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

[Navidad]

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

"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.  

Where I live, if I did that, and chose the church of the Lamb of God everyone would think I was LeBaron! Of course that may not be a bad thing. By and large folks here are afraid of the LeBarons and their political power.

[Navidad]

56 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Yes

OK. I asked because I am still trying to sort through the huge disparity between official Mexican census data and what the Church says about Mexican membership.

[Calm]

On 5/31/2023 at 5:28 AM, Navidad said:

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

Only mods can pin a post. If Hamilton wants it pinned, he needs to ask the mods.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

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!

Good point. Lots of humor doesn't translate well - not just puns. 

 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

Always important to know your audience. 

I remember talking with a couple of friends one time: one a Baptist and the other Catholic. I don't remember exactly what we were discussing, but the Catholic and I were in agreement and my Baptist friend made a joke about how of course the two cultists would gang up on him. I thought it was pretty funny.

Our Catholic friend, however, was very much offended. Lesson learned. 

 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yuch! I have to wear a shirt, tie,  and jacket today! I gave that up when I retired from the superintendency!

Bummer. I feel your pain.

Cast off those fine twined linens! Or, if you can't get away with that, go with a brown suit and grab a pair of Birkenstocks to match.  

[mfbukowski]

On 5/30/2023 at 9:57 AM, 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?

I don't care what men want to believe, nor do I care what others think of my religion, unless they are mistaken about mine- then I want to show them in areas in which they have misconceptions about what I believe, simply because I hope they will change their minds, because I believe my faith presents the best paradigm for the perfection of humankind.

For statistical purposes, which for me are simply unimportant completely, one is either baptized LDS and has a record number or not.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/30/2023 at 1:15 PM, bluebell said:

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. 

...Unless we see them all as paradigms which are either functional and cohesive or not, imo.

It's a way of seeing things.  "I believe in an embodied God because I am LDS" to me is FAR different than "I believe that God is embodied because I believe that is the most functional and beneficial way mankind has seen to create their understanding of God."

I don't care about the "group's" belief- I care about the functionality of the belief.  Beliefs are tools.

[Hamilton Porter]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

OK. I asked because I am still trying to sort through the huge disparity between official Mexican census data and what the Church says about Mexican membership.

If you're trying to determine how many practicing LDS there are, and there is good data like a Census in the country, go with the Census (or the ARIS in the US).

By the way, I try to use "fundamentalist" instead of "evangelical" to label our critics after talking to you.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

By the way, I try to use "fundamentalist" instead of "evangelical" to label our critics after talking to you.

Gracias!

[Kenngo1969]

You ask an interesting question, My Friend.  I hope enough goodwill has been built up between us, and that I have demonstrated that I hold my non-Latter-day-Saint Christian friends (including my Mennonite Christian friends 😀) in high enough regard that they will not take offense at anything I say, especially since not even the slightest offense is intended.

I don't think it is productive (in fact, I'll go further and say that it is counter-productive) for my co-religionists, including for some who are fairly high up in the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to cast aspersions at Christians of other stripes.  

Yes, if a Latter-day Saint is addressing a devotee and adherent of another faith or is speaking specifically of another faith, the Latter-day Saint should accord that adherent and that faith the respect of addressing him or her by the appellation preferred by that adherent or by that faith.

That said, when speaking of other Christians generally, using the appellation "non-Latterday-Saint Christian" is intended to accord such adherents respect by recognizing that their acts of Christian charity and devotion, and the central role that the Messiah plays in their lives, is no less significant to them than these features of our faith are to us.  Generally, using the appellation "non-Latter-day-Saint Christian" is intended as sort of an "equal-and-opposite re-action" to the idea that, allegedly, Latter-day Saints don't "check all of the boxes" required to be considered true Christians.  It is intended as shorthand to convey the idea that, "Yes, whatever disagreements may exist between us, you are Christians."

 

[Navidad]

55 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You ask an interesting question, My Friend.  I hope enough goodwill has been built up between us, and that I have demonstrated that I hold my non-Latter-day-Saint Christian friends (including my Mennonite Christian friends 😀) in high enough regard that they will not take offense at anything I say, especially since not even the slightest offense is intended.

I don't think it is productive (in fact, I'll go further and say that it is counter-productive) for my co-religionists, including for some who are fairly high up in the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to cast aspersions at Christians of other stripes.  

