Brigham Young On Extermination Order of Timpanogos in 1850

[Anakin7]

I have been in conversation with an LDS critic - Charls Brocka on Facebook concerning evils done to LDS in the past - murders, killings, tortures, beatings rapes, evils by so called protestant evangelical christians and others of his day to LDS. He replied to me concerning the Brigham Young extermination order of the Timpanogos Indian Tribe of 1850. Is Brigham Young in Heaven ?, not according to Christ Jesus Brother John who stated murderers do not Enter The Kingdom of Heaven according to him.  Any observations or thoughts on this ?. Thank you all in advance.  See - https://www.blackhawkproductions.com/brigham-young-discourses.htm  . Be sure to click all the blue links to article on the website.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Anakin7

[Pyreaux]

This is my first time hearing it. Seems like a very murky conflict. Brigham Young told the Mormons to stay out of Utah County. Some malcontents decided they needed to go to Provo (Utah Fort) against his orders. They built a fort right on one of the main places of the Timpanogos Utes in Provo, they brought cattle that were eating things the Utes foraged. After Timpanogos take cattle in 1850, Provo people asked for help, right or wrong, the Timpanogos were seen as renegades who fired first and the Nauvoo Legion was called out to exterminate the Utes there. Though other Utes elsewhere were Brigham's allies.

This is my limited understanding of Brigham's involvement. I'm not sure exactly if Brigham's governmental extermination order alone justified labeling him a "murderer". If a governor orders an execution of someone, even with extenuating circumstances or wrongly convicted, is that governor a murderer? A damned murderer?

Edited October 20, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

Brigham Young through Daniel H. Wells, orders on January 31, 1850, to "Cooperate with the inhabitants of said valley in quelling and staying the operations of all hostile Indians and otherwise act as the circumstances may require exterminating such, as do not separate themselves from their hostile clans and sue for peace."

It wasn't exactly an order to simply kill them all per se, or "murder" them. Only “hostile clans” who would not accept or “sue for peace.”

Brigham said some unconnected but condescending things about natives, but he had some respect also believing they were Book of Mormon people. Brigham Young's actual relations with natives varied from tribe to tribe: He had a friendly relationship with the Shoshone Utes. His general thoughts seemed to be that cattle for peace was always cheaper than war.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

I would be cautious about drawing any final conclusions about speeches of Brigham Young since there is a good chance they were altered by George Watts who transcribed them and when he translated his shorthand to English, he was at times creative with his interpretations because he preferred Brigham sound more flowery, more prophety than he though Brigham sounded.  He was not the only one apparently.

For example:

Quote

She emphasizes that Brigham Young was a powerful speaker. He cared about the people, and they knew that he cared about them. When George Watt changed Brigham Young’s words, he changed what Brigham Young said about himself. She feels the real Brigham Young has been lost to us as we view him through his discourses printed in the Journal of Discourses.

In her research, she discovered that the “one drop” phrase attributed to Brigham Young by Wilford Woodruff did not exist in the original shorthand transcription of George Watt on a speech relating to the priesthood and temple ban.

https://ldsperspectives.com/2017/02/15/in-brighams-words/

the transcript:

https://ldsperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/22LDSP-In-Brigham-Youngs-Words-with-Dirkmaat-and-Carruth.pdf

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-prophets-have-spoken-but-what-did-they-say-examining-the-differences-between-george-d-watts-original-shorthand-notes-and-the-sermons-published-in-the-journal-of-discourses/

Edited October 20, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

This is my first time hearing it. Seems like a very murky conflict. Brigham Young told the Mormons to stay out of Utah County. Some malcontents decided they needed to go to Provo (Utah Fort) against his orders. They built a fort right on one of the main places of the Timpanogos Utes in Provo, they brought cattle that were eating things the Utes foraged. Timpanogos after taking Mormon cattle in 1850, Provo people asked for help, right or wrong, the Timpanogos were seen as renegades who fired first and the Nauvoo Legion was called out to exterminate the Utes there. Though other Utes elsewhere were Brigham's allies.

