Dallas Jenkins Walking a Tightrope

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I understand now. I am sure you understand the dangers and inaccuracies involved in normalizing - making the fringe elements of any group the norm, don't you? It is an old trope used to dismiss the other group as a whole. My progressive friends have done that with the religious right for decades. Fundamentalists (including Mormon Fundamentalists) do it with everyone who isn't them.

I do understand that and was only referring to many of the people commenting on that article. 

[Navidad]

54 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Based on other interviews I’ve seen him do, he seems to believe that a Christian is any person with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. So he’s divorcing affiliation with a religious group from  being an individual disciple of Christ. That’s how I see it.

Exactly and precisely. You have said it more simply and much better than I did. You have described perfectly what the majority of 21st century Evangelicals do - separate (or yes, divorce) affiliation with a religious group from being an individual disciple of Christ. Group affiliation (the church) is at least one hundred times more important to my LDS Christian friends than to my non-LDS Christian friends. That is exactly why it isn't all that important to me where I go to church or with which church I affiliate at any given time. I find dedicated and committed disciples of Christ in each and every group. That is an exciting and faith-affirming process. I have many friends who are "independent Baptists." In other words they are Baptistic in doctrine but don't affiliate with any formal Baptist denomination. My nephew pastors an independent Anglican church in Kansas City. I grew up in an independent, mostly Mennonite church in Pennsylvania that was not affiliated with any official Mennonite group. No one in my world gives any of that a second thought. Thanks @Rivers for saying it better than me.

Edited May 23, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I do understand that and was only referring to many of the people commenting on that article. 

Thanks, I knew you did. I didn't mean to sound condescending. I apologize if I did.

[Amulek]

On 5/22/2022 at 4:04 AM, smac97 said:

I think he's trying to distance himself from the "Mormons aren't Christian" thing by refusing to adjudicate the Christianness of the entirety of the Church and its members.

I don't envy Dallas Jenkins one bit. I have watched the first two seasons of The Chosen, and I find it terribly interesting to see what kind of artistic decisions he's had to make with the show and the balancing act he's had to maintain while trying to appease as wide a range of believers as possible.

I think what he's trying to say here is that, while some of his closest Mormon friends are most definitely Christian, he won't go so far as to say that Mormonism itself as a religion is Christian.

And I think he's using the Evangelical notion of individual salvation as his way of avoiding being forced to comment upon the theological validity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To be honest, that's fine by me. I would probably take a similar approach if I were in his shoes.

 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Pogi: With all due respect you are reading his comments and the events that have occurred through your own filters that have been finely honed since primary. I think you would be rather irritated with ole Navidad if I insisted I understand the responses, mindset, and actions of LDS Christians better than you do.

Perhaps you can explain why some Evangelicals are making such a big deal out of it then, as seen through your filters.  

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It is a given among Evangelicals that not all Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, are not Christians. It doesn't need to be said; it is a given and would be accepted as such. 

My point is that if Dallas Jenkins would have said that Evangelicals are Christians, it would have been accepted as obvious - something that doesn't need to be said.  He wouldn't have needed to clarify that he was only speaking in the general sense and not about each individual Evangelical.  So, the fact that he was pressured to state his position on Mormons in the first place - that he needed to do so "dozens" of times (clearly something that DOES need to be said still), and that those explanations still were not good enough - that news articles were printed about it - and that he felt compelled to need to clarify further that "not all Mormons" are Christians (something that is a given in the rest of the Christian world that "doesn't need to be said") is, to me, telling.  IF these are things that don't need to be said in the rest of the Christian world, it seem apparent to me that it still does need to be said, and that it is newsworthy when it is said about Mormons. 

Could you imagine a news article with the headline "Dallas Jenkins says that Evangelicals are Christians"?  Ridiculously obvious right?  He wouldn't have been hounded for it.  He wouldn't have needed to clarify dozens of times to questioning reporters and Christians.  But if the headline reads "Dallas Jenkins says that Mormons are Christians", it may still be seen as ridiculous by some, but for different reasons.  Why?

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Because the attitudes toward members of the LDS church are changing so rapidly, there is great need for understanding, communication, and clarification. Isn't that a core part of change management. Thank goodness for the change. My worry is that my LDS friends won't embrace the change, but will remain frozen (to use Kurt Lewin's term) in their past experiences, including those of their ancestors. 

 I fully welcome the change and believe you that it is happening.  But I feel like you are consistently downplaying of our lived experience as Latter-day Saints in our interactions with other Evangelicals.  You insist that we are not differentiating between fundamentalists and Evangelicals, and that may be true sometimes, but not always.  It still seems to be a fairly controversial issue in Dallas Jenkins religious world - I don't think that is an unfair or inaccurate observation.  I am all about change, but downplaying or ignoring the fact that it is still fairly prevalent is perhaps being unfair to our lived experience.   

