Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said: I forgot about visitor centers. I've also wondered if LDS think of the Joseph Smith and other sites in New York, Missouri, and Illinois as "shrines," or as destinations for pilgrimages. I think there is a belief for many that visiting will not only be enjoyable, but create a greater connection with the Church/Gospel in the sense one feels what happened back then is closer or more real. Also many speak of how they were inspired, experienced spiritual witnesses while there. But we don’t label such trips as pilgrimages, they are typically seen as simply vacation excursions and “shrine” is not a positive term in Mormon culture usually. I think many would associate shrines with inappropriate worship (I don’t think many understand the variations with shrines’ purposes across faiths), but such sites do have the association of holiness attached to them and if I understand the distinction correctly, “shrine” would be an appropriate label in many cases. “Pilgrimage” is harder to place because I haven’t heard people talking about making these trips as a way to make spiritual connections, but talks are given about this happening by many, so I expect for many the expectation is there and some may even choose to visit these places as a way to increase spirituality in their lives or to renew their sense of devotion. However, aren’t pilgrimages usually a process, the way one travels to a revered place is part of the purpose? Or am I generalizing too much and for many a pilgrimage would involve anything that gets you there? If anyone set up what I envision as a pilgrimage (perhaps a cross country trip where they intend to read scriptures so much every day as well as the driving to special places), it would be a purely individual effort, nothing traditional or organized as a community about it. 2
Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 2 hours ago, InCognitus said: Those are carefully chosen words. The primary message of the "detractors" is to show how "Mormonism" is "wrong" and to steer people away (detract) from becoming interested in the church. If I had a way to do it, I'd show you some of their tracts so you could see for yourself. Edit: This link should give an example of what I mean, from the 2004 Easter Pageant: Anti-Mormon efforts at the 2004 Mesa Easter Pageant. Note the guy with the bullhorn in the sixth photo down the list. Plus the Pageant is done in part specifically as an aid to LDS missionary efforts, while those who come to the site from other faiths are generally focused on disrupting those efforts. It is not like a Wendy’s showing up on the same intersection as a McDonald’s because it happens to be a good spot to attract customers. They choose to be there to detract from the message of the Pageant, not because it is prime real estate for evangelizing in most cases (based on the signs and pamphlets being handed out about Mormonism instead of simply handing out stuff or talking about their own faith). They certainly may be missionaries for their own faith as part of their activity, but if they focus at all on the Restored Church, they qualify as detractors imo…as we would if we focused on someone’s Catholic or other faith when preaching. 2
Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 This should be a list of historic sites the Church maintains, but I haven’t checked it for years so it may have been modified, though I can’t think of what else it would be given the name. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/locations/historical-sites/list?lang=eng
Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 2 hours ago, Navidad said: I simply believe that any faithful LDS church member would do his or her best to detract a member who is showing interest in a Pentecostal, Catholic, or even RLDS church, would they not? In order to join? Probably would try at least some, more if they were close to them, but I am not sure it works as a general statement as I know some who see it as personal choice and they shouldn’t interfere unless asked and I don’t know if that is a significant percentage or not. But just interest to learn more, no way. In fact I and many others encourage members to learn more, to visit other churches and their holy sites, read their holy works. 1
Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 2 hours ago, Navidad said: haven't seen mean tracts since the Chik tracts (or whatever they were called) of fifty years ago. Still popular online from what I hear…though often for pure entertainment. https://www.chick.com/products/category? 1
Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Navidad said: Not sure I understand the photo. Is the guy on the left LDS and the guy on the right, who is he? Where is he from? What group does he claim to represent? How can I contact him? I'd love to talk to him. If he is legit and this isn't a spoof, maybe I can save him from being an idiot! Looks like outside the Conference Center for General Conference. Tickets are free, but needed to attend. Members sometimes hang around the building in hopes someone has an extra ticket…thus the sign. The other is a protestor/street preacher, possibly just showing up on their own, possibly with a group. I believe there have been less preachers/protestors of the sincere, organized missionary of other faiths using the opportunity to reach out to members variety as I have heard they felt it gave legitimacy to the theatrical, derogatory, just there to condemn or make a scene, attract attention, not faith variety, but this was several years ago (I heard this iirc through a member of FAIR who use to document missionaries and protestors who hung around conferences and pageants as a hobby and who was friends with some of the long term protestors who showed up year after year). According to conversations my friend had with many, while some were there for sincere preaching, others were there simply as a job. They got on a bus and were brought in and paid to hold up a sign, maybe shout stuff. Can’t remember if he gave a percentage of those there of this type. Edited June 4, 2022 by Calm 2
Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 (edited) The pictures that this used to have are missing unfortunately. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/why-we-should-love-the-street-preachers This has a reference to the apology of the more civil street preachers for the disruptive variety. Found some pictures https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/anti-mormon-protesters-at-the-april-2004-lds-general-conference https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/anti-mormon-protesters-at-the-october-2002-lds-general-conference https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications Scroll down to “anti-Mormon” protestors, etc to see more. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications Here are some from a nonFAIR source, unfortunately the links for more info don’t work anymore. https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/04/05/general-conference-the-protesters/ Very poorly written, but gives some perspective on views of a few of the street preachers. My guess is they were on the sidewalk outside the designated areas that are legally available for such activities. Obstructing traffic is what attracts police attention from what I have heard. https://www.hjnews.com/anti-lds-protesters-stake-out-prime-spot/article_bdb7c77d-0ad5-5eee-86d3-1d7a9b1609d7.html Also…the JosephLied.com gentleman was a frequent long term attendee of conference and pageants, not sure if he goes still. Edited June 4, 2022 by Calm 2
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 3 hours ago, Navidad said: Let me get this straight if an LDS person tries to convert someone he or she is a "missionary." If a non-LDS person tries to convert someone he or she is a "detractor." Fascinating choice of words. Especially since we don't use those words 2
Navidad Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Especially since we don't use those words Somebody, I am pretty sure a member of the church used them yesterday on this very forum and I reacted to them. You do bring up a good point however. Sometimes I am not sure who the "we" is on this board or in the church. There is as much diversity of thought, word choice, and sometimes I think doctrinal certainty and clarity among the Saints as among most other Christian groups. My guess is that is another case where the LDS church is simply like every other group I know - A wide tent.
Navidad Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, Calm said: The pictures that this used to have are missing unfortunately. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/why-we-should-love-the-street-preachers This has a reference to the apology of the more civil street preachers for the disruptive variety. Found some pictures https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/anti-mormon-protesters-at-the-april-2004-lds-general-conference https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/anti-mormon-protesters-at-the-october-2002-lds-general-conference https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications Scroll down to “anti-Mormon” protestors, etc to see more. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications Here are some from a nonFAIR source, unfortunately the links for more info don’t work anymore. https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/04/05/general-conference-the-protesters/ Very poorly written, but gives some perspective on views of a few of the street preachers. My guess is they were on the sidewalk outside the designated areas that are legally available for such activities. Obstructing traffic is what attracts police attention from what I have heard. https://www.hjnews.com/anti-lds-protesters-stake-out-prime-spot/article_bdb7c77d-0ad5-5eee-86d3-1d7a9b1609d7.html Also…the JosephLied.com gentleman was a frequent long term attendee of conference and pageants, not sure if he goes still. Thanks for posting all of these. Very interesting topic. Lots to unpack, but not something I care