Fundamentalists and LDS Church Members - Fundamentalists and Evangelicals

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

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.

Oh, I understand what you are saying. But in practice I don't think the lines between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are always as clear as you make them out to be.

Maybe I'm coming at this from not as broad a perspective as you, but having spent most of my life in the South, I can say that - at least, from what I've seen - there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of space separating Conservative Evangelicals from your run of the mill Fundamentalist.

 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

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.

I think there's some truth to that saying as well, which is why the division between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals isn't always entirely clear. If the difference between the two groups can largely be characterized as 'style' or 'messaging' more than differences in theology or doctrine, then certainly you can see how that might be cause for confusion - especially from an outsider's point of view.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

@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?

You asked about traits. Let me give you an example - The magazine Christian Century is the national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Mainline Christians. Its byline is "Thinking Critically - Living Faithfully." I like that a lot. The magazine Christianity Today is the national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Evangelicals. Its byline and mission statement is "Beautiful Orthodoxy" I like that a lot. The national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Fundamentalists has been "The Sword of the Lord." Perhaps its characteristic over the years has been its militancy. It still publishes a magazine and publishes a lot of literature through The Sword of the Lord Publications Ministry. Its website shows a long, detailed, and specific Statement of Faith including a belief in six literal days of creation and a rejection of evolution. It also includes the following - "we believe it is imperative that we identify false doctrine and those who perpetrate, it, and subsequently, stand separate and apart from them." This would certain include the LDS Church. One of its headline articles is "Wake Up Dear Christian, Wake Up." Its tone is much harsher. The founder of this fundamentalist ministry was Dr. John R Rice, who I met on many occasions. He took great pride in being a independent fundamentalist Baptist preacher.

I believe I can say accurately and without hesitation that the vast majority of those who appear at dramas, Temple Square, temple dedications, etc. are Fundamentalists. I say this with such confidence because I have lived a long life of involvement, engagement, and interactions between these groups.  I have attended mainline and Evangelical institutions of higher learning. I was a professor in two fundamentalist colleges. One is defunct and the other is trying so very hard to become Evangelical (and to develop a first-rate football team). I think they even played BYU a couple of years ago! Let me know if I have not answered your question and I will do better.  There are doctrinal differences among the groups, but it is attitude, demeanor, and tolerance that really divide them.
 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Navidad

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You asked about traits. Let me give you an example - The magazine Christian Century is the national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Mainline Christians. Its byline is "Thinking Critically - Living Faithfully." I like that a lot. The magazine Christianity Today is the national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Evangelicals. Its byline and mission statement is "Beautiful Orthodoxy" I like that a lot. The national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Fundamentalists has been "The Sword of the Lord." Perhaps its characteristic over the years has been its militancy. It does still publishes a magazine and publishes a lot of literature through The Sword of the Lord Publications Ministry. Its website shows a long, detailed, and specific Statement of Faith including a belief in six literal days of creation and a rejection of evolution. It also includes the following - "we believe it is imperative that we identify false doctrine and those who perpetrate, it, and subsequently, stand separate and apart from them." This would certain include the LDS Church. One of its headline articles is "Wake Up Dear Christian, Wake Up." Its tone is much harsher. The founder of this fundamentalist ministry was Dr. John R Rice, who I met on many occasions. He took great pride in being a independent fundamentalist Baptist preacher.

I believe I can say accurately and without hesitation that the vast majority of those who appear at dramas, Temple Square, temple dedications, etc. are Fundamentalists. I say this with such confidence because I have lived a long life of involvement, engagement, and interactions between these groups.  I have attended mainline and Evangelical institutions of higher learning. I was a professor in two fundamentalist colleges. One is defunct and the other is trying so very hard to become Evangelical (and to develop a first-rate football team). I think they even played BYU a couple of years ago! Let me know if I have not answered your question and I will do better.  There are doctrinal differences among the groups, but it is attitude, demeanor, and tolerance that really divide them.
 

Does that mean that if some Christians self-identified as Evangelicals but did not behave as you believe Evangelicals should, you would think they are incorrectly self-identifying themselves and would most likely be Fundamentalists, in your perspective?