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My concern is that Evangelicals will accept the change more quickly than will members of the LDS church. In a sociological sense, the LDS have more to lose in becoming part of the group than remaining the out-group. I think great LDS sociologists like Mauss and the Shepherd brothers would confirm this thesis.

There may be some truth to this comment that we have more to lose, but it is a loss that we have been seeking for generations.  The LDS church has bent over backwards to be accepted by the rest of Christian America as both Christian and American.  We have gone to great measure to fit in - to the point of perhaps experiencing some of that loss and losing our unique identity to be perceived as stereotypical American Christians.  The last thing we would do is reject welcome arms as fellow Christians and Americans.   We are like the nerd kid who is rejected, and now is finally being accepted into society, we are not going to walk away from that.   We will welcome it with open arms, but will still feel the scars of the past when we are reminded by some (maybe even the few) that we are still nerds and don't belong. 

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't envy Dallas Jenkins one bit. I have watched the first two seasons of The Chosen, and I find it terribly interesting to see what kind of artistic decisions he's had to make with the show and the balancing act he's had to maintain while trying to appease as wide a range of believers as possible.

I think what he's trying to say here is that, while some of his closest Mormon friends are most definitely Christian, he won't go so far as to say that Mormonism itself as a religion is Christian.

And I think he's using the Evangelical notion of individual salvation as his way of avoiding being forced to comment upon the theological validity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To be honest, that's fine by me. I would probably take a similar approach if I were in his shoes.

I agree.  I don't see anything troubling in what he has said - the troubling part is the response to what he has said.  This shouldn't be a news worthy issue.  It isn't something that he should be hounded about.

[SkyRock]

There were plenty of Baptists that called me non Christian when I lived in Texas.  I had Catholic and Lutheran friends that told me the same thing happened to them growing up in Texas.

I remember reading somewhere that the Baptists were losing a lot of members in the 70s and 80s and they researched into what was happening and found two points:

1) people were leaving for strict churches,  as the Baptists used to be pretty liberal at one point compared to the 90s and 2000s.

2) about half were joining the LDS Church.   To address that they started their anti Mormon lessons.  And anti other churches lessons, but mostly anti Mormon.

We had some really good Methodist friends in Texas and our kids went to the Methodist preschool.   Rarely did anyone but a Baptist have overt hostility to us being LDS.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't envy Dallas Jenkins one bit. I have watched the first two seasons of The Chosen, and I find it terribly interesting to see what kind of artistic decisions he's had to make with the show and the balancing act he's had to maintain while trying to appease as wide a range of believers as possible.

I think what he's trying to say here is that, while some of his closest Mormon friends are most definitely Christian, he won't go so far as to say that Mormonism itself as a religion is Christian.

And I think he's using the Evangelical notion of individual salvation as his way of avoiding being forced to comment upon the theological validity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To be honest, that's fine by me. I would probably take a similar approach if I were in his shoes.

 

Yep, same here.  While we don't have exclusivistic claims as to the label of "Christian," we do have exclusivistic claims as to priesthood authority.  For that reason it bothers me not a whit that the Catholic Church does not recognize our baptisms as valid, since we don't recognize theirs as valid, either.

I think the "Mormons aren't Christian" thing is waning.  I hope so, anyway.  As a practical matter, we have far more in common with many of our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters than we do differences.  I have long valued the ongoing and improving relationship between us and the Catholic Church:

Quote

The March 3 meeting at the Vatican between Pope Francis and Russell M. Nelson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, drew great interest from members of both faiths and was covered extensively in the media in Utah.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the Mormon Church, has its headquarters in Utah. Earlier in the year, Nelson, who Latter-day Saints consider a prophet, addressed more than 65,000 Arizona members of his church, as was reported by local LDS publication, the Arizona Beehive. 

This historic meeting, the first between the leaders of the two Churches, came about while Nelson and other leaders of his faith were in Rome to dedicate a church temple, the first in Italy. Church temples are where LDS sacred ordinances, or sacred rites and ceremonies, of the faith are conducted.

The temple was built to give the church’s nearly 27,000 members in Italy access to those ordinances and because Rome has historically been “the heart and center of the Christian world,” said John Taylor, director of interfaith relations for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Vatican leaders, in particular Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who was president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue until his death last year, have been very supportive of his church’s efforts to build the temple in Rome, Taylor told the Intermountain Catholic, newspaper of the Diocese of Salt Lake City.

While historically the two churches have interacted positively, some see the meeting as the beginning of a new chapter in their relationship.

“This says to me that Mormons and Catholics are getting to know each other as Christians,” said Mathew Schmalz, a College of the Holy Cross associate professor of religious studies. “Beyond political action, they are getting to know each other as people of faith. I think it could provide the opportunity for more substantial dialogue in religious issues that moves beyond mutual stereotypes.”
...

