What do you think? Will my LDS friends ever deem it important to identify non-LDS Christians with greater precision?

[Navidad]

I don't want to hijack another thread, so I thought I would start a new one. Some years ago on this thread, another member of the forum, I believe it was RevTestament and I had a good conversation about terms we use to refer to each other. I believe he suggested that we use LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians. I liked that and continue to use that in my speaking engagements. However, neither term is by any means inclusive. As evidenced by this forum, there are differences in beliefs among almost every group, especially among groupings in the Christian world.

It seems to me, based on my observations that my LDS friends aren't particularly interested in being precise (I don't want to use the word accurate – that seems judgmental) when referring to non-LDS Christians, and the many sub-groups within that enormously large community.

At any point in time, it is estimated there are 2,600,000,000 Christians in the world, with 2,584,000,000 of those non-LDS Christians (a group of 16,000,000).

There are estimated to be 1,300,000,000 Roman Catholics in the world. That means there are approximately 1,284,000,000 non-Catholic and non-LDS Christians in the world.

It is estimated there are 250,000,000 Orthodox in the world with the Russian Orthodox being the largest group (70,000,000). That means there are approximately 1,034,000,000 non LDS/Catholic/Orthodox Christians in the world.

There are estimated to be 900,000,000 Protestants in the world. That means there are 134,000,000 non-LDS, non-Roman Catholics non-Orthodox, non-Protestant Christians in the world.

This latter group includes many Pentecostals, Anabaptists, Apostolics, and other groups of, for example middle-eastern Christians who don’t identify as Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. Each of these is a very large group full of both diversity and similarity of faiths.

Now, if we consider non-denominational groupings like Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, depending on the specifics of the definition we can probably find Fundamentalists within every one of these broad sub-groups. We can probably find Evangelicals among each one of them as well, with the only possible exclusion being among the LDS and those identifying as Fundamentalist of all groups. I believe there is a small community within the LDS that could accurately be deemed Evangelical, but that is another discussion.

So, when you are tempted to say that “such and such” is the view of Protestants or non-LDS Christians, or Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists, or more extreme, of “Christians” please realize the immense size of the group you are generalizing about.

If the LDS, the Anabaptists, the Pentecostals, Catholics, and virtually all groups within Christianity have migrated in their doctrinal beliefs over the years, please know that it is very hard to make sweeping generalizations about what any of them believe beyond a very very few essential basics at any one time. Then consider how the billions of individuals within the total group believe and generalizations become a quagmire. The conversation about Universalism in another thread is an interesting example of doctrinal migration.

Just today I have read on this forum assurance from LDS folks about what Protestants, Christians, and Evangelical Christians believe. Even if we get down into the weeds about what groups like Reformed Christians, Lutherans, and yes Mormons believe, there will great diversity. I offer the 40-400 variants of Mormonism as Exhibit A. I think it is time to abandon such broad generalizations that are left over from at the very latest the 1950s, or in the case of the Mormons the 1920s. Christianity, including all those LDS who wish to be considered such, is a wonderfully diverse community, full of wonderfully diverse subgroups. That is how the community of Christ (the ekklesia) was meant to be! What do you all think? Isn’t it time for less generalization? Or not?

Edited May 30, 2023 by Navidad

[Benjamin McGuire]

I am reminded of an old joke (I'm sure many of those here have some familiarity with it) -

Quote

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Well ... are you religious or atheist?"

"Religious."

"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

The challenge we have as LDS (and it isn't unique to us by any means) is that we tend to define things more by exclusion than by inclusion. Most Mormons, for example, understand on some level, the millennial views taught within the LDS Church. But if I were to ask them if LDS leaned more towards a historic premillennialism or more towards a post-tribulation premillennialism, I would get a lot of strange looks.

