Thoughts On Church History And Faith Crisis Part 2

[Calm]

RM, I'm not reluctant to share but I'm not sure what I have to say is really relevant to anyone but me. As I have learned about some of the "troubling" things others have found in history, doctrine, etc. pertaining to the gospel, I have had one thought. Since we are all mortal and we each have weaknesses, isn't it possible that those who 'perpetrated' the problematic events might also have had weakness and made mistakes?

My experience as well, GW. I had a mother who discussed almost anything with me growing up from this point of view, learning of others' problems has only helped me see they as real people that I can admire for what they accomplished.

My relationship with the Church is about me and mine and my experiences, not about what happened in the past.

[Darth_Bill]

My experience as well, GW. I had a mother who discussed almost anything with me growing up from this point of view, learning of others' problems has only helped me see they as real people that I can admire for what they accomplished.

My relationship with the Church is about me and mine and my experiences, not about what happened in the past.

So, you are a member of a church based and started on the past. The church spends incredible amounts of money to preserve its historic sites. Our scriptures are based almost solely on past events, and now the past doesn't matter? I admit that sometimes it is this attitude by apologists that can cause consternation with me, and that disconnect that some feel. The past matters. If it didn't, then why study it?

Goodnight everybody!

[Calm]

You misunderstand. The past informs our experience of the scriptures, our understanding of the men who lived then, etc.

However, the past does not inform the relationship between me and my Lord any more than the sinking of the Lusitania informs the relationship between myself and my husband. What matters to that relationship is that relationship.

And since I believe for various reasons from my personal experience, that the Church is the Lord's authorized servant on this earth at this time, that confirmation is what matters to me. My understanding of the Church and what role it has played may be increased by a study of the past, but my understanding of what my relationship with the Church is now is informed by my relationship with God, not the past.

[Maidservant]

Our scriptures are based almost solely on past events, and now the past doesn't matter? I admit that sometimes it is this attitude by apologists that can cause consternation with me, and that disconnect that some feel. The past matters.

I don't consider myself an apologist, but I often experience consternation on others' insistence that I *must* feel a connection with Church history. I never have! As just one small example, when I was MUCH younger I used to think hearing about pioneer stuff was super boring. I think it's fine if this is how someone needs to approach their truth and spirituality, but I do not. And I resist attempts to encircle me with that story (good, bad or ugly) and say that THIS is my mormonism. What I DO remember is when I was 9 years old actually listening to the words in "I am a child of God" song, and I asked my mother if I really was a child of God and she said, "Yes" and that blew my mind in the best possible way. What the Joseph Smith story meant to me was not for me to look back and ask what HE did, but I was 13 years old and praying out near the trees in our back yard trying to re-create my own Sacred Grove (mixed success, ha ha. At the time, no angel or God, but I was specifically praying about the truth of the Book of Mormon, and pretty much the answer I got was 'Why are you asking me a question you already know the answer to?' AND I love that I was this person, wanting so much to approach the throne of God).

My mormonism has NOTHING to do with Joseph Smith. NOTHING. Except for the fact that he is an amazing soul, and I do love him, but he is REPLACEABLE with any other person God could have called.

My religion is direct contact with my Father in heaven. Now, I know this is not for everyone. And I do not say this lightly. And I do not say this as if this makes me a better person or is the best way for everyone. I know that this is my perception, this is MY approach. But it is the one I have always lived since at least from the moment I was baptized.

WITH my Father in heaven I go any where I need to for my RELIGION. But I am anchored in my covenant. My religion is NOT Joseph Smith's story. My religion is . . . Isaiah. My religion is . . . my husband and my children. My religion is any light I can find in hinduism, human anatomy, quarks, laughter, sitting around as a family for a meal . . . My religion is anything God picks out of the world to show me so that I can continue to know him and know myself.

But I became one with my Father in heaven through what was available in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I don't know of any place else to receive my covenant except the Church that Jesus Christ (not Joseph Smith) organized.

As far as scriptures being based on past events--this is the point of modern revelation through living prophets and personal revelation for our own lives. We ought NEVER to be in the past. There is more to come! And always will be! Jesus is FREEING us from those portions of scripture narratives that do not and ought not make the travel into the present. Even if there are thousands of problems in the church's past, it's a miracle that God could make something grow from a little, bent seed like that.