This is my limited understanding of Brigham's involvement. I'm not sure exactly if Brigham's governmental extermination order alone justified labeling him a "murderer". If a governor orders an execution of someone, even with extenuating circumstances or wrongly convicted, is that governor a murderer? A damned murderer?

From what I have read about this Brigham Young sent the settlers to build Fort Utah. It makes sense. It was a conduit to settlements further out.

[Navidad]

On 10/19/2023 at 10:49 PM, Anakin7 said:

I have been in conversation with an LDS critic - Charls Brocka on Facebook concerning evils done to LDS in the past - murders, killings, tortures, beatings rapes, evils by so called protestant evangelical christians and others of his day to LDS. He replied to me concerning the Brigham Young extermination order of the Timpanogos Indian Tribe of 1850. Is Brigham Young in Heaven ?, not according to Christ Jesus Brother John who stated murderers do not Enter The Kingdom of Heaven according to him.  Any observations or thoughts on this ?. Thank you all in advance.  See - https://www.blackhawkproductions.com/brigham-young-discourses.htm  . Be sure to click all the blue links to article on the website.

 

 

I am curious as to how you know the personal faith, or lack thereof of those "protestant evangelical christians and others" of his day or of any other day who committed all the atrocities you mentioned? How many were Protestants? How many were Catholics? How many were evangelicals (small e - not the Evangelicals of today who didn't exist prior to 1942)? How many were "christians?" How many were others? How many were of no faith? Can you provide me a list of the personal faiths or lack thereof, and motivation of those involved at Hawn's Mill? Those who attacked Smith and Rigdon in Ohio? Those who raped and killed a Mormon woman in Guadalupe, Chihuahua? I am not sure what "murders" you are talking about, but could you provide me the faiths and your source of the same for those who were involved? What is the difference between murders and killings? I am especially interested in the "evils" you mention? What might they be and what was the specific faith and motivation of those who committed these "evils?"

Most important, how many were committed over conflicts specifically about religion? How many were caused by conflicts over ideology (politics, etc.)? How many were caused by conflicts over resources (land and or water rights, for example)? How many were banditry and basic crimes committed for personal gain, passion, or other reasons that had nothing to do with religion?

If you have the data for the same information about the same things and reasons for crimes (especially murders and killings) by members of the church, I would be interested in that as well. You bring up a great unexplored (to my knowledge) area for further historical study. I am asking as a historian, not as a non-member of the church.

Anyone else who has data on such conflicts are welcome to offer the same. I once was scolded by an LDS senator over a talk I gave and an article I wrote claiming that no "Mormons" were killed in the Mexican revolution because of their faith. For example Mexican Mormon converts fought in the zapatista army, and were killed, but not because of their faith. Some were hung by carrancista soldiers, but not because of their faith. Today they are often considered martyrs. Hmm.

I continue in that belief, but am always interested in knowing more. I am unaware of any studies done about the etiology of the violence done by and to the members of the church in the various periods between the church's founding and today. That might make a great book or thesis. Thanks.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Navidad

[CA Steve]

The best treatment I have seen on this is Jared Farmer's On Zion's Mount: Mormons, Indians, and the American Landscape.

Bottom line is we (the Mormons) didn't treat the descendants of Lehi any better than anybody else.. Not a great standard for a group of people who thought that the American natives were the chosen people.

[Navidad]

Just now, CA Steve said:

The best treatment I have seen on this is Jared Farmer's On Zion's Mount: Mormons, Indians, and the American Landscape.

Bottom line is we (the Mormons) didn't treat the descendants of Lehi any better than anybody else.. Not a great standard for a group of people who thought that the American natives were the chosen people.

I second CA Steve's recommendation of Farmer's book.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

I have been in conversation with an LDS critic - Charls Brocka on Facebook concerning evils done to LDS in the past - murders, killings, tortures, beatings rapes, evils by so called protestant evangelical christians and others of his day to LDS. He replied to me concerning the Brigham Young extermination order of the Timpanogos Indian Tribe of 1850. Is Brigham Young in Heaven ?, not according to Christ Jesus Brother John who stated murderers do not Enter The Kingdom of Heaven according to him.  Any observations or thoughts on this ?. Thank you all in advance.  See - https://www.blackhawkproductions.com/brigham-young-discourses.htm  . Be sure to click all the blue links to article on the website.