In Utah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has proven to be a strong partner with Catholic Community Services of Utah, the local arm of Catholic Charities USA.

“Not only do they support us with in-kind and monetary donations, but also with volunteers,” said Bradford R. Drake, executive director of Catholic Community Services.

“Their manpower is invaluable as each of our programs rely on thousands of volunteers each year to meet the needs of those we serve,” he said, adding, “we consider ourselves very fortunate to work with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose focus is very similar to ours in following Christ’s example of serving those most in need.”

On a national level, since the 1980s, LDS Charities, the church’s humanitarian arm, has had on ongoing relationship with Catholic Relief Services.

It began when Bishop William K. Weigand, the seventh bishop of Salt Lake City (1980 to early 1994), facilitated a partnership between LDS Charities and CRS to provide aid to Poland during the early days of Solidarity, the people’s labor movement in that country. Since that time, CRS and LDS Charities have partnered in hundreds of humanitarian and development projects across the world.

“From 2014 to 2018, LDS Charities supported more than 50 CRS projects, which reached more than 1.7 million people,” said Sean Callahan, president and CEO of CRS. “Currently, LDS Charities is supporting 24 active CRS projects, which touch all major regions of Africa, the Middle East, East and South Asia, and Central and South America.

“This is more than a relationship between two charities, it’s a relationship between faith communities dedicated to reaching out to our sisters and brothers globally,” he told the Intermountain Catholic.
...

The charitable work of both Churches is the perfect vehicle to draw those young people back into their faith communities, Taylor said. “It is amazing to me to see that when we organize an activity or event along those lines there is an incredibly strong response that comes from that segment.”

As both Churches address this and other concerns, “I have no question that the commonalities between the two faiths can overcome the differences that separate us,” he said.

Locally, the Catholic and Latter-day Saint communities have partnered on a variety of issues.

Smith, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, pointed to the shared values among Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals.

“We have some differences of doctrine, but we share a lot more values than we have differences,” said Ken Smith, a former president of a Spanish-speaking LDS branch in Mesa during a gathering of Hispanic religious leaders of various faiths outside the Arizona State Capitol in May 2016.

“The family is being attacked and it’s being destroyed and we’re losing the battle … those people who share traditional values are now pushing back. We’re not going to stand for it. We’re going to protect our families.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the "Mormons aren't Christian" thing is waning.  I hope so, anyway.

Agreed. Interesting that Joel Osteen, the pastor of one of the largest Christian churches said:

“I believe that [Mormons] are Christians . . . . I don’t know if it’s the purest form of Christianity, like I grew up with. But you know what, I know Mormons. I hear Mitt Romney — and I’ve never met him — but I hear him say, ‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’ and that’s one of the core issues."

“I’m sure there are other issues that we don’t agree on. But you know, I can say that the Baptists and the Methodists and the Catholics don’t all agree on everything. So that would be my take on it.”
In 2007, he told Chris Wallace of FOX News that Mormons are indeed Christians:

"Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that's what I believe, so, you know, I'm not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are."

So would he no longer be considered a Christian for saying that?

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree.  I don't see anything troubling in what he has said - the troubling part is the response to what he has said.  This shouldn't be a news worthy issue.  It isn't something that he should be hounded about.

Thanks for your kind responses. May I draw a parallel? I personally believe it is an important one. You have indicated that members of the church have been seeking to be accepted by the greater Christian community. I certainly agree with that. However, the LDS community has not yet been highly motivated to accept the greater Christian community as spiritual or priesthood equals with them. Wouldn't you agree with that? Stick with me for a minute . . . so what would happen if in a matter of several decades, many LDS leaders and members modified their position towards the greater Christian community to accept them as spiritual and priesthood equals? Would not there be an uproar in certain segments of the LDS church? Would not some leave? Would not many complain? Would not many comment about the change on this very forum? What is happening? Why is our leadership accepting other's baptisms and priesthood as equal to our own? Can you believe it? What is happening to our church? Would there not be a thousand complaints and hounding of those leading or thought complicit in that change? I actually think to a small degree, this parallel change is already happening and many of the faithful aren't happy about it.

That is what is happening in many places in non-LDS Christianity, especially in Evangelicalism. The Fundamentalists are complaining, concerned, deeply conscious of the change that is afoot with attitudes towards the LDS church. In my childhood it was a drastic change in attitudes and doctrines about Catholics who formerly were considered Babylon - the Great Whore. One would never hear that today in an Evangelical community. Today a similar change is happening towards LDS Mormons.

