Fundamentalists and LDS Church Members - Fundamentalists and Evangelicals

[Navidad]

I want to word this discussion accurately and carefully. Having said that I would love to hear your thoughts about the comparisons I make from my own personal interactions and observations. I appreciate your interactions in advance.

Since November 2019 I have come to have a greater awareness and knowledge of the tensions, discomfort, and distancing that goes on between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its fundamentalist offspring groups. I will say in advance that my knowledge of the same is centered on the things here in Mexico. I have no personal interactions with the same in the States, other than what I have read in writings by various authors. It is my experience based on direct involvement, that the LDS community here is very uncomfortable with association with the various fundamentalist communities. In the big picture, this began in the 20s and has continued, ebbing and flowing to this day. This is complicated by the fact that they share lots of common roots, history, and familial ties to this very day. Just this past Sunday I was involved in an extended conversation with a thirty or so year old woman whose uncle was a leader in both the LeBaron movements, having converted from the LDS church to them. She knew him well. In another regard, Stake PR leaders were hesitant to talk with the press about the tragic murders over in Sonora. There was great personal and institutional sense of loss and pain. There was also an overriding sense that the LDS leadership, at least on a local or area level was and remains concerned about folks outside of the church confusing the LDS group with the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists prefer to live in isolation. They were also concerned about being confused with the "mother" church which they maintain has apostasized. It seems the discomfort is mutual. Both groups prefer that a distinction is made between them and that they are not confused with each other.

Since the very late 40s and early 50s, non-LDS Christianity of a Protestant (mostly - but not exclusively) nature has increasingly divided, or has been divided into three or four primary categories: the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Mainline (or Mainstream), and some add a Pentecostal fourth group. These categorizations have stuck and been accepted by their adherents. Of course, there are overlaps and differences in distinctions, but these are broad categories on which there are agreement. Over the sixty years of the existence of these categories, these groups have tried to cooperate, have attacked each other, have attempted to ignore or impugn the other. Bottom line, they are uncomfortable being confused, one for the other, being seen as too closely aligned, or too distantly aligned. They share common roots, with many spokespersons for one or the other having made transitions between the groups, having hard feelings about the other, etc. In a real sense, these categories and the conflicts between them have superseded the older denominational feuds and battles. I am living proof of that. My primary identity is as a Christian, secondarily as an evangelical, and lastly and leastly as a Mennonite. I am most uncomfortable when my Christianity is questioned, next when my evangelical heritage is questioned, and last and least if something negative is said about Mennonites. Many have worked very hard to create boundaries between the groups, and some have worked very hard to bring the groups together. Pentecostals have often wanted nothing to do with these categories, but more and more are getting subsumed as one or the other. These are major divisions and a really big deal in non-LDS Christianity. I offer this as one inadequate, but important reason why I sometimes react so strongly to what I perceive as mischaracterizations and generalizations made by folks in this forum, especially when using the term "evangelical" as broadly as you do. If I, or another non-member would generalize the LDS folks, the Community of Christ, and the fundamentalists all as the same group, I think some or most of you might correct me, wouldn't you? Isn't that behind at least some of the hesitance about the use of the word Mormon?

My observation over the last few years is that there is really a commonality between the LDS - Fundamentalists discomfort and the discomfort between the different major non-LDS Protestant Christian groups. I see many of the same characteristics, discomfort, and distancing in both situations, including a realization of the common roots, familial linkages, etc. between each of the situations. I would enjoy hearing from any of you about your thoughts regarding what I have said and about my equating the two situations as being similar. LDS church members are not fundamentalists. Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Am I correct or incorrect? I have personal experience with LDS leaders wanting the distinctions in their situation to be clearly made. Can you understand why, for the same reason, I would like the distinctions within the non-LDS Christian community to be made as well. Anti-Mormons are by and large members of fundamentalist groups. They aren't evangelicals. To you, is that just a distinction without a difference? Do you think about the distinctions within non-LDS Christianity in the same vein as you might think of the distinctions between LDS, Community of Christ, and Mormon fundamentalists?

I hope nothing I have said is offensive. That is neither my heart nor intent. I basically hope to open an informative and interesting conversation. Nothing more. Thanks

[bOObOO]

The term evangelical derives from the Greek word euangelion meaning “gospel” or “good news.” Technically speaking, evangelical refers to a person, church, or organization that is committed to the Christian gospel message that Jesus Christ is the savior of humanity.

