Navidad

I would encourage everyone in this discussion to read this page which explains the purpose of this new denomination. It is a fascinating mixture of Presbyterianism, Orthodox, Catholic, and anti-Fundamentalist teachings while espousing to be Evangelical. In its doctrine it seems to be more Fundamentalist (the very thing it decries in the text of this page) than anything else. Fascinating. complex, and educational! The Story - Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches

Ok my friend. I guess this will be last response. How can I possibly argue against Wikipedia, that font of modern religious knowledge? I need to stop because now I am getting sarcastic. Not a good thing. I will simply suggest that I knew Walter Martin. He was in our home near Philly many times. I also remember firsthand the scoldings he got from the new Evangelical movement for his strident tone in his writing. Those were the early years of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical split in US Christianity. There was the famous Bluebird sermon that the founders of Evangelicalism used to scold the Fundamentalists of the 1950s and 60s, especially Martin. Most likely, none of you know any of that history, neither did the writer of the Wikipedia article, neither does the 30 year old pastor who wants to model himself after Billy Graham, but who will never wear that prophetic mantle (prophetic as in forthtelling - preaching). I can tell that I need to add an article on this to my website. Then if you all read it on a website you will find it much more credible than reading it in one of Navidad's posts. I guess that was a little snarky, but for once I am not going to delete it. Oh, and next time I want to know something about LDS beliefs I will be sure to check out wikipedia; no need to ask here! Ha! That was funny, wasn't it? Oh, and next time I am in LeBaron (this week), I will accept it when one of the folks there tells me he is Mormon, every bit as Mormon as his LDS cousin! After all, he self-identifies that way, so it must be true! Ok, now I crossed the line. 😇

Understood. Even today, there is much less a stigma attached to Evangelical than to Fundamentalist. I would also guess that anyone under fifty might not even be aware of the differences. It is not widely taught, but it is broader than being "Navidad's thing."

I don't deny your experience. I would never do that. I would suggest that your pastor and the makers of the Godmakers, who I know, are Fundamentalists. I don't deny anti-Mormonism. That would be silly of me. I deny that there is no difference between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and that they are just points on the same spectrum. Tell me where your pastor went to college, if you know. What kind of Baptist was your church? The differences between Baptists are as significant as the differences between Mormon groups. I have worked with independent Baptists, Southern Baptists, Reformed Baptists, and American (Northern) Baptists. The differences are huge. Some are predominantly Fundamentalists, other predominantly Evangelical, and others Mainstream. The tendency is non-LDS Christianity today is for Fundamentalists to identify as Evangelicals, even though they despise some Evangelical tenets. There is much less tendency for Fundamentalists to identify as Mainstream and virtually not tendency for Mainstream non-LDS Christians to identify as Fundamentalist.

But don't you recognize that the LeBarons call themselves Mormons? As do the Strangites and many in the Community of Christ? The Assembly of God is a giant denomination, one of the fastest growing in the world. There are Assembly of God groups (churches, and sub-groups) that are Fundamentalist, that are Evangelical, and that are Mainstream). The latter three classifications exist in all branches of Christianity, perhaps even in the Mormon community as a whole. Yet there are major differences between them. Yes it is a big thing for me. That is not reason to dismiss it as also being theologically correct. It is a big thing for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not to be identified as the same as the FLDS, is it not? Should I dismiss the reality of the differences because it is a "big thing?" I think not. I could go even further (farther?) and suggest that the LDS Church is just one church among the many restorationist churches in Christianity. I could suggest that the Mennonites and Moravians were restorationist churches that existed hundreds of years before the LDS church. Therefore, they (LDS, Mennonites, and Moravians) are all the same "thing." I think that would bring howls of protest from certain members of this forum. They would propose I don't know what I am talking about. You know what? They would be right . . . if I claimed that. But I have studied the differences, so I don't claim that. So, yes, it is a big thing for me; that does not, however, negate the accuracy of my thing! Study the history of 20th century Christianity in the USA, you might notice the big thing! Take care.

