Do the majority of members of the Latter-day Saints Church want to be known as Christians?

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

For you to say that one can be both evangelical and fundamentalist shows your lack of understanding of us (no offense). One can be evangelistic and be fundamentalist. One can be an evangelist and be fundamentalist, one can be all for evangelism and be fundamentalist. But being an evangelical is something different all together. There are often both fundamentalists and evangelicals in the same denominations so that doesn't help. For example, In the state you mentioned, there are many Southern Baptist fundamentalists. No question about it. There are also many Southern Baptist evangelicals; and there is no doubt there are a few Southern Baptist mainstream churches in Louisiana as well. The Southern Baptist Seminary in New Orleans of that name has struggled mightily with conflicts between the three branches over the past fifty years. The conflict has been divisive and deep.  In the deep south the conflict is especially strong. Both evangelicals and fundamentalists take a very high view of Scriptural interpretation, but even in that they differ greatly. They are simply two very different groups within what is typically seen as conservative Christianity. They go to different churches, different colleges, seminaries and have very different histories back to the 1930's. My LDS Christian friends just don't show an interest in taking the time to learn the differences. Are there not doctrinal and polity differences between the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is there not now more cooperation between the two than before? There still are great distinctions however. I would suggest the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists are greater.

Super interesting. I appreciate your perspectives.

[Calm]

Quote

My LDS Christian friends just don't show an interest in taking the time to learn the differences. 

There is a good chance this is because those conservative Christians who criticize us the vast majority of time claim to be evangelicals.  This may be doctrinally incorrect, but Saints in my experience usually allow people to label themselves (except when it comes to ingroup dynamics, which is probably pretty typical of all groups in general).

This has certainly been my experience on this board and other venues I have encountered Christian critics.  I don't remember one saying "I am not Evangelical, but fundamentalist" while most who identified themselves called themselves evangelical.  If the search by member function still worked on the board for older than a year posts, I might collect some for you, but that option isn't available.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the reply. If I were only speaking to LDS Christians I could understand your thinking that I am pointing fingers. I, however am speaking to anyone who will listen to me in the broader Protestant community as well.

I know you are. Please don't think I was saying that you were pointing the finger. I was saying that LDS and Protestant Christians pointing the finger at each other is not going to help - your blind spot is bigger than mine kind of thing.

Quote

I agree wholeheartedly that Fundamentalists mainly, say very painful things about the Saints. I disagree however that it is an indication of a blindspot. They know they do. They take it as a badge of honor. They are mean and unkind. That is a very different conversation. My exposure to the Saints is that the majority are not mean and unkind. They are in denial about how painful their comments are because of Hawn's Mill and 100 other stories from their ancestors, and because of their own experience with fundamentalist Protestants. It is like we have suffered, so our response is ok. I don't think that is Christ-like.

In the teaching of the Protestant churches there is plenty which could be called insensitve. The Calvinist teaching that if you are not elect, tough cookies, is painful for me to hear - that God creates some elect, and the rest are just doomed to hell, is offensive to me. While Presbyterians may not call themselves the only true Church, their teachings certainly imply as much. Perhaps gone are the days when Protestant leaders railed against the Pontiff as the anti-Christ, but their teachings are pretty exclusionary, and actually somewhat offensive to me. I think when it comes down to it though, Protestant sects no longer emphasize their differences. It's more a matter of what Church you enjoy visiting, rather than picking a "correct" or true Church. For someone to be offended because someone else claims to have found the true Church seems a modern thing. Should we be offended by someone claiming to have found truth? It seems we should be happy for them, but that is not the reaction. People now see it as a claim that they are better than others. Is everyone going to be scared to claim they have found truth? To find truth has been my life long goal - however, it seems the world has become numb to any claims of unique truth. It is just another marketing ploy for them to tune out. They will only look at truth claims when its convenient or not at all. They are just an annoyance. To take away our truth claims would really be to rip out the heart of the Church. It just won't happen Navidad. I know that is not the only point you are making, but members like me are excited about finding truth. Those are really the only kinds of people who are willing to turn their lives upside down in order to convert to this Church. So while some may be offended, others - the seekers - are waiting to for someone to claim they have truth. The only way to reach them is to make those bold and audacious claims. Perhaps you can teach us of some less offensive way to do that, but otherwise I don't think that will change. i do realize some can be a little obnoxious about it - but as body as a whole, I don't see the Church changing here. 

Quote

I think if I am reading you write that Latter-day Saint eschatology teaches that the end times necessitate a worsening of relations between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians. That is something I know nothing about. What I do know however, is that end times theories have caused tremendous loss of life, damage to the Christian community and are very powerful. If Saints believe that things must get worse between Christians in order for God's end-time plan to be fulfilled, that is quite frankly, scary. Do you have some LDS work on eschatology that teaches this? I am not questioning you; I simply want to understand. Eschatology at times brings hope; at times it can be terribly destructive.

I think the more accurate understanding is that most Christians will convert. I believe that is after the next resurrection event. They will realize they were wrong, and will finally convert. The demarcation will then be between the Church and the remaining Christians and other peoples of the world. See 3 Nephi. In other words they will either accept what has happened or they won't.  Our scriptures say that fighting will break out in the rest of the world, and the only way to escape it will be to come to the New Jerusalem. That is in D&C. That seems a stark line of demarcation. It does not necessarily imply a worsening of relations with other Christians. 

Quote

Anyway, thanks as always for your thoughtful reply. I think what you are describing in prevalent only in fundamentalist Protestants. That may be a distinction without a difference to you, but it makes a world of difference to folks like me. So many of the posts here include these huge broad monolithic statements that indicate a lack of understanding of the tremendous diversity within Protestantism. There certainly is diversity within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Multiply that by ten times and you will begin to proximate the diversity within Protestantism.

