“If so, then quite unlike Wright, Piper will not allow a robust role for the cleansing, purging, and purifying work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who enter into the new covenant with God.”

Words fail me to describe how inaccurate and ignorant this kind of remark is.

His proof-texting from 3 Nephi to answer how you never say what LDS doctrine or the definition of the LDS gospel does nothing to answer your assertion that the Book of Mormon contains nothing to address the functional and most public aspects of the LDS faith: the temples and all the secret/sacred things which occur in there (marriages on behalf of the dead and baptisms in proxy for dead people). With exception of its affirmation of baptismal regeneration (the heretical requirement of baptism for salvation), your book describes how the Book of Mormon’s theology does not add much to LDS theology and in telling the LDS Plan of Salvation.

This review was not professional when it addressed the author as well, snidely calling you “Reverend Anderson” rather than Rev. Dr. Anderson. Emotion destroyed the effectiveness which FARMS could have applied their own take on this book. True, meaningful dialogue could have taken place.

The review is boiled down to “We do not like this book because it teaches things contrary to what the First Presidency teach us.” This is the exact same view on authority which the Medieval Roman Catholic Church had, only now it is the First Presidency instead of Pope Leo. Yet Luther’s greatest weapon was that he wrote and taught on the Bible in the common vernacular of the people, and that is to your book’s credit.

Soli Deo Gloria

A more continuous, multiple contact, developmental model allows the individual and group issues to surface, and hopefully be explored in a trust building environment. What may seem to be rabbit trails may actually be trust building exercises, and over the longer period movement can be made. Certainly there comes a point where both sides recognize that a decision might be made, and then there could be withdrawal and refusal. However, in a relationship, that may not always be so abrupt. Or if so, there is a history of relationship that the withdrawall”ee” may remember and process further later on in their journey…

I agree with the ideals you state in your comment about expressing love to people regardless of their faith choices. Unfortunately, the reality often falls short of the ideal. Even the language used reflects an underlying attitude. How often is someone who decides to pursue another spiritual path after Mormonism talked about as an “apostate.” That seems to me to be a pejorative term. When they join the LDS church, ward members don’t consider them “apostate” from their previous faith.

I’ve had countless people come to me with stories about how their family ostracized them, their friends no longer talk to them, etc. since they resigned from the LDS church. I pray that your open-hearted attitude would become more the norm. I like that you can testify openly of your convictions, without being threatened by or slandering others who maybe once had those same convictions but no longer do. Thank you!