I think that would be similar to Person X believing people are not Christian unless those people act like Person X believes Christians should act.  or unless they believe what Person X believes they should believe.  Subjective judgment and opinion.  FWIW

[Chum]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You asked about traits. Let me give you an example - The magazine Christian Century is the national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Mainline Christians. Its byline is "Thinking Critically - Living Faithfully." I like that a lot. The magazine Christianity Today is the national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Evangelicals. Its byline and mission statement is "Beautiful Orthodoxy" I like that a lot. The national long-time magazine predominantly for and by Fundamentalists has been "The Sword of the Lord." Perhaps its characteristic over the years has been its militancy. It does still publishes a magazine and publishes a lot of literature through The Sword of the Lord Publications Ministry. Its website shows a long, detailed, and specific Statement of Faith including a belief in six literal days of creation and a rejection of evolution. It also includes the following - "we believe it is imperative that we identify false doctrine and those who perpetrate, it, and subsequently, stand separate and apart from them." This would certain include the LDS Church. One of its headline articles is "Wake Up Dear Christian, Wake Up." Its tone is much harsher. The founder of this fundamentalist ministry was Dr. John R Rice, who I met on many occasions. He took great pride in being a independent fundamentalist Baptist preacher.

I believe I can say accurately and without hesitation that the vast majority of those who appear at dramas, Temple Square, temple dedications, etc. are Fundamentalists. I say this with such confidence because I have lived a long life of involvement, engagement, and interactions between these groups.  I have attended mainline and Evangelical institutions of higher learning. I was a professor in two fundamentalist colleges. One is defunct and the other is trying so very hard to become Evangelical (and to develop a first-rate football team). I think they even played BYU a couple of years ago! Let me know if I have not answered your question and I will do better.  There are doctrinal differences among the groups, but it is attitude, demeanor, and tolerance that really divide them.
 

I'm kind of having a hard time picking out your answer among all that other information.

Could you offer up a few specific doctrinal differences maybe - f's believe this while e's do not ?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/1/2021 at 10:46 AM, 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. 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?...................

The situations are quite different:

Most LDS Church members have never heard of the FLDS or other fundamentalist polygamous groups.  Most of them live in parts of the world where that is not part of the news or of social interaction.  Even in the so-called "Mormon corridor," where one can find some polygamists, most of us seldom see any (the women are very distinctive in their dress and hairstyles).  And they seldom come up for discussion at our church meetings, or in private conversation.  Those of us who live in the Mormon Corridor are well aware that they exist, but their relative isolation and small numbers make them practically invisible.  Similarly, because they are at such a distance away in Missouri and Iowa, the Community of Christ (formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), which we used to know as "Reorganites," is likewise invisible to most LDS members.  None of these small groups is taken seriously by regular LDS members, except perhaps to feel sorry for them.  Even when the LeBarons were busy murdering fellow polygamists right and left, LDS members were not being targeted, so that it seemed more of a kind of cult madness like those of Jim Jones or of the Branch Davidians.  Most LDS members along the Mormon Corridor likely feel quite secure in the knowledge that the pedophile Warren Jeffs will be in prison in Texas forever.  Out of sight, out of mind.

[Navidad]

Just now, Amulek said:

I think there's some truth to that saying as well, which is why the division between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals isn't always entirely clear. If the difference between the two groups can largely be characterized as 'style' or 'messaging' more than differences in theology or doctrine, then certainly you can see how that might be cause for confusion - especially from an outsider's point of view.

 

I absolutely see this and agree with you. It is confusing enough for those within the non-LDS  Christianity. On the edges there certainly is overlap. There are also a lot who have made the transition between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and probably a few who have gone the other way as well.

While I can probably contribute to this group on occasion with my knowledge of LDS history. I can only learn about its doctrine. The linkage between the two really is of interest to me. But while I am here learning, I  believe I can add to your (collective) understanding of those who do and do not actively engage in "persecution" at your meetings, temples, and dramas, as well as of the broader non-LDS Christian community and the changes taking place there on a continual basis. I can't say it any better than pointing out the difference between "The Sword of the Lord" and the "Beauty of Orthodoxy." That difference speaks for itself.

