All Activity

Exactly. That is a great way to discern a Fundamentalist from an Evangelical.

I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but if someone identified to you as an Evangelical who was aggressively and with certitude bashing members of the LDS church, I wouldn't both correcting them. They aren't going to change. Now, to be clear, I would correct them, but I don't think a member of the LDS Church should, unless you simply want to change the subject. I think it greatly depends on if they are asking questions, clarifying, or critiquing rather than onlying and othering. As an Evangelical professor, I taught all my students to be curious and to ask questions of others of all faiths. As an Evangelical, I am also used to and comfortable with differences. For example, I enjoy the current Evangelical debate about Genesis 1 and 2, whether those passages deal with material creation, or functional creation. That is a huge difference and is a wonderful, although sometimes caustic, debate among Evangelicals. Fundamentalists wouldn't even engage in the debate. They would simply inform me they are praying for me to get it right, which of course means, as they see it. I personally think the idea of Gen 1 and 2 as functional creation is brilliant. It means I don't have to bash or be in conflict with what science teaches. If you do anything, I would ask them what they think the difference is between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical. See what they say. That is a way to learn and have a fun discussion without getting into an argument. I enjoy doing something similar in discussing with LeBaron and LDS Mormons. They dress and look alike; but it doesn't take long to sense the differences. If I didn't answer your question, please ask again. Thanks.

On basis that the prologue is a literary device based on its genre, structure, and it ancient Near Eastern themes. Also, Chapters 3 through 42 are written in structured Hebrew verse. There is a stylized, symmetrical rhythm to it. Like the repetitive messengers bringing bad news, or the extremely precise numbers of livestock. I believe there was a Job, there was a council of malicious sons of God, there were people and territory under the protection of one son of God while off limits to the other sons of God, unless given permission by that son of God. Or they'll go to war. If the "adversary" was Baal, or one of the other sons of El, he would not be allowed to destroy Job's property, livestock, servants, and even kill his children, unless the Lord of Israel first gave him permission. Whether literal or a poetic, these boundaries do have real theological backing. But who wrote Job and when? Ever read other Job accounts? Like the Testament of Job?

I wonder why mine only needs to be verified when I have not been posting for half a day or more usually. Sometimes it happens with a long post that has taken me way to long to write and proofread before I hit “submit”.

Do you want to know when it was changed or just evidence it was? The latter: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng Added: oops, should have turned the page, lol

The more I look into this, the more I think you are right, but it’s likely going to take more repetition to rewrite how I think of the antimormon version of Fundamentalists given the decades they and I called them Evangelicals. My experience is that it is difficult to get a Fundamentalist to discuss their own beliefs. They spend a lot of time though quoting what they think mine should be. Of course, that may be because I typically encounter them on forums like this one. Can’t remember if I have asked you this before or not… When a Fundamentalist tells me they are Evangelical, how can I respect their choice while still being accurate in identification? Do you find Evangelical Fundamentalist acceptable even if it’s not correct using the categories you believe and I am leaning towards portray the differences best (since Evangelical is in the same category as Fundamentalist so it would be like saying an animal was an invertebrate vertebrate)? Especially since they could take the label of Fundamentalist as intending to be an insult given how it’s used these days. Most of the time I would likely avoid even mentioning the label to avoid possible offense, but I can see a possible need if I am pointing out differences between them and Mainstreams and Evangelicals (perhaps in refuting a claim a Christian must believe ______).

This topic?

There is certainly nothing wrong with critiquing someone's beliefs. That is often fun. Where we err is when we walk down the slippery slope to symbolic violence: Ranking, Generalizing, NormalizIng, Onlying, and Othering. Those are, in my experience, precursors to much of human conflict and all of the many forms of violence.

The current General Handbook, section 38.6.4, “Birth Control,” says: “The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.” the last sentence is important to note. Seems to me that it has been explicitly stated that your judgement of others on this topic is the actual sin?

The problem of course is that Satan in Job is not the Satan of Christianity. He's a member of the divine council and he's not working in opposition to God. He's just testing Job's loyalty, and God lets him. Trying to map Job onto LDS or Christian theology doesn't work well because their Satan basically functions as the god of evil. In Job Satan is on God's side.

We we have to be able to buy them if we are to wear them.