 

 

https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2023/08/30/loken-rescind-timpanogos-extermination-order/#:~:text=Young acted as the leader,their extermination and unequal treatment.

https://mormonr.org/qnas/dxS5B/native_american_extermination_order

IMO Brigham was a fairly ruthless and evil man.

[Anakin7]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am curious as to how you know the personal faith, or lack thereof of those "protestant evangelical christians and others" of his day or of any other day who committed all the atrocities you mentioned? How many were Protestants? How many were Catholics? How many were evangelicals (small e - not the Evangelicals of today who didn't exist prior to 1942)? How many were "christians?" How many were others? How many were of no faith? Can you provide me a list of the personal faiths or lack thereof, and motivation of those involved at Hawn's Mill? Those who attacked Smith and Rigdon in Ohio? Those who raped and killed a Mormon woman in Guadalupe, Chihuahua? I am not sure what "murders" you are talking about, but could you provide me the faiths and your source of the same for those who were involved? What is the difference between murders and killings? I am especially interested in the "evils" you mention? What might they be and what was the specific faith and motivation of those who committed these "evils?"

Most important, how many were committed over conflicts specifically about religion? How many were caused by conflicts over ideology (politics, etc.)? How many were caused by conflicts over resources (land and or water rights, for example)? How many were banditry and basic crimes committed for personal gain, passion, or other reasons that had nothing to do with religion?

If you have the data for the same information about the same things and reasons for crimes (especially murders and killings) by members of the church, I would be interested in that as well. You bring up a great unexplored (to my knowledge) area for further historical study. I am asking as a historian, not as a non-member of the church.

Anyone else who has data on such conflicts are welcome to offer the same. I once was scolded by an LDS senator over a talk I gave and an article I wrote claiming that no "Mormons" were killed in the Mexican revolution because of their faith. For example Mexican Mormon converts fought in the zapatista army, and were killed, but not because of their faith. Some were hung by carrancista soldiers, but not because of their faith. Today they are often considered martyrs. Hmm.

I continue in that belief, but am always interested in knowing more. I am unaware of any studies done about the etiology of the violence done by and to the members of the church in the various periods between the church's founding and today. That might make a great book or thesis. Thanks.

 Protestant Evangelical Baptist minister Levi Williams led the bloodthirsty mob to murder Joseph Smith and his brother. Is he in Heaven now ?. Christ Jesus brother John said within the pages of The N.T murderers do not enter Heaven.

 

 

 

 

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

 Protestant Evangelical Baptist minister Levi Williams led the bloodthirsty mob to murder Joseph Smith and his brother. Is he in Heaven now ?. Christ Jesus brother John said within the pages of The N.T murderers do not enter Heaven.

 

 

 

 

Interesting. On what basis do you think Levi Williams opposed the Mormons in Illinois? In this role as an "occasional Baptist minister" whatever that means, or in his role as a colonel in the Illinois militia, or in his capacity as a county commissioner?  He was apparently a veteran of the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. Wikipedia tells us "According to "Wild Bill" Hickman, Williams told him that because the Mormons 'ruled the county [and] elected whom they pleased ... the old settlers had no chance'. Killing the Smiths, Williams claimed, 'was the only way they could get rid of them.'" 

Where is the religiosity in that motivation to violence? I would argue it is obviously wrong to kill anyone based on either religious, ideological, or political reasons. But this appears to be a clear cut political and military motivation. Ruling and electioneering are not religious concepts. Protecting the "old settlers" was not a religious motivation. Why would you select a part-time-once-in-a-while minister who was an avowed military and political leader for sixty years as an example of a Missourian who was motivated by religion in his activities? Are indeed all those members of the church who committed murders in MMM eliminated from heaven, or in LDS terms the celestial kingdom? Sacred history is indeed fascinating whether in 1844, 1858, 1958, or the late-twentieth century!