Just think of "the response to what he has said" if he was an LDS leader welcoming current non-LDS Christians into the LDS Christian fold as co-equals just as they were/are. It would take decades for things to settle down and for folks to realize the sky wasn't falling on the LDS church. Such is the current situation in the Evangelical community. Folks are genuinely starting to accept the LDS as spiritual co-equals, just as they are! Say what?????????

Of course he will be hounded. I am hounded by members of my own family and I haven't even joined the LDS church. We attend, we affirm, and we appreciate - that is enough to drive some of my Fundamentalist relatives to distraction. On the other hand my Evangelical relatives simply ask questions, nod, and thank us for sharing our experiences with them. They ask a million questions and take it all in. The former don't want to learn, so they hound; the latter want to know everything about our experience, so they hound.

Think of the parallel or corollary situation of a similar change in the LDS church. In fact I for one, think to a small degree it is already happening in the LDS church as more interfaith things are happening. Over the years of my involvement with the LDS faith, the total apostasy has morphed in some teachings to the great apostasy. I have read many different interpretations of D&C 1:30 and the following verses - Christ hated the creeds, not the creedalists. The only true and living concept is aspirational, not actual. What role can faithful non-members play in a ward? Faithful non-members? Eee-gads - what does that mean, who are they, who let them in? They teach in Sunday School? Speak in Sacrament service? What????????????????? OK, that is enough for now! I think both groups - the Evangelicals and the LDS-Christian community are changing. I think the Evangelicals have a head start since the early seventies. But look at huge changes in the "New" Mormon history! Eee-gads, asking a Mennonite to give the invocation at the Presidential Banquet of the Mormon History Association? Two years out of three?????? Maybe we (Evangelicals) don't have such a big head start after all! Thanks!

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

So would he no longer be considered a Christian for saying that?

Of course he would still be considered a Christian for saying that! Just like the old folk song - The times, they are a chang'in!"  However, knowing of the widely divergent attitudes within non-LDS Christianity about Joel Osteen, I believe he might be considered "not a Christian" and certainly "not an Evangelical" for some other reasons! === Said with tongue not quite in cheek!

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, SkyRock said:

There were plenty of Baptists that called me non Christian when I lived in Texas.  I had Catholic and Lutheran friends that told me the same thing happened to them growing up in Texas.

I remember reading somewhere that the Baptists were losing a lot of members in the 70s and 80s and they researched into what was happening and found two points:

1) people were leaving for strict churches,  as the Baptists used to be pretty liberal at one point compared to the 90s and 2000s.

2) about half were joining the LDS Church.   To address that they started their anti Mormon lessons.  And anti other churches lessons, but mostly anti Mormon.

We had some really good Methodist friends in Texas and our kids went to the Methodist preschool.   Rarely did anyone but a Baptist have overt hostility to us being LDS.

That is hard to comment on because in the State of Texas there are at least thirty different distinct Baptist groups. Many have gained members while many have lost members. The largest southern Baptist university in the world - Baylor isn't even formally connected to the Southern Baptist Church. It is aligned with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which insists on its separateness and distinctiveness from Southern Baptists. I would have to issue a CFR for your second point.

There are many good Methodists in Texas as well. There are probably at least 10-15 different Methodist groups as well. SMU - Southern Methodist University is no longer affiliated as it used to be with the Methodist church either. it considers itself "non-sectarian." So go figure! BTW just to be fair TCU - Texas Christian University is now "associated" by covenant with the Christian Church- Disciples of Christ. That is a change in their affiliation with their parent denomination as well. I think that there are many LDS folks who may be concerned that the same kind of affiliation change may happen with the LDS church and BYU. In fact, we had a thread about that not long ago on this very forum!

[SkyRock]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That is hard to comment on because in the State of Texas there are at least thirty different distinct Baptist groups. Many have gained members while many have lost members. The largest southern Baptist university in the world - Baylor isn't even formally connected to the Southern Baptist Church. It is aligned with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which insists on its separateness and distinctiveness from Southern Baptists. I would have to issue a CFR for your second point.

There are many good Methodists in Texas as well. There are probably at least 10-15 different Methodist groups as well. SMU - Southern Methodist University is no longer affiliated as it used to be with the Methodist church either. it considers itself "non-sectarian." So go figure! BTW just to be fair TCU - Texas Christian University is now "associated" by covenant with the Christian Church- Disciples of Christ. That is a change in their affiliation with their parent denomination as well. I think that there are many LDS folks who may be concerned that the same kind of affiliation change may happen with the LDS church and BYU. In fact, we had a thread about that not long ago on this very forum!

TCU markets itself as Texas "small c" University and connects "Christian" to its heritage.   Its main selling point is Greek life and a large portion of the school is from California.  Baptists are the biggest faith on campus.  It does have a divinity school associated with the school, but it's pretty liberal from what I have been told. 

