My Thoughts on Christians and Evangelicals

[Navidad]

A week or so ago I responded to a request from Bernard to provide my definition of the terms Christian and Evangelical. I delayed a bit because of schedule, but responded a few days ago. I thought I might start a new thread on this subject and would invite any of you, LDS or not to respond to my words on the subject. I think that is how dialogue is created. I look forward to it. Thanks to everyone here and please have a blessed New Year!

Hi Bernard: Sorry for the delay in responding to your request. I believe a Christian in the Dispensation of Grace is someone who believes that Christ is the Son of God, that He was sent to earth as a baby, lived, died, rose again and ascended into heaven as an atonement (paying the price) for our sin. To be a Christian, one must  then act on that belief by repentance and acceptance of that same atonement in his or her life. I don't believe the fancy words are important, but the general intent must be there.  A Christian most often then seeks out a church home where he or she is comfortable with the worship, fellowship, and non-essential doctrines that most often come with church affiliation. A Christian doesn't have to do this, but most often does and then becomes a member of a branch of Christianity in which she finds nurture. I believe there are a host of ancillary non-essential doctrines specific to branches of Christianity that may be strongly held, but that those should never be confused with the essentials of the Christian experience. I remember well that one board member voted against me as the prospective headmaster of a Mennonite school because he thought my peace stand was not strong enough. That is a great example of a Mennonite non-essential belief that is seen as essential by some, perhaps many Mennonites, not for salvation, but for leadership in the group.

One more thing in this regard, I am not a practitioner of what some of my LDS friends term a "binary" Christianity.  This is a term used to indicate that non-LDS Christians believe the Christians are going to heaven and everyone else is going to Hell. I have an expansive broad view of God's mercy and judgment. I truly believe there is a wideness in God's mercy. A song by that name is very popular in the non-LDS Christian hymnody. Some of its verses are as follows:

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,
Like the wideness of the sea;
There’s a kindness in His justice,
Which is more than liberty.

There is welcome for the sinner,
And more graces for the good;
There is mercy with the Savior;
There is healing in His blood.

There is grace enough for thousands
Of new worlds as great as this;
There is room for fresh creations
In that upper home of bliss.

For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of our mind;
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.

There is plentiful redemption
In the blood that has been shed;
There is joy for all the members
In the sorrows of the Head.

But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

Was there ever kinder shepherd
Half so gentle, half so sweet,
As the Savior who would have us
Come and gather at His feet?

Now on to Evangelical. The term Evangelical as I have understood it all my life refers to a subset of Christianity that has nothing to do with group (branch) affiliation. It is often termed "trans-denominational." There were no Evangelicals, identified as I am using the term until the late 1940's. The Evangelical movement within Christianity was a reaction to both of the other major components of Christianity which predated the Evangelical movement, that of Fundamentalism and Mainstream Christianity. None of these tie to any particular denomination. There are Lutheran Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainstreamers. There are Catholic Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainstreamers. I could and do make the case that there are LDS Fundamentalists (not to confuse with the term referring to polygamists), Evangelicals, and Mainstreamers as well. To save space I will only list the characteristics as I see them of Evangelicalism as started and codified in the ministries of Billy Graham, John Stott, Harold Ockenga, Carl F. H. Henry, and others. To be sure many find the roots of Evangelicalism back into the 18th and 19th centuries. I don't dispute that, I simply choose to focus on the twentieth century because that is where I came in contact with it and when it exploded into prominence. There are also other similar terms and categories such as charismatic and Pentecostal. These are terms that transcend denominations as well. Evangelicals stress:

Correct Biblical Interpretation - The Study of Hermeneutics - Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. It is incorrect to say as  recent reporter I read did, that Evangelicals believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. A literal interpretation is important where appropriate, but it is only one of the means of understanding the Scripture. 

Engagement with the Culture as opposed to separation or encystment (cocooning to use Hardy's term) from it. 

Stressing the Positive - Defining who we are by what we are for; not what we are against

Stressing the need for Education, Learning, and Intellectual Engagement - Many Evangelical colleges, universities, and seminary sprang up in the United States. Evangelicals enrolled in fine universities as part of the intent to engage culture. 

A focus on Para-Church Engagement - Evangelicals founded many non-denominational groups and ministries for the purpose of expanding beyond denominational perspectives and limits - The Navigators, many mission associations, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Teen Challenge, World Vision, and many others. These groups provided opportunities for Christians from many different groups to come together to minister.

Freedom in Worship Styles - There are a variety of worship styles and opportunities in Evangelical circles. There is a focus on Bible teaching, but the methods vary.

Social Issues - Evangelicals are often confusing to those seeking to stereotype Christians. They don't fit into narrow categorization. There is a great variety of focus and differences of opinions among Evangelicals on many social topics and on social justice in general. I am an Evangelical and have flourished in the US public school environment. I value diversity of thought and do all I can not to stereotype. 