Edited October 21, 2023 by Navidad

[Anakin7]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Interesting. On what basis do you think Levi Williams opposed the Mormons in Illinois? In this role as an "occasional Baptist minister" whatever that means, or in his role as a colonel in the Illinois militia, or in his capacity as a county commissioner?  He was apparently a veteran of the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. Wikipedia tells us "According to "Wild Bill" Hickman, Williams told him that because the Mormons 'ruled the county [and] elected whom they pleased ... the old settlers had no chance'. Killing the Smiths, Williams claimed, 'was the only way they could get rid of them.'" 

Where is the religiosity in that? I would argue it is obviously wrong to kill anyone based on either religious or political reasons. But this appears to be a clear cut political and military motivation. Ruling and electioneering are not religious concepts. Protecting the "old settlers" was not a religious motivation. Why would you select a part-time-once-in-a-while minister who was an avowed military and political leader for sixty years as an example of a Protestant Evangelical (when there were no Evangelicals in these years - they didn't exist until 1942) as a political and military leader motivated by religion in his activities? Are indeed all those members of the church who committed murders in MMM eliminated from heaven, or in LDS terms the celestial kingdom? Sacred history is indeed fascinating whether in 1844, 1858, 1958, or the late-twentieth century!

 Are we talking about the same Levi Williams in his heart and mind ?.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by Anakin7

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

 Are we talking about the same Levi Williams in his heart and mind ?.

 

 

I guess I am talking about seeking to understand what motivated Levi Williams to do whatever it is he did. You bought him up and only mentioned his religious affiliation so you seem to think his religious beliefs were his causal forces.

I am adding context that he was a colonel in the militia, a county commissioner which would have put him in the middle of a host of political and land/water rights disputes. I am doubtful his status as a part-time Baptist minister was the dominant factor in his decision-making regarding whatever actions he took. Yet, that is the only information you provided us about him.

The sacred history of those afflicted often sees religion as the prime motivation in conflicts when they were at best a mosaic or mixed bag of violence with various causes. That is most likely demonstrated in the causes of the Mormon actions in MMM, in the 20th century Cristero Wars here in Mexico, the Shepherds Crusades in 14th century France and Spain, in the Illorin Wars in 19th century Nigeria, or in the Thirty Years War in 17th century Europe.

In Nov 2019, some members of the broad-based Mormon Fundamentalist community in Chihuahua and Sonora were killed. Neither their religious beliefs or the lack thereof, or the religious beliefs of those who killed them had anything to do with their deaths. Yet, in all the press, they were described primarily as either US citizens or Mormon fundamentalists. It is most likely those who did the deed were Catholic. It is highly unlikely the religious beliefs of the attackers or those attacked had anything to do with the tragedy.

The religious beliefs of the natives in Utah in the mid-19th century had nothing to do with how they were treated by the Saints, unless they were the Paiute Mission converts in the deep south of Utah. In the rest of Utah, they were simply people in the way of the Saints, who were themselves the interlopers in the native's historic land.

The problems with the Saints in the places to which they migrated were not primarily their religious beliefs, but that they were inevitably liminal (in-between) interlopers, others, outsiders in the way of those who came before them. That is true in Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, and yes, even here in Mexico. And just to be fair that is also the migratory history of the Mennonites and Amish, just for hundreds of years longer. Their collective religious beliefs were considered "strange" but they weren't killed for being strange. They were killed for being strangers in the land; sometimes for being too successful strangers in the land. Jealousy was most likely more of a motivation than religious beliefs. Disputes over patrimony were probably at the bottom of most of the conflicts.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

Are indeed all those members of the church who committed murders in MMM eliminated from heaven, or in LDS terms the celestial kingdom?

Poor understanding still, of our Doctrine.

Most likely "murderers" would end up in the telestial kingdom, unless of course they had, virtually impossibly, seen God in their previous life and denied, in analogy, "the brightness of the sun" while staring straight at it.

For us, apparently, heaven and hell are a little different than your beliefs.

Someone LDS would never use those terms that way, so don't expect too many answers. 🙂

[Anakin7]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

I guess I am talking about seeking to understand what motivated Levi Williams to do whatever it is he did. You bought him up and only mentioned his religious affiliation so you seem to think his religious beliefs were his causal forces.