Lest I get into trouble, just keep this between us, but I also see somewhat of the same three divisions in and among my LDS friends. There are fundamentalists (not of the polygamous type), Evangelicals, and Mainline folks (liberals) in the church. I don't think that is too much of a stretch. I just listened to Elder Holland's talk at BYU in its entirety. I found that fascinating in the sense of understanding the differing winds active in the LDS church community. I can't help but believe that diversity of thought will continue to grow. Those kinds of changes seem to be culturally and doctrinally unstoppable. The history of religion in the world has been that culture wins out over doctrine over time. I can think of very few exceptions. Thanks for your reply.

[Chum]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I absolutely see this and agree with you. It is confusing enough for those within the non-LDS  Christianity. On the edges there certainly is overlap. There are also a lot who have made the transition between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and probably a few who have gone the other way as well.

I  believe I can add to your (collective) understanding of those who do and do not actively engage in "persecution" at your meetings, temples, and dramas, as well as of the broader non-LDS Christian community and the changes taking place there on a continual basis.

I'm trying to find something more substantial than evangelicals are ones we like more and fundamentalists are ones we like less. I feel like I'm not having a lot of luck.

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I can't say it any better than pointing out the difference between "The Sword of the Lord" and the "Beauty of Orthodoxy." That difference speaks for itself.

Not exactly. I mean it might to religion wonks and evangelical insiders. For most lay folk, I don't think this is a useful distinction.

I can't recall ever having this much difficulty finding the prominent differences between two faiths.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Chum

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/1/2021 at 10:46 AM, Navidad said:

......................t 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?

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

One of the reasons why I specifically quoted Dr Mouw naming and blaming "evangelicals" for their lies about LDS members and the LDS Church, was because he was naming and blaming his fellow evangelicals.  I have heard him speak in even greater detail on this matter, leaving no doubt what he was saying.  The irrational hate out there has been pretty strong, and I thought Dr Mouw both sincere and knowledgeable in his efforts to cut through all that.  In fact, he has carried on a long conversation with BYU professor Bob Millett about that entire issue.   I think that we could all learn a lot by paying close attention to such conversations.

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Does that mean that if some Christians self-identified as Evangelicals but did not behave as you believe Evangelicals should, you would think they are incorrectly self-identifying themselves and would most likely be Fundamentalists, in your perspective?

I think that many Fundamentalists identify as Evangelicals if that is what you are asking. I do not believe that is subjective. The Fundamentalist movement within non-LDS Christianity is in decline. It is not popular. That is data-driven.

If you knew what to ask a protester about their core beliefs, you also would know which camp they are in within about ten minutes. I have talked about traits because that is what I was asked. The doctrinal/belief differences are clear as well, probably clearer because they can be answered quickly by the protester. A discussion of the intricacies of doctrinal differences may be beyond what can be done in a forum like this. However, there are clear doctrinal as well as trait differences which are quite objective.

For example, it would not be hard to distinguish the group loyalty of an unknown LDS Church member and a Mormon fundamentalist church member by asking about three questions. That is all you would need, isn't it? That isn't subjective at all. Two or three questions about authority and apostleship would settle that, wouldn't it? It is the same for Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainliners, although we haven't dialogued much about them. Take care.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I absolutely see this and agree with you. It is confusing enough for those within the non-LDS  Christianity. On the edges there certainly is overlap. There are also a lot who have made the transition between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and probably a few who have gone the other way as well.

While I can probably contribute to this group on occasion with my knowledge of LDS history. I can only learn about its doctrine. The linkage between the two really is of interest to me. But while I am here learning, I  believe I can add to your (collective) understanding of those who do and do not actively engage in "persecution" at your meetings, temples, and dramas, as well as of the broader non-LDS Christian community and the changes taking place there on a continual basis. I can't say it any better than pointing out the difference between "The Sword of the Lord" and the "Beauty of Orthodoxy." That difference speaks for itself.