Yes, if a Latter-day Saint is addressing a devotee and adherent of another faith or is speaking specifically of another faith, the Latter-day Saint should accord that adherent and that faith the respect of addressing him or her by the appellation preferred by that adherent or by that faith.

That said, when speaking of other Christians generally, using the appellation "non-Latterday-Saint Christian" is intended to accord such adherents respect by recognizing that their acts of Christian charity and devotion, and the central role that the Messiah plays in their lives, is no less significant to them than these features of our faith are to us.  Generally, using the appellation "non-Latter-day-Saint Christian" is intended as sort of an "equal-and-opposite re-action" to the idea that, allegedly, Latter-day Saints don't "check all of the boxes" required to be considered true Christians.  It is intended as shorthand to convey the idea that, "Yes, whatever disagreements may exist between us, you are Christians."

 

Well said!

[mfbukowski]

On 6/1/2023 at 6:31 AM, 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. 

I think perhaps there is also a confusion between Catholic rites and Orthodoxy and all of that sort of thing.

I have lost touch with some of those nuances, but I would attend a Byzantine Rite mass occasionally just because I found it fun and definitely interesting.  Even sometimes when I spoke to Roman rite Catholics, they would (erroneously) tell me that that was an Orthodox church and therefore "not Catholic".  I would try to correct them but often to no avail.  Perhaps there are similar parallels here regarding boundaries?

Incidentally herbal tea would be perfectly acceptable for LDS members, even if the church president was attending the party. 

 

Maybe you could illuminate those differences a little 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You ask an interesting question, My Friend.  I hope enough goodwill has been built up between us, and that I have demonstrated that I hold my non-Latter-day-Saint Christian friends (including my Mennonite Christian friends 😀) in high enough regard that they will not take offense at anything I say, especially since not even the slightest offense is intended.

But what about your Moravian friends? 

Ya got cha Mormons and Moravians and Mennonites and who knows?

What about these?

• Malankara Archdiocese of the Syrian Orthodox Church in North America
• Mar Thoma Syrian Church
• U.S. Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches
• Mennonite Church USA
• Mennonite - Conservative Mennonite Conference
• Mennonite - The Evangelical Mennonite Conference
• Mennonite Information Center
• Church bodies within the Mennonite tradition
• Messianic Jewish Alliance of America
• Missionary Church USA
• Moravian Church in America
• Mount Calvary Holy Church of America

Who's da good guys and who's da bad guys?  Wit a list lak 'at, there's gotta be a lot of bad m-guys.   An dat's only da M's!

All I am saying is that boundary maintenance can get tricky and a full time job if that is what we are into!

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

On 6/1/2023 at 4:01 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

By the way, I try to use "fundamentalist" instead of "evangelical" to label our critics after talking to you.

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

Gracias!

I agree that fundamentalists are the most prominent and vocal critics, but we have a long history with evangelicals that is not going away any time soon.  I think Navidad represents a growing attitude in Evangelicalism, but I think there are still a lot of old-school evangelicals who still exclude us from Christianity, etc.  As Navidad notes, Evangelicals represent a wide diversity of ideas, beliefs, and attitudes.   This 8-minute video is a good short overview with perspectives from both sides.  It is from 2012, but I don’t think issues have disappeared.

 https://www.pbs.org/video/religion-and-ethics-newsweekly-mormons-and-evangelicals/

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by pogi

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree that fundamentalists are the most prominent and vocal critics, but we have a long history with evangelicals that is not going away any time soon.  I think Navidad represents a growing attitude in Evangelicalism, but I think there are still a lot of old-school evangelicals who still exclude us from Christianity, etc.  As Navidad notes, Evangelicals represent a wide diversity of ideas, beliefs, and attitudes.   This 8-minute video is a good short overview with perspectives from both sides.  It is from 2012, but I don’t think issues have disappeared.

 https://www.pbs.org/video/religion-and-ethics-newsweekly-mormons-and-evangelicals/

 

Thanks my friend. Excellent video. I don't see any hate in it from anyone interviewed. Neither Drs. Mouw, Davis, nor Mason espoused any antipathy towards the other.

The significant difference I would suggest is that the idea that Evangelicals are not fully Christian is indeed formally baked into the LDS faith. That indeed makes my LDS friends prominent and vocal critics of Evangelical and every other non-LDS faiths, no matter how nicely, kindly, or with a smile that exclusion is expressed. A core principal of your faith excludes me from having salvific, eternal life with Christ, and from the fullness of my relationship with the Spirit in this life. As one who practiced feet-washing, I think it is time the LDS acknowledge that the shoe of baked-in bigotry (lovingly expressed) is now on the other foot.

