Navidad

Sorry, I never intended to be condescending. On the other hand., I find the totality of your response a bit confusing. That is ok. I am easily confused these days. I do like to get to know people; that isn't a Protestant trait (I am not Protestant, by the way). Both Protestants and Catholics regularly killed us; so we don't tend to affiliate as either. Perhaps it is condescending to suggest I am Protestant, especially with a small p as you typed it! Maybe that is the Catholic in you! Ha! Gotcha back! At any rate, believing that Christianity is a personal thing that can be observed via relationships, is not being judgmental in my worldview. We are advised in Scripture to know people by their "fruits." (Matthew 7). My valuing of incertitude and my belief in a wideness in God's mercy, are backstops from being judgmental. Maybe that is a blindspot I have. I always have liked the Johari Window. Take care and very best wishes.

I will respectfully suggest what you are describing now is indeed a completely different process. Your OCIA is for church membership in a specific church, not an initiatory rite into Christianity itself. Perhaps before Vatican II, what you said would be the same as the LDS. But, no longer. Every Christian organization that I know has teaching opportunities or requirements before membership in the specific and individual church. It is like becoming Mennonite. You would be taught the importance to Mennonites of putting aside violence, footwashing, etc., something I might not understand coming into a Mennonite church from being Lutheran, or Catholic, or LDS. The difference is that coming into the LDS church grants you a first-time access into the three joys of Christianity that no one outside the LDS church may experience. This is the place for someone to tell me I am doctrinally incorrect but for the LDS there is no remission of sin in any other church or ordinance outside of LDS baptism, confirmation and receipt of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. There is no full and complete Christianity outside the LDS church. None of the OCIA processes as you describe them that I, Navidads would undergo in today's Catholic church is for remission of sin. If I am wrong, I am sure you will let me know (and you should). Entrance into the kingdom of God is a path taken by one person at a time. Entrance into a church organization may or may not be one's first encounter with the Kingdom of God and the fellowship of the believers. So, I will respectfully suggest you do differ from the LDS here. The mainstream Catholic Church makes no more claim to exclusivityas it did in the 19th century and before. You might as a member of a certain conservative branch of Catholicism, but that is not the current belief of the mainstream Roman Catholic Church as the organization led by the Pope today, is it? Thanks.

Yes! Yes! Yes! On all counts. You nailed it. You don't know if I am a Christian because you don't know me well enough. That is a wonderful, accurate, and perfectly “true” answer. No one knows who else is a Christian based on claims, church membership, or even doctrine. There is no offense in saying, “I would have to know you better as a person.” That is what I would expect (from my perspective) you to say! That is why I constantly say on this forum that I believe members of the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, the Mennonite Church, and I would extend that even broader, can and may be a Christian. That is why I value uncertainty and incertitude and talk about that (and write about it) so much. Yes, it is highly likely that certainty and faith are oppositional. I do not think going around and deciding who is or who is not a Christian is a very profitable use of someone's time or judgment. Of course, simply saying someone isn't by virtue of the church affiliation, ancillary beliefs that are not essential to the gospel, etc. is appropriate either. Denying someone the three joys of Christendom simply because of your own unique doctrine (not being a conscientious objector, for example) is folly (in my mind). The non-LDS Christians who deny the three criteria to LDS-Christians are just as culpable, and frankly, silly. I don't need someone who doesn't know me to think I am a Christian. I do desire the same person not to disqualify me without knowing me based on a doctrinal checklist. Christianity is an individual matter; not a club. It is not a sect with initiatory rites like being a Mason. It is a personally, individually lived relationship with the Savior. Being a (note the individual article) Christian is not a badge someone owns; it is a relationship that someone lives. Judging is one of the great sins of religious intolerance. We used to sing a song as a kid. The line we kept repeating was “Whosoever will may come!” Amen! I