Lest I get into trouble, just keep this between us, but I also see somewhat of the same three divisions in and among my LDS friends. There are fundamentalists (not of the polygamous type), Evangelicals, and Mainline folks (liberals) in the church. I don't think that is too much of a stretch. I just listened to Elder Holland's talk at BYU in its entirety. I found that fascinating in the sense of understanding the differing winds active in the LDS church community. I can't help but believe that diversity of thought will continue to grow. Those kinds of changes seem to be culturally and doctrinally unstoppable. The history of religion in the world has been that culture wins out over doctrine over time. I can think of very few exceptions. Thanks for your reply.

RE: "The history of religion in the world has been that culture wins out over doctrine over time. I can think of very few exceptions." As well it should, I think. The Zion culture, based on keys, ordinances and covenants, and the resulting constant companionship of the Holy Ghost (and by extension Deity in general) wins out over doctrine that is not founded on the most basic elements found in 3 Nephi 11 and 12.

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

So far I'm trying to find something more substantial than evangelicals are ones we like more and fundamentalists are ones we like less.

Not exactly. I mean it might to religion wonks and evangelical insiders. For most lay folk, I don't think this is a useful distinction.

Please read my most recent reply to bOObOO. Maybe that will help. If you want to talk about doctrinal differences which are more objective we can do that too. As I said to bOObOO there are concrete questions that could be asked of the protester that would identify their grouping quite quickly and objectively.

[bOObOO]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I absolutely see this and agree with you. It is confusing enough for those within the non-LDS  Christianity. On the edges there certainly is overlap. There are also a lot who have made the transition between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and probably a few who have gone the other way as well.

While I can probably contribute to this group on occasion with my knowledge of LDS history. I can only learn about its doctrine. The linkage between the two really is of interest to me. But while I am here learning, I  believe I can add to your (collective) understanding of those who do and do not actively engage in "persecution" at your meetings, temples, and dramas, as well as of the broader non-LDS Christian community and the changes taking place there on a continual basis. I can't say it any better than pointing out the difference between "The Sword of the Lord" and the "Beauty of Orthodoxy." That difference speaks for itself.

Lest I get into trouble, just keep this between us, but I also see somewhat of the same three divisions in and among my LDS friends. There are fundamentalists (not of the polygamous type), Evangelicals, and Mainline folks (liberals) in the church. I don't think that is too much of a stretch. I just listened to Elder Holland's talk at BYU in its entirety. I found that fascinating in the sense of understanding the differing winds active in the LDS church community. I can't help but believe that diversity of thought will continue to grow. Those kinds of changes seem to be culturally and doctrinally unstoppable. The history of religion in the world has been that culture wins out over doctrine over time. I can think of very few exceptions. Thanks for your reply.

It seems to me that you are distinguishing different types of Christians based on their style and attitude when they share their beliefs, rather than specifically by what they believe.  So maybe what we need is a different set of terms to describe each.

I think of Fundamentalists as sticklers for details who are usually blatantly direct when sharing their beliefs with others.  Evangelicals usually use a lot more tact and flowery language while trying to not step on any toes or cause any hurt feelings.

Does that better describe the main issue you are trying to address here?  Maybe we could just use some other terms here to refer to all this.  Blatantly direct preacher-types vs Tactful diplomatic-type sharers of their own beliefs.  Blatant vs Tactful, in short.

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Please read my most recent reply to bOObOO. Maybe that will help. If you want to talk about doctrinal differences which are more objective we can do that too. As I said to bOObOO there are concrete questions that could be asked of the protester that would identify their grouping quite quickly and objectively.

I'll reply to that post then.

[bOObOO]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think that many Fundamentalists identify as Evangelicals if that is what you are asking. I do not believe that is subjective. The Fundamentalist movement within non-LDS Christianity is in decline. It is not popular. That is data-driven.

If you knew what to ask a protester about their core beliefs, you also would know which camp they are in within about ten minutes. I have talked about traits because that is what I was asked. The doctrinal/belief differences are clear as well, probably clearer because they can be answered quickly by the protester. A discussion of the intricacies of doctrinal differences may be beyond what can be done in a forum like this. However, there are clear doctrinal as well as trait differences which are quite objective.

For example, it would not be hard to distinguish the group loyalty of an unknown LDS Church member and a Mormon fundamentalist church member by asking about three questions. That is all you would need, isn't it? That isn't subjective at all. Two or three questions about authority and apostleship would settle that, wouldn't it? It is the same for Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainliners, although we haven't dialogued much about them. Take care.