Nearby is the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I don't follow the ins and outs of every faction of a sect.   I just know that while I lived there, I got along great with most people, as most are religious and striving to be disciples of Christ after their own fashion, but the evangelicals would sometimes be less friendly when they found out we were LDS.

That being said, I miss the generally positive view of Christianity that we experienced in Texas.  It is something that was pervasive.  It is definitely not "neutral" or "negative".

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your kind responses. May I draw a parallel? I personally believe it is an important one. You have indicated that members of the church have been seeking to be accepted by the greater Christian community. I certainly agree with that. However, the LDS community has not yet been highly motivated to accept the greater Christian community as spiritual or priesthood equals with them. Wouldn't you agree with that? Stick with me for a minute . . . so what would happen if in a matter of several decades, many LDS leaders and members modified their position towards the greater Christian community to accept them as spiritual and priesthood equals? Would not there be an uproar in certain segments of the LDS church? Would not some leave? Would not many complain? Would not many comment about the change on this very forum? What is happening? Why is our leadership accepting other's baptisms and priesthood as equal to our own? Can you believe it? What is happening to our church? Would there not be a thousand complaints and hounding of those leading or thought complicit in that change? I actually think to a small degree, this parallel change is already happening and many of the faithful aren't happy about it.

That is what is happening in many places in non-LDS Christianity, especially in Evangelicalism. The Fundamentalists are complaining, concerned, deeply conscious of the change that is afoot with attitudes towards the LDS church. In my childhood it was a drastic change in attitudes and doctrines about Catholics who formerly were considered Babylon - the Great Whore. One would never hear that today in an Evangelical community. Today a similar change is happening towards LDS Mormons.

Just think of "the response to what he has said" if he was an LDS leader welcoming current non-LDS Christians into the LDS Christian fold as co-equals just as they were/are. It would take decades for things to settle down and for folks to realize the sky wasn't falling on the LDS church. Such is the current situation in the Evangelical community. Folks are genuinely starting to accept the LDS as spiritual co-equals, just as they are! Say what?????????

Of course he will be hounded. I am hounded by members of my own family and I haven't even joined the LDS church. We attend, we affirm, and we appreciate - that is enough to drive some of my Fundamentalist relatives to distraction. On the other hand my Evangelical relatives simply ask questions, nod, and thank us for sharing our experiences with them. They ask a million questions and take it all in. The former don't want to learn, so they hound; the latter want to know everything about our experience, so they hound.

Think of the parallel or corollary situation of a similar change in the LDS church. In fact I for one, think to a small degree it is already happening in the LDS church as more interfaith things are happening. Over the years of my involvement with the LDS faith, the total apostasy has morphed in some teachings to the great apostasy. I have read many different interpretations of D&C 1:30 and the following verses - Christ hated the creeds, not the creedalists. The only true and living concept is aspirational, not actual. What role can faithful non-members play in a ward? Faithful non-members? Eee-gads - what does that mean, who are they, who let them in? They teach in Sunday School? Speak in Sacrament service? What????????????????? OK, that is enough for now! I think both groups - the Evangelicals and the LDS-Christian community are changing. I think the Evangelicals have a head start since the early seventies. But look at huge changes in the "New" Mormon history! Eee-gads, asking a Mennonite to give the invocation at the Presidential Banquet of the Mormon History Association? Two years out of three?????? Maybe we (Evangelicals) don't have such a big head start after all! Thanks!

Ok, are you acknowledging then that some Evangelicals are indeed having a hard time with the change, and that it is not just Fundamentalists?  I can accept that and even be patient with it, but I don't like it when people pretend like I am imagining things.  

I think it just dawned on me that a lot of the misunderstanding is on our respective views of priesthood authority.  For us, we distinguish being Christian from having priesthood authority.  For Evangelicals (correct me if I am wrong) being Christian is to have priesthood authority.  So, it makes sense why Latter-day Saints may have an easier time attributing the title Christian with other faiths, as we don't associate it with authority.  While other Christians may have a hard time wanting to share that title with us as it is associated with authority.  Does that sound about right?  They may be having a hard time acknowledging our authority when we withhold any acknowledgement of their own authority.   I have never heard it explained that way to me, but it makes sense.  The reason I usually hear is that we don't believe in the proper trinitarian attributes of Christ.  

I think the corollary situation you present is not really a fair parallel though as Evangelicals are not restorationists who believe that the authority belongs to their church/sect alone.   It would be a much more radical change for Latter-day Saints to acknowledge equal authority with other sects, than it would be for Evangelicals to acknowledge the authority of other sects like Catholics and Latter-day Saints, etc. 

I think it is the Evangelical faith that all believers in Christ are partakers of the royal priesthood that makes their resistance to acknowledging that Latter-day Saints are "Christian" both understandable and troubling at the same time.   It is that belief in the priesthood of all believers that makes the comparison a little strained.    

