A Simple Question on God's One True Church

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Fair Dinkum said:

Exactly...It's an experiment to prove a point.  Send a random sample size of truth seekers, large enough to reflect the population of the earth, out on a quest to find the one true church.  Given that quest, my question is how many would determine that the answer to that quest was Mormonism? 

The church is an quirky obscure regional organization masquerading as a world wide church.  It's active membership is shrinking throughout all of its international population centers with the exception of Africa.  The chances that our sample group would determine that Mormonism is the answer to their quest, let alone find the church, is very remote at best.  The world is rejecting the church and so are its active members, who are abandoning the church in droves.

LDS stakes throughout the world are contracting or being downsized, wards are being combined or eliminated as are stakes. While the church is not going away any time soon, the stone cut without hands that was supposed to fill the whole earth, is losing steam and petering out.

I think everyone on this board knows that the church is in trouble.  While it will continue to dominate the intermountian region of America, in other educated first world populations throughout the world, it will continue to struggle to find any footing.  In the market place of religion, the world isn't buying what the church is selling.

Obviously most people around the world stick with their parents’ religions. I’ve become convinced that those who convert to other religions gravitate to what speaks to them. I once read a biography of a man who became a devotee of an Indian spiritual master. He said reading the teachings seemed to open his soul, so I read some of the teachings and they just seemed like empty platitudes. I’m not knocking it, just noting that what spoke to him leaves me flat. Maybe someday I’ll find something that resonates with me, but I haven’t found it yet. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I remain dumbfounded (maybe just dumb) by the disparity in numbers between the latest Mexican census and the church's numbers for LDS affiliation here in Mexico. The church states 1,400,000 members and the census states 330,000 self-identified members. That is a huge gap. Since my religious population data wonk friend, James Dow passed away, I am not sure who to go to for an explanation. My LDS scholar friends simply apply the disparity to faults in the census data. That seems a bit too easy.

 

https://www.cumorah.com/articles/churchGrowth/15

Good (but old write up here). 

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I hope you all don't mind my posting again. I experienced a bad fall in May and have not been able to be on the computer much, drive, or focus well over the past few months. I knocked out a number of teeth. Oral surgeries are a pain in the  . . . . . . mouth!  Best wishes to all.

So sorry to hear that. 

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not dumbfounded by the disparity, as that’s not all that different from a lot of Latin American countries. In Bolivia, the activity rate among LDS is around 11%. When I was a missionary, we spent time tracking down church members on the records, and the vast majority weren’t attending, and a not-insignificant number hadn’t even realized they had joined the church. 

At the beginning of the sacrament service two or three weeks ago a member of our bishopric read a message from the area (northern Mexico) church leaders. In part, the message encouraged the members to include in their fasting prayers a petition to the Lord for the first Mexican (means mestizo) apostle. I found that a very interesting request from a polity perspective. Culturally, I understood the request, but from a church polity (how apostles are chosen), it made my head spin a bit. I am having breakfast later this week with a mestizo LDS former bishop friend of mine. I want to chat with him about what is behind the request. To me, it had shades of the mid 1930s Third Convention all over again. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Navidad said:

At the beginning of the sacrament service two or three weeks ago a member of our bishopric read a message from the area (northern Mexico) church leaders. In part, the message encouraged the members to include in their fasting prayers a petition to the Lord for the first Mexican (means mestizo) apostle. I found that a very interesting request from a polity perspective. Culturally, I understood the request, but from a church polity (how apostles are chosen), it made my head spin a bit. I am having breakfast later this week with a mestizo LDS former bishop friend of mine. I want to chat with him about what is behind the request. To me, it had shades of the mid 1930s Third Convention all over again. 

That is interesting, indeed. Certainly some people in Latin America feel a little underrepresented in church hierarchy, but it’s surprising they would pray for a mestizo apostle. That the area presidency is encouraging it seems odd to me. 

Sorry to hear about your accident. I hope you heal quickly. 

[Fair Dinkum]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Obviously most people around the world stick with their parents’ religions. I’ve become convinced that those who convert to other religions gravitate to what speaks to them. I once read a biography of a man who became a devotee of an Indian spiritual master. He said reading the teachings seemed to open his soul, so I read some of the teachings and they just seemed like empty platitudes. I’m not knocking it, just noting that what spoke to him leaves me flat. Maybe someday I’ll find something that resonates with me, but I haven’t found it yet. 