Having said all this, I, too, have a lot of questions for God about why he has set up the world the way he did (assuming it was all his fault, ha ha--or was it?) and why there is such blindness put before the eyes of mankind. Is this really the best way to go about things? So my accusation of un-truth is not at Joseph Smith or church leaders. I am quite upset straight at God, trying to understand why so much subterfuge seems to come from him, and previous pat, scriptural answers I have been given on the matter no longer satisfy me. But, again, this is between me and my Father in heaven and I place my struggle at HIS feet. I don't need Joseph Smith or President Monson to answer for this. I expect to get an accounting straight from God.

[cdowis]

2.) Can the faithful share how when these issues (though perhaps not troubling to them) were encountered, how they approached each one.

- what you thought of it originally

- how you approached it

- what was of help

- what wasn't

-Whether you ever really get past it completely or just recognize that you can explain it enough to move on?

I remember the first I had heard the so-called Salamander letter and I had asked myself some questions on it.

1. I had a sure knowledge that the church was true. Absolute proof.

2. The Salamander letter seemed a real paradox since my intellect could not simply dismiss it. Can I be true to myself and still have this "absolute" proof that JS was a fake.

3. I had attended my graduation ceremony, and the speaker talked about the "shelf of disbelief". If I can't figure it out, just put it up on the shelf and look at it from time to time and eventually it would resolve itself.

So that is what I did, and we all know the results == it was a fake which seemed impossible at the time. I am glad that I did not throw away my salvation for a mess of pottage.

Be patient, don't panic. This served me will when the whole BOM DNA issue came up. I seemed the only one to stand up to the issue at the time. So, I took it one step at a time, logically and questioning the assumptions. Finally the answers came, and we still use many of the arguments that I used back then.

Just don't panic.

Edited May 6, 2012 by cdowis

[GingerRed]

You misunderstand. The past informs our experience of the scriptures, our understanding of the men who lived then, etc.

However, the past does not inform the relationship between me and my Lord any more than the sinking of the Lusitania informs the relationship between myself and my husband. What matters to that relationship is that relationship.

And since I believe for various reasons from my personal experience, that the Church is the Lord's authorized servant on this earth at this time, that confirmation is what matters to me. My understanding of the Church and what role it has played may be increased by a study of the past, but my understanding of what my relationship with the Church is now is informed by my relationship with God, not the past.

Well said!!

Red

[GingerRed]

I don't consider myself an apologist, but I often experience consternation on others' insistence that I *must* feel a connection with Church history. I never have! As just one small example, when I was MUCH younger I used to think hearing about pioneer stuff was super boring. I think it's fine if this is how someone needs to approach their truth and spirituality, but I do not. And I resist attempts to encircle me with that story (good, bad or ugly) and say that THIS is my mormonism. What I DO remember is when I was 9 years old actually listening to the words in "I am a child of God" song, and I asked my mother if I really was a child of God and she said, "Yes" and that blew my mind in the best possible way. What the Joseph Smith story meant to me was not for me to look back and ask what HE did, but I was 13 years old and praying out near the trees in our back yard trying to re-create my own Sacred Grove (mixed success, ha ha. At the time, no angel or God, but I was specifically praying about the truth of the Book of Mormon, and pretty much the answer I got was 'Why are you asking me a question you already know the answer to?' AND I love that I was this person, wanting so much to approach the throne of God).

My mormonism has NOTHING to do with Joseph Smith. NOTHING. Except for the fact that he is an amazing soul, and I do love him, but he is REPLACEABLE with any other person God could have called.

My religion is direct contact with my Father in heaven. Now, I know this is not for everyone. And I do not say this lightly. And I do not say this as if this makes me a better person or is the best way for everyone. I know that this is my perception, this is MY approach. But it is the one I have always lived since at least from the moment I was baptized.

WITH my Father in heaven I go any where I need to for my RELIGION. But I am anchored in my covenant. My religion is NOT Joseph Smith's story. My religion is . . . Isaiah. My religion is . . . my husband and my children. My religion is any light I can find in hinduism, human anatomy, quarks, laughter, sitting around as a family for a meal . . . My religion is anything God picks out of the world to show me so that I can continue to know him and know myself.

But I became one with my Father in heaven through what was available in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I don't know of any place else to receive my covenant except the Church that Jesus Christ (not Joseph Smith) organized.

