Fundamentalists and LDS Church Members - Fundamentalists and Evangelicals

[Robert F. Smith]

Justin W. Martinez, “The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: The ‘Fundamentalists’ of ‘Reorganized’ Mormonism,” 2017, online at  https://www.academia.edu/35431434/The_Remnant_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints_The_Fundamentalists_of_Reorganized_Mormonism?email_work_card=view-paper .

[bOObOO]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

Whenever you have time and are willing to help explain the difference(s) in the teachings and beliefs of the Fundamentalists vs the Evangelicals, I would appreciate it.  I've just gone with my gut feeling up until now, for about 50 years (I'm 60 but didn't start to notice much if any differences in Christianity and Christian beliefs and teachings until I was about 10, as well as I can remember), and it just seemed to me that Fundamentalists were and are still the most blatant and direct when sharing their beliefs, whatever they believe, while Evangelicals generally used a softer tone in their teachings.  Like how you, for example, exemplify how an Evangelical teaches.  Almost as if you were taught to be tactful in college while you were studying theology to become a minister.  While Fundamentalists often use the Hell fire and damnation idea with YOU-should-be-pleading-for-mercy tone for anyone who has ever done anything wrong and doesn't believe what they believe should be believed about God.

Edited September 3, 2021 by bOObOO

[Navidad]

I'm back. Sorry for the delay in replying to your requests. I was asked to put it all in one sentence. Obviously I have failed in that. Someone suggested that what I would say would be subjective. There is, of course some truth to that. In this type of work, as with history there is no such thing as pure objectivity. I have endeavored however to share with you in this table my best information in a very brief and simplistic manner. I have avoided listing where Fundamentalists and Evangelicals agree; that is not the task at hand. Please feel free to ask questions or respond in any way you would like. I could teach a whole semester's course on this same subject. My methodology included taking from my own life experience in and between the two worlds of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, reviewing a number of Statements of Faith from leading organizations in both worlds, and attempting to present you something succinct and to the point. I also left out the attitude, demeanor, and apologetic perspectives. Those would overwhelm the topic. Thanks to all who check this out. You can click on the chart to make it larger and easier to read. I am not a Word tables guru!

Edited September 3, 2021 by Navidad

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

I'm back. Sorry for the delay in replying to your requests. I was asked to put it all in one sentence. Obviously I have failed in that

Never all in one sentence. Just one thing in one sentence.

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Someone suggested that what I would say would be subjective. There is, of course some truth to that. In this type of work, as with history there is no such thing as pure objectivity.

Well yeah. It's religion. We expect subjective.

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have endeavored however to share with you in this table my best information in a very brief and simplistic manner.

That's a great table. I consider my Q A'd.

[MrShorty]

This conversation has brought to mind several times this post by Ben Spackman: https://benspackman.com/2020/01/the-1950s-a-fundamentalist-shift/

Spackman suggests that, unlike the typical "Mormon fundamentalism" that is focused on polygamy, the mainstream LDS church experienced a similar fundamentalist shift as Evangelicalism seems to have experienced. Spackman's work mostly focuses on Creationism (young or old) vs. Evolutionism, but he also quotes LDS historian Leonard Arrington who identifies three main elements to this Mormon fundamentalism -- Biblical literalism, rejecting "higher criticism" of the Bible, and anti-evolutionism. I see all three of these mentioned in your list.

I don't know if that adds much to the discussion, but it certainly seems that the LDS Church has experienced something similar.

[bOObOO]

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I'm back. Sorry for the delay in replying to your requests. I was asked to put it all in one sentence. Obviously I have failed in that. Someone suggested that what I would say would be subjective. There is, of course some truth to that. In this type of work, as with history there is no such thing as pure objectivity. I have endeavored however to share with you in this table my best information in a very brief and simplistic manner. I have avoided listing where Fundamentalists and Evangelicals agree; that is not the task at hand. Please feel free to ask questions or respond in any way you would like. I could teach a whole semester's course on this same subject. My methodology included taking from my own life experience in and between the two worlds of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, reviewing a number of Statements of Faith from leading organizations in both worlds, and attempting to present you something succinct and to the point. I also left out the attitude, demeanor, and apologetic perspectives. Those would overwhelm the topic. Thanks to all who check this out. You can click on the chart to make it larger and easier to read. I am not a Word tables guru!