Mormonism has its own special challenges here. While Mormonism clearly comes out of (and was - at least for a while - a part of) the restorationist movement, few Mormons today would see themselves as a part of that restorationist movement. There is a resistance within Mormonism to the idea that Mormonism fits within pedigree chart of Christian denominations. At the same time, it also possible to drill down into that denominational pedigree so far that it makes the discussion meaningless in the context of difference. What I mean by the joke, and by my example here, is that within this tendency to define by difference, it doesn't help to try and create that difference in the smallest possible way - so people usually paint with bigger strokes (and as you pointed out elsewhere, this often creates problems). For me, I tend to try (and I am not always successful) to provide links to ideas when I use general concepts applicable across broad groups of believers. That way it is easier to see that I am discussing an idea rather than trying to group different organizations or belief systems together by labeling them in a certain way.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't want to hijack another thread, so I thought I would start a new one. Some years ago on this thread, another member of the forum, I believe it was RevTestament and I had a good conversation about terms we use to refer to each other. I believe he suggested that we use LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians. I liked that and continue to use that in my speaking engagements. However, neither term is by any means inclusive. As evidenced by this forum, there are differences in beliefs among almost every group, especially among groupings in the Christian world.

It seems to me, based on my observations that my LDS friends aren't particularly interested in being precise (I don't want to use the word accurate – that seems judgmental) when referring to non-LDS Christians, and the many sub-groups within that enormously large community.

At any point in time, it is estimated there are 2,600,000,000 Christians in the world, with 2,584,000,000 of those non-LDS Christians (a group of 16,000,000).

There are estimated to be 1,300,000,000 Roman Catholics in the world. That means there are approximately 1,284,000,000 non-Catholic and non-LDS Christians in the world.

It is estimated there are 250,000,000 Orthodox in the world with the Russian Orthodox being the largest group (70,000,000). That means there are approximately 1,034,000,000 non LDS/Catholic/Orthodox Christians in the world.

There are estimated to be 900,000,000 Protestants in the world. That means there are 134,000,000 non-LDS, non-Roman Catholics non-Orthodox, non-Protestant Christians in the world.

This latter group includes many Pentecostals, Anabaptists, Apostolics, and other groups of, for example middle-eastern Christians who don’t identify as Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. Each of these is a very large group full of both diversity and similarity of faiths.

Now, if we consider non-denominational groupings like Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, depending on the specifics of the definition we can probably find Fundamentalists within every one of these broad sub-groups. We can probably find Evangelicals among each one of them as well, with the only possible exclusion being among the LDS and those identifying as Fundamentalist of all groups. I believe there is a small community within the LDS that could accurately be deemed Evangelical, but that is another discussion.

So, when you are tempted to say that “such and such” is the view of Protestants or non-LDS Christians, or Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists, or more extreme, of “Christians” please realize the immense size of the group you are generalizing about.

If the LDS, the Anabaptists, the Pentecostals, Catholics, and virtually all groups within Christianity have migrated in their doctrinal beliefs over the years, please know that it is very hard to make sweeping generalizations about what any of them believe beyond a very very few essential basics at any one time. Then consider how the billions of individuals within each group believe and generalizations become a quagmire. The conversation about Universalism in another thread is an interesting example of doctrinal migration.

Just today I have read on this forum assurance from LDS folks about what Protestants, Christians, and Evangelical Christians believe. Even if we get down into the weeds about what groups like Reformed Christians, Lutherans, and yes Mormons believe, there will great diversity. I offer the 40-400 variants of Mormonism as Exhibit A. I think it is time to abandon such broad generalizations that are left over from at the very latest the 1950s, or in the case of the Mormons the 1920s. Christianity, including all those LDS who wish to be considered such, is a wonderfully diverse community, full of wonderfully diverse subgroups. That is how the community of Christ (the ekklesia) was meant to be! What do you all think? Isn’t it time for less generalization? Or not?

I think that precision has its place, and that accuracy is important.  At the same time though, I think that sometimes generalities are necessary so that communication can happen.  If we can only ever talk about a group's beliefs when we are exact, then we won't often be able to talk about different beliefs.  There are too many beliefs out there, even within the same denominations.