As far as scriptures being based on past events--this is the point of modern revelation through living prophets and personal revelation for our own lives. We ought NEVER to be in the past. There is more to come! And always will be! Jesus is FREEING us from those portions of scripture narratives that do not and ought not make the travel into the present. Even if there are thousands of problems in the church's past, it's a miracle that God could make something grow from a little, bent seed like that.

Having said all this, I, too, have a lot of questions for God about why he has set up the world the way he did (assuming it was all his fault, ha ha--or was it?) and why there is such blindness put before the eyes of mankind. Is this really the best way to go about things? So my accusation of un-truth is not at Joseph Smith or church leaders. I am quite upset straight at God, trying to understand why so much subterfuge seems to come from him, and previous pat, scriptural answers I have been given on the matter no longer satisfy me. But, again, this is between me and my Father in heaven and I place my struggle at HIS feet. I don't need Joseph Smith or President Monson to answer for this. I expect to get an accounting straight from God.

Another well said!

Are you getting the point now, Darth-Bill?

[Jaybear]

Are you getting the point now, Darth-Bill?

The point is that he should give into extreme confirmation bias?

Look for a "sign" that you can interpret as God personally manifesting his will directly to you that "The Church is True."

When you find that sign, you can go ahead and ignore any and all red flags which tell you otherwise.

If there is a God, and this life is test, where only those who make the "right" choice are rewarded with salvation, aren't you cheating when, instead of figuring it out for yourself based on fact, and reason, you ask God for the answer?

[Maidservant]

The point is that he should give into extreme confirmation bias?

Look for a "sign" that you can interpret as God personally manifesting his will directly to you that "The Church is True."

When you find that sign, you can go ahead and ignore any and all red flags which tell you otherwise.

If there is a God, and this life is test, where only those who make the "right" choice are rewarded with salvation, aren't you cheating when, instead of figuring it out for yourself based on fact, and reason, you ask God for the answer?

No. Again, this isn't about what "mormons" think of "non-mormons" and "trying to tell them what to do"; or not only that. It's the other way around--please stop telling *me* that *I* got it wrong and that *my* experience is invalid and that I don't know how to conduct my own spiritual journey. (And I don't mean just you here, but any who approaches me that way simply because I am Mormon.)

And the statement that "only those who make the right choice are rewarded with salvation" does not represent the basic teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; nor is it the view point that any spiritually mature person holds whether they reach that maturity in hinduism, atheism, mormonism, or elsewhere. If that is what you are thinking, no wonder you reject it! I do too!

Facts and reason may be another thread. But for myself I have come to view the world as a 100 percent construct of perception and that reality is completely creative. I know this is probably not common for most people and definitely not common for most LDS. So I know my approach is unique. But I let people be who they are. If you are happy and comfortable and alive in your life, Jaybear, then I don't need to you make a choice to be mormon or believe in God or anything. I trust you with your own mind, heart and choices.

I don't know, but I learned that by being a Mormon where they taught me all about agency and choice.

All people have to have what they THOUGHT they knew be broken down and challenged and something new arises from that, whether an artifact of that is to stay in the Church or leave it. I am not the same Mormon I was when I was 15, not the same Mormon I was 5 years ago. And a lot of my changes have been: "Wow! That's not really what God says even though I thought he did! Wow! that's not really what the Church teaches even though I thought it did! Wow! Not sure this is right even though I still hear it at Church!" And as I have already mentioned sometimes I think that one of my spiritual steps may be to leave the Church. But if I do, I expect people to respect that. And for as long as I stay (hopefully forever?) I expect people to respect that, also.

Apologetics is not about getting people to be Mormons again, or new people to be Mormons, or to make people who aren't Mormons feel like crap for making that choice. Apologetics is because people are choosing to assault *us* for *our* choices to remain and be human beings in this organization and for actually--yes--believing it! Gasp! Someone believed something! AAAgggggh! What morons! Believing in Jesus! How dare we! How dare we engage in such a child-like act and see where it leads! Apologetics is the opportunity to show how and in what way The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes sense intellectually, spiritually, emotionally or in any other way we want to talk about. It's also about doing our best to make an accurate representation, so that if others have a problem with the Church, they can at least have a problem with the Church as it is, instead of a caricature that NO ONE believes. Can we convince anyone? Probably not. But it's not as if there isn't some foundation for it; just as there is intellectual, spiritual, emotional and etc reason to not be a part of the Church. And I do have a problem with LDS who can't respect others' individual choice to not participate in the Church.