Agreed. It’s much worse for me now than it used to be

You know me too well. There are those who consider there to be a single continuum from Fundamentalist to Mainstream - meaning conservative to progressive or liberal within non-LDS Christianity. This view is made without regard to specific denominational affiliation. It is a continuum, something like a normal curve. Others, including me believe they (Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Mainstream) represent three very different movements with different and specific characteristics, history, and orthopraxy in addition to orthodoxies. In my thinking the Mainstream was the original - mainstream Christianity in the USA specifically we might say. Then Fundamentalism arose to counter what had become the Mainstream social gospel at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. It became a distinct movement with specific characteristics and again was regardless of denomination or affiliation. Then in the 1940s, there arose a third, mostly USA-based movement known as Evangelicalism. It arose in reaction to Fundamentalism with its own unique orthopraxies and orthodoxies. Over the eighty or so years of the existence of the Evangelical movement, it has widened to become what is often deemed a “large tent” movement. Very simplistically, it is often said that ask an Evangelical what they believe and they will tell you what they are "for." Ask a Fundamentalist what they believe, and they will tell you what they are "against." This is overly simplistic, but at the same time somewhat broadly effective. Today, in one form or another, the Mainstreamers are characterized by what has become known as the "social gospel." Ask them what they believe, and they will discuss social justice and other "causes." They might be conservative theologically (rarely) or liberal theologically )more common). There are denominations that fall broadly within each of the three, but always with exceptions. Then of course, there are distinctions within each of the three groups, expanding the complexity. Inspite of the complexity it is pretty easy to determine to which your are speaking after about five minutes of conversation. This is moderately comparable to the movements that exist within Mormonism. They may have been formalized by the creation of a new type of Mormonism. They may also be characterized by orthopraxy within each Mormon group. By and large, when I go to a MHA meeting, I am meeting with a different form of Mormonism than when I attend a ward in Chihuahua, or a ward in rural Utah. Same church; different positions on a conservative to progressive continuum. I happen to believe I have friends who are Evangelical Mormons, and certainly there are Fundamentalist (not in the plural marriage meaning) Mormons, and there is a nascent Mormon Mainstream movement with a focus on social justice, and diversity, such as the Global branch of MHA. Since I live in Chihuahua, I have gone to meetings of the Global branch of MHA and I feel like a rank conservative. Then I hold a meeting here that is a family reunion with a group from Vernal, Utah and I feel like a progressive. So it is with Presbyterians (especially), Methodists (who have recently split into formalized groups representing all three (Fund - Evan - Main). In some sense, I see all three represented here in Latin American Catholicism. as well. Then we get back to the challenge of how do I identify and that being a valid indication of anything. That is where it gets very complicated, especially within the growing non-denominational movement within American Protestantism. When I was a boy, I went to an IFCA church; my dad pastored it. IFCA stands for Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America. That was our denomination; our orthopraxy and orthodoxy were clearly Mennonite. In the fifties it was also a way of separating ourselves from the new Evangelical movement and the traditional Mainstreamers. Now the IFCA type grouping is on the decline. It is not "cool" anymore to be Fundamentalist as it was in the fifties. Why? Because much damage has been done to folks in the name of Fundamentalism. So today, it is rare to walk up to someone and say, "Hi . . . are you a Fundamentalist?" They are more than likely to say, "No, I am independent, unaffiliated, or Evangelical" than they are to acknowledge their Fundamentalism, even though their very reasons for entering into a conversation with you may reveal their Fundamentalist tendency. Ok. . . . . . . Writing too much. I hope this helps. Blessings on all: Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Mainstreamers, and none of the abovers. Navidad

This situation with the verifying is horrible. I am having to reverify every time I change pages. Very frustrating.

Exactly. Imagine if Jesus had said "I don't like this, I'm uncomfortable". There's really a lack of willingness to follow God at all costs. Perhaps we need to take the same approach to the garment that Pres. Woodruff had for fasting. "It was remarked this morning that some people said they could not fast because it made their head ache. Well, I can fast, and so can any other man; and if it makes my head ache by keeping the commandments of God, let it ache."

On what basis do you believe the conversation between Satan and God is a poetic rendition instead of actual one? Were the limits the Lord put on Satan to test Job also poetic?

I agree, though I also think there to be certain current canonized revelation that ought not to be canonized nor considered to be revelation, so you and I would perhaps diverge on that point.

Do you have a reference for that change?

I hope we can focus on the topic. Thanks, -Smac

I anticipate Navidad pointing out these are technically Fundamentalists even if our experience is they called themselves Evangelicals. If I understand correctly Evangelical is more a broad category rather than a set of beliefs or a movement. One could be an Evangelical Catholic. So perhaps I need to start thinking of them as Evangelical Fundamentalists rather than Fundamentalist Evangelicals. That way I include the label they typically chose for themselves while being accurate (hopefully).

I read that article and the ordinance and I don't see any "explicit let transgender people use the restroom of their choice". The ordinance is an anti-discrimination ordinance. It does say that it covers "public accomodations" that could cover public restrooms, but it isn't explicit and I don't see any attempt to use this ordinance in that manner. Additionally, in 2001, there was a case in Minnesota where a transwoman sued her employer because she was denied the right to use the women's bathroom. It went all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court who ruled that the Minnesota Human Rights Act (which had similar language to the Minneapolis ordinance) did not protect her and that her employer could force her to use the men's bathroom. The case is GOINS v. WEST GROUP (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mn-supreme-court/1061687.html is one location to read it). If the Minneapolis ordinance actually allowed transgender people to use the restroom of their choice, then it is odd that she didn't sue under that ordinance. And it is interesting that a very similar law was read the opposite. So, I don't think that the Minneapolis ordinance has anything to do with transgender people and bathrooms.

I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming." No ifs, ands, or buts . . . this is more than just politics . . . https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DLiZ1f9yb/

When that article was written, it was a battle. And they were losing, as evidenced by the disappearance of rabid Evangelicals who stalked us on every LDS site created. (Rabid EVs are a breed unto themselves, not reflective of the entire group.) Mosser and Owen used to post on the old FAIR board. Mosser tended more toward the caricaturing of Mormonism than Owen....who eventually converted to an Orthodox religion. It wasn't so fun for them when we started critiquing their beliefs...and it was very easy to do, even using their own scholars.

It used to be. It is not anymore. This happens a lot. The commandments are much more malleable than the leadership of the Church likes to acknowledge.

Of course the former isn’t actually abuse or grooming and the latter often is so why are you making them equivalent? You’re implying that watching a drag queen read a children’t book is somehow equivalent to being molested or assaulted or propositioned or whatever. That is gross. Again, this is just making drag queens (who often aren’t transgender) into porn. Always. They are a threat just by existing in the vicinity of children. This kind of thinking is sick and demented and wrong.