting and says (recites, really) "I'd like to bear my testimony I know this church is true...", I admit I entertain the possibility that this young person has indeed had some fantastic spiritual experience that has removed all doubt, but also the possibility that she has incorporated a stock phrase she has heard several times as a workable formulated expression of faith, and in which "know" means "strongly believe."

Anyway, "blind spots."  Yes, we all have them.  I quite agree with you there.

None at all?  John 14:6 seems to indicate that those who affirmatively refuse to accept Jesus Christ's atonement will not be the beneficiaries of it.  Isn't that a pretty big criterion?  Perhaps the most fundamental and almost exclusive one?

I too value incertitude, because is gives us the opportunity to thresh our beliefs and differentiate between what we believe in with "certainty" or much potency, and what we believe in as matters for which uncertainty is the byword.

Jesus Christ as the Son of God?  I strive for certainty on that point.

Obedience to the commandments as an expression of faith in Christ?  I strive for certainty on that point.

Repentance as an essential component of daily life?  I strive for certainty on that point.

Is the Book of Mormon what is claims to be?  I strive for certainty on that point.

Was Noah's flood global or local?  I don't know.  Uncertainty/incertitude governs that question (though I lean to the latter).

Was Job a real person or not?  Uncertainty/incertitude.

Were the conquest of Canaan and the slaughter of the Amalekites divinely mandated as depicted in the OT?  Perhaps.  Lots of uncertainty/incertitude.

Has God ever mandated polygamy?  Apparently, but I struggle with it.  Uncertainty.

Unearned or false certainty likely is.  But maybe certainty can happen in some limited respects.  "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

I don't know.  Frankly, I'm not sure it is always incumbent upon us to pursue "certainty" where faith and obedience are sufficient to carry the day.

It is a good thought, and one I endorse and share.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think we agree on much more than we disagree. I have a different view of John 14: 6 perhaps. I believe that verse is stating a simple fact. No one will come to the Father but by Christ as the judge on the Day of Judgment. He is the judge and jury. He makes the decision, so yes we will "come" to the Father by (or through Christ). He is the decider in chief. The question is what will His criteria be? That is where my uncertainty comes to the foreground. I don't believe the Bible gives us the criteria given the vast disparity of billions of living people over the millennia. I still can't quite figure out what the Book of Mormon claims to be beyond another testament of Jesus Christ. I stipulate that it is that. I am with you on all your certainties and uncertainties in your list. I am certain that the LDS church is a Christian church, filled with some who are themselves Christians and others who are not, just like any other Church. Being a Christian is an individual thing; I am pretty certain of that. Will there be non-Christians (in this life) who Christ will welcome into the presence of the Father? Yes, I think so. That is where the wideness in His mercy part comes in. Best wishes. 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think we agree on much more than we disagree. I have a different view of John 14: 6 perhaps. I believe that verse is stating a simple fact. No one will come to the Father but by Christ as the judge on the Day of Judgment. He is the judge and jury. He makes the decision, so yes we will "come" to the Father by (or through Christ). He is the decider in chief. The question is what will His criteria be? That is where my uncertainty comes to the foreground.

I think you are correct: we do agree more than we disagree.

As for His criteria?  I suppose we could look at Matthew 7:21 ("Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.").

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't believe the Bible gives us the criteria given the vast disparity of billions of living people over the millennia.

True.  We will each of us be judged individually.  And I don't think we need to worry much about what criteria He will be using to judge others, just those He uses to judge us as individuals.

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I still can't quite figure out what the Book of Mormon claims to be beyond another testament of Jesus Christ.

Well, that is its primary purpose.  I also think it functions as "Exhibit A" in the truth claims of Joseph Smith and the Church itself.  If the book is what it claims to be (the "antecedent"), then certain "consequents" follow.  Sill a matter of faith, of course.  But answering if the Church is what it claims to be is, I think, going to come down to the book as a testament, an authentic testament, of Jesus Christ. 

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I stipulate that it is that. I am with you on all your certainties and uncertainties in your list. I am certain that the LDS church is a Christian church, filled with some who are themselves Christians and others who are not, just like any other Church. Being a Christian is an individual thing; I am pretty certain of that. Will there be non-Christians (in this life) who Christ will welcome into the presence of the Father? Yes, I think so. That is where the wideness in His mercy part comes in. Best wishes. 

We do agree on a lot.  I am glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Am I worried for their eternal destiny?

Neither am I.  Nor should any LDS be.  Is there a reason you mention this in the context of a discussion about the certainty of certain LDS beliefs?   Just curious. 