I hope this helps answer your questions. I am a Christian first, an Evangelical second, and a Mennonite third. Any movement I might experience in the second and third, I would not characterize as a conversion. I would only characterize a conversion if I moved from Christianity to another non-Christian faith. I am open to answering any other questions. I have a burden to help my LDS Christian friends better understand the non-LDS Christian community, especially the distinction between Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainstream non-LDS Christians. 

[Bernard Gui]

Thank you for reposting this.

My first contact with people who called themselves Evangelicals was on my mission in Central America. It was a catch-all phrase for Protestants. I don't recall Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. denominations, just "Evangelicos." In the towns where I served there seemed to be just four groups....Catolicos, Evangelicos, Testigos de Jehova, and Mormones.

I did meet a member of a Mennonite group in Heredia, Costa Rica. My companion and I frequented a cafe for a soft drink on our way home from a day's work. One of the waiters approached us and asked if we believed in the Bible. That started a series of visits in his home. I also played the organ for their services because they didn't have anyone who could do it.

We had an experience in his home that became one of the foundation blocks of my testimony of Joseph Smith and the Savior. During one visit, he asked us what what we LDS believed about Jesus. We turned to D&C 76: 22-24 and read

Quote

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

At that moment the sweetest, most peaceful feeling entered the room like a soft cool breeze in the summer. In tears, the three of us felt the Spirit witness that what we had just read actually happened. Our friend elected not to join the Church, but he acknowledged the witness we received in his home and felt edified by it. I do not know what became of him later. 

We had some great discussions with Evangelicos and Testigos de Jehovah. Some were friendly, some not so much. As I matured in my mission, I learned to avoid the discussions that consisted of scripture bashing back and forth.

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

........................ my definition of the terms Christian and Evangelical.......................

............................. I believe a Christian in the Dispensation of Grace is someone who believes that Christ is the Son of God, that He was sent to earth as a baby, lived, died, rose again and ascended into heaven as an atonement (paying the price) for our sin. To be a Christian, one must  then act on that belief by repentance and acceptance of that same atonement in his or her life. I don't believe the fancy words are important, but the general intent must be there.  A Christian most often then seeks out a church home where he or she is comfortable with the worship, fellowship, and non-essential doctrines that most often come with church affiliation. A Christian doesn't have to do this, but most often does and then becomes a member of a branch of Christianity in which she finds nurture. I believe there are a host of ancillary non-essential doctrines specific to branches of Christianity that may be strongly held, but that those should never be confused with the essentials of the Christian experience....................................

How does the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox experience fit in with or compare with those "non-essential doctrines that most often come with church affiliatiion"?  They seem to be left out.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

..................... I am not a practitioner of what some of my LDS friends term a "binary" Christianity. This is a term used to indicate that non-LDS Christians believe the Christians are going to heaven and everyone else is going to Hell.

Have never heard the term "binary Christianity."  However, it is a term used by evangelicals: https://www.christiancentury.org/review/binary-christianity-of-marcus-borg .  Just now looked it up online.  Are you a universalist, Phil?

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

..................................

Now on to Evangelical. The term Evangelical as I have understood it all my life refers to a subset of Christianity that has nothing to do with group (branch) affiliation. It is often termed "trans-denominational." There were no Evangelicals, identified as I am using the term until the late 1940's. The Evangelical movement within Christianity was a reaction to both of the other major components of Christianity which predated the Evangelical movement, that of Fundamentalism and Mainstream Christianity. None of these tie to any particular denomination. There are Lutheran Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainstreamers. There are Catholic Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainstreamers. I could and do make the case that there are LDS Fundamentalists (not to confuse with the term referring to polygamists), Evangelicals, and Mainstreamers as well. To save space I will only list the characteristics as I see them of Evangelicalism as started and codified in the ministries of Billy Graham, John Stott, Harold Ockenga, Carl F. H. Henry, and others. To be sure many find the roots of Evangelicalism back into the 18th and 19th centuries. I don't dispute that, I simply choose to focus on the twentieth century because that is where I came in contact with it and when it exploded into prominence.

I used to read Christianity Today regularly.  As you know, it was founded by Billy Graham, who I used to watch regularly on TV -- long before your time.  My late uncle Jim, a Methodist minister who helped organize a Los Angeles Billy Graham Crusade, saw that as a high point of his career.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

.................................. Evangelicals stress:

Correct Biblical Interpretation .....................
Engagement with the Culture as opposed to separation ...........from it. 

Stressing the Positive -................................

Stressing the need for Education, Learning, and Intellectual Engagement -..............................

A focus on Para-Church Engagement - Evangelicals founded many non-denominational groups and ministries for the purpose of expanding beyond denominational perspectives and limits - The Navigators, many mission associations, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Teen Challenge, World Vision, and many others. These groups provided opportunities for Christians from many different groups to come together to minister.