Realizing some people would think that is too broad a definition I then looked for a more modern adaptation of the term evangelical and found this:

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/03/01/what-is-an-evangelical-christian

Here is a snippet from that:

According to David Bebbington, a British historian, an evangelical Christian believes in four essential doctrines: to be saved a person must have a “born again” conversion experience—hence evangelicals are also known as “born-again Christians”; Jesus’s death on the cross atones for mankind’s sins; the Bible is the ultimate spiritual authority; and Christians ought to actively share their faith through witnessing and good works. But George Marsden, a historian of American Christianity, once quipped that an evangelical was “someone who likes Billy Graham”, perhaps the 20th century’s most renowned Christian preacher. Asked the same thing, Graham said, “Actually, that’s a question I’d like to ask somebody, too.” One reason why even Graham struggled to define evangelicalism is its decentralised structure. Unlike Catholics, evangelicals do not have a pope. They can belong to almost any denomination. What unites them is a shared theology of salvation through faith in Christ alone (their name comes from the Greek word “euangelion”, which means good news or gospel). Doctrinal beliefs can range widely depending on how they interpret Scripture.

In the past when I was a member of another Christian church, known as the Church of Christ, I thought of myself as an evangelical because I was actively out there in the world trying to share the message of Christ as well as I understood it back then, and I thought evangelizing was the main thing that made a Christian an evangelical Christian.  All Christians should consider themselves to be born-again Christians, I thought, since the Bible clearly teaches that a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of God.  And while I and the Church of Christ believed the way to be born again was by being baptized, I was aware of multiple interpretations in the Christian world about how to be properly baptized and believed Christ would be the judge of who had been properly baptized and who had not.

I still consider an evangelical to be what I thought one was before, regardless of what one is preaching.  They are among every denomination and sect of Christianity, and yet they do not agree with each other, just as there is no universal consensus among any of us even when we are members of the same church or denomination. I think the main thing that sets us (LDS) apart from most other Christians is that we believe revelation from God to us personally is the ultimate spiritual authority rather than only the Bible.  And based on revelation from God to us personally we believe what God revealed through Joseph Smith and still confirms through us and President Nelson.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I want to word this discussion accurately and carefully. Having said that I would love to hear your thoughts about the comparisons I make from my own personal interactions and observations. I appreciate your interactions in advance.

Since November 2019 I have come to have a greater awareness and knowledge of the tensions, discomfort, and distancing that goes on between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its fundamentalist offspring groups. I will say in advance that my knowledge of the same is centered on the things here in Mexico. I have no personal interactions with the same in the States, other than what I have read in writings by various authors. It is my experience based on direct involvement, that the LDS community here is very uncomfortable with association with the various fundamentalist communities. In the big picture, this began in the 20s and has continued, ebbing and flowing to this day. This is complicated by the fact that they share lots of common roots, history, and familial ties to this very day. Just this past Sunday I was involved in an extended conversation with a thirty or so year old woman whose uncle was a leader in both the LeBaron movements, having converted from the LDS church to them. She knew him well. In another regard, Stake PR leaders were hesitant to talk with the press about the tragic murders over in Sonora. There was great personal and institutional sense of loss and pain. There was also an overriding sense that the LDS leadership, at least on a local or area level was and remains concerned about folks outside of the church confusing the LDS group with the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists prefer to live in isolation. They were also concerned about being confused with the "mother" church which they maintain has apostasized. It seems the discomfort is mutual. Both groups prefer that a distinction is made between them and that they are not confused with each other.

Since the very late 40s and early 50s, non-LDS Christianity of a Protestant (mostly - but not exclusively) nature has increasingly divided, or has been divided into three or four primary categories: the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Mainline (or Mainstream), and some add a Pentecostal fourth group. These categorizations have stuck and been accepted by their adherents. Of course, there are overlaps and differences in distinctions, but these are broad categories on which there are agreement. Over the sixty years of the existence of these categories, these groups have tried to cooperate, have attacked each other, have attempted to ignore or impugn the other. Bottom line, they are uncomfortable being confused, one for the other, being seen as too closely aligned, or too distantly aligned. They share common roots, with many spokespersons for one or the other having made transitions between the groups, having hard feelings about the other, etc. In a real sense, these categories and the conflicts between them have superseded the older denominational feuds and battles. I am living proof of that. My primary identity is as a Christian, secondarily as an evangelical, and lastly and leastly as a Mennonite. I am most uncomfortable when my Christianity is questioned, next when my evangelical heritage is questioned, and last and least if something negative is said about Mennonites. Many have worked very hard to create boundaries between the groups, and some have worked very hard to bring the groups together. Pentecostals have often wanted nothing to do with these categories, but more and more are getting subsumed as one or the other. These are major divisions and a really big deal in non-LDS Christianity. I offer this as one inadequate, but important reason why I sometimes react so strongly to what I perceive as mischaracterizations and generalizations made by folks in this forum, especially when using the term "evangelical" as broadly as you do. If I, or another non-member would generalize the LDS folks, the Community of Christ, and the fundamentalists all as the same group, I think some or most of you might correct me, wouldn't you? Isn't that behind at least some of the hesitance about the use of the word Mormon?