to do. My greatest interest is in the differentiation of the tone and language used by the commentators for (not by) the protesters and the anti-anti-Mormon LDS protesters who are at these events. If I were there I would be protesting the commentators for calling the anti-Mormon protesters Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians. That is akin to someone identifying someone as a "Lebaron Church of the Firstborn of the Lamb of God Latter-day Saint Christian." It just makes no sense. Perhaps there is an applied continuum in both, but it is a false continuum. The groups are simply different; united only by some core commonalities (like the two "Mormon" groups, but divided by much more. I interact with both "Mormon" groups and I see great differences between them - probably more than the similarities. But my LDS friends, including the commentator on the above video refuse to differentiate between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, labeling them as one in the same. It is intellectual laziness and also a baked-in attempt to generalize and normalize non-LDS Christians. Now that I would protest! Where is my "These people are not Evangelicals!" sign? Thanks for all your work in listing these links. I checked out every one of them. Edited June 4, 2022 by Navidad 2
Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Navidad said: Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians. And yet that is what they called themselves in my experience. “It is intellectual laziness and also a baked-in attempt to generalize and normalize non-LDS Christians” Or it is assuming a person knows best what they themselves are. I have known a number of those you would identify as Fundamentalists. Every last one of them told me they were Evangelical. I am not saying they were right and you are wrong, but it does appear to me you are using the word differently than they did, which I am not arguing with. It is common for groups to use the same terms in different ways. Edited June 4, 2022 by Calm 3
Calm Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 For example, from the Josephlied.com site: ”As Evangelical Christians, we also desire to convert Mormons and the state of Utah in particular to the real Jesus Christ.” https://www.mormoninfo.org 1
Navidad Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 4 minutes ago, Calm said: And yet that is what they called themselves in my experience. “It is intellectual laziness and also a baked-in attempt to generalize and normalize non-LDS Christians” Or it is assuming a person knows best what they themselves are. If you were here today and we took an hour's trip south and had a nice lunch at my favorite restaurant in Mexico which happens to be in the largest Lebaron colony, we would undoubtedly run into members of their Church of the Firstborn. If we struck up a conversation they would assure you that their faith is a restoration of the restoration begun and then abandoned by the LDS church. They would point to many of their leaders/founders who were LDS before they joined the Church of the Firstborn (Lebaron version). They would insist that their core doctrines are the same as the LDS; they have just gone further (farther?), especially in priesthood authority and by maintaining plural marriage. Would you agree with them? I may be wrong, but I don't think so, yet that is exactly what they say about themselves, especially to potential converts who may currently be in the LDS church. I have hours of oral interviews. Is it really best in this case to generalize the assumption that a person knows best what they themselves are? I respect you tremendously, but I will respectfully disagree with you on this one. If someone down there asked me if I were LDS in front of you and I replied, "I have been attending the LDS ward in such and such a place for years now." Or I might say "I have been a faithful non-member of an LDS ward for years now." Both of those are my truth, but at the same time incomplete and possibly may create a false impression. Would you not prefer me to add or clarify that "no, I am not LDS, especially if you don't believe a "faithful non-member" category exists? Everyone has their own reasons for identifying in a certain way. That doesn't always make that identification accurate or complete, especially to all listeners. Thanks and take care. Have a great weekend. Now I'm hungry. I may take my wife down to Lebaron for lunch! Yum. Best salad with hot bacon dressing in the world!
Navidad Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 45 minutes ago, Calm said: For example, from the Josephlied.com site: ”As Evangelical Christians, we also desire to convert Mormons and the state of Utah in particular to the real Jesus Christ.” https://www.mormoninfo.org Thanks for showing me that. I enjoyed browsing his site. I am thinking of trying to begin a dialogue with him one on one. I think I would enjoy that. He and I probably have very different definitions of Evangelicals. At the same time he and I have a lot in common. Life is complex isn't it?