The BGEA and IVF, and Campus Crusade for Christ have done a lot of good.  No question.  From the LDS POV that helps prepare the field for harvest.  However, evangelical Mark Noll has observed that the intellectual attainments of evangelicals have not been at all impressive -- as you know, he is an evangelical.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Freedom in Worship Styles -..........................................

Social Issues -......................... They don't fit into narrow categorization. There is a great variety of focus and differences of opinions among Evangelicals on many social topics and on social justice in general................................

I hope this helps answer your questions. I am a Christian first, an Evangelical second, and a Mennonite third. .................................

Most of the points you stress as defining evangelicals are part of the non-evangelical environment as well, except for the rigid worship styles and systematic beliefs of the high churches, which I have mentioned.

A major problem with evangelicalism, which you have hinted at, is the centrifugal tendency:  It has and continues to have so many spinoffs that it can make one dizzy.  The diversity of the Body of Christ is called into question by the rampant denominationalism -- or non-denominationalism, as you might have it.  Any and all interpretations of Holy Writ are possible, including a new hermeneutic for every need.  Why does the Lord say:  "If you are not one, you are not mine." (D&C 38:27, 1 Cor 12:12-27)

Wikipedia insists that evangelicalism is mainly "the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement.  Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or 'born again' experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and in spreading the Christian message." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism .

Probably the main distinctions between evangelicalism and Mormonism are refusal by evangelicals to accept continuing revelation, LDS priesthood authority, LDS holy ordinances, LDS cosmology, etc., which are all part of the LDS Plan of Salvation.  There are other major issues, but those are the main headings under which they might be discussed.

[Anakin7]

    I love watching Billy Graham revival reruns on T.V ! .

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine 

 Washing My Garment In His Blood

 In His Eternal Debt/Grace

 He Died To Make Man Holy

Anakin7 

  

 

 

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for reposting this.

My first contact with people who called themselves Evangelicals was on my mission in Central America. It was a catch-all phrase for Protestants. I don't recall Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. denominations, just "Evangelicos." In the towns where I served there seemed to be just four groups....Catolicos, Evangelicos, Testigos de Jehova, and Mormones.

I did meet a member of a Mennonite group in Heredia, Costa Rica. My companion and I frequented a cafe for a soft drink on our way home from a day's work. One of the waiters approached us and asked if we believed in the Bible. That started a series of visits in his home. I also played the organ for their services because they didn't have anyone who could do it.

We had an experience in his home that became one of the foundation blocks of my testimony of Joseph Smith and the Savior. During one visit, he asked us what what we LDS believed about Jesus. We turned to D&C 76: 22-24 and read

At that moment the sweetest, most peaceful feeling entered the room like a soft cool breeze in the summer. In tears, the three of us felt the Spirit witness that what we had just read actually happened. Our friend elected not to join the Church, but he acknowledged the witness we received in his home and felt edified by it. I do not know what became of him later. 

We had some great discussions with Evangelicos and Testigos de Jehovah. Some were friendly, some not so much. As I matured in my mission, I learned to avoid the discussions that consisted scripture bashing back and forth.

 

Hi Bernard: Your description is still appropriate. I live in Mexico and to this day the term evangelico is used for a wide-range of Protestants. It has nothing to do with their particular beliefs or priorities, just as you say that they are not Catholics, Mormons, or Testigos de Jehova. Pentecostals here are trying to differentiate themselves by the use of the term Hermanos. Anglo and Latino Mormons use evangelical here in basically the same way. They aren't quite sure what to call Mennonites as they (we) are viewed as an ethnic, almost national identity, as much or more than a religious one. Evangelicals, properly understood transcend denominations. I would go one step further (farther?) by adding that I think many of my LDS friends copy the Latin American meaning, by referring to Evangelicals with too broad a brush. There are clear distinctives between Fundamentalists and Mainstreamers, and Evangelicals. Add to this the common nomenclature of "Fundamentalist" used for mormons who still uphold plural marriage in this dispensation and it gets even more confusing. It takes some work to appropriately and accurately identify someone, but I think it is well worthwhile. The many varied "Fundamentalist" mormon groups vary from each other in doctrinal understandings as much or more than do the Community of Christ and the LDS folks.

Protestant Fundamentalists became known with that moniker because of their adherence to five "fundamentals" of the Christian faith. The term was coined in the 1920's after a dispute among the Baptists. The moniker has "stuck," but again is often misused by those who prefer to stereotype or generalize instead of taking the time and effort to correctly identify someone's beliefs and identity. There was a whole generation of preachers who were stuck in the middle between the identity of Fundamentalist and Evangelical. My generation came out of that confusion and became more identified with one or the other. They weren't sure which they wanted to be. The whole prophecy preaching movement of the 1950's came out of this mixed identity. Every summer of my life between 8 and 15 years of age I went to a week of Bible study at Letourneau Christian Camp in Canandaigua, NY (within 10 miles or so of the home of Joseph Smith) where prophecy and powerful expository preaching was the order of the day. I remember the preaching and music well. These were great preachers who were caught between the Fundamentalist and the Evangelical movement. My father was one of them. Preachers came from Scotland, England and all over the US. These were the General Conferences of the Fundamentalists of the fifties and early sixties. They were Darby dispensationalists. Oh, and without much exaggeration, it is fair to say the early Fundamentalist movement in the US began and grew in western New York, in its earliest days at the Niagara Bible Conference. In one form or another it continued to exist throughout my childhood. My dad was a pastor in Niagara Falls and was very active in the western New York Bible Conference movement. I hope some of you find this history interesting. Thanks and happy New Year to you all. 