In no way do I delimit (put boundaries on) the full faith and Christianity of those of my LDS friends who have a personal relationship with Christ. In no way do my LDS friends not delimit (put boundaries on) my faith and Christianity. That is the lesson I have learned in my six year personal journey in an LDS ward and to some degree in LDS-affiliated conferences and meetings.

My Christianity, personal relationship to the Holy Spirit and Christ is not valid enough to allow me today to pray, speak, or sing in an LDS meeting, church gathering, or group. In my recent experience, that is the challenge in formal ongoing revelation to individuals that impacts others' lives. I pray for greater revelation daily for my own life. I would not pray for revelation that impacts your life except in illness, crisis, or distinct need.

When I am told to patiently wait for the calling of a new bishop for three years, that doesn't resonate with me. I am 74. I may not have three years. Yes, in my life experience, witness, and testimony, the shoe is indeed on the other foot. It is a foot that sees no benefit in being washed in humility by me. I appreciate the video. I especially value the candor and honesty of all involved. Best wishes. We will stay home tomorrow, for the life of me, I cannot figure out how a struggling ward is better off without us, but so it is.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

When I am told to patiently wait for the calling of a new bishop for three years, that doesn't resonate with me. I am 74. I may not have three years. Yes, in my life experience, witness, and testimony, the shoe is indeed on the other foot. It is a foot that sees no benefit in being washed in humility by me. I appreciate the video. I especially value the candor and honesty of all involved. Best wishes. We will stay home tomorrow, for the life of me, I cannot figure out how a struggling ward is better off without us, but so it is.

Out of curiosity, are you staying home because the bishop told you you are not welcome (perhaps not in so many words), or because you no longer feel welcome? I'm just wondering about the "wait for the calling of a new bishop" part.

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Out of curiosity, are you staying home because the bishop told you you are not welcome (perhaps not in so many words), or because you no longer feel welcome? I'm just wondering about the "wait for the calling of a new bishop" part.

Hi my friend. I probably should not have written what I did, however the wound is fresh and we are trying to heal from it. I received what the bishop, in the presence of the silence of his counselors and my wife told us on the back patio of our home, by telling us we are no longer able or allowed to participate in ministry in the ward as we have done in the past five years. It would not be fair to say he told us we were unwelcome to attend. In fairness, I am sure he would tolerate us to attend as visitors-spectators so to speak, not in the arena, but in the stands. I also believe from knowing him for six years, that we are somewhat of an offense to him. In contrast our former bishop was a close and dear friend as were his wife and mine.

Understanding the hierarchical nature of LDS polity, the decisions that he communicated to us personally made us then feel uncomfortable in the ward, even though many of our member-friends assured us we are welcome and that they would strongly desire our participation as in the past. We also do not want to create division, which would not be helpful in a place of worship that is already struggling. Sowing division is not a fruit of the spirit; therefore we have stopped attending. There are other wards in our area to which we are assured we can attend and participate, but that is all very complicated in a smallish rural area with lots of complicated relationships.

I also need to stop whining here on the forum. My wife is hurting and in all honesty, that bothers me more than anything. Sometimes I whine and vent here. I am especially feeling the judgment of LDS doctrine on our spiritual lives and condition right now. That leads to me getting irritated when the LDS folks here put their spin on some Evangelical antipathy towards the LDS as a church, yet completely fail to understand the reverse that is happening right now, not to me as an Evangelical, but to me as a Christian and my wife and I as a Christian family.

So the answer to both of your questions is yes. And, yes I need to stop whining here. I have never been to anyone's home, had dinner with, worshiped with, prayed and cried with anyone on this forum. To some degree I can turn off the computer, walk away from it and in a couple of hours am over it (whatever "it" is at any given time). We thought the people in the ward here were our spiritual family here at this time and in this place. We were wrong.  Take care my friend. Oh, and I will also miss my friend, the priest here in our village. We have shared some great conversations on the same patio!

[Navidad]

Good morning all - well -  yesterday was interesting. I had the privilege of participating on a four person panel sponsored by a state university to talk about the cultural patrimony of our area. I was asked to speak about the indigenous heritage, specifically the Apache in our part of Chihuahua. One of my co-participants is a former mestizo LDS bishop in our area who is still a vital part of the local mestizo LDS community. Another was a born and bred and active LeBaron Mormon guru of the natural resources heritage in our area who still lives in . . . . .LeBaron! Our fourth co-conspirator was a very devout Catholic scholar of the 16th and 17 century of our area in the Franciscan mission tradition. As all conferences here in our area do, this 5PM to 7PM conference went from 5:45PM to 9:30PM. 