Of course it happens. There is no denying that. There is also no point in using a broad brush to identify those who are well-known for identifying themselves by what they are against, not by what they are for. It bullies and regurgitates (especially the latter) when my LDS friends simply identify anti-Mormonism with a broad brush (Evangelicals) that shows little understanding of the differences in conservative Christianity since the beginning of the twentieth century. The 1890s through the 1920s was a tumultuous time in LDS doctrine and history. Ditto for non-LDS Christianity in the USA. It is identical to what I would be doing if I simply used the term Mormon to refer to all the branches that have sprung up of the followers of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I imagine you would not be pleased with me if I continually attributed the actions of the FLDS to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with no recognition of the significant differences. I teach people not to do that on the non-LDS Christian side of the debate. However, it appears that no one on the LDS side of the debate is teaching the significant differences between non-LDS Christianity. It goes back to previous discussions on this forum about how the LDS seem reasonably disinterested in learning about other faiths. That is a generalization, but it may be one that holds water (an old Mennonite saying). Evangelicals split from Fundamentalists. There is no denying that. Even my keyboard doesn't recognize the difference! It refuses to allow me to type Fundamentalist with a capital F! It points out that it should be a small f! Hogwarts! Errr......Hogwash! Baloney! Fundamentalism is a distinct grouping within both LDS and non-LDS Christianity. There is indeed a spectrum among the Evangelical community as there is among the LDS community. But more important is the differences between different kinds of Mormons and between different kinds of non-LDS Christianity. Take care and very best wishes.

Hi bluebell: Thanks for pointing out this website. I enjoyed reading it. I would love to dialogue with the fellow who wrote it and indeed may do so. My challenge to him would be that he seems to fail to recognize the existence of Fundamentalists on the Christian perspective. He never mentions them as more characteristic of what he identifies as the anti-fringe of what he is talking about. For me, not recognizing a difference between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism is like a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not recognizing a religious or theological difference between the LDS Church, and the Strangites, LeBarons, or FLDS. Sometimes the Evangelical word is used like the Mormon word. It is all encompassing, which is easy but not accurate. I would imagine that the author of this website has less association with Fundamentalists than with members of the LDS church. Anyway, enough of a response. Thanks for pointing out this website. It is a genuine step in the right direction. I will see if the author will dialogue with me regarding his definitions of terms. Take care.

The Foursquare Church as a denomination is not Evangelical. The only thing I know about "Faith E" church is what I read on their website. There is no denominational affiliation listed and no places of training of the pastors. Their statement of faith is very generic of conservative Christianity. Their pastoral staff is 100% male. Based on all of that they are a bit difficult to categorize. It would seem they are either Fundamentalist or very conservative Evangelical. I can't suggest anything more than that. I would need to listen to 10 to 20 of the pastor's sermons to get a better idea. I don't know if the E stands for evangelistic, evangel, or evangelical??? Each means something different.

Calm mentioned Hegseth. Does any here on this forum know what is his religious affiliation? Not some broad generalization (I dislike them). But of what church is he a member? What church does he attend? That might help us understand with much more specificity (I always liked that word!).

Great. If you are a member of the LDS church, I hope you also support including us all on the heavenly list! Best wishes!

Hey amigo, I ain't no creedal Christian either! Never was; never will be. What percentage of non-LDS, non-Catholic Christians would you guess are creedal?

Religious pluralism indicates that you stand as a beacon for various Christian religions that are valid as faith groups. Pluralism, by its very definition implies more than one. Tell me please, which Christian religious groups are valid as faith groups in addition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I am sorry, but I can't just sit back and read "how much evangelicals denigrate you." Please tell me which Evangelicals denigrate you? Can you name any Evangelicals from Evangelical universities who denigrate you? Which Evangelical denominations denigrate you? Once again, I must simply suggest you are confusing Evangelicals with Fundamentalists.

Missiology is a fascinating field of study. Today, you can get your PhD in missiology. It involves the study of anthropology, sociology, linguistics, religion, theology, and ethnology. Each of those interests me. I had a good friend who held a D.Miss degree from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, a rather prestigious Evangelical seminary. He taught Missiology at Liberty when I was there.