I am adding context that he was a colonel in the militia, a county commissioner which would have put him in the middle of a host of political and land/water rights disputes. I am doubtful his status as a part-time Baptist minister was the dominant factor in his decision-making regarding whatever actions he took. Yet, that is the only information you provided us about him.

The sacred history of those afflicted often sees religion as the prime motivation in conflicts when they were at best a mosaic or mixed bag of violence with various causes. That is most likely demonstrated in the causes of the Mormon actions in MMM, in the 20th century Cristero Wars here in Mexico, the Shepherds Crusades in 14th century France and Spain, in the Illorin Wars in 19th century Nigeria, or in the Thirty Years War in 17th century Europe.

In Nov 2019, some members of the broad-based Mormon Fundamentalist community in Chihuahua and Sonora were killed. Neither their religious beliefs or the lack thereof, or the religious beliefs of those who killed them had anything to do with their deaths. Yet, in all the press, they were described primarily as either US citizens or Mormon fundamentalists. It is most likely those who did the deed were Catholic. It is highly unlikely the religious beliefs of the attackers or those attacked had anything to do with the tragedy.

The religious beliefs of the natives in Utah in the mid-19th century had nothing to do with how they were treated by the Saints, unless they were the Paiute Mission converts in the deep south of Utah. In the rest of Utah, they were simply people in the way of the Saints, who were themselves the interlopers in the native's historic land.

The problems with the Saints in the places to which they migrated were not primarily their religious beliefs, but that they were inevitably liminal (in-between) interlopers, others, outsiders in the way of those who came before them. That is true in Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, and yes, even here in Mexico. And just to be fair that is also the migratory history of the Mennonites and Amish, just for hundreds of years longer. Their collective religious beliefs were considered "strange" but they weren't killed for being strange. They were killed for being strangers in the land; sometimes for being too successful strangers in the land. Jealousy was most likely more of a motivation than religious beliefs. Disputes over patrimony were probably at the bottom of most of the conflicts.

What was in his heart and mind at those moments in time as a [ part Time Baptist minister ? ] whatever that is - a fence sitter ? ] when in his heart to murder another human being. Its Christ Jesus call. 

 

 

[Navidad]

On 10/21/2023 at 11:16 AM, mfbukowski said:

Poor understanding still, of our Doctrine.

Most likely "murderers" would end up in the telestial kingdom, unless of course they had, virtually impossibly, seen God in their previous life and denied, in analogy, "the brightness of the sun" while staring straight at it.

For us, apparently, heaven and hell are a little different than your beliefs.

Someone LDS would never use those terms that way, so don't expect too many answers. 🙂

I never mentioned hell. I never mentioned my beliefs. I only asked a question - a clarifying question - that is what I do when I have a "poor understanding" of what someone on this forum has said.

On the other hand, I understand that the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are places absent the perpetual presence of the Father and the Son. Those who inherit terrestrial glory will “receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness (sic) of the Father.  Receiving "of the presence of the Son?" Not sure what that means . . . but neither will have the "fulness (sic) of the Father. That is all I need to know to keep me from personally adopting the LDS faith.

[Navidad]

On 10/22/2023 at 12:22 AM, Anakin7 said:

 

History is complicated.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Navidad
Don't want to respond in way that creates conflict

[Calm]

@Anakin7, maybe you could share your background in some detail with Navidad. It has been a long while since you did that. There are probably a number of newer posters who are not aware of your long history of having conversations with other Christians. That might help Navidad understand where you are coming from and why you post the kind of posts you do.

How long have you been posting on this board?  I remember it as being almost from the beginning, but your profile says joined in 2010 and I am now wondering if you posted under a different name originally. It would be nice if you refreshed my poor memory. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I never mentioned hell. I never mentioned my beliefs. I only asked a question - a clarifying question - that is what I do when I have a "poor understanding" of what someone on this forum has said.

On the other hand, I understand that the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are places absent the perpetual presence of the Father and the Son. Those who inherit terrestrial glory will “receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness (sic) of the Father.  Receiving "of the presence of the Son?" Not sure what that means . . . but neither will have the "fulness (sic) of the Father. That is all I need to know to keep me from personally adopting the LDS faith.