We all had a good time interacting formally and informally with each other. It was sort of an off-topic interfaith gathering of folks who have in common their love for the history of our area. My wife attended and had a good time with another professor's wife who speaks English and who has been to our home. No questions about Mormons, Mennonites, or Catholics. A good non-denominational time was had by all!

[manol]

46 minutes ago, Navidad said:

We all had a good time interacting formally and informally with each other. It was sort of an off-topic interfaith gathering of folks who have in common their love for the history of our area. My wife attended and had a good time with another professor's wife who speaks English and who has been to our home. No questions about Mormons, Mennonites, or Catholics. A good non-denominational time was had by all!

My hope is that as one door closes for you, another opens. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I was asked to speak about the indigenous heritage, specifically the Apache in our part of Chihuahua. One of my co-participants is a former mestizo LDS bishop in our area who is still a vital part of the local mestizo LDS community. Another was a born and bred and active LeBaron Mormon guru of the natural resources heritage in our area who still lives in . . . . .LeBaron!

I am fascinated by the cultural differences of your community.

I thought virtually all Mexicans are "Mestizos" - a mixture of indigenous and Spanish people, and what a  "LeBaron" is, except of course a descendant of polygamist folks who fled to Mexico.  Is there a racial difference between Mestizos and LeBarons?

We have a few Spanish wards in our stake, and each one has what maybe described as a "Mestizo LDS Bishop", and using  the phrase " LDS metizo community" but using those terms hereabouts would be offensive, but I know you would never say anything racially insensitive much less offensive!

Culture can be an amazing source of division, can't it!  Especially in the US with our political correctness!

Edited June 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am fascinated by the cultural differences of your community.

I thought virtually all Mexicans are "Mestizos" - a mixture of indigenous and Spanish people, and what a  "LeBaron" is, except of course a descendant of polygamist folks who fled to Mexico.  Is there a racial difference between Mestizos and LeBarons?

We have a few Spanish wards in our stake, and each one has what maybe described as a "Mestizo LDS Bishop", and using  the phrase " LDS metizo community" but using those terms hereabouts would be offensive, but I know you would never say anything racially insensitive much less offensive!

Culture can be an amazing source of division, can't it!  Especially in the US with our political correctness!

You are correct. I would do everything possible not to say anything racially offensive or insensitve. You are also correct that culture can be an amazing source of division. Where I live, the term mestizo is in no way a negative term. In fact, it signifies the highest of respect for the most "cosmic" of all racial groups in this part of Mexico - the mestizo. Anglo Mormons of all varieties (3 or 4) are more Anglo "others" than Mormon. Mennonites here are 96% "North American"-Anglos from somewhere else who aren't particularly friendly and have very strange clothes and customs. Very few have any idea or care about what they believe, especially since they don't proselytize. It is very rare to see Anglo LDS and mestizo LDS intermingle here, even in church-related activities. Stake conferences are the rare exception, but even there the cultural groups sit separately. It is also rare to see Mennonite and LDS Anglos engage. The rodeo is the great equalizer - team roping makes everyone team up for 30 seconds with partners of whatever race, faith, income level, etc.

Postrevolutionary Mexico created a racialized society here in Mexico. The Mestizo is at the top of that society. Mennonites and Mormons have carved out, by their own respective endogamy a liminal "otherness." I don't have data on the fundamentalist Mormons, but by and large the LeBaron portion of those folks seem to be an Anglo outsider group with tremendous insider power. They are more acculturated, than the Anglo LDS. In the 68 years they have had an existence as a "people," they have blended in linguistically and culture-wise. The income gaps and living condition differences are significant. The fundamentalist groups that came out of the Third Convention are virtually all mestizo and indigenous.

The Anglo LDS folks are still more or less bi-national, while the Anglo LeBarons (the vast majority) are seen as Mexican. Years - decades of violence over land and water scar the relationships all the way around. The religious aspect - doctrine, etc. are pretty much irrelevant. The only religious conflict I have ever heard in all my interactions  between LDS and Catholics have been over The Virgin of Guadalupe. I have no idea what the increased Santa Muerta and Pentecostal presence will create in the way of cultural change. I have never met an Anglo Pentecostal here. At any rate it is all very different.