Edited yesterday at 08:52 AM by Calm

[Tony uk]

As for symbolic violence, Jesus clearing the temple of the money lenders/changers. The early Christians, Acts of the Apostles, spreading the word of Christ openly and publicly. And Christians, various doctrines openly spreading the word of Christ through the ages. Every 3 to 6 months, Jehovah's witnesses visit the area I live. And also when interest is shown, and by arrangement, LDS missionaries visiting people. Genuine people Evangelising the faith by people in a peaceful manner.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, that is its primary purpose.  I also think it functions as "Exhibit A" in the truth claims of Joseph Smith and the Church itself.  If the book is what it claims to be (the "antecedent"), then certain "consequents" follow.  Sill a matter of faith, of course.  But answering if the Church is what it claims to be is, I think, going to come down to the book as a testament, an authentic testament, of Jesus Christ. 

I admit (or stipulate) to the fact that I don't understand what the claims of the Book of Mormon are for itself beyond being another testament of Jesus Christ. In trying to understand, I buy and read everything I can find on the subject. It appears that my varied LDS friends have very varied understandings of what its claims are (from the text itself). I have just finished Tom Murphy's new book on the integration of Iroquois myths (Settling Scriptures) into the text of the Book of Mormon. My father pastored a church in Niagara Falls, where he (we) went to the Tuscarora reservation on Sunday afternoons, where he preached. If my memory serves me correctly (I was a child then), he was adopted into the Tuscarora nation in some manner. So, I have more than a casual interest in the subject. I also spent time each summer near Lake Simcoe, where Benjamin F Johnson says he heard many stories from the natives on an island in the lake. Benjamin F Johnson is an important person in the history of the Mexican colonies. I see his descendants virtually every day. So he interests me. As a historian, that interests me. I also am interested in the claims of the Bible for itself and the interpretations of varied literature styles contained therein. I am finishing up William Davis' book, "Visions in a Seer Stone." He approaches the origin of the Book of Mormon from the perspective of a 19th century preacher's methodology. Fascinating information. I like both books in that after having digested them, I am uncertain as to the relationship of the authors with the LDS Church. That is a real positive for me. Neither writes from the perspective of a critic or a zealot. They are academics writing from their expertise. I like that. I am beginning to think that many LDS folks make greater claims for the Book of Mormon than it does for itself.  That often happens with adherents and scriptures. Just my own personal perspective is that the D&C is a much more important book for doctrinal polity. The General Handbook is more significant for orthopraxy on a day-to-day basis. It is an interpretation of the General Handbook that led us to be unable to continue worshiping, fellowshipping, and ministering in the CJ ward. That interpretation created soul wounds, so it was powerful. 

I am intrigued by your use of the term "authentic testament." I am intrigued because I am uncertain (of course) as to your meaning in the use of that phrase. I suppose it is like the word "intrinsic" - it can have several meanings. I would love for you (if you care to) to explain what you mean by "authentic." Oh, and I wonder if your family ever got the date fixed on the tombstone in Dublán?  Take care and best wishes. 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Neither am I.  Nor should any LDS be.  Is there a reason you mention this in the context of a discussion about the certainty of certain LDS beliefs?   Just curious. 

Not really. My concerns about the certainty of LDS beliefs are not at all related to eschatology. My concerns are related to how the certainty of LDS beliefs impacts my relationships with dear friends in the grocery store, the rodeo grounds. and the hospital (where my wife and son) spent months collectively last year and this year. When doctrine negatively impacts relationships and ranks friends as "in or out" in a way that changes with different applications of authority, that concerns me. I hope that makes sense. Best to you, and thanks so very much for allowing me to post here, even though I am more out than in. 

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Tony uk said:

As for symbolic violence, Jesus clearing the temple of the money lenders/changers. The early Christians, Acts of the Apostles, spreading the word of Christ openly and publicly. And Christians, various doctrines openly spreading the word of Christ through the ages. Every 3 to 6 months, Jehovah's witnesses visit the area I live. And also when interest is shown, and by arrangement, LDS missionaries visiting people. Genuine people Evangelising the faith by people in a peaceful manner.

And may God bless them for doing so. I just wish (and this is a me thing) that the missionaries had better training in missiology in cross-cultural situations, like we have where I live. I have been here twenty years. I am unaware of one convert to the LDS Church from the missionaries' work here in our village. The spiritual need is great; the spiritual thirst is virtually absent. The missionaries need better training in bridging that gap. Just my opinion as I wish them well in their work. I don't question their sincerity or passion. I question their lack of training in how to do the task to which they are called. 

[MrShorty]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Will there be non-Christians (in this life) [and disaffiliated LDS] who Christ will welcome into the presence of the Father?

To tie into the topic(s) on Jeff Strong's work, I've added a category to this statement, and I don't think I have significantly changed the meaning. As I explore the tensions between active, orthodox LDS and disaffiliated LDS, one common theme I encounter is the question of whether LDS who disaffiliate and do not return to activity in the church can be saved and exalted in the next life. I encounter many of the staunchest active LDS who say that they cannot.