1Peter 5:

"1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

² Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

³ Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

⁴ And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

So if all who are "saved" have an equal reward, what IS the "crown of glory"?

Is that fair?

Is it just?

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

1Peter 5:

"1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

² Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

³ Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

⁴ And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

So if all who are "saved" have an equal reward, what IS the "crown of glory"?

Is that fair?

Is it just?

 

 

 

From a reading of the New Testament it would appear that there are at least five differing crowns that a Christian might be awarded in heaven. Is that fair? Of course! Is it just? Of course! Why wouldn't it be? Is someone winning a medal in the military fair or just? Of course, if it is awarded based on true excellence above and beyond "the call of duty." Is awarding medals in the Olympics fair and just to those who have excelled? Of course. I am not sure why you ask? I expect to be awarded eternity in heaven. I do not believe I will merit any crowns for having gone above and beyond the call of Christian duty. Will I be jealous of those who are awarded the same? I don't think so. My Christian commitment is solid, not special.

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I expect to be awarded eternity in heaven. I do not believe I will merit any crowns for having gone above and beyond the call of Christian duty. Will I be jealous of those who are awarded the same? I don't think so. My Christian commitment is solid, not special.

 

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Those who inherit terrestrial glory will “receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness (sic) of the Father.  Receiving "of the presence of the Son?" Not sure what that means . . . but neither will have the "fulness (sic) of the Father. That is all I need to know to keep me from personally adopting the LDS faith.

These two statements appear conflicting; the first seems to approve of differential rewards for the extra-valient, the second appears to disapprove of inequality in rewards.

"Crowns" that only some receive seem to entail greater rewards for some than others. 

THEN it appears that you are asserting that you will not join the COJCOLDS, because it believes in differential rewards, YET you admit you are "Not sure what that means".

Very confusing for me.

I cannot imagine how extra awards for the extra-valient are not justifiable.

[Navidad]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

 

These two statements appear conflicting; the first seems to approve of differential rewards for the extra-valient, the second appears to disapprove of inequality in rewards.

"Crowns" that only some receive seem to entail greater rewards for some than others. 

THEN it appears that you are asserting that you will not join the COJCOLDS, because it believes in differential rewards, YET you admit you are "Not sure what that means".

Very confusing for me.

I cannot imagine how extra awards for the extra-valient are not justifiable.

Sorry, but I don't see my statements as conflicting at all. The idea of rewards personally granted by Christ in heaven to the extra-valiant is completely justifiable to me. I don't disagree with you one whit. However, I believe heaven and eternal life with Father and Son is not a reward; it is a gift.

It is the concept of a wonderful, marvelous, tremendous, radiant, fulfilling eternity in the absence of the presence of the Father and the Son that is both conflicting for me and not a place I would be very happy to dwell in for all eternity. That sounds suspiciously like an empty eternity.

Practicing the presence of Christ is my goal for both this life and the next. Neither of those come to me via a church affiliation or any church's ordinances. That is the light I have been given, have received, and have accepted. My baptism was and my life (with its covenants) is (to the best of my limited ability) a testimony of that.

Fortunately my eternal destiny is not dependent on my worthiness. My eternal destiny is dependent on the worthiness of Christ and His work in the atonement and that of the Father in starting the whole salvific process in motion. I owe them both my eternal gratitude for that work of Theirs.

My aim is to go right on learning and growing with Them for eternity. I especially want to learn and understand better Their ability to be completely just and merciful at the same time. I think my humanity limits my understanding of that. I look forward to "understand it better by and by" as the old hymn says. I look forward to what you deem the celestial kingdom and I deem the celestial city! See you there my friend!

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

The idea of rewards personally granted by Christ in heaven to the extra-valiant is completely justifiable to me. I don't disagree with you one whit. However, I believe heaven and eternal life with Father and Son is not a reward; it is a gift.

Ok, fine.

Just think of exaltation as a "gift", which it is, an ENDOWMENT, and get you to the baptismal font! 😄

We are not ONLY speaking about "going to heaven" here, we are talking about having your calling and election made sure, AND BECOMING LIKE GOD HIMSELF.

