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.

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.