And yes, Christianity is diverse, but it is also divided into different groups, and sometimes those differences are important/interesting to discuss.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'm usually happy to learn about other people and the various groups with which they associate themselves, and call them what they want to be called.  Overgeneralization is a human failing, and hardly is anything specific to religion.  When it comes time to talk about the beliefs or practices of this or that group, the best source remains actual believing practicing members of this or that group.  Nobody can know everything, and all of us have learned stuff that simply isn't true, so it's good to be open to new information and ideas.

Always want to put in my plug for Swedish theologian Krister Stendahl's three rules of religious understanding: 
1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

Replace all the types of Christians with queer identities and this could be pulled off an lgbt forum as part of a discussion on the dangers of erasure.

[Navidad]

53 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am reminded of an old joke (I'm sure many of those here have some familiarity with it) -

The challenge we have as LDS (and it isn't unique to us by any means) is that we tend to define things more by exclusion than by inclusion. Most Mormons, for example, understand on some level, the millennial views taught within the LDS Church. But if I were to ask them if LDS leaned more towards a historic premillennialism or more towards a post-tribulation premillennialism, I would get a lot of strange looks.

Mormonism has its own special challenges here. While Mormonism clearly comes out of (and was - at least for a while - a part of) the restorationist movement, few Mormons today would see themselves as a part of that restorationist movement. There is a resistance within Mormonism to the idea that Mormonism fits within pedigree chart of Christian denominations. At the same time, it also possible to drill down into that denominational pedigree so far that it makes the discussion meaningless in the context of difference. What I mean by the joke, and by my example here, is that within this tendency to define by difference, it doesn't help to try and create that difference in the smallest possible way - so people usually paint with bigger strokes (and as you pointed out elsewhere, this often creates problems). For me, I tend to try (and I am not always successful) to provide links to ideas when I use general concepts applicable across broad groups of believers. That way it is easier to see that I am discussing an idea rather than trying to group different organizations or belief systems together by labeling them in a certain way.

Great joke! There seems to be the possibility of a Mormon version in there somewhere. Oh and I think my LDS friends of this generation would subscribe to a post-tribulation premillennialism. Thanks for you insights. It would be wonderful if we could dialogue about ideas instead of peoples. Oh and here is the chart of "how it is all going to happen" that I grew up with . . . except mine was full of pretty pastel colors!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Replace all the types of Christians with queer identities and this could be pulled off an lgbt forum as part of a discussion on the dangers of erasure.

Political group identifications apply as well.  
 

Probably also applies to regional, country, local community, annd family identities for many.  Humans are a categorizing species, which has issues when applied to social groups of any kind, imo. 

[Hamilton Porter]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't want to hijack another thread, so I thought I would start a new one. Some years ago on this thread, another member of the forum, I believe it was RevTestament and I had a good conversation about terms we use to refer to each other. I believe he suggested that we use LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians. I liked that and continue to use that in my speaking engagements. However, neither term is by any means inclusive. As evidenced by this forum, there are differences in beliefs among almost every group, especially among groupings in the Christian world.

It seems to me, based on my observations that my LDS friends aren't particularly interested in being precise (I don't want to use the word accurate – that seems judgmental) when referring to non-LDS Christians, and the many sub-groups within that enormously large community.

At any point in time, it is estimated there are 2,600,000,000 Christians in the world, with 2,584,000,000 of those non-LDS Christians (a group of 16,000,000).

There are estimated to be 1,300,000,000 Roman Catholics in the world. That means there are approximately 1,284,000,000 non-Catholic and non-LDS Christians in the world.

It is estimated there are 250,000,000 Orthodox in the world with the Russian Orthodox being the largest group (70,000,000). That means there are approximately 1,034,000,000 non LDS/Catholic/Orthodox Christians in the world.

There are estimated to be 900,000,000 Protestants in the world. That means there are 134,000,000 non-LDS, non-Roman Catholics non-Orthodox, non-Protestant Christians in the world.

This latter group includes many Pentecostals, Anabaptists, Apostolics, and other groups of, for example middle-eastern Christians who don’t identify as Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. Each of these is a very large group full of both diversity and similarity of faiths.