Factors that are known to influence personal beliefs and choice of religion:

01. Education attainment The better educated a person is, the less likely that he or she will hold religious beliefs.

02. Family religion Persons brought up in a Christian family are likely to remain Christians, and so on.

03. Cultural background Persons from a Christian culture are likely to be Christians, and so on.

04. Personal experience Persons who have have had negative experiences with a particular religion are more likely to look to another religion for spiritual fulfillment. Some minority groups reject the dominant religion because they associate that religion with ethnic intolerance.

05. Spiritual goals Persons whose perceived spiritual needs are not met by their existing religion are more likely to look to another religion for spiritual fulfillment. Persons who feel that religion does not fill a genuine spiritual need are more likely to question the relevance of religion.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Exactly...It's an experiment to prove a point.  Send a random sample size of truth seekers, large enough to reflect the population of the earth, out on a quest to find the one true church.  Given that quest, my question is how many would determine that the answer to that quest was Mormonism? 

The church is an quirky obscure regional organization masquerading as a world wide church.  It's active membership is shrinking throughout all of its international population centers with the exception of a few counties in Africa.  The chances that our sample group would determine that Mormonism is the answer to their quest, let alone find the church, is very remote at best.  The world is rejecting the church and so are its active members, who are abandoning the church in droves.

LDS stakes throughout the world are contracting or being downsized, wards are being combined or eliminated as are stakes. While the church is not going away any time soon, the stone cut without hands that was supposed to fill the whole earth, is losing steam and petering out.

I think everyone on this board knows that the church is in trouble.  While it will continue to dominate the intermountain region of America, in other educated first world populations throughout the world, it will continue to struggle to find any footing.  In the market place of religion, the world isn't buying what the church is selling.

But the experiment doesn't prove the point that you keep saying it does.  That is what the majority of the feedback has been trying to tell you.

[ttribe]

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Obviously most people around the world stick with their parents’ religions. I’ve become convinced that those who convert to other religions gravitate to what speaks to them. I once read a biography of a man who became a devotee of an Indian spiritual master. He said reading the teachings seemed to open his soul, so I read some of the teachings and they just seemed like empty platitudes. I’m not knocking it, just noting that what spoke to him leaves me flat. Maybe someday I’ll find something that resonates with me, but I haven’t found it yet. 

"But I still haven't found, what I'm looking for..." - Paul Hewson

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

"But I still haven't found, what I'm looking for..." - Paul Hewson

You never miss an opportunity. 🤣

[Fair Dinkum]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But the experiment doesn't prove the point that you keep saying it does.  That is what the majority of the feedback has been trying to tell you.

So are you suggesting that a sample group of randomly selected truth seeking human beings WOULD discover and conclude that Mormonism was the one true church?  Granted many are converted each year and then quickly fall inactive.

The experiment is a metaphor. It's an exercise in absurdity.  It's an expression of the weakness of Mormonisms claims of being the one true church.  If honest sincere truth seekers can't find the church and conclude that it is what it claims then all it really is is a nice obscure semi-christian religion with some quirky doctrines and a rich history self aggrandizement with an over its population influence.  But few outside of the church really take its claims seriously.  Its a curiosity.  A text book example on the elasticity of belief.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not dumbfounded by the disparity, as that’s not all that different from a lot of Latin American countries. In Bolivia, the activity rate among LDS is around 11%. When I was a missionary, we spent time tracking down church members on the records, and the vast majority weren’t attending, and a not-insignificant number hadn’t even realized they had joined the church. 

And so how does one check this odd assertion?

A "non-insignificant number" having been stricken with unexplained memory loss?

Would they remember asserting this?

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

And so how does one check this odd assertion?

A "non-insignificant number" having been stricken with unexplained memory loss?

 

There was no memory loss involved. 

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

There was no memory loss involved. 

They had no memory, without any memory loss. Interesting.

Why don't you just grid up your loins and say what you think without playing games?

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There was no memory loss involved. 

Did they remember that they had been baptized?  I guess if they did recall this that they didn't realize that they were joining the church by being baptized and confirmed, right?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

They had no memory, without any memory loss. Interesting.