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How does the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox experience fit in with or compare with those "non-essential doctrines that most often come with church affiliatiion"?  They seem to be left out.

Have never heard the term "binary Christianity."  However, it is a term used by evangelicals: https://www.christiancentury.org/review/binary-christianity-of-marcus-borg .  Just now looked it up online.  Are you a universalist, Phil?

I used to read Christianity Today regularly.  As you know, it was founded by Billy Graham, who I used to watch regularly on TV -- long before your time.  My late uncle Jim, a Methodist minister who helped organize a Los Angeles Billy Graham Crusade, saw that as a high point of his career.

The BGEA and IVF, and Campus Crusade for Christ have done a lot of good.  No question.  From the LDS POV that helps prepare the field for harvest.  However, evangelical Mark Noll has observed that the intellectual attainments of evangelicals have not been at all impressive -- as you know, he is an evangelical.

Most of the points you stress as defining evangelicals are part of the non-evangelical environment as well, except for the rigid worship styles and systematic beliefs of the high churches, which I have mentioned.

A major problem with evangelicalism, which you have hinted at, is the centrifugal tendency:  It has and continues to have so many spinoffs that it can make one dizzy.  The diversity of the Body of Christ is called into question by the rampant denominationalism -- or non-denominationalism, as you might have it.  Any and all interpretations of Holy Writ are possible, including a new hermeneutic for every need.  Why does the Lord say:  "If you are not one, you are not mine." (D&C 38:27, 1 Cor 12:12-27)

Wikipedia insists that evangelicalism is mainly "the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement.  Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or 'born again' experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and in spreading the Christian message." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism .

Probably the main distinctions between evangelicalism and Mormonism are refusal by evangelicals to accept continuing revelation, LDS priesthood authority, LDS holy ordinances, LDS cosmology, etc., which are all part of the LDS Plan of Salvation.  There are other major issues, but those are the main headings under which they might be discussed.

Hi Robert - Some thoughts on your comments - I believe all Christian groups have both essential and non-essential doctrinal beliefs. When I say essential and non-essential I am referring to essential for salvation. My example of the peace focus among Mennonites is an example. A key LDS leader here in the colonies did the grave dedication last month for one of the women who were murdered near here. My understanding is that a grave dedication is an LDS ordinance. When I expressed interest that a LDS leader was listed in the funeral program as giving the grave dedication for a non-Church member, I was assured that was ok because it is not a "saving ordinance." Perhaps that is an example of a non-essential (to salvation) LDS doctrine or ordinance. I find these in all faith groups including those three you mentioned. 

My use of the word "binary" refers to those who claim that Christians believe either this or that - or a specific denomination believes either this or that - or a specific non-denominational grouping believes either this or that.  Forcing folks into a binary choice ignores the rich diversity of belief that is found within any grouping of people, extending to all forms of belief, not just religious. This is one of the dangers of the use of the word "Mormon" (large or small M). In the aftermath of the recent killings in our area, the word Mormon was used freely and loosely by the press and others. People in this or that colony were said to believe this or that! That ignores the rich diversity of beliefs even in the different colonies, which all include those who are non-religious in any form. I use the term binary in many of my presentations because I think it is helpful to explain how we often talk past each other, or form pre-conceived notions about this or that group (including members of the LDS church) by attaching binary descriptors to them. I have often read on this forum that Evangelicals believe this or that. . . see what I mean? In my original post, I identified that as a LDS term. That is too limiting. 

I am not a universalist because I take a wide view of God's mercy. Among Christians (including members of the LDS church), there are probably four main views on who will experience eternal life with God the Father and Christ. The same is true within Evangelicalism as a group. The Evangelical community is not a monolithic this or that group when it comes to eschatology and/or the understanding of life after death. I believe in some way that I don't fully understand, faith is the key ingredient that Christ will use in His role as judge. He did that in His earthly ministry and I believe will do that from his throne when he sits as judge. I believe in a larger heaven and a smaller hell than some other Evangelicals. That is ok. I believe in two 9or five) less levels of heaven than my LDS friends. That is ok too. We will all find out one day. Until that day I believe we need to be humble in our certainty. I love Peter Enns' book "The Sin of Certainty." I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in diversity within Christianity. 