My observation over the last few years is that there is really a commonality between the LDS - Fundamentalists discomfort and the discomfort between the different major non-LDS Protestant Christian groups. I see many of the same characteristics, discomfort, and distancing in both situations, including a realization of the common roots, familial linkages, etc. between each of the situations. I would enjoy hearing from any of you about your thoughts regarding what I have said and about my equating the two situations as being similar. LDS church members are not fundamentalists. Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Am I correct or incorrect? I have personal experience with LDS leaders wanting the distinctions in their situation to be clearly made. Can you understand why, for the same reason, I would like the distinctions within the non-LDS Christian community to be made as well. Anti-Mormons are by and large members of fundamentalist groups. They aren't evangelicals. To you, is that just a distinction without a difference? Do you think about the distinctions within non-LDS Christianity in the same vein as you might think of the distinctions between LDS, Community of Christ, and Mormon fundamentalists?

I hope nothing I have said is offensive. That is neither my heart nor intent. I basically hope to open an informative and interesting conversation. Nothing more. Thanks

I see fundamentalists as a subset of strict, literal adherents of any given (typically religious) group, and that persons of any group, fundamentalist or not, can engage in anti-Mormon activity or anti-any-other denominational activity.

[Navidad]

30 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The term evangelical derives from the Greek word euangelion meaning “gospel” or “good news.” Technically speaking, evangelical refers to a person, church, or organization that is committed to the Christian gospel message that Jesus Christ is the savior of humanity.

Realizing some people would think that is too broad a definition I then looked for a more modern adaptation of the term evangelical and found this:

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/03/01/what-is-an-evangelical-christian

Here is a snippet from that:

According to David Bebbington, a British historian, an evangelical Christian believes in four essential doctrines: to be saved a person must have a “born again” conversion experience—hence evangelicals are also known as “born-again Christians”; Jesus’s death on the cross atones for mankind’s sins; the Bible is the ultimate spiritual authority; and Christians ought to actively share their faith through witnessing and good works. But George Marsden, a historian of American Christianity, once quipped that an evangelical was “someone who likes Billy Graham”, perhaps the 20th century’s most renowned Christian preacher. Asked the same thing, Graham said, “Actually, that’s a question I’d like to ask somebody, too.” One reason why even Graham struggled to define evangelicalism is its decentralised structure. Unlike Catholics, evangelicals do not have a pope. They can belong to almost any denomination. What unites them is a shared theology of salvation through faith in Christ alone (their name comes from the Greek word “euangelion”, which means good news or gospel). Doctrinal beliefs can range widely depending on how they interpret Scripture.

In the past when I was a member of another Christian church, known as the Church of Christ, I thought of myself as an evangelical because I was actively out there in the world trying to share the message of Christ as well as I understood it back then, and I thought evangelizing was the main thing that made a Christian an evangelical Christian.  All Christians should consider themselves to be born-again Christians, I thought, since the Bible clearly teaches that a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of God.  And while I and the Church of Christ believed the way to be born again was by being baptized, I was aware of multiple interpretations in the Christian world about how to be properly baptized and believed Christ would be the judge of who had been properly baptized and who had not.

I still consider an evangelical to be what I thought one was before, regardless of what one is preaching.  They are among every denomination and sect of Christianity, and yet they do not agree with each other, just as there is no universal consensus among any of us even when we are members of the same church or denomination. I think the main thing that sets us (LDS) apart from most other Christians is that we believe revelation from God to us personally is the ultimate spiritual authority rather than only the Bible.  And based on revelation from God to us personally we believe what God revealed through Joseph Smith and still confirms through us and President Nelson.

Thanks, just as a point of information. The Bebbington Quadrilateral which you quote from has in recent years been discarded as a useful model for understanding Evangelicals (the subcategory of non-LDS Christianity to which I refer). If we stick to the literal definition of evangelical that you suggest, then lots and lots, if not most members of the LDS church are, in that sense evangelicals. Take care.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Navidad
clarification

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks, just as a point of information. The Bebbington Quadrilateral which you quote from has in recent years been discarded as a useful model for understanding Evangelicals (the subcategory of non-LDS Christianity to which I refer). Take care.

Great, so what was put in its place?  Something everyone who knows it now agrees with, I hope.

[bOObOO]

39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks, just as a point of information. The Bebbington Quadrilateral which you quote from has in recent years been discarded as a useful model for understanding Evangelicals (the subcategory of non-LDS Christianity to which I refer). If we stick to the literal definition of evangelical that you suggest, then lots and lots, if not most members of the LDS church are, in that sense evangelicals. Take care.