I see your bias against Fundamentalism showing:

Whereas you as an Evangelical say Fundamentalists "oppose ecumenism or ecumenical evangelism" I'm pretty sure Fundamentalists would say they are totally open to all Christians becoming united as Christians as long as they don't have to abandon their own beliefs regarding what is true, or compromise on what the truth is.

And whereas you say they "Name Roman Catholics and other "divergent groups" as those to be avoided" I'm pretty sure they are fine with preaching to and preaching at anybody and everybody with hope that whoever they are trying to teach will accept what they say is the truth by using any means necessary to try to preach what they believe is the truth.

Overall I'd say your list shows that Fundamentalist are more set in their determination of what the truth is than Evangelicals are, based on how many interpretations Evangelicals have on various issues.  That would be good for them if they were correct.  I suppose some Evangelicals could also be right about some things since they have various interpretations of what the truth is, but since Evangelicals have multiple interpretations some of those are wrong when in conflict with the truth which makes me wonder how anyone is supposed to know which Evangelicals they should believe or which they should ignore altogether.

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I see your bias against Fundamentalism showing:

I don't think that's a disqualifier, as long as he's been open and consistent about it - which he has.

edit: it's softer than the bias I've displayed against evangelicals here.  I think he's good.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Chum

[bOObOO]

11 minutes ago, Chum said:

I don't think that's a disqualifier, as long as he's been open and consistent about it - which he has.

edit: it's softer than the bias I've displayed against evangelicals here.  I think he's good.

I didn't say being biased was a bad thing.  We all are and hopefully in a good way.  I just think it also helps to try to see things from another perspective, even the perspective of an enemy, while we all try to get along together or at least understand each other.

[Navidad]

44 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I see your bias against Fundamentalism showing:

Whereas you as an Evangelical say Fundamentalists "oppose ecumenism or ecumenical evangelism" I'm pretty sure Fundamentalists would say they are totally open to all Christians becoming united as Christians as long as they don't have to abandon their own beliefs regarding what is true, or compromise on what the truth is.

And whereas you say they "Name Roman Catholics and other "divergent groups" as those to be avoided" I'm pretty sure they are fine with preaching to and preaching at anybody and everybody with hope that whoever they are trying to teach will accept what they say is the truth by using any means necessary to try to preach what they believe is the truth.

Overall I'd say your list shows that Fundamentalist are more set in their determination of what the truth is than Evangelicals are, based on how many interpretations Evangelicals have on various issues.  That would be good for them if they were correct.  I suppose some Evangelicals could also be right about some things since they have various interpretations of what the truth is, but since Evangelicals have multiple interpretations some of those are wrong when in conflict with the truth which makes me wonder how anyone is supposed to know which Evangelicals they should believe or which they should ignore altogether.

I don't disagree with you at all. I think you might be underestimating one thing about the Fundamentalist concept of ecumenism and ecumenical. By the very act of joining together with those of differing beliefs they believe they are "compromising on what the truth is," so they simply don't do it. They are indeed not open to "all Christians becoming united." That is not a goal of theirs. A worthy goal of theirs is to be separate from the world, from ungodliness, and from Christians who compromise in whatever manner they deem a compromise. All Christians becoming united is not a good thing, unless all Christians become united around their banner. Then of course Billy Graham would have quit his crusade ministry eighty years ago. The Fundamentalists of the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s bitterly and vocally opposed his crusades and yes, demonstrated outside of them, just as they do outside the temples. I think you may be missing that point.

You are of course free to believe whichever Evangelicals you find most persuasive, or none of them at all. I don't think you need to believe any of them really. You are fine just as you are! Joining or ignoring them doesn't and won't make you any more or less a Christian than you are right now. Stick with the atonement, faith, grace and persistence. You are fine!