Teancum Posted June 4, 2022 Posted June 4, 2022 19 hours ago, Pyreaux said: Hill Cumorah Pageant was cancelled due to Covid, it might come back. Nope. It was cancelled period. Last one was to be 2020 and that was cancelled. At the Hill Cumorah all the infrastructure to support the pageant has been removed. Building that was offices, a study shelter for the cast, the tower for the lightings, the stage areas. All gone. The bowl area that was all lawn and where reh seating was is growing up into natural grass at the moment. THe Hill Cumorah Pageant is dead. 1
Calm Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 (edited) 13 hours ago, Navidad said: Would you agree with them? I may be wrong, but I don't think so, yet that is exactly what they say about themselves, But I would call them Church of the Firstborn when speaking of them to others, even if I explained they are not the Church that is taught of in scripture in my belief and I personally would allow them the label “Mormon” (I am not going to make that a hill to die on when we no longer use the label to distinguish us; it has never troubled me as long as a qualifier showing a group is a subset of those who claim Joseph Smith as founder is included) if they wish to use it, though I would qualify it as Mormon Fundamentalists. And I would definitely include them in the category of Restorationist churches. There is the option of allowing Fundamentalists the category label of Evangelical Fundamentalists as it satisfies the need to make a distinction between them and those you identify as Evangelical while allowing their own sense of identity to be used as well. It also seems to fit the approach of others when I have researched the usage. For example, this states that Fundamentalists are a subset of Evangelicals, not a completely different category. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vs.html And here it is a “subspecies”: https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/evangelical-and-fundamental-christianity Edited June 5, 2022 by Calm
Calm Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 (edited) 13 hours ago, Navidad said: Would you not prefer me to add or clarify that "no, I am not LDS, especially if you don't believe a "faithful non-member" category exists? No, the “faithful nonmember” category works fine for me even if you are the first to use it. Now you have used it, there are others I would happily apply it to as well, usually spouses who are not members of record or belief, but attend and support their ward faithfully with their believing spouse. As long as you don’t claim baptismal membership in the Church itself, I am fine with you even saying you are a member of the ward, because in one sense of the phrase you are, you are a member of that community and if that is the sense/identity you want to claim, I will support your right to do so. Edited June 5, 2022 by Calm 1
Pyreaux Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Calm said: As long as you don’t claim baptismal membership in the Church itself, I am fine with you even saying you are a member of the ward, because in one sense of the phrase you are, you are a member of that community and if that is the sense/identity you want to claim, I will support your right to do so. Yeah, a "faux member" can be annoying. You know, have you ever met someone in a forum claiming to be a "member", but when pressed about why they are clearly ignorant about basic church things, they confess they merely attended the services some, and aren't baptized. Doing the minimal effort so they can pass themselves off as a doubting member or a knowledgeable critic when they are not. Now days there are Woke infiltrators trying to change/corrupt us from within. People hang out with us for all kinds of reasons. We also have, I guess "Fans", that simply don't want to be members but they just support the things we do. But they will help out the missionaries or leave things to the church in their will. "Jack-investigators", they have a testimony, but don't want to take the leap because they'd have to get rid of their vices or stop "living in sin". I'm making up these terms though, I don't know if there are already terms for them. Edited June 5, 2022 by Pyreaux
Navidad Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 10 hours ago, Calm said: As long as you don’t claim baptismal membership in the Church itself, I am fine with you even saying you are a member of the ward, because in one sense of the phrase you are, you are a member of that community and if that is the sense/identity you want to claim, I will support your right to do so. It is interesting you say this. Our former bishop on occasion would identify us as members of the ward, but not of the church. He always got puzzled looks in return. 1