Great.  So let's just go back to using the term "anti" when anyone is opposed to something someone else likes.  Then we can all be called anti something instead of what we are in favor of.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Anti-Mormons are by and large members of fundamentalist groups. They aren't evangelicals. To you, is that just a distinction without a difference? Do you think about the distinctions within non-LDS Christianity in the same vein as you might think of the distinctions between LDS, Community of Christ, and Mormon fundamentalists?

I only identify people by how they identify themselves.  Most antimormons I personally run into identify themselves as "evangelical" or "ex-Mormon".

You might find this of interest:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4343&context=etd

Edited September 1, 2021 by pogi

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I only identify people by how they identify themselves.  Most antimormons I personally run into identify themselves as "evangelical" or "ex-Mormon".

I obviously agree but stop at faiths (eg: Roman Catholicism) with an authority to declare who is and isn't a member. I can't truthfully self-declare as Roman Catholic.

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

I only identify people by how they identify themselves.  Most antimormons I personally run into identify themselves as "evangelical" or "ex-Mormon".

You might find this of interest:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4343&context=etd

Thanks Pogi. That thesis looks very interesting. I look forward to reading it. As an aside, what might be your reaction to fundamentalist groups identifying themselves as Mormon? Or the Community of Christ, who while deeming themselves Mormons, are interestingly enough increasingly seeing themselves as becoming more like the evangelical community to which I refer. It seems very similar to me to what the Pentecostals have done as well. Do you see the Community of Christ as a fundamentalist Mormon group?

Edited September 1, 2021 by Navidad
clarification

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks Pogi. That thesis looks very interesting. I look forward to reading it. As an aside, what might be your reaction to fundamentalist groups identifying themselves as Mormon? Or the Community of Christ, who while deeming themselves Mormons, are interestingly enough increasingly seeing themselves as becoming more like the evangelical community to which I refer. It seems very similar to me to what the Pentecostals have done as well. Do you see the Community of Christ as a fundamentalist Mormon group?

Fundamentalists and Community of Christ want to distinguish themselves from us as much as we want to distinguish ourselves from them.  For that reason they almost always identify as "fundamentalist Mormon", and Community of Christ "does not accept the appellation Mormon because of the association with polygamy."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Community-of-Christ

Now that we too have abandoned (or are working towards that at least) the appellation, we are distinguished by the name of the church.

I have no way of telling if an Evangelical is a fundamentalist if he wont tell me.  You can understand the problem...

 

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

45 minutes ago, Chum said:

I obviously agree but stop at faiths (eg: Roman Catholicism) with an authority to declare who is and isn't a member. I can't truthfully self-declare as Roman Catholic.

But you are, buddy  

Catholicism believes that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Since you were validly baptized, you remain Catholic.

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave...

[Chum]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

But you are, buddy  

Catholicism believes that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Since you were validly baptized, you remain Catholic.

Okay see now I said self-declare to say that I can't just will myself to be Catholic. I have to be baptized by Catholic authority.

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave...

Tell me about it. Put me in a mass and I'll rote thru the liturgy like it was 40 years ago.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I want to word this discussion accurately and carefully. Having said that I would love to hear your thoughts about the comparisons I make from my own personal interactions and observations. I appreciate your interactions in advance.

Since November 2019 I have come to have a greater awareness and knowledge of the tensions, discomfort, and distancing that goes on between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its fundamentalist offspring groups.

I think this tension (A) may be somewhat asymmetrical (I think most Latter-day Saints don't often think much about "fundamentalist offspring groups"), and (B) skew towards a geographical concern (Latter-day Saints who have more regular interaction with "fundamentalist offspring groups" are going to give this relationship, such as it is, more attention, whereas Latter-day Saints who do not interact with these groups give them essentially little or not thought).

Candidly, I think about "fundamentalist offspring groups" as much as I do about the Amish, the Quakers, the Community of Christ, Scientologists, etc..  That is to say, very little.  I certainly don't mean that as a slight.  I just don't feel any particular kinship or affinity with them.  

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I will say in advance that my knowledge of the same is centered on the things here in Mexico. I have no personal interactions with the same in the States, other than what I have read in writings by various authors. It is my experience based on direct involvement, that the LDS community here is very uncomfortable with association with the various fundamentalist communities.

The association will be understandably more acute given the well-publicized events that have occurred in Mexico.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

In the big picture, this began in the 20s and has continued, ebbing and flowing to this day. This is complicated by the fact that they share lots of common roots, history, and familial ties to this very day. Just this past Sunday I was involved in an extended conversation with a thirty or so year old woman whose uncle was a leader in both the LeBaron movements, having converted from the LDS church to them. She knew him well. In another regard, Stake PR leaders were hesitant to talk with the press about the tragic murders over in Sonora.