[bOObOO]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't disagree with you at all. I think you might be underestimating one thing about the Fundamentalist concept of ecumenism and ecumenical. By the very act of joining together with those of differing beliefs they believe they are "compromising on what the truth is," so they simply don't do it. They are indeed not open to "all Christians becoming united." That is not a goal of theirs. A worthy goal of theirs is to be separate from the world, from ungodliness, and from Christians who compromise in whatever manner they deem a compromise. All Christians becoming united is not a good thing, unless all Christians become united around their banner. Then of course Billy Graham would have quit his crusade ministry eighty years ago. The Fundamentalists of the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s bitterly and vocally opposed his crusades and yes, demonstrated outside of them, just as they do outside the temples. I think you may be missing that point.

You are of course free to believe whichever Evangelicals you find most persuasive, or none of them at all. I don't think you need to believe any of them really. You are fine just as you are! Joining or ignoring them doesn't and won't make you any more or less a Christian than you are right now. Stick with the atonement, faith, grace and persistence. You are fine!

No, actually I was trying to allude to it in a way you would notice.  I see them as the ones who preach to and preach at anybody and everybody with hope that whoever they are trying to teach will accept what they say is the truth by using any means necessary to try to preach what they believe is the truth.  Maybe instead of using the word preach I should have said they yell at other people to try to teach them what they think they should believe, which they see as the truth.  In contrast to how nice you are as you try to ....whatever word you want to use for how you try to share what you think are good ideas with us.

[Navidad]

18 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

No, actually I was trying to allude to it in a way you would notice.  I see them as the ones who preach to and preach at anybody and everybody with hope that whoever they are trying to teach will accept what they say is the truth by using any means necessary to try to preach what they believe is the truth.  Maybe instead of using the word preach I should have said they yell at other people to try to teach them what they think they should believe, which they see as the truth.  In contrast to how nice you are as you try to ....whatever word you want to use for how you try to share what you think are good ideas with us.

I plead guilty to believing that not only do I need to understand the LDS faith and doctrine better, but after some years in a ward and on this forum, that it would be a good thing for my LDS friends to better understand their non-LDS friends, frenemies, and enemies.  Since I believe that my LDS friends are already fully Christian, I have no salvific or evangelical (notice small e) purpose in presenting my ideas and lived experience here, just like you all do with each other. I am not trying to preach to anyone here what I believe is the truth about them, except as what I just related. I am more interested trying to share what I believe is the truth about non-LDS Christians and why we do what we do and are who we are. Oh, and sometimes why we don't do what is claimed here and who we are not! And which is who! And who is which. And so on. 🙃

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, MrShorty said:

This conversation has brought to mind several times this post by Ben Spackman: https://benspackman.com/2020/01/the-1950s-a-fundamentalist-shift/

Spackman suggests that, unlike the typical "Mormon fundamentalism" that is focused on polygamy, the mainstream LDS church experienced a similar fundamentalist shift as Evangelicalism seems to have experienced. Spackman's work mostly focuses on Creationism (young or old) vs. Evolutionism, but he also quotes LDS historian Leonard Arrington who identifies three main elements to this Mormon fundamentalism -- Biblical literalism, rejecting "higher criticism" of the Bible, and anti-evolutionism. I see all three of these mentioned in your list.

I don't know if that adds much to the discussion, but it certainly seems that the LDS Church has experienced something similar.

Great post. I think you nailed it. I really admire and respect Leonard Arrington and wish I had met him. I know many of those he influenced. They are all great people. I never heard of his writings on LDS fundamentalism (in a non-polygamous sense). Thanks for pointing this our. I have often thought there is much similarity in many ways between the Fundamentalism of my youth and what I see in the LDS church. You said it so well. Thanks.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Navidad

[3DOP]

On 9/2/2021 at 9:20 AM, Navidad said:

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!

Hey phil...that question shows a lot of insight. I have thought about it the same way. Yes, I think I remain fundamentalist, according to a definition that understands the history. Now, fundamentalism for many people merely means someone who is hateful about anyone not of his religion. This narrow view of fundamentalism is unfortunate. By accepting the label of fundamentalist, I mean that there were traits in the teachings and folkways I accepted from my Baptist days, that were also quite Catholic. I would further suggest that fundamentalism as a Protestant phenomenon was preceded by Catholic fundamentalism by about 1800 years. This is what leads me to observe sometimes that many who think they are anti-Catholic fundamentalists might be "more Catholic" than they realize. Probably more Catholic than some of our own bishops and popes have been over the last many years!