I am obviously older than you think! Ha! I was born in the forties in Warsaw, IN, just a few miles from Winona Lake Bible Conference.  My father worked for Moody Bible College, Dr. Henry Ironside (a great fundamentalist-evangelical preacher of the 40s and 50s), and preached often in the Winona Lake Bible Conference. Billy Graham did a number of weeks of preaching (not really crusades in the correct usage) at Winona Lake over the course of several years, as had Billy Sunday twenty years earlier. There was a wonderful ice cream shop near the tabernacle (held more than 7,500) that all the preachers would go to after the services. I remember it well because my dad continued preaching there well into the fifties.  I believe it (the ice cream shop) is no longer there. My mom and my older sister both tell me how I would sit on Billy Graham's lap after the services and mooch ice cream from his cone or dish. I don't remember that, but every Evangelical has to have his Billy Graham story, so that is mine! My mom also told me that she, a very progressive woman for her time would sit on the back row of the tabernacle and nurse me during Graham's meetings! Ha! Now that is more than you need to know!  

I don't personally know Mark Noll, but I know of him and have heard him speak. He did pioneering work creating bridges for Catholic Evangelicals and non-Catholic Evangelicals to dialogue as a history professor at Notre Dame. He is certainly correct if he indicates that not all Evangelicals have been intellectually motivated. Sad but true. 

I would suggest that Evangelicalism has strengthened Christianity. Again, I say that from the Evangelical perspective that many doctrines held by different individuals and groups are non-essential to salvation. I don't see God crying because we hold differing non-essentials. I see Him crying when we insist that any and all of the doctrines of any one group are essential for salvation and include the only correct interpretation of this or that Scripture. I hold to fewer essentials and I am an Evangelical. I am one thread in that rich tapestry. I know you attend MHA meetings - you will certainly find rich diversity in the doctrinal understandings of the faithful LDS members at those conferences. Add into the mix a Mennonite, a former Franciscan priest, some non-believers and lapsed believers and you have the recipe for wonderful conversations after the sessions and during the breaks! I know because I have been in the middle of them! 

Last, as an Evangelical I certainly believe in continuing revelations, just perhaps in a different and more limited way than my LDS friends. I do not believe in continuing revelation as further/ additional Scripture if that is what you mean. It gets tricky however, because in my own faith group I have seen doctrine morph and change over the seventy some years of my life. It certainly has done the same within the LDS faith. In my group, many have adopted new and different beliefs and then have searched in Scripture to find proof they are right. Often they deem themselves successful - a practice sometimes called "Scripture -twisting." I believe the LDS have had more of a tendency to simply add the new or different doctrine, practice, or belief to the corpus of their Scriptures. This then enables them to declare that this or that revelation is Scripture-based. It seems to me that the new belief most often preceded its addition to Scripture. I am not being critical because the same kind of change, in a different form has happened across the board in Christianity in virtually every group that has had time to redefine beliefs over years of existence and interaction with culture.  We all need to trust that the Holy Spirit has guided such changes. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your scholarship and especially your use of the Greek and Hebrew. Thanks for that! 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    I love watching Billy Graham revival reruns on T.V ! .

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine 

 Washing My Garment In His Blood

 In His Eternal Debt/Grace

 He Died To Make Man Holy

Anakin7 

  

 

 

I had the privilege of attending his crusade in New York City in the late 1950's. I lived near Philadelphia then and our church took buses up to NYC to attend the meetings. My father and he were friends, though very different. My dad was the stern expository preacher of prophecy and eschatology. Graham was of course the topical preacher on salvation. In his later years he incurred the wrath of many Fundamentalists (who were suspicious of him to begin with) and some Evangelicals when he decreed that any reference to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a cult in any of his current websites, literature, etc. be expunged. I thought that was great! I know Dwight Moody preached in the church's tabernacle. I don't know if Billy Sunday or Billy Graham ever did? Anyone know for sure? Maybe I should ask Rick Turley, Jr.  I am sure he will know. 

[Anakin7]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I had the privilege of attending his crusade in New York City in the late 1950's. I lived near Philadelphia then and our church took buses up to NYC to attend the meetings. My father and he were friends, though very different. My dad was the stern expository preacher of prophecy and eschatology. Graham was of course the topical preacher on salvation. In his later years he incurred the wrath of many Fundamentalists (who were suspicious of him to begin with) and some Evangelicals when he decreed that any reference to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a cult in any of his current websites, literature, etc. be expunged. I thought that was great! I know Dwight Moody preached in the church's tabernacle. I don't know if Billy Sunday or Billy Graham ever did? Anyone know for sure? Maybe I should ask Rick Turley, Jr.  I am sure he will know. 

      The late Jack Chick of Chick publications [Comic books and Tracks on Biblical issues which included his belief of the satanic nature of Catholicism and other churches  false teachings]  put out a book on Billy Graham on his not being a real christian who was deceiving people with his message and critical of Billy's being friendly with the religious cults [Mormonism included].