Why don't you just grid up your loins and say what you think without playing games?

I don't know what you're getting at. They had the discussions, got baptized, and never heard from the missionaries again. Quite a number of them didn't realize that being baptized meant they had joined the church. This was not particularly uncommon in our mission. I think others here have spoken of similar experiences. 

In the branch in question, there were 250 members on the records, and average sacrament meeting attendance was 3. So, we went out looking for the missing members. Often, the conversation went like this:

"Hi, we're from the LDS church. We understand you are members of the church."
"No, we're Catholic."
"Our records show that you were baptized on such and such date."
"Yes, I remember those nice Americans baptizing us."
"Well, baptism means you belong to our church."
"Are you sure?"

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Did they remember that they had been baptized?  I guess if they did recall this that they didn't realize that they were joining the church by being baptized and confirmed, right?

Of course they remembered being baptized. More often than not, their baptism was the last contact they had with the church or the missionaries. Unfortunately, it was pretty common practice in our mission.

[manol]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hope you all don't mind my posting again. I experienced a bad fall in May and have not been able to be on the computer much, drive, or focus well over the past few months. I knocked out a number of teeth. Oral surgeries are a pain in the  . . . . . . mouth!  Best wishes to all.

Very good to hear from you again!  I was worried.    

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If I may, I would like to suggest that neither the growth or decline of religious affiliation is on a normal curve across Christianity in the West. The past few decades growth seems to be greatest among the Pentecostals, who are rapidly diversifying their faith to be more mainstream and intellectually stimulating.

So if I understand correctly, the Pentecostals are adapting faster and/or more effectively (assuming "growth" is a good yardstick) than other Western Christian religions? 

What do you mean by "more... intellectually stimulating"?

Any specific things come to mind that they are doing better than the rest?

Edited August 16, 2022 by manol

[jkwilliams]

28 minutes ago, manol said:

Very good to hear from you again!  I was worried.    

So if I understand correctly, the Pentecostals are adapting faster and/or more effectively (assuming "growth" is a good yardstick) than other Western Christian religions? 

What do you mean by "more... intellectually stimulating"?

Any specific things come to mind that they are doing better than the rest?

Reminds me of the same branch I have been speaking of. The first month or so, we spent all day knocking doors and didn't get into very many. It was kind of discouraging. At the end of the day, we would walk past this little adobe house that doubled as a Pentecostal church. It didn't have a door on it, so as we walked by, we could hear them singing and clapping and otherwise acting in the raucous way I imagine Pentecostals do. My companion wrote in his weekly letter to the mission president: "We have decided to join the Pentecostal church. They look like they're having more fun."

Edited August 16, 2022 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah, back to the nuanced innuendo of the John of old, slithering by with a smile.

No innuendo. Our mission was focused on numbers, and that was one of the results. Apparently, things were worse in Chile at the same time, but it was bad enough in Bolivia. The emphasis was on making the "Rocky" box for top baptizers in the monthly mission newsletter, or at least avoiding being on the "zero page." Why on earth would I need to make any innuendo about what were pretty appalling practices? Anybody who has read my book or served in my mission knows how it was. Your accusation that saying what happened is somehow "slithering" makes no difference. It was what it was.

Edited August 16, 2022 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So are you suggesting that a sample group of randomly selected truth seeking human beings WOULD discover and conclude that Mormonism was the one true church?  Granted many are converted each year and then quickly fall inactive.

The experiment is a metaphor. It's an exercise in absurdity.  It's an expression of the weakness of Mormonisms claims of being the one true church.  If honest sincere truth seekers can't find the church and conclude that it is what it claims then all it really is is a nice obscure semi-christian religion with some quirky doctrines and a rich history self aggrandizement with an over its population influence.  But few outside of the church really take its claims seriously.  Its a curiosity.  A text book example on the elasticity of belief.

But wait, you said that all you were saying was that hardly anyone would come to the conclusion that mormonism was the answer.  And yet here you admit that you actually were trying to make a point about the truth claims of the church.

I am shocked I tell you.  Shocked.  

Moving on....

What I'm suggesting is that the number of people who decide that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's one true church, has nothing to do with whether or not it actually is God's one true church.

The truth claims of the church do not rest (and are not impacted by) the number of people who believe them.