No, THAT is not something you get with a few magic words.  THAT is the first step.

I wouldn't have joined the church you THINK we are either!

Edited October 24, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Anakin7]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

@Anakin7, maybe you could share your background in some detail with Navidad. It has been a long while since you did that. There are probably a number of newer posters who are not aware of your long history of having conversations with other Christians. That might help Navidad understand where you are coming from and why you post the kind of posts you do.

How long have you been posting on this board?  I remember it as being almost from the beginning, but your profile says joined in 2010 and I am now wondering if you posted under a different name originally. It would be nice if you refreshed my poor memory. 

 Yes, perhaps for your poor memory My Brother In Christ Jesus. I am a former Methodist [Baptized as a young man], accepted Christ Jesus as my personal savior in a local park as a young man as I was witnessed to after a football game with some members of a Fundamentalist Independant Baptist church and later that same day water baptized by the pastor there after the alter call. While in High School where I played Football [Wide receiver] Basketball [small forward] Track [Quarter Mile and Mile relay] I met some LDS members/students and accepted there invitation to attend Church and other activities and later was baptized into the church. After High school I received anti LDS materials from 2 different individuals and after might prayer and study at a local Methodist Seminary library I remain LDS. Some of my research has been used in various LDS Apologetic materials. I have family, relatives, friends, coworkers who are Roman Catholic Orthodox, Coptic Egyptian Catholic Orthodox, Greek Catholic Orthodox, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Calvary Chapel, Street Preachers, House Churches, Churches of Christ, just stay at home and read the Bible Christians, I have been to their Church Services, Bible studies, church activities.  I do not do it as much anymore due to being married with more home responsibilities. I Hope Navidad reads this so he can get a better understanding of me. My name change was due to for some reason some time ago I was not allowed to register and post with my old name, [ I think I went by Tanyan at that time] so I had to reregister under a new name.  Hope this helps a little. The Atonement, It Is The Central Doctrine, In His Eternal Debt/Grace, Accessing His Grace By Faith, Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood, He Died To Make Man Holy, It's Not Just 6 Words To A Song, They Have Eternal Meaning, Salvation Comes In And Through His atoning Blood And In No Other Way, Amen, Amen, Amen.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

 Yes, perhaps for your poor memory My Brother In Christ Jesus. I am a former Methodist [Baptized as a young man], accepted Christ Jesus as my personal savior in a local park as a young man as I was witnessed to after a football game with some members of a Fundamentalist Independant Baptist church and later that same day water baptized by the pastor there after the alter call. While in High School where I played Football [Wide receiver] Basketball [small forward] Track [Quarter Mile and Mile relay] I met some LDS members/students and accepted there invitation to attend Church and other activities and later was baptized into the church. After High school I received anti LDS materials from 2 different individuals and after might prayer and study at a local Methodist Seminary library I remain LDS. Some of my research has been used in various LDS Apologetic materials. I have family, relatives, friends, coworkers who are Roman Catholic Orthodox, Coptic Egyptian Catholic Orthodox, Greek Catholic Orthodox, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Calvary Chapel, Street Preachers, House Churches, Churches of Christ, just stay at home and read the Bible Christians, I have been to their Church Services, Bible studies, church activities.  I do not do it as much anymore due to being married with more home responsibilities. I Hope Navidad reads this so he can get a better understanding of me. My name change was due to for some reason some time ago I was not allowed to register and post with my old name, [ I think I went by Tanyan at that time] so I had to reregister under a new name.  Hope this helps a little. The Atonement, It Is The Central Doctrine, In His Eternal Debt/Grace, Accessing His Grace By Faith, Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood, He Died To Make Man Holy, It's Not Just 6 Words To A Song, They Have Eternal Meaning, Salvation Comes In And Through His atoning Blood And In No Other Way, Amen, Amen, Amen.

Thanks. I appreciate learning more about you and your many contacts within Christianity. There are so many diverse folks on this forum. I appreciate the fellowship and learning from everyone. Blessings. Navidad