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

He Died To Make Man Holy

Anakin7

[Navidad]

33 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

      The late Jack Chick of Chick publications [Comic books and Tracks on Biblical issues which included his belief of the satanic nature of Catholicism and other churches  false teachings]  put out a book on Billy Graham on his not being a real christian who was deceiving people with his message and critical of Billy's being friendly with the religious cults [Mormonism included].

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

He Died To Make Man Holy

Anakin7

Jack Chick was an example of an extremist who was in reality neither Fundamentalist or Evangelical. He is a classic example of one who identified by what he was against. He was a loner doing his own mean-spirited thing in the name of both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. He had to identify with some recognized movement in order to reach for some credibility. He failed. I never met an Evangelical or credible Fundamentalist who supported Chick's work. He was a cartoonist in more ways than one! 

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/1/2020 at 6:19 AM, Navidad said:

Hi Bernard: Your description is still appropriate. I live in Mexico and to this day the term evangelico is used for a wide-range of Protestants. It has nothing to do with their particular beliefs or priorities, just as you say that they are not Catholics, Mormons, or Testigos de Jehova. Pentecostals here are trying to differentiate themselves by the use of the term Hermanos. Anglo and Latino Mormons use evangelical here in basically the same way. They aren't quite sure what to call Mennonites as they (we) are viewed as an ethnic, almost national identity, as much or more than a religious one. Evangelicals, properly understood transcend denominations. I would go one step further (farther?) by adding that I think many of my LDS friends copy the Latin American meaning, by referring to Evangelicals with too broad a brush. There are clear distinctives between Fundamentalists and Mainstreamers, and Evangelicals. Add to this the common nomenclature of "Fundamentalist" used for mormons who still uphold plural marriage in this dispensation and it gets even more confusing. It takes some work to appropriately and accurately identify someone, but I think it is well worthwhile. The many varied "Fundamentalist" mormon groups vary from each other in doctrinal understandings as much or more than do the Community of Christ and the LDS folks.

Protestant Fundamentalists became known with that moniker because of their adherence to five "fundamentals" of the Christian faith. The term was coined in the 1920's after a dispute among the Baptists. The moniker has "stuck," but again is often misused by those who prefer to stereotype or generalize instead of taking the time and effort to correctly identify someone's beliefs and identity. There was a whole generation of preachers who were stuck in the middle between the identity of Fundamentalist and Evangelical. My generation came out of that confusion and became more identified with one or the other. They weren't sure which they wanted to be. The whole prophecy preaching movement of the 1950's came out of this mixed identity. Every summer of my life between 8 and 15 years of age I went to a week of Bible study at Letourneau Christian Camp in Canandaigua, NY (within 10 miles or so of the home of Joseph Smith) where prophecy and powerful expository preaching was the order of the day. I remember the preaching and music well. These were great preachers who were caught between the Fundamentalist and the Evangelical movement. My father was one of them. Preachers came from Scotland, England and all over the US. These were the General Conferences of the Fundamentalists of the fifties and early sixties. They were Darby dispensationalists. Oh, and without much exaggeration, it is fair to say the early Fundamentalist movement in the US began and grew in western New York, in its earliest days at the Niagara Bible Conference. In one form or another it continued to exist throughout my childhood. My dad was a pastor in Niagara Falls and was very active in the western New York Bible Conference movement. I hope some of you find this history interesting. Thanks and happy New Year to you all. 

Yes, very interesting, thank you. Sometimes I get the notion that the divisions among Christians and other religions reflect the love of God for all his children as revealed in this Book of Mormon teachings:

Quote

2 Nephi 31:3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

Alma 26:37 Now my brethren, we see that God is mindful of every people, whatsoever land they may be in; yea, he numbereth his people, and his bowels of mercy are over all the earth. Now this is my joy, and my great thanksgiving; yea, and I will give thanks unto my God forever. Amen.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

.................... I believe all Christian groups have both essential and non-essential doctrinal beliefs. When I say essential and non-essential I am referring to essential for salvation. My example of the peace focus among Mennonites is an example. A key LDS leader here in the colonies did the grave dedication last month for one of the women who were murdered near here. My understanding is that a grave dedication is an LDS ordinance. When I expressed interest that a LDS leader was listed in the funeral program as giving the grave dedication for a non-Church member, I was assured that was ok because it is not a "saving ordinance." Perhaps that is an example of a non-essential (to salvation) LDS doctrine or ordinance. I find these in all faith groups including those three you mentioned.

LDS bishops regularly perform public nuptials for members and non-members when asked.  Not all LDS wedding are in temples.  These are sacraments, same as in Roman Catholic practice.  They include any prayer, any healing rite, any exorcism, any grave dedication, any marriage for time, etc., which may be performed for anyone.  Most Christian pastors do this too.  In LDS practice, the rules governing who may perform them varies according to the sacrament:  Women perform saving ordinances in LDS temples, thus exercising priesthood function.