Now, if we consider non-denominational groupings like Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, depending on the specifics of the definition we can probably find Fundamentalists within every one of these broad sub-groups. We can probably find Evangelicals among each one of them as well, with the only possible exclusion being among the LDS and those identifying as Fundamentalist of all groups. I believe there is a small community within the LDS that could accurately be deemed Evangelical, but that is another discussion.

So, when you are tempted to say that “such and such” is the view of Protestants or non-LDS Christians, or Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists, or more extreme, of “Christians” please realize the immense size of the group you are generalizing about.

If the LDS, the Anabaptists, the Pentecostals, Catholics, and virtually all groups within Christianity have migrated in their doctrinal beliefs over the years, please know that it is very hard to make sweeping generalizations about what any of them believe beyond a very very few essential basics at any one time. Then consider how the billions of individuals within the total group believe and generalizations become a quagmire. The conversation about Universalism in another thread is an interesting example of doctrinal migration.

Just today I have read on this forum assurance from LDS folks about what Protestants, Christians, and Evangelical Christians believe. Even if we get down into the weeds about what groups like Reformed Christians, Lutherans, and yes Mormons believe, there will great diversity. I offer the 40-400 variants of Mormonism as Exhibit A. I think it is time to abandon such broad generalizations that are left over from at the very latest the 1950s, or in the case of the Mormons the 1920s. Christianity, including all those LDS who wish to be considered such, is a wonderfully diverse community, full of wonderfully diverse subgroups. That is how the community of Christ (the ekklesia) was meant to be! What do you all think? Isn’t it time for less generalization? Or not?

1. Pin this post so we can remember all the detail  before we comment.

2. We've been excluded from this body, mostly by self-declared evangelicals. Furthermore, most Christians don't even know these fine distinctions.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

1. Pin this post so we can remember all the detail  before we comment.

2. We've been excluded from this body, mostly by self-declared evangelicals. Furthermore, most Christians don't even know these fine distinctions.

I don't know how to "pin this post." Let me know what you mean by that.

Second, since you believe that self-declared evangelicals are true evangelicals, then I suppose to be consistent you must believe that since they self-declare as such, the members of the Firstborn Church of the Lamb of God, the Firstborn Church of the Fullness of Times, the many members of the remnant church of the 1930s Third Convention, and the members of the Apostolic United Brethren are all valid and genuine representatives of the Mormon movement/church as are the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In fact they each go one step further and self-declare that they are indeed the only true representatives of the priesthood authority on earth since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost the validity of the priesthood back in the 1920s. Do you accept those self-declarations as accurate as well?

[jonah747]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

And yes, Christianity is diverse, but it is also divided into different groups, and sometimes those differences are important/interesting to discuss.

I think there are various LDS groups too.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, jonah747 said:

I think there are various LDS groups too.

Welcome to the forum. There certainly are various Mormon groups within the wider world of Mormonism. I would suggest there is one LDS group, but within that group there is a rich diversity of beliefs about a whole host of issues/doctrines/perspectives. Those are important/interesting to discuss, as are the other groups who self-declare themselves as Mormons and even more boldly, the true heirs of the LDS church that went apostate from 1890-1920s and remains such (in the beliefs of the other groups)  today.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Navidad

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, jonah747 said:

I think there are various LDS groups too.

Yep. 

[Amulek]

On 5/30/2023 at 11:57 AM, Navidad said:

It seems to me, based on my observations that my LDS friends aren't particularly interested in being precise [...] when referring to non-LDS Christians, and the many sub-groups within that enormously large community.

I don't believe this phenomenon is unique to the Saints though. I've spent the better part of my life here in the Bible Belt, and outside of those who have attended seminary to become professional clergy, I would say that the overwhelming majority of lay people aren't particularly interested in being precise when it comes to the various denominations found within Christendom.  

 

Quote

I think it is time to abandon such broad generalizations [...]

Generalizations are just that: things that are generally the case. By definition they aren't universal - just common or typical.