Very true. I think what I am describing is more prevalent among what you would call fundamentalist Protestants - the oldest Protestant sects. The fact that they have been dwindling in size does show a societal shift away from their somewhat exclusionary attitudes. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

For you to say that one can be both evangelical and fundamentalist shows your lack of understanding of us (no offense).

I'm just going by how people there self-identified. I've no doubt many don't follow the same way of self-identifying. In the same way not everyone who self-identifies as Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. You have Community of Christ (RLDS), The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickerites), FLDS, Church of Christ (Hedrickites), and various other groups who often each self-identify as Mormon.  The people in question in the Baton Rouge region would self-identify as non-denominational and Evangelical. So these weren't Baptists, although heaven knows the Southern Baptists there did the same sorts of things towards the Catholics. (Who were quite prominent in that part of Louisiana) Now there may well be a more formal conception of Evangelicalism among some. I can but say that I bet most who self-identify as Evangelical don't follow such formalism.

But this gets back to my point that what lay people believe is quite different from the formal beliefs of the organizations they belong to. As I noted most people if you ask them to explain the Trinity tend to describe Modalism, a formal heresy. My experience with self-identified Evangelicals from that region was that theology and even nuanced readings of scripture weren't terribly important to them. Heresies like Cheap Grace were pretty common.

Now to be fair lots of lay Mormons are fairly ignorant too. Further my experience is that the types of members who tend to have a lot of the callings, particularly leadership, forget that not everyone is like them. So they tend to overestimate scriptural knowledge and belief of members because of the members they're talking with about such things.

Edited October 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[theplains]

On 10/26/2018 at 9:42 AM, Stargazer said:

Of course.  But does God demand that you understand and believe in the God of the Nicene Creed before you can be saved?  What I've noticed is that all you need (from the Evangelical POV) is to accept Christ as your personal savior.  Are you trying to introduce an additional requirement?

No. What I'm saying is that that if God's nature is 'not a man who became a God', then that signifies
a false god; and putting one's faith in a false god does not lead to salvation.  In some religion, their
god is a blue-headed elephant god. But he was not always by nature a blue-headed deity.  In another
religion, Jesus is by nature Michael the Archangel.  But this is a false Christ.

I hope this helps you understand my point better.

Jim

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

No. What I'm saying is that that if God's nature is 'not a man who became a God', then that signifies
a false god; and putting one's faith in a false god does not lead to salvation.  In some religion, their
god is a blue-headed elephant god. But he was not always by nature a blue-headed deity.  In another
religion, Jesus is by nature Michael the Archangel.  But this is a false Christ.

I hope this helps you understand my point better.

Jim

If your Savior Yeshua is a man and God/Elohim, and will be called the Father, won't He be Man and God? - a man who becomes the Father? You sure that is false? He sure seems to think that it is true. Guess what? I believe Him, rather than you.

[theplains]

On 10/27/2018 at 4:05 PM, RevTestament said:

If your Savior Yeshua is a man and God/Elohim, and will be called the Father, won't He be Man and God? - a man who becomes the Father? You sure that is false? He sure seems to think that it is true. Guess what? I believe Him, rather than you.

I don't believe God was ever a man who became a God who then procreated spirit children (who would come to Earth
in mortal bodies).   I cannot explain it fully, but the Son (God) is not the Father (God) and the Holy Spirit (God) is
neither the Father or the Son.  But I can say that I do not worship the Mormon Heavenly Father since the scriptures
has revealed God's true nature.

Jim

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, theplains said:

I don't believe God was ever a man who became a God who then procreated spirit children (who would come to Earth
in mortal bodies).   I cannot explain it fully, but the Son (God) is not the Father (God) and the Holy Spirit (God) is
neither the Father or the Son.  But I can say that I do not worship the Mormon Heavenly Father since the scriptures
has revealed God's true nature.

Jim

I do agree that scriptures reveal "God's true nature" but I just think you interpret them incorrectly, and believe a bunch of teachings from men. I have stated my beliefs more fully several times in this forum, so I won't repeat them, but to conclude that the Son is not the Father, and never will be is error - scripturally. Indeed, it is a great scriptural error to say the Son does not change, when He inherits His name, and the government of the Father, and is to be called the Father. I believe it does not honor Him when He sits on the throne of the Father. As the Revelator of the Father, this is one of His central messages, that man has gotten wrong. Man said I understand God - actually a minority of bishops of the Roman Empire did - and Christianity has been stuck with it for 1700 years since. You do not admit that because to do so would rip your theology to smithereens. I do not hold my Church out to be perfect, but I do agree with the words of our Lord given through Joseph Smith that the creeds are an abomination to Him, and I believe this is why. The Father showed His nature to us by sending His Son to show it to us up on the tree - to show us exactly what the Son had been shown by His Father, and our Father in a very real and palpable sense that I don't think man fully understood. When He sends someone else to teach the same, he will be no less well received than Yeshua, and I'm sure given the same treatment of death on the tree of life. But until men believes this, I don't believe they are ready for the new name. Note that word "new" there - not the same name - not the old name - not the original name - not the name from the beginning - the new name. Inheritance - change. To become a new person is at the heart of the gospel. Not just to be saved. Well Jim, I see no reason to go round further on this. 

Cheers

[Robert F. Smith]

We have a discussion on another thread of the persecution of a young LDS woman by Mennonites -- https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article215920295.html .

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70860-young-mormon-woman-sues-school-over-religious-discrimination/ .

Edited November 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

I don't see being denied a leadership position as persecution myself.  Discrimination, sure.  Persecution is a more active behaviour, imo, targeted behaviour.