I can sort of see the hesitancy.  If a there was a tragedy involving an evangelical protestant group in, say, Colorado, would the media seek out the local Catholic archdiocese and ask for its reaction given that Protestantism originated by coming out of Catholicism?  Obviously not.  But "the press" approach "stake PR leaders" even though the Latter-day Saints and their offshoots parted ways 100+ years ago.  Much of the news media about the murders in Sonora referenced them as being "Mormons," which no doubt led to further confusion.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

There was great personal and institutional sense of loss and pain. There was also an overriding sense that the LDS leadership, at least on a local or area level was and remains concerned about folks outside of the church confusing the LDS group with the fundamentalists.

That's understandable.  We have enough messes of our own making to clean up after.  Being held to account for groups that left us 100+ years ago is . . . weird.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The fundamentalists prefer to live in isolation. They were also concerned about being confused with the "mother" church which they maintain has apostasized. It seems the discomfort is mutual. Both groups prefer that a distinction is made between them and that they are not confused with each other.

Both sides seem to value the distinction, then.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

My primary identity is as a Christian, secondarily as an evangelical, and lastly and leastly as a Mennonite.

My primary identity is as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think folks of my stripe are more inclined to conflate their "Christian" identity with their membership in the Church as being the same thing, or at least understood and implied.

By way of analogy, my primary biological identity is homo sapiens.  That I also belong to the class Mammalia and the kingdom Animalia is understood and implied.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am most uncomfortable when my Christianity is questioned, next when my evangelical heritage is questioned, and last and least if something negative is said about Mennonites.

I understand this sentiment.  

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Many have worked very hard to create boundaries between the groups, and some have worked very hard to bring the groups together. Pentecostals have often wanted nothing to do with these categories, but more and more are getting subsumed as one or the other. These are major divisions and a really big deal in non-LDS Christianity.

And I think those divisions will more or less remain.  It is those divisions that created the various varieties of splintered Christianity in the first place.  

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I offer this as one inadequate, but important reason why I sometimes react so strongly to what I perceive as mischaracterizations and generalizations made by folks in this forum, especially when using the term "evangelical" as broadly as you do.

Fair enough.  We should be more circumspect.  Thank you for making this point.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

My observation over the last few years is that there is really a commonality between the LDS - Fundamentalists discomfort and the discomfort between the different major non-LDS Protestant Christian groups. I see many of the same characteristics, discomfort, and distancing in both situations, including a realization of the common roots, familial linkages, etc. between each of the situations.

Okay.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would enjoy hearing from any of you about your thoughts regarding what I have said and about my equating the two situations as being similar.

There are some similarities, yes.  But also some very profound differences.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "visible."  It is an institution with an established and undisputed heirarchy.  It has formal means of obtaining, or setting aside, membership in the Church.  The doctrines of the Church are, in the main, correlated and recognized throughout the world.  There are, relatively speaking, very few people who make their living off the Church.  In particular, local leaders (bishops, stake presidents, RS presidents, etc.) serve without pay, and for a limited amount of time, and are asked to serve rather than volunteer or aspire to it.  

In short, the Church is, in my view, substantially more "monolithic," such that it is easier to differentiate the Latter-day Saints from "fundamentalist offspring groups."  While we share some history, we do not seem to share much in the way of affinity/kinship with each other.  Individuals generally have an either/or decision to make between them.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

LDS church members are not fundamentalists. Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Am I correct or incorrect?

"Fundamentalist" is too vaguely defined and used here, I think.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have personal experience with LDS leaders wanting the distinctions in their situation to be clearly made. Can you understand why, for the same reason, I would like the distinctions within the non-LDS Christian community to be made as well.

What distinctions do you have in mind?

Consider, for example, the following classification of humans:

Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Primates
Suborder:	Haplorhini
Infraorder:	Simiiformes
Family:	Hominidae
Subfamily:	Homininae
Tribe:	Hominini
Genus:	Homo
Species:	H. sapiens

If we were do adapt this to classify religions, my classification might look something like this:

Kingdom:	Religion
Phylum:	Theistic
Class:	Judeo-Christian
Order:	Christian
Suborder:	Restorationist
Infraorder:	Latter-day Saint
Family:	---
Subfamily:	---
Tribe:	---
Genus:	---
Species:	Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

There are too many taxonomic ranks to fill in, but hopefully you get my point.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Anti-Mormons are by and large members of fundamentalist groups. They aren't evangelicals. To you, is that just a distinction without a difference?

Anti-Mormons are, I think, increasingly secular in their perspective and antagonism.  In fact, it seems like many of the most vocal/vitriolic ones are former members of the Church (and even some current members).