Do not try and compare things in a Spanish language community in LA and things here in northern Mexico. In the same regard, one cannot compare northern, central, and southern Mexico in many ways. Very different cultural differences. Both cultures and general history here in Mexico are locally, then regionally, and lastly nationally driven. Take care.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

The significant difference I would suggest is that the idea that Evangelicals are not fully Christian is indeed formally baked into the LDS faith.

It is true it is our doctrine that you are not fully saved yet if salvation means not only saved from sin and in a relationship with God, but also already blessed with eternal life with God after death (technically neither are Saints as we believe it a process, not a one time event, and the process isn’t complete till after death), but you are fully Christian as we define what is a “Christian”.   And that is formally baked into our doctrine as we define “Christian” and understand what being Christian means even if you look at our doctrine and sees that it excludes you from being “fully Christian” if you use your definition of what that means.

I assume you believe the below even if your beliefs on who those prophets are and what those appendages might be are different than us.

Quote

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians. They worship God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ. When asked what the Latter-day Saints believe, Joseph Smith put Christ at the center: “The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, ‘that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;’ and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.”1 The modern-day Quorum of the Twelve Apostles reaffirmed that testimony when they proclaimed, “Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. … His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come.”2

I also assume for you, the below is what defines a Christian, though it is not how Saints define “who is a Christian”, but rather who is exalted for the first part.  The second part can be approached a couple of ways, but it is only necessary to point out it is a part of an Evangelical definition of Christian, but not the LDS definition of Christian.

Quote

 A core principal of your faith excludes me from having salvific, eternal life with Christ, and from the fullness of my relationship with the Spirit in this life. 

But in our doctrine you don’t need to currently be worthy of having eternal life with Christ if you were to die to day and nothing changed for you in order to be seen as a Christian.  For us it is a belief in the divinity of Christ and attempting to follow him that makes you a Christian, not the success of that attempt.  We don’t use the term “fully” in front of “Christian” (I have never heard it in any LDS Church setting and it is absent from the Church’s website). “Fully Christian” doesn’t have a doctrinal meaning for us, so it might have different meanings for different Saints, all of which likely don’t mean what you mean when you use the term.

To use an analogy—only to show how two people can define one word differently and both be valid definitions on their own, but one is wrong in the context of the other (and definitely not referring to nonLDS Christians as similar to sociopaths)—it would be similar to someone saying “you don’t think I am fully human!” and someone else responding “of course you are human” because the latter is thinking of “human” in terms of biology, a “human being” and the person making the claim is thinking of it in terms of moral behaviour (perhaps they have been accused of being very abusive or manipulative in their relationships).  You can’t easily have a conversation if two people are using the same word differently.  You generally have instead two people talking at each other, but neither is truly hearing/understanding what the other said.  They might as well be one talking Spanish and the other English where each has little understanding of the other’s language for all the communication taking place.  Now if the one talking Spanish is fluent in English and the reverse, then understanding may occur.  But even if one is fluent in Mormonspeak and Evangelical dialogue, it would be harder in the case of two people using the same words, but insisting on trying to use two different meanings for those identical words, especially if some of the words have masses of different implications for each like “Christian” does for Saints and you and other Evangelicals as well as other Christians. (I am referring to primarily the formal, as close to official as you can get definitions because you phrased the conversation that way with “formally baked”, which I am assuming means it’s clearly implied in official doctrine even if not specifically stated.

There will unfortunately likely be very few Saints and possibly nonLDS Christians who will automatically recognize the distinction between our two formal definitions outside those you have been discussing the differences in meaning with already and even they (such as we here on the board) may get confused as to whose meaning you are using, the LDS meaning of being a believer in the divinity of Christ and trying to be his disciple or your own Evangelical meaning of being eternally saved in Christ in a particular context.

 

Imagine a game set up by researchers where a formerly nonsense word is given a definition so now it has meaning, at least for the game.  Each of the game’s participants is given the word and its definition and they are instructed to use it frequently in their conversation over the next couple of hours.  The person who uses it the most times correctly wins.  But there is a twist.  Each person is given a slightly different, but still significantly different definition.  They are not allowed to define it outright while speaking with each other, but must only use it in casual conversation so others if paying attention might pick up from context something is off.  Of course no one wins because if they use it correctly for their own definition, they aren’t using it correctly for the others’ definition.  What is actually being studied is not ability to learn and use new vocabulary, but how long it takes for the participants to figure out they each mean something different for the new word even if it sounds identical and how quickly they come to understand what the others mean when they use the word.