As an American Evangelical, I find this very confusing. I would say it was done by a Fundamentalist, but then no Fundamentalist would list Jehovah Witnesses as Christians. They barely accept Evangelicals as Christians. Something isn't right. Sometimes draft documents get published as final ones. I know that is true from working for years in school districts. We will see.

I am sure that somewhere in northeastern Utah, there is a Fillerup gas station attendant! Ha! One day some years ago, I was researching the Fillerup family here in the Mexican colonies. Someone told me there were Fillerups near Vernal, Utah. Being an educator, I figured the best place to find out was to call the local high school to see if they knew of any Fillerups in the area. A very pleasant lady answered my call. When I explained the reason for my call, there was some silence, then a laugh. “I'm a Fillerup,” she said. “My ancestors were all in the Mexican colonies.” I have relatives all over this part of Utah! So my journey into the history of Vernal began!

Thanks. If you can recommend a good history of the area that takes it from Middle Ages to Modern Times, I would really appreciate it. The Moravian Church runs tours to that area. Maybe some day I will hitch a ride and go on their tour. You know me by now! I need to know and understand! Best!

You are correct! The reason they say that is because they get language training, but as far as I can figure out, no missiological training as in understanding the specific cultures of the people to whom they are specifically witnessing. I served on the international council of one of the largest Evangelical non-denominational mission organizations. We were "fanatic" about getting our missionaries training in missiology as a discipline, even the short-timers.

Please tell me if I am wrong. Wasn't Bohemia the kingdom and Moravia a region within the Kingdom? In that sense the Moravians were Bohemians, but not all Bohemians were Moravian? Is that correct? The whole nomenclature of the area is confusing. I want to get it right! Thanks.

Agreed. Nor are they the friends of the vast number of Evangelicals, since they are by and large, Fundamentalists!

I think there is much to be learned about this before we know "the truth" about it. I predict there will be some clarification or change in this. Could it be that those creating the list sought the advice of someone in the LDS church who requested a different "label" that all other Christian groups? Perhaps someone in the Church requested a unique and separate listing from all of the rest? I have had conversations with members of the LDS church who prefer not to be considered as Christian because of their unique claims to unique truth and status with the Savior. It will be interesting to watch how this works out. I think we might have some here on the forum who reject the identity as Christian to separate from identity with other run-of-the-mill non-pleasing to Christ Christians.

I am writing a book on truth. I am enjoying thinking through the whole idea of truth as a noun. In most cultures I have studied, truth is more a verb than a noun. It is something we live, are, and seek to be; not an accumulation of correct facts. It is certainly that in Hebrew and Greek (especially pre-Aristotle and in Koiné Greek which was influenced by Hebrew). I have never enjoyed writing a book so much as this one. That's the truth! Ha!

I have never quite understood the concept of presiding either, whether at a sacrament service where it was always announced who was presiding to the home. The context in which it was always explained to me was if a bishop or some church authority went into a home, the "head of the house" the male priesthood holder, presided in whatever happened, not the bishop, stake president, etc. I remember asking, What about a non-member's house?. It was clearly explained to me that the male figure, whether church member or not, presided over any LDS priesthood holder visiting the home. I often reminded my wife of that! It never got me very far! Ha! As a pastor, I sometimes got in trouble with my more conservative parishioners because I taught that the biblical model in the home was mutual submission based on love. I based that on the middle voice in Greek of the verb to submit. The person submitting initiates the action, not the person seeking to be submitted to. I hope that made sense. I found out that the concept of mutual submission in the home didn't go over well with my very conservative friends, including my uncle, who excoriated me for such a non-Biblical belief! My aunt just rolled her eyes!