What beliefs/doctrinal differences do you believe distinguish Fundamentalists vs Evangelicals?  If you shared this info before, I missed it, so please just repeat an example of that.

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One of the reasons why I specifically quoted Dr Mouw naming and blaming "evangelicals" for their lies about LDS members and the LDS Church, was because he was naming and blaming his fellow evangelicals.  I have heard him speak in even greater detail on this matter, leaving no doubt what he was saying.  The irrational hate out there has been pretty strong, and I thought Dr Mouw both sincere and knowledgeable in his efforts to cut through all that.  In fact, he has carried on a long conversation with BYU professor Bob Millett about that entire issue.   I think that we could all learn a lot by paying close attention to such conversations.

Basically I agree with you, but it is not as simple as you are making it. Millet and Mouw had great dialogues. Just let me give you one example of the current differences. When Dr. Mouw was president of Fuller Seminary, it was one of the institutional prides of Evangelicalism. It was the horror and bane of Fundamentalists. It has now moved 150 degrees in the other directions. Fuller will not now accept LDS students into its interfaith graduate program. That is most likely a source of grief for Dr. Mouw. There have been many similar changes within the Southern Baptist Convention. Yes, back around 2012 or so, Dr. Mouw chewed out Evangelicals. Good for him. We are now talking about 2021. If you want, we can go back to the 40s and the early days of Evangelicalism, Billy Graham, and John R Rice. I know you know of Dr. Rice. You have mentioned him on here before. Barnhouse and Martin argued about Martin's strident position. Barnhouse was a Fundamentalist turned Evangelical in the mid to late fifties. I know because they both were often in my house as I was growing up. There are legendary accounts of their interactions, one involved shooting bluebirds instead of ducks. You may be familiar with that one. As a child, I was scared to death of John R Rice. I sat on Billy Graham's lap and had ice cream. Sure I am pro-Evangelical. No doubt. I am also experienced in, and have scars from the firefights.

I also want to make sure I concede your basic thesis, as I believe it to be. I would be less than honest if I attempted to paint a picture that no Evangelicals have ever been anti-Mormon, have not spread lies, etc., especially some years ago. My goodness, I am equally sure that some Mainliners have done that as well, as surely as some Catholics have.

Elder Holland said in his recent BYU talk that some of the fire has been "friendly fire" shot by LDS church members themselves. Individuals can do as they want from inside almost any group. I am mostly trying to make a point from formalized study, programs, and institutions, I am unaware of a consistent or persistent anti-Mormon perspectives, indoctrination, etc on the part of those who are not Fundamentalists. I know you know a lot of folks within MHA including its Executive Director. I would be willing to suggest that there probably are concerns from time to time among the brethren about the fealty and loyalty of MHA-affiliated historians who are church members. Take care.

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

RE: "The history of religion in the world has been that culture wins out over doctrine over time. I can think of very few exceptions." As well it should, I think. The Zion culture, based on keys, ordinances and covenants, and the resulting constant companionship of the Holy Ghost (and by extension Deity in general) wins out over doctrine that is not founded on the most basic elements found in 3 Nephi 11 and 12.

Wow, what an interesting reply. Thanks. Are you saying that the idea of "keys, ordinances and covenants, and the resulting constant companionship of the Holy Ghost" are cultural and not doctrinal elements of the LDS faith? I have always thought of things like the Word of Wisdom, no facial hair, etc as being cultural elements of the LDS faith, but the things you have mentioned as doctrinal. I am not sure I understand but I am surely intrigued! Thanks,

[Navidad]

24 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

What beliefs/doctrinal differences do you believe distinguish Fundamentalists vs Evangelicals?  If you shared this info before, I missed it, so please just repeat an example of that.

I can do that, just not right now. I have to go and attend to some family stuff. I will work on your request this evening. Take care.

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think that many Fundamentalists identify as Evangelicals if that is what you are asking. I do not believe that is subjective. The Fundamentalist movement within non-LDS Christianity is in decline. It is not popular. That is data-driven.