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You have indicated that members of the church have been seeking to be accepted by the greater Christian community. I certainly agree with that. However, the LDS community has not yet been highly motivated to accept the greater Christian community as spiritual or priesthood equals with them. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Respectfully, I would not.  I do not think there is symmetry here.  The Latter-day Saints in my experience do not go about declaring that Catholics, Baptists, etc. are not "Christian."  We do not impute onto them a belief in a numerically distinct, "different" or "another" Jesus from the one described and referenced in the Bible.  See, e.g., this remark from Pres. Hinckley:

Quote

“Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service” (meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 17 Feb. 1998).

Also, consider this comment by then-Elder Oaks (emphases added) :

Quote

All of the messages of this conference help us follow in the footsteps of our Savior, whose example and teachings define the path for every follower of Jesus Christ.

Like all other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints study the life of our Savior as reported in the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I will review examples and teachings contained in these four books of the Holy Bible and invite each of us and all other Christians to consider how this restored Church and each of us qualify as followers of Christ.
...
Jesus taught that “men ought always to pray” (Luke 18:1). He also set that example, such as when He “continued all night in prayer to God” (Luke 6:12) before He called His Twelve Apostles. Like other Christians, we pray in all our worship services. We also pray for guidance, and we teach that we should have frequent personal prayers and daily kneeling prayers as a family. Like Jesus, we pray to our Father in Heaven, and we do so in the sacred name of Jesus Christ.

And this more recent (2018) statement from Pres. Oaks (emphasis added) :

Quote

I am grateful to speak to this audience on Easter Sunday. Today we join other Christians in celebrating the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the literal Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a pillar of our faith.

And this 2013 Newsroom article (emphasis added) :

Quote

Mormons Join Other Christians Around The World to Celebrate Easter

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints celebrates Easter with the rest of the Christian world this weekend, remembering the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And this:

Quote

The Church of the Latter Day Saints (1834–1838)

The restored Church of Christ was not the only body of Christian believers called by the name “the Church of Christ.” Some Congregational churches in New England called themselves by this name, and professing Christians sometimes referred to themselves collectively as the church of Christ. To help the Saints distinguish themselves from other Christians, elders at a conference at Kirtland, Ohio, voted on May 3, 1834, to change the name of the Church to “the Church of the Latter Day Saints.” Besides lending clarity, the new name also distanced the Church from the terms “Mormon” and “Mormonite” used by opponents of the Church.

And here:

Quote

Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints recognize that without the Savior’s atoning sacrifice and His victorious Resurrection, His birth in Bethlehem would not mean all that it does today.

And on and on.

We certainly have exclusivistic truth claims, but being the only Christians on earth is not one of them.  We do not deny the professed faith in Jesus by billions of other Christians around the world.

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Stick with me for a minute . . . so what would happen if in a matter of several decades, many LDS leaders and members modified their position towards the greater Christian community to accept them as spiritual and priesthood equals?

I'm not sure what this means.  And I'm not sure how it would or could work.

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Would not there be an uproar in certain segments of the LDS church? Would not some leave? Would not many complain? Would not many comment about the change on this very forum? What is happening? Why is our leadership accepting other's baptisms and priesthood as equal to our own? Can you believe it? What is happening to our church? Would there not be a thousand complaints and hounding of those leading or thought complicit in that change?

I think your hypothetical is too farfetched and vague to allow me to meaningfully comment on it.  You may as well ask me to speculate on what the Saints would do if the Church abandoned the Book of Mormon and the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith.  

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I actually think to a small degree, this parallel change is already happening and many of the faithful aren't happy about it.

What "change" are you referencing here?  "Aren's happy about" what?

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Think of the parallel or corollary situation of a similar change in the LDS church.  In fact I for one, think to a small degree it is already happening in the LDS church as more interfaith things are happening.

Interfaith cooperation has been going on for quite a while.  I think we are seeing more public awareness of these efforts.

But if you are proposing that there is some sort of substantive ecumenical synthesis in process, where the Church is stepping away from or substantially de-emphasizing its unique and exclusivistic claims, so as to enmesh itself into the fabric of the larger Christian community, I will have to disagree with you there.  I see no evidence of this.  To the contrary, we are seeing renewed and constant emphasis on the Book of Mormon, on the founding events of the Restoration (including the restoration of priesthood authority), on the importance of following living prophets and apostles, of the importance of missionary efforts (including evangelizing other Christians), on the importance of temples and family history work, and so on.

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Over the years of my involvement with the LDS faith, the total apostasy has morphed in some teachings to the great apostasy.