And that is why--once again--your experiment is not capable of producing a valid result.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But wait, you said that all you were saying was that hardly anyone would come to the conclusion that mormonism was the answer.  And yet here you admit that you actually were trying to make a point about the truth claims of the church.

I am shocked I tell you.  Shocked.  

Moving on....

What I'm suggesting is that the number of people who decide that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's one true church, has nothing to do with whether or not it actually is God's one true church.

The truth claims of the church do not rest (and are not impacted by) the number of people who believe them.

And that is why--once again--your experiment is not capable of producing a valid result.

Imagine if the truth of something were based on its popularity. Maybe we could get Simon Cowell to do an "X Factor: Religious Edition."

Edited August 16, 2022 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

For what it's worth, here's something I wrote almost 15 years ago about this subject. I probably sounded a little more hostile back then, but this is pretty much what happened. 
 

Quote

In the mid-1980s, Bolivia was one of the highest-baptizing missions in the world, and I would assume that it probably still is. We averaged somewhere around 350 baptisms a month. Most Bolivians are “Lamanites,” meaning they are Native Americans, who we all know descended from Father Lehi. When I worked as Mission Historian, I saw a letter dated 1969 from then-President of the Quorum of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith, who congratulated the missionaries on their success and noted that it should not be surprising, given that most of the people were Lamanites and Bolivia was one of the “central” locations of the Book of Mormon (I’m sure the FARMS folks would take issue with that).

But that was our attitude. The Bolivians were just waiting to accept the gospel; in the MTC, the “culture class” teacher told us that people would literally approach missionaries in the street and ask for baptism. So it was with great anticipation of baptizing multitudes of people that I went to Bolivia.

In my first area, outside of La Paz, people indeed seemed receptive. We knocked a lot of doors, and a surprising number of people let us in to give the first discussion. I quickly learned that they mostly let us in out of curiosity or politeness; we almost never got back to teach a second discussion. Often they would schedule a second discussion when they knew no one would be home. We were told repeatedly to issue the “baptismal challenge” by the third discussion, and we usually did.

But there was constant pressure to “bap” (mission slang for baptizing). Our mission president, a tired man from Argentina, came up with an inspired program of setting and reporting goals. He called it “Buscando las Ovejas” (seeking the sheep). Each week at zone meeting the zone leaders would draw a huge table on the chalkboard (the mission president called it “la pizarra magica” or magic chalkboard); on the chart would be goals (metas) and accomplishments (logros). We were supposed to set goals for the number of door approaches (called “mini-charlas”), discussions (charlas), and baptisms for the next week. At the next meeting, we would write down what we had achieved and then the next week’s goals. If your goals weren’t sufficiently aggressive, the zone leaders would tell you so, and you would be encouraged in front of the other missionaries to have more faith and work harder.

Once a month we received a mission newsletter (“El Chasqui,” which is Quechua for “messenger”), which contained the monthly results in baptisms for each companionship. The top baptizing companionship was displayed in a large box (called the “Rocky Box” after the boxer) in large, bold print. Below that was the list of baptisms by companionship in descending order. Those who had no baptisms had their own separate “zero” page, and nobody wanted to be on the zero page.

Reactions to the numbers game varied. One of my companions would ask me on the way to zone meeting, “How many door approaches sound good? How about discussions?” and then he’d make up names for the investigator pool. Other missionaries went the other way. One missionary in our zone reported 27 baptisms in a single month (he made the “Rocky Box,” of course). I asked him about it, and he told me that the chapel in his area had a nice volleyball court, and a large group of preteen kids would play there every day. He asked them if they were church members, and they said they weren’t. “You can’t play here unless you’re members of our church,” he said. They asked how you became members, and the rest followed naturally.

The pressure to baptize also resulted in missionaries baptizing people who had no clue what they were getting into. I remember as a district leader interviewing people who couldn’t tell me who Joseph Smith was. I told the missionaries these people weren’t ready for baptism, but they went to the branch president, who cleared the people for baptism.

Once my companion and I baptized a couple of older women who pretty much had no idea what we were talking about. I told him I wasn’t sure it was a good idea to baptize people who didn’t understand the gospel, but he said, “Well, they want to get baptized, so it’s not up to us to deny them.” Sounded OK to me, so they got baptized, but I never did feel quite right about it. At church the day after the baptism, they came up to us, giggling. “You tell them,” the one said. “No, you tell them,” said the other. Finally they told us that they had enjoyed the baptism so much they wanted to do it again. Until that day, they had never been completely immersed in water.