And just because not all generalizations are valid doesn't mean that there are no valid generalizations whatsoever or that they aren't ever useful. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

“They were Methodist, a denomination my father always referred to as Baptists who could read.” — A River Runs Through It 

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

And just because not all generalizations are valid doesn't mean that there are no valid generalizations whatsoever or that they aren't ever useful. 

I think I like this, but I have to think about it today. I tend to think of generalizations as summarizing a group in a way that is not true, or taking  the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, or characteristics of some in a group as indicative of the group. Perhaps that is best thought of as normalizing. Thanks, you have given me something to think about today! The problem is I have to give a talk at an academic conference today about patrimony in Mexican history! I think I need to focus on that, at least for the morning! Take care!

[Hamilton Porter]

44 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

“They were Methodist, a denomination my father always referred to as Baptists who could read.” — A River Runs Through It 

Harold Bloom said, Southern Baptists are "proudly stupid."

[Saint Bonaventure]

The identification piece is fraught with emotional landmines for otherwise easygoing folks. These are just a few words that tend to not land well:

• Sect
• Apostate
• Heretic
• Gentile
• Non-[anything]

I think that a certain amount of boundary protection and negotiation is inevitable. Catholics feel this when "Roman" is emphasized with "Catholic." My Latter-day Saint friends probably have better things to do than to notice that Catholic churches and facilities are most always identified with "Catholic" and not with "Roman Catholic." I think this goes back to some ethnic conflicts in England, wherein the distinction was emphasized between "Anglo Catholics" and "Roman Catholics." In conversation, it can be how someone emphasizes the "Roman" part. Pro tip: In Catholic circles, if a distinction needs to be made, "Latin Rite" is the polite phrase. 

I imagine that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might sometimes feel a little cringe when they check the box on the form that lists them separately from "Christian." I've seen "Catholic" listed separately from "Christian," and I didn't like it.

Navidad has mentioned how "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" can be fraught. 

"Christian," though, is a word that is probably always going to be negotiated on some level. Catholics have an official way of considering someone a Christian, and that is embedded in whether or not someone has received a Trinitarian baptism. Even there, though, there is an acknowledgement of a more universal sense of being a Christian, wherein a person's heart and intentions are not known, there is the salvation of catechumens, there is the assertion that God is not bound in ways that the Church is bound, etc. There is a certain openness and at the same time a day-to-day closedness.

I've had a version of the "Are Latter-day Saints Christians?" conversation with an LDS family member. I'm abbreviating, but the spirit of it was:

• Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus atoned for our sins.
• Latter-day Saints believe Jesus is the Son.
• Latter-day Saints accept the Bible as scripture.
• Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
• Therefore, Latter-day Saints are Christians.

There's an argument being advanced in these assertions, an argument about the definition of "Christian." And there's also some rhetorical shenanigans happening. When someone wants to be received through a boundary, those kinds of assertions are made with an implicit, "these are the only things that actually matter, therefore, I am a Christian." But it is clear that not everything is on the level if the unstated premise is challenged and I say something like, "If those are the only things that matter, then I can call myself a Latter-day Saint, right?" Suddenly, the list of things that matter grows, and it is clear that "Christian" is less vital to my sister-in-law than is "Latter-day Saint." She's defining "Christian" down, and maybe not realizing that she is doing so. She's trying to have the birthday cake and to eat it too.

Let the boundary work around the term "Latter-day Saint" and even around "Mormon" be added to the boundary work around "Christian." Can't have those polygamists using "Latter-day Saint," or "Mormon," after all. Let the churchiness enter the definitions. Let the, "Well, we're the ones with authority" assertions fly. Alas, what happens is that one side of the conversation argues that the other's definition isn't adequate, because it's defining the word down, is missing essentials, is just not acceptable. If I'm not up to snuff that day, I might start mumbling about the hypostatic union of the Trinity and the Council of Chalcedon. None of that helps, and more heat is generated than is light.

And yet, whoever is not against us is for us. 