A bit of advice…in the future to avoid confusion on readers’ parts and our continuing to protest you are wrong when you say LDS don’t consider you fully Christian, perhaps you could use instead the “excludes me from having salvific, eternal life with Christ, and from the fullness of my relationship with the Spirit in this life” even though it is a pain to write all that out as it is much more accurate than saying you are seen as “not fully Christian” by the vast majority of Saints.  When you say the latter, it is not true according to how we define the word and it may come across as you creating an issue that doesn’t really exist, accusing us of something we are not doing (though there maybe a few random Saints that have twisted scripture and doctrine and a few poorly worded comments by our past leaders into the very false belief that only Saints can be true Christians, best to just ignore them as they likely get many other things wrong too imo).  When you say thing like “formally baked” or “don’t consider”, the context implies that is how we would phrase what you mean ourselves….but the reality is we don’t even use the phrase “fully Christian”, so there is no formal definition attached to it.  It therefore confuses what is really your difficulty with us and that is not that we are denying your identity as a follower of Christ, but that we are denying your own core identity as you believe it to be as one eternally saved with God in this moment (and as far as I know you could be right in the sense that God knows you will have eternal life with him, which means for most Saints probably if they think about it you already possess whatever will lead you to learn and accept what is to come to you from God as he prepares you to be exalted).

I will be open and explain that I am taking the time to write this overly detailed post because I get an abrasive feeling like sandpaper on skin when I read similar statements from you that we don’t see you as “fully Christian” without qualifications of what you mean by “fully Christian” and my gut response is to yell at the screen “stop saying that! it isn’t true!, you are wronging us by accusing us of denying you are fully Christian” because allowing one the identity of being a Christ follower is very, very important to me and has been since I could recognize my own name, Cristine, labeled me a Christian and that just felt so right to me.  I realize for you it is also a denial of part of your core identity, perhaps the most important part and “fully Christian” may be the words that best describe it for you when you think about it.  I and others here need to remember this if this is how you choose to continue to use the phrase.  You also need to realize if that is the choice you make (to use “not fully Christian” without qualifiers), I at least and others may as well too will continue to be frustrated by what feels like miscommunication and will wonder if you even understand the distinction or not and if not, why not, which leads to more frustration.

As a side note, it could also lead to more confusion if someone not thinking it through tries to communicate with you in your language and agrees with you that the LDS faith decrees you are not fully Christian without adding “by your own definition” to show it is different than they would usually talk about who is a Christian (again we don’t use “fully Christian” in our religious dialogue) or fails to add that probably all the Saints who have ever lived aren’t fully Christian yet in this life by that definition because it is LDS doctrine that we haven’t and can’t finish the process that ends in eternal life in mortality.  Joseph Smith made it clear even the righteous who have accepted God’s Atonement have much more to learn before we comprehend the gospel of Christ and therefore can actually accept the gift of Exaltation.  This quote below is cited in quite a few church manuals and talks, though it may not be among the most frequently cited.  It is in Exaltation chapter of the basic reference/study manual Gospel Principles, so technically every member over a certain age (not sure how much it is still used, but it was the study manual for RS/PH back when the latest edition first came out) should be aware of it, but realistically not everyone takes in or remembers what they read or reads what is assigned.

Quote

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. 

HC 6:306-307

So if a Saint starts using “fully Christian” when speaking with you intending to improve communication, it would be wise to stop them and ask them how they are defining the phrase and to remember if they use “Christian” by itself, they may mean the LDS definition instead even if in the same conversation.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

You are correct. I would do everything possible not to say anything racially offensive or insensitve. You are also correct that culture can be an amazing source of division. Where I live, the term mestizo is in no way a negative term. In fact, it signifies the highest of respect for the most "cosmic" of all racial groups in this part of Mexico - the mestizo. Anglo Mormons of all varieties (3 or 4) are more Anglo "others" than Mormon. Mennonites here are 96% "North American"-Anglos from somewhere else who aren't particularly friendly and have very strange clothes and customs. Very few have any idea or care about what they believe, especially since they don't proselytize. It is very rare to see Anglo LDS and mestizo LDS intermingle here, even in church-related activities. Stake conferences are the rare exception, but even there the cultural groups sit separately. It is also rare to see Mennonite and LDS Anglos engage. The rodeo is the great equalizer - team roping makes everyone team up for 30 seconds with partners of whatever race, faith, income level, etc.