I wonder what is meant by "rituals" that cannot be performed in a Church meetinghouse? Is prayer a ritual? Is reciting The Lord's Prayer a ritual? Our son passed away last December. We had a celebration of his life/funeral for him in our home. We cleaned out the living room and put around 65 chairs in it. He was cremated, but we did not yet have the ashes. We had tables with photos and mementos of his life out on the patio. They were very similar to what we have seen at every LDS funeral in the ward chapel. The entire service was in English and Spanish. Of the sixty five or so attendees, I would guess forty-five were from the ward. That is almost half of the active members of the ward. The stake president and his wife came. The bishop and his wife came. The stake patriarch and his wife came. A former bishop of a Spanish-speaking ward came. He is also a historian friend. We had the Catholic municipal historian ( a dear friend) open the service with a prayer and a simple remembrance of Chris. My wife and I both shared our thoughts. One of our workers read a biography of Chris in both English and Spanish. Several officials from our municipality attended, along with other neighbors and friends. Our dear friend from the ward sang a song and played the guitar. We had a brief time for testimonies or remarks about Chris. Several people spoke and were very kind. He (our LDS friend) then closed in prayer. Both prayers (opening and closing) were beautiful. I was most pleased that the folks sat intermingled in the seats. There wasn't a segregation of Anglo Mormons and non-mormon Mexicans as there often is at events. It was in our home. I am aware of the LDS practice that the man of the house presides in his home, whether LDS or not. I guess I presided. The service lasted an hour and five minutes. I was very pleased that we had a full house and that everyone seemed to be comfortable. The local ward leadership was all very kind. I say all of this to simply state that all did their best to make it positive for my wife and me. We had an interfaith service that honored both our son and the Lord. I am grateful to all who came and made it a kind and reassuring time. Just thought you might be interested in how we all got together to handle what would normally be a bit of an uncomfortable time here in our region. best, Navidad

I am unaware of any such claims made publicly by Benjamin F Johnson. He was a quiet humble guy, but fiercely proud of his relationship with Joseph Smith. He may have overstated that a bit later on in his life while living in Mesa. What we know is that the family believes that Joseph Smith passed on the presidency of the High Priesthood and the Firstborn Sceptre of Israel (I think that is the correct term) to Benjamin F Johnson. Johnson then in turn passed it on to Alma Dayer LeBaron in Mesa as a boy. It is widely accepted that Johnson, a firm supporter of polygamy, left behind 800 descendants when he died in Mesa. It is very possible that he did tell his grandson (he had many) this story. The LeBarons were from his first wife, Melissa. That could have given them priority over the others. It may also be possible that Joseph Smith did indicate to Benjamin Johnson that he was passing these keys of authority to him. We will most likely never know. There certainly were confusions over various claims of succession in 1844. Benjamin lived here in Colonia Diaz with his more outgoing brother, William Derby Johnson. The Johnson family was one of the leading families of that colony. William Derby was bishop there for years there. Two Johnson sisters married two Fillerup brothers. They became very active in Colonia Juarez at the LDS academy. Charles Fillerup became director, and Erastus was head of music, arts, and drama. Erastus died an early death in 1910 when he fell from the railroad bridge that was being constructed here in the little town where I live. He left behind his wife who was pregnant, and five children. Alma Dayer LeBaron SR. also lived in Colonia Juarez as early as 1904 when he would have been a teenager. It is all pretty complex. Alma Dayer LeBaron and Maud, his wife had twelve children. None of the children stayed in the LDS church. Some left, and some were excommunicated as late as 1944 or so. Several of the boys did missions for the church. The parents were excommunicated for polygamy around 1924. They continued to live in Colonia Juarez until they moved to Pacheco, up in the mountains. They then began to buy land south of Galeana, and the rest is history. The sons established two fundamentalist churches and fought among themselves for authority within those churches. Several of the sons lived in SLC, but did not stay in the LDS church. Today Joel is recognized as the legitimate founder of the church they established that still survives. Ervil's church, to my knowledge, no longer exists here in this part of Mexico, but may exist in SOCAL, Texas, or the Baja. There are still relatives living in Colonia Dublán and active in the LDS church. They are related to LDS members who left the church to join the LeBarons. These familial ties are strong. The reasons and wherefores for why the LeBarons did what they did are complicated, too complex, and personal for this forum.