Navidad Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 9 hours ago, Pyreaux said: A "faux member" can be annoying. You know, have you ever met someone in a forum claiming to be a member, but when pressed about why they are clearly ignorant about basic church things, they confess they merely attended the services some, and aren't baptized. Doing the minimal effort so they can pass themselves off as a doubting member or a knowledgeable critic when they are not. Now days there are Woke infiltrators trying to change/corrupt us from within. People hang out with us for all kinds of reasons. We also have, I guess "Fans", that simply don't want to be members but they just support the things we do. But they will help out the missionaries or leave things to the church in their will. "Jack-investigators", they have a testimony, but don't want to take the leap because they'd have to get rid of their vices or stop "living in sin". I'm making up these terms though, I don't know if there are already terms for them. As hard as it may be for you to comprehend something outside the range of your own biases, let me clarify that my wife and i are not "faux members." We do not claim to be members. We are not clearly ignorant, merely attending, or claiming LDS baptism. We are baptized by the way in a Biblical manner, but not in an LDS setting. We are not doing the minimal effort possible. We are not passing ourselves off as anything. We are not Woke infiltrators trying to change or corrupt. We are not "hanging out." We are not Fans. We are especially not "Jack" investigators - a clearly derogatory term. We have no vices we would like to get rid of, nor do we need to stop "living in sin." Your five line post perhaps includes more bias, prejudice, ranking, generalizing, normalizing, and toxicity in a few lines than I have ever read. Your post reminds me of someone who used to post here under a number of assumed names. Let me simply reiterate one more time - my wife and I attend the ward because we enjoy the fellowship, worship, and the sense of community that comes in service. That the services are in English is an enormous benefit, especially for my wife. We enjoy learning and growing and providing learning and growth for others by our own knowledge, testimonies, and lived experiences in the faith, as well. We acknowledge that having to formally and officially "join" a local community of Christ in order to "belong" is somewhat foreign to us. This has been our first exposure to that in all the many years of our journeys together. I spent five years once as the senior pastor (bishop) of a church in New Jersey. I don't remember for sure, but I am not positive we ever "joined" it. Our gifts or lack thereof for ministry in a community of believers come from the Holy Spirit and the years of faithful lives as seekers, students, and sojourners within the Christian faith. I have preached, held meetings, taught, and worked to bring healing in scores and scores of churches in my life - perhaps several hundred. I may have been a member of the denomination to which the church belonged on occasions. But no one who booked me to minister, ever once asked me of which church I was a member prior to inviting me to teach. And that is true to this day. Looking at my calendar for the rest of this year, I have meetings scheduled for 14 different occasions and different churches to minister in (teach, preach, hold seminars, etc). I won't be a "member" of a single one of them. If they ask me (rarely) where we attend church, I tell them. We've had some fun conversations about that, but I have never had a meeting cancelled because of it. Take care . . . I simply ask you to be a bit less judgmental of those who aren't you. If I had the money to attend I would be at the annual MHA convention right now. I miss not going - simply don't have the funds. 1
Navidad Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Calm said: But I would call them Church of the Firstborn when speaking of them to others, even if I explained they are not the Church that is taught of in scripture in my belief and I personally would allow them the label “Mormon” (I am not going to make that a hill to die on when we no longer use the label to distinguish us; it has never troubled me as long as a qualifier showing a group is a subset of those who claim Joseph Smith as founder is included) if they wish to use it, though I would qualify it as Mormon Fundamentalists. And I would definitely include them in the category of Restorationist churches. There is the option of allowing Fundamentalists the category label of Evangelical Fundamentalists as it satisfies the need to make a distinction between them and those you identify as Evangelical while allowing their own sense of identity to be used as well. It also seems to fit the approach of others when I have researched the usage. For example, this states that Fundamentalists are a subset of Evangelicals, not a completely different category. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vs.html And here it is a “subspecies”: https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/evangelical-and-fundamental-christianity Calm: I have such tremendous respect and admiration for you as a member of this forum and as a person (one who I have never met). Let me simply explain my passion on this issue. I do have a very specific definition of the use of the word Evangelical in mind when I use it. It is important to me. It is not important to others. I can't expect it to be important to them. I have journeyed diligently to come out of a toxic Fundamentalist world. - My best friend throughout the seventies wrote the book "The Fundamentalist Phenomenon" that ended up with Jerry Falwell's name on the cover. I traveled with him (my friend) all over the US holding seminars on the perils of Fundamentalism as I saw them. I use the term Evangelical strictly in the sense of those in the mid-forties who came together to shed the toxicity, label, hurt, and pain of Fundamentalism used in a very conservative Christian sense. Its weekly paper was called "The Sword of the Lord." It was a sword all right, used to hurt many who committed