Postrevolutionary Mexico created a racialized society here in Mexico. The Mestizo is at the top of that society. Mennonites and Mormons have carved out, by their own respective endogamy a liminal "otherness." I don't have data on the fundamentalist Mormons, but by and large the LeBaron portion of those folks seem to be an Anglo outsider group with tremendous insider power. They are more acculturated, than the Anglo LDS. In the 68 years they have had an existence as a "people," they have blended in linguistically and culture-wise. The income gaps and living condition differences are significant. The fundamentalist groups that came out of the Third Convention are virtually all mestizo and indigenous.

The Anglo LDS folks are still more or less bi-national, while the Anglo LeBarons (the vast majority) are seen as Mexican. Years - decades of violence over land and water scar the relationships all the way around. The religious aspect - doctrine, etc. are pretty much irrelevant. The only religious conflict I have ever heard in all my interactions  between LDS and Catholics have been over The Virgin of Guadalupe. I have no idea what the increased Santa Muerta and Pentecostal presence will create in the way of cultural change. I have never met an Anglo Pentecostal here. At any rate it is all very different.

Do not try and compare things in a Spanish language community in LA and things here in northern Mexico. In the same regard, one cannot compare northern, central, and southern Mexico in many ways. Very different cultural differences. Both cultures and general history here in Mexico are locally, then regionally, and lastly nationally driven. Take care.

Thanks !

[mfbukowski]

On 6/3/2023 at 1:15 PM, Calm said:

It is true it is our doctrine that you are not fully saved yet if salvation means not only saved from sin and in a relationship with God, but also already blessed with eternal life with God after death (technically neither are Saints as we believe it a process, not a one time event, and the process isn’t complete till after death), but you are fully Christian as we define what is a “Christian”.   And that is formally baked into our doctrine as we define “Christian” and understand what being Christian means even if you look at our doctrine and sees that it excludes you from being “fully Christian” if you use your definition of what that means.

I assume you believe the below even if your beliefs on who those prophets are and what those appendages might be are different than us.

I also assume for you, the below is what defines a Christian, though it is not how Saints define “who is a Christian”, but rather who is exalted for the first part.  The second part can be approached a couple of ways, but it is only necessary to point out it is a part of an Evangelical definition of Christian, but not the LDS definition of Christian.

But in our doctrine you don’t need to currently be worthy of having eternal life with Christ if you were to die to day and nothing changed for you in order to be seen as a Christian.  For us it is a belief in the divinity of Christ and attempting to follow him that makes you a Christian, not the success of that attempt.  We don’t use the term “fully” in front of “Christian” (I have never heard it in any LDS Church setting and it is absent from the Church’s website). “Fully Christian” doesn’t have a doctrinal meaning for us, so it might have different meanings for different Saints, all of which likely don’t mean what you mean when you use the term.

To use an analogy—only to show how two people can define one word differently and both be valid definitions on their own, but one is wrong in the context of the other (and definitely not referring to nonLDS Christians as similar to sociopaths)—it would be similar to someone saying “you don’t think I am fully human!” and someone else responding “of course you are human” because the latter is thinking of “human” in terms of biology, a “human being” and the person making the claim is thinking of it in terms of moral behaviour (perhaps they have been accused of being very abusive or manipulative in their relationships).  You can’t easily have a conversation if two people are using the same word differently.  You generally have instead two people talking at each other, but neither is truly hearing/understanding what the other said.  They might as well be one talking Spanish and the other English where each has little understanding of the other’s language for all the communication taking place.  Now if the one talking Spanish is fluent in English and the reverse, then understanding may occur.  But even if one is fluent in Mormonspeak and Evangelical dialogue, it would be harder in the case of two people using the same words, but insisting on trying to use two different meanings for those identical words, especially if some of the words have masses of different implications for each like “Christian” does for Saints and you and other Evangelicals as well as other Christians. (I am referring to primarily the formal, as close to official as you can get definitions because you phrased the conversation that way with “formally baked”, which I am assuming means it’s clearly implied in official doctrine even if not specifically stated.

There will unfortunately likely be very few Saints and possibly nonLDS Christians who will automatically recognize the distinction between our two formal definitions outside those you have been discussing the differences in meaning with already and even they (such as we here on the board) may get confused as to whose meaning you are using, the LDS meaning of being a believer in the divinity of Christ and trying to be his disciple or your own Evangelical meaning of being eternally saved in Christ in a particular context.