Missionaries baptized a lot of children in our mission. It was quite common for the missionaries to contact a family, but only the children would be baptized. The parents would say that they thought the church sounded like a good thing for their kids, but the parents would remain Catholic. Most of these kids faded away rather quickly. I would say that it was most common for missionaries to baptize a person after he or she had been to church a single time, and then after the baptism, we would never see him or her again.

Another common issue was that a lot of Bolivians live in “common law” marriages because a wedding costs money, and most Bolivians did not have money. Common-law marriage was a widespread and acceptable practice, but people had to be legally married to be baptized. So, missionaries often took their investigators to the Registro Civil to get married on their way to the church to get baptized. I probably paid for 5 or 6 marriages while I was there.

About six months into my mission, a new mission president came to Bolivia. A religion professor from Ricks College, he told us that he was going to focus on the spiritual, on converting his missionaries. If we learned to get the spirit, he said, we would naturally have success. For a while that’s what we did. We still did the magic chalkboard, but interviews with the president were always about how we were doing personally and spiritually. That was a welcome change.

But then something happened. At April conference, all the mission presidents were sent to Salt Lake for special training. A new set of non-memorized discussions was introduced, and the mission presidents spent the week being instructed in the ways of successful missionary work. Shortly thereafter, our mission president was setting numerical goals for baptisms in the mission. He wanted 600 baptisms in July and 1,000 in December (which would be my last month).

We worked our butts off in July. We pushed for people to get baptized quickly, so they would get baptized before July 31, and some people held their June baptisms over so they would be in July. Even though I was dealing with a depressed companion and was quite ill myself, we managed to have 3 baptisms that month. Not surprisingly, the mission made its goal that month.

December was another story. By this time, I was working in El Beni, the vast Amazonian jungle in northern Bolivia. We had no phone and sporadic mail service, so we didn’t get a lot of pressure. But when I got to Cochabamba to go home, I heard that we had just barely missed the goal. If I remember it right, they baptized somewhere around 970 people that month. I wonder how many of those actually ended up being active members. If average numbers held, you could count on somewhere around 100, but I’m guessing that things were so rushed that you’d be lucky to have half that number still in the church.

I should probably add that, all told, I baptized somewhere around 65 people on my mission.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Navidad]

42 minutes ago, manol said:

Very good to hear from you again!  I was worried.    

So if I understand correctly, the Pentecostals are adapting faster and/or more effectively (assuming "growth" is a good yardstick) than other Western Christian religions? 

What do you mean by "more... intellectually stimulating"?

Any specific things come to mind that they are doing better than the rest?

Thanks. First, my comment on "more intellectually stimulating" refers to the growth and increased sophistication of Pentecostal scholarship and interest in a broader range of doctrinal issues over the past ten years or so. In years past Pentecostals were maligned and somewhat dismissed by some for their focus on the experiential as defining their faith. As a specific identity, it is a young faith, most often considered founded in the first decade of the twentieth century as a product of a charismatic revivalist tradition that had previously not had a singular identity. Their schools now offer advanced degrees in all sorts of theological inquiry. Their publications cover a broad range of theological intricacies. It has been an interesting development to watch. I do believe it has been an aid in their growth over the last twenty years, but that is simply my opinion.

Second, as far as adapting I will now switch to their situation here in Mexico. The Pentecostal groups active here have never or rarely used Anglo missionaries or leaders. So, in that sense they have not had to adapt culturally, nor have they faced the cultural resistance and isolation (B Carmon Hardy called it encystment) that others, primarily Anglo others have faced. Our little village has had an Assembly of God church since at least 1920. It is still the only non-Catholic church (there are two Catholic churches - each unique) in our village. We are 15 minutes from a beautiful LDS temple, but no LDS missionaries are assigned to work here. There used to be, but not any more.

All Pentecostal missionary work I have observed is done by mestizos in Spanish. Francisco Olazabal was a Fundamentalist Pentecostal healer and evangelist, born in Sinaloa and trained in the US. He quit the AofG in the Rio Grande Valley in the 1930s because of their insistence on Anglo leadership. It reminded me of the LDS Third Convention challenge here. Olazabal was a powerful preacher who faced a lot of bias in the US, yet managed to overcome it to preach and heal all over in huge gatherings. I have often wondered if he ever met or knew Margarito Bautista.