In the late 19th Century Pope Leo XIII, and in the early 20th, Pope St. Pius X were opposing in Rome, the same ideas, that were changing the faith of Protestants. Catholics, including priests and some prelates, began questioning long held norms regarding birth control, biblical infallibility, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and ecumenism. One cannot help but see the parallels. 

Rory   

Edited September 4, 2021 by 3DOP

[bOObOO]

On 9/3/2021 at 3:48 PM, Navidad said:

I plead guilty to believing that not only do I need to understand the LDS faith and doctrine better, but after some years in a ward and on this forum, that it would be a good thing for my LDS friends to better understand their non-LDS friends, frenemies, and enemies.  Since I believe that my LDS friends are already fully Christian, I have no salvific or evangelical (notice small e) purpose in presenting my ideas and lived experience here, just like you all do with each other. I am not trying to preach to anyone here what I believe is the truth about them, except as what I just related. I am more interested trying to share what I believe is the truth about non-LDS Christians and why we do what we do and are who we are. Oh, and sometimes why we don't do what is claimed here and who we are not! And which is who! And who is which. And so on. 🙃

We who are in the same Church of Jesus Christ which we believe is the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ, which in this dispensation of these latter-days is known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, feel no need to preach and teach and declare to each other that our Church is the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ because we already know that and we are already members of this Church and are already bound by covenant to receive all of the blessings available through the gospel of Jesus Christ as members of his Church.  Christians who are not bound by this covenant have not qualified for these blessings because they can only be obtained by becoming a member of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ and they haven't become a member of it yet.  Which is why we as members of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ still feel a need to preach to other Christians, as well as people who are not Christians, why they need to become a member of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ to obtain these blessings.

I sometimes wonder how far back we should go to try to clear up this mess that most of the Christians in the world are in now.  Martin Luther played a major role by preaching and teaching and declaring that the blessings of the gospel were available outside of the Church, which in his day was believed to be the Catholic church.  Luther contended that the Catholic church doctrine "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (latin for "outside the Church there is no salvation") was false and that all one needed was a proper understanding of the role of Jesus Christ and the atonement, which he believed he properly understood and that anyone else could also properly understand by properly understanding the scriptures, which in his day he believed was limited to only what was in the Holy Bible as the Catholic church had determined what was scripture.  So according to him the Church is not necessary for salvation but the scriptures the Church produces are considered necessary, because how else would anyone know about Christ.  And thus Luther was one of the first if not the first to erroneously contend that salvation was possible outside of the Church and thus launched the Christian Protestant movement with a belief that the Church of Jesus Christ, whichever Church that is, is not necessary for salvation.  

I think the problem goes back before Martin Luther was born, though.  But Luther is the best example I can think of for what started a lot of this mess.  Christians in general are wrong about a lot of things and believing the true Church of Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation is something a lot of Christians are wrong about.  I would say the true Church of Jesus Christ is even more important than scripture, and more important than what makes someone a true Christian, because only with the help of the Church, and the work of the Church, can the power of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ be manifest.

Edited September 7, 2021 by bOObOO

[Navidad]

21 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

We who are in the same Church of Jesus Christ which we believe is the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ, which in this dispensation of these latter-days is known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, feel no need to preach and teach and declare that our Church is the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ because we already know that and we are already members of this Church and are already bound by covenant to receive all of the blessings available through the gospel of Jesus Christ as members of his Church.  Christians who are not bound by this covenant have not qualified for these blessings because they can only be obtained by becoming a member of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ and they haven't become a member of it yet.  Which is why we as members of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ still feel a need to preach to other Christians, as well as people who are not Christians, why they need to become a member of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ to obtain these blessings.