"Yikes on bikes!" Now that is brilliant! You skipped the quote by then-Apostle Kimball that I was committing blasphemy every time I baptized someone! I am writing a series of small books (100 pages or less) I am deeming "Focus Books." Maybe I could add one about all the "persecution" non-LDS Christians have faced at the hands of members of the LDS church. But there are two problems with that: 1. It would be divisive; 2. I would need more than 100 pages! I need to paste and save your post! "Yikes on bikes!" That is really good! How about this for a title? - "Yikes on Bikes . . . Lightning Strikes"

If that is a question for a wider audience than Nehor, then I would suggest a resounding yes. That is a label given every time an LDS missionary knocks on a door, discovers the inhabitant to be a committed Christian, and continues "teaching." That is a label given every time a church leader says "I know your wife is a godly lady, but she cannot possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit! Oh, and that is nothing personal. It is just what our doctrine teaches." That in almost exact words from a national CEC leader (and friend) whose name many of you might know. Nothing personal????????????? LDS folks (including on this forum) take as very accurate the truth of their lived experience, as determinative of what is and not an anomaly or a fringe experience. Please grant me the same claim. Maybe it would be enlightening to have a thread entitled "What is a Christian?" instead of "Are members of the LDS Church Christians?" That might get down to the nitty-gritty a bit better. By the way, what is the "nitty gritty?" Where did that phrase ever come from? If I remember my Missouri history well, there were claims on some children being "nits." I wonder if that is connected to the nitty in nitty gritty. Oh my—see how Navidad's mind works? I need to know everything! Drives people nuts! Sorry!

Such an interesting and insightful conversation. I appreciate it very much. There is a wide diversity of belief in the LDS church these days; as there is in the Evangelical community. Your description is what I live every day here in close proximity to the colonies. However, I must also state that this or that bishop can make a life-changing difference in the attitude of a ward. Ditto for a pastor in a non-LDS church. So I am not pointing fingers, just stating my lived reality in both worlds.

I genuinely and sincerely don't understand this. For me, being a Christian is all about one thing—a genuine and sincere covenantal relationship with Christ, not a label. The three things I mentioned that the LDS deny me are the essential core ingredients of being (that is the operative word) a Christian. I would also suggest this is true for being an Evangelical. Perhaps that is why I have had such a problem understanding the exclusivity of the LDS over these many years. My entire thinking system is based on relationships, not claims. Ditto for being a husband. Ditto for the truth. Truth is a relationship, something I am becoming and that is being revealed in me as I mature as a human being. It is not a possession I claim. Maybe this difference of thinking gets at some of the tension over whether many non-LDS Christians believe LDS claimants are really Christians. A claim and a name (ha! Clever) are not the same (cleverer)! After years of faithful attendance, ministry, and miles of chapel carpet vacuuming, I could claim to be LDS, couldn't I? But that would make that claim neither accurate nor true without “becoming” a member, would it? Profound discussion. Thanks. Ditto to Bluebell - Thanks.

Whew, thank goodness I adhere to no creeds, and what a relief; I am not a professor of anything anymore. I once was, but I have repented of that!

Interesting. Do I, Navidad, a non-LDS Christian, have remission of my sins outside the LDS Church? Do I have the Gift of the Holy Spirit, present and with me full time? And do I have the promise of eternal life in the presence of my Savior Jesus Christ and God the Father as a redeemed child of His outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Aren't these three things evidence of being a Christian, having lived a Christian life, and looking forward to the everlasting life promised me in John 3:16? I believe you have these three gifts as Christians within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do you believe I have access to these three gifts that my Christian commitments to, and covenants with the Savior grant me, reciprocally as He promises in His covenant with me, just as I am—a Christian Evangelical Mennonite who loves the Lord with all my human capacity as I love my wife?

Ditto . . . . It has always been an uphill battle for the non-LDS Christian to be included in the Christian category by Mormon doctrine and stereotypes. It dates from the time of Joseph Smith. 😇

To me, pluralism exemplifies unity, not disunity. I have no idea whether you are being too simplistic or not. I do not see unity as agreement. In fact, I prefer unity despite disagreement. I think that is a much more worthy goal, very hard to achieve. But important in religious situations.