Pres. Nelson, in Apr. 2019 GC, mentioned an acquaintance of his who had long been married to an active LDS woman, taken the missionary discussions, and such, but had never joined the church. Pres. Nelson expressed skepticism (while acknowledging that he couldn't offer final judgement) that proxy ordinances for this man would be efficacious. I see many LDS who prefer to embrace the doubt and skepticism.

I'm not sure about this language of "violence" for this concept. If it applies, I would suggest that there is something "violent" about expressing skepticism or doubt (or more) about an individual's or a group's hope for salvation and exaltation.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I admit (or stipulate) to the fact that I don't understand what the claims of the Book of Mormon are for itself beyond being another testament of Jesus Christ.

The Title Page states its purpose is "to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

However, the book also characterizes it as being "an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites," and that it was written "to the Lamanites ... and also to Jew and Gentile" (in other words, the entire world)."  It also states that the record was "of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord," to eventually "come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof ... by the gift of God."

The book therefore characterizes itself as an ancient record that was written, hidden, and much later "{came} forth" and translated, all "by the gift and power of God."  Though secondary to the book's status as a "testament" of Jesus Christ, what the book claims for itself necessarily implicates Joseph Smith being a prophet. 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

In trying to understand, I buy and read everything I can find on the subject. It appears that my varied LDS friends have very varied understandings of what its claims are (from the text itself).

Yes, opinions vary in a variety of ways.  While I think we need some substantial wiggle room as to the particulars, some of these varied opinions seem to be necessarily at odds with the text.  "Inspired Fiction" being the most prominent example.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am beginning to think that many LDS folks make greater claims for the Book of Mormon than it does for itself. 

I would be interested in learning more about this.  What "greater claims" do you have in mind.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

That often happens with adherents and scriptures. Just my own personal perspective is that the D&C is a much more important book for doctrinal polity. The General Handbook is more significant for orthopraxy on a day-to-day basis. It is an interpretation of the General Handbook that led us to be unable to continue worshiping, fellowshipping, and ministering in the CJ ward. That interpretation created soul wounds, so it was powerful. 

I am sorry to hear that.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am intrigued by your use of the term "authentic testament." I am intrigued because I am uncertain (of course) as to your meaning in the use of that phrase. I suppose it is like the word "intrinsic" - it can have several meanings. I would love for you (if you care to) to explain what you mean by "authentic."

I suppose I meant it in juxtaposed to fictitious accounts of man's dealings with Jesus Christ.  We don't believe Joseph fabricated the text, but that the text was written long ago and translated by him.  It is an abridgment of records of percipient witnesses to important and miraculous events.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Oh, and I wonder if your family ever got the date fixed on the tombstone in Dublán?  Take care and best wishes. 

I'm not sure.  My dad passed in January 2025, but my oldest brother may know.  I'll check with him.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

True.  We will each of us be judged individually.  And I don't think we need to worry much about what criteria He will be using to judge others, just those He uses to judge us as individuals.

I am certainly with you there. Since I was a child, raised until about 14 years of age in a pretty literal Fundamentalism, I have wondered about the eternal destiny of folks who never have, don't , used to, but don't now name the name of Christ as the means for their eternal destiny. Probably most of them never even thought about an eternal destiny. I am working this afternoon on my book on truth. I just published and had the big conference last Saturday on a biography I finished on a revolutionary war general who had a big impact on the Saints here. With that behind me, I can now concentrate on other topics that mean more to me. Oh, and about the  biography. I finished  the last chapter, the one about his legacy with a photo that was given to me of him holding an LDS baby girl in his arms the day or so before he was killed. I doubt that the photo has ever been published. With your family connect to the colonies, you may know who Nelle Spilsbury Hatch was. She wrote about Salazar's last few days on earth, spent in Colonia Juarez with the Saints. About Salazar in those last days, she said, "He was a changed man!"  That is good enough for me. I do not know if that is good enough for Judgment Day, but it does no good to perseverate on that. So that was the last line in the book, "He was a changed man!" I certaintly think that is a worthy epitaph. 

Back to my book on Truth, today I found a quote from the Hindu Upanishads. It says, "The face of Truth is covered with a golden vessel. Uncover it, O Sun, that I who am devoted to the truth may behold it."  I really like that. It speaks, as did almost all ancients of truth as a hidden attribute that needed uncovering, revealing, unhiding." That is what Christ did, he revealed the truth (aletheia) about God's plan. He was the Son, not the Sun, but he did what the old Hindu wiseman requested. He is continuing to do that in our lives today. I am seeking more truth, more clarification about the truth, but not to supplant my faith with it. 

I am so sorry to hear of your dad's passing. I did not know that. You have a wonderful heritage and lineage. I wish all your family the very best. Blessings.