These are *my* answers.

The Church is rich? I'd rather have money in the hands of the Church than anywhere else. Do I want to be a part of a Church that doesn't know what to do with money? This actually excites me.

Polyandry? I came across this AFTER I asked God if it was okay if I had two husbands (eternally) which is a very personal problem to my life experience, so coming across this was an extremely positive experience.

Peeping stone to translate? I want one!

Adam-God? He is.

Blacks without the priesthood? Not sure still here, but wow, I'm glad we are past that!

Baptism necessary for salvation? Really? Well, everyone is going to have one available, so it's actually a representation of inclusiveness and universality instead exclusiveness.

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon? He didn't, that's obvious if you compare it to any of his other writing samples, it's as obvious as green is not red.

Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have seen God? Maybe not, but I do have a God who would have visited Joseph Smith. My God would do that.

The true and living church on the earth? So many ways to talk about this, but The Church encompasses all truth, yes. The Church encompasses whatever truth is in atheism, Islam, medical sciences, great fiction, on and on and on. The church is EVERYTHING.

Anyway, I could go on, but I'm sure this is already boring.

. . . . but please stop trying to tell me that it's not okay to be Mormon (not just you, but anyone who wants to try). And it's okay if you're not .

[why me]

I don't consider myself an apologist, but I often experience consternation on others' insistence that I *must* feel a connection with Church history. I never have!

I think that lds history has a lot of attractions. I see uniqueness in LDS history and I find Joseph Smith to be an amazing character. Looking into LDS history and just how connective it is with US history, I see a history that is very american. And in their own way, the early saints built a portion of the United States.

I think that if members look at church history with an open mind and attempt to understand it as it was happening and being made, one can be proud to be a mormon. Mormon history is full of courage and with people who dared to be different.

[GingerRed]

Goodness Maidservant....we've been 'jaybeared'! lol....jk.....

You GO girl!! " please stop telling *me* that *I* got it wrong and that *my* experience is invalid and that I don't know how to conduct my own spiritual journey. (And I don't mean just you here, but any who approaches me that way simply because I am Mormon.)" ...that sums it up quite nicely.

And jaybear.....what YOU think are "red flags" are not to other people. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am free to disagree with your opinion.

I agree it's "okay that your not.".....I'm not trying to sway anyone either...live and let live. (several on this board sure have a hard time with that!!)

Good post, why me.

Red

Edited May 6, 2012 by GingerRed

[why me]

The point is that he should give into extreme confirmation bias?

Look for a "sign" that you can interpret as God personally manifesting his will directly to you that "The Church is True."

When you find that sign, you can go ahead and ignore any and all red flags which tell you otherwise.

I suppose that I have a problem: I don't see any red flags. But what I do see are early lds people who made history and did history their way. They were not afraid to live their faith and suffered because of it. What I see are men and women who were brave souls who joined a faith that was unique and different and did so, because they believed in it. And they made many sacrifices because of it and some members fell by the way side but those who carried on built sections of America. And their legacy still lives on.

[why me]

. . . . but please stop trying to tell me that it's not okay to be Mormon (not just you, but anyone who wants to try). And it's okay if you're not .

You forgot the 11 witnesses and their own struggle with their faith. And yet, no one denied their experience. Now that is something to feel good about. Each of these men regardless if they drifted away or stayed, are examples of keeping to their testimony regardless of personal experiences.

[Jaybear]

No. Again, this isn't about what "mormons" think of "non-mormons" and "trying to tell them what to do"; or not only that. It's the other way around--please stop telling *me* that *I* got it wrong and that *my* experience is invalid and that I don't know how to conduct my own spiritual journey. (And I don't mean just you here, but any who approaches me that way simply because I am Mormon.)

...

. . . . but please stop trying to tell me that it's not okay to be Mormon (not just you, but anyone who wants to try). And it's okay if you're not .

I have never once said its not okay to be Mormon. You read that into my comments.

We have to live our own lives, and we have to make our own choices.

From my perspective, I see two good reasons for Darth to be/remain a Mormon, (1) it works for him; and (2) he believes it true.