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

 My use of the word "binary" refers to those who claim that Christians believe either this or that - or a specific denomination believes either this or that - or a specific non-denominational grouping believes either this or that.  Forcing folks into a binary choice ignores the rich diversity of belief that is found within any grouping of people, extending to all forms of belief, not just religious. This is one of the dangers of the use of the word "Mormon" (large or small M). In the aftermath of the recent killings in our area, the word Mormon was used freely and loosely by the press and others. People in this or that colony were said to believe this or that! That ignores the rich diversity of beliefs even in the different colonies, which all include those who are non-religious in any form. I use the term binary in many of my presentations because I think it is helpful to explain how we often talk past each other, or form pre-conceived notions about this or that group (including members of the LDS church) by attaching binary descriptors to them. I have often read on this forum that Evangelicals believe this or that. . . see what I mean? In my original post, I identified that as a LDS term. That is too limiting. 

It is only that LDS people just don't use the term "binary," which has now taken on a sexual connotation in many circles.

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

.........................
I am obviously older than you think! Ha! I was born in the forties in Warsaw, IN, just a few miles from Winona Lake Bible Conference.  My father worked for Moody Bible College, Dr. Henry Ironside (a great fundamentalist-evangelical preacher of the 40s and 50s), and preached often in the Winona Lake Bible Conference. Billy Graham did a number of weeks of preaching (not really crusades in the correct usage) at Winona Lake over the course of several years, as had Billy Sunday twenty years earlier. There was a wonderful ice cream shop near the tabernacle (held more than 7,500) that all the preachers would go to after the services. I remember it well because my dad continued preaching there well into the fifties.  I believe it (the ice cream shop) is no longer there. My mom and my older sister both tell me how I would sit on Billy Graham's lap after the services and mooch ice cream from his cone or dish. I don't remember that, but every Evangelical has to have his Billy Graham story, so that is mine! My mom also told me that she, a very progressive woman for her time would sit on the back row of the tabernacle and nurse me during Graham's meetings! Ha! Now that is more than you need to know!  

In the 1940s it was still entirely normal for women to nurse their babies in public, and no one gave it a second's thought.  Today it is practically prohibited.  How odd.

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

..........................
I would suggest that Evangelicalism has strengthened Christianity. Again, I say that from the Evangelical perspective that many doctrines held by different individuals and groups are non-essential to salvation. I don't see God crying because we hold differing non-essentials. I see Him crying when we insist that any and all of the doctrines of any one group are essential for salvation and include the only correct interpretation of this or that Scripture. I hold to fewer essentials and I am an Evangelical. I am one thread in that rich tapestry. I know you attend MHA meetings - you will certainly find rich diversity in the doctrinal understandings of the faithful LDS members at those conferences. Add into the mix a Mennonite, a former Franciscan priest, some non-believers and lapsed believers and you have the recipe for wonderful conversations after the sessions and during the breaks! I know because I have been in the middle of them! 

Since evangelicalism is actually Wesleyan and Methodist in origin, we can even say that it had a huge effect on Joseph Smith in the Burned Over District.  Some people even claim that Mormonism is a form of Methodism.  Ha!!

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Last, as an Evangelical I certainly believe in continuing revelations, just perhaps in a different and more limited way than my LDS friends. I do not believe in continuing revelation as further/ additional Scripture if that is what you mean. It gets tricky however, because in my own faith group I have seen doctrine morph and change over the seventy some years of my life. It certainly has done the same within the LDS faith. In my group, many have adopted new and different beliefs and then have searched in Scripture to find proof they are right. Often they deem themselves successful - a practice sometimes called "Scripture -twisting." I believe the LDS have had more of a tendency to simply add the new or different doctrine, practice, or belief to the corpus of their Scriptures. This then enables them to declare that this or that revelation is Scripture-based. It seems to me that the new belief most often preceded its addition to Scripture. I am not being critical because the same kind of change, in a different form has happened across the board in Christianity in virtually every group that has had time to redefine beliefs over years of existence and interaction with culture.  We all need to trust that the Holy Spirit has guided such changes. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your scholarship and especially your use of the Greek and Hebrew. Thanks for that! 

You use the atomistic term "continuing revelations," which Mormons never do.  For us it is always "continuing revelation,"  singular.  It is not so much additional scripture, but the principal that God has never ceased to tell his prophets what He wants done (Amos 3:7).  He is the same yesterday, today, and forever -- which is a Jewish liturgical phrase (Rev 1:4,8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLBnwN6DcQ ).

I often hear that everything is developmental, but when I look at the documents, I find that to be false.  The Book of Mormon for example comes fully formed from day one.  No time for any theological development.  It contains the entire Mormon Plan of Salvation and distinctive theology.  How is that possible?  See my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

 

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

LDS bishops regularly perform public nuptials for members and non-members when asked.  Not all LDS wedding are in temples.  These are sacraments, same as in Roman Catholic practice.  They include any prayer, any healing rite, any exorcism, any grave dedication, any marriage for time, etc., which may be performed for anyone.  Most Christian pastors do this too.  In LDS practice, the rules governing who may perform them varies according to the sacrament:  Women perform saving ordinances in LDS temples, thus exercising priesthood function.