I sometimes wonder how far back we should go to try to clear up this mess that most of the Christians in the world are in now.  Martin Luther played a major role by preaching and teaching and declaring that the blessings of the gospel were available outside of the Church, which in his day was believed to be the Catholic church.  Luther contended that the Catholic church doctrine "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (latin for "outside the Church there is no salvation") was false and that all one needed was a proper understanding of the role of Jesus Christ and the atonement, which he believed he properly understood and that anyone else could also properly understand by properly understanding the scriptures, which in his day he believed was limited to only what was in the Holy Bible as the Catholic church had determined what was scripture.  So according to him the Church is not necessary for salvation but the scriptures the Church produces are considered necessary, because how else would anyone know about Christ.  And thus Luther was one of the first if not the first to erroneously contend that salvation was possible outside of the Church and thus launched the Christian Protestant movement with a belief that the Church of Jesus Christ, whichever Church that is, is not necessary for salvation.  

I think the problem goes back before Martin Luther was born, though.  But Luther is the best example I can think of for what started a lot of this mess.  Christians in general are wrong about a lot of things and believing the true Church of Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation is something a lot of Christians are wrong about.  I would say the true Church of Jesus Christ is even more important than scripture, and more important than what makes someone a true Christian, because only with the help of the Church, and the work of the Church, can the power of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ be manifest.

Thanks for the excellent reply. When I read the over 100 times the church is mentioned in the NT, I see two basic meanings or usages of the Greek word ekklesia. It is a compound word used under the direction of the Holy Spirit. It comes from ek and kaleo – Ek means out or from and kaleo means to call. So in its basic form it means the called out ones. Called out of the world to be the bride of Christ.

In the NT, the word has two basic meanings, the first being the collective body of Christ in the world. In the early days of the gospel that included Jerusalem, then Samaria was added, then Ethiopia, Damascus, Ashdod, and ultimately to the ends of the earth. Cultural attributes were added wherever the gospel was preached. Differing interpretations of certain passages and doctrines came into play. To use Joseph Smith’s language, appendages were added. Some of those became doctrine.

The atonement was, however at the core of the message – the good news - the gospel was spread. The church (ekklesia) became the accepted term for the collective body of believers in the world, regardless of location or identified groupings which were at times by preacher (I am of Apollos), or by geography (I write to the church at Corinth).

This leads to the second usage of the word ekklesia. A specific gathering of believers in a specific location. From a single building to a group of Christians in a given area. This is a common usage in certain of the writings of Paul. The word expanded over time to refer to a specific group or gathering of Zion beyond simple geographical boundaries. Hence, most Christians use the term ekklesia to refer to their specific group, as in The “Church” of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was simpler when all the church was gathered in Jerusalem. It didn’t take long however, for the gospel to expand all over the world and things became more complicated as the word ekklesia or church garnered more and differing meanings.

My dominant use of the word ekklesia is to refer to the collective church of Christ in the world (first use) – the community of Christ, so to speak composed of His followers around the world who honor the gospel – the good news of the atonement. This is a huge group, perhaps billions of people – only God knows for sure. The Saints use the term ekklesia to refer to themselves as “the only” church (first use). They are the only true and living church composing the world-wide church (first use) of believers, an astounding claim that distances them from all other adherents. All the rest can only claim the use the word ekklesia in its second sense “Where do you go to church?” I go to Grace Bible Church in Ogden. But in the LDS perspective, Grace Bible Church in Ogden is not truly part of the ekklesia in the first sense. Many non-LDS Christians say something similar about the Saints. That is where we sadly (in my faith) walk down different paths.

There have always been ekklesias who have claimed to be the only valid and true ekklesia or gathering of God on earth. The LDS are not the first and only to make that claim. At face-value it is an extraordinary claim, is it not?

Hence, when I define myself, I think in terms of both usages of the word ekklesia. I am first and foremost a Christian, a member of the great, grand, and glorious ekklesia (first sense) of Christ on earth. It is a diverse community, but fellowship can be found, if one will seek. Second, I am an Evangelical. That word does not describe a/the church in either sense of the word. It is a group identity within the boundaries of Christianity, made up of folks from many churches (second use), all part of the church (first use). It refers to individuals, churches, mission groups, schools, or those gathering together for a common purpose, and with common beliefs to provide disaster relief or the like. Third and last, I identify as a Mennonite (in my mind the equivalent of a LDS Church member). It is a church (second use) within the church (first use). Most, if not the vast majority of LDS church members identify as being part of the only true and living church (first use) on earth. Everyone else is the “other.”