And the statement that "only those who make the right choice are rewarded with salvation" does not represent the basic teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; nor is it the view point that any spiritually mature person holds whether they reach that maturity in hinduism, atheism, mormonism, or elsewhere. If that is what you are thinking, no wonder you reject it! I do too!

CDowis, just an hour earlier: "I am glad that I did not throw away my salvation for a mess of pottage.."

Facts and reason may be another thread. But for myself I have come to view the world as a 100 percent construct of perception and that reality is completely creative. I know this is probably not common for most people and definitely not common for most LDS. So I know my approach is unique. But I let people be who they are. If you are happy and comfortable and alive in your life, Jaybear, then I don't need to you make a choice to be mormon or believe in God or anything. I trust you with your own mind, heart and choices.

Interesting perspective. But I think we are more alike than different. People need to make their own decisions. But, I am also in favor of people making informed decisions. In this case, I am simply warning Darth of the risk of confirmation bias.

I don't know, but I learned that by being a Mormon where they taught me all about agency and choice.

I am a huge fan of the LDS doctrine of agency, in theory. In practice, .... that's another discussion.

Apologetics is not about getting people to be Mormons again, or new people to be Mormons, or to make people who aren't Mormons feel like crap for making that choice

I agree. Apologetics is not a good tool for winning converts.

Apologetics is because people are choosing to assault *us* for *our* choices to remain and be human beings in this organization and for actually--yes--believing it! Gasp! Someone believed something! AAAgggggh! What morons! Believing in Jesus! How dare we! How dare we engage in such a child-like act and see where it leads! Apologetics is the opportunity to show how and in what way The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes sense intellectually, spiritually, emotionally or in any other way we want to talk about. It's also about doing our best to make an accurate representation, so that if others have a problem with the Church, they can at least have a problem with the Church as it is, instead of a caricature that NO ONE believes. Can we convince anyone? Probably not. But it's not as if there isn't some foundation for it; just as there is intellectual, spiritual, emotional and etc reason to not be a part of the Church. And I do have a problem with LDS who can't respect others' individual choice to not participate in the Church.

I think that a worthwhile definition and great goal of apologetics. My experience, in practice, however, is that most apologists here are not interested in reasoned discussion of the evidence, but more often are looking to score imaginary point or "poison the well" by insulting those who disagree with them, like this post:

Goodness Maidservant....we've been 'jaybeared'! lol....jk.....

Ginger gets 5 apologist browie points for the gratuitious "we've been jaybeared" insult.

The Church is rich? I'd rather have money in the hands of the Church than anywhere else. Do I want to be a part of a Church that doesn't know what to do with money? This actually excites me.

Confirmation bias? If the Church was breaking even, or struggling financially, I am sure you could find a reasons to see that as a positive. Jesus/money changers and all.

Polyandry? I came across this AFTER I asked God if it was okay if I had two husbands (eternally) which is a very personal problem to my life experience, so coming across this was an extremely positive experience.

I don't have a problem with polyandry. My opinion is that people should be free to form relationships that give them joy, satisfaction and confort from life.

But at the same time, I am also suspicious of anyone claiming to be a prophet of God, who uses this "gift" to take other mens wives. Here is see a red flag.

I also think its hypocritical for Mormons to justify polygamy, tout free agency, yet oppose gay marriage.

Peeping stone to translate? I want one!

To me, just another red flag, on par with crystal balls and tarrot cards.

Blacks without the priesthood? Not sure still here, but wow, I'm glad we are past that!

The prophet that denied blacks the priesthood, also said that slavery was a divine institution.

I find it easier to believe that he was a fasle prophet, than to believe that slavery was a gift from God to humanity.

Baptism necessary for salvation? Really? Well, everyone is going to have one available, so it's actually a representation of inclusiveness and universality instead exclusiveness.

Global flood. Not plausible. Baptism is archaic ritual. Again, hard for me to believe that an all powerful and all knowing God can't or won't award salvation to worthy souls without them first participating in an archaic ritual.

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon? He didn't, that's obvious if you compare it to any of his other writing samples, it's as obvious as green is not red.

If you believe that the Bom comes from God, based on the hard evidence, then there is really no need to discuss the role of faith.

Anyway, I could go on, but I'm sure this is already boring.

I have enjoyed the discussion.