And so I rely on a little bit of the universal, intent-of-the-heart, beyond churchiness concepts. At least, that's what I do on a Saturday afternoon at a birthday party for my niece who is a Latter-day Saint, and for my niece's mom who is drinking herbal tea. 

[Hamilton Porter]

16 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Let the boundary work around the term "Latter-day Saint" and even around "Mormon" be added to the boundary work around "Christian." Can't have those polygamists using "Latter-day Saint," or "Mormon," after all

A boundary for a "Latter-day Saint" is much more clearly defined than "Christian." You have to be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church, and we give you a membership ID number.

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

A boundary for a "Latter-day Saint" is much more clearly defined than "Christian." You have to be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church, and we give you a membership ID number.

Are you asserting that everyone who has a membership ID number is indeed a "Latter-day Saint?" Just curious.

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

And so I rely on a little bit of the universal, intent-of-the-heart, beyond churchiness concepts.

I like this alot. I also think your are in good company because I think that is what Christ does and will do on the day of judgment.

[BlueDreams]

39 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The identification piece is fraught with emotional landmines for otherwise easygoing folks. These are just a few words that tend to not land well:

• Sect
• Apostate
• Heretic
• Gentile
• Non-[anything]

I think that a certain amount of boundary protection and negotiation is inevitable. Catholics feel this when "Roman" is emphasized with "Catholic." My Latter-day Saint friends probably have better things to do than to notice that Catholic churches and facilities are most always identified with "Catholic" and not with "Roman Catholic." I think this goes back to some ethnic conflicts in England, wherein the distinction was emphasized between "Anglo Catholics" and "Roman Catholics." In conversation, it can be how someone emphasizes the "Roman" part. Pro tip: In Catholic circles, if a distinction needs to be made, "Latin Rite" is the polite phrase. 

I imagine that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might sometimes feel a little cringe when they check the box on the form that lists them separately from "Christian." I've seen "Catholic" listed separately from "Christian," and I didn't like it.

Navidad has mentioned how "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" can be fraught. 

"Christian," though, is a word that is probably always going to be negotiated on some level. Catholics have an official way of considering someone a Christian, and that is embedded in whether or not someone has received a Trinitarian baptism. Even there, though, there is an acknowledgement of a more universal sense of being a Christian, wherein a person's heart and intentions are not known, there is the salvation of catechumens, there is the assertion that God is not bound in ways that the Church is bound, etc. There is a certain openness and at the same time a day-to-day closedness.

I've had a version of the "Are Latter-day Saints Christians?" conversation with an LDS family member. I'm abbreviating, but the spirit of it was:

• Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus atoned for our sins.
• Latter-day Saints believe Jesus is the Son.
• Latter-day Saints accept the Bible as scripture.
• Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
• Therefore, Latter-day Saints are Christians.

There's an argument being advanced in these assertions, an argument about the definition of "Christian." And there's also some rhetorical shenanigans happening. When someone wants to be received through a boundary, those kinds of assertions are made with an implicit, "these are the only things that actually matter, therefore, I am a Christian." But it is clear that not everything is on the level if the unstated premise is challenged and I say something like, "If those are the only things that matter, then I can call myself a Latter-day Saint, right?" Suddenly, the list of things that matter grows, and it is clear that "Christian" is less vital to my sister-in-law than is "Latter-day Saint." She's defining "Christian" down, and maybe not realizing that she is doing so. She's trying to have the birthday cake and to eat it too.

Let the boundary work around the term "Latter-day Saint" and even around "Mormon" be added to the boundary work around "Christian." Can't have those polygamists using "Latter-day Saint," or "Mormon," after all. Let the churchiness enter the definitions. Let the, "Well, we're the ones with authority" assertions fly. Alas, what happens is that one side of the conversation argues that the other's definition isn't adequate, because it's defining the word down, is missing essentials, is just not acceptable. If I'm not up to snuff that day, I might start mumbling about the hypostatic union of the Trinity and the Council of Chalcedon. None of that helps, and more heat is generated than is light.