When I walk into the ward, in my mind I am walking into a church (second use) within a church (second use) within the church (first use). When I walk into the local Catholic church, I am walking into a church (second use) within a church (second use) within the church (first use). When I walk into a local Mennonite church I am walking into a church (second use) within a church (second use) within the church (first use).

When a Saint walks into her ward she is walking into a church (second use) within the only church (first use). When she walks into Salem Methodist Church to attend a neighbor’s wedding, she believes she is walking into a place and group that posits a false claim to be part of the church (first use) because only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true and living church (first use) on earth at this time. Is that correct?

At the same time, if many non-LDS Christians walk into an LDS ward, they believe they are walking into a place that posits a false claim to be part of the church (first use) because they practice a form of heterodoxy that at the most limits them to being a church (second use). Hence some non-LDS Christians are more comfortable twisting the question of “Can a Mormon be a Christian,” to “Is the Mormon church Christian?” This is where I (Navidad) walk down a different path from both!

More than any other belief or doctrine, I believe this is what divides us. This is the continental divide. Your thoughts?

[bOObOO]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the excellent reply. When I read the over 100 times the church is mentioned in the NT, I see two basic meanings or usages of the Greek word ekklesia. It is a compound word used under the direction of the Holy Spirit. It comes from ek and kaleo – Ek means out or from and kaleo means to call. So in its basic form it means the called out ones. Called out of the world to be the bride of Christ.

In the NT, the word has two basic meanings, the first being the collective body of Christ in the world. In the early days of the gospel that included Jerusalem, then Samaria was added, then Ethiopia, Damascus, Ashdod, and ultimately to the ends of the earth. Cultural attributes were added wherever the gospel was preached. Differing interpretations of certain passages and doctrines came into play. To use Joseph Smith’s language, appendages were added. Some of those became doctrine.

The atonement was, however at the core of the message – the good news - the gospel was spread. The church (ekklesia) became the accepted term for the collective body of believers in the world, regardless of location or identified groupings which were at times by preacher (I am of Apollos), or by geography (I write to the church at Corinth).

This leads to the second usage of the word ekklesia. A specific gathering of believers in a specific location. From a single building to a group of Christians in a given area. This is a common usage in certain of the writings of Paul. The word expanded over time to refer to a specific group or gathering of Zion beyond simple geographical boundaries. Hence, most Christians use the term ekklesia to refer to their specific group, as in The “Church” of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was simpler when all the church was gathered in Jerusalem. It didn’t take long however, for the gospel to expand all over the world and things became more complicated as the word ekklesia or church garnered more and differing meanings.

My dominant use of the word ekklesia is to refer to the collective church of Christ in the world (first use) – the community of Christ, so to speak composed of His followers around the world who honor the gospel – the good news of the atonement. This is a huge group, perhaps billions of people – only God knows for sure. The Saints use the term ekklesia to refer to themselves as “the only” church (first use). They are the only true and living church composing the world-wide church (first use) of believers, an astounding claim that distances them from all other adherents. All the rest can only claim the use the word ekklesia in its second sense “Where do you go to church?” I go to Grace Bible Church in Ogden. But in the LDS perspective, Grace Bible Church in Ogden is not truly part of the ekklesia in the first sense. Many non-LDS Christians say something similar about the Saints. That is where we sadly (in my faith) walk down different paths.

There have always been ekklesias who have claimed to be the only valid and true ekklesia or gathering of God on earth. The LDS are not the first and only to make that claim. At face-value it is an extraordinary claim, is it not?