the sin of thought and examination of cultures that were redefined as doctrines. I watched my father and many others make that journey with great difficulty because it represented quite a shift from 1920s and 30s defense of the faith against liberalism. There are many today who co-opt the term Evangelical to find acceptance while maintaining Fundamentalist views that are toxic. They talk about there being a continuum between the two. Too many of us struggled for too long to break the shackles. I understand the continuum thing, but I reject it out of hand. Evangelicals - who formally understand and connect with the term have actively, deliberately, and consciously (especially those over 70) rejected the mannerisms, beliefs, and meanness of Fundamentalism - fighting and dehumanizing everyone who doesn't toe the line of a very strict belief system that is also a toxic culture. We have at times also paid a price for the same. Therefore my resistance when folks here confuse the two. I worked too hard to help create the distinction. It is an important thing for me. I must do better to understand that for those who have not lived it, it is nothing. Evangelical is simply a word for a group of people that aren't even liked! What difference does it make how it is used? People confuse evangelicals, Evangelicals, and evangelism all the time. It drives me wacky, but most others don't ever think of the differences. I often lectured to public school groups on the religious right. In some strange ways, that is how I became deputy superintendent and superintendent of two of the 100 largest districts in America. The distinctions between folks in non-LDS Christianity are very important to me. They aren't to many others, especially those under 50 who didn't make and suffer the journey. In a small way, it was our civil rights movement - although it was more about spiritual rights - the rights to expand orthodoxy, to inject kindness, to not limit Christ to our own image. Perhaps this is my way of apologizing to all of you for the vehemence of my position on this issue. Yesterday I was in the Lebaron colony. Today I will be in an LDS ward. This week I will be visiting the sites of murders of Catholic agrarians and defenders of that faith. Next week I journey to site of the brutal murder of a parish priest in the 1930s. Over the year I will teach about all of it to someone somewhere. And yes, I have a slide that insists on the difference between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals! Ha! I manage to slip it into virtually every lecture, article, and book! Someone here asked me several times this week - Why do you care? I don't know . . . . I just do. Take care and best wishes. Edited June 5, 2022 by Navidad 2
Pyreaux Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Navidad said: As hard as it may be for you to comprehend something outside the range of your own biases, let me clarify that my wife and i are not "faux members." We do not claim to be members. We are not clearly ignorant, merely attending, or claiming LDS baptism. We are baptized by the way in a Biblical manner, but not in an LDS setting. We are not doing the minimal effort possible. We are not passing ourselves off as anything. We are not Woke infiltrators trying to change or corrupt. We are not "hanging out." We are not Fans. We are especially not "Jack" investigators - a clearly derogatory term. We have no vices we would like to get rid of, nor do we need to stop "living in sin." Your five line post perhaps includes more bias, prejudice, ranking, generalizing, normalizing, and toxicity in a few lines than I have ever read. Your post reminds me of someone who used to post here under a number of assumed names. Let me simply reiterate one more time - my wife and I attend the ward because we enjoy the fellowship, worship, and the sense of community that comes in service. That the services are in English is an enormous benefit, especially for my wife. We enjoy learning and growing and providing learning and growth for others by our own knowledge, testimonies, and lived experiences in the faith, as well. We acknowledge that having to formally and officially "join" a local community of Christ in order to "belong" is somewhat foreign to us. This has been our first exposure to that in all the many years of our journeys together. I spent five years once as the senior pastor (bishop) of a church in New Jersey. I don't remember for sure, but I am not positive we ever "joined" it. Our gifts or lack thereof for ministry in a community of believers come from the Holy Spirit and the years of faithful lives as seekers, students, and sojourners within the Christian faith. I have preached, held meetings, taught, and worked to bring healing in scores and scores of churches in my life - perhaps several hundred. I may have been a member of the denomination to which the church belonged on occasions. But no one who booked me to minister, ever once asked me of which church I was a member prior to inviting me to teach. And that is true to this day. Looking at my calendar for the rest of this year, I have meetings scheduled for 14 different occasions and different churches to minister in (teach, preach, hold seminars, etc). I won't be a "member" of a single one of them. If they ask me (rarely) where we attend church, I tell them. We've had some fun conversations about that, but I have never had a meeting cancelled because of it. Take care . . . I simply ask you to be a bit less judgmental of those who aren't you. If I had the money to attend I would be at the annual MHA convention right now. I miss not going - simply don't have the funds. I know that. You just said so to Calm, Calm replied and I was replying to Calm, about how Calm said people shouldn't go about claiming to be members. I was saying that is a real phenomenon. I wasn't saying you were one. I didn't use the quote box, if you thought I was talking about you, that is why it seems so odd and off base, I can see as a "faithful non-member" that it triggered you. Sorry for the confusion. Edited June 5, 2022 by Pyreaux 1