Not sure about that.  I think the "great apostasy" has always centered on the rejection revelations and ordinances, the loss of priesthood authority, and the ensuing consequences.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority. The rise of revelatory communities, apostasies, and restorations has happened cyclically throughout the history of mankind, in a series of dispensations from the time of Adam and Enoch (Moses 7) to the present. Latter-day Saints see a historical "great apostasy" and subsequent loss of authority beginning in the New Testament era and spreading in the centuries immediately following that era. Though Latter-day Saints have not emphasized the great apostasy as much as they have the concept that the Church is a revelatory restoration, the need of a restoration implies that something important was lost after the departure of the primitive Christian church.

 

The English word "apostasy" derives from the Greek apostasía or apóstasis ("defection, revolt"; used in a political sense by Herodotus and Thucydides); it is mentioned in a religious context in the Septuagint and the New Testament (e.g., Josh. 22:22 and 2Chr. 29:19; 2 Thes. 2:3states that an apostasía must come before the second coming of Christ). It can mean the intransitive "to stand away from," or the active "to cause to stand away from." Thus an apostasy can be an active, collective rebellion or a "falling away."

Joseph Smith in his first vision (1820) was told by Christ that all existing churches had gone astray, both in their teachings and in their practice, although they had "a form of godliness" (JS-H 1:18-19). Thus it was necessary for a "restoration" of the gospel to take place.
...
All through their history, Latter-day Saints have written and theorized about historical events involved in the "great apostasy," a theme discussed in several Restorationist writings of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (see Restorationism, Protestant). In 1833, referring to Mark 16:17-18 and 1Corinthians 12, Joseph Smith stated: "By the foregoing testimonies we may look at the Christian world and see [that] the apostasy there has been from the apostolic platform" (TPJS, p. 15). Oliver Cowdery wrote on the apostasy in the first issue of the messenger and advocate (1834). In 1840 Orson Pratt spoke of "a general and awful apostasy from the religion of the New Testament" (Listen to the Voice of Truth, 1.1). He particularly emphasized a lack of binding ordinances because of the absence of priesthood authority; baptism was a key example. In Pratt's view all churches before the Restoration were wrong in some ways, doctrinally and ritually, even though they might be right in others. Benjamin Winchester, an early LDS pamphleteer, wrote an extensive treatise using New Testament sources to demonstrate that an apostasy had been prophesied (A History of Priesthood, Philadelphia, 1843, pp. 72-96). In the 1850s and 1860s many references were made to "the great apostasy" (O. Pratt, JD 12:247) and "the great falling away" (W. Woodruff, JD 8:262) in Latter-day Saint sermons.

And here:

Quote

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel.

And here:

Quote

The fact that the original church of Jesus Christ would eventually fall into a state of apostasy was foretold by ancient prophets and by the apostles in Christ’s day.

Although Latter-day Saints believe that divine authority was lost in the ancient church after the death of the apostles and required a restoration by divine intervention, they do not dismiss or diminish the validity of other people’s religious experiences:

 

• Much of the true doctrine taught by Jesus Christ is found in churches today.
• Members of other churches who accept Jesus Christ and try to live by the principles he taught are entitled to divine guidance and inspiration in their lives.
• Faithful Christians who are not Latter-day Saints still go to heaven, and those who live according to all the truth and light they have will open themselves to further light in the hereafter.
• Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world is a Christian, regardless of differences in theology.
• The Bible is a revelation from God, of immense value for the powerful impact it has to change the lives of men and women. It is not diminished by the existence of additional scripture.

...
 

Scriptures foretelling apostasy

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Isaiah 60:2

For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

Isaiah 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

1 Timothy 4:1

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

The validity of other people’s religious experiences

• “The inquiry is frequently made of me, 'Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?' In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Joseph Smith, quoted in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1949), 5:499.
• “We have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue you possess. We have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you. We have not come here to berate you. … Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good.” President George Albert Smith, quoted in Sharing the Gospel with Others, comp. Preston Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1948), 12-13; italics added.
• “The line of priesthood authority was broken. But mankind was not left in total darkness or completely without revelation or inspiration. The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered.” Boyd K. Packer, “The Light of Christ,” Ensign, Apr. 2005, 11.
• “Informed Latter-day Saints do not argue that historic Christianity lost all truth or became completely corrupt. The orthodox churches may have lost the ‘fullness’ of the gospel, but they did not lose all of it nor even most of it. Many Evangelicals caricature or overstate the actual LDS view, which is that the orthodox churches are incomplete rather than corrupt. It is their postbiblical creeds that are identified in Joseph Smith’s first vision as an ‘abomination,’ but certainly not their individual members or their members’ biblical beliefs.” Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61.

"Total apostasy" only works in terms of the "total" describing the loss of priesthood authority from the earth.  Otherwise, it is an inaccurate characterization.

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have read many different interpretations of D&C 1:30 and the following verses - Christ hated the creeds, not the creedalists. The only true and living concept is aspirational, not actual.