Hence, when I define myself, I think in terms of both usages of the word ekklesia. I am first and foremost a Christian, a member of the great, grand, and glorious ekklesia (first sense) of Christ on earth. It is a diverse community, but fellowship can be found, if one will seek. Second, I am an Evangelical. That word does not describe a/the church in either sense of the word. It is a group identity within the boundaries of Christianity, made up of folks from many churches (second use), all part of the church (first use). It refers to individuals, churches, mission groups, schools, or those gathering together for a common purpose, and with common beliefs to provide disaster relief or the like. Third and last, I identify as a Mennonite (in my mind the equivalent of a LDS Church member). It is a church (second use) within the church (first use). Most, if not the vast majority of LDS church members identify as being part of the only true and living church (first use) on earth. Everyone else is the “other.”

When I walk into the ward, in my mind I am walking into a church (second use) within a church (second use) within the church (first use). When I walk into the local Catholic church, I am walking into a church (second use) within a church (second use) within the church (first use). When I walk into a local Mennonite church I am walking into a church (second use) within a church (second use) within the church (first use).

When a Saint walks into her ward she is walking into a church (second use) within the only church (first use). When she walks into Salem Methodist Church to attend a neighbor’s wedding, she believes she is walking into a place and group that posits a false claim to be part of the church (first use) because only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true and living church (first use) on earth at this time. Is that correct?

 

At the same time, if many non-LDS Christians walk into an LDS ward, they believe they are walking into a place that posits a false claim to be part of the church (first use) because they practice a form of heterodoxy that at the most limits them to being a church (second use). Hence some non-LDS Christians are more comfortable twisting the question of “Can a Mormon be a Christian,” to “Is the Mormon church Christian?” This is where I (Navidad) walk down a different path from both!

 

More than any other belief or doctrine, I believe this is what divides us. This is the continental divide. Your thoughts?

 

My thoughts on what you said can be condensed into one simple message, I think:  What divides us is a misunderstanding of how all of this works.

I like what you said about the word ekklesia though so I will add my comments to that point:  two basic meanings or usages of the Greek word ekklesia... it comes from ek and kaleo – Ek means out or from and kaleo means to call. So in its basic form it means the called out ones. Called out of the world to be the bride of Christ.

Let's try to think together now about how one becomes a bride of Christ, or more realistically a member of the group that is the bride of Christ.  First I'd like to point out that Christ has only one bride, in this context, rather than multiple brides, so the point is to become one with that group as a member of that group.  Now think about someone as he or she decides that he or she would like to become a member of that group.  At one point he or she may not have known much or even heard about much about Jesus Christ, but now we're talking about this person coming to the point where he or she decides to become a member of his group, as his bride so to speak, taking his name upon himself or herself as a member of that one group.  Do you imagine this transition happens suddenly, in the same instant someone begins to learn about Jesus Christ?  I don't.  At least not always. Sometimes as someone begins to learn about Christ they are confronted with false information about Christ and false representations of Christ which complicates the process of getting to know Christ well enough to actually become a member of the one and only group that represents the one and only bride of Christ.  There are deceivers in the world, and those who have been deceived.  Someone may think they are becoming a member of the group that represents the one and only bride of Christ and instead gets hooked up with a group that is not the true Church.  The person who is seeking to become a member of the one and only group that represents the bride of Christ may still be a true Christian, though, in his or her heart. They could easily be a true Christian but while being a member of a group that is not the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ.  Still called out by Christ to come out of the world into his Church, but not knowing yet which group of people represents the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ.  

So in terms of being called out, yes there are multiple meanings or usages of being called out by Jesus Christ.  He calls us out of the world, and he calls us into his Church, and he calls us into what we refer to as "callings" with particular duties and responsibilities, and he calls us to strive for perfection as our Father in heaven is perfect, little by little, one step at a time, growing and maturing as we are in his service.  And yet there is only one bride, his one and only true Church, and we are either a member of it or we are not, whether a true Christian or not.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Let's try to think together now about how one becomes a bride of Christ, or more realistically a member of the group that is the bride of Christ.  First I'd like to point out that Christ has only one bride, in this context, rather than multiple brides, so the point is to become one with that group as a member of that group.

I agree.

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Do you imagine this transition happens suddenly, in the same instant someone begins to learn about Jesus Christ? 