And yet, whoever is not against us is for us. 

And so I rely on a little bit of the universal, intent-of-the-heart, beyond churchiness concepts. At least, that's what I do on a Saturday afternoon at a birthday party for my niece who is a Latter-day Saint, and for my niece's mom who is drinking herbal tea. 

What do you mean by defining christian "down?" To me what your sister was doing was using christian as a broad umbrella term that could cover just about any believer in Christ and of the bible as christian and then having specific denominations under said umbrella hold more specific rules to them. If the reverse was asked I'd certainly not say I was Catholic just because I have some shared core beliefs around Christ. That's a more specific term than Catholic. 

And other groups can do what they please with the term Mormon in terms of claiming it. I see that as the broader term to define several groups that claim connection to at least some of the general teachings started with JS. But latter-day saints is more specific to a denomination within that. 

 

I'm not sure if we're saying something similar or not as I don't know what defining down means for you? 

 

With luv, 

BD

[Hamilton Porter]

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Are you asserting that everyone who has a membership ID number is indeed a "Latter-day Saint?" Just curious.

Yes

[Amulek]

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think I like this, but I have to think about it today. I tend to think of generalizations as summarizing a group in a way that is not true, or taking  the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, or characteristics of some in a group as indicative of the group.

Interesting. It seems to me that those are two different definitions:

     1. Summarizing a group in a way that is not true...

Do you believe it's possible to summarize a group in a way that is true? Or are all summaries, by default, false in your view?

For example, if I were to generalize and say that dogs tend to make good pets, would you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

     2. [T]aking the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, or characteristics of some in a group a indicative of the group...

Indicative of the group without exception? Because I tend to think of it more in terms of indicative of typical members of the group. 

 

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks, you have given me something to think about today! The problem is I have to give a talk at an academic conference today about patrimony in Mexican history! I think I need to focus on that, at least for the morning! Take care!

Sounds like a plan. Best of luck on your speaking engagement! 

If the topic intersects with your Mormon studies, I feel like there's a joke just begging to be made about Mormon heritage somewhere in there. Maybe something about our forefathers and five mothers.  

Sorry, if I had more time I would try to workshop that into something truly usable. Good luck again! 

 

[InCognitus]

"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil"  (1 Nephi 14:10)

I just say, pick a side and go with that! 

I do think it can eventually be as simple as that.  

[Navidad]

29 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Interesting. It seems to me that those are two different definitions:

     1. Summarizing a group in a way that is not true...

Do you believe it's possible to summarize a group in a way that is true? Or are all summaries, by default, false in your view?

For example, if I were to generalize and say that dogs tend to make good pets, would you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

     2. [T]aking the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, or characteristics of some in a group a indicative of the group...

Indicative of the group without exception? Because I tend to think of it more in terms of indicative of typical members of the group. 

 

Sounds like a plan. Best of luck on your speaking engagement! 

If the topic intersects with your Mormon studies, I feel like there's a joke just begging to be made about Mormon heritage somewhere in there. Maybe something about our forefathers and five mothers.  

Sorry, if I had more time I would try to workshop that into something truly usable. Good luck again! 

 

Thanks. I can guarantee that I will be asked in the Q&A about Mormons - of course that is a "generalization" from my experience in giving talks here! The talk will all be in Spanish, so I am not sure the joke would work! Also, there might be a few LDS folks in the meeting and they are extraordinarily sensitive about plural marriage, especially since it is possible, albeit not likely that there may be some LeBaron Mormons in the conference. I think for sure there will be at least one former mestizo LDS bishop at the conference. I serve on a conference panel tomorrow evening as well and he will for sure be on the panel with me. I will be speaking about the Apache in Mexico and he will most likely be speaking about the LDS in Mexico. BTW, I use the distinction between mestizo and Anglo members of the church here because it is a significant dividing line that in my opinion hurts the growth of the Church in this part of Mexico. Sorry for going on so. Yuch! I have to wear a shirt, tie,  and jacket today! I gave that up when I retired from the superintendency!