I tend to think of reference in D&C 1:30-32 to "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased" as actual, with the "aspirational" part being accounted for in the next bit: "speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven."

The Church does not claim to only aspiring to have priesthood authority.  We claim that we do have it, in the here and now.  That we have living prophets and apostles, not that we hope to have them at some point in the future.

Nevertheless, I am quite happy to become better neighbors and friends.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just like the old folk song - The times, they are a chang'in!"

As a dedicated Dylan fan, I love that you refer to his song as an “old folk song” 😊

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, SkyRock said:

TCU markets itself as Texas "small c" University and connects "Christian" to its heritage.   Its main selling point is Greek life and a large portion of the school is from California.  Baptists are the biggest faith on campus.  It does have a divinity school associated with the school, but it's pretty liberal from what I have been told. 

Nearby is the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I don't follow the ins and outs of every faction of a sect.   I just know that while I lived there, I got along great with most people, as most are religious and striving to be disciples of Christ after their own fashion, but the evangelicals would sometimes be less friendly when they found out we were LDS.

That being said, I miss the generally positive view of Christianity that we experienced in Texas.  It is something that was pervasive.  It is definitely not "neutral" or "negative".

Thanks. I attended graduate school at both Southwestern and Baylor

[Kenngo1969]

As time passes, more and more people will, I think, become not only apathetic, but antipathetic toward religion (in fact, already, many have become and are becoming, antipathetic toward religion) in general, and the biggest challenge the devout will face will not be from believers of a different stripe, it will be from those who question religion, its general utility, and the reasons to allow space for its practice and expression, altogether.

And so, I say to my devout friends of whatever religious stripe, buckle up: It's going to be a bumpy ride.  And remember Matthew 5:11-13.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/23/2022 at 9:08 AM, Navidad said:

The LDS have a strong identity that, like Mennonites includes a history of persecution that in some ways affirms their uniqueness and specialness.

Omigosh you said it.  Mennonites believe in their "specialness".

Flights are too expensive lately- I can just get myself a pig and point him in the right direction... 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 5/23/2022 at 7:43 PM, MiserereNobis said:

As a dedicated Dylan fan, I love that you refer to his song as an “old folk song” 😊

Hey you gotta be old folk just to know the song! 

 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Flights are too expensive lately- I can just get myself a pig and point him in the right direction...

I have no idea what that means. Sorry

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have no idea what that means. Sorry

Sorry.

I thought you would not say that Mennonites were "special" until pigs could fly

You said it, so pigs could fly. It's a joke!

If I got a pig, I could just point it in the direction I wanted to go and saddle him up, and he could fly me there.

I guess it wasn't funny.  Sorry 

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry.

I thought you would not say that Mennonites were "special" until pigs could fly

You said it, so pigs could fly. It's a joke!

If I got a pig, I could just point it in the direction I wanted to go and saddle him up, and he could fly me there.

I guess it wasn't funny.  Sorry 

No need to be sorry - Mennonites raise and eat pigs (scrapple is my favorite food - everything from the pig but the squeal) - that is a joke too! - we don't fly them! Ha! By the way my comment about uniqueness and specialness was totally tongue in cheek. So maybe I am the one who should be sorry! Best wishes my friend!

Edited May 26, 2022 by Navidad

[smac97]

Here's an interesting take on the "Are Mormons Christian" thing:

The 2:42 mark is interesting, as he says:

Quote

One of the big problems, though, {with Mormonism} is that there's a few teachings of Joseph Smith, of their theology, that really butt up against the strengths of traditional Christianity.  For 1,800 years, before the time of Joseph Smith, Christians had developed a series of evidences for why Christianity was true.  In the very early days, the first couple hundred years after Jesus, you already see apologists, people who are writing extensively about the Christian faith and why you can accept it as truth.  They developed {during} all that time many arguments for why Christianity was likely true.  Some of these included what are considered the classical theistic proofs.  These are evidences from philosophy and science, other things we know about the world, that would suggest that a god like the god of the Bible exists, and must exist.  

He goes on to cite two: the "Argument from Creation" and "Argument from the Existence of Moral Laws."

I happen to like some forms of both of these arguments, but I do not see them as "evidence."  Moreover, I find them eminently compatible with "Mormonism."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 5/23/2022 at 7:06 PM, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I would not.  I do not think there is symmetry here.  The Latter-day Saints in my experience do not go about declaring that Catholics, Baptists, etc. are not "Christian."  We do not impute onto them a belief in a numerically distinct, "different" or "another" Jesus from the one described and referenced in the Bible.  See, e.g., this remark from Pres. Hinckley:

Historically this is simply not the case and the Church has been very disparaging of other Christian sects.  And I think you know this well.  Let's just start with the beginnings:

18 My object in going to ^ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”