Okay so this doesn't appear to contain doctrinal differences between f & e. Next.

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If you knew what to ask a protester about their core beliefs, you also would know which camp they are in within about ten minutes.

This tells me if I want to know the differences I should ask a protester. If I knew the right questions to ask that is.

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have talked about traits because that is what I was asked.

You did talk about stuff but if the differences were there, they were fairly well swamped with lots of other into.

Seriously. Just say f's believe this and e's do not and then tell us what the THIS is.

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The doctrinal/belief differences are clear as well, probably clearer because they can be answered quickly by the protester.

Again. We'd have to ask a protester to learn the differences.  As long as the protester doesn't ID'd as e, that is. I think.

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

A discussion of the intricacies of doctrinal differences may be beyond what can be done in a forum like this.

Now I think you actually can't differentiate the differences because they can't be texutalized. Maybe?

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

However, there are clear doctrinal as well as trait differences which are quite objective.

Boy. Wouldn't those be awesome to learn.

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

For example, it would not be hard to distinguish the group loyalty of an unknown LDS Church member and a Mormon fundamentalist church member by asking about three questions.

Nope. One is on Church rolls. The other isn't. That qualifier does the job every time, all by itself.

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Two or three questions about authority and apostleship would settle that, wouldn't it? It is the same for Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainliners, although we haven't dialogued much about them. Take care.

No. Just whether someone is on the rolls.

So I think the synopsis of your post is there are doctrinal differences that you can feel but they are so [ADJECTIVE] that they can't be put into text.

What I suspect is going on here is that fundamentalism lies entirely within evangelicalism and that's why you're struggling to come up with concrete distinctions - succinct details of the sort that folks routinely use to differentiate two faiths.

Maybe a sidebar: I'd like to note that fundamentalism seems to older than you indicated, being a well entrenched presence in the 19th century.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow, what an interesting reply. Thanks. Are you saying that the idea of "keys, ordinances and covenants, and the resulting constant companionship of the Holy Ghost" are cultural and not doctrinal elements of the LDS faith? I have always thought of things like the Word of Wisdom, no facial hair, etc as being cultural elements of the LDS faith, but the things you have mentioned as doctrinal. I am not sure I understand but I am surely intrigued! Thanks,

Thank you. I am saying the full doctrine of Christ as taught in 3 Nephi 11 and 12 is the basic cultural element of Zion. I take these two chapters to introduce the keys, ordinances and covenants in plain and simple terms. When the pure in heart make these a priority, the other societal and cultural elements reflect one heart and one mind, having “…all come in the unity of the faith...” -- there is a lot more in Ephesians 4, before and after that snippet, that supports this idea for me). I attribute this condition to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost among those who are gathered in Zion. Other societal and cultural elements that reflect His companionship the application of the doctrine of Christ in different times, places and circumstances are appreciated and kept in perspective when the saints of the differing times, places and circumstances happen to intersect for any given reason.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Chum said:

Okay so this doesn't appear to contain doctrinal differences between f & e. Next.

This tells me if I want to know the differences I should ask a protester. If I knew the right questions to ask that is.

You did talk about stuff but if the differences were there, they were fairly well swamped with lots of other into.

Seriously. Just say f's believe this and e's do not and then tell us what the THIS is.

Again. We'd have to ask a protester to learn the differences.  As long as the protester doesn't ID'd as e, that is. I think.

Now I think you actually can't differentiate the differences because they can't be texutalized. Maybe?

Boy. Wouldn't those be awesome to learn.

Nope. One is on Church rolls. The other isn't. That qualifier does the job every time, all by itself.

No. Just whether someone is on the rolls.

So I think the synopsis of your post is there are doctrinal differences that you can feel but they are so [ADJECTIVE] that they can't be put into text.

What I suspect is going on here is that fundamentalism lies entirely within evangelicalism and that's why you're struggling to come up with concrete distinctions - succinct details of the sort that folks routinely use to differentiate two faiths.

Maybe a sidebar: I'd like to note that fundamentalism seems to older than you indicated, being a well entrenched presence in the 19th century.