I am not sure they are better than anyone in anything. They are simply evolving in the US as a faith group in lots of ways. They are also much more culturally acceptable to post revolutionary Mexico in the sense of belonging here. I hope this helps a bit.

 

[jkwilliams]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks. First, my comment on "more intellectually stimulating" refers to the growth and increased sophistication of Pentecostal scholarship and interest in a broader range of doctrinal issues over the past ten years or so. In years past Pentecostals were maligned and somewhat dismissed by some for their focus on the experiential as defining their faith. As a specific identity, it is a young faith, most often considered founded in the first decade of the twentieth century as a product of a charismatic revivalist tradition that had previously not had a singular identity. Their schools now offer advanced degrees in all sorts of theological inquiry. Their publications cover a broad range of theological intricacies. It has been an interesting development to watch. I do believe it has been an aid in their growth over the last twenty years, but that is simply my opinion.

Second, as far as adapting I will now switch to their situation here in Mexico. The Pentecostal groups active here have never or rarely used Anglo missionaries or leaders. So, in that sense they have not had to adapt culturally, nor have they faced the cultural resistance and isolation (B Carmon Hardy called it encystment) that others, primarily Anglo others have faced. Our little village has had an Assembly of God church since at least 1920. It is still the only non-Catholic church (there are two Catholic churches - each unique) in our village. We are 15 minutes from a beautiful LDS temple, but no LDS missionaries are assigned to work here. There used to be, but not any more.

All Pentecostal missionary work I have observed is done by mestizos in Spanish. Francisco Olazabal was a Fundamentalist Pentecostal healer and evangelist, born in Sinaloa and trained in the US. He quit the AofG in the Rio Grande Valley in the 1930s because of their insistence on Anglo leadership. It reminded me of the LDS Third Convention challenge here. Olazabal was a powerful preacher who faced a lot of bias in the US, yet managed to overcome it to preach and heal all over in huge gatherings. I have often wondered if he ever met or knew Margarito Bautista.

I am not sure they are better than anyone in anything. They are simply evolving in the US as a faith group in lots of ways. They are also much more culturally acceptable to post revolutionary Mexico in the sense of belonging here. I hope this helps a bit.

 

The spread of Evangelical Christianity in Central America has had significant social and political impact. Do you see Mexico heading in that direction?

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Yes, but even then after nearly 1000 years of  peace there will be a time when it all falls apart. I wonder what the trigger event or idea will be . 

I think that, for the discerning, the Book of Mormon provides a type or a template for how that will occur.

[Navidad]

57 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The spread of Evangelical Christianity in Central America has had significant social and political impact. Do you see Mexico heading in that direction?

Not really. Guatemala had a Pentecostal president who created a bit of a mess! Mexico came closest to having an Evangelical president when Obregón was assassinated and Calles put Aarón Sáenz forward to be nominated for what then was the PNR party. Had he been nominated he would certainly have won by a landslide. He came from a strong Presbyterian family in Nuevo Leon. Literally, the night before the convention, Calles decided he couldn't, given all the stress with Mexican Catholics, put forward a Protestant to be president. In that particular 1929 election/convention, religion played a part in the outcome. Evangelicals do not have the strength to influence Mexican politics to any degree. Church/state separation is huge here. At the height of the Cristero wars, both Mennonites and Mormons, as well as most Protestants (depending on the state) were able to avoid the weight of the restrictions on clergy and religious instruction. Back in the twenties and thirties,  LDS church here, to be safe used only Mexican-born members to be bishops and higher. Many here in the north were Anglos, but Mexican citizens.

Many Pentecostals do not consider themselves to be Protestants and historically not Evangelicals. Many today are associating more with the Evangelical community and less with the Fundamentalists. PAN is the party with which most of the Mormons, Mennonites, and conservative Catholics associate in northern Mexico. They are the conservatives. In the early 2000s, PAN won the presidency here twice. Most politics in Mexico are local. If Evangelicals rose to prominence politically, it would probably be in Puebla or Hidalgo.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Navidad