I just finished a 350 page book on the exact subject we are discussing, within the context of 1930s Chihuahua. It is basically a book summary of my PhD dissertation from the University of Kent in Canterbury. I would be happy to send you a copy of the English version of the book. I have an entirely different concept of the struggle at Hawn's Mill for what it is worth. I believe Jacob Hawn was most likely Mennonite. The massacre came from Hawn's and Joseph Smith's failed meeting to circumvent the violence. I believe Hawn failed, from a Mennonite perspective, to appropriately defend the Saints in his mill due to his pacifistic beliefs. We know that after the incident he left for Oregon and founded more mills in Oregon that are still largely Mennonite areas in that state. Hawn is a very common Mennonite surname. At any rate,if you want to PM me your address, I will happily mail you a free copy of my new book next time I am in the states. Best, Navidad

Thanks for the history. I appreciate that. The history as you explained it, is part of the reason the Anglo-Mormon Colonies existed and to a small degree, still exist here as enclaves. In my writings and teaching, I have often portrayed (I must admit) that the LDS (as well as Mennonite) concepts of persecution as fed by religious persecution are sometimes more the result of resource shortages, land disputes, water hoarding, and ethno-religious migrants's built in prejudice toward those already in the land. That is true whether speaking of Missouri, Idaho, or Mexico. Of course, in the case of Mexico, we must also acknowledge the Mexican mestizo bias and prejudice against Anglos, especially those considered from the USA. So, it seems that you cherish the pluralism because it provides the four protections you list in your four bolded comments. As a senior public school district official, I often came in contact with conflicts over USA religious pluralism from all sides. This is why it is of special interest to me. and why I sought more clarification. When working in San Diego I dealt on more than one occasion with the fact that all our fifth graders (probably 8,000 or so) took district paid and sponsored bus trips to the Mormon Battalion building in Old Town. To resolve those disputes, I had to meet with the older full-time LDS missionaries who worked at the center, the school board, as well as those who complained about the trips as shadow LDS proselytzing efforts. The good news is that with the cooperation of all, we were able to work it out so the trips continued. Perhaps public education is the number one place where these kinds of issues come to the forefront. I often led the effort to engage and bring healing or resolution to the same. This was especially true in San Diego, very liberal, very conservative, and very Navy. Oh, and also, in southern San Diego County a haven for the most fundamentalist of the LeBaron communities! Thanks for your cooperation in helping me understand. Best, Navidad

Good morning: I don't understand how my LDS friends live out their claim to have the only authorized priesthood of God and still cherish religious pluralism. That is why I asked. It was not a gotcha question. I can't agree or disagree until I understand how it plays out in real life. I can receive it, but I cannot agree or disagree until I understand it better. Furthermore, it really doesn't matter whether I agree or not, does it? I ask questions because I don't understand. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Religious pluralism is a complex issue, especially in the United States.

Hi my friend. Like Calm, I both value and agree with your summary of your concerns. I am sincerely asking you to help me understand the religious pluralism of the United States that you cherish? The only thing I can get my head around is that you cherish the right of the rest of us to be doctrinally wrong. Then, at the same time, send out thousands of missionaries to systematically and hopefully phase out the very pluralism you cherish. I think we should all cherish the truth of each other's beliefs, or at the very least receive them without necessarily agreeing with them. That, to me, is valuing religious pluralism. I am genuinely trying to understand. Thanks.

We had an African Grey parrot for thirty years. Solomon could "parrot" wonderfully well. He often had a method behind his parroting to achieve his own purposes. I am certain he enjoyed verbally taunting our dogs we had over those years. In all faith traditions, as well as in secular education, we teach our little ones to parrot. Whether primary, Sunday school, or kindergarten, we value rote memorization and repetition. We praise it, and it becomes learned behavior. I am 77 years old and can still sing my little songs from Sunday school. They still have meaning.