I am not sure why you think I am struggling. I simply said to someone else I need to take care of some family things. Prior to late this afternoon (my time) no one else asked me for any doctrinal differences. I will have to prepare that in Word when I have time to do so and transfer it to the forum. It will be a bit complicated. Fundamentalism as a movement does indeed go back to the late 19th century. Did I ever indicate something else? I said that Evangelicalism began in the 1940s. That is true. I mentioned Moody who was 19th century and Sunday who was 20th century. Spurgeon was a bit of both. We are talking about formal groupings and movements here. Certainly there were folks who believed fundamentalist things in the 17th century. I am not sure why you all of a sudden jumped to critic/sarcastic? I have faithfully tried to answer all of your questions. Have I ignored or dodged something? Sorry if I did. That was never my intent. Simply because of time, you won't see any more from me until tomorrow (Friday) afternoon Mountain time.

[Chum]

56 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure why you think I am struggling.  I simply said to someone else I need to take care of some family things.

You were struggling. I don't mean in your personal life. I meant you were struggling to provide a succinct answer to a straightforward question.

In one sentence, can you offer any bit of doctrine that f believe and e do not?

Edited September 3, 2021 by Chum

[Chum]

57 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Fundamentalism as a movement does indeed go back to the late 19th century. Did I ever indicate something else?

Maybe not. I might have to walk this one back.

[Chum]

59 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Prior to late this afternoon (my time) no one else asked me for any doctrinal differences.

What the heck. You were a professor in a fundamentalist college and the most basic possible question never came up? How does that even happen?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Basically I agree with you, but it is not as simple as you are making it. Millet and Mouw had great dialogues. Just let me give you one example of the current differences. When Dr. Mouw was president of Fuller Seminary, it was one of the institutional prides of Evangelicalism. It was the horror and bane of Fundamentalists. It has now moved 150 degrees in the other directions. Fuller will not now accept LDS students into its interfaith graduate program. That is most likely a source of grief for Dr. Mouw. There have been many similar changes within the Southern Baptist Convention. Yes, back around 2012 or so, Dr. Mouw chewed out Evangelicals. Good for him. We are now talking about 2021. If you want, we can go back to the 40s and the early days of Evangelicalism, Billy Graham, and John R Rice. I know you know of Dr. Rice. You have mentioned him on here before. Barnhouse and Martin argued about Martin's strident position. Barnhouse was a Fundamentalist turned Evangelical in the mid to late fifties. I know because they both were often in my house as I was growing up. There are legendary accounts of their interactions, one involved shooting bluebirds instead of ducks. You may be familiar with that one. As a child, I was scared to death of John R Rice. I sat on Billy Graham's lap and had ice cream. Sure I am pro-Evangelical. No doubt. I am also experienced in, and have scars from the firefights.

I also want to make sure I concede your basic thesis, as I believe it to be. I would be less than honest if I attempted to paint a picture that no Evangelicals have ever been anti-Mormon, have not spread lies, etc., especially some years ago. My goodness, I am equally sure that some Mainliners have done that as well, as surely as some Catholics have.

Yes, Mouw did take a lot of pushback for his efforts.  There was not a lot of contrition out there.

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Elder Holland said in his recent BYU talk that some of the fire has been "friendly fire" shot by LDS church members themselves. Individuals can do as they want from inside almost any group. I am mostly trying to make a point from formalized study, programs, and institutions, I am unaware of a consistent or persistent anti-Mormon perspectives, indoctrination, etc on the part of those who are not Fundamentalists. I know you know a lot of folks within MHA including its Executive Director. I would be willing to suggest that there probably are concerns from time to time among the brethren about the fealty and loyalty of MHA-affiliated historians who are church members. Take care.

I doubt that the Brethren care very much what goes on within the MHA, what with all the CofC and even non-Mormon presidents like Jan Shipps who have served.  It is basically a professional historians' venue, which has had the unintended effect of making all LDS history-writing much better -- including the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  Indeed, oddly enough, surveys have shown that the better educated LDS members are more loyal to the Church than less well-educated members.

[strappinglad]

Shall we just say that the Christian world still  has a ways to go to live up the the admonition found in 1 Peter  3:8-10 before it can tackle the Muslims or , for that matter , the atheists .