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do you think about the distinctions within non-LDS Christianity in the same vein as you might think of the distinctions between LDS, Community of Christ, and Mormon fundamentalists?

Not really.  I think the Latter-day Saints are interested in ecumenical efforts to work together on matters of common interest, such as humanitarian efforts, some sociopolitical issues, etc.

I think the Latter-day Saints are really not interested seeking some sort of further ecumenical agreement as to matters of substantive doctrine and belief.  We all believe in Jesus Christ, and can work together under than umbrella.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hope nothing I have said is offensive. That is neither my heart nor intent. I basically hope to open an informative and interesting conversation. Nothing more. Thanks

You're a good guy!

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Fundamentalists and Community of Christ want to distinguish themselves from us as much as we want to distinguish ourselves from them.  For that reason they almost always identify as "fundamentalist Mormon", and Community of Christ "does not accept the appellation Mormon because of the association with polygamy."

To be fair, it was the LDS Church who came up with the term "fundamentalist mormons" for those polygamists back in the 20s.  They just decided to own it and make it their own.
Kind of like the Church did with the term Mormon which was stuck to us by the mobs.  They just decided to own the label they were given (until Pres. Nelson changed that).

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, Chum said:

Okay see now I said self-declare to say that I can't just will myself to be Catholic. I have to be baptized by Catholic authority.

Tell me about it. Put me in a mass and I'll rote thru the liturgy like it was 40 years ago.

The minister of Catholic baptism is any human who intends to do what the Catholic Church does. Yes, of course, when a new baby is born to a faithful Catholic, they don't have a non-cleric as minister of the Sacrament. But Catholic authority has always allowed that literally any human can administer baptism with the correct intention. Because of this very liberal, yet Traditional Catholic policy regarding the minister of baptism, I am on record for many years here at this site, as suggesting the imprudence of judging every LDS baptism as invalid. The "Catholic" judgment, that all LDS baptisms are invalid, comes from from this very topsy turvy century of the Catholic Church when it is disoriented from its foundations. I cannot defend it. (I wish I did not not feel the need to criticise and recommend the Catholic Church at the same time, but "despising not prophecies", helps lead some faithful Catholics like me to think that this is necessary for our unique and privileged moment of salvation history).    

40 years? That is way too recent. 1981 is after the liturgical revolution had sadly denied the Catholic faith and at a time when the true Catholic needed to search (without the internet!) for a faithful remnant. But only 60 years ago? The liturgical revolution had planted roots, but you would have as recently as 60 years ago have been easily able to universally experience that...

"...our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God."

----The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Fr. Adrian Fortescue,, first printed in 1912, third reprinting Dec. 2007,  Preserving Christian Publications, Boonville NY, (1930 edition), p. 213

The New Roman Mass, which allegedly abrogated the Mass of which Fr. Fortescue writes before the current liturgical wars could be imagined, attempting to abolish the faith of our Fathers, was written in restaurants and in consultation with Protestant ministers who hate Catholicism as well as Mormonism because both profess faith in one true church. Liturgy is neither promulgated nor abrogated by committee, and not in restaurants, but in blood. No one, not even a pope of Rome, has the authority to deny Catholics, of any ancient rite of East or West, the liturgical heritage that has come down from the very Apostles themselves.

It probably won't happen because of my unworthiness, but what a privilege it would be, if God helped me to shed my blood, if necessary, for the Holy Mass of our Fathers of whom Fr. Fortescue writes.

No one would ever die for the New Mass. It has already been killed by a mere virus and without objection. The New Mass is unbeloved. No one sings its praises like Fr. Fortescue, and no one could. 

God bless,

3DOP 

   

[Chum]

30 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

The minister of Catholic baptism is any human who intends to do what the Catholic Church does. Yes, of course, when a new baby is born to a faithful Catholic, they don't have a non-cleric as minister of the Sacrament. But Catholic authority has always allowed that literally any human can administer baptism with the correct intention. Because of this very liberal, yet Traditional Catholic policy regarding the minister of baptism, I am on record for many years here at this site, as suggesting the imprudence of judging every LDS baptism as invalid. The "Catholic" judgment, that all LDS baptisms are invalid, comes from from this very topsy turvy century of the Catholic Church when it is disoriented from its foundations. I cannot defend it. (I wish I did not not feel the need to criticise and recommend the Catholic Church at the same time, but "despising not prophecies", helps lead some faithful Catholics like me to think that this is necessary for our unique and privileged moment of salvation history).    

40 years? That is way too recent. 1981 is after the liturgical revolution had sadly denied the Catholic faith and at a time when the true Catholic needed to search (without the internet!) for a faithful remnant. But only 60 years ago? The liturgical revolution had planted roots, but you would have as recently as 60 years ago have been easily able to universally experience that...