Its very interesting. There is a conception out there among many friends of mine that the world as a whole, including Christianity is becoming more secular. less religious, increasingly skeptical. At the same time we see groups like this one growing like mad. They are representing a return to a much more strident version of reformed theology mixed with Orthodox, Catholic, and yes, Fundamentalist leanings. I sometimes wonder if, while some are becoming more secular, there isn't also a counter movement to becoming more conservative, especially in doctrine, creedalism, and a blend of religion and political rigidity. I believe that Fundamentalism is finding a new voice and role after reeling since the late 1950s. They are finding this in the Reformed church movement, a highly orthodox version of formalized Presbyterianism.

I really didn't look that closely at the list. Are Anabaptists (Mennonites, Brethren, and Amish) on the list?

Thanks for your good spirit. I would simply suggest that you have not heard some of the sacrament talks that my wife and I have heard over six years in a ward every Sunday, with us sitting right there as if we are invisible. Maybe that's it, as non-investigators, we were invisible. Anyway, I am tired and discouraged. It is not a good time for me to be stressing over who does or says what to whom and how many Fundamentalists (or Evangelicals - sorry) can dance (oh no!) on the head of a pin! I am sorry for each of us who have suffered soul wounds by the words, beliefs, and "truths" of the other. Maybe even our parents and grandparents suffered the wounds and they have come down to us epigenetically. Whatever, when our doctrines are not kind, it is hard to see them as truth, whoever holds them, especially since kindness is a fruit of the Spirit. I will sign off for now. I need to go check on my sweet and kind wife. Navidad

Fair enough. Maybe I should simply disclose that "But what is true is that most of my personal anti-non-LDS Christian experiences have been at the hands of people who identify themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I am thinking a lot about true, truth, truthfully, and truthing right now. It is a wonderful discussion if only so far in my own mind. I am seeing truth more and more as a journey: A path we walk not a possession we own. Somehow I think that is important in discussions like these. Take care.

I call them by their specific denominational affiliation, whether that is FLDS, Community of Christ, Church of the Fullness of Times, or whatever. My exception for that might be the LeBarons. They seem to prefer being members of the LeBaron community, which does not denote church affiliation. Many LeBarons are simply not religious. They may also be pentecostal, or Catholic. Fundamentalist does not designate a religious affiliation, church, or denomination. Again, I would call them by whatever church group to which they belong. Then I might dig deeper and name them by their theological position within Christianity if there was a reason to do so. For example, I am first and foremost a Christian; second, I am an Evangelical by orthodoxy and by orthopraxis within Christianity; and third and finally, I am a Mennonite by church affiliation and identity. Call me any one of the three, and I am fine. Someone can be Mainstream, Fundamentalist, or Evangelical within most Christian denominations and groups. Of course, this varies by denomination. I would suggest that all three exist within the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know, especially within MHA, those who I would identify as each of the three. They might do so as well. The three classifications are entirely different from denominational classifications. There are all three within the Mennonite Church for sure. To further muddy the waters, there are conferences within Mennonitism with which individual Mennonites belong. Sometimes conference ID is stronger than denominational ID. I grew up within the Franconia Conference of the Mennonite Church USA. the designation Mennonite Church USA no longer exists. the Franconia Conference does. The term Mormon has become ubiquitous for followers of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I am not sure if that will ever change, especially in places like Chihuahua. As my Catholic friend, 3DOP indicated a few posts above, fundamentalism is, in some areas and times, a badge of honor. People would be proud of that appellation to this day. Many have migrated from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism (capital E). They probably would be uncomfortable with the Fundamentalist label. It is most likely rare to see someone go in the reverse unless they are attached to a particular pastor, a concept that may be foreign to my LDS friends.. I don't know if any of that helps or not. I have been affiliated with MHA for years. I have sat next to general authorities at their events and next to Mrs. Tanner. I have sat next to a Franciscan priest, and next to an excommunicated member of the LDS church there. MHA is a real melting pot. . . a very interesting place.

Amen! Preach it!

I am not in any way denying your lived experience. I am suggesting that perhaps it was not at the hands of Evangelicals as much as by Fundamentalists identifying as Evangelicals because of the toxic nature of the Fundamentalist identity. I am sorry you experienced what you did. I speak out against hate messaging and generalizations all the time.

I do the last thing you recommend all the time. That is an important part of my ministry.