 

Imagine a game set up by researchers where a formerly nonsense word is given a definition so now it has meaning, at least for the game.  Each of the game’s participants is given the word and its definition and they are instructed to use it frequently in their conversation over the next couple of hours.  The person who uses it the most times correctly wins.  But there is a twist.  Each person is given a slightly different, but still significantly different definition.  They are not allowed to define it outright while speaking with each other, but must only use it in casual conversation so others if paying attention might pick up from context something is off.  Of course no one wins because if they use it correctly for their own definition, they aren’t using it correctly for the others’ definition.  What is actually being studied is not ability to learn and use new vocabulary, but how long it takes for the participants to figure out they each mean something different for the new word even if it sounds identical and how quickly they come to understand what the others mean when they use the word.

A bit of advice…in the future to avoid confusion on readers’ parts and our continuing to protest you are wrong when you say LDS don’t consider you fully Christian, perhaps you could use instead the “excludes me from having salvific, eternal life with Christ, and from the fullness of my relationship with the Spirit in this life” even though it is a pain to write all that out as it is much more accurate than saying you are seen as “not fully Christian” by the vast majority of Saints.  When you say the latter, it is not true according to how we define the word and it may come across as you creating an issue that doesn’t really exist, accusing us of something we are not doing (though there maybe a few random Saints that have twisted scripture and doctrine and a few poorly worded comments by our past leaders into the very false belief that only Saints can be true Christians, best to just ignore them as they likely get many other things wrong too imo).  When you say thing like “formally baked” or “don’t consider”, the context implies that is how we would phrase what you mean ourselves….but the reality is we don’t even use the phrase “fully Christian”, so there is no formal definition attached to it.  It therefore confuses what is really your difficulty with us and that is not that we are denying your identity as a follower of Christ, but that we are denying your own core identity as you believe it to be as one eternally saved with God in this moment (and as far as I know you could be right in the sense that God knows you will have eternal life with him, which means for most Saints probably if they think about it you already possess whatever will lead you to learn and accept what is to come to you from God as he prepares you to be exalted).

I will be open and explain that I am taking the time to write this overly detailed post because I get an abrasive feeling like sandpaper on skin when I read similar statements from you that we don’t see you as “fully Christian” without qualifications of what you mean by “fully Christian” and my gut response is to yell at the screen “stop saying that! it isn’t true!, you are wronging us by accusing us of denying you are fully Christian” because allowing one the identity of being a Christ follower is very, very important to me and has been since I could recognize my own name, Cristine, labeled me a Christian and that just felt so right to me.  I realize for you it is also a denial of part of your core identity, perhaps the most important part and “fully Christian” may be the words that best describe it for you when you think about it.  I and others here need to remember this if this is how you choose to continue to use the phrase.  You also need to realize if that is the choice you make (to use “not fully Christian” without qualifiers), I at least and others may as well too will continue to be frustrated by what feels like miscommunication and will wonder if you even understand the distinction or not and if not, why not, which leads to more frustration.

As a side note, it could also lead to more confusion if someone not thinking it through tries to communicate with you in your language and agrees with you that the LDS faith decrees you are not fully Christian without adding “by your own definition” to show it is different than they would usually talk about who is a Christian (again we don’t use “fully Christian” in our religious dialogue) or fails to add that probably all the Saints who have ever lived aren’t fully Christian yet in this life by that definition because it is LDS doctrine that we haven’t and can’t finish the process that ends in eternal life in mortality.  Joseph Smith made it clear even the righteous who have accepted God’s Atonement have much more to learn before we comprehend the gospel of Christ and therefore can actually accept the gift of Exaltation.  This quote below is cited in quite a few church manuals and talks, though it may not be among the most frequently cited.  It is in Exaltation chapter of the basic reference/study manual Gospel Principles, so technically every member over a certain age (not sure how much it is still used, but it was the study manual for RS/PH back when the latest edition first came out) should be aware of it, but realistically not everyone takes in or remembers what they read or reads what is assigned.

So if a Saint starts using “fully Christian” when speaking with you intending to improve communication, it would be wise to stop them and ask them how they are defining the phrase and to remember if they use “Christian” by itself, they may mean the LDS definition instead even if in the same conversation.

Good try.

Five years of effort. There's a point where.... oh, nevermind.... 👍