Calm Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 2 hours ago, Navidad said: Evangelicals - who formally understand and connect with the term have actively, deliberately, and consciously (especially those over 70) rejected the mannerisms, beliefs, and meanness of Fundamentalism - fighting and dehumanizing everyone who doesn't toe the line of a very strict belief system that is also a toxic culture. We have at times also paid a price for the same. Therefore my resistance when folks here confuse the two. I worked too hard to help create the distinction. This makes sense to me and is a position I highly respect. If you have shared it before, I am afraid I missed it. In researching (not in depth, but just checking if my memory was off) I came across a more clinical description of the struggle, you have given life to it. I can relate a bit to it with my own reaction to the Fundamentalist Mormons (I am referring to some members of offshoot groups, but a member of the Church who did the same would get the same reaction from me), who use the faith to justify abuse and controlling others and alter doctrine in doing so and yet demand that they are true to Joseph Smith’s vision. I am not sure how this might affect how I interact in the future with Fundamentalists who claim the term Evangelical if I don’t see them as one of those who are dehumanizing others as I don’t trust predictions of behaviour in new situations, but I suspect I will change from my past behaviour, 1
Calm Posted June 5, 2022 Posted June 5, 2022 4 hours ago, Navidad said: It is interesting you say this. Our former bishop on occasion would identify us as members of the ward, but not of the church. He always got puzzled looks in return. I should have used the correct term (at least I think that is the correct term), “member of record” rather than “baptismal member”…lack of sleep is slowing the brain cells connecting. Perhaps a bishop or former bishop can provide the correct info, but as I understand it, bishops have stewardship over all who live within their ward’s boundaries, members of record and nonmembers. If I am right, it is another sense where nonmembers can be considered members of a ward, but “faithful nonmember” wouldn’t automatically apply, I think.
Saint Bonaventure Posted June 7, 2022 Author Posted June 7, 2022 On 6/4/2022 at 1:53 AM, Calm said: I think there is a belief for many that visiting will not only be enjoyable, but create a greater connection with the Church/Gospel in the sense one feels what happened back then is closer or more real. Also many speak of how they were inspired, experienced spiritual witnesses while there. But we don’t label such trips as pilgrimages, they are typically seen as simply vacation excursions and “shrine” is not a positive term in Mormon culture usually. I think many would associate shrines with inappropriate worship (I don’t think many understand the variations with shrines’ purposes across faiths), but such sites do have the association of holiness attached to them and if I understand the distinction correctly, “shrine” would be an appropriate label in many cases. “Pilgrimage” is harder to place because I haven’t heard people talking about making these trips as a way to make spiritual connections, but talks are given about this happening by many, so I expect for many the expectation is there and some may even choose to visit these places as a way to increase spirituality in their lives or to renew their sense of devotion. However, aren’t pilgrimages usually a process, the way one travels to a revered place is part of the purpose? Or am I generalizing too much and for many a pilgrimage would involve anything that gets you there? If anyone set up what I envision as a pilgrimage (perhaps a cross country trip where they intend to read scriptures so much every day as well as the driving to special places), it would be a purely individual effort, nothing traditional or organized as a community about it. Pilgrimage is about both the journey and the destination. It's rooted in journeys mandated in the Bible--such as in Deut. 16:16 and Ex. 23:17--but it's voluntary these days. The shrines at Lourdes and Fatima, and the Way to Santiago are the most well known, but there are many, many other destinations for pilgrimage. Reliquaries, cathedrals, sites in the Holy Land, chapels and abbeys connected to a Saint that one is devoted to...the destinations are endless. The journey itself can vary, but there's always the sense that no pilgrim travels alone. All pilgrims are accompanied by the "mysterious Pilgrim of Emmaus" (Luke 24:15-25). The description of people going to the woods in New York where Joseph prayed seems to have pilgrimage behavior. The wanting to find a place to pray, and a particular space being sacred, and so on, is certainly consistent with a pilgrimage. 1
Recommended Posts