It is only that LDS people just don't use the term "binary," which has now taken on a sexual connotation in many circles.

In the 1940s it was still entirely normal for women to nurse their babies in public, and no one gave it a second's thought.  Today it is practically prohibited.  How odd.

Since evangelicalism is actually Wesleyan and Methodist in origin, we can even say that it had a huge effect on Joseph Smith in the Burned Over District.  Some people even claim that Mormonism is a form of Methodism.  Ha!!

You use the atomistic term "continuing revelations," which Mormons never do.  For us it is always "continuing revelation,"  singular.  It is not so much additional scripture, but the principal that God has never ceased to tell his prophets what He wants done (Amos 3:7).  He is the same yesterday, today, and forever -- which is a Jewish liturgical phrase (Rev 1:4,8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLBnwN6DcQ ).

I often hear that everything is developmental, but when I look at the documents, I find that to be false.  The Book of Mormon for example comes fully formed from day one.  No time for any theological development.  It contains the entire Mormon Plan of Salvation and distinctive theology.  How is that possible?  See my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

 

Hmmm. Not where I grew up in New Mexico.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmmm. Not where I grew up in New Mexico.

In the 1940s in traditionally Hispanic Nuevo Mexico?  I find that very hard to believe, Bernard.  Are you old enough to recall it personally?  Of course, my experience was in California.  So maybe I don't understand the nature of NM.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have just read the following:

Kathleen Flake, “Ordering Antinomy: An Analysis of Early Mormonism's Priestly Offices, Councils, and Kinship,” Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, 26/2 (2016):139–183, online at http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints (DOI: 10.1525/rac.2016.26.2.139 ), and https://www.academia.edu/28030781/Ordering_Antinomy_An_Analysis_of_Early_Mormonisms_Priestly_Offices_Councils_and_Kinship?email_work_card=view-paper ,    
 

Quote

Abstract
Joseph Smith avoided the atomization of his religious movement, notwithstanding its broad grant of hieratic and charismatic power to all members, by investing that power in three organizational structures and assigning every believer a status within each and, therefore, placing each in shifting status relation to each other. Status was not absolute or static: it changed as each person moved within and among the three sites of power. Or, in other words, the degree and nature of the authority held by anyone at any given time was particular to the locus of the power – office, council, or kinship -- not the person. The power struggles this occasioned within his movement, particularly over Smith’s inclusion of women in his priestly hierarchy, weakened his vision of reciprocal authority and shifting jurisdiction. Compromised by romanticized gender norms but not abandoned, Smith’s design continues to constitute the governing structure of Mormonism, leaving it still republican in style, not substance. Historiographically, it is hoped that this closer analysis of Mormonism’s polity illuminates the existence of alternatives to regnant tropes on the nature of antebellum religion and contributes to better understanding of the means by which at least one perfectionist religion has survived notwithstanding its radically antinomian tendencies.

Quote

p. 141, “Descended from the American progeny of England andNew England’s radical sectarians, Smith preached the necessity of revelation as a direct encounter with God, and not as a conversion experience but rather as a deifying one.  Smith was the Henry Ford of theophany: everyone could and should have one.”

pp. 141-142, “Smith organized power within his movement bycreating three parallel sites of authority: priestly office, council, and kinship.”

p. 142, “These shifting status relationships and reciprocities of power stabilized Mormonism’s potentially self-destructive antinomianism . . . .”

p. 146, “. . . based on his understanding of the nature of God and the explicit terms of Smith’s own perceived grant of authority, he set about creating a community of prophets.”

p. 166, “. . . a surprisingly quick passage from congregational to hierarchical ecclesiology and from commonsense to sacramental ideology. Observing this, most nineteenth-century commentators concluded that Mormonism was inclined to popish, if not Moorish excesses adverse to a Protestant nation. As discussed above, today’s scholarship typically takes the opposite view: Mormonism was “constitute[d] . . . according to popular norms.”

On pp. 148-149, Flake shows ignorance of the already extant Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods in the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.  Smith did not invent these priesthoods.

On p. 156, she mistakenly says that “‘Nauvoo,’ [is] a neologism."  The same mistake made by Fawn Brodie in her chapter on Nauvoo.  In fact, Nauvoo is Hebrew, taken directly from J. Seixas' book.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

On 12/31/2019 at 2:49 PM, Navidad said:

...that He was sent to earth as a baby, lived, died, rose again and ascended into heaven as an atonement (paying the price) for our sin.

How about "healing the affects of sin" instead? It's a more organic model.

How much does sin cost? Is there a treasury of Merit somewhere in the universe balancing the the debts of sin?

I think we can understand healing better than we understand accounting.

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by mfbukowski