[Jaybear]

I suppose that I have a problem: I don't see any red flags. But what I do see are early lds people who made history and did history their way. They were not afraid to live their faith and suffered because of it. What I see are men and women who were brave souls who joined a faith that was unique and different and did so, because they believed in it. And they made many sacrifices because of it and some members fell by the way side but those who carried on built sections of America. And their legacy still lives on.

You have consistently and persistently asserted that the most rational and logical explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon, is the story that Smith told of angels, gold plates, and seer stones. If that were true, there would be no reason to pray for a spiritual confirmation.

[Log]

You have consistently and persistently asserted that the most rational and logical explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon, is the story that Smith told of angels, gold plates, and seer stones. If that were true, there would be no reason to pray for a spiritual confirmation.

Please feel free to demonstrate the logical necessity of the consequent given the antecedent. Edited May 6, 2012 by Log

[Jaybear]

Please feel free to demonstrate the logical necessity of the consequent given the antecedent.

What does that mean In English.

[Log]

CFR

[Jaybear]

CFR

CFR what?

[why me]

You have consistently and persistently asserted that the most rational and logical explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon, is the story that Smith told of angels, gold plates, and seer stones. If that were true, there would be no reason to pray for a spiritual confirmation.

Not really. But I do find the witnesses' confirmation, at times on their deathbeds to be very powerful and strong. Now I could understand it if they were crooks and fraudsters but these people seem to be decent people who had respect in the community. And that speaks volumes.

[Log]

CFR that if the single most rational explanation for the Book of Mormon is Joseph's account, then there is no need to pray for a spiritual confirmation.

Seems like a big, fat non sequitur to me.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Log

[GingerRed]

Jaybear.....I SAID jk !!.....I apologize then if that offended you.

But...I find offense in those that say, like you, that those of us who know all about the church's past and make that 'informed decision' ...and STILL remain faithful because we've experienced our OWN witness to the truth, insinuate that we must be pretty stupid or crazy. You think that THAT's not insulting? It is to me.

[Log]

Let me clarify the obvious error in Jaybear's position.

Just because it happens to be the case that the simplest, most rational, and consistent explanation for the Book of Mormon is Joseph's explanation, it does not follow that spiritual confirmation is unnecessary. Consider the following.

For these two critics of Mormonism, divine involvement in the origins of the Book of Mormon is, effectively, impossible, ruled out by their current stance toward the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith. So they’re willing to accept extraordinarily improbable just-so stories, in the absence of any even marginally serious supporting evidence, rather than to entertain the explanation that believing Latter-day Saints accept. Since they can’t believe in nothing, they’re willing, from my point of view, to believe in anything. As the late Utah historian Dale Morgan notoriously put it in a 1945 letter to the believing Latter-day Saint historian Juanita Brooks,

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.

Clearly, just being simple, rational, and consistent with all known evidence is not enough. Otherwise, Jaybear'd be a Mormon.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

3. Some of the members are toxic and being at church requires contact with them/

It helps me to keep in mind that one is likely to find a lot of sick people at the hospital.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 7, 2012 by wenglund

[mentalgymnast]

Baptism is archaic ritual. Again, hard for me to believe that an all powerful and all knowing God can't or won't award salvation to worthy souls without them first participating in an archaic ritual.

Archaic rituals theoretically (at least from the Christian/LDS POV) play a part in the organization of the human family beyond this mortal sphere of existence. Jesus said that there are many mansions in the hereafter. Degrees of glory, it could be said. Your usage of the word "salvation" is rather meaningless without also having to account for the wide variety of human inhabitants that live and have lived on the earth. Archaic rituals such as baptism guidance/help in the organizational logistics involved in creating ongoing familial and societal organizations beyond this little piece of time and space. What point, really, is there to calling something "archaic" when one considers the breadth and depth of eternity?

Of course if there isn't any continuation of human intelligence beyond the grave then I would have to concede that your argument has some merit to the extent that everyone will be awarded the same degree (or in reality, non-degree/absence) of salvation, archaic rituals or not.

Annihilation. But that's not much to look forward to is it?

BTW, who's job is it anyway to tell God how or how not He is supposed to do things? Good luck with that. It seems to me that God is perfectly able to choose/delineate the way he goes about putting into place the organizational tempate for an ongoing eternity. It's up to us whether or not we buy into it or not.

Regards,

MG