Possibly, but very rarely. I would suggest the beginning steps of the transition may begin suddenly, then one learns over time. But there is a point in time when one experiences salvation. Then sanctification takes over.

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Sometimes as someone begins to learn about Christ they are confronted with false information about Christ and false representations of Christ which complicates the process of getting to know Christ well enough to actually become a member of the one and only group that represents the one and only bride of Christ.

For sure.

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

There are deceivers in the world, and those who have been deceived.

For sure.

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

The person who is seeking to become a member of the one and only group that represents the bride of Christ may still be a true Christian, though, in his or her heart.

If one is a true Christian in his or her heart then one is, via the atonement already a member of the ekklesia in its first sense. It is the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice and the blood that covers our unrighteousness that makes us a part of the bride of Christ. No church (second sense) affiliation or ordinance creates that standing before Christ. It is an individual personal thing between Christ and the person. Belonging to the ekklesia (first sense) has nothing to do with belonging to an ekklesia (second sense).

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Still called out by Christ to come out of the world into his Church, but not knowing yet which group of people represents the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ.  

OK

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

He calls us out of the world, and he calls us into his Church, and he calls us into what we refer to as "callings" with particular duties and responsibilities, and he calls us to strive for perfection as our Father in heaven is perfect, little by little, one step at a time, growing and maturing as we are in his service. 

Yes to all of that with one caveat - we would have to talk a bit about the meaning of the word "perfect" and "perfection." Striving for perfection (completion), growing, and maturing, are essential ingredients to the growth in one's Christian life - the process of sanctification. I believe that process continues into eternity. I strongly believe in callings and have experienced the same on a number of times in my Christian life and ministry.

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I agree.

Possibly, but very rarely. I would suggest the beginning steps of the transition may begin suddenly, then one learns over time. But there is a point in time when one experiences salvation. Then sanctification takes over.

For sure.

For sure.

Agreed up to this point.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If one is a true Christian in his or her heart then one is, via the atonement already a member of the ekklesia in its first sense. It is the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice and the blood that covers our unrighteousness that makes us a part of the bride of Christ. No church (second sense) affiliation or ordinance creates that standing before Christ. It is an individual personal thing between Christ and the person. Belonging to the ekklesia (first sense) has nothing to do with belonging to an ekklesia (second sense).

Where we part ways, maybe.  The first calling out is to be called out of the world.  Christ calls us out, we feel him and sense he is calling us out, and then we strive to come out of the world.  Separating ourselves from the world is a process in itself and basically it just means we are striving to leave our sinful ways behind us and become a better class of person, seeking to do only that which is good and leaving the sins of our past in our past while striving to not repeat them or do anything else that is wrong.  And we can strive to do all of that even if we have not found the one group in the world that is the true Church of Jesus Christ.   And often if not usually that is how it works.  We strive to become Christians, following the teachings and promptings of our Savior, even before we find which group is the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ.  True Christians, but not members of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ.

I highlighted part of what you said in bold to show where we possibly disagree.  Accepting Christ's sacrifice is not what makes someone a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ.  It makes someone a true Christian, along with being determined to come out of the world of sin and become a better person, but it is a step short of what it takes to enter into the covenant that promises salvation based on living that new and better way of life.  The ordinance of baptism is required to enter into that covenant with Jesus Christ and thereby actually become one of his people, rather than someone who is only trying to be like Jesus.  Marriage is a good analogy for this step in this process because not until the man and woman are married by an ordinance of marriage are they actually husband and wife.  They may love each other just as much before the wedding ceremony as they do after, but they are not under that marriage covenant and relationship until after the ordinance.  For us to have the highest and best relationship possible with Jesus Christ, baptism is the required ordinance, signifying us becoming members of his Church, as children of his bride which is his Church..

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

OK

Yes to all of that with one caveat - we would have to talk a bit about the meaning of the word "perfect" and "perfection." Striving for perfection (completion), growing, and maturing, are essential ingredients to the growth in one's Christian life - the process of sanctification. I believe that process continues into eternity. I strongly believe in callings and have experienced the same on a number of times in my Christian life and ministry.

Agreed.

Edited September 7, 2021 by bOObOO