"...our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God."

----The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Fr. Adrian Fortescue,, first printed in 1912, third reprinting Dec. 2007,  Preserving Christian Publications, Boonville NY, (1930 edition), p. 213

The New Roman Mass, which allegedly abrogated the Mass of which Fr. Fortescue writes before the current liturgical wars could be imagined, attempting to abolish the faith of our Fathers, was written in restaurants and in consultation with Protestant ministers who hate Catholicism as well as Mormonism because both profess faith in one true church. Liturgy is neither promulgated nor abrogated by committee, and not in restaurants, but in blood. No one, not even a pope of Rome, has the authority to deny Catholics, of any ancient rite of East or West, the liturgical heritage that has come down from the very Apostles themselves.

It probably won't happen because of my unworthiness, but what a privilege it would be, if God helped me to shed my blood, if necessary, for the Holy Mass of our Fathers of whom Fr. Fortescue writes.

No one would ever die for the New Mass. It has already been killed by a mere virus and without objection. The New Mass is unbeloved. No one sings its praises like Fr. Fortescue, and no one could. 

God bless,

3DOP 

   

Dood. I was just exampling a church with an authoritative, hierarchical structure. Next time I'll pick Jonestown.

2kyo church people. Sheesh.

[3DOP]

28 minutes ago, Chum said:

Dood. I was just exampling a church with an authoritative, hierarchical structure. Next time I'll pick Jonestown.

2kyo church people. Sheesh.

Hi Chum.

Thanks for the reply.

I am afraid I don't understand "2kyo church people". But I get "Dood", and "Sheesh". (Not good). I am sorry for my overzealous and imprudent words. I cannot deny that it was the real me. But I will try to have more restraint in the future.

Still...take care...no malice intended...believe me...God bless.

3DOP

Edited September 2, 2021 by 3DOP

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

The minister of Catholic baptism is any human who intends to do what the Catholic Church does. Yes, of course, when a new baby is born to a faithful Catholic, they don't have a non-cleric as minister of the Sacrament. But Catholic authority has always allowed that literally any human can administer baptism with the correct intention. Because of this very liberal, yet Traditional Catholic policy regarding the minister of baptism, I am on record for many years here at this site, as suggesting the imprudence of judging every LDS baptism as invalid. The "Catholic" judgment, that all LDS baptisms are invalid, comes from from this very topsy turvy century of the Catholic Church when it is disoriented from its foundations. I cannot defend it. (I wish I did not not feel the need to criticise and recommend the Catholic Church at the same time, but "despising not prophecies", helps lead some faithful Catholics like me to think that this is necessary for our unique and privileged moment of salvation history).    

40 years? That is way too recent. 1981 is after the liturgical revolution had sadly denied the Catholic faith and at a time when the true Catholic needed to search (without the internet!) for a faithful remnant. But only 60 years ago? The liturgical revolution had planted roots, but you would have as recently as 60 years ago have been easily able to universally experience that...

"...our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God."

----The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Fr. Adrian Fortescue,, first printed in 1912, third reprinting Dec. 2007,  Preserving Christian Publications, Boonville NY, (1930 edition), p. 213

The New Roman Mass, which allegedly abrogated the Mass of which Fr. Fortescue writes before the current liturgical wars could be imagined, attempting to abolish the faith of our Fathers, was written in restaurants and in consultation with Protestant ministers who hate Catholicism as well as Mormonism because both profess faith in one true church. Liturgy is neither promulgated nor abrogated by committee, and not in restaurants, but in blood. No one, not even a pope of Rome, has the authority to deny Catholics, of any ancient rite of East or West, the liturgical heritage that has come down from the very Apostles themselves.

It probably won't happen because of my unworthiness, but what a privilege it would be, if God helped me to shed my blood, if necessary, for the Holy Mass of our Fathers of whom Fr. Fortescue writes.

No one would ever die for the New Mass. It has already been killed by a mere virus and without objection. The New Mass is unbeloved. No one sings its praises like Fr. Fortescue, and no one could. 

God bless,

3DOP 

   

I am wondering if it might be fair to say you are a fundamentalist Catholic? Maybe fundamentalism is in your bloodstream? I wish I knew of more studies on conversion. I wonder how many folks really make radical changes in their choice of perspectives and position between their old and new-found faith? That is purely a speculation and not-very-important question. That is the way my mind works. Always questions!

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks Pogi. That thesis looks very interesting. I look forward to reading it. As an aside, what might be your reaction to fundamentalist groups identifying themselves as Mormon? Or the Community of Christ, who while deeming themselves Mormons, are interestingly enough increasingly seeing themselves as becoming more like the evangelical community to which I refer. It seems very similar to me to what the Pentecostals have done as well. Do you see the Community of Christ as a fundamentalist Mormon group?

I don't have a problem with anyone calling themselves "Mormon". I think if people want to convey or learn what that means for the one identifying as "Mormon", they will have to move into the realm of meaningful conversation.

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Since the very late 40s and early 50s, non-LDS Christianity of a Protestant (mostly - but not exclusively) nature has increasingly divided, or has been divided into three or four primary categories: the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Mainline (or Mainstream), and some add a Pentecostal fourth group.

I usually think of fundamentalists as being a sub-set of evangelicals, rather than as an entirely separate category.

So, for example, a fundamentalist can be an evangelical, but an evangelical isn't necessarily a fundamentalist.

 

[Chum]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Chum.

Thanks for the reply.

I am afraid I don't understand "2kyo church people". But I get "Dood", and "Sheesh". (Not good). I am sorry for my overzealous and imprudent words. I cannot deny that it was the real me. But I will try to have more restraint in the future.

Still...take care...no malice intended...believe me...God bless.

3DOP

I'm not offended. Any frustration I have is strictly recreational.

2kyo church people = Folks who belong to a zillion year old church, who can insert 2k years of apocrypha into any conversation.

[Chum]

43 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I usually think of fundamentalists as being a sub-set of evangelicals, rather than as an entirely separate category.

So, for example, a fundamentalist can be an evangelical, but an evangelical isn't necessarily a fundamentalist.

That would be in line with this really interesting bit of scholarship posted by @pogi.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I usually think of fundamentalists as being a sub-set of evangelicals, rather than as an entirely separate category.

So, for example, a fundamentalist can be an evangelical, but an evangelical isn't necessarily a fundamentalist.

 

Thanks for the comment. I would suggest that fundamentalists are evangelicals in the sense that they often prioritize evangelizing and do actively evangelize. That puts them in the same camp as the evangelists of the past such as Dwight Moody, who preached in the tabernacle and Billy Sunday, whose wife was my babysitter as a young child.

It does not however make them Evangelicals, a distinct group within non-LDS Christianity that was founded in the early 1940s and continues to this day. The most often used understanding for this term (Evangelical) in non-LDS Christianity refers to members of the Evangelical movement or group. Fundamentalists evangelize, Evangelicals evangelize, but they two groups are not the same, not part of each other except in a broad Christian sense. They often, especially in the 50s and 60s, during my formative years, sparred, argued, and disagreed with each other on a host of issues.

I simply think it would provide great clarity and understanding to some of the comments made here on this forum if the folks here would understand the difference between those who evangelize and Evangelicals as a distinct and separate group who evangelize as well. It is every bit as important as distinguishing between the Community of Christ, the LDS church, and the Church of the First Born of the Lamb of God. It would be completely fair to say the young missionaries of the COJCOLDS are evangelicals in that they evangelize. It would be not only unfair, but inaccurate to say they are Evangelicals. Saying that Fundamentalists are a group within the Evangelical movement would be equivalent to my insisting that the Community of Christ is a group within the LDS movement.

Last, an organization such as the NAE - The National Association of Evangelicals is a voluntary organization of Evangelicals to which churches, denominations, individuals, schools, colleges, universities, and other non-profits may voluntarily join. It does not include the entire body of Evangelicals in the world, but it is the dominant voice for the same. Evangelicals are not a monolithic unified bunch. Lots of doctrinal differences between such as how wide will be God's mercy at the judgment seat as one example. There is also a group that was formerly known as the IFCA - The Independent Fundamental Churches of America. It is now IFCA International. It is the same kind of an association for the group of those with a more conservative (fundamentalist) outlook on faith. It is a - perhaps the spokesperson for that group, including individuals, churches, Bible colleges and other groups who choose to affiliate with them. It is an older but smaller group. The joke among non-LDS Christians sometimes has been that the fundamentalists explain who they are by telling you what they are against. The Evangelicals explain who they are by telling what they are for. That is obviously an aphorism, but I think there is some truth there. Thanks for your time.

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It does not however make them Evangelicals, a distinct group within non-LDS Christianity that was founded in the early 1940s and continues to this day.

@Amulekwas discussing evangelicals, small e. I think the thread is taking your cue and letting go of big E Evangelicals, to reduce the number of moving parts we're dealing with.

To differentiate between evangelicals and fundamentalists, what do you feel are traits that fundamentalists have that would preclude them from being evangelicals?

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But you are, buddy  

Catholicism believes that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Since you were validly baptized, you remain Catholic.

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave...

But I think a divorce